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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2379 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

in the budget process and that we did not take it up. In fact, we have briefings and consultation with her Government generally. I will have to correct that because we actually meet often and quite regularly with her Ministers. It has been only on the issue of the budget and consultations with Mrs Carnell that we have not continued to have regular briefings, because we did not feel that there was any process in place for our input to be used. We did not get any satisfactory responses to what we were suggesting, and it is a very basic aspect of effective participation of any groups that you have a feedback mechanism to show that you have been listened to. This is also part of the rhetoric around the word "consider" that we have heard debated in the last couple of days. There is a very cynical interpretation of what "consider" means.

The Greens can see that there could be a controlled process, and Mr Humphries acknowledged that yesterday. There could be a way of looking at a more cooperative approach to budget formulation, and both the older parties need to acknowledge that in this situation where we will most likely have minority government in the future. There does not have to be loss of face. That is the other thing that is so apparent in this discussion. As a woman I thought it was interesting to hear Mrs Carnell speak years ago about not liking the adversarial system. I thought, "Good, there is someone in there arguing against the adversarial system". I do not see that that has come about at all.

We can try to find a more cooperative way of pooling the talents in this place, of which there are many, to work together in some way up front of the budget process. If that occurred we might not have got to the situation we are in now, which nobody here thinks is particularly desirable but which we feel forced into because we care enough about the issues that are being debated. We will put up an amendment about public transport, and I am sorry Mr Moore is not able to support that, or maybe he is considering it, as a person who claims to be a green, and the Conservation Council claim him as a green. We see public transport as one of the very basic platforms for environmental action in the urban environment. Even last night on Quantum we heard them say that, if governments do not stop saying that it is too expensive to consider the environment, we have no chance of addressing the huge problems we face. Quantum is not a radical green show, as I am sure you are aware. Public transport is absolutely connected to global and local pollution. It is a major issue, and as Greens elected here on a platform of environmentalism we feel that we have a responsibility to speak loudly and strongly on this issue.

Our other amendment is on libraries. It is also curious that Mr Moore does not support that, as he does not, because it is very closely linked to education of the whole community. As to Mr Osborne's amendment on nurses, you can criticise the nature of the amendment and say that it is not perfect, and that is right, but we were put in this position. Mr Osborne was forced to make a decision. If there had been more consultation through the process, we might have got something better. We would also be supporting Mr Moore's amendment on education if it were able to get up. That does not look possible now, with the cooperation occurring between Labor and Liberal. That amendment is obviously extremely important to us and we would have supported that as well.

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