Page 1579 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
here. A lot of our infrastructure needs are quite well serviced, but it is gradually getting worse. As the budget deficits mount in the years to come we will see the situation get worse.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (4.21): As members of the Assembly would know, visitors to the ACT often comment on the good state of our infrastructure, particularly our road network. In fact, many envy us and comment on the fine state of our roads and our network of cycle paths in particular. The ACT’s road-related infrastructure such as bridges, stormwater systems, traffic lights, street lights, footpaths and cycle paths represents an investment of more than $5 billion over an extended period of time. We are very fortunate indeed in the standard and extent of our infrastructure in this regard.
The ACT has over 1,000 bridges, 3,100 kilometres of stormwater pipes, 60,000 stormwater sumps, over 200 signalised intersections, almost 2,000 kilometres of community paths, 375 kilometres of cycle paths and 65,000 streetlights. The condition of the majority of this infrastructure is satisfactory. It is kept in this state by the annual maintenance programs managed by various areas within the Department of Urban Services, and I can certainly attest to that. I am sure that members know people are really interested to draw our attention to work that is needed. On each occasion that I have written to the minister about such matters, they have been attended to, if not immediately then certainly in a very timely manner.
As we have already heard from Mr Hargreaves, this view of the upkeep of our infrastructure is supported by the report card commissioned late last year by Engineers Australia. Road-related infrastructure is subject to the wear and tear of traffic, the vagaries of the weather and, of course, ageing. Sustaining our asset into the future, as members would appreciate, is a major challenge. As I said, the ACT government is addressing this challenge through its various annual maintenance and capital investment programs.
Only two years ago, as part of the budget process, the ACT government introduced the capital upgrade program. This program has an emphasis on rehabilitating existing infrastructure to ensure its optimal operation, and I am pleased to say that I have witnessed several instances where it has been successful. The program is likely to play an important role in maintaining the condition of infrastructure at a level that is befitting the residents of the ACT. Naturally, the annual maintenance programs will continue to play a very important role in the ongoing serviceability of the territory’s assets.
In the face of all this, I find it very odd that Mr Pratt has a problem. Surely, after five years in this place, he would be aware of the Stanhope government’s commitment to roads and infrastructure and their maintenance. He should be aware that the government works very hard to ensure that our community has access to the best roads and the best infrastructure possible. Instead, we are forced to listen to a list of complaints.
In my experience, issues can easily be resolved. It is unfortunate that, instead of working to make our community a better place like I do, we are forced to sit here while Mr Pratt whinges and complains. For Mr Seselja and Mr Pratt to sheet home the delay in the GDE to this government is laughable. As Mr Hargreaves emphasised, if Mr Pratt is concerned about the federal government’s plans for a defence facility adjacent to Braidwood, I suggest he should have a little chat to his colleagues in the federal government,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .