Page 3966 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
maintenance of infrastructure such as drains, the busway, bus interchange security, the FireLink fiasco, cuts to bus services, the closure of the Griffith library, the closure of the Civic shopfront, your appalling performances at estimates in two successive years, the end of MACMA, slow progress in housing developments, a lack of consultation with the community and the decline in affordable housing.
Mr Stanhope: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot detect a question anywhere in this nonsense.
MR SPEAKER: He is coming to the question about now.
MR PRATT: I know that you do not like this Chief Minister, but tough.
MR SPEAKER: Come to the question.
MR PRATT: The Chief Minister has now had to intervene to try to save the Tharwa bridge—the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Minister, why has the Chief Minister had to intervene to try to save Tharwa bridge from your inept management and failed processes?
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves is about to answer the question without interjections. I will warn anybody if they interject.
MR HARGREAVES: I thank Mr Pratt for the question very sincerely. In doing that, he tries to draw comparisons between what they did not do and have not done and what we have done. And I thank them for that.
When it comes to the question of infrastructure extensions, we inherited an ageing asset—a grossly ageing asset. Any examination of the appropriation bills since Jon Stanhope took office in 2001 will see significant funds being put into the infrastructure in the city, the look of the city. Just walk around the West Row part of the city and you will see a resurgence, a revitalisation of activity around Garema Place.
I reject Mr Pratt’s notions. He is centring all of that bile on his concern for the Tharwa bridge. Why, he asks, did the Chief Minister need to intervene? My response to that is that the Chief Minister did not have to intervene; the Chief Minister is acting in his capacity as minister for heritage. In fact, he is saying to me, “I accept the view that you have been advancing thus far, that your main priority is the viability of Tharwa Village, and that your main priority has been to put a bridge across that river.”
He is also saying to me that he recognises that we did have a community consultation at Tharwa. We had two massive public meetings, at which Mr Pratt was not. We had an informal meeting down there, at which Mr Pratt was not. We took nine different proposals to the people of Tharwa. I came away with the distinct view that the main priority for the people of Tharwa was to get across that river. So I advanced that position in the cabinet. Indeed the funds were advanced and we progressed. I advised the people of Tharwa at the time that it would take between 18 months and two years to build. If it is the wish of the Canberra community to proceed with that particular option, that project is on track. It is on track, as I advised them last September or thereabouts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .