Page 1193 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
for capital metro. Mr Coe wants to gloss through with no costings on his plan and no time lines.
I would encourage all members of the public who might see the Liberal transport plan to say to the Liberals, “How much will this cost and how will you pay for it all?” And for that matter, “When will you deliver it?” Here is my challenge to Mr Coe as he concludes this debate: tell us—tell us all, and put it on the record—how much your plan will cost and when you will implement the plan. Let us hear it. When will I be able to use the eight rapid routes suggested by the Liberals, and when will I have the heated seats? 2016? 2017? 2020? Or maybe 2100? Probably never.
If Mr Coe says that the cancellation of light rail will fund this plan and promises everything to everyone, I am confident that is nowhere near enough money. Any funds that might be saved by cancelling light rail also need to pay for the other Liberal promises. It is the magic pudding economics that we are going to see from the Liberal Party right to the election—hash tag “Because of light rail”: they can go out and promise everything they want to everybody they meet in the community because of light rail. It is not possible. Let us see them actually put their costings to Treasury. They did not do it at the last election, and I would be surprised if they put all of their promises to Treasury in this election.
Let us take all the new and duplicated roads, for example. You cannot just cite the cancellation of light rail as a never-ending source of funding to continuously duplicate roads in this city. It is not the magic pudding. In any case, any light rail savings are only short term, because our city needs long-term planning, and light rail is part of that. And of course, the savings are severely reduced by the fact that the Liberals will be paying for contract cancellation.
What the community should be asking is: what will the Liberals be cutting in order to fund these promises? Schools? Social services? The less patronised bus routes that serve the elderly or the transport disadvantaged? As expert commentators such as Barry Watkins from MRCagney have started to flag, there is a reality to a transport network that the Liberals need to address. If they are addressing these extra rapid routes, will they do it by cutting local and coverage bus services? Tell the community which services you will cut to redeploy into your rapid routes. If you can stand up today and say you are not going to do that, then let us see the costings and let us see how it stacks up. You cannot be credible, you cannot just spend years tearing down light rail where all the documents are on the table, and then come out and say, “Oh, but here is our alternative bus plan”—no costings, no time lines. It is simply not credible. It is not trustworthy.
Similarly, I want to note that the Liberal Party says it will keep rates at the same level but will do away with stamp duty. Under the government’s plan these initiatives are linked and revenue neutral, so the Liberals would have to find a large amount of funding to support this commitment. Again, it is not a magic pudding. This is a great example of the magic pudding economics that we are seeing from people who say they want to be in government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video