Page 540 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Madam Assistant Speaker, Mrs Kikkert’s motion includes a number of factual errors and incorrectly asserts that the study into the intersection arose as a result of a petition that was tabled in the Assembly last year. The reality is that the government commissioned an intersection study based on the result of both community feedback and the technical analysis undertaken to develop the Tillyard Drive residential street improvement program. I acknowledge that Mrs Kikkert has an ongoing interest in this area, as have other members of the Assembly, notably Ms Cheyne, who raised this issue with me last week, as she has on many occasions. Last week I also responded to a question on notice from her.
In Mrs Kikkert’s motion, she noted that some statistics had been removed. I am advised that those statistics are not correct. I would be happy to work with Mrs Kikkert to come up with some of the correct statistics on this intersection. She asks for the report to be tabled by the close of business today. I am happy to table this report at the earliest opportunity, and at the very least by the March sittings of the chamber, but it is not possible to do that by the close of business today, as there is some work to further consider on the report. I will be happy to do that, and the amendment that I have circulated indicates my intention to do that in the next sittings.
I would like to assure members and the community, particularly the local community in Belconnen, that the government is seriously considering the implementation of these recommendations. I want to be really clear, Madam Assistant Speaker—I feel that this was explained at some length during annual reports hearings last year—that intersection improvements of this scale require specific capital funding through the budget process.
The opposition would be the first to criticise the government for seeking to spend new money at every opportunity throughout the budget process. That is exactly what the budget process is for. It is generally well understood that the budget process allows the government to consider major initiatives to inform government spending, that that is the appropriate way for government to make appropriations on significant capital projects. I am not sure if Mrs Kikkert is simply not listening or if she is wilfully disregarding what has up until now been very well established and very well understood government budgeting processes that are the subject of significant oversight through the chamber and through the committees that the chamber appoints to look at budget processes.
I am in no doubt about the importance of upgrading this intersection, but I really would encourage Mrs Kikkert to listen to what has previously been discussed on this matter and to acknowledge the seriousness with which the government is looking at this project. I simply cannot agree, and I believe it would be somewhat unprecedented to agree, with Mrs Kikkert’s motion, which asks the government to pre-empt budget discussions and budget decision-making prior to the release of the 2018-19 budget in June. That would be quite unprecedented, given previous discussions on a number of budget items. As Mrs Kikkert and members of the opposition would be well aware, it is not the way that good governments go about the expenditure of public money.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video