Page 1513 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What we have done, however, is make a significant investment in a call system for all residents to report infrastructure issues. This includes reporting faults in paths using the internet-based fix my street or directly referring matters by telephone or email to Canberra Connect. This augments the regular inspection regime. I think that most Canberrans, certainly plenty of people that I talk to, recognise TAMS does a good job in responding to reported issues. Going to the earlier remarks about accessibility of these services, I am cognisant of these things as the Minister for Ageing. I am quite mindful of it.
By providing a telephone service through Canberra Connect, it certainly moves away from anybody needing to have access to the internet. We have got the full range. There are those who are incredibly tech savvy—and not even incredibly tech savvy; anyone who is vaguely tech savvy can download a fix my street app. That offers the added capability that if somebody is out there with their phone, as plenty of people are these days, they can take a photograph with the GPS coordinates attached to it and this gives TAMS the absolute information of the location of something. So rather than having to go and maybe have a bit of a search based on someone saying, “On such and such a street,” it locks in the coordinates. That is one end of the advance. But for those who are less comfortable with technology a telephone service through Canberra Connect exists as well. I think the full spectrum of opportunities is there for people to report issues.
As I say, the feedback I get from a lot of people is how quickly the response often comes. I often write back to people saying that TAMS will usually go out and inspect something within a couple of days of receiving a report. It may then take some time to get on the program. I will come back to that a little bit later. There is the odd occasion when things fall through the cracks. Mistakes get made and things get dropped.
The extensive example Mr Doszpot gave about Mirinjani is perhaps an example that fits into the exception rather than the rule where, if it was put in, it seems somebody got it wrong, but then TAMS and I have been willing to say, “Fine; the effort is continuing to get it right.” I think that a measure of somebody is their willingness to say, “Oops, we did get it wrong. We’ll have another go. We’ll get it sorted.” I have no qualms with that.
Certainly, members of the public make good use of the facilities the government offers to report issues with the paths they use. Well over 2,000 requests have been received in this fashion in just this financial year. Think about the scale of that work. All of these reports are assessed and the resulting repair work is added to the program. Maintenance of paths is based on immediately repairing hazards using a variety of methods such as patching gaps and holes and grinding of edges.
In addition, sections of paths are replaced over time when they have failed. The programs for replacing paths are based on need and inspections. They are not necessarily based on age. I do not agree with the suggestion that priority should be based on age. A proper maintenance program should be based on factors such as risk and usage. It would not be right to simply base maintenance decisions on age. TAMS
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video