Page 2711 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
not long enough, because it is not long enough to build a whole new site. We live in hope.
Other things we live in hope about include the government’s commitment to open-source software. I know that, unfortunately, that seems to be more on principle than actuality, having tried and failed to get Firefox. I will talk more about IT under Shared Services.
I note also, with open government, that Ms Gallagher refrained from referencing either the Government 2.0 motion passed by the Assembly in March this year or the FOI report prepared by the JACS committee and also presented in March this year. Both of these were thoughtful discussions of open government—one more from a Government 2.0 perspective and one more from a freedom of information perspective. I have been surprised at this lack of reference. I certainly hope that at least internally the government is taking the contribution of the Assembly seriously, even if, from the Chief Minister’s point of view, she is not acknowledging it.
I would like to comment more generally about community engagement. I do not think that we will ever reach the situation where the whole community is happy with consultation, and we certainly do not have that now. I am particularly concerned with the situation as far as planning is concerned, but I am pleased that the government has foreshadowed that it is introducing legislation to improve this.
I move to the arts. In relation to public liability insurance, it is disappointing to see once more that there is no provision in this budget for any sort of community-minded reassessment of public liability insurance circumstances faced by community groups. (Second speaking period taken.) The current situation means that many non-profit arts and community organisations are required to purchase one-off public liability insurance, which is a substantial obstacle for many groups who hold only one event or a very small number of events a year.
In a response to a question on notice through the estimates process, Mr Corbell advised that TAMS was unable to apply insurance concessions or any sort of support to individuals or organisations because the level of insurance is set by the ACT Insurance Authority and premiums are set by private insurance companies. But when groups want to hold events in government-owned and controlled premises, most of the insurance risk factors are clearly under the control of the ACT government. These are factors such as safe electrical wiring, adequate fire-fighting equipment and proper entrance and egress. It therefore seems quite unreasonable that there could not be some well-balanced program of community-focused public liability insurance that can take into effect that decreased level of risk and so delivered a kind of insurance public liability environment in which community arts events can float, particularly small ones which are only held infrequently—a once or twice a year event—and which, if you cannot find some other organisation to auspice you, are impossible to do financially because of insurance. I am talking about that from a music point of view. The Canberra youth musicians club is one of the organisations which do that sort of thing, and many church groups and schools do. But this is also a role that the government could have in its role as a landlord of many of the venues the groups are using.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video