Page 475 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is something that the government did not manage to make a media release about. Believe it or not, they did not put out a media release about this report, the reason being that the survey said, “Thinking about the transit corridor between the City and Gungahlin”—blah, blah, blah—‘do you support, in effect, light rail transit?” And 68.5 per cent said yes. Only 24.3 per cent said they supported bus rapid transit. So light rail is a winner there. However, in the government’s own survey, after you inform them of what the cost is, light rail goes to 45.8 per cent—45.8 per cent of Canberrans support light rail—and 46.5 per cent, more people, support bus rapid transit. So by the government’s own economic figures, it does not stack up, and by their survey people do not want it.
There are many questions about how this government manages infrastructure projects, and I appreciate Dr Bourke moving this motion to give us an opportunity to talk about some of their mismanagement.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo—Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Housing, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for Ageing) (10.31): I thank Dr Bourke for bringing on this motion today to give us yet another opportunity to discuss these sorts of issues around infrastructure and employment here in the ACT. The motion does speak to quite a few specific projects, as well as making general observations.
I certainly do agree that infrastructure is important and does create jobs, but as I emphasised yesterday during the MPI, the ACT’s sustainability is not just about economic growth. We need to look at our future through a triple bottom line lens: the economy, the environment and the social consideration. As an example of that, perhaps on a smaller scale, we could consider the building of houses and units in Canberra. They are going to last for decades and decades. So we need to ensure that they are efficient and environmentally friendly houses as they are going to be using energy well into the future, and certainly at times when we have very ambitious greenhouse gas targets.
I would say that the same argument applies to infrastructure, whether it is thinking about light rail, which I think will deliver incredible benefits to this city over its lifetime and help transform the city in a range of ways from environmental, social and economic perspectives, through to thinking about whether we invest in particular roads, and long-term considerations when it comes to the infrastructure dollar spend and where we need to prioritise for the limited amount of capital that is available to the government.
I take this opportunity to speak about a few of the particular issues in Dr Bourke’s motion, because I think that is the way of illustrating some of the broader points I would like to make. On the issue of private sector investment at the airport, which again I spoke of yesterday, I think there are many beneficial aspects to what the airport has done. Equally, I think it is an example of where we need to think about what the fabric of the city looks like.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video