Page 616 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
economic issues and I think it is to the Government's credit that it has recognised those facts and has initiated the very things which this original motion from the Labor Party asked the Government to do.
The ACT VFT Advisory Committee, which the previous Government, to its credit, set up, has been continued and is reporting on these matters to the Alliance Government. That committee is in the process of undertaking, through coordinated action by the Government, specific studies on environmental and planning issues associated with the VFT.
I do not think people like Mr Moore realise just what an economic bonanza the VFT project would be to the ACT. It would turn this economy around and provide numerous jobs, especially given the geographic location of Canberra between the two obvious centres of the line, Melbourne and Sydney. The route which is taken really does not matter all that much, frankly. I have a personal preference for the eastern route, but that is neither here nor there.
The fact remains that the project itself, when it is established, will be an absolute economic bonanza to the ACT and to the workers and businesses of Canberra. As a matter of fact, figures that have been bandied about have shown that if the project were to become a reality - and I am very hopeful that it will - in the planning and construction phase alone there is a possibility that expenditure in the order of $200m or so could be generated, just here in the ACT.
When we consider that the new Parliament House had an expenditure of the order of a billion dollars, we find that we are talking about a substantial project. I am amazed to hear the complaints from Mr Moore about the VFT project. It is something which all members of this Assembly have demonstrated in this debate that they accept and support. As I said, the only fact that I find quite remarkable is that Mr Moore has chosen this debate to attack the Institution of Engineers, which is doing its bit in initiating public debate and informing the public on the whole issue. I noted that he said that the Institution of Engineers were having their seminar today and that there was no-one there to present the environmentalists' side. Such, of course, is not the case and, frankly, if the way he spoke today is indicative of the attitudes of the people who would want to get into the seminar for nothing, so be it. All in all, I think that the Government has clearly demonstrated that it is doing all those things that Mr Kaine has listed in his motion and I heartily support the amendment.
MR STEFANIAK (11.53): Like Mr Duby, I wholeheartedly support the amendment, although I would go a bit further than Mr Duby. He went through the original motion by Ms Follett, but paragraph 3 of that motion only makes mention of representations to the Commonwealth Government. Mr Kaine's amendment commends the Government for its active
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .