Page 917 - Week 03 - Thursday, 19 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The same thing happened with the Majura parkway. It spent many years on Infrastructure Australia’s list without receiving funding. As we know, it was eventually funded. In any case, we might note that the federal government has seen fit to provide money to the light rail project through its asset recycling scheme, an excellent choice by the federal government. It is great to see that some of this asset recycling money will go to a sustainable public transport project, particularly as the federal government has typically pumped most of the money into roads infrastructure.
To conclude, I simply say that I will not support this motion. It is yet another example of the Liberal Party’s self-professed strategy of stopping light rail in any way they can, and I will not be party to it.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.19): I commend Mr Coe for bringing this motion before the Assembly today. I note that in his speech Mr Rattenbury highlighted the significant body of work that has been put together by Mr Coe and the opposition, which debunks Mr Corbell’s myth that we have not asked the questions; we have. The problem is not the questions that have been asked; it is the answers that we are getting. That is why we need to shine a light.
The reality is that Mr Coe is making the point clear. We need to have scrutiny. Mr Corbell and Mr Rattenbury are scared of scrutiny. They do not want it—they really do not. They want to have it in the Labor-controlled planning committee, where they know that Mr Gentleman and Ms Fitzharris will make sure that we keep light rail.
Mr Gentleman interjecting—
MR HANSON: You were previously the chair, I understand. You will make sure that there is nothing that is going to come forward that might embarrass the government on light rail. I am sure, because I know Mr Coe and Mr Wall well, that they would have been pushing for stronger action from the planning committee, with recommendations and so on that they just would not get past the ever-compliant Mr Gentleman and Ms Fitzharris while they were chairs of the committee.
They do not want an inquiry where people might come forward and tell the truth. They do not want David Hughes coming forward and explaining how it is a fantasy, that it is a folly. They do not want the head of the economics department of the University of Canberra coming forward; he recently described it as “silly”. I think was his word. They do not want to hear from Infrastructure Australia, which rejected the bid, or the Productivity Commission.
Certainly they fear having members of the community come forward. I am not just talking about a narrow band of people here. Many people we talk to in the community who are Labor Party members or Greens members are outraged by light rail. They are outraged by the fact that this government, without a mandate, is going to be spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on a project that they do not support, that they do not want. The vast bulk of this community is saying no. They do not want to have that. They do not want to see so many members of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video