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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1796 ..

MS TUCKER: The former QEII, thank you. That decision has resulted in the Junction Youth Health Service centre needing to be resited. Ongoing concern has also been expressed by the Griffin Centre, through letters it sends to me-but to which I have not replied-and now a petition, that replacement facilities included in the Queensland Investment Corporation's proposed development of section 56 will be too small for the centre's needs. Meanwhile, the Department of Urban Services has just conducted a data collection and analysis of social services and facilities in and around Civic, taking into account the proposed increase in Civic's population. In light of the government's new-found road-to-Damascus-like enthusiasm for building social capital, will the Treasurer now seek to negotiate additional community facilities space in that development before proceeding with the deed of agreement, thereby investing real capital in real buildings for real social purposes?

MR HUMPHRIES: It is fairly obvious that the government's decision to pick up and deal with the question of building social capital in our budget this week has touched a very raw nerve for some members of this place. I would have thought that a person like Ms Tucker, who claims to believe that social capital is important, that we should build it up, would actually come forward and welcome the fact that the government-assuming that she does not dispute this-has put money aside to address the issue of social capital.

Ms Tucker: We do not believe you, Gary, sorry.

MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Tucker says that she does not believe that we have done that. I would be very grateful if, at some point in the debate we are going to have on the next sitting day, Ms Tucker would say which aspects of the budget we have described as social capital-particularly the building social capital program, which is funded to the tune of $3.5 million this coming year-does not represent a supporting of social capital in our community. Where exactly does it fall down in that respect?

I would like to hear Ms Tucker's answers on those questions. She is more a woman gazumped today than a woman who believes that we have it wrong. She is angry and resentful that we have done something on what she sees as her turf. That is a very sad thing to see.

Going back to this question of section 56: I am aware that there is certainly a desire on the part of the Griffin Centre to expand the amount of space it will have in the replacement centre, whatever it might be called, in the new section 56 development. I am quite well aware as well that the government's commitment to the Griffin Centre was that it would replace all the community space that was to be lost in the old, decrepit Griffin Centre with up-to-date space in the new facilities, with a great improvement in the quality of accommodation for the organisations concerned.

I am also well aware that the expanded space offered, if not clearly limited, could end up being endlessly expanded to satisfy an increasing desire to accommodate more and more organisations, and larger and larger spaces for those concerned. Having said that, I am quite willing to look at the issues that have been raised by the Griffin Centre and others, to see whether there is a capacity to accommodate more space for those organisations.

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