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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2725 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

for them to have a say, and to have the government react positively in this particular process.

Let everybody in this Assembly know that the majority of community organisations out there are totally dissatisfied with the way this is being implemented, and are somewhat bewildered as to what the government wants and why it finds itself unable, through its administration, to communicate what it wants or develop any empathetic relationship with them.

Mr Speaker, I record in this place that I am totally dissatisfied with this particular report. It does no service to the community organisations that have used the facilities of this Assembly to try to communicate to government, and have been so roundly dismissed out of hand. Thank you.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (11.57): Mr Speaker, I do not want to speak for long on this matter. I just want to make a couple of comments about Mr Quinlan's contribution. Mr Quinlan is obviously disappointed that the government has not picked up the recommendations of his inquiry. I understand that, but I also have to reiterate to the Assembly that the government did carefully consider the recommendations made and cannot agree to many of the comments made in the committee's report.

Mr Quinlan makes a very bold and sweeping statement that a majority of community organisations receiving funding from government are dissatisfied with the present arrangements. The report of the committee discloses that a majority of community organisations did not make submissions to the committee and, I doubt whether, even if Mr Quinlan and other members of the committee had spoken to those organisations, he would have been able to get to a majority of such organisations.

It is worth remembering that in community grants programs there is always a high degree of contention about the way those programs are administered. There always has been. There certainly was in the days that Labor sat on the treasury benches. It is very easy for people to make hay out of the fact that there is dissatisfaction by those, for example, who believe that their grants have not been large enough, who believe their reporting requirements are excessive, or who miss out altogether. Many people come and complain about that, as we have seen in recent days with organisations such as CARE Credit and Debit Counselling Service. It is one thing to make those complaints. It is another to say that the system is wrong, it is unsatisfactory, it is all a sham and it should all be replaced with something entirely different.

I make one other comment, Mr Speaker. Mr Quinlan has repeated this comment about there being a degree of intimidation, or implied intimidation, of community organisations who wish to criticise the government's handling of any of these matters. Many community organisations already make comments and criticisms of government directly to the government. People come and see ministers, and they make those comments. People make comments to bureaucrats about the way in which programs are administered. It happens all the time.

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