Page 108 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
not actually hold off on light rail and tell the people of Canberra, “Because you love it so much, you are going to have to vote for us if you want to get light rail”?
Instead, they are so cautious about their position, they are so concerned about the position, as the union polling states, they have to lock it in beforehand and try and hold Canberrans to ransom because they do not back themselves to take it to an election. That is the truth. They do not want a referendum on light rail. They do not want a plebiscite on light rail. They do not want the people of Canberra to have their say on light rail because they are worried what they will get back. We on this side are not worried about Canberrans having their say. We are not worried about enfranchising the people of Canberra to determine the fate of the biggest proposed infrastructure spending in our city’s history or in the territory’s self-governance history.
The changes to this project since 2012 have been far reaching. First, the capital cost of the project has increased significantly. There is also approximately $150 million of associated expenditure. In addition to that, there is, of course, a 20 or 25-year deal where there will be extreme operating costs and extreme finance costs. The capital metro full business case has also been challenged since its release in October 2014. Most recently on the weekend Dr Leo Dobes warns against the use of wider economic benefits in the business case.
The second part of my motion calls on the ACT government to include a terminate for convenience clause in the light rail contract. If they are going to go ahead and do this, if they are going to disrespect the people of Canberra, they should at least ensure that the people of Canberra will not be disadvantaged considerably if, indeed, Canberrans do not want the government to proceed with this project.
It is a reasonable position. The only reason that a Liberal government would be seeking to terminate the contract would be if we were elected to do so. It is as simple as that. Those opposite and light rail supporters can say that it is a travesty but the facts are that we are making our position clear. The only reason, the only circumstance, in which light rail contracts would be terminated would be if the Canberra Liberals were elected to do it. It is as simple as that, Madam Speaker.
Termination for convenience clauses are standard clauses in government contracts. Such a clause is desirable to governments of all persuasions. Mr Corbell has stated publicly that the contract will include this standard clause and I hope the Assembly can place on the record our desire to see such a clause included in any light rail contract foolishly entered into before the election.
The second part of the motion today is a pragmatic response to this arrogant government. The government is pushing ahead with signing contracts before October. It is an arrogant move. It is a move that, of course, neglects the considerable concerns of so many Canberrans. The reality is that if it does go ahead, does charge ahead and tries to bind future generations of Canberrans to their deal done in November 2012, we at least hope that they will have the decency to negotiate with the consortium some very reasonable terms such as not going into long-term supply contracts for things such as the rolling stock or steel.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video