Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2010) . . Page.. 2178 ..


and in fact decreased, over the last few years. The government have said that they expect to complete organic waste recycling in the next five years. We want to see it done sooner than that.

In conclusion, let me say that this plan is a first step, but it is only a first step. We need to see real leadership for the future, with a time horizon of 50 years and some more work now to improve the delivery of infrastructure on the ground.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.07): I thank Mr Coe for bringing this forward. At one level, I agree with the Chief Minister: it is unfortunate that the various spelling errors have taken the focus away from the deficiencies in the plan itself. There is no doubt that the spelling errors—the inability to spell “Gungahlin”, “Tuggeranong”, “Belconnen”, “Maconochie”, “infrastructure” or any number of other important terms in the infrastructure plan—whilst showing a level of shoddiness and the rushed nature of this plan, perhaps hid a bit of the fact that the deficiencies were far deeper and far greater than simply the inability to get the spelling right. The deficiencies in this plan go right throughout it.

One of the disappointing things after the Chief Minister said that it was the wrong version—we were told that it was the wrong version that went out—was that when the right version went out it was just the old version with the spelling errors fixed. That is unfortunate. We were hoping that they had put out a much earlier draft and that we would have something where things had actually changed.

In fact, what actually happened was that they went away for 24 hours or so, fixed the spelling mistakes and put it back. That is disappointing. Yes, it is embarrassing that they could not spell “infrastructure” on the front page and in other parts. But what is more concerning to us is the fact that this plan lacks substance, lacks depth and lacks a vision for how infrastructure should be delivered, and can be delivered and must be delivered, for the territory to grow, and grow sustainably—for our economy to grow and for the people of the ACT to enjoy a quality of life that will be better in 20 years than it is now and better again in 50 years than in 20 years. That should be our goal. That should be our vision. This is about people. This is about improving people’s lives. Unfortunately, there is very little that suggests that there is any plan on how to do that or any vision as to how that will be achieved.

In the Canberra Times, it was reported that Mr Stanhope suggested that it was just the opposition that was critical. I must have read a different news coverage of the release. The headline was “Mistakes spell end of building plan draft”. That was not our headline. The Liberals did not put that one together; that was a Canberra Times headline. The article by David Stockman went through the significant problems and the significant criticisms.

Even the Property Council, which was probably the most positive of the industry groups, was effectively saying, “It is good that they have finally got something out there.” It is good that we have finally seen something. We have been calling for it for a long time. It is a long way from perfect, and there is some criticism there.

Chris Faulks from the Canberra Business Council said that the document was a statement about ACT government capital works rather than an infrastructure plan. I


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video