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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 857 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

I think it is also important that this inquiry is completed before the end of this Assembly. Ideally, I would like to see the committee report back in December this year. That will need to be a matter of discussion with other committee members and we will have to see what evolves. I do think it is important that we have some resolution of this issue before the end of the year because it is important that the ACT Government understand what sorts of responses and what sorts of processes it needs to put in place to ensure that benefits flow through to everyone in our community, that jobs stay in Canberra, that jobs grow in Canberra, that our tourism industry grows and does not suffer, and that the public and private sectors develop and do not suffer. For those reasons, I think it is important that the committee consider these issues and that it report back before the end of the year. Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the general support that the Assembly has granted to my motion today, and again I urge all members to support it.

MS HORODNY (11.51), by leave: I have indicated that we will support the motion. I understand that the majority of members will support the second amendment that I have put forward but not my first amendment. I think that is quite unfortunate. When the committee comes to look at the impact, which is one of their terms of reference in this inquiry, I think they will find it very difficult to bundle all the options together and make a decision about the total impact without separating the different options and looking at the different impacts. I argue that the three options that are being looked at at the moment are quite different. It is not only their set-up costs, which obviously they will meet themselves, largely. There is the cost to the consumer. There is also the time difference. We are talking of a difference of between 45 minutes and up to two hours in one of the other options. The time difference, together with the cost factor, will make an enormous difference to the type of impact that that train will have on the Canberra community.

If you do not have the context of looking at the different models I do not know how you can make an assessment. I do not think you can bundle the three options that are being looked at at the moment into one bag and say, "What sort of impact will a very fast train have?". There is not a very fast train. There are at least three types, three models, of very fast train, and each will have a different impact. I think that is the difference that the committee does need to look at, otherwise I think it will just be a very basic statement that they can make. That is probably a difficulty that the committee will find when they start looking into this inquiry.

Ms Tucker: Mr Speaker, I ask that Ms Horodny's two amendments be separated so that there can be separate votes.

Ordered that the question be divided.

Amendment No. (1) (Ms Horodny's) negatived.

Amendment No. (2) (Ms Horodny's) agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

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