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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (26 March) . . Page.. 606 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

council-style government; they deal with making executive government more effective and more efficient. In that sense, this paper will be, no doubt, a useful tool for students of politics all over Canberra to reflect on our style of government in the ACT and to reflect on executive-style government. As for illuminating the rhetoric of Mrs Carnell before the election, this achieves nothing.

I heard Mr De Domenico before say something about Assembly committees and that that was a way of improving the inclusiveness of the Assembly processes and involving the community more. It is interesting to note, against that background, that the very first action of the Third Assembly, under Mrs Carnell's leadership, was to reduce the number of committees and reduce the opportunities for members of this Assembly to serve on committees.

Mrs Carnell: Because that is what you guys wanted to do.

MR WHITECROSS: No, it is not what we wanted to do, Mrs Carnell. As usual, Mrs Carnell is engaging in her normal propaganda technique of completely misrepresenting the facts. Anybody who goes back and looks at the Hansard for this period last year will see quite clearly that the Labor Party vigorously opposed the committee system that was set up, vigorously opposed the collapsing of the environment committee into the planning committee, vigorously opposed the reduction of the number of committees from five to three. It rings rather hollow from the Government to be now saying that Assembly committees are a great way of involving the community in the process.

We look forward to seeing the Government's response to this report in some detail and how it proposes to expand the role of committees in the Assembly. It is interesting to note that, in her speech in relation to this matter, Mrs Carnell did not indicate that the Government would be coming forward with an expansive proposal on the expanding of the committees in the Assembly, and we look forward eagerly to that coming forward. It is interesting, too, to note the emphasis in this report on the role of community consultation - not defined but, nevertheless, once again reinforcing the role of community consultation. One of the hallmarks of this Government has been its lack of commitment to community consultation and its willingness to make decisions behind closed doors, not to give out the details of those decisions and to resist at every turn the publication in this Assembly or to the wider community of the activities of the Government. Again and again we have had to come into this Assembly and argue vigorously for information about the running of this city to be made public through the Assembly. Mrs Carnell's record on community consultation, on disclosure, is not a good one. A two-line recommendation saying that community consultation is a good thing does nothing to alter Mrs Carnell's appalling record on community consultation.

One last comment that I cannot resist making is that Mrs Carnell revealed in her presentation speech that the money tree had been cut down, and a very apposite point that is to make. When Mrs Carnell was in opposition, every problem could be solved by just spending a bit more money. Now that Mrs Carnell is in government, she has discovered that the money tree has been cut down and, suddenly, everything is impossible to do because she has no money. She overspends on health; she cuts community services;

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