Page 4247 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 27 November 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
same time criticise the allocation of funds to appropriately plan for the project. Let me remind members that, in the past, the Liberals committed $8 million to a plan for light rail, including undertaking engineering studies, integration of bus and light rail connections, planning and rezoning and patronage assessments. What we see from those who seek to criticise the project is a lack of foresight and vision. It is irresponsible not to see the big picture and think of the legacy that we leave future Canberrans. In fact, the question should be: can we afford not to proceed with capital metro?
Earlier this week Mr Coe said Canberrans were not clear on where the project was heading. I think the government has made clear to the public its position on light rail, before and after the election. What we do not know is the opposition’s position on light rail. At a community meeting on 16 October last year, you, Madam Speaker, expressed your support for light rail. In fact, the Liberals went to the 2008 election with a policy of getting light rail on track. That contained bold and sweeping statements like, “It’s time to take light rail seriously.” Well, Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to Mr Coe’s inconsistency yet again. At one moment he is questioning the need for light rail at all and the next he is discussing alternative routes. Mr Coe needs to come clean on his position on light rail.
Mr Coe advises the government that if we are serious about delivering light rail we need to get widespread community support and confidence in the project. I question how the government can do this when Mr Coe is actively undermining the project by consistently providing the public with inaccurate and misleading information. Mr Coe started talking about project costs of $600 million, and now he is telling people it will call $100 billion of taxpayers’ money, all at a time when the government has indicated accurate costs are being revisited through the process of planning and deciding how it will deliver the project. Mr Coe further seeks to undermine the project by breaking down his inflated costs by person and geographical area in a simplistic and disingenuous manner. Major infrastructure projects are about the wider benefits they can bring to the community rather than simplistic assessment of cost per household and cost per passenger.
Capital Metro will attract business, investment, people, and opportunities to Canberra. And even at the early stage of design, the economic analysis for Capital Metro carried out in accordance with best practice guidelines indicated a benefit cost ratio of 2.34. That means that for every dollar invested, a return of over $2 can be expected. This compares to projects that are already underway in Queensland and New South Wales such as the Gold Coast light rail project with a ratio of 1.63, and Sydney’s inner west light rail, which that we understand to be a ratio of 1.0.
I also draw the Assembly’s attention to statements made by Mr Coe that further seek to erode community support for the project—that is, Mr Coe’s assertion that recent changes to ACTION bus routes will undermine the government’s case for light rail. Mr Coe states that the government’s political approach to light rail is ad hoc and that this latest move is making a mockery of its implementation. Well, this is the very time the government is carrying out a detailed study and consulting the public on how the light rail will integrate with the very same bus network. Can we expect that every change to the public transport system from now until the operation of light rail will be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video