Page 3575 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I know, from taking over responsibility for the delivery of capital works across the government when I took on the Treasury portfolio, that there were concerns that we were not delivering enough of the program each year. With the nation building and jobs task force that was set up—a coordinator-general and her team that was set up—and the work that we have put into streamlining our processes, we have significantly increased the delivery of that program with very positive results. The government is not in a position to support the amendment or indeed the motion. I cannot really see a huge amount of difference between the two of them.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (7.44): I rise to speak about Mr Coe’s amendment, which I will attempt to go through. His note (b) was in fact (e) in our original, so clearly we are happy with that. He then deleted parts (b), (c) and (d), which I found very strange because part (b) is a matter of fact. These plans were in existence. The Liberal Party may or may not think the plans are good plans but, nonetheless, the plans were in existence and they certainly envisaged redesigning.
As to point (c)—“implementing the designs proposed in the above plans and reviews would make the rehabilitation works undertaken in the areas largely redundant”—basically, that was one of the major points we were trying to make. These plans exist. They envisage significant redesigning. If the government were serious about those redesignings then the work that has just happened would be largely redundant. That was a large part of the point we were trying to make. So clearly we do not agree with removing (b) and (c), particularly (b), as it is a straightforward fact, without any analysis.
Also, I would have thought that (d)—“when construction work interrupts the pedestrian and cycling networks, there are often insufficient substitute routes established for walkers and riders”—again, is a matter of fact. It often happens and we must all have been in a situation where the footpath is no longer there. If you have not then I guess you have not been around north Canberra very much in the last few months and you have not even been outside the Assembly very much in the last few months. If you remember, we had our footpath torn up in front of us. I think that (d) is really a matter of fact. As I pointed out during my speech, there was a particularly bad example in Woden, the Woden Green development, where the major northern commuter route, the bicycle commuting route, was broken and there was no alternative provided.
Mr Coe’s amendment goes on to condemn the government for the poor planning of current and future infrastructure needs. I do not have a problem with that or with the statement “releasing an inaccurate infrastructure plan that lacked vision and direction for our city’s future needs”. What I have most issue with is (3)(a)—“develop road, parking, cycling, pedestrian and public transport infrastructure before existing infrastructure reaches capacity”.
The problem with this is that it could be interpreted as meaning a number of things. I suspect that what the Liberal Party means by this is that there should always be an abundance of parking, there should always be an abundance of roads and there should always be an abundance of public transport. In reality, I do not think that is possible
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video