Page 4313 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Hopefully, it will also see a closer liaison between the users and the landlord, if I may use that expression. I would particularly like to see this happen in the area of sport. I believe that there are a number of facilities - I would identify gymnasia in high schools and colleges - that are not being used to the extent that they could be. We must not forget also, Madam Speaker, that we are dealing with not only the facilities that are within the schools but also the outside facilities that a number of the schools can offer to the community. Furthermore, I would like to see a regular review of the charges. I have been a little surprised that these do not appear to have been reviewed at regular intervals. I think that that is another area that needs to be addressed.
There will still be some problems, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the thorniest and most difficult - recommendation 9 attempts to address this - is the question of janitors. This is a very difficult issue. Many people argued that they could use the school facilities and that the cost of using those facilities would be substantially less if there was not the requirement to have a janitor on duty at least for the opening and closing of the facility. Under the award the janitor is paid for three hours or something of that nature. One has to look at the janitors' point of view in this as well. They expect to be paid for working out of hours. I make no attempt to solve this problem. I simply recommend that the matter be investigated very thoroughly because it probably is the biggest financial hurdle that the committee discovered, and it has not really found a solution to the problem.
The other question that probably still needs to be ironed out is the claim that as schools are a community resource people should not have to pay anything more for using them after hours. I am afraid that that is an argument which I do not accept, and I think it is fair to say that the rest of the committee does not accept it either. If we accepted that argument, presumably our buses would all run free of charge and our Canberra Theatre would operate without selling tickets. These are community resources, but there must be some sort of financial input from the public in order to get the best results from them. So I would discount the argument of schools being used at no cost by community organisations.
I believe that the Gungahlin initiative outlined towards the end of this report is a very worthy one. It will not, however, solve the problems that still exist in this very difficult area. Nevertheless, the combining of schools, the combining of facilities, in the long run obviously will reduce the capital costs that are involved; and indirectly, if you have one gymnasium serving three schools, it is reasonable to assume that the community serving those three schools will also make use of that one gymnasium instead of, as is the current practice, perhaps two or three gymnasiums.
This, as Ms Ellis has already indicated, is but the first phase of an inquiry, and it is now up to the Government to examine and, I trust, implement the 15 recommendations that have been brought forward. I urge the Government to address these with alacrity. I urge you to exercise some political will for once in your lives in doing so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .