Page 2201 - Week 06 - Friday, 27 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MULCAHY: I understand the volume. I recently addressed a public service seminar and asked if anyone was involved in the ministerial correspondence units in their departments, and there was a groan of some sorts. They seemed familiar with the amount of paper that, unfortunately, I direct their way. But these are important issues to the people who elected me, and I will, of course, continue to raise them with the minister.
It does surprise me how often people are shocked when something is actually done about their concerns. Often this is because they had probably not previously thought to complain or were not sure where they should go about a particular issue. Equally often, however, it is because they have become accustomed to the crack in the footpath near their house and are starting to take it as a matter of fact. Disappointingly, on occasions it is because their own efforts through the bureaucracy have been unsuccessful. Again, when I have identified that aspect of the complaint, the minister has taken it quite seriously.
Just as I acknowledge Mr Hargreaves’s approach to responding to representations, I do acknowledge the speed and efficiency with which his department quite often responds to those complaints. It is not unusual for issues, once they are raised, to be responded to in a timely and efficiently manner. Frequently the letters have indicated that the works are likely to have been completed by the time I receive the letters, and that is not because the postal service is slow. They do move efficiently. I appreciate that, and I know the constituents do when they see these matters resolved.
The concern I would raise at this point—this is somewhat in line with what Mr Pratt raised—is that, too often, these issues are addressed only when someone takes it upon themselves to highlight them. Certainly, I accept that the public has a role to play in identifying problems. However, I am not convinced that the current government is proactive enough in implementing a regular and proactive maintenance program. It is crucial that, rather than adopting a fix-as-it-happens approach, we are proactive in ensuring that the territory’s municipal infrastructure is maintained.
There are several levels of this. Obviously, there are existing, established suburbs like Campbell, Red Hill and so on. These suburbs are old by Canberra standards. In many cases they are lacking the infrastructure, like footpaths, that is par for the course in the new areas. They also—this is a relevant point—are rated at a higher level than many other areas. Residents regularly complain to me that they do not receive much for the amount of rates and taxes that they pay. Certainly, I would like to have seen greater attention and resources made available in this budget to maintaining and developing municipal infrastructure in older, established suburbs. I certainly intend to continue to press the government on this issue.
I am not advocating, of course, ignoring other parts of Canberra. Suburbs and areas that were considered new not too many years ago are now reaching a stage where infrastructure is also deteriorating. In these areas as well, a proactive approach is needed to municipal infrastructure like roads, footpaths parks and so forth.
I will also take a small amount of time to address another critical component of the responsibility of the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services—namely,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .