Page 566 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to reiterate that, Canberra’s public transport infrastructure is a priority list for Infrastructure Australia.
I am sure that members have heard Mr Coe’s constant refrain that Infrastructure Australia has rejected Canberra’s light rail project. That is another of the furphies that we keep hearing repeated by the Assembly’s biggest opponents of public transport. Let us flashback for a minute to March last year. In one of my replies to Mr Coe’s many motions I decided to address this issue. What I said at the time was:
I also hear Mr Coe say that apparently Infrastructure Australia rejected the light rail project. It is probably time to correct that. It did not reject it. It did not agree to provide funding at this point in time … which is what it does in respect of numerous projects that remain on its list for future consideration. Look at the infrastructure priorities list and you will see that Canberra’s transit corridor is still listed on Infrastructure Australia’s early stage initiatives list. The description of this category is:
Initiatives in this category address a nationally significant issue or problem, but the identification or development of the right solution is at an early stage.
The same thing happened with the Majura parkway. It spent many years on Infrastructure Australia’s list without receiving funding. As we know, it was eventually funded.
That was what I said then. Now, with the release of Infrastructure Australia’s infrastructure plan, lo and behold, the project is there on its infrastructure priority list. And why would it be on its infrastructure priority list if Infrastructure Australia apparently rejected it? The answer is that Infrastructure Australia did not reject it. Despite what Mr Coe has said time and again, it has never been rejected by Infrastructure Australia.
That is only one of the many arguments that the Canberra Liberals put that do not actually stack up when you analyse them. The challenge is: the inaccuracies come so thick and fast it takes time to break them down and reveal the truth, and that is the challenge that the government continues to face—the one that we are up for because all of these furphies have clear answers, clear rationale for the reason that decisions have been taken and absolute transparency when it comes to the information that the government is prepared to put on the table.
I conclude my remarks there, except to reiterate, as I have done many times before, the excellence and importance of this light rail project. I am confident that Canberrans’ pride in their city will extend even further as it embraces quality public transport infrastructure. I commend my amendment to the Assembly. I believe it delivers what Mr Coe is asking for in that the government will make public the annual availability payment, not at the arbitrary time that he has chosen but at the time when the information is actually available with an actual and accurate number that the community can then form its view on.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (6.19): In conclusion, there are numerous things that need to be said in response to Mr Corbell’s and Mr Rattenbury’s one-eyed support of this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video