Page 2607 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to what that money is intended for. We do not get, but have requested for future years, an indication as to what allocated money was spent on in the previous 12 months. We believe that that would give a very good indication of the types of issues that are likely to arise in relation to minor new works for the ensuing year. It is critical that that information be provided.
Madam Speaker, we have also made a number of recommendations in relation to the relationship between the Treasury, Public Works and sponsoring agencies as far as the capital works program is concerned. We believe that it is absolutely essential in the formative stage, in the gestation stage, of capital works within agencies that both Public Works and the Treasury become involved in the process which sees forward capital works projections put into the forward design program and ultimately into the capital works program. We believe that there needs to be far better coordination at that formative stage between the various agencies of government. We believe that that will lead to a more efficient structuring of the capital works program in future years. It will also, we believe, lead to a greater degree of efficiency in how some of these forward design concepts are actually put into practice.
If Public Works are able to become involved in the formative stages of a particular project - for example, a school - it may very well be that, while the Department of Education has an idea as to the function, the scope and the desirability of particular aspects of a school, Public Works may be able to recommend a better delivery method at that early stage. One suggested better delivery method considered by this committee in relation specifically to the education program was that in future capital works being undertaken for the Department of Education the Government should consider the co-location of some core facilities, such as ovals, for the systemic schools and the government schools. We put some detailed questions to the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning about the placement of school ovals, costs, whole-of-life costs, maintenance, watering systems and so on; but it seemed obvious to us that, in times of economic restraint and reduced capacity by the Government to provide some of this infrastructure, we should look at ways of trying to reduce the cost to the community in providing such things as playing fields and ask whether two schools in the same suburb need two separate ovals. We believe that there are in fact ways in which that situation can be addressed. It is possible to address that question in the formative stages of planning for schools.
Madam Speaker, in the brief time left to me I wish to place on record a tribute to the work that has been done by Rod Power, who is the secretary to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee. Mr Power is required, along with all of the MLAs, to undertake a fairly detailed analysis of the documentation that is provided to us and to try to break down into the essential elements the submissions that are made orally and in writing to the committee. May I say on the public record, Madam Speaker, that on this occasion Mr Power has excelled the already high level of achievement that he has demonstrated in other reports tabled by the PDI Committee, including the planning report. I regard it as an absolutely great feat that Mr Power has been able, in a very short period of time, to break down all of that great body of information that we were finally able to elicit and to assist the committee in formulating the report. Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .