Page 400 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Considering the ramifications of the North Watson proposal for all of North Canberra, why was it that the brief eliminated the North Canberra area strategy?
MR WOOD: Madam Speaker, Mr Moore jumps to his feet to take a point of order from time to time. I would think that this is out of order on the ground that it anticipates a debate that Mr Kaine proposed yesterday. Nevertheless, I am happy to answer it. We provided that brief to Access Economics in precisely the terms that Mr Lamont, as chair of the committee, gave it to me. That was the background of it. It was as simple as that. Ms Szuty nods. That was what we were asked to do, and that is what we did.
MR MOORE: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. On the following page, talking about the distribution of costs and benefits, Access Economics says:
Final political decisions necessarily rest upon some understanding of the effects on winners and losers. The proposal may fail politically if it is judged to place intolerable costs upon one section of the community. Or, if there is greater good in the proposal, there may be a case for compensating some of the losers.
If you have only half of the brief, and if we do not know the impact on the North Canberra community, how can we proceed with that variation?
MR WOOD: Madam Speaker, Mr Moore quotes very selectively from that report. I urge him to go back and read it in a little more detail. Maybe he will do that before we have this debate tomorrow. The report does say some things about the cost-benefit analysis, pointing out that it was not specifically its brief to do it and pointing out that it did not go into exhaustive detail on it. It also pointed out, certainly in the verbal briefing that I had - I am not sure of the words in the document - that the cost-benefit analysis at this stage would suggest, as with the economic analysis, as with any financial analysis, a very large plus for taxpayers in the ACT.
Mr Moore comes into this chamber with all sorts of issues, but one of the issues that he does not pay much attention to is that of taxpayers, the people who have to pay out the money to keep this Territory running, in education, as in everything else. Now jump up on a point of order about reflecting on a past decision of this Assembly. Mr Moore in the past has not shown much respect for taxpayers in this place, but this Government does. The Access Economics report, which we will debate again tomorrow, demonstrates that this is a very large plus for residents in the ACT, as I have been saying for a very long time, and I think that is something that Mr Moore should take note of. I would point out that the Access Economics report refers to economics. Whenever I have spoken about the development at North Watson - it was a proposal to be developed and I never assumed too much at the start - I have pointed, first of all, to the environmental benefits. That was not part of the Access Economics study, of course; but Mr Moore does not seem to want to consider those environmental aspects either, surprisingly. I also pointed, secondly, to the social benefits of it, but there was no further study. Let us explore those issues. I welcome the debate which we will get onto tomorrow.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .