Page 567 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
project. It is interesting that Mr Rattenbury would claim to be the champion of evidence-based policy; yet when you have the Productivity Commission, Infrastructure Australia and your own documentation saying, “Go ahead with bus rapid transit,” and you just ignore it and go ahead with light rail, that is a clear example of not having evidence-based policy. In fact, that is the absolute opposite of evidence-based policy.
Mr Rattenbury goes on to say that Infrastructure Australia did not reject it. “Not recommended” are the very words in the assessment brief of the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator as of January 2013. “Not recommended. It is instead recommended that a Canberra transit corridor strategy be included on the early priority list at early stage.” So it was rejected and they said, “Put it on the early stage instead.” It got rejected for a study. They said, “We’re not even going to give you money to study it. It doesn’t stack up.” What does their very sound analysis say? This is from Infrastructure Australia:
The extent of the problem identified seems unlikely to justify significant capital investment in the short term. The case for favouring light rail over bus rapid transit has not been strongly made, especially when the submission itself points to the stronger economic performance of a bus rapid transit option.
You have the government writing to Infrastructure Australia saying, “Please give us money for light rail, despite the fact that buses are better,” and Mr Rattenbury does not think that was rejected? This document clearly says, “Don’t go ahead.”
Mrs Dunne: It was only not recommended.
MR COE: “Not recommended. It is instead recommended that a Canberra transit corridor strategy be included on the priority list at an early stage.” That is pretty much what happens to any government project that gets submitted to Infrastructure Australia. “Put it on the early stage.” And then from that early stage they then assess when it is warranted and promote the ones that are worthy of additional attention and expenditure. But when the commonwealth government under Julia Gillard at the time looked at this project, they said no.
It is interesting that Mr Corbell should say today’s report is in support of light rail. Today’s report does not support light rail; today’s report simply says that you have got to do something on that corridor. It is very deliberate in not saying light rail. It is very deliberate in saying there needs to be public transport improvements on the Gungahlin to city corridor. If you want evidence-based policy, you have got to go through all the facts, and the facts clearly show that this project is marginal at best.
We also heard Mr Corbell say that this is going to be delivered more cheaply than what the business case said. What the business case actually said was $610 million plus contingency. That was what Mr Corbell said at the time of releasing the business case in October 2014. “This is a $610 million project plus contingency.” Now we have got a situation whereby the government—
Mr Corbell interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video