Page 1780 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
route. Those will be proceeded with. There has also been some resurfacing of existing sections of Gungahlin Drive to improve driver comfort et cetera and to deal with other issues in relation to surface.
Over this last year, as members know, we have had I think the wettest months for years. Indeed, over this last year 60 construction days were lost, which is quite significant in a reasonably short period of time. That, of course, did impact on the construction timetable. Nevertheless, at this stage it is six months ahead of schedule.
There have been issues. Indeed, Mr Coe went to the issue of the unfortunate collapse of the Barton Highway bridge. That is a matter that is being fully investigated. I am more than content with the attitude and responsiveness of Territory and Municipal Services and Roads ACT in relation to those issues, having regard to the contractual arrangements in place. Whilst that collapse was most unfortunate and regrettable, its rectification has come at no cost to the ACT government or to the people of the ACT.
Recently, the government sought to limit disruption to members of the public in relation to some of the resurfacing work that is being done. I am aware that there was an issue this morning as a result of a machinery failure by the contractor in relation to overnight work. Unfortunately, that machinery breakdown occurred at about 5 am and could not be cleared by the contractor in time not to cause some inconvenience to residents. Of course, with a major duplication project such as this, a significant piece of infrastructure, there will be inconvenience during the construction period. At the end of the day that is simply unavoidable, although we do our best to ensure that we minimise that disruption.
It is very simple to pick a number that is 10 years old and say, “This is what it should have been built for—$35 million.” It is such a simplistic notion in relation to escalations in costs. Members would be interested, in fact, to know that just over the space of this last 2½ years, the GDE second phase, which will come in at around $80 million, is costed at $21 million per kilometre of road constructed. I am sure that members would be interested to know that the recently costed Majura Parkway, which is funded to the tune of $144 million, just three years later comes in at $26 million per kilometre of road constructed.
That is the nature of the escalation as a result of changes. These are costs that are essentially unavoidable by any government. In the space of three years, the per kilometre cost increases by $5 million a year. Of course, that takes into account the whole range of other cost adjustments that occur as a result of the changes happening incrementally all the time in relation to the value of the dollar, the value of the product and all costs associated with an economy.
I think the bottom line is that we proceeded with this project in precisely the same way that the Liberal Party prior to us proceeded with the construction of roads. The methodology is the same. It is the same methodology that was utilised by the commonwealth that we see across the entirety of the ACT.
I am grateful to Mr Coe for the opportunity to discuss this motion today and the issues. I have an amendment that I have circulated, and I formally move the amendment:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video