Page 3155 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 24 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(a) the ACT Government has committed to publicly release the full business case for the Capital Metro project on 31 October 2014, to coincide with the formal call for industry expressions of interest; and
(b) the annual availability payment for the light rail service is subject to industry bids and it would be premature to speculate on the price before the completion of the tender process.”.
I intend to keep my remarks fairly short today because Mr Coe of course has given his stump speech today in terms of why he dislikes light rail and we have prosecuted that here many times. I will focus simply on the intent of my amendment. I am sure I am going to hear the speech again. I look forward to it because I will be able to perhaps cite it back at him with some ease.
But the reason for my amendment today is that I think Mr Coe has made some significant comments today about the lack of transparency on the project. I think that is simply not the case. The government and I have been very transparent on our decision-making process and in particular, as Minister Corbell has touched on, the government has undertaken to release the full business case on 31 October. No other government in Australia is doing this. The government has made a commitment to full transparency.
Minister Corbell has explained exactly the reasons for that timing. The fact that Mr Coe wants it right now and not in a mere 4½ weeks time is not the government’s problem. The government have a timetable. We have been very clear to the community. We are doing something very transparent. Mr Coe and anybody else will have the ability to go through it in considerable detail when it is released. I think that that is a reflection on our commitment to making sure that the community has confidence in this project.
The second part is that the government cannot provide answers that do not exist. This goes to Mr Coe’s actual motion. As Mr Corbell has touched on, and I intend to reinforce, any availability payment, as one part of my amendment says, is:
… subject to industry bids and it would be premature to speculate on the price before the completion of the tender process.
Mr Coe wants us to give a figure today. But no figure exists. There is not a figure because the tender process has not taken place. As is clear with the public-private partnership process and going to industry for a range of bids, the government is clearly seeking to get the best value for money for Canberra taxpayers in delivering this important infrastructure project. If we were to go out there and say the price per year that we expect to pay is going to be X, then I can almost guarantee that is where industry is going to bid. It makes perfect sense. Nobody, when they go out for a contract bid, puts out what they expect to pay in that specific sense because they would simply eliminate any prospect of competitive tension.
What the government have done has of course been transparent in our expectations about capital costs. Again there is room there for industry competition and innovation, but we have certainly been transparent with the community about the best modelling the government have been able to do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video