Page 2282 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 12 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Further to this, recommendation 73 should be taken on board:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide further information to ensure that there is public consultation on all aspects of the Capital Metro project, so as to ensure it is viable, provides value for money, and meets the needs of the ACT community.
Recommendation 121 is about ensuring that the ACT public has a complete picture of all the costs associated with capital metro:
The Committee recommends that ACT Government aggregate the cost for works to the appropriate directorates associated with Capital Metro.
Recommendation 122, from a committee with two Liberal and two Labor members, shows the lack of confidence in the governance arrangements which are in place:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government define the relationship between TAMS and the Capital Metro Agency in regard to the delivery of proposed capital works associated with Capital Metro.
That recommendation is about trying to get to the bottom of the extreme doubt about who is actually responsible for light rail. Who is responsible? Is it TAMS? Is it Environment and Planning? Is it Treasury? Or is it Minister Corbell and his office, who seem to be project managing this personally? The fact that this recommendation is required after tens of millions of dollars of expenditure gives little confidence in the arrangements which are currently in place.
I commend the estimates committee for doing a thorough job and for identifying the enormity of the capital metro project. I believe that commissioning the Centre for International Economics to undertake additional analysis was a good move. The CIE report included the following:
The construction of the Capital Metro, in part, would reflect an assumption that the trends in population are temporary, and this is not evident. While population growth in Gungahlin may be relatively high, overall ACT population growth is soft, and thus the justification for the construction of the Capital Metro may rely on uncertain grounds.
The Capital Metro has not been placed on the Infrastructure Australia “National Priority List”, it may not present good value for money. The Capital Metro is not included in even the “Early Stage” national priorities, which requires those initiatives to “address a nationally significant issue or problem”.
The CIE report continues:
The funding of the Capital Metro has not been made clear, however press reports have emerged suggesting funding may be through a levy on home-owners living within a certain distance of the metro line. While it is prudent that the cost of the metro be borne more by those who obtain a private benefit from it … this presents a risk and source of uncertainty given that the funding arrangement has not yet been detailed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video