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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2109 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

aiming to change something. This is what I am pointing out. In this particular program we see an absence. We do not see it in every regard, and this makes it even more interesting that it is sort of there but not really there.

The expansion of the number of sporting organisations within the sports skilling program from six to 17 is a very definitive goal. Here they are able to grasp the nettle and say, "What are we trying to do? We are trying to expand the number of sports skilling goals". The expansion of the Aussie Sports leaders program to train another 1,000 leaders is a very clear objective. There are very specific capital works programs. There are very specific changes being made. But the overall objective of the outlook of the program is to introduce an increasing number of ACT residents to an active lifestyle through a comprehensive recreation program. This is what I think is at the heart of what is wrong and an example of what seems to me to be one of the omissions throughout the entire budget papers.

Whom are we trying to help? Why are we trying to help them? Do they need help? How do we know? Do we know who does not need help? Do we know who does need help? Do we know who falls through the net? Do we know who already has an excess of these services? This is what we just do not see at all with this particular point within the outlook program of the Bureau of Sport, Recreation and Racing. Within this program there are clear objectives. They want to improve particular sportsgrounds; they want to do this; they want to do that. They want to improve particular skills programs; they want to improve participation in particular events; they want to get better participation in the Olympics. That has all been transferred to the Business Bureau now, to make that happen.

At the very heart of it still lies the question: Whom is this program for? It seems to me that it is an absolute waste of time to introduce someone to a new recreation program if they are already fit. If someone is already involved in tae kwon do and they enter a new program called line dancing, then you have achieved this objective but you have made absolutely no difference to anyone. We do not know who the target group is. We do not know what the problem is that we are trying to solve. We do not know whether we are going to solve it by this. We simply create something that is eminently manageable because you can always say that we have 10,000 people in tae kwon do, we have 10,000 people in line dancing and we have 10,000 new people doing abseiling; but we have absolutely no idea whether we have introduced more people to an active lifestyle. We do not know, other than by guesswork, who is missing out. We know very well that people with chronic illnesses are perhaps unable to participate in any of the active lifestyle programs that the bureau does run. Do we have specific programs for these people? No. I think it is a simple problem and it is easily solved by a new outlook and objective, but I am suggesting that it epitomises what is wrong with the whole approach of the budget. We do not know what we are trying to do and for whom. We do not know who is missing out, and we do not know what we are doing to try to capture them.

I suggest that it is quite clear that people with disabilities have a very limited capacity to participate in sport and recreation activities. All the sportsgrounds changes, all the facilities changes and all the capital works programs do not, in one instance, address improving facilities for people with disabilities. We also have no measure of the people who would be classified as needing greater health activities through the health services.

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