Page 3576 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and to still have space in the city for other things, apart from transport infrastructure, and space in the budget for other things, apart from transport infrastructure.
Decisions have to be made. That is why the Greens, when we discussed this with Mr Coe, suggested that we should put in the concept of planning, because decisions will have to be made. We will not have an inexhaustible supply of roads, an inexhaustible supply of parking or even an inexhaustible supply of public transport infrastructure.
The other three parts of Mr Coe’s motion basically come from ours, except (c). He has added a bit more. We are quite happy with his additions. We are happy with (c). It is just really (3)(a). Because I think that the meaning of (3)(a) is probably very clear to the Liberal Party and not what the Greens will support, I am afraid that the Greens will not be supporting Mr Coe’s amendment.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (7.49): I had hoped not to have to speak on this motion but I am moved to because there are some things in it which I think need a bit of an historical correction. Ms Le Couteur, for example, could do well to think back a little on her history. I would like to attack it in a couple of ways. Firstly, we need to understand that—and those new to this place would not know this—when the ACT inherited self-government in 1989 we inherited an ageing roads and footpath infrastructure. We inherited it with no funds from the federal government of the day to actually pay for it. Much of our road infrastructure was beyond its whole of life at that time. And we had, within the limited resources of a government, to come up with a way in which we could address that.
To suggest that we should be condemned for poor planning of our current and future infrastructure needs, I think, is a little rich. This particular government, over the time since it came to office in 2001, has put significant effort, funds and planning into our roads network, into our footpaths network and into our cycle paths and shared paths network. And I do not see in any of the debate so far any recognition that it was this government that initiated the on-road cycle paths.
Mr Speaker, you and I spoke at a forum in the 2001 election campaign, both of us supporting the provision of an on-road cycle path from Dickson to Woden. It was this government, when it became the government, who delivered on that. And it is now standard policy that, whenever there is major infrastructure done, an on-road cycle path will be provided as part of that policy. Therefore you cannot condemn us for poor planning if that provision is made. You cannot look at the state of the road between Russell Hill and the airport now and say that is poor planning—you cannot. It has on-road cycle paths on it, it has good infrastructure and there is a lot of money put in there.
You cannot say that there was poor planning by this government into the Athllon Drive duplication—you cannot. It was in fact the former government that stopped it dead at a certain point—the Liberal government stopped it dead—and it was this government that put it right through to Isabella Plains. You can now, if you select your routes, in fact go from Banks—no, I tell a lie—from Conder to Sydney or Melbourne on a dual carriageway. You can do that. You could not do that before this government came to office.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video