Page 1930 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The most significant capital spend that will require much more consideration is the government office building. It is a significant undertaking, and a range of issues were, of course, identified by the Auditor-General and the public accounts committee. The office block project involves the balance between the efficient and sustainable use of existing building resources and the advantages of a new purpose-built building. It is large expenditure that has obvious opportunity costs, and we should carefully consider the full implications before we embark on such a significant infrastructure project.
Also, in relation to government accommodation, the Greens support the move to Gungahlin. This is something that should have happened some time ago, and we definitely support increased employment opportunities being provided for Gungahlin.
It is essential that we conduct a proper triple bottom line analysis for our infrastructure spending—in fact, for all government programmes—as well as having meaningful strategic indicators and objective measures against which to measure success or otherwise. Many of the current indicators could best be described as limited and certainly often fail to provide a meaningful means of evaluating performance and outcomes. I think the government has recognised that it does not do triple bottom line assessment as well as it could and it remains unclear exactly how they propose to address this. Whilst I am disappointed, the Greens appreciate that the government has recognised the current shortcomings and would very much like to work with the government on effectively implementing TBL analysis and evaluation across all government outputs.
Equally, we have a large number of government plans and strategies now where it is not evident how they interact with government decision making and budget allocations. As we raised yesterday in the Assembly, the opposite is also true, as the government has not delivered a range of key macro plans that will be essential if we are to become a sustainable community.
The budget funds a number of new transport items, many of them good initiatives. Collectively, they demonstrate that the government is taking some, albeit limited, steps in the right direction. Perhaps the most positive transport initiative is the extension of the Blue Rapid line from Belconnen to Kippax. This is an excellent outcome, and it is something that the Greens had specifically proposed. The expansion of the frequent, rapid public transport spine is one of the key steps to improving public transport in our city. These are the type of services that really facilitate that modal shift. The same kinds of services also need to be provided to southern Tuggeranong, and we were disappointed to see that that particular route and service was not funded. We will continue to argue for this service.
We are also very pleased with some of the isolated infrastructure funding for public transport priorities, such as new bus transit lanes. The funding for bus stops on Adelaide Avenue is a particularly interesting move. It demonstrates a progressive shift in the government’s thinking toward more transit-oriented development and development of transport corridors.
The standout transport item is the $144 million the government has committed to the new Majura freeway. The reality is that building new freeways has never solved travel
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video