Page 2755 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is the logic that has been put forward in these arguments—that we cannot provide this style of infrastructure for Canberra because other parts of Canberra will not necessary use it. It is a false argument. It is a poor argument from people who are supposed to be leaders in this community. It is simply not the way a government for Canberra should be working. This is one city that is still a relatively small city. We need to provide services right across the city. We cannot get into this kind of parochialism if we are going to do effective government for Canberra.
There is a whole lot more that can be said about the priorities. I have articulated today where I am coming from. Transport is one of those issues we must tackle. Over the last decade we have certainly seen a very heavy focus on spending on roads. Mr Corbell outlined some of those figures today when he indicated that even in the last four years the ACT government spent over $1.13 billion on transport infrastructure, the main proportion of which was on roads.
We have invested in roads; now it is time to make sure we get the balance of our transport system right and ensure that we are not over-prioritising roads. That is what has been happening. We have put too much emphasis on it. We now need to make sure that we provide alternative transport options for people who cannot drive, or perhaps do not want to drive, and to make sure that we have a city that does not have massive congestion problems into the future.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (3:56): At the outset, I would like to thank Mr Wall for bringing this important matter before the Assembly. It is most appropriate in a week where we see the Canberra Liberals focused on the priorities that matter to the people of Canberra. You will see it in the motions that we will move tomorrow; you saw it today in the petition tabled. In particular, we are talking about health, we are talking about education and we are talking about the cost of living.
In a week when those opposite are talking about their light rail project, the $800 million light rail project—and later in the week Mr Rattenbury is going to be talking about euthanasia, and we are talking about solar and how they are going to be putting up everyone’s cost of living—it is ironic that Mr Rattenbury would boast of the message that the Greens took to the last election. He seems to be forgetful of the fact that that very message that the Greens took to the last election resulted in a wipe-out of 75 per cent of the Greens’ membership. Mr Rattenbury, you need to reconsider the message you take to the electorate, because the last time you took that message to the electorate all of your colleagues were wiped out.
Mr Rattenbury is talking about his priorities. We know that Mr Rattenbury comes to this place and tries to sound reasonable. He tries to sound pure; he tries to sound as though he is the only one who really looks at evidence, who really cares about evidence. He is trying to say, “It is parochialism that you are concerned about light rail being in the inner north.” Where is the evidence to put this in the inner north? I ask, through you, Madam Assistant Speaker, that he put that evidence on the table. You decided it would go through the inner north, went through your electorate, before any of these business cases were done, before a proper study was done. That is parochialism.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video