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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 583 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

They are not saying, "Give us special consideration". All they are saying, with reference particularly to the Federal and Barton highways, is, "Make it small enough so that we have a chance of competing". They raised a number of other issues as well.

Mr Speaker, a large number of issues were raised with the committee. As I pointed out, we had a very tight timeframe and because of that the committee chose to use a pothole approach this time. We chose a number of things that we believe are important and need to be done, rather than try to cover the complete ambit of the capital works program. That is the character of this particular report. I am sure that other members will add their comments to the recommendations. I would ask the Government to look carefully at those recommendations and accept that a number of them are positive. This report was prepared in the spirit of saying, "We accept that there have been some significant improvements, but there is still some way to go. Take on board the improvements we recommend and let us keep improving this process".

MS McRAE (4.23): This inquiry into capital works was the first time that I have had a chance to see the type of material that comes forward to the Planning and Environment Committee in regard to capital works, having joined the committee after it happened last year. I was pretty impressed with the paperwork that came through. Not having anything to compare it with, I take everybody else's word that it really was extremely good documentation; so may I add my congratulations to everyone who was involved in putting it together.

However, what is not included is often much more important than what is included, and a paper war can very often camouflage some minor details along the way which may become quite important. We do not know, in many instances, what was rejected. We do not know why some things were selected above others and we do not know what the potential projects were. I am putting that forward as a notion, given that there will be a new Assembly before any such paperwork is looked at again. I am throwing it out as something that any prospective government should consider, rather than as a criticism of these papers, because I accept that there is an exceptional level of information readily available.

For instance, to use an example that I followed up during the course of the inquiry, radio station CSPR, which holds the old library in Curtin, is being allocated specific funds for an upgrade. They began their life in that library as a radio station. The government facility was always a library, not a radio station. Now the upgrade is being done because they are a community facility occupying a government building, and the Government, as landlord, does upgrade its buildings; but, of course, the original building was never a recording studio and now it is being upgraded as a recording studio. That is fine in itself, but I use that by way of example to ask: What happened to the other community radio stations that exist in the ACT? Were they ever involved in this sort of idea and how are they protected in terms of having equal access to such grants? It is those questions that should be taken into account when papers are put together again for what will be a new Assembly looking at a new capital works program.

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