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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3107 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The representativeness of some views presented was questioned by many. Concerns were expressed about the composition of some advisory boards, consultative councils and committees. These concerns related particularly to the perceived limited range of people nominated, the fact that some are chosen for their expertise and are not required to be accountable to any sections of the community, and the failure at times to seek consumer input. The committee understands that the Government maintains a list of people interested in sitting on boards, councils and committees and also calls, from time to time, in the media, for expressions of interest for appointment to specific bodies. The committee would like to see a larger number and range of people participating in government advisory boards, committees and councils and calls on the Government to develop strategies to encourage wider representation. It must ensure that representative bodies are not discriminatory and include people from a diverse range of backgrounds, experiences and interests with relevance to the appointment. Further, strategies should be in place to offer practical assistance to facilitate participation, such as providing respite or child care for people with care responsibilities; reimbursing transport and other associated costs for people with limited financial resources; the provision of interpreters for people who do not speak English; accessibility of venue, such as wheelchair access; and group processes which are inclusive.

While the work done by community councils was seen as important and valuable, some members of the community did not perceive them as being representative. By providing a grant to community councils for the purpose of, among other things, enabling "the Councils to work to increase membership and the representative nature of that membership", the Government has acknowledged their representativeness as an issue. This raises the question of evaluation. Have the grants resulted in increased membership and greater representation, or are there more fundamental issues which need addressing? The notion that representative views are obtained by consulting with peak groups was also challenged by some. The general opinion was that, as a minimum, consultation should proceed through the peak groups. However, often it will be necessary to consult more widely to ensure the views of consumers, minority groups and people with specific needs are considered.

Three main issues emerged concerning community views on consultation techniques, namely, the need to consider a range of techniques to ensure maximum input; the need for training for personnel conducting consultations; and the conduct of public meetings. Evidence received indicated that techniques employed are creating barriers to participation in some instances. For example, the requirement to provide comments in writing, the structure of meetings and failing to provide realistic avenues for community or consumer input can create barriers for some sectors of the community. For maximum effectiveness, the consultation techniques used need to relate to the consultation's objectives.

The committee found strong support for the need for government officials involved in conducting consultations to have adequate training in planning consultations, running meetings and facilitating discussion. The committee believes that the Government must take this matter seriously and ensure that officials involved in consultations are adequately trained for their role. Public meetings are not necessarily a consultative approach, as they often only inform. Workshops, on the other hand, do provide opportunities for true consultation. In defending its decision-making processes, we often hear the Government

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