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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5121 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

is the price that has to be paid when community organisations are in charge of buildings such as this. However, that is a seemingly easy answer to a problem that will not go away. For a long time the Griffin Centre has been run by the Council of Cultural and Community Organisations. It has been said that most of the tenants at that centre and the organisation evolved by accident.

The existing and proposed buildings are the property of the territory, as are the youth centre buildings. The other part of the equation is that some aspect of government pays for the organisations in the new centre whose positions are most in question. The government recognises that the work that is done by them is fundamental to our social health. It would be hypocritical and destructive for anyone to state that the new building would not be able to accommodate those services. One member of staff at the Griffin Centre said to us, "If we do not look after them where do they go?"It is worth noting that the accommodation enjoyed by Directions ACT, a needle-syringe trading and support service in East Row, is of a lower standard than the accommodation that is provided at the Griffin Centre. Finding new accommodation for that body has proved extraordinarily difficult.

This Griffin Centre motion is self-explanatory. Various groups and organisations at the Griffin Centre should not be left to sort out intractable problems that have arisen because the government has evaded its responsibility. It is not simply a question of replacing the floor space that is used by tenants at the Griffin Centre; it is about supporting and valuing the community organisations and services that play a crucial role in the creation of a sustainable society.

Organisations that respond to change, create innovative and tightly targeted responses to meet any needs and express the interests and concerns of ordinary people, are the engines of community development and change. After looking at the accommodation that is afforded to community organisations-bodies that provide key services-and the priority that is afforded to those facilities generally, it is obvious that we still have the balance wrong in the ACT. Regrettably, powerful businesses and governments still hold the sway. It is time that we took a more intelligent approach to the provision of resources for development.

It is an indictment on our planning and investment in the community sector that the organisations that provide free food programs might soon be homeless as the new Griffin Centre will not be able to accommodate them. It is not sufficient simply to leave the decision in the hands of officers in the department of the minister when land-use, health, education and Treasury issues are involved. We might have to change the design or the configuration of the buildings. We might also have to bring other land or buildings, such as the Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, into the mix. This is one of those whole-of-government questions.

If the government signs off on the final building design without significant and strategic decisions being made about how various and divergent needs can be met, the people of Canberra who are most in need and who are deserving of support undoubtedly will pay the price, much to the shame of all members of this Assembly.

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