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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2274 ..

The construction of a dragway came up as an issue. At the hearings we found that the government had narrowed the site for it down to two blocks, blocks 51 and 52 at Majura. In relation to the identification of a dragway site, the committee recommended that the government, as a matter of priority, progress negotiations—that is, negotiations with the Commonwealth relating to one block, not the other one—and inform the Assembly of its progress. Lots of people in the community are very concerned that, whilst there is money in the budget, nothing is happening there.

Interesting little things cropped up from time to time, such as the reference to the WorkCover van. Members can read about that on page 38 of the report. There were issues around litigation, legal advice and the workers compensation supplementation fund. Our recommendations there are pretty basic but absolutely essential. We have stressed the need for departments and ministers to comply with the Financial Management Act and the Government Procurement Act and immediately advise the Assembly of any breaches in that regard. (Extension of time granted.) Again, I commend the recommendation on that to the government. Members can read the guts of it on page 39. Again, there were some worrying aspects there and the government should be quite mindful of that.

Mr Speaker, a number of issues were raised in relation to public housing and we made recommendations in that regard. The committee noted that work has been done to improve energy efficiency, but feels that there needs to be increased focus on it. It is painfully obvious that any improvement in energy efficiency not only will make the properties better, but also greatly assist the tenants, especially the people on low incomes, by providing a few savings, which they most desperately need. Accordingly, we want the government to develop and implement a plan for addressing energy and water efficiency issues in relation to public housing that include both short-term and long-term goals.

Similarly, we want better performance measures. Indeed, as I said earlier, many of the performance measures were somewhat meaningless. The committee stressed the need for performance measures for government housing and recommended that the minister consider including performance measures in the areas which members can see in the report under recommendation 26. Again, I commend that to the government.

In the hearings on the urban services portfolio there was considerable discussion and some disagreement by the committee in relation to the Gungahlin Drive extension. We were told that the total cost of building the full road in today’s dollars would be $120 million. We were told also that an additional premium of $8 million to $9 million will be incurred in 10 years when the full road is due to be built, which would make the cost around $130 million.

There is certainly a degree of confusion in the community about the cost of building the road and upgrading the Glenloch interchange. We sought confirmation in relation to that and we were assured that the amount of $71 million includes the upgrading of the interchange. Two members of the committee—namely, Mrs Dunne and I—felt that the government should proceed immediately with the full four-lane construction of the Gungahlin Drive extension, as that would save a considerable amount of money and ensure that Gungahlin residents would have a good service 24 hours a day.

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