Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 584 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

The first and most major point of concern really, though, is not to do with paperwork but with the allocation of money to capital works. We accept that only about 11 per cent of the total budget of the ACT is allocated to capital works. Still, given the need to keep the economy moving, it is very disturbing to see the decline in the allocation of funding to capital works. I would urge a new government to look seriously at this issue and consider whether more money may be directed this way because it will all help to keep more jobs and more projects operational in Canberra.

I think that paying further attention to the allocation of priorities would be an extremely valuable exercise, not only because it may yield a better set of results in terms of what money is spent on. I believe that, when people talk about council-style government and what they would like to see in the ACT, it very much relates to what councils do in other places. Councils in other places do look at this allocation of funding, which is very much for the management of urban amenities.

This is a specific and extra recommendation which I did not try with the committee because of the rush of time, but I would like to use this opportunity to say that out of my deliberations on the committee came these thoughts. I would urge the Government, in addition to what is already being considered as part of a recommendation, to consider what I propose. What was clear was that a lot more thought and attention needs to be given to the allocation of funding for capital works. I would like to see the Government prepare a discussion paper which we could all then use to talk about in the community to see whether that better reaches the types of concerns that we hear all the time from the community sector about their involvement in what are often small but valuable projects in their own communities.

I would like the Government to take on this six-point plan and incorporate it in a discussion paper as a result of this report and perhaps attempt to engage the community a bit better. The first of my six points is whether a municipal capital works budget can be allocated for each electorate. That is a question that we get time and time again. How much does each of our electorates get? How do we compare one to another? Can we have a bit of a look at what the quantum is? Remember that I am talking about a discussion paper.

The second is how the community could be involved in determining those local priorities. We have had many instances already over the years of the different ways that the community is involved. I believe that it would be extremely valuable to pull all this together in a discussion paper and say, "All right; how much money is available? How much potentially is available in our electorate? How could we be involved in this allocation of priorities?".

The third point is how those local priorities and needs could be dealt with in, perhaps, a 10-year plan, a five-year plan or a one-year plan, rather than on what seems to be almost an ad hoc basis where we get the draft capital works budget, we debate it, and then on it goes into the budget. If we are going to be involving the community, is there a better way to do this, and can we have a longer-term plan so that the community does understand that there is a fair process going on and in good time, perhaps, new facilities may come?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .