Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 623 ..

you knock off a program that would have given you some indication of the health of our young people? Again, the inconsistency is astounding.

Action 3.8, at page 39, says:

The Government will implement an ACT children’s plan to provide a more focused and strategic approach to policies and programs that support the health and wellbeing of all children in our community.

I think that is subject to a big debate at the moment. Action 3.9 reads:

The Government will ensure we better care for our vulnerable children and young people …

This is the source of a huge debate and we note that more money has gone into it recently, which is welcome, but there is more work to be done. But, again, there is no direction of how and no target is set.

I have to say, Mr Speaker, that the next action relates to a personal favourite of mine—the events backflip. Priority 3 is “A safe, strong, cohesive community”. The third action and government commitment under this priority, which is set out on page 12, reads:

More effectively support events surrounding significant days of the year such as Canberra Day, Australia Day and New Year’s Eve, as important opportunities for the community to celebrate its city, people and culture.

The reason they are going to have to more effectively support such events is because they have gutted the funding to them. Australia Day in the nation’s capital got no funding, the fireworks were taken away from New Years Eve and we are yet to see what they are going to do with Canberra Day. It is just amazing that this is now a goal when in fact these events have not been supported because of the direct actions of a government that does not care.

The important thing we are discussing here today is whether or not the Assembly will endorse such a document. It is not our document—it is the government’s document, it is the government’s social plan. I think it is interesting that they come in here seeking the endorsement of the Assembly. It is their plan and it should stand as their plan. If they want us to be bound by their plan, why weren’t we asked to make an input, why weren’t we consulted more?

They will say, “Oh, but there was consultation. The opportunity was there for everybody to be part of it.” The document that we have got is a document that could have been written without any consultation at all. The plan talks about building a more inclusive society. Well, where is the government’s action on aged care? Where are the 255 aged care beds that have been granted to this territory in the last three years? Where is the action on that? Where is a target that says, “We will build all our aged care beds in the year that they are issued”? I do not see a target like that; I do not see the real and meaningful target that somebody who is waiting for an aged care bed would look for.

Mr Speaker, the Canberra social plan is a collection of glib lines, of feel-good statements, of statements of the bleeding obvious, and of the core activity of government.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .