Page 3894 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
improved support for better services, they want to see improved support for people with disabilities and the way we support our schools and they want to see better public transport.” Well, I thought that was what the whole review of ACTION a year ago was meant to do—give us improved transport. But through the suburbs of Tuggeranong, Mr Hargreaves’s own electorate—through Isabella Plains, through Chisholm, through Richardson, through Gowrie, through Gilmore—they are cutting the really big services. They are cutting the services. Mr Gentleman, you should know this because it is your electorate as well. They are actually cutting the services that have big numbers on them that take people directly from southern Tuggeranong to places like Russell. They are going—they are gone.
This is Mr Hargreaves’s idea of reforming the bus service: kill the routes with lots of people on them so we can have lots more buses with fewer people on them. It is illogical. So when Mr Corbell says that people want more services, yes they do—but they do not believe that an arrogant, out-of-touch government is going to deliver them. The perfect example of that is Mr Hargreaves’s running of the Department of Territory and Municipal Services, and in particular ACTION buses.
The final thing that this could be is the “Andrew Scissorhands, I’ve cut too hard, now I can’t keep my promises of a bucketful of money for ovals because I forgot to ask cabinet in the big budget” bill. There he was in March, telling the sports community there was going to be a bucketful of money to save the ovals—and it did not eventuate. It did not eventuate where it should have, which was in the budget for the year. And, because he has been under pressure and because the sporting groups have told him of their displeasure, he has had to go back to cabinet and say, “I need $2 million to drought proof the ovals.”
We heard in estimates that he was going to give us a number—he said a number—of surfaces that are drought proof. I doubt that is possible with $1.6 million. I have asked people how many artificial surfaces, plus lights, plus other work can you fit into $1.6 million—and they are all scratching their heads. They were saying, “You’ll get a couple of projects, you’ll get some lights and you will get one surface, if you are lucky, out of that money.” So it will be interesting to see. The minister is on record in Hansard as saying there are a number of surfaces in this. But we will see what happens, because nobody out there believes it; it is impossible.
Everyone is confused about how this works. The government has asked them what facilities they want to drought proof, so the government can give their money, so that they can give the money back to the government, so the government can upgrade the facilities that the government already owns. It is some sort of pea and thimble trick, just moving money around the place. But the reality is that this is money that will be spent in the main on government facilities, and that is fine. But let us just say that; let us not create this illusion that we are going to give money to the community, so that they can give it back to TAMS, so that TAMS can do the work. It is a very confused strategy and it will be interesting to see how many artificial surfaces we get out of it, how many ovals get projects to help them and how many lights go up.
Again what it says is: “We haven’t done our work. We’re now going to save a number of ovals. We’re going to put lights on those ovals so we can use them more often and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .