Page 848 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
“resentment” and “dissent”. It is ironic that Mr Stanhope points out that there is an apparent “cynical response” by the electorate to the contemporary political process. Well, today Dr Foskey highlighted such a situation where a government has been caught having, shall we say, a siesta or, dare I say, showing no interest at all in delivering its findings of a review completed in 2002 on concessional rates for people on low incomes in the ACT. The Deputy Chief Minister, leaning back in her chair, has laughingly glossed over and glibly written off this extremely important matter. I have to say that the amendment made me smile. It is a case of subject completed. You have actually done it. You did it in 2002 so what is the secrecy?
Ms Gallagher: Did you listen, Jacqui?
MRS BURKE: Yes, I did listen. What an excuse!
Ms Gallagher: It is not properly agreed to.
MRS BURKE: You have had your say and I will not respond to interjections. It is yet to respond to or release—
Ms Gallagher: You are baiting me with your stupidity.
MRS BURKE: I see. How haughty we get when we are under pressure. It is yet to respond to or release the findings of this review. Why? Basically, you did not want to release it because you do not want information out there. That is what you said. Now we have policy on the run.
Mr Stanhope, back in 2001, I believe, spent a lot of time addressing his Labor colleagues, talking about the malaise of a previous ACT government. I wonder if he is contemplating the very same situation that his government is now facing on this and trying to laugh it off as a minor detail. He spent an inordinate amount of time pontificating that, if elected to government, he would take the first step to restore confidence in the process of government—to propose and explain a manner of strong, responsible, responsive and accountable government. Has his government been responsive after five years or more? Sadly today, this motion all too vividly displays that the Stanhope government is infected by the very problems that Mr Stanhope sought to avoid if elected back in 2001.
It is noted that the aim of the ACT government’s concessions program is to provide supplementary income or assistance to low income residents to ensure that a certain quality of living standard is maintained, including a wide range of rebates. In principle, my starting point on matters of concessions is that a policy must be put in place—be it a tax policy or some other policy—and then, if any concessions are to be considered, these must be put in place separately so that there is complete transparency in the application of the concessions. There is no doubt that a city that works to help citizens on low incomes works for everybody in our community.
We have a social and moral obligation to offer any support we can to ensure that issues of inequality and social disadvantage are addressed through the delivery of all-of-government programs. Let me give one simple example. Without the opportunity to take public transport or the capacity to drive their own car, elderly people or those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .