Page 1121 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
providing a higher quality transport link with the major north-south transport link, the Hume Highway.
It is encouraging that the ACT and federal governments are working together to improve the transport links that extend from around the Canberra airport and into the city and beyond to connect up with Canberra’s north-south transport corridor that should soon extend from Tuggeranong to Gungahlin. The duplication of Constitution Avenue, thereby creating that grand boulevard envisaged by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin, and the flyover at the Kings Avenue and Parkes Way intersection should see a vast improvement to the traffic flow from the east into the city precinct. In addition, $600,000 is to be allocated to another four crash hotspots in Canberra, which further signals that the ACT is not ignored when it comes to road fatalities and the moves to manage crash sites in order to reduce the incidence of fatality or serious injuries. Clearly the federal government is kicking in with significant funds in the big ticket items.
There is interest in the growth and development of the nation’s capital to ensure that we remain and prosper as the nation’s capital. I guess it is worth noting how disappointing it was to hear recently the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, say, in his infinite wisdom—or perhaps lack of it—that we should be concentrating debate on relocating capital city status to a major city such as Sydney. Seeking to denigrate the status of Canberra as the capital city in this way is a sad reflection on the attitude of a former Prime Minister.
I note the funding injections of $12.5 million for the Australian War Memorial, $3.5 million for remedial work on the High Court, $3.3 million for a scoping study for an Australian Federal Police facility, and $21.2 million for the new National Portrait Gallery. Clearly there is a massive commitment on the part of the federal government to really pump money into the ACT so that we can all benefit, unlike what it would seem we are getting from the Stanhope government in terms of “pay more, get less”.
In closing, assertions that this is just a “show bag” budget displays further evidence of the Labor states and territories just sucking on sour grapes. Of course, what we really see is the Stanhope government’s mismanagement of the inflows of GST-related revenue from the federal government and failure to prioritise areas of expenditure and greatest need in an effective manner. Continuing to haggle, in most situations, for more funding that simply is not justifiable is a sign that, as a smaller jurisdiction, the ACT has to find innovative ways to make efficiency savings within its own budgetary processes.
Mr Barr: Like a disability agreement, Mrs Burke?
MRS BURKE: At the same time, Mr Barr, there is a serious issue here. There is scope and a real need—and this is the key—to justify to the commonwealth with sound argument where we really do need funding boosts, particularly in the areas of health and education. Clearly there is a problem. The commonwealth government has had to penalise the ACT. Why? Because of the refusal of the Stanhope government to properly satisfy the level of funding we should receive under commonwealth-state agreements. It is all about delivery and negotiation skills rather than playing politics with people’s lives.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .