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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1661 ..

with a review of the literature. In particular the evidence based research and practice in peer mentoring education programs in this area will be considered. After this process has been undertaken consideration will be given to the necessity of a more formal independent review and the scope of such a review, which may involve further evaluations of specific services and programs.

(4) Initially the evaluation will be funded within existing budget.

Sportsgrounds
(Question No 1366)

Mr Stefaniak asked the Minister for Urban Service, upon notice:

In relation to ACT Government sportsgrounds:

(1) Are there any ovals in the ACT being considered for redevelopment; if so, which ovals;

(2) Would the Government ever consider using any ovals in the ACT for redevelopment purposes;

(3) What is the Government’s policy on ovals in regard to maintaining them for public open space;

(4) Have any low maintenance ovals been brought back to full maintenance since Labor took office in 2001; if so, which ovals; if not why not.

Mr Wood: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) No ovals are being considered for redevelopment.

(2) No such redevelopments are envisaged.

(3) Canberra’s sportsgrounds are an integral part of the city’s open space system and highly valued by the community. Their status as Urban Open Space under the Territory Plan is strongly supported by the government.

(4) No low maintenance ovals have been returned to full maintenance during this period. The decision as to which ovals are low or full maintenance is based on the type and level of demand the grounds satisfy, and there is now general acceptance in the community of the level of provision of irrigated full-maintenance sportsgrounds.

Chisholm oval
(Question No 1367)

Mr Stefaniak asked the Minister for Urban Services, upon notice:

In relation to:

(1) Further to your response to Question on notice No 1195 in which you stated that revised

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