Page 304 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
cost of the restoration option and information received from public meetings and consultation sessions held in 2005. We now know that this decision was not the right one. However, I believe that at the time it was made it was the right decision. It was made with due consideration to cost issues and efforts were made to consult with the community. Certainly the public statements made by the Chief Minister in question time this week support this position. The government has changed its position and the delay is regrettable and has been costly. However, I do not believe that an apology is necessary.
My position is based not just on my understanding of the facts but also on recognition that the budget position of the ACT has changed considerably over the period that this issue has been around and continues to change quite dramatically even today. I think that every member in this place knows my concerns about reckless spending and the need to be cautious in expenditure. I think that it is important to note that in 2006, when the initial decision was made, the ACT’s budgetary position was dire.
Since that time the ACT has ridden the wave of national prosperity and an unprecedented property boom. The budget position is not the same as it was and although financial restraint and responsibility should remain a primary consideration it is a fact that there is more money to spend. The additional expenditure required for the restoration of the existing bridge is now more acceptable due to the changed economic climate of the budget. I am not in any way condoning or encouraging reckless expenditure and, indeed, would caution, as I have before, against spending money just because a windfall has been received. However, when there is a weight of community concern, as we have seen in this case, the extra expenditure can be justified.
Just as I do not believe anything is gained by an apology to the people of Tharwa, I also do not believe that referring the issue to the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment will achieve anything. As I said at the outset of my remarks, this has not been an example of great management by the ACT government. I think the Chief Minister, more than the minister himself, has probably been the architect of much of the public concern that has arisen over the handling of this matter. The delay has been far longer than one would hope for on an issue that impacts so heavily on a community.
I do appreciate the fact that the minister was good enough to give me a comprehensive briefing at my request and has provided me with a very detailed chronology, and that has impacted on my view on this whole matter. However, I am satisfied that the government’s rationale for its initial decision and its subsequent reversal is valid. Restoration of the bridge will now be undertaken and I understand that the bridge will be open to limited traffic in six to nine months, with work expected to be completed in two to three years.
Tharwa will have a bridge and the ACT community will retain an asset of historical value. In my opinion this is the most important result. It is an outcome that has been achieved and, while it has taken longer than it should have, I accept the mitigating circumstances behind this delay. I would have thought that the planning and environment committee would have enough on its plate without adding this issue. The opposition has been attempting to portray itself, this week at least, as solutions based.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .