Page 1215 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The only other way, it would seem, to fund it, if they do not fund it themselves, is by way of some sort of PPP. Are we going to find a situation where deals are done with a private provider to give them a gift of land or whatever it might be? There is always an opportunity cost, and the reality is that ultimately the ACT taxpayers will pay for this. They will not just pay for the capital cost and the ongoing interest on that, or the loss of income that would have otherwise come through assets that are used to entice a private provider, but there are the operational costs. What are the operational costs?
The government are saying, “We’re moving ahead with this.” They are investing millions of dollars already in the light rail authority. Meanwhile they say, “We don’t know what it’s going to cost. We couldn’t tell you what a ticket price is. We don’t know what this is going to cost every year.” It would be premature, apparently, according to the minister, to say what the operational cost would be. I think it is extraordinary.
We have to look at what the economic benefit would be. I actually heard Minister Barr on the radio the other day say how light rail will generate an enormous amount of extra economic benefit for the ACT. Well, it will not. There will be some building activity whilst it is being constructed, but you could do that with any project. If you are spreading $614 million around, there would be a lot of better ways to create economic activity and benefit from expending that sort of capital money.
Simply reducing or potentially reducing the travel time of a limited number of Canberrans from point A to point B is not going to have any measurable economic benefit to this city. Indeed, as Mr Coe has outlined on numerous occasions, when you do the comparison—and it is in the reports—between light rail and bus rapid transit, in actual fact buses win out. I think there is a fourfold benefit for buses and a twofold for light rail. So there really is not a case that can be made when it comes to the economic benefit.
This is not going to increase much flexibility for people either. As Andrew Barr said on the radio the other day, on 666, they will cancel the buses. So we have to be very careful that we are maintaining flexibility in our system.
As Mr Coe has outlined, why is it that the government has picked the city to Gungahlin? What would normally occur is that there would be a plan conducted to map out a system and then, for the most appropriate and best economic case, the most affordable or the one that is going to reap the best economic benefit, that route would have been selected. Instead we have the route that goes from Civic to Gungahlin. Clearly, when you look at the other routes, there is not a case to be made that that is the right route.
It would appear that the politics have got in the way. Who is it, Madam Assistant Speaker, that sits in that government over there that protects the ministers regardless of what case is mounted—we saw that yesterday—so that he can get light rail? It is the man that lives in and gets his support from the inner north, Mr Rattenbury.
This is a real piece of electoral sugar for Shane Rattenbury. Let us be in no doubt that he is the biggest winner out of this. He is a great beneficiary and this government is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video