Page 1210 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that—these are all the consequences of policy that is skewed towards sedentary transport choices. Light rail enlivens public spaces. Light rail encourages more people to walk and cycle to the public transport node, far more than buses do, because it delivers certainty.
In a place like Gungahlin and the Gungahlin district, nine out of every 10 journeys—not just journeys to work but nine out of 10 journeys overall undertaken by Gungahlin households—are by private motor vehicle. We need to change that. And we need to change it for the financial and economic benefit of those households, for the health benefit of those households and for the vibrancy and the activity on the street in Gungahlin suburbs. We need to do it for all those reasons.
Mr Coe has a different view. And his view consigns people to the use of the car, consigns them to a lack of choice and a lack of opportunity. When it comes to buses, he is quite happy for those buses to keep going down Northbourne Avenue, mixed in with the general traffic, with all the inconvenience, cost and waste and loss of time associated with that choice. That is his vision. That is not our vision. Our vision is for the capacity for this project to drive a faster pace of redevelopment along the corridor.
What Mr Coe fails to recognise is that the development of light rail along this corridor shifts the pattern of development beyond business as usual. Mr Coe asserts: “Development is happening on the corridor already. You do not need light rail.” But the point is that it shifts that pattern of redevelopment activity beyond business as usual, beyond what is happening now, to a higher level, to a pace that would not otherwise be expected.
Why is it that the Liberal Party oppose accelerated redevelopment along that corridor that brings jobs and economic opportunity for people in our city as well as houses and accommodation closer to where they work in other parts of the city, closer to their services and facilities, closer to better public transport? Why do they oppose those things? This project delivers those outcomes. We are proud to be a government that delivers those outcomes, and we will continue to work to deliver this very important project for the people of Canberra. The government will not be supporting this motion today.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.11): I will not be supporting Mr Coe’s motion today either, although I congratulate him on finally making it clear to the Assembly and to the community that the Canberra Liberals do not support light rail in our city. It is clear that they do not support the first stage of capital metro, which would see light rail operating between the Gungahlin town centre and Civic. And it is clear that they do not support the ongoing work of the light rail master plan that is currently looking at how light rail can be extended to other parts of Canberra in the future.
Mr Coe argues that the light rail project does not stack up. My response is that Mr Coe’s arguments are not only spurious but the Liberal Party’s position on rail is simply, and basely, guided by the fact that they are in opposition and they are determined to oppose and denigrate, no matter what. That really is their mantra: “I oppose, therefore I am.” I accept, of course, that there are challenges to this project, and there is a lot of work to do to bring it to fruition. But I do not accept this polarising position of the Liberals that the project should be abandoned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video