Page 3714 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 29 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Light rail will be delivered and financed by the private sector, reducing the risk to the taxpayer and ensuring outside investment in the territory. This approach makes light rail affordable, ensuring that we only start to pay for the system when we are already benefiting from the transport and land use improvements. It is time to say, “All aboard the metro; don’t get left behind.”
MR COE (Ginninderra) (10.14): Once again the opposition are delighted to be discussing this topic which I am sure the government in time will realise they do not necessarily want to be on the political radar here in the ACT. But until that point we will happily keep discussing the topic of this motion in the chamber and in the community.
It is interesting that Dr Bourke should flag a whole heap of possible slogans, because a quick peruse of Hansard would show that the first time that “can the tram” has been used in this chamber was actually by Dr Bourke just then. In actual fact I think you would be hard pressed to find any quote from an opposition member that said “can the tram”. However, if Dr Bourke, wants to put this slogan into the community, as do, of course, other people including the author of the website, so be it, because there is some truth to that slogan and a lot of people in Canberra are very keen to see this tram project dropped.
This motion is a peculiar one at best. Why it is not just about light rail and why there is a “further notes that”, given (1)(a) and (b), is beyond me. That said, I will happily go through and make comments on each of the points that Dr Bourke has raised. Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) are of course fairly bland; there is not too much to be said about those. Paragraph (2)(a) is particularly interesting:
(a) the ACT government has identified health, education, transport and urban renewal, and remediation of Mr Fluffy Homes as its priority areas …
They have identified them. They have obviously had some forensic polling telling them that health, education, transport and planning are big issues. Good stuff; in contrast to every other election campaign in the history of democracy. The motion continues:
(b) the projects delivered in these priority areas are multi dimensional, delivering economic stimulus, jobs and social benefits across the city …
Again, just noise. It continues:
(c) the ACT Government continues to implement projects in all of its priority areas, including work to commence Stage 1 of a light rail network for the city and a light rail master plan to inform future stages …
It is interesting that you need to do the master plan after you have actually got the first leg of that plan. Why do you need a master plan to inform future stages but not a master plan to inform the first stage? Why is it that they support a master plan for two, three, four, five and six stages but not for the first one?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video