Page 5350 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We accept the fact that governments may wish to seek to recover costs; but let us consider, for example, the recent West Belconnen proposals. People are being asked to pay $20 for copies of the two documents related to the second stage of that proposal. Quite frankly, we do not believe that that is acceptable. Neither do we believe that it is acceptable for copies just to be available in the library. The copies that go to the library are available there for reference. They are generally not available for people to take out. We are talking about detailed documents that require some study.
Let us face it, community groups and organisations have put in incredible amounts of their own time, unpaid, to assist in the process of community consultation. They do not do it for salary; they do it for nothing. They do it because they have a commitment to the needs and the requirements of the community. It is important to recognise that.
Community groups and organisations that are involved in this process - and individuals, for that matter - give a considerable amount of time and effort. I think it is important that this be recognised. One way not to recognise it is to require them to pay for those documents. I have spoken to people who have indicated an interest in participating in the process but have been put off by the costs. Some of them are not prepared to put in that sort of money, because $20, as it is in this case, can be a quite substantial factor in a tight budget, particularly for those people who are not as well off as others.
In the interests of social justice and enabling people to participate properly and fully in the process of government - particularly the planning process that we have in the ACT which has been built up over a number of years - it is very important for this information to be made available to the community at no cost. It should be seen as part of the consultation process and paid for out of the budget, as appropriate.
MR MOORE (11.26): The most important thing to understand about these amendments moved by Mr Jensen is that they would not preclude the Government from charging. What they would do is change the tone by saying that, by and large, where possible, we ought not to charge community groups for public consultation. That is how I see the effect of Mr Jensen's amendments. Removing the words "and purchase" does not mean that, administratively, a charge could not be made for those things.
However, the tone and the approach would change entirely, because having "and purchase" in the legislation almost implies that on each occasion there should be a charge for these documents. Deleting those words would still allow the Government to charge, but it changes the whole emphasis and the whole tone of that. That is certainly my understanding of the amendments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .