Page 2779 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Barr: The importance of asset management planning, clearly.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: We will listen to Mr Seselja on asset planning.
MR SESELJA: Mr Barr is now interested in asset management planning. I am fascinated. I have a captive audience.
Mr Barr: I am interested in your views on asset management planning. That is what is crucial.
MR SESELJA: My concern, and the concerns we raised that I think were legitimate, relates to the lack of asset management planning. In TAMS in particular we asked these questions. We were told, in fact, that there was not an asset management plan for the whole department. We were told that individual business units had some asset management plans. But we have not seen a comprehensive approach to this issue. I have had this issue raised with me by industry. In order to deliver infrastructure well and to ensure that we maintain infrastructure well, there are a number of aspects to that.
The procurement process is very important and we have not seen the kind of changes that we need and the structural changes that we need. Having an overall infrastructure plan is part of that. Getting top-level advice, as we advised, through an infrastructure commissioner is all part of that. An asset management plan is critically important to ensure that we do have assets that hold their value and that we get the best value for money out of those assets over a period of time. I would put on record the concern of the opposition that there is no comprehensive approach at the moment in the ACT government to this issue.
Mr Barr can scoff at the importance of this issue. Whilst it might not be sexy, it is a very important issue. We must ensure that in an ongoing way we have sustainable infrastructure in the territory. We must ensure that Canberrans have the kind of infrastructure that they need going forward and that we do not spend more than we otherwise would need to spend on maintenance because we do not get it right in the first place or because we do not have ongoing maintenance plans. Indeed, looking forward on the broader issue of the delivery of infrastructure, we must ensure that we do not plan ahead as we have seen so obviously with the Gungahlin Drive extension and the failure to do that properly the first time. It is worth reflecting on that for a moment. Mr Coe raised this issue.
Mr Stanhope, I think, is so used to wasting our money that he barely raised a sweat when Mr Gill told us that not duplicating Gungahlin Drive immediately cost us, I think, at least $20 million. That was the tenor of the answer: at least $20 million. That was the cost just by not making the decision which, on the reasonable person test, any ordinary person would have made.
We have seen all the traffic studies which said it should have been done. But the ordinary person on the street, whether in Gungahlin, west Belconnen or other parts of Canberra, could have told you that you need to build a two-lane each way road
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .