Page 110 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
capital construction costs would be borne by the private sector through the PPP framework. As Mr Coe knows and as the opposition know, the costs of a PPP only come to be incurred by the taxpayer through the availability payments regime when the project is complete. The costings set out by the government at the time were clear, unequivocal and signed off by the Treasury. So let us be very, very clear about that.
But, more importantly than any of this detail around the discussion, what this government is doing with light rail is what we said we would do. Because after years—nay, decades—of debate and equivocation and umming and ahhing about whether or not urban rail was right for our city, this government took a decision. We took a decision and we put it to the people as part of our policy platform. Ever since that day, in every sitting in this place, in every commitment this government has made we have made clear for nearly the past four years that this year would be the year we would sign contracts for the construction delivery of this project—every year for the last four years. Those opposite have had nearly four years to demonstrate what their alternative vision is for light rail. What have we got? We have got a half-baked options paper for Northbourne Avenue and that is it. That is it—no other comprehensive transport policy response for the people of Canberra.
Now the Liberals say they think buses are a better option, but they have never committed to any priority measures for buses to make sure they actually do not get stuck in traffic jams. They have never committed to it, because the real colour of the Liberals’ money when it comes to transport policy was highlighted in the comments made by Mr Coe in the introductory speech for the bill he presented this morning—that is, the simple but false proposition that our city is a dispersed city built for the car and we should just accept it. Well, there lies the path to congestion and delay and loss of productivity and pollution and loss of amenity and noise and all of the challenges that come with a congested, car-based city. But that is their policy position, clear and unequivocal: “We’re just about cars.”
We saw it at the last election too, where their only transport policy was to build more car parks and duplicate more works. That was it. When every other city globally recognises that you cannot build more roads to build your way out of your transport problems, the Liberals wanted to dig us deeper into that hole.
We have some choices to make as a city, and this government is prepared to give those choices to the people of Canberra. We are prepared to say that public transport has to be high quality, has to be convenient, has to be frequent and has to be a real competitor to the use of the private motor vehicle. Public transport should not be second class; it should be first class. That is what we are attempting to deliver through the light rail project, through the establishment of transport Canberra and through all the reforms this government is driving to improve public transport in our city.
What those opposite say is that unless you have a car you are a second-class citizen and you do not have the right to good mobility around your city. That is their position. Well, we reject their position absolutely.
We have heard the proposition from those opposite that somehow there is no harm to be done by simply delaying the commencement of construction of this project. Well,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video