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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 249 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There are certain basic principles that are always acknowledged in the discussion, though. Consultation must be a two-way process; that means feedback. There must be evaluative mechanisms within the process so that if it is not working people can work that out on the way, not at the end. I made that point to Mr Humphries at the beginning of the LAPACs, and he did provide some evaluative feedback. He accepted feedback from the LAPACs at one point and there were some changes made, which we appreciated, and the people on the LAPACs did as well; but this is unusual. This is the exception rather than the rule in terms of consultation processes that have occurred. Obviously, consultation always requires a flexible approach, an openness to successes and failures. Where public meetings are held, skilled facilitation is necessary. Consultation must be appropriate for the particular target group or groups, and obviously there has to be a genuine commitment to the process and adequate time for consultation to take place.

I think this Government is starting to recognise that its community consultation processes are falling down, and I hope the introduction of the customer involvement unit helps. An important part of restoring confidence is ensuring that there is much more certainty and independence about funding decisions that impact on community groups and that Mrs Carnell and her Government do reinstate Ms Rees to her position, as a symbol of the Government's preparedness to rethink their attitude to the rights of the community to oppose and criticise Government policy.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (4.09): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, this is indeed a matter of public importance, and I thank Ms Tucker for providing the opportunity to set the record straight regarding community consultation and Ms Rees. There are two distinct elements to this debate, and I want to deal with them in reverse order, starting with the matter of Ms Rees and the suggestion that she be reinstated to the board of the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority.

Almost half the work force in this city are employed in the public sector. They are public servants, not public figures. The vast majority carry out their jobs diligently, bound by ethics and conventions of the Public Service. They serve the public. They do not have untrammelled access to the pages of the Canberra Times to voice their personal views; nor can they go on radio or television to vent their spleen about whatever might upset them. Whether they be at a junior level or at the most senior executive level, they do not deserve to be unfairly maligned or subjected to vicious personal attacks. That is what this debate is about. It is about whether or not this Government is prepared to stand up to someone who had no regard for fair play, no regard for natural justice, and no regard for the facts; someone who was simply determined to play the spoiler, to throw as much mud as possible, knowing that some of it would stick and that the unfortunate person on the receiving end would be able to do nothing about it.

This Government did do something about it. It made it clear to Ms Rees that being a vociferous critic of politicians is one thing - that is totally acceptable - but repeatedly making unsubstantiated and quite outrageous allegations against public servants could not go unanswered - allegations of corruption, dishonesty, deceit and insider trading, without the presentation of any proof. I want to run through just some of the allegations made by Ms Rees.

Mr Berry: That is not what she was sacked for.

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