Page 3938 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 September 2017

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

But Canberrans had the opportunity to have their say at the ballot box last year. We are still on this side of the chamber; therefore we accept that stage 1 of the light rail is going ahead. The policy position for us on this side of the chamber now is to ensure that light rail works for as many Canberrans as possible, given the substantial investment that all ratepayers in this territory are making to build just a small portion of the light rail network.

That includes making sure that the people who live and, more importantly, work along that corridor can utilise that investment in their daily commute. The omission of a stop in Mitchell is a huge failing in the project’s ability to service the most number of Canberrans possible. The inclusion of a stop was originally under consideration but then was removed. Businesses are only now discovering that the stop they expected to be there will not be there. Any sensible person that looked at a major employment hub and major public transport infrastructure would expect there to be a stop in that precinct, and it seems irrational that there will not be. The minister continues to give excuses at best as to why the government is not listening to the interests of the traders and is arguing over the semantics.

The opposition will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the minister as it fails on one of the key points my motion brought forward—that is, to consider some form of concession or compensation for the businesses along the light rail corridor that have been adversely affected. Everyone accepts that whilst construction is going ahead there will be some inconvenience in our daily commute and in getting around town. That is reasonable to expect. But I really have an issue when government has the arrogance to say, “If we bankrupt your business as a result of our capital works and infrastructure development, that’s your problem.”

I believe something more needs to be done in that space to recognise that people’s livelihoods are being affected by this project. There should be some consideration, some concession, from government to say, “We are in this with you as a business. We want to see you survive post the construction of this project. What can we do to help?” But that has been absent from the government’s policy and planning thus far. Madam Speaker, we will continue to engage with businesses across Canberra—be they in Mitchell, Phillip, Hume, Fyshwick, Belconnen, Tuggeranong or any other part of the city where they operate—to make sure that their interests are being represented adequately in this Assembly.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video