Page 3635 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 18 September 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
about something that is a bit unusual—that is, fencing for playgrounds. I am not suggesting, and the petition is not suggesting, in any way that all playgrounds need to be fenced. The petitioners are recognising that we have a huge diversity of users of playgrounds and for some of them fencing is an essential requirement. If the parent happens to be disabled, that may be an issue. The child may be autistic or there may be road traffic nearby. There could be many reasons. This, along with all the other things that the ACT government considers, is something that we need to put into the mix. It is something which, in the past, we have not thought about.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (10.03), by leave: I am very pleased to see the petition presented by Ms Le Couteur today. I know that my colleague Mrs Jones has spoken in this place many times about the need for fenced playgrounds, and I hope that, through the previous discussion in this place and the presentation of this petition, it will continue to gain traction.
I agree with the examples given by Ms Le Couteur. Previous examples provided by Mrs Jones have also included a parent or carer with more than one child at a playground, including a mother who might be breastfeeding a baby while one or more other children are in the playground. If one of those other children suddenly takes off in any direction, towards a road or anything else, it is more of a challenge for that mother who may be breastfeeding to jump up and chase that child. You may also then be leaving another child in the playground unsupervised.
I would like to thank Ms Le Couteur for bringing forward this petition today, and I commend the petition to the Assembly.
Clubs community contributions scheme—petition15-18
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (10.04), by leave: I am pleased to present the petition from 1,225 Canberrans who certainly have voiced their opinion in no uncertain terms regarding the ACT government’s moves to change the way that clubs distribute community contributions. This debate has been remarkable in terms of the volume of voices that have come from out in the suburbs.
The fact is that the community sees this for what it is—Labor and the Greens taking a sledgehammer to the community contributions scheme. My office began to receive feedback not long after the announcement of this review. I might share some of the comments that have come from constituents:
Having carefully reviewed the Options Paper Maximising the Benefit of the Community Contributions Scheme through a centrally administered group over which our members would have no influence, we get no comfort from the proposal and question whether a centralised group would be intimately aware of the needs of our local communities.
That is from one community member. Another said:
Community organisations are an integral part of the ACT Community and contribute to community programs that support the people in the ACT community and thereby enhancing their wellbeing and reducing their dependency on other government programs.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video