Page 2504 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 6 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR CORBELL: Of course, Mr Hanson says, “You said that about other things.” Well, there are other things that others have said as well that are perhaps worth reflecting on. Indeed, you, Madam Speaker, have made some interesting comments in relation to light rail. On 13 October 2008 the Canberra Liberals in a policy statement said that light rail will become increasingly viable as Canberra grows. In 2008, of course, the Liberal Party committed to spending $8 million if elected on feasibility studies and forward design of a light rail system for the ACT. So, somewhere between 2008 and 2013 somebody has lost their way, but I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that it is not the government.
The government is very focussed on the delivery of this preferred transport mode, a transport mode which has popular support and which Canberrans want to see, and that is critical to achieving success for this project. It is interesting, of course, that the Canberra Liberals are now doing a complete about-turn on this very important question.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Coe.
MR COE: Minister, given that noise pollution, carbon emissions, population growth, time costs and other social costs have been considered in the economic appraisal, why weren’t these other benefits included?
MR CORBELL: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure which particular document Mr Coe is referring to, but I can assure Mr Coe that the government will continue to build its business case for light rail with Infrastructure Australia. What we have seen, of course, in the initial submission to Infrastructure Australia is not a request for support in relation to either bus rapid transit or light rail transit. The original submission to Infrastructure Australia instead was for support for the development of an improved transport mode for that corridor. Infrastructure Australia have indicated and listed it as an early submission and they have indicated that further work needs to be done.
Mr Hanson: That’s a polite way of putting “not a very good submission” on it.
MR CORBELL: Well, they have put it on their early stage national priority list. They have indicated that further work needs to be done. We are going to build that business case and we look forward to engaging with Infrastructure Australia in that process, addressing all of the relevant issues as part of that submission.
MADAM SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Doszpot.
MR DOSZPOT: Minister, were all the government’s relevant parameters in the Infrastructure Australia’s submission included in the economic appraisal? If not, is not the appraisal unreliable?
MR CORBELL: I am not quite sure what Mr Doszpot means by “appraisal”. I would welcome some clarification as to which document he is referring to in relation to that question.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video