Page 403 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What will be surprising to some people is the extent and distribution of potential benefits across the various sectors of the economy. I am sure that will be a surprise to Ms Follett because she probably has not read that either. It has been said by some critics of the project that the benefits of the VFT would accrue primarily to whoever owns the system. What this study shows is that, even from the earliest design stages, the benefits would be felt across a wide range of industries and indeed throughout the entire community. The study shows that significant benefits would be gained in the service industries, particularly in the finance, property and business services sectors, in tourism and in education services, as well as in the high-technology sectors.
On releasing the report, I noted that the consultants had also identified between $35m and $50m worth of additional ACT infrastructure which would be required to accommodate the VFT and associated development in Canberra. Ms Follett, of course, had to misrepresent the report. She said all costs to the project should go to the consortium, as recommended by the consultants. Section 2 of the report, about economic costs to the ACT for certain infrastructure costs, states that they are in no way apportioned as costs that should fall to the consortium; they are costs which we as a community should pick up in some manner when the VFT runs through.
To assert that we are talking about a $35m or $30m handout is sheer rubbish. There is no handout to anybody. I have refuted that argument before, but again Ms Follett did not want to listen. The leader of the Labor Party jumped up, as she has done before on this issue, and asserted that the whole of the cost would be borne by the ACT taxpayer. This simply is not the case. It is a blatant misrepresentation, a distortion at which the Leader of the Opposition and her deputy are becoming adept.
As is clearly stated in both the Government's formal response to the project and in the consultant study report, the responsibility for meeting the costs of associated infrastructure would be a matter for negotiations between the Commonwealth and ACT governments and the joint venturer. The VFT joint venture has publicly acknowledged that it would bear the cost of bridges and underpasses to accommodate existing roads and services. It is somewhat surprising that the Labor Opposition should be proposing this motion which urges a positive and proactive approach to the VFT and at the same time be seeking any and every excuse to knock the project.
In response to the specific points put forward by Ms Follett, I would certainly agree that public understanding and involvement in the VFT project should be encouraged. I was pleased to note that the VFT joint venturers have, over recent months, made considerable progress in their public involvement program. The progress report Focus for the Future which the joint venture issued in December, is a significant step in that direction.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .