Page 2611 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Recommendation 8 is:
That the Capital Works Program include information updating the status of items that appeared in the previous year's forward design program (to show if and where money has been spent, together with an indication of whether the project continues to be rated highly by the agency).
Mr Kaine commented on this particular recommendation and indicated that I would be referring specifically to it. Again, Madam Speaker, the committee is looking for continuity and feedback about specific projects and proposals. The ACT Government prides itself on the degree and extent to which it consults with the community. Here we have a perfect opportunity for the Government to inform the community about what the future holds for particular projects on the forward design program. We know what happened to some projects which were on the 1993-94 forward design program because they appeared in this year's program. Examples of those are the Tuggeranong youth resource centre, the Woden-Weston Creek long day and occasional care centre, the replacement and refurbishment of Quamby stage 2 and the Gungahlin Primary and Pre-School, which has become the Palmerston Primary and Pre-School in Gungahlin.
However, the future of a range of other projects is largely unknown. In the context of this year's program these projects include the Tuggeranong indoor sports stadium, the Gungahlin neighbourhood centre, Belconnen interchange weatherproofing improvements, and Belconnen fire station extension and a community arts access workshop, all of which appeared on the forward design program for 1992-93 but are not in the capital works program this year. It would not be too difficult, Madam Speaker, for the Government to present to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and to the community information about the likely future of these projects and the reason for their non-appearance in this year's program. Quite justifiable reasons may well be an earlier overestimation of demand for the facility or a change in government priorities. While the reasons for the delays are important, the primary consideration and motive of the Government should be to inform the community about the future of these projects.
Recommendation 10 relates to information on three-, four- or 10-year indicative works design programs of each agency being included in the documentation provided. Again, as in recommendation 7, it indicates that the committee is desirous of more long-term information with which to assess the adequacy of each year's works program. Recommendation 11 refers to minor new works. Mr Lamont referred to this particular recommendation in his remarks. The committee noted that minor new works provisions in this year's program total some $6m. Little information was provided by most agencies, especially in the first instance, about what works would actually be included under this general heading. It was suggested in the course of the committee's public hearings that the minor new works provisions could be convenient "slush funds" from which agencies could easily draw funds when needed. Additional information, when provided, was helpful and informed committee members about these provisions in more detail. It was felt in 1992 and again this year that the Canberra Institute of Technology sets the benchmark for the provision of full information about minor new works, about the works to be done in the coming year and about works already accomplished with allocated funds.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .