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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3160 ..

Assembly members to the issue of the department’s non-compliance with section 162 (2) I actually had to look up on the Liberals’ website who was the shadow minister for family services because, in all my time as minister, I have never heard a peep out of the shadow minister. I thought it was Greg Cornwell; he has actually asked me a couple of questions about mandatory reporting.

We have heard again from Mrs Burke a very uneducated, political attack on a very important part of government service delivery. I am not standing here and saying that family services in the past has delivered the service that it should have. I think we have all got the material before us that outlines a number of problems within that organisation. When Mrs Burke accuses me of failure of leadership I would just draw her attention to everything that has gone on in the past six months—not only the money but also the reform process and the fact that I have been leading that.

Mrs Burke uses that term “failure of leadership”. I think it is actually code for “why didn’t we sack someone”, which is about the only point that Mrs Burke makes consistently and which she actually cannot get past. She cannot understand why I did not sack someone, as though it would make all the problems in family services, all the issues raised in the Vardon report, a lot better if we had got someone, if we got one individual, and said, “You failed; you haven’t done your job; therefore you are sacked.” Because I have not done that, I failed to lead the reform process when in actual fact what you’ll see, or what you should have seen over the past six months, is a very significant reform process and a great deal of honesty by this government and by me about all the problems that exist within family services and a way forward. How you translate that into lack of leadership and a hostile and arrogant department that are not providing me with this support, I do not know.

Mrs Burke accuses me of floundering through estimates. We had a very difficult session, from memory. I had four hours on a politically hot topic, which I always understood would be quite a trying time in estimates. But estimates is that for a minister. Mrs Burke has not been in the position where she has had to give evidence like that. It is naturally quite a stressful environment. But I must say it was not nearly as difficult a time as I had thought it would be. I did not get nearly the attacks that I thought I would get. I actually managed to answer all the questions. Because I could answer all the questions, I did not necessarily need all my bureaucrats jumping up and answering questions. It is evidence given by the minister, with the support of bureaucrats. I do not know if Mrs Burke was taking something that day or experienced a hearing that I was not at but, whilst it was a difficult hearing, I hardly think you can accuse me of floundering.

Mr Pratt: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, I was wondering whether “Mrs Burke had been taking something” is an offensive attack. I would ask you, under the standing orders, to ask her to withdraw that.

Mr Hargreaves: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: an implied reference that Mrs Burke should have had a Bex and a good lie down is hardly unparliamentary.

Mr Pratt: I stand by that. It wasn’t a Bex and a lie down; it was something more dramatic than that, I’m sure.

MR SPEAKER: I didn’t hear the remark.

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