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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2962 ..

boardings. If we are going to meet the modest increases projected in the sustainable transport strategy, which is probably a misnomer, we will have to do better than is currently in the budget.

On the subject of targets and going back to some discussion we had earlier in the day in the matter of public importance on “Think water, act water”, we have very modest targets which are set so far out that it will be very difficult to measure the government’s achievements. We certainly will not have to measure this government’s achievements if it is returned to office between one election and the next. Between 2004 and 2008, which is when we will have our next election, there are no targets to be met in water efficiency.

We have to take all that the government promises us on water efficiency on trust—way beyond the next election. This is not the way to make progress, to make our contribution to cutting water consumption in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Mr Stanhope: What were your targets? None. You didn’t have a water strategy.

MRS DUNNE: Just you wait, Sunshine.

MR CORNWELL (10.06): The hour grows late. I do not intend to speak for long. I am tired of hearing my own voice and I am sure that other members are too. I wish to mention three things however, one of which relates to a recommendation made by the select committee looking into appropriations. It relates to the upgrade of shopping centres, and the Chief Minister would be aware of this. I understand that in 2002 the Chief Minister promised the Deakin shops a major upgrade and this has not yet taken place. There were two other shopping centres—I think Duffy and perhaps Hackett—that sought an upgrade. Again, these are not provided in this budget.

However, the government has announced a long-term strategy—here we go again—to ensure that all centres are considered equitably for inclusion in a program of upgrades. It is interesting that the retail activity coordination group provides advice on priorities for the program. It consists of the ACT Planning and Land Authority, the Land Development Agency and the Department of Urban Services. It occurs to me that some community input may not go amiss for that particular coordination group. I leave that for consideration. It states:

It would not be practicable to provide an ongoing program as the centres to be upgraded are subject to funding that is determined on an annual basis in the budgetary context.

I am not sure that I entirely agree with that. Although I can see problems in listing these centres to be upgraded in terms of funding, I do not see a problem in listing them in terms of some sort of priority in the upgrade—“You might not get it this year, you might get it next year.” The shopping centres would at least have some assurance that they were on the list. I will leave that with the government.

There are a number of good initiatives in this budget in relation to Urban Services. Obviously, roads and capital works relating to those roads are difficult things to cost and to time. Other factors such as weather come into it. I must admit that, when I see perfectly good roads being dug up and resealed, I occasionally wonder whether it is

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