Page 3220 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 23 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Of course, that point was further reinforced by the recent fire at the hospital. It was a risk that had been identified. Mr Pettersson’s motion welcomes the investment in health infrastructure. Of course it is welcome. The question is: why has it not been done before now when these risks have been well known for quite some time?
In my role as a member for Brindabella, I would like to point out that the people of Tuggeranong feel a bit neglected with respect to infrastructure, particularly health infrastructure. I wonder whether my counterpart members for Brindabella, such as Mr Gentleman, ever stand up for Tuggeranong in cabinet meetings. The government never seems to invest much in Tuggeranong. Recently we have seen a very small investment in the town centre with a strange lighting feature in prime position. It looks like it has been welded in someone’s backyard. Where is the artwork? Where is the feature piece that could have gone in this important spot in the town centre? Most other town centres have artwork. Why does Tuggeranong not deserve a piece of art in the middle of its town centre?
In conclusion, we have ageing education facilities and ageing health facilities from an ageing government. The government has been in power for such a long time they do not really have a clear infrastructure investment plan. We have seen this piecemeal approach: city to the lake, then something more exciting comes up over here and we completely change our mind about city to the lake. Infrastructure must also be about maintenance of current facilities, not just donning a high-vis vest and a hard hat.
The people of Canberra are crying out for better communication. They are crying out for more involvement in the decision-making process. They want the average person on the street to have more of a voice in these big decisions that are being made on their behalf, not just their friends in the unions who are influencing what the government is doing.
The government has for too long been a government who has talked the talk but not walked the walk. They have been full of rhetoric but lacking in substance. There is the opportunity for this government to take a step forward, to communicate effectively. But it is an opportunity that the government must grasp with both hands and they must listen. It must be followed up with an ongoing commitment to evolve and adapt but also always to maintain the ideals that made Canberra a great place in the beginning.
In the last minute available to me, I would like to say that while we agree with the thrust of Mr Pettersson’s motion, whilst it may be a little belated in terms of investment in health and education infrastructure, we will not be supporting Ms Le Couteur’s amendment. I feel it has changed the thrust of Mr Pettersson’s motion away from infrastructure more specifically and I have some general agreement with some of the points that Mr Barr raised when he spoke about why the government would not be supporting it.
Thanks, Mr Pettersson, for bringing forward a very interesting motion today. It is talking the talk, not necessarily walking the walk, but there is still a chance for the government to start doing that. We will not be supporting Ms Le Couteur’s amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video