Page 3835 - Week 12 - Thursday, 23 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If I had my time over, would I do it differently? Yes, I would. Would the outcome be different, Mr Speaker? I doubt it—except that the community would have had more warning and the opposition would have had more opportunities to attack the government.
Earlier this year the Chief Minister very clearly and very publicly articulated the need for the ACT to live within its means. This meant that key ACT government services would be scrutinised, analysed or reviewed to determine the most appropriate and effective means of delivering services into the future. The library service is no different in this respect. It, too, has to make savings. When my department commenced planning for the library services consolidation project of ACT library services in June 2006, the emphasis from the outset was on how the library service would deliver services into the future in a climate of budget constraint.
However, the library services review has not just been about making savings or closing Griffith library. The report’s findings affirmed the government’s decision. The review report has identified a number of very significant concerns and opportunities for the service that must be addressed if the service is to remain relevant. I refer specifically to concerns regarding the age of the library collection, the potential to provide enhanced self-help facilities for customers through the installation of radio frequency identification technology—RFID—and consolidation of the existing services model and branch hierarchy.
Given this environment, the review had a purely internal focus. The methodology is composed of process analysis, financial and performance analysis, site visits and benchmarking, as well as best practice information from other library services. Staff consultation comprised a significant portion of the review and the review project team played an important role in developing ideas for further testing and in discussing options. A number of submissions were also received from library staff and from the management team.
While I support the role of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment and commend its members for their hard work, referring this issue to the committee at this point in time is more about political grandstanding by Mr Pratt than about good governance and consultation with the community. As we all know, the committee is still deliberating over the annual reports and the general administration of departments. I am informed that Mr Pratt took the opportunity to participate in those hearings and, along with Dr Foskey, asked a series of questions about the Griffith library. I have no doubt that the committee’s report will canvass the issues.
The motion this morning is about Mr Pratt wanting to have two bites at the cherry. But he has had his go, and the government is not going to give him another chance. He will have to live up to the election promise he made at the protest rally last weekend. He will have to win government, become minister and then reverse the decision.
Mr Pratt would also do well to consider instead the significant investment in library services this government has made in the past few years. The new $3.5 million Kippax library, which opened in August 2005, is almost four times larger than the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .