Page 121 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is interesting that Mr Rattenbury should point to the success of the Gold Coast. Let us not forget that when this system was committed to by the Labor state government and the Labor commonwealth government they promised 50,000 people a day. They are now getting 20,000. At the time of the commitment it was 50,000 people a day; they are now getting 20,000 people a day. When the Newman government got in they looked at the business case and said, “Actually, you’re not going to get 50,000; it’s probably going to start off at 17,000.” That is exactly where it did start off and now they are at 20,000—less than half the projected patronage at the time of committing to the project. It would be interesting to note whether, if the original business case had said 20,000 passengers a day, not 50,000 passengers a day, it would have been built. Who knows?
Minister Corbell, of course, claims to be this great champion of light rail. Of course, he has not always had this position. He has not always been this avid supporter of light rail, which suggests that at some point he had this coming of age. At some point he had a conversion where he went from being a rational public transport planner, by way of buses, trains, trams or private vehicles, into this light rail mode. It is interesting to consider when that could have been. It just so happens that it was after the 2012 election that this real coming of age came about. After all, it was this minister, Minister Corbell, who repeatedly said in this place that the light rail system here in the ACT was just not viable. In actual fact, he had a go at the Greens on numerous occasions for their blind support of light rail. Let us go to a quote of Minister Corbell:
It is interesting looking at the latest light rail project currently under development in Australia, the Gold Coast light rail system, where there is actually community opposition to light rail. That opposition is based on concerns about land acquisition for the light rail corridor and also about the costs and the impact on interchanging between bus services and light rail.
There is a community group there arguing that instead of building light rail, bus rapid transit should be built because it will take less land. It will mean less interchanging between bus services and the light rail vehicle and, therefore, less inconvenience for commuters. So there are a range of choices open to governments and a range of policy considerations that need to be kept in mind in looking into these issues.
Madam Assistant Speaker, the government did not have an open mind. The government were not objective. They simply did a deal with the Greens. I find it hard to believe that there was not considerable opposition within the Labor Party caucus about this project. I find it very hard to believe that there still is not robust discussion in the Labor Party caucus about this. We all know that the vast majority of Canberrans will always be left out when it comes to light rail, even in Gungahlin. Palmerston, Crace, Nicholls, Ngunnawal, Casey, Amaroo, Forde, Bonner, Throsby, Jacka, Moncrieff—they are never getting light rail. They are never going to have a light rail system within walking distance. They are always going to be treated as second-class citizens as a result of this selfish decision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video