Page 3717 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 29 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The government would be better off spending less time and money on producing reports and actually implementing some of the plans it comes up with. If it did that, there might be more confidence in some of these plans.
Reports do not necessarily solve traffic problems or improve dilapidated facilities, but they can provide a blueprint, although it does not mean much unless it is implemented. It is of no comfort to the community when their shopping centre is a mess that the government has spent a lot of money on a glossy brochure that will never be implemented.
In paragraph (2)(g) Dr Bourke says:
(g) the light rail from Gungahlin to Civic, for which expressions of interest will be called later this week, will deliver significant social and economic benefits in addition to providing sustainable transport and an impressive entrance worthy of the city of Canberra as the capital of Australia …
Light rail will not provide an economic benefit to Canberra, and that is exactly what the Deloitte report says. The government’s own report which they submitted to Infrastructure Australia says that under even marginally adverse circumstances this could be a net negative for the ACT. So the government’s own report which they sent to Infrastructure Australia said that light rail could be a net negative for the ACT. Is it any wonder, when you include stuff like that in your report to Infrastructure Australia, that Infrastructure Australia says, “No, we’re not giving you any money”? Even on the government’s own estimate, the cost of light rail has gone up by close to 28 per cent. This “minor adverse circumstance” has already occurred.
The Productivity Commission said that “the ACT government’s decision to proceed with light rail appears to be an example of where the results of cost-benefit analysis have been ignored without a valid explanation”. Just this month Dr David Hughes, a respected economist, estimated the cost-benefit analysis of this light rail route to be at 0.64—64c for every dollar invested. That is in stark contrast to the Majura parkway, which we will discuss later on. The Centre for International Economics, as well as economist Leo Dobes, have highlighted the net negative economic effects of light rail.
The entrance to Canberra, I believe, is already impressive. But, of course, it could be better. To build light rail the government will have to cut down every tree on Northbourne Avenue and dismantle the entrance to Canberra. It will be fascinating to see whether any of those opposite have an objection to the chainsaws being taken to 500 or 600 trees down that corridor. And it may well be that some of the very people advocating for light rail may be the very people who advocate against the chopping down of these trees.
In paragraph (2)(h) Dr Bourke says:
(h) the Canberra Liberals have committed to opposing light rail but have failed to outline their alternative transport and urban renewal policy for Canberra, particularly in relation to the high growth corridor from Gungahlin to the City …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video