Page 2486 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
if it’s going to fall down, we may as well replace it.” It turns out that that information was wrong. It turns out that the information that was given to the community was wrong. That response from the community, based on a false premise, is then used against the community. We saw the attempts to shift the blame onto the Tharwa community by the ministers involved there.
This is another model as to how the Stanhope government treat the community. They consult with them, they do not give them the full story, then they use the people’s response, on the basis of that false information, against them, as a reason to dismiss them and to blame them for what was clearly a major stuff-up by this government.
The fact that the Chief Minister eventually—clumsily, it has to be said—stepped in in relation to this process and we got, after an inordinate amount of time going back and forth—
Mr Pratt: Two years.
MR SESELJA: After two years, we reached the position where we should have been in the first place. Once again, a cynical model of consultation was used to cover the government’s tracks when they get it wrong: try and blame the community that you’ve consulted with, even though you didn’t give them the full picture when you did consult with them. That is another brazen example of this government’s attitude to consultation. It is another brazen example of this government’s dismissive attitude to the concerns of the community.
I think we know why they felt they could treat the people of Tharwa in this way. It is because of the numbers. The message we have had throughout is: “If you don’t represent a massive enough constituency, we will ignore you.” It is reasonable to ignore the people of Tharwa because you can say: “Look, there’s not many votes in Tharwa. There’s only a bit over 100 or something.” I remember Labor Party figures saying to me: “Why are you guys pursuing this? You’re not going to get many votes out of it.” Mr Pratt pursued it because of the principle. He knew there were not many votes in it for him, but he pursued it because it was the right thing to do.
Even in their small numbers, Mr Pratt needed to represent their concerns and their interests, and Mr Pratt did that in an absolutely exceptional manner which showed up his opponents, and which showed up the minister, who eventually had to be bailed out by the Chief Minister. Of course, in doing that, we saw the blaming of the community for daring to make a decision based on the false information that they had been given by the government.
I will finish off on the school closures issue. We have now had another consultation process about what should be done with the sites. The strongest piece of feedback coming from the community is that, firstly, they would like the schools reopened and, secondly, if they can’t have their government school reopened they would like the site to be considered for non-government schools. And what is the response of the government? “Well, you can have some halls, you can have some parks.” They are all nice; there is nothing wrong with a hall or a park, but the community did not ask for that. What they said was: “Please reopen our school. If you can’t reopen our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .