Page 95 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 7 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I look forward to the debate on the human rights and service review commission legislation to be introduced by the Attorney-General. I hope that all Assembly members will contribute to the discussion, with the best interests of consumers in the forefront of their minds.
Mr Speaker, what we are talking about here is statutory oversight. We are not talking about parliamentary oversight; we are talking about statutory oversight. And that has to do with the independence of these commissioners to be able to report to government, to the Assembly and to the people of the ACT on what it sees as systemic failures and individual failures. But also it needs to report on the services that we provide to our community that are really good, that are really working—systemic change that actually has a positive contribution to make. All too often people in this place pounce upon the negative and forget about the positive.
There have been enormous strides forward by the Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services, I have to say, the department of education and a number of other departments in looking after those less well off in the community. We should never lose sight of the fact that it us our responsibility to extol those virtues as well as pick on the downside.
We talk often about the morale in various services. We talk about how people feel badly or how they feel well out there in the community. Just remember: people delivering those services, whether they be public servants or non-government organisation agencies, all do that work because they want to. We need to make sure that they do that in a spirit of goodwill, cooperation and the need to help somebody else. So in creating these oversight facilities—these agencies, these commissioners—let us not lose sight of the fact that it is part of their role not only to find errors and fix them but also to extol the virtues of those people working within those agencies and to highlight with government and the community those areas that we either have missed or could do a bit better at.
I welcome the opportunity afforded to us today by Dr Foskey. I am sure that she is fully supportive of a disability commissioner and is fully supportive of a kids commissioner, and I am pretty sure that, as she becomes more familiar with the model, she will become even more supportive of this approach to statutory oversight. It is something a little bit new. It is a little bit courageous. All too often there is a temptation to just create another commissioner. It costs $120,000 to pay them and another $200,000 for their support services, and we just roll on. But we do not need to do that; we need to do things smarter; we need to do things well; and we need to do things with genuine honesty and transparency. And that is what this review of statutory oversight has delivered for the people of the ACT.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (4.31): I would like to thank Dr Foskey for bringing forward this most important matter of public importance. I think it really goes without saying that often it is really good—and being in this place for my third stint now—to see, when new blood comes into the Assembly, how they bring with it a new perspective and a new way of thinking.
I listened with interest to what Dr Foskey was saying, and I also listened to Mr Hargreaves and what he was saying. I think Mr Hargreaves is right: sometimes our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .