Page 1582 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
needed, and that is a worrying requirement given the parlous state of the budget, or existing resources need to be managed very efficiently.
I share the concern of my colleagues that road and other infrastructure in the ACT have continued to deteriorate under the Stanhope government. I note, however, with some gratitude that the minister, Mr Hargreaves, is efficient and reliable in responding to my representations on behalf of constituents. That is a quality, I might add, that is not shared by all of his colleagues.
The point of this matter of public importance is the ever-increasing problem with the standard of the territory’s infrastructure, and I will have more to say about that issue of representation in due course. There are matters the public will be fascinated to hear about. The problem is borne out by the amount of correspondence that I receive. We talk about all sorts of things being near and dear to us. In the last few days we have had discussions about human rights and so forth.
I have got to say that most people who write in to my office are concerned about urban infrastructure. As I said, the minister, to give him credit, usually responds within seven days, and sometimes I get a result and sometimes I do not. But I think even he realises this is actually one of the major things that concern the people of Canberra. The issues are quite straightforward and not necessarily highly complex. They do cost money. In my view it is an issue that is growing in momentum in this territory. Clearly, it is a consequence of funding matters.
The government, in responding to concerns from constituents, indicates that people should alert them to any specific areas of concern. This is a useful mechanism, but the fact that it is needed is worrying because it suggests that there are not the resources there to go looking for these issues and we are relying on our community to alert governments. The people of Canberra cannot expect every cracked path to be fixed straightaway, but we can expect, and deserve, that the government will ensure that a quality standard of infrastructure is provided and maintained.
The government should not have to be prompted by residents to maintain ageing infrastructure, especially in the older suburbs of Canberra where there is a strong tree presence and roots are coming through the ground. We know we have a lot of older people. Very clearly, there are parts of Canberra, such as the Grange in Deakin, where there are a lot of older residents. A lot of those folk walk to shops and we need to be sure that the area near where they are walking is attended to without having to wait till some soul is injured. The failure of the territory government to manage this area of activity does impact on the quality of life for many in Canberra, particularly our senior people. Sadly, it does create a negative impression on visitors to the ACT.
I will conclude my remarks by quoting from a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times over the Christmas period. It came from a Victorian visitor to Canberra, who expressed absolute dismay and disappointment about the city’s appearance. The letter states:
By failing to maintain infrastructure the Stanhope government is harming not only the people of the ACT but Canberra’s reputation as an attractive place to live and visit and it reflects on Australia’s national capital.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .