Page 3832 - Week 12 - Thursday, 23 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is great dislocation flowing from this decision for what would appear to be a very poor dollar return—unless, of course, there is another motive or another underlying objective. That is, if there is another higher dollar value return—eg, the selling off of the land on which that library sits—then that would make more sense in terms of the government’s rationale, as opposed to any moral decision that the government should have taken. A proper moral decision, in this case, and a proper governance decision in terms of what the supposed savings are would have been to leave that library intact and provide a decentralised library service to that community.
Let us look at the question of consultation. Why was this decision rushed? Why was there no consultation at all? We are well aware of the disdain Mr Hargreaves has shown to the community about consulting. We know that in his view there was no point in consulting with the community because he knew they would be unhappy about the decision.
That is what he said to me in the hearings into annual reports. When I asked him, “Why did you not spend sufficient consultation time with the broader community before you even got anywhere near making the first sorts of decisions that you might have needed to make?” his answer to me was, “It is pretty obvious, is it not? Why would I go and consult with the community to tell them that I want to close this library when I know what their answer is going to be?”—or words to that effect.
That is what the minister said to me in the annual report hearings. It floored me. I have to tell you that it absolutely floored me and my colleagues. My colleague Mrs Burke was floored by that response. Good government, when it makes decisions to cut community services in the democratic way, should broadly consult. They should be going out to the community and saying, “We are a bit concerned about this library” or, “We are a bit concerned about this school” or, “We are a bit concerned; we think there needs to be a G3 Telstra tower in your backyard” or whatever it might be.
They should say, “We are seriously considering taking certain actions. What do you think? What else could be done to perhaps ameliorate that? Are there any other ways that we can manage these issues? We will not be making a decision for six months or a year. We are giving you a heads up now. We need to talk to you about these things.” That is what they did not do with the Griffith library decision. They did not. They have demonstrated, as they have time and time again, with the 39 school closures and the Towards 2002 plan, that they will not consult. Why?
When you are a majority government, do you not have to? Do you not even attempt to carry the community with you on the decision you have to make? In 2006, as we become a more sophisticated democratic society, do we not bother to try and do these things—to consult? Could the decision be modified, qualified or changed with some good community input?
That certainly was not the case with Griffith library. I tell you, Mr Speaker, if you had seen the response of the rally on Saturday and the feeling coming out of that community group, you would clearly understand that they know they have been dudded. Not only have they been dudded because there is no justification to close the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .