Page 1510 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Since I introduced this bill in March many constituents have contacted me regarding the use of commercial-in-confidence provisions and how they could apply to the capital metro project. An example of these provisions was used earlier this year when you, Madam Assistant Speaker, asked the Minister for Capital Metro what would be the approximate cost of replanting trees on Northbourne Avenue.
In his response, the minister noted that it would be inappropriate to provide commentary on elements of capital metro, noting that such information is commercial in confidence. It is commercial in confidence to say how much it is going to cost to replant trees on Northbourne Avenue. If that kind of detail is going to be withheld from the people of Canberra, there is little hope that we are going to see the full picture for this project, which is going to cost well over $1 billion when you take into account the construction, operation, maintenance and financing costs. They will not even say the cost of replanting trees.
Of course, this is a government that has a very bad track record when it comes to transparency, particularly in relation to capital metro. When I introduced this bill I noted some of the government’s rhetoric in relation to capital metro. The government claims transparency with the release of the business case. However, the release of the business case is a smokescreen designed to bat away well-informed criticism. Commenting on the business case, respected economist Dr Leo Dobes said that there was “a disturbing lack of facts on the table”.
The University of Canberra’s Professor Phil Lewis also noted:
The cost-benefit analysis that’s been done has not been very transparent.
The government’s commitment to transparency was on display recently with the release of Professor Vickerman’s review of the business case. Pointedly, in his first paragraph, Professor Vickerman notes:
The Review focuses on the broad approach to the Business Case, rather than an audit of the detailed data or values used.
That was a business case that was strategically withheld for approximately 18 months. This is a government that Mr Rattenbury has given his full endorsement to with regard to transparency and open government. Indeed, the government would not even let Professor Vickerman, a person that it had contracted to review the capital metro business case, see the detailed data on which the business case was based. This is also true for Professor Derek Scrafton, another government-commissioned expert who examined the business case. It is incredible and certainly contrary to the government’s rhetoric that their own commissioned experts were not given access to data underpinning the business case.
As a practical example of this government’s transparency regarding capital metro, I wish to note a recent example of a freedom of information request I lodged with the government. In September last year I asked the Capital Metro Agency under FOI if they could provide their patronage modelling. Patronage is, obviously, a key
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video