Page 3064 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Program also makes provision for future projects required to meet the transport demand as the result of urban growth. These include Parkes Way, Majura Parkway and the duplication of Gungahlin Drive Extension ($84 million).
So we were going to get three roads for $84 million; or maybe we were going to get one road for $84 million, and the other two, Parkes Way and Majura Parkway, were just put in there to fool people. We think they will read this and say, “Wow, they are going to build three roads.” But then when you turn to page 34, the figure of $84 million drops to $83 million. You can either read that as meaning that there is absolutely no money for Majura Parkway and Parkes Way upgrades or there is $1million to build those other two roads—a measly $1 million.
Mr Hargreaves: What is it about feasibility studies that you do not understand?
MR SMYTH: “A feasibility study,” the minister interjects. I thought you were going to build it. Now it is a feasibility study. That is why we were fooled. There it is; there is the exposure. The minister has exposed himself in this place by saying, “That $1 million is in a feasibility study.” So there is no commitment to build it; we are going to see whether they are feasible now. I think that is version 17 of the story.
It is interesting that the minister’s press release says “completion within four years”. That is 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 or 2011-12. There is not a single cent in provision for major roads in those four years. They should read their budget papers. There is not a single cent. In table 5.1.3, when you look at the major roads that are listed, there is not even a feasibility study for Parkes Way or Majura Parkway and there is certainly no money. Not a single cent, not one red cent, has been put aside by this government to start the construction. The supposed $83 million or $84 million, depending on which page you are reading and which press release you are reading and which day it is, is the provision that this government has put aside for Gungahlin Drive. I think that is a shame. It is a great shame because the road should have been built.
We heard the question from Mr Pratt today. In it he quotes from the head of the NRMA. Everybody knows that it is cheaper if you do it all in one hit, and you get a better outcome and you get less disruption. But no, they could not do that. They were caught out in their planning. They knew that their planning was bad from the start and they so mismanaged the project—dirt in, dirt out; foundation fill for up on the hill for the arboretum; extra sand purchased from other places because they had cut too much out. It is a shame that it was managed in such a way.
But the great plus of this is that, to cover up for the government, Roads ACT, the public servants, who understood, who found the $4.5 million to ameliorate the impact, who did not trust their minister to make a decision, just told him, “We are going to do it because we do not trust you because you have made such a mess of it so far,” and that we have got a construction industry that can deliver.
It just goes on and on. I think what you would call this is a joke. Somebody said it was a Shakespearean tragedy. I think it is probably more in the class of Shakespearean farce because all they have delivered are delays, extraordinary cost escalation,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .