Page 4265 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 27 November 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
increasing value of land along any light rail route. Businesses would have numerous reasons to relocate along the transit route: reduced general transportation costs, and access to larger pool of potential services, jobs, customers and employees.
She went on:
Investors gain from increased land value along the route—a permanent route, unlike most bus routes. This would encourage medium to long-term investment and permanent business relocation.
Thank you, Mrs Dunne, for your words of wisdom. Perhaps we could call on Mrs Dunne—Madam Speaker—to convince her party colleagues of these very logical arguments and observations. I would like to be a fly on the wall during that party room discussion.
Indeed, it is unusual that the government itself is criticised by the opposition for making a firm commitment to build the light rail and to get on with it because for over a decade we have been criticised for not progressing this project quickly enough. Just for a change, I will move away from the eloquent quotes of Mrs Dunne. I will move to another very valued member of this Assembly, Mr Steve Pratt. I quote from the Hansard of 2008. He said in this place:
The government are just waiting for their comrades on the hill to bankroll major infrastructure projects in this town. They have not got the guts, the foresight or the wherewithal to commit dollars where dollars ought to be committed—to underwrite projects for the delivery of infrastructure which this city badly needs.
This is what we are doing. We are going it alone, pending commonwealth investment. If Mr Hanson has any sway with his federal colleagues I urge him to lobby with the ACT government for some commonwealth investment for capital metro. As Mr Gentleman has said this morning, it was not that long ago that the Canberra Liberals believed in light rail. When Mr Hanson and Mr Coe were the hopeful candidates of 2008, they were campaigning for light rail. It was their election platform. As Mr Gentleman outlined, their policy statement said:
The Canberra Liberals are seriously committed to addressing Canberra’s future transport needs and assessing the adoption of light rail in the Territory. The community are crying out for vision and for something to be done on this issue … As Canberra grows, light rail will become increasingly viable and it will be preferable that all land required for the project is ready and available.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Canberra is ready for light rail and this government is ready for light rail. If the Canberra Liberals do not get on board they are going to miss the tram.
In closing, Mr Hanson made a comment that intense criticism means that they are on the money. Given that and given the voice of criticism that has come of a recent federal government announcement I would assume, given that New South Wales, Victoria, ACT and South Australia have all united in concern and criticism of the policy backflip on Gonski funding, by your statement that you are saying you support that backflip.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video