Page 2258 - Week 06 - Friday, 27 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
shopping centres, which is on page 95 of budget paper 3. Now that is a good thing; there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. We welcome improving the amenity of our suburban shopping centres, many of which are run down and many of which have all sorts of issues that need improvement. The budget talks about more maintenance, more mowing and more sweeping of suburban shopping centres. We see $2 million in the first year, the election year, and we see nothing after that. This is a government that tells us about having a budget for the future, yet all we see in these cynical line items is—
Mr Gentleman: A cynical budget!
MR SESELJA: Well, it is cynical. We always welcome Mr Gentleman’s interjections.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: No, we do not, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: We do, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: We do not welcome your responding to them.
MR SESELJA: They are always so helpful to the debate. He says it is cynical budgeting. It is cynical budgeting. Will the grass not grow at these suburban shopping centres after the election year? Will they no longer need to be swept and maintained? It is ridiculous and cynical to only be spending the money in the first year for things like maintenance and pretend that in the second, third and fourth years you will not need the maintenance any more and that suddenly the place will maintain itself. It is ridiculous and it is cynical. I will not respond to Mr Gentleman’s interjections, of course, because I am sure I am not meant to do that—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: No, you are not, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: If you are serious about it, if you are serious about improving the amenity of shopping centres and you have only got $2 million to spend, then spread it out over the four years. Do not just spend money on maintenance and other issues like this in an election year. Everyone can see that for what it is: “We’ll make the place look a little bit better ahead of the election, try and squeeze our way back into government, and then we’ll put it all off for another couple of years before the next election.” That is their attitude.
It goes back to my original point about short-sightedness—this is a government that actually does not look to the long term. It plays catch-up on major infrastructure. The people of Gungahlin know that. If they did not know it before, they know it now when they drive on the Gungahlin Drive extension in the morning and see how inadequate that is at peak hour already. Gungahlin will continue to grow at a rapid rate, but even with Gungahlin at its current size the extension is completely inadequate. Once again it reflects this government’s attitude towards the people of Gungahlin, towards service delivery and towards the provision of infrastructure. It has no vision; it has no foresight and seems to look only to the election. Its policies and its budget seem to be about simply getting re-elected rather than being about real policies and real structural reforms which would actually improve the lives of ordinary Canberrans.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .