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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3108 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

say that it provided plenty of opportunities for community consultation through public meetings but very few people attended. This shows a refusal to acknowledge that the structure of a consultation process needs to be individually tailored to suit the community being consulted. A flexible approach is essential.

Evidence gathered by the committee indicates that the community is still being faced with the problem of deciphering bureaucratic jargon both in its written form and in its oral form. The committee finds this unacceptable and asks that plain English be used in all government communications. Inadequate timeframes allowed for responses to government papers sent out for consultation are still a major problem from the community perspective. Government papers often take months to prepare; yet community groups are expected to consult with their members and prepare a response in a few weeks. This is most unsatisfactory and can actually be seen as tokenism.

The committee found that the credibility of some consultations in the ACT has been compromised by a number of factors, which include a predetermined agenda; lack of information on outcomes and proposed action plans; lack of feedback to participants; insufficient time allowed; and inadequate recognition of the work done by community groups. The committee recommends an approach that respects the participants and is committed to resourcing and explaining outcomes by involving the community only when there is real choice about outcomes; by a commitment by the Government to allocating a percentage of each program's budget to community consultation; by the inclusion of a ministerial report accompanying any consequent decisions that summarises community input and explains how that input was used in making the final decision; and by ensuring a reasonable period of time is given for community responses to government papers. At least three months is usually needed by community organisations to enable them to consult and prepare a response.

The committee found strong support for its proposal in the discussion paper that agencies use a consultation protocol to guide decisions during the consultation process. The committee believes that adherence to a well thought out consultation protocol will go a long way to overcoming some of the credibility issues associated with information, feedback and timeframes. However, the committee wishes to stress that protocols can lead to inflexible consultations and can deter good participation if the officials involved are not adequately trained and the process is not adequately resourced. There was very limited response to the issue in the discussion paper on a statutory requirement for the Government to engage in public consultation. This matter is the subject of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills, and the committee looks forward to the outcome.

The committee has noted some problems with the effectiveness of the Government's community consultation processes. Some of the more contentious consultations which have occurred include the poor consultation process undertaken in relation to the decision to close the School Without Walls in 1996; the consultation surrounding the review of the LAPACs and the determination of their new structure; the Ainslie redevelopment process; the Manuka shops development; the strategic plan document presented in 1996; the Ngunnawal preschool and child-care centre; and the consultation process on the Cultural Authority.

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