Page 3984 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY: The opposition will know that in the past I have supported them in a censure motion against Mr Hargreaves. When I tell them I am not going to support this one, some sort of abuse will be hurled at me because I am not playing the game they are playing. I think this is a time-wasting issue. I will not say it is frivolous but it is certainly an over-reaction to a situation. I have looked at all the issues here. On the balance of evidence, had it come out another way, I would have supported the motion, but looking at all the issues in this motion I have decided that I cannot support it.
The first part of the motion deals with his failure as a minister, and there are five dot points. They are just too vague. Any one of those points could be said about any minister not just in this territory but in this land. When we get down to the more specific issues, the thoughts are a little more graduated. They are complex issues; they are not black and white. That is what really concerns me about these kinds of motions: you either agree with them or you do not, and there is so much territory in between.
With the Tharwa bridge, I have often talked to the Tharwa people and I know their frustrations about that bridge. I have to say there has been a lack of transparency. My office, for instance, has tried without success to get access to engineers’ reports. I would have complained about the length of time it has taken to act, but then again, maybe it was good that it took so long, so that no wrong decision was made that would have had to be undone. I actually think we could be going the right way now. I am glad about that; let us just accept that. I am totally sympathetic because the Tharwa people suffered a double or triple whammy, and they had every reason to complain about the fact they had to drive for longer on more dangerous roads to schools that they did not think they should have to take their children to.
With respect to road funding, I have not had a single constituent contact me about road issues, so I cannot speak about that. They probably contact Mr Pratt. Of course, that makes sense. With respect to the GDE, people are well aware of the Greens’ position on that: it is a bad idea and perhaps it has been badly executed. With respect to Griffith library, I have already supported a no-confidence motion on that issue, and I hold the same opinion now. With respect to the busway, the Liberals think that is a bad idea; I think it is a good idea because we now have a designated route so that some far-seeing minister can institute a sustainable transport system. And that is where we are going, whether you like it or not. That work has now been done.
With respect to ACTION timetables, I agree that the budget cuts were a bad idea, but we have to condemn the whole government for that. We have to condemn the government for instituting a review that we were then not allowed to see and which apparently recommended some very silly cuts that have politically damaged the government, some of which it is now trying to repair. I do commend the recent network changes. There are still problems. I hope the consultation is real. I do not know that the new network will mean that the timetables go back to where they were when people seemed reasonably happy with them. But I do note that there is a move towards an integrated transport system, and that is something the Greens have always said is the right thing for Canberra because it is not like other cities. It was designed as a car city. We need innovative, complex responses, with a variety of kinds of travel.
With respect to rock throwing at buses, does that only happen in Canberra? I think Mr Corbell has come out with a reasonable response to rock throwing at buses. I do
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .