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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 247 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Instead of reacting defensively and trying to undermine the complainants - a rather common tactic, I have to say; it is used in this Assembly a great deal as well - a much better and more acceptable response would be to receive the complaint as information and turn the problem into an opportunity.

I mentioned the issue of community confidence in my motion of want of confidence in the Minister for Health last November. I expressed then my concerns that, rather than open and consultative government, there is a growing concern, or perception, that there are consequences for speaking out against the Government. What you have to understand is that perceptions have legitimacy, perceptions are real. If they are incorrect perceptions, this Government needs to demonstrate that they are incorrect by at least reinstating Ms Rees, to try to reinspire some confidence in their claims that they are willing to listen and be consultative. The point is that the community does perceive that there are consequences for speaking out against this Government at the moment. Others have become fearful to speak out because they perceive a climate of intimidation, and Ms Rees's sacking is seen as evidence of this.

Mr Speaker, I notice that Mrs Carnell, in her response to a question asked by Mr Whitecross earlier this week, dismissed the letter that was circulated from the community groups because it did not include peak groups. That response is also indicative of a lack of understanding or acknowledgment of the value of small grassroots groups. I do not believe that those groups would have signed that letter lightly. I must say that I was very surprised to see it and to see that so many groups had signed such a letter. If so many groups perceive a lack of commitment to community input and perceive intimidation, rightly or wrongly, then the Government does have a problem. A lack of formal complaints is indicative of the whole problem. People fear recrimination for speaking out.

In any case, there are other groups, including peak groups, who believe that there is room for improvement on the part of this Government in the area of community liaison. They may not have signed this particular letter, but I note that ACTCOSS's budget submission includes a recommendation that consideration be given to the ACT Government's current methods of community consultation, liaison and involvement, and that a strategy for ensuring the effectiveness of these measures be adopted. That is very much what these other groups are asking for and what members of this place would like to see happen, and that is a peak group that made that suggestion. Mrs Carnell also scoffed that it was a poor question for the Leader of the Opposition to ask in question time this week and that there were important issues he should be addressing. It is very important for good government that processes include community input. It was a very appropriate question for Mr Whitecross to ask, as it is also appropriate that we raise the issue today in a matter of public importance.

The Government cannot claim now that this is a legal issue. They know very well that, because Mrs Carnell apologised last Friday for suggesting that Ms Rees has implied corruption on the part of government officials, any legal action has been withdrawn by Ms Rees. Even if, as Ms Rees suggested on ABC radio, Mrs Carnell is running this Government as a shop, with a customer involvement unit, I would have thought that if so many customers perceived the products being sold as faulty there would be an urgent response to deal with the problem. But I guess that is taking market principles too far.

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