Page 1207 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 7 May 2014

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


public transport if we want to. But as it stands at the moment I do not believe the government has made a sufficient case to either the opposition or the Assembly, and definitely not to the people at large, as to why it is going to spend $614 million on this project.

We believe that the bus system in Canberra can and should be improved. It can and should be improved. We have seen the success of the 200 service. Whilst it was oversold at the start as being a rapid express when it was not a rapid express, it was still a good, frequent bus service, at 15 minutes. It has been popular. It is far cheaper and far more versatile than what the government is proposing with light rail. How are they going to get the patronage so much higher than we are currently seeing on the 200, to a level which would make this project viable?

The opposition has real concerns about what the government is proposing. Like, I think, most people, we like the idea of hopping on a tram in Canberra, but the reality is that it simply does not stack up as an economic proposal at this time.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (3.56): I thank Mr Coe for the opportunity to speak about this very important project today. First of all, I am pleased that the Liberal Party have nailed their colours to the mast and have told the Canberra community that they have no vision, they have no view, that after 10 years in opposition, indeed over 10 years in opposition, they have no concrete proposals to deliver better public transport for our city and our community, no clear vision about how they are going to accommodate urban growth, no clear vision about where the future residents of this city are going to live as our population tracks toward half a million over the next 30 to 40 years—no vision for the future at all.

Their only transport proposal in the last election was to build more car parks. That was their position in the last election—more car parks, more roads, more asphalt, but no concrete vision for a more sustainable, a more liveable, a more walkable city that delivers on public health benefits, sustainability, more lively public spaces, better economic activity and a better future for our residents, for our citizens. That is their lack, and it is confirmed in the terms of the motion today.

The government will not support this motion today. We reaffirm our commitment to progress the light rail network in our city, with construction to commence on the Gungahlin to city corridor in 2016. We remain rock solid behind that commitment we took at the last election and we are investing the resources needed to make it happen.

Part of the motion brought forward by Mr Coe today is asking the Assembly to look at the issue of demand for light rail during peak hour and off-peak times. It will be little surprise to any of those involved in and aware of the details of those debates that during peak times the counter-flow, the flow travelling in the other direction, is lower. What a surprise! What a surprise that during the peak time the counter-flow is lower than those travelling to the workplace! Of course that is the case. It is certainly true that counter-peak demand and off-peak patronage demand are lower than during peak time and peak direction on any public transport system. It is the same on the bus network right now.


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