Should the government prioritize the maintenance and repair of existing roads and bridges over building new infrastructure?

No

Either, decision should be based on what the optimal approach should be in each circumstance

No, maintenance and investment should be balanced by valuing the return on investment

No, but force developers to improve infrastructure where they build new housing estates, with or without government assistance.

No, there is a massive shortfall of required infrastructure that still needs to be built

It's a zero sum game. Both should be prioritised.

Depends if the area that needs repair is what is going to be replaced

Yes, prioritise over new roads. But not at the expense of infrastructure that reduces car dependency

Yes and No, the payment is some % amount and depending on the where and size. The time, yes.

Government should balance both new investments with maintaining old investments.

No, it is better to build new infrastructure to restart the life expectancy of said infrastructure than to extend an old one.

It should keep infrustructure maintenance (without unions) and also prioritise new infrastructure like driverless metro

No, but still address maintenance, just at a lower priority

I think we should improve current infrastructure whilst also building new infrastructure

Should be equally important, there are enough trades to cover both.

Depends on purpose. Ideally improve current roads to adapt human friendly transportation (i would like to use bikes intead of getting run over).

Yes, only if repairs are necessary for the safety of citizens.

Both of these need to be considered. If new infrastructure is required as a result of population growth, then yes new infrastructure is necessary but not at a cost to maintaining the current infrastructure in areas of low population growth.

Yes, unless new infrastructure can fully replace old infrastructure and be more efficient

They should build the roads for the future not for the now

Yes, unless new infrastructure would be able to replace old infrastructure and be more efficient than old infrastructure

even it out between the maintenance and repair of existing roads and bridges and the building of new infrastructure

Yes, unless new infrastructure can replace the existing infrastructure and be better

It depends, if the new one is more maintenance and cost efficient, while involving improved quality or at bare minimum some improvement then I don’t see why not. If it isn’t cost effective, brings no improvements and only causes headaches, then axe it.

Both need to be considered. Growth is important and so is maintenance of existing infrastructure. Priorities on area and cost.

With a far bigger population both need to be prioritised.

Priorities should be employment, security, education, affordability, health, immigration and yes roads should be maintained but maybe not the first priorities.

Equal but more needs to be done to fix current infrastructure.

Build things to a high standard/ quality in the first place.

There should be a balance between new investments and upkeep of previous projects.

Defer to local councils and private companies where possible and save state funds only where absolutely necessary.

Do both. Tax the big multinational corporations and it will be affordable.

Yes, all infrastructure should be maintained and kept to a high standard until Australia is number 1 in the world in infrastructure.

No, not prioritise but still treat maintenance and repairs of road, bridges, and new infrastructure equally

I think building more homes and shelters is main priority