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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2954 ..

the floor of this place. It might have been undesirable by itself for RILU to close or to be changed in its function. But, on balance, I understand that what was being done was for an overall positive benefit. This Assembly, by focusing on a single issue without taking into account the broader perspective, has probably cost the territory some funds and has probably delayed some services in the ACT for no good point other than just to gainsay the government. That, to me, is of concern.

I want to mention specifics. I do not like to go into specifics, but Mrs Burke brought up the organisation Fabric and virtually said that it had not been given enough resources to do its job. By sheer coincidence, I have some history of Fabric. It is unfortunate that history may be repeating itself. Fabric was an organisation that had demands placed upon it by clients and potential clients that it could not meet in toto. That is the situation with virtually all NGOs that are trying to meet demand out there and trying to fill unmet need. The contract and the agreement between government and those NGOs is that they will receive and manage the funds and prioritise to make sure that those most in need get appropriate levels of service.

Years ago Fabric virtually had an administrator appointed because it had run out of money. It seems to have happened a couple of times since. It has happened where there has not been a strategic management of resources through the year. You cannot blame people themselves for not knocking back deserving cases, but, at the same time, part of the process of running one of those NGOs is to make sure that you can provide service with the resources you have to the most needy cases within your particular constituency through the course of the full year.

It let the funds go at an unsustainable rate and then went public and said, “We haven’t got enough money.” If all of the NGOs did that—and they could—we would be in a disastrous situation. It is very irresponsible for Mrs Burke to take up one side of that case without looking at the case as it ought be evaluated. We would love to give them more funds.

Mrs Burke: It was just an example.

MR QUINLAN: It was a bad example, Mrs Burke.

Mrs Burke: Be that as it may, respite care is needed.

MR QUINLAN: If you had done your homework you would know that it was a bad example. That is the point. You do not do your homework. One of the problems we have, as a government, with you, Mrs Burke, is that you do not do your homework. You are off on 2CC with that idiot, Mike Jeffries, crying “the sky is falling” stuff. You have not done your homework. You have a responsibility in this place and you ought to exercise it to the extent that would come up to a standard required of an MLA. You are not meeting that standard.

Mrs Burke: It doesn’t put you out. Let’s get personal, Ted.

MR QUINLAN: Yes. I seldom do it but I have to say—

Mr Smyth: You do it all the time.

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