Page 2578 - Week 09 - Thursday, 8 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to be transferred in the car park to a mini-bus to go off on an activity. We cannot bring them into the centre because that breaches a Federal guideline. That is absurd - clearly absurd.
I must say that if I had the responsibility as a public servant administering that program I would be sorely tempted to say, "Up your guidelines; bring people inside where it is warm". I suspect that some of that probably goes on, and good luck to those people. This demonstrates that while the intention of national standards is a good one and was clearly directed at abuses of the past, of the 1950s and 1960s, sometimes it can be just too inflexible. We had the problem of a direction that it be reduced from 28 to 24 places, which means that four families are adversely affected. There are silly things like directions, because of a desire to be non-institutional, that you do not want people inside.
There are clear advantages for the States and Territories in having this degree of devolution, which will occur for the Sharing Places project after January next year, so that we can tailor programs to meet local needs. I suspect that that will be a lot easier for the ACT than other States because we are a city-state; we are in much closer touch with our community. While I note Mr Collaery's suggestion that we may look with some profit at what has happened in the South Australian welfare area in recent years - I would agree with him that that has been very innovative over virtually 15 years of enlightened Labor administration in that State; it has probably become one of the more progressive areas - still, in Canberra we should take advantage of these changes to tailor programs to meet the real demand of the community.
The other area that is worth noting in a debate on the Special Premiers Conference is the remarkable progress that is being made in housing and building. Again, as a result of the initiatives by the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Premiers, there is remarkable action occurring at the housing level. The Deputy Prime Minister is certainly making a dramatic impetus on moves to a national housing strategy.
One issue that has been lying around for decades and that everyone has said is absurd is the multiplicity of building codes in Australia. We have now actually, in 12 months, got very, very close to agreement on a uniform building code. At a building and construction Ministers meeting which was held here in Canberra a couple of weeks ago there was agreement around the table that we move to a national uniform building code. That will save millions upon millions of dollars. We in the ACT say that it is absurd that if you build a house at Oaks Estate you are building it under a different regime than if you build it in Queanbeyan. We see it as a State-Territory border issue. But within the States this varies not just from State to State but within local government regions within the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .