Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 6 April 2011) . . Page.. 1432 ..
MR HANSON: A supplementary, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Attorney-General, was your decision to reduce the capacity of the jail from 374 to 300 beds the cause of the current overcrowding?
MR CORBELL: I have already made clear what the issue is in relation to capacity. The capacity was predicted to be 275 by the year 2042, based on ACT Corrections and Treasury projections. So that is the basis on which the government made those decisions. That is quite clear; it is on the public record. And the opposition already have a copy of those projections.
Transport—greenhouse gas emissions
MS BRESNAN: My question is to the minister for transport and concerns greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. Minister, when asked in question time last week about making reductions in the transport sector that are necessary to meet our 40 per cent emissions reduction target, you talked about—
Mr Stanhope: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I could not hear Ms Bresnan over the top of Mr Hanson.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Bresnan, would you start your question again. Members, can we let the questions be heard.
MS BRESNAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start from the beginning. My question is to the minister for transport and concerns greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. Minister, when asked in question time last week about making reductions in the transport sector that are necessary to meet our 40 per cent emissions reduction target, you talked about “the economic importance of ensuring a road network that is as efficient as it can be in terms of economic advantages”. You also said:
We look at a suite of issues as we consider investments in road infrastructure, including the economic impacts of not investing.
Is your position that the economic issues you referred to override the need to reduce transport emissions to achieve the 40 per cent reduction commitment?
MR STANHOPE: I thank Ms Bresnan. No, that was not what I was saying and it is not what I intended. I, along with the Greens, have embraced the need for us to take decisions on the basis of the economic, environmental and social impacts of the decisions we make. I think perhaps my commitment to triple bottom line decision making has been refined and perhaps is far more vigorous and muscular now than it was before you entered the place. But at no stage was I suggesting that I or the government put economic effects or aspects of infrastructure development above environmental or social issues. I did not say that. I did not intend it or mean it. If anybody has that impression, it is certainly not my intention that they do so.