Page 2224 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011

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


for Police and Emergency Services) (11.07): I thank Dr Bourke for moving this motion today, his first motion in the Assembly, highlighting the priority he puts on the importance of important infrastructure projects for the ACT community. I want to turn immediately to the criticisms we have heard from Ms Bresnan this morning as part of this cognate debate. And it is with a somewhat wry consideration that I think about Ms Bresnan’s lecture about the relative economic efficiency measures when it comes to transport. Of course, this comes from the party that insisted on an expanded Nightrider service that resulted in a cost per customer of $157.

Opposition members interjecting

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members!

MR CORBELL: We made it very clear from the outset that we had serious reservations about this project. But of course that was the price for a very important reform: the government’s Nightrider service.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Corbell, could you resume your seat, please.

Mrs Dunne interjecting

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, Mr Corbell’s coming to his feet is not an excuse for those opposite to break into interjections. Will you please remain silent?

MR CORBELL: But of course that was the price for very important reforms to improve community safety.

Mrs Dunne interjecting—

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, I will warn you.

Mr Coe interjecting—

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Coe, I will warn you.

MR CORBELL: But now that the evidence in relation to that public transport project is in, I would have thought the Greens would be a bit more circumspect about their lectures in this place about what is the most cost-efficient measure when it comes to transport policy in this place. But clearly, they are not.

I want to respond to the assertions made by Ms Bresnan which are—and I have to agree with Mr Coe to an extent here—simply a smokescreen for opposition to any development along Majura Road. If they oppose the project, they should just say they oppose the project rather than wrapping it up in this whole range of caveats, requirements, investigations and studies. They should simply say they do not support it. They should say, “Do not build that road,” and that would be a more honest position from the Greens.


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