Page 2256 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am sure if we all walked around our own suburb we could find plenty of work needing to be done. This includes graffiti that needs to be cleaned up … potholes that need filling and footpaths that need to be repaired.
As well, we have ovals around town that this Government has allowed to become unusable. The Government will be hiking up rates in every suburb by up to 20 per cent while reducing services at the same time.
You see, there is ongoing community concern about the inability of this government to focus on its municipal priorities in addressing the look of the city. People such as the constituent quoted above are noticing this fact. Perhaps we are too wrapped up in international issues. The minister has admitted there is a problem, although he probably does not realise he has admitted it. In question time yesterday Mr Hargreaves said that the 80 job losses from the department were part of a total restructuring process.
If this urban services restructure is to have any noticeable impact on improving the condition of this city, then the minister needs to assure this Assembly now that the loss of these 80 positions—at least in establishment terms—will in fact lead to increased service being provided at the front line for the improved management of this territory. He needs to assure this Assembly that these resources are simply being shifted from admin and management to the front line and will not simply become resources lost to the department due to cost saving measures. The minister must get to work on reducing the problems with graffiti, ageing infrastructure—such as footpaths, street lights—long grass and the like, instead of simply paying lip service to the problems we have.
Lately in this place we have talked about charity bins. I was so impressed by the success of the government’s strategy that I suggested it should use the same approach to targeting graffiti vandalism, as the threat of fines and the threat of being caught has shown that this method actually works. My point was that it was a clear case of misdirected priorities when the government was targeting one problem but not the other, the other problem in this case being graffiti. That is a much more prevalent and widespread problem and one that has been the subject of ongoing complaints for many years, yet this government has failed to address it. With the Bruford example, of course, they have really demonstrated their concern about this issue. Let us target graffiti vandals—a higher priority than charity dumpers—with inspectors as well.
Looking at the ongoing graffiti problem, it is not a topic I wish to revisit for the fun of it. If the problem had been significantly reduced and taken seriously by the minister responsible, then we would not have to keep having this debate. Sadly, that is not the case. Here we go again. We know that graffiti vandalism is everywhere. You cannot drive down a street or go to an office precinct or shopping centre without being confronted by it.
Mr Hargreaves interjecting—
MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, could we have a bit of silence?
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Hargreaves.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .