Page 548 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 13 February 2013

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

Much of it is covered in work already made public, but certainly not all. It is the same in Western Australia; the Liberal Party transport minister has not yet explained how his government will finance its light rail project. Likewise, technical and engineering details will need to be finalised. These projects, naturally, go through staging, and, just like the Canberra metro project, details are refined as the project progresses. It does not mean there is some conspiracy to secrecy or mismanagement; the intention is for all staged work to come together in a well-planned and well-implemented project.

At this stage of the capital metro project, I am satisfied that it is progressing sensibly. Just over the last year or so we have had three concept reports on the Gungahlin-city corridor, and a lot of the information requested in Mr Coe’s motion is already in those reports. That said, it will certainly remain a focus of mine to ensure that this capital metro project remains transparent and that there is significant public engagement and consultation. I believe these sorts of qualities will be key to the success of the project.

On that basis, I will be supporting the amendment put forward by Mr Corbell. It recommits to a high level of transparency and ongoing public consultation as well as the release of information when it is available. Again, I believe this is the essence of Mr Coe’s motion between what has already been made publicly available and a commitment to continue to make the information available. I think the spirit of what Mr Coe is seeking in his motion will be delivered, and I will be supporting Mr Corbell’s amendment.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (6.29): I am disappointed that both ministers will be supporting the amendment. It is disappointing they are not agreeing to take on the questions I have put forward. I understand some of the answers to questions would be estimates; I understand some of the answers would not be exact. But I still think there is an expectation in the community that the government should have a fair idea of the answers to each of the questions listed in my motion. I am disappointed. We will, of course, be voting against the amendment, but I welcome the additional information provided by Minister Corbell and Minister Rattenbury in today’s debate.

Question put:

That Mr Corbell’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 9

Noes 8

Mr Barr

Ms Gallagher

Mr Coe

Mr Seselja

Ms Berry

Mr Gentleman

Mr Doszpot

Mr Smyth

Dr Bourke

Ms Porter

Mrs Dunne

Mr Wall

Ms Burch

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Hanson

Mr Corbell

Mrs Jones

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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