Page 4222 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Stanhope government’s ability to plan and deliver infrastructure projects speaks for itself. Visionary planning and record spending on quality capital works are a legacy of this government.
Despite the continued bantering and interjections of those opposite about the deliverability and management of our capital projects, I can assure the Assembly that this government is much better placed than those opposite to deliver these capital projects. As I highlighted today, we are working to put improvements in place to ensure the continued delivery of quality capital works projects across the territory.
I thank members for the opportunity to once again advise the Assembly on the government’s proven track record in financial management delivery of infrastructure projects. We have delivered record capital works programs during our term of government, a record that we will strive to break again in 2009-10.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.28): The appropriation of large amounts of taxpayer dollars towards capital works projects is one of the most serious and fundamental tasks of government. The provision of infrastructure through capital works projects is a means for the delivery of goods and services that promote prosperity, growth and wellbeing. Infrastructure is an essential input to virtually all economic activities and it is vital that infrastructure is adequate, allocated to the right areas and used effectively to reduce costs.
The Greens believe that government has a responsibility in relation to the provision of significant infrastructure into the future. However, it is essential that the implementation of long-term accounting is a key component of any capital expenditure. It is vital that we are spending our money on projects which will still be standing, useful and suitable in 50 years time and beyond and that the selection of infrastructure projects best serves the needs of taxpayers.
There is little point spending significant amounts of capital on infrastructure which will be redundant in a decade or two. It is not only a waste of funding but a waste of finite resources. The Gungahlin Drive extension could be used as an example to illustrate such a point.
Before I go into that, I want to pick up on Mr Hanson’s snide little comment earlier. I am a very proud member of the Greens party—and do not feel I need to be a member of any other party—and a proud member of the crossbench. The point that I was making was that Gungahlin Drive has had a very sorry history as far as the estimates of costs along the way. Under the previous Liberal government, it was significantly less than when the Labor government came in and as time went on those costs just kept growing.
The Gungahlin Drive extension could be used as an example to illustrate such a point. Many in the community campaigned to spend the funds on light rail. However, opponents believed that this option was too expensive and that roads were cheaper. The reality was that the funding set aside would only be provision enough for a single-lane carriageway and further major capital injection was required to rectify the situation. This example magnifies the need to assess risks comprehensively.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .