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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1192 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We also made some specific recommendations about Kippax. We did so because during hearings of this committee-I think it was the first time it had happened and I was glad that it happened-we had people from the community talking to us about what is normally seen as a planning issue in that it was about community facilities and they have normally made representations to the urban services committee, chaired by Mr Hird. The organisations and individuals concerned came and spoke to the Education, Community Services and Recreation Committee because it has responsibility for community services and the issue of community facilities was relevant.

We were very interested and concerned to hear about the sorry saga of Kippax in particular. We recommended that the government report to the Assembly on its plans to progress the development of a community centre at the Kippax group centre. This recommendation was about providing community facilities. We followed it up with a recommendation that the government table in the Assembly a list of all the analysis undertaken in the last six years on the need for additional community facilities at Kippax and across Canberra. That is a very important recommendation because, again, it goes to the issue of how the government makes it decisions. In this instance the planning aspect has been brought in. I know that there has been one audit done of community facilities. I am not sure whether it has been completed or how it has been used. This recommendation is getting to whether we can see why you have decided, for example, one shop is enough in the local shopping centres and six are not.

Why is it that you are making such decisions about Kippax? Where is your information? Where is your analysis? What have you done? We are asking the government to show us how they have made these decisions and what work they have done to understand the need for community facilities across Canberra, because it is obviously a huge issue. It is coming up in the planning debate, but it is now being linked to the question of community services, which is good. It is about intersectoral approaches, which is what we like government to have, but it is actually happening now through committee work.

In conclusion, I would just say that the timeframe was not enough and the information was not enough, again. I think that we have to take a serious look at this whole idea of having a draft budget and whether it is a workable thing or is just using up everybody's time and resources and not coming up with any really good results. I know that Mr Humphries has come out and blamed everyone in this place involved in the committees for what he perceives to be a failure. I have said pretty clearly that I think that he is responsible for that because there was not enough time and information. I believe that the basic principles he outlined for the select committee on the draft budget to look at and the way he confined our work to the principles and parameters of his government are also open to question.

Putting that aside, I think it would be useful if we could have a dispassionate look and an objective look at how well this draft budget trial has worked. Maybe members of this place will be able to talk that through quietly in the corridors and talk to the community and get a sense of how people think it has worked and where it has not worked. Maybe there is some way that we can use a similar model next year, maybe there is not, but I think we do need to look at it. It is certainly not satisfactory at the moment from anyone's perspective, not from the perspective of the government and not from the perspective of the people who are doing the work in the committees.

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