Page 1090 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Questions without notice
ACT public service—redundancies
MR HANSON: My question this afternoon is to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, are there any agencies or directorates which are currently seeking expressions of interest for redundancies?
MR BARR: Yes.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Chief Minister, which agencies are you seeking to downsize?
MR BARR: Access Canberra, I understand, is seeking some voluntary redundancies, as are Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development. Redundancies were part of previously announced savings processes from budgets previously voted on in this place.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Coe.
MR COE: Chief Minister, how many jobs are you seeking to remove as a result of all of these redundancies?
MR BARR: A very small number; and I will get the exact number for the member.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Coe.
MR COE: Chief Minister, can you guarantee that all redundancies will be voluntary?
MR BARR: Yes, I can.
Transport—light rail
MR COE: The question I have is for the Minister for Capital Metro. Minister, a report by the Grattan Institute concluded that the proposed light rail project is likely to provide no more benefits than bus rapid transit but cost more than twice as much. Furthermore, the report finds that the actual benefit-cost ratio for the light rail project is just 0.5, well below the level needed to deliver a net benefit to the community. Minister, in light of this report, will the government reconsider its commitment to light rail in favour of a more cost-effective transport solution such as BRT?
MR CORBELL: I thank Mr Coe for his question. No, the government will not. The reason for that is that the report from the Grattan Institute regurgitates a debate amongst economists about the methodology applied to derive an appropriate benefit-cost ratio. The fact is the benefit-cost ratio for capital metro remains at 1.2. The benefit cost-ratio has been determined consistent with Infrastructure Australia guidelines and internationally accepted best practice, and that has been confirmed again today by the release of a second independent assessment of the capital metro business case, which I made public earlier today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video