Page 1456 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As Ms Burch has raised, we do not know whether that $3½ million included the design, what sort of onsite works had to be done beforehand, whether it was part of the design of another facility such as Harrison school and so forth. So there are many factors as to why there might be differences in the cost. We need to get down to the detail of that, of course, to see what they are, and it is like comparing apples and oranges, to a degree.
The other one that has been mentioned is Flynn primary. I am very pleased that I did go out to the former school site, to the new childcare centre, and I was incredibly impressed with it. At the time I know that there were a few raised eyebrows about the over $4 million that was allocated. What I can say is that it is incredibly impressive what has been done to the building. I can see where some of that money went. Number one, it had to bring a 1970s or late 60s-70s facility up to the standards that are required of a childcare centre in 2012. There had to be many modifications made.
The other important part though was the heritage aspect, working with the architect, Mr Taglietti, to ensure that those important architectural aspects of the building were maintained. They have incorporated them in quite an innovative and excellent way. For instance, a new toilet area has been built. There used to be a well-loved mural that was in one of the side courtyards. That has now been incorporated into an inside space into the toilet area so that the kids can actually sit there and enjoy the mural.
They have been quite innovative in their approach. I would encourage people to approach the minister to see whether they can go out and have a look at that childcare centre. The people who have worked on it, I think, have done an excellent job.
We have had many debates in this place about the provision and cost of childcare. I do not propose to re-litigate those issues today but I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, the primary objective for childcare should be to deliver high-quality education and development outcomes so that children that attend childcare have the best possible start to their lives.
In Canberra, about 80 per cent of our childcare providers are not-for-profits. The Greens see this as a real strength. I would also make the point that the Greens believe very strongly that those who work in the childcare sector do deserve to be fairly remunerated for their work. Of course, this also goes to that issue of the overall cost of childcare. Some of the most substantial parts of the budget are going to be workers’ wages. We need to make sure that we do properly remunerate those workers and recognise the value of the work that they do.
The motion notes that we have forgone revenue in not selling the land. Whilst, of course, that is true, we still have an asset at the end of the day. We have not lost anything. We will still own the land. As far as the depreciation goes, certainly assets and particularly large new assets such as the proposed Holder centre will depreciate and will require maintenance and upkeep over time. This is a reality for all assets. In and of itself, as I said earlier, the fact that the government is making a public investment in childcare is, the Greens believe, entirely appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video