Page 2740 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The commonwealth, however, did not continue their one-off funding to the Women’s Legal Centre to the same amount. In fact, their one-off funding was reduced by $130,000. However, as I previously mentioned, $70,000 of the one-off funding from the commonwealth was then provided by them, and I am advised that the Women’s Legal Centre has been told that this funding is not tied to any particular usage. The money from the ACT is, however, tied for the Indigenous liaison position.
It is now a matter for the Women’s Legal Centre to decide how the position is funded and how they deploy the available resources. However, I reiterate that it remains the case that the one-off funding from the commonwealth to the Women’s Legal Centre has been reduced to the effect of $130,000 less and that they have only been prepared to commit $70,000 instead of the previous $200,000. I hope that clarifies the matter raised by Ms Le Couteur.
I would now like to turn to some of the criticisms made by Mr Seselja in relation to the OwnPlace scheme; I also note the notable absence of land rent from Mr Seselja’s speech. It is particularly interesting that the committee which he chaired devoted, goodness me, nearly four pages of commentary on the land rent scheme and a number of recommendations. But did Mr Seselja mention it at all when he stood up to speak? He took his full 20 minutes, I think, but did he mention it when he stood up to speak? Not a word, Mr Speaker—not a word. I wonder why Mr Seselja has all of a sudden gone dead silent on the issue of land rent. Could it be the case that today Mr Seselja had that proverbial gun backfire in his face when it came to land rent?
What happened today is that the Chief Minister was very pleased to announce the fact that CPS credit union, one of the leading credit unions in the country, has become the first major financer of the land rent scheme here in the ACT—a very important development. The Liberal Party should apologise for the tack they have taken in this matter. At every instance they have tried to talk down the scheme. Indeed, Mr Seselja has been so unequivocal as to say that no financier would ever back the scheme. That was the position taken by Mr Seselja. It was not just, “I doubt that a financier will ever back the scheme” or “It appears unlikely that a financier will ever back the scheme”. In fact, Mr Seselja said unequivocally, “No financier will ever back this scheme—ever”.
Where is Mr Seselja’s apology? Where is Mr Seselja’s acceptance that he got it wrong and the Liberal Party got it wrong? You have got to give it to the Liberal Party, though: when they are proven wrong, do they apologise? Do they own up to it? No, they quickly change tack, and now of course the tack is not that a financier has been secured, despite the fact that that has been their point of attack for the last few months. It is now, “Well, where is the detail in relation to the financier?”
Mr Smyth: Yes, where is the detail?
MR CORBELL: Just ring up Community CPS. I am sure Community CPS will be delighted to give you all the details about the product that they are offering and how it links in with the land rent scheme.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .