Page 1451 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 6 May 2015

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

It went from $30 million to $33 million, so they stuffed up there. Treasury goes on:

Treasury notes that the proposal is for the next stage of concept and design work. Treasury also notes future work is to be done on financing and delivery models, including a private sector partnership.

Nothing in this document suggests the ACT government have a $783 million commitment. They talk about what they took to the last election. What they took was a $30 million commitment, not something that could end up being many, many times that—perhaps in one year alone let alone in totality.

Mr Rattenbury talks about a BCR of $1.20 per dollar invested, albeit with a lot of bogus assumptions, being an undeniable fact which makes this project worth while. If the BCR—benefit-cost ratio—is so important, why did they not go for bus rapid transit which, on their own figures, has a BCR of $4.80 for every dollar invested, four times as much as this project? If Mr Rattenbury thinks $1.20 is enough to support light rail, why does he not support bus rapid transit when it returns $4.80 per dollar invested?

This is a partisan project; it is a political project; it is not a transport or planning project. Given the lack of endorsement by the ACT community, the prudent course of action for the government is to put the brakes on the project. Do not chop down 400 trees. Do not sign a contract with an international consortium. Do not ignore people’s planning rights. Do not cut the buses. Instead, give Canberrans an opportunity to have their say on this proposal. I urge members to respect the voters of Canberra by allowing them to have their say on this $783 million project and the ramifications it will have.

Question put:

That the motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 6

Noes 7

Mr Coe

Mr Smyth

Mr Barr

Ms Fitzharris

Mr Doszpot

Mr Wall

Dr Bourke

Mr Gentleman

Mrs Dunne

Ms Burch

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Hanson

Mr Corbell

Question so resolved in the negative.


Motion (by Ms Burch) proposed:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

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