Page 1578 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
further notes that seven per cent of the roads require attention annually. Financially this requires the government to increase spending by over $10 million more per annum to achieve the targeted service level. The question needs to be asked: where will that money come from?
Mr Pratt referred to the busway. The busway is an example of misallocation of resources by this government. Mr Hargreaves says that we have not yet spent the money on a busway but, as we speak, million of dollars are being spent on preparation for the busway. If it does go ahead, and we can only hope that it will not, we are going to see between $115 million and $150 million, on current projections, spent on a busway that will save three minutes for commuters between the city and Belconnen. Three minutes will be saved at a cost of $150 million. That money could be used for more critical infrastructure. We are talking about priorities, and this government, with this busway, if it ever goes ahead, are demonstrating that they have got their priorities wrong.
I have not had anyone in the community come to me and say, “Look, you really should stop criticising that busway because it’s going to be a good use of public funds. That $150 million for a three-minute saving is really what we should be doing.” No one has said that, but just this week I received an email—and I think Mr Hargreaves might have received the same email—from a disgruntled Labor voter who said that, as a result of the misallocation of expenditure on various areas, including the busway, he was going to change his vote. I am sure he is not alone. No one has come to me and said that this busway is a good idea.
That is one example of the misallocation of resources. We will have a single-lane GDE and there will be no upgrade of Tharwa Drive. If the busway is ever built, people will look it and say, “Why have they gone ahead and spent millions of dollars on planning and $150 million to build the busway for a three-minute saving when our road infrastructure is running down?”
One area that we have not heard about today is this government’s record on water infrastructure. The government has pushed the burden onto first homebuyers. They have said that they are not going to build a dam; they are not going to commit to the kind of infrastructure that is necessary for the territory. Everyone will have to have a water tank instead. The hallmark of this government’s policy on water and water infrastructure is that, instead of the government providing these essential services, they will shift the burden to first homebuyers instead. First homebuyers will be slugged more and more to comply with the government’s regulation.
Despite what the minister says, this is a matter of public importance. It goes to the long-term interests of the territory, and that is why it is important that we have this debate. The federal government has a part to play, and I call on the federal government to contribute to investing in infrastructure in the territory. Mr Hargreaves cannot simply pass the buck. He cannot say that, because we inherited our roads from the federal government, they really should be doing more; therefore we are not going to do anything about it.
There has been a misallocation of resources in so many areas. We are slowly seeing a running down of infrastructure that was, at one stage, probably the best in the country. It is slowly slipping, and that is the concern. We are not saying that infrastructure is terrible
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .