Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 937 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
arguable but possibly acceptable. But we were not even able to see the rest of the work-the environmental analysis, the greenhouse impact analysis, the long-term equity issues and how they were addressed. We were not able to see the work when it was happening, and that was the problem.
The other issue of concern to us at the time was freight and how we can use an improved rail system to get trucks off the road, which is obviously a political issue, because the truck lobby has significant power and significant disruptive capacity if they want to protest, as we have seen in this town. But that is no reason not to look at how to get trucks off roads. It is quite obvious that there are huge costs not only in the maintenance of roads but in road injury and trauma.
The media release says:
The report shows clearly that about 80 per cent of the costs involved would have to be provided from public funds.
Public funds are paying for the roads. That is something we do not hear very often, from either Labor or Liberal. We do not ever see a clear cost analysis of our dependence on road systems in this country. We certainly do not see any social or environmental cost analysis of our dependence on motor vehicles and roads. It would be refreshing if we could see that. We do not even see any analysis and what it costs each one of us as citizens, through our taxes, to maintain our society's roads. We would like to see a clear picture of the costs and benefits of our dependence on private vehicles and building roads.
The second sentence of the media release reads:
As the ratio for public benefits to public cost is very low, between 0.12 and 0, the return to the community may never justify the public investment required.
That is a scandalous statement. There has not been any analysis of the public benefit of having an improved rail system and reducing our reliance on roads and motor vehicles. There has never been any assessment of the environmental or social costs.
I think it is a good motion today expressing concern. If we are going to see this revived by a future Labor federal government or a future Liberal federal government that takes an interest in it, it is very important that any feasibility study have a thorough look at the costs and benefits of improving the rail system versus continuing to rely on roads and give that picture clearly to the community of Australia, because we are paying for those roads.
If we put public funds into rail that worked, we would see considerable environmental and social benefits. We would also want to see a process that allowed the Australian community a chance to make an informed decision about what is a significant expenditure of public money.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .