Page 2238 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
something in the region of $100 million for light rail. Nobody in this chamber, bar the Greens, is serious about redefining the transport paradigm in this city.
You might recall, members, that a couple of months ago Ms Le Couteur brought into this chamber a matter of public importance about peak oil. Mr Coe gave a very special speech on that day in which he was rude, derisory and, frankly, mocking. He stood up and raved on about when he is out in an electorate nobody ever raises peak oil with him.
In fact, he went on to say, “Peak oil is a just a little bogus when it comes down to it.” Let us talk about some of the evidence. This is why the Greens are focused on shifting the transport paradigm. The International Energy Agency is an independent, multi-government agency formed out of the wake of the 1973 oil crisis. It forecasts oil production and it monitors the international oil market and other energy sectors. So I think it is a body with some credibility.
I do not always agree with it, but certainly it is a body that is recognised as an authority on these issues. It is certainly not some sort of left-wing think-tank in case anybody is fearing that this is some ideological statement. The association’s chief economist says that the world’s crude oil production peaked in 2006. They go on to predict that the age of cheap oil is over. That is what this is actually about. This is about acknowledging that. The world’s leading authorities on these issues know that the age of cheap oil is over. That is why the Greens are focused on providing some sort of alternative.
As I have said, there have been a few verballings of the Greens today. Mr Coe sort of said that basically we do not think the people of Gungahlin deserve this. I want to be absolutely clear: the Greens do believe that the people of Gungahlin deserve a world-class transport solution. That is our position. We are simply wanting to argue that there is a better way to do it than the current proposal that is on the table. That is what Ms Bresnan’s motion seeks to achieve.
When it comes to safety, Mr Hanson quoted from the Sunday Canberra Times—not always my source of research, but there you go. He cited some accident figures for Majura Road. They are concerning. But what he did not note was that from 2003 to 2008 there were 210 accidents on Majura Road. In the same period, there were 312 crashes on the Monaro Highway. So Mr Hanson might remember to tell the whole story next time. (Time expired.)
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.56): I think it is important that we put in place the context for this road and that people understand what it is that we are actually talking about here. This is a road that completes the transport network for the ACT. It allows the people of the ACT and those who transit through the ACT to have three choices, three corridors, in the north-south. You end up with Horse Park Drive, Majura parkway and Monaro Highway on the east. On the western side you will have Gungahlin Drive and the Tuggeranong Parkway. In the centre, should you choose to go through the centre of town, you can go Northbourne Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, Adelaide Avenue and all stations south.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video