Page 918 - Week 03 - Thursday, 19 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
community come forward, either individually or represented by members of community councils, who I note are equally outraged.
For the government, the line seems to be, “Don’t worry. We’ve got the experts in charge. We’ll put the experts in charge of this. It’s all right. You don’t need to ask questions.” Going back to the good old days, it reminds me a bit of when Mrs Dunne was asking questions about the dam. I remember the arrogance that we would see back then, particularly from Mr Stanhope, and the dismissal: “Don’t question us; we know better. How dare you question us! We’re going to put a consortium in charge that know what they are doing. How dare you question it.” That dam went from $120 million, the original price, to $409 million. It more than tripled in price. With all of the questions that Mrs Dunne and the opposition were asking then, if only we had had the correct answers, if only we had had the opportunity for proper scrutiny for that project, we may not have ended up with the sorts of problems we saw.
With light rail, the line from this government is, “No, we know what we are doing.” But look at the experience with the dam. The Labor Party, Mr Stanhope, went to the 2000 election saying, “We’re going to build you a dam. It is going to be $120 million.” He delivered a dam for $409 million. That is the record of this government on a project less than half the size of capital metro.
That is the experience of this mob. They say, “Trust us. We don’t need a committee to look at this. We’ll put some experts in charge. Trust us. Don’t worry. We are doing the consultation; we are doing the community engagement.” Community engagement? Has anyone been along to one of these community engagement sessions and seen the cardboard tram? This is what the government thinks is community engagement. It is not having a proper inquiry, providing an opportunity for people to put submissions in, to appear in a professional way before a committee of this place. No, it is: “Get down to Cooleman Court and have a look at the cardboard tram.”
I know that Mr Corbell refuses to get in the tram, which is disappointing. There were big calls for him to get in there so that we could have a look at him riding his cardboard tram. He would not do it. He is too tall, he says. That is the reason he would not get in the cardboard tram. Maybe the planning minister, who may fit, might get in the cardboard tram—or others—but Mr Corbell is too tall for his cardboard tram. I hope his design of the actual tram is not so flawed that it does not accept people of Mr Corbell’s stature.
Mr Corbell: We will give you an invite.
MR HANSON: You will give me an invite? Let us hope that the design of the real tram is better.
If you are engaging with capital metro on Twitter, watching the YouTube videos and all of the slick production that is being put out there or turning up to see Mr Corbell try and squeeze himself into the cardboard tram that he does not fit into, that is community engagement; that is consultation with this government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video