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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (20 April) . . Page.. 949 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

Mr Speaker, there were almost 200 separate items in the draft capital works program, and the fact that the committee only made specific recommendations in relation to a small number of these projects points to two factors: Firstly, that the standard and quality of information provided to the committee was generally relevant, understandable and backed by sound logical argument; and, secondly, that the committee itself was willing to look cooperatively at the overall budget scenario for the planned development of the ACT and not get bogged down in nit-picking argument over the detail of each proposal. There were, however, a few proposals where the committee felt constrained to make particular recommendations to the Government to assist it in the lead-up to this year's budget.

One of the specific issues addressed by the committee was the development of a master plan for Belconnen Town Centre. All members are aware of the amazing and heavily documented and much vilified hotchpotch of development at Belconnen, overseen by the Commonwealth Government. The committee is now very strong in its view that any further development must be strictly confined to the master plan currently being developed and that the necessary resources should be applied to enable the master plan to be completed quickly and efficiently.

The committee also spent considerable time discussing the proposed Belconnen aquatic centre and the status of the relevant public benefit and feasibility report. The public benefit and feasibility report is a consequence of the Federal Government's national competition policy which was signed off by the previous Follett Government in this Assembly. The prioritisation of a pool at Belconnen was included in the sports policies of both major parties prior to the last election, and it is pleasing to see that the Government's commitment to the facility remains.

Another major project is the non-budget-funded Mitchell resource recovery and transfer facility. The advancement of this proposal will be of great benefit to the 70,000 people in the developing area of Gungahlin and North Canberra who are currently forced to travel to Parkwood or to use the present limited CS&G facility at Mitchell.

Mr Speaker, most of the recommendations made by the committee relate to the mechanics and functional processes of preparing and presenting documentation which will make it even easier for the community to have transparent access to the Government's budgetary intentions. There has been remarkable improvement in this area over recent years. Whilst it is recognised that governments are elected to govern, it is the stated intention of this Government to allow for the fullest possible community consultation and input into decision-making processes.

Some areas where improvement or modification of procedures are recommended are: Instalment of measures to reduce backlogs in capital works projects; clear indications of future operating options for facilities constructed; further standardisation of listing projects across government agencies; rationalised provision of specialist advice to agencies, especially in relation to technical and cost aspects of major projects; and a uniform definition of minor new works.

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