Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3062 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

Mr Speaker, as I said before, the reasons for the delay in the tri-government study into the fast train project are to a large extent irrelevant. I will say it again; the reasons for the delay are to a large extent irrelevant. They are also an unfortunate diversion from the fact that there has been extensive cooperation between the three governments, at both officer level and ministerial level. I have spoken to Brian Langton on this matter on a number of occasions, just as we have spoken to John Sharp. Several large studies have already been completed. I have been informed that the summary report is now being drafted and is expected to be with the Commonwealth and the three governments this month. At that time the Chief Minister will meet with the Prime Minister and the New South Wales Premier with a view to progressing the fast train initiative as a matter of priority.

MR WOOD: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. I think we have a bipartisan view on this matter, and I am concerned that there is a suggestion that there is a continuing row about Tilt-train versus VFT. Minister, you said the short answer is no, and you have obviously caught up, as I have, with the material coming from Mr Langton's office. I will quote a few points to you and ask for your response. Mr Langton made the following claims:

June 19: ACT officials have failed to complete the development of sensitivity tests ...

July 31: ACT officials seek changes to the base cases, promising that this revision will not delay the completion of the study.

August 6: ACT rejects previously accepted base cases ...

I am sure you have this data in front of you, Minister -

August 13: Government/Legal Issues Study managed by ACT/DIST officials was still incomplete, awaiting contributions by the ACT Government.

August 16: Two days after the Economic Analysis Study incorporating the changed base cases is completed, ACT officials present a new scenario for inclusion in the financial analysis.

August 19: ACT official responsible for managing the financial analysis goes on unannounced leave.

September 2: After receiving unfavourable results for its scenario, ACT officials indicate their intention to again alter the scenario inputs.

Mr Speaker, we want the same result. Are there measures we can take? Is there something that can be done to get beyond this difficulty? Are we doing everything? You have seen that documentation. Will you comment on that?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .