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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3110 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

on consultation processes; the development of whole-of-government accountability measures; and evaluation of individual consultations as well as of its own coordinating function. If we want to see participatory democracy in place there must be focus and ongoing attention from the Government on mechanisms to ensure this participation. Community development requires that the community must be genuinely involved in decision-making processes. The committee looks forward to a further statement from the Chief Minister on her actions to progress the Assembly's requirement of 20 February this year.

MRS LITTLEWOOD: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MRS LITTLEWOOD: I rise today to express my disappointment at the statement on community consultation as presented by the Social Policy Committee. I am a member of that committee. The statement, as we have heard, had its origins in a discussion paper entitled "Community Consultation on Social Policy Issues" and goes back to September 1995. When I raised my concerns in committee I was informed that I did not know the difference between a statement and a report. What I do know, Mr Speaker, is that whether it be a statement or a report it should offer evidence to make its case. I do not believe this statement does that.

My concern also stems from the fact that there appears to be no attempt by the committee to revisit the original paper or to update it in any way. Therefore, the statement made today is mainly based on comments made by people at other hearings, and those comments have not been tested but have been taken as a statement of fact. I find hearsay evidence causes me some discomfort. While I am not suggesting that people have not portrayed things as they have perceived them to be, little else has been made of the comments in other hearings. Quite often, with the very best will in the world, people can see things a little differently than they really are, particularly if they have not had a win.

While I may be new to this Assembly, I am not so naive that I do not know that statements should be based on fact, should have been tested and should not be based on a whim or only to score political points. The statement made by the committee said that in many cases during consultation the agenda was predetermined. With respect, Mr Speaker, I suggest that what has happened with the committee's statement today is along the same lines. I am disappointed that no mention has been made of the 111 consultations that have taken place so far this year or of the customer involvement initiated by the Chief Minister. Instead, issues which are of particular interest to some of the committee members have been highlighted.

One hears a great deal about a bipartisan approach on committees, but I have not seen a great deal of those words in action. I am not suggesting that every single consultation went as we would have liked, but I am suggesting that the statement is untested and unbalanced; and, as a member of that committee, I wish to distance myself from it. For instance, the statement refers to the Government and the consultation process with SWOW. In discussion within the committee I was advised that it is in the Ombudsman's report. The fact of the matter is that it is not in that report. I quote from that Ombudsman's report:

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