Page 4027 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 September 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It happens here. Those of us who are older, like me, will remember what the Civic bus interchange used to be like. There was a lot more shelter. If it rained, you would not get wet. My understanding is that one of the major reasons that we refurbished the Civic bus interchange so that you do get wet in the rain was to make it less attractive to homeless people to hang out there—not, of course, to improve the lives of homeless people but just to move them away so that sensible middle-class people do not have to look at them. Of course, we have all been told that the reason that we get to listen to classical music in the evening at bus interchanges is to deter people who might be loitering there. That is insulting both to classical music and to people who go to bus interchanges.
It is important to remember that public infrastructure and public space do not come about just because of the benevolence of a well-meaning government. We talked earlier today about social inclusion, not social exclusion. It is something that needs to be a part of city services as well as the other things we have talked about. We must not forget the concerns of local communities, and we must not forget to listen to the concerns of those who use public space and public amenities, and who are most vulnerable to its loss and degradation.
I appreciate in general how the ACT approaches city services and gives it the level of importance it deserves. Historically, we have done very well on this. Our city services are good, and in general they have been very equitably distributed throughout Canberra. But we should not pretend that we are not at risk, as are other jurisdictions, from decisions on city services and planning which are made in favour of those whose voices are the loudest and most prevalent, and in some instances those who are richer. City services are done well in Canberra. They do deserve a minister and a directorate, and they have a minister and a directorate, because it is political.
Going to more of the specifics, and the substance of many of the issues in Ms Orr’s motion, playgrounds are probably the most contested area in city services in the ACT. Every suburb in my electorate would like to see a playground like the one in Chifley—those of them who have not been ambitious enough to think that Kambah has really got it.
As I mentioned, everyone wants better footpaths. Mr Coe is quite correct in pointing out that much of Canberra, particularly older Canberra, does not have footpaths, regardless of what condition they are in. This is a serious social inclusion issue. I am very pleased that there is an extra $30 million in the parliamentary agreement, some of which will go to the maintenance of footpaths and some of which will go to new footpaths.
Active travel is something that this government is prioritising as part of the parliamentary agreement, and we have to keep on prioritising that. I am very pleased that the ACT is taking community engagement on these issues seriously. The better suburbs initiative, hopefully, will be a good one. It has real capacity. I have sent links to it to a number of constituents already who are having issues with prioritisation. Of course, in the future, this is the reason why we will do the participatory budgeting trial. There are a finite number of government resources and there are close to an infinite number of demands. We have to work out better, fairer ways of prioritising them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video