Page 2376 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
such terms of reference have been developed and the government no longer intends to conduct an inquiry, opting instead for some improvement to complaints handling. This is an inadequate response that flies in the face of the Chief Minister’s earlier statements on this issue.
I am also concerned that many of the digital divide program initiatives are due to come to an end this year or next and there does not seem to be an ongoing commitment to addressing technological disadvantage. This is not an area in which a number of one-off initiatives are likely to have a sustainable impact. I would like the government to use the next 12 months to identify future strategies for addressing this issue. I generally support the other budget initiatives in this line but would like to be clear that, while the ACT Greens support the rebuilding of the rural villages, we are concerned that a substantial expansion in the size of these villages could be the first step towards more intensive urban and semirural development west of the Murrumbidgee, which would lead to an urban sprawl that is socially and ecologically unsustainable.
I now move to policy issues. I find the government’s commitment to monitoring the ACT women’s plan unsatisfactory. There appears to be little data measurement against the indicators listed in the plan and a lack of resources allocated to the achievement of key objectives. I would also like to see a better process of gender analysis applied to the budget and improvements to the presentation of the women’s statement. I suggest that a gender analysis would solve the issues Mrs Burke raised. I am sure those issues are strongly held by her, but a gender analysis does encompass the issues related to both men and women. There are clear guidelines produced by the commonwealth Secretariat as to how to conduct gender analysis. It should not be fobbed off anymore.
With respect to heritage, I am not at all confident that the increased workload brought on by the new Heritage Act can be dealt with effectively by a team with decreased funding. This seems another instance where implementation is likely to lag behind the legislation and the vision. I also urge the ACT government to be brave with the arts. ArtsCapital, the ACT government’s arts development strategy, is being revisited this year, six years after its introduction. Apparently the ACT key arts policy and advisory board, the ACT Cultural Council, will be providing some advice to government on the matter. I can see no reason why its advice and ideas need to be confidential, when much more can be gained by having a public discussion.
Finally, it is my turn to talk about the proposed arboretum and the dragway. Perhaps I would be better disposed to the ACT government’s building an arboretum if the ACT were in an economic, environmental, climatic and social position for this to be a priority. If it is to go ahead, I believe there is a strong case to be made to develop the project in partnership with the commonwealth government. The Chief Minister likes to speak of it as a feature for the national capital and, if that is the case, I think there are good grounds for acquiring commonwealth funding. However, I strongly believe funding this initiative in this ACT budget instead of making investments in affordable housing and other higher priority initiatives such as mental health and environment is a mistake. If it is tourists we want, using the terms the Chief Minister uses when speaks about the arboretum as a draw for tourists, let us instead encourage them to our world-class grassy woodlands which are, as the Canberra Times pointed out this morning, unique to this area of the world. Let us get them to look at our exemplary catchment management, where we have some of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .