Page 2287 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 12 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What is the economic benefit of this? It does not seem to stack up. Simon Corbell was out there on the GDE one day in his orange hi-vis uniform, digging up the lines, a man at work. And then the next day I remember he looked very sour-faced when the Productivity Commission came out and said, “Hang on, there is no economic benefit; it doesn’t stack up.” He said, “No, no, no. Don’t worry about the economics of this; it’s the social advantage, the social benefit.” So that is the social benefit for less than one per cent of the population. If you discount those already on buses, goodness knows how few people it is.
Let me quote from the government’s own submission. This is the city to Gungahlin transit corridor Infrastructure Australia project submission. The ACT government states:
Economic returns that can be delivered through … (Light Rail Transit) investment alone are likely to be considered economically marginal and the net economic return for LRT under even minor adverse circumstances is likely to result in negative economic returns.
However, on the option of bus rapid transit, the government’s own report says:
Of the options … (Bus Rapid Transit) is projected to deliver higher economic returns.
So even by the government’s own analysis, by the government’s own submissions to Infrastructure Australia, they are saying that bus rapid transit is going to deliver better economic returns and even a minor risk, even a minor adverse circumstance, means that light rail is going to be a problem. So, given those findings, I am not surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Infrastructure Australia declined to commit the $15 million to the feasibility study. They said:
The case for favouring light rail over bus rapid transit has not been strongly made, especially when the submission itself points to the stronger economic performance of a bus rapid transit option.
It is just a bizarre situation where the government has gone to Infrastructure Australia, saying, “Look, all our evidence says you should do bus rapid transit. Can we have $15 million for light rail, please?” It is a bizarre circumstance. So why, then, is the government investing this money in light rail? It is difficult to fathom. I think that Mr Coe pointed quite clearly to it. As I pointed out in my speech earlier, it is about the priorities of this government and the behaviour of the ministers. It is far more about Shane Rattenbury and his ideological pursuits and his political skin, and the same with Mr Corbell, than it is about the people of Canberra. If it were about the people of Canberra, if it were about the economic benefit, then anybody looking at this objectively would say no.
What did the government say? I recall it was a couple of weeks ago that former Chief Minister Kate Carnell came out and gave her view of light rail, unprompted. She said it does not stack up. And as is Simon Corbell’s wont, Madam Deputy Speaker, he
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video