The Costly Light Rail Debate: A Financial Headache for Canberra's Taxpayers
In the ongoing discussion about Canberra's light rail project, there's a crucial aspect that deserves our attention. Helen Goddard's letter raises an important point, but it's the underlying assumption that needs clarification. The question is not just about the worthiness of light rail as a public transport initiative, but rather, whether it's the most efficient and cost-effective solution for Canberra.
The Case for Bus Rapid Transit
The ACT public service has advised that a bus rapid transit system along the stage one route would be a more prudent choice. Why? Because it offers a similar level of service at a significantly lower cost. This is a key point often missed in the debate. While light rail may have its charms, the financial burden it places on taxpayers is a serious concern.
A Flawed Business Case
The Auditor-General's criticism of the business case for stage one is telling. It highlights an overreliance on inflated economic benefits, which casts doubt on the project's true value. And here's where it gets controversial: the business case for stage two seems to be following a similar path. Even with these inflated benefits included, the project is projected to provide little value for the public compared to its construction cost. Discount these benefits, and the project becomes a clear financial loss for Canberra's residents.
The Financial Legacy of Andrew Barr's Government
When Andrew Barr inherited the ACT budget, it was in a relatively healthy state. Low debt and lower taxes for residents compared to the national average. However, the lack of fiscal discipline shown by his government has led to a significant deterioration in these measures. This is a stark reminder of the impact of political decisions on our daily lives and the importance of holding our leaders accountable.
One Nation's Rise: A Vote of No Confidence?
Peter McLoughlin's letter suggests that One Nation's popularity is due to a lack of thought from voters. But here's the counterpoint: many voters have thought deeply about their choices and decided that neither Labor nor the LNP represent their interests. The environment, living costs, and credit ratings have taken a hit under both major parties. With One Nation, there's a sense of uncertainty, but with the current government, the feeling is that we're already in a dire situation. It's a stark choice, and one that deserves further exploration and discussion.
The Australian War Memorial: A Propaganda Concern?
Peter Stanley's letter raises an important question about the Australian War Memorial's relevance to contemporary Australia. But it's not just about relevance; it's about the memorial's primary purpose. The focus on commemorating our war dead seems to have taken a backseat to promoting military activities. The recent media offering about the donation of a portrait of Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts is a case in point. While her appointment as Australia's first space commander is notable, the AWM is not the right place for this portrait. It risks turning the memorial into a propaganda tool, diverting attention from the true cost of war and our nation's history.
Peace, Not War: A Missing Narrative
Peter Stanley's suggestion to change the guard at the AWM resonates with many. The brave men who sacrificed their lives in war did so for peace. But where is the narrative of peace at the memorial? As Denise Levertov puts it, peace is more than just the absence of war; it requires imagination and a counter to the familiarization of disaster. The AWM's focus on military might and war-fighting domains misses this crucial aspect. It's time to explore strategies for peace and how it can be achieved and maintained. Other national institutions, like the national library and gallery, should collaborate to provide insights into peaceful resolutions, ensuring that the AWM's commemoration extends beyond the horrors of war.
Have Your Say: Letters to the Editor
We encourage our readers to share their thoughts and opinions on these important issues. Letters to the editor should be concise, no longer than 250 words, and provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published). Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.
