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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 850 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

When we understand the possibilities we can get to and work in a non-partisan way to ensure that we can capitalise on those benefits to the good of each and every person in Canberra and to the greatest extent possible. To me, that is what Mr Corbell has put up. I think it is a very valid point and a very important one.

When Mr Kaine was chair of that particular committee and I chaired the Planning and Environment Committee, between us we had a general look at some of the issues involved and on a number of occasions discussed whether or not it was the right time and how we would go about this type of inquiry. I think for Mr Kaine and me there was some interest in the specific issues that are now being carried out by the joint task force. It seems to me, though, that Mr Corbell has touched on a very important and very significant aspect of this development. The potential it has for Canberra, I believe, is quite extraordinary; but, if we wind up with a very fast train and we have not thought through these issues and we do not have the appropriate lead times, we will be left in the starting blocks. I think that would be a very sad situation for Canberra and would be an abrogation of our responsibilities.

This proposal to look at it in this way without attempting in any way to slow down the project, and on my reading of the motion it does not do that, and without attempting to go over the work that has already been carried out in assessing which train is the best one, and again the motion does not do that, has a great deal of merit. This is a very worthwhile project. I congratulate Mr Corbell on bringing it before the Assembly.

MR HIRD (11.24): Mr Speaker, Mr Corbell's motion causes me some concern. While initially supporting his motion, I am reminded by the Minister, a former chairman of my committee, that we will have a problem receiving information from the governments concerned - State, Federal and ACT - because there is a due process of confidentiality going through at the moment in determining who is the successful bidder.

On top of that, Mr Speaker, this proposed inquiry would be better held at a later time after we understand who the successful tenderer is. Is it to be the Maglev? Is it to be the Tilt-train? Is it to be the very fast train? These are questions that I do not believe my committee could answer at this time. The spirit that is behind Mr Corbell's motion should be commended. However, is the timing right? I refer Mr Corbell to the fact that there was an inquiry undertaken by this committee some 12 months ago by my predecessor and Mr Corbell's predecessors in respect of the very fast train, Maglev and the Tilt-train, as to the way they would operate and the benefits that they would - - -

Mr Moore: It was an informal briefing. It was not an inquiry.

MR HIRD: Mr Moore interjects that it was a briefing. That was all it could be, Mr Moore. That is the very point I make. At this time I have no problems with the spirit of Mr Corbell's motion. But how do we undertake this inquiry at this delicate time when we do not know what sort of technology we are going to end up with? For instance, does the technology for the very fast train start from Canberra and then move towards the metropolitan area of Sydney, or does it start from Sydney and move to Canberra?

Mr Berry: Both ways. It will be going in both directions.

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