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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3114 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

No-one would be foolish enough to pretend, here or in any other parliament in Australia or, indeed, the world, that community consultation processes are even remotely close to being perfect. I make no such claim on this occasion either. There is always the opportunity for improvement. But the disappointing thing about the statement that I have just read through here is that it provides no balance; it makes no acknowledgment of the very significant gains that have been made in respect of consultation in the last couple of years.

Ms Tucker: Yes, it does.

MR HUMPHRIES: I have read this only briefly, but I cannot see them. Mr Speaker, there have been quite significant changes in the structure of public consultation in some areas in the last few years and, as Mrs Littlewood pointed out, there are presently something like 111 separate consultation exercises which are going on in the ACT or which have gone on in the course of this year. They are on top of standing consultation arrangements like LAPACs, advisory committees and other processes of that kind.

Ms Tucker: It is not just the number of consultations; we are addressing the issues of coordination.

MR HUMPHRIES: I appreciate that. I appreciate that that is another factor as well, and I will come to that in a moment. But it is interesting that the very first comment that the committee makes under "Findings and Recommendations" is:

There are many avenues for community consultation in the ACT. In fact, some claim to be overconsulted.

I think that is true; not just that people claim to be overconsulted but in fact they often are overconsulted. The other day I spoke to some people from a youth centre who were rather annoyed by the fact that they were constantly being trawled by various agencies of government asking them for - - -

Ms Tucker: But we talk about duplication; we are asking that you coordinate it.

MR SPEAKER: Order! You have spoken twice already, Ms Tucker.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, Mr Speaker. But the point is that there are numerous public consultation processes; they are elaborate; and they are also costly. That is a matter of incidental fact. What the rest of this report argues is for them to be more elaborate, more extensive and more expensive.

Ms Tucker: No; appropriate.

MR HUMPHRIES: No; it is not just a question of being more competent; it is a question of adding a whole series of other - - -

Ms Tucker: No; that is not what it says. We want to reduce duplication.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I heard Ms Tucker in silence.

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