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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 856 ..

MR CORBELL (11.45): I am pleased to have the support of the majority of members of the Assembly. As for the amendments moved by Ms Horodny, I do have some concern with the first amendment. I believe that that first amendment ties this inquiry quite directly into the process that is already being undertaken by the joint secretariat on the VHST, sponsored by the ACT, New South Wales and Commonwealth governments. It was never my intention in moving this reference to interfere in any way with the process that is quite legitimately being undertaken by that secretariat. To that extent, I think it would be inappropriate to tie this inquiry in with that process. I will not be supporting, and Labor will not be supporting, that first amendment.

The second amendment does have some merit, I believe, in that it does deal with the issue of transport links, particularly rail links. I think it is important for us to recognise that if the very high speed train does proceed we will find that the existing rail link between Canberra and Sydney probably will no longer operate, and in terms of freight that has some implications. Members would see that paragraph (1)(d) of my motion refers to "any other related matter", so this quite easily could come under that point; but if Ms Horodny believes that it is important to have it as a separate item I do not have any particular objection and I am happy to accept that amendment.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased that the majority of members have supported this motion. However, there are a couple of points I want to make. The first point is that this inquiry, if it is successfully supported today, does not deal with the issue of technology. It does not deal with the issue of what sort of train it will be. That is the role of the joint secretariat. It is not our role to interfere in that process. I think the Government is misunderstanding the intention of this motion when it says that we are not able to get the completely different issue. It is dealing with the viability of the train itself. It is dealing with how that train will operate, what the technology will be, and other related issues. It is not specifically examining the impact that this proposal will have on the city of Canberra and it is not specifically examining what actions the ACT Government should be taking to ensure that the benefits from this technology flow through to all members of the community, and that is what this inquiry is about. So I think we need to make a very clear distinction on that point.

The Minister and the Chief Minister also, Mr Speaker, have raised the issue of commercial-in-confidence information. The point I would like to make on that is that the joint secretariat is dealing with an entirely different issue. We do not need to rely on the information that is being put to it in regard to commercial-in-confidence information from the bidders, from the various consortia that are dealing with the technology. It is not within the realm of this proposed inquiry to handle such information, so I do not see why we should have a concern there. But I certainly would welcome, if this referral motion is successful today, opportunities for officers of the ACT Government and officers of the various ACT departments and, hopefully, departments of the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government to give advice and information to the inquiry to assist us in our deliberations.

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