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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1309 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

in July 1995, the Minister's office contacted the department because the Minister wanted to review SWOW for the purpose of better utilising resources. He asked the department for a full briefing on what community consultation would be needed if the school were closed.

Mr Speaker, this is the critical issue here. This Government's consultation is no more than a public relations exercise after a decision has been taken and implementation is well under way. Amongst other things, he asked for an estimation of community media interest. I wonder whether their estimation of that turned out to be accurate.

A critical issue in the Ombudsman's argument is how you define consultation. The Ombudsman stated:

The issue of what constitutes "good or ethical" consultation has been discussed in a range of quarters but at its simplest level there are two main approaches to consultation:

1. starting with an open mind: seeking, testing and reviewing a range of options; or

2. starting with preferred option(s): floating the preferred option(s) in a draft proposal or position paper which allows informed comment.

If the Minister is going to try to defend himself by saying that the second form of consultation was the one he used, it will not work, because the Ombudsman found quite clearly that there was no evidence to suggest that discussions with the community included the option of moving to Dickson.

I think what also has to be noted by members is that this Government has consistently, during the election campaign and still, strangely, sometimes during its term of office, claimed to be about open and consultative government. The impression definitely given to the community was that the Government's initial claim for its understanding of consultation was, indeed, that the community had a place at the beginning to develop options with this Government. That was the feeling that was in this community about how this Government saw consultation, although now I think that a good many members of the community believe otherwise.

"Good or ethical consultation" were the words used by the Ombudsman. Has this been a good or ethical consultation? I do not think so. What is particularly unethical about this abuse of trust of the community is the nature of the group being so-called consulted. The Social Policy Committee - no, I am sorry, two members of the Social Policy Committee; Mr Hird was otherwise engaged - spent several hours at the School Without Walls, taking submissions from students there. What became painfully obvious was that the school was catering for a number of students who had already been extremely hurt by various life experiences. What kind of a lesson were the department and the Minister giving to these young people with this farce of a process? At least, through the Ombudsman's report, there is a validation of their concerns, frustration and distress at the way the so-called consultation and eventual closing of their school were handled.

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