Page 3811 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It might also be said that some members of public works committees are only gradually acquiring the confidence to sharply question government officials when these officials appear before the committee.
Delegates at the Hobart conference unanimously agreed that we would gain by meeting again next year to update our experiences and perhaps focus on certain themes emerging from this year's conference. One such theme is whether the National Building Code of Australia is adequately handling emerging community needs and social expectations of buildings. Delegates to the Hobart conference encouraged the Commonwealth's Public Works Committee to inquire into this matter in the coming year. One issue for public works committees is whether they should assess the adequacy of a project once it is completed - that is, inquire into whether the project has delivered on its promises. There is an argument for saying that such reappraisal would be useful in educating designers, officials and politicians about what works and what does not. While no public works committee has the resources to do this as a routine measure, it might be useful as a one-off exercise - for example, for a committee to select one capital works item each year and assess how well it has serviced the community in practice.
I note, in passing, that members in this chamber might have been interested in the results of such a study as they applied to the ongoing roadworks in Adelaide Avenue - which has been the source of some questioning at meetings of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and estimates committees in recent years - or to the hospital redevelopment project. In terms of which parliamentary committee should conduct such an appraisal, it may well be that it is not the public works committee, but perhaps the public accounts committee, reflecting its charter to examine critically financial matters.
The delegates from South Australia offered to host next year's conference, and this offer was accepted by the Commonwealth, the States and the ACT. I am sure that my colleagues on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee will join me in recommending that members of the committee next year - no matter who they are - attend that conference. As a result of their attendance, the overall standard of questioning by members about capital works and their understanding of the whole process will benefit the public, whom we serve.
SCRUTINY OF BILLS AND SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION -
STANDING COMMITTEE
Report and Statement
MRS GRASSBY: I present report No. 16 of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation. I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave granted.
MRS GRASSBY: Report No. 16 of 1994 was circulated when the Assembly was not sitting, on 21 October 1994, pursuant to the resolution of appointment of 27 March 1992. I commend the report to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .