Is Canberra's Light Rail a Money Pit? That's the burning question raised by recent discussions, and it's a topic that's sure to get people talking. Let's dive in!
Helen Goddard's letter sparked a debate by questioning the value of Canberra's light rail project. The core argument? Light rail might not be the best use of public funds, despite the assumption that it is a worthwhile public transport endeavor.
Here's a key point: The ACT public service initially suggested that bus rapid transit would be a more cost-effective option for the stage one route, offering almost the same benefits at a lower price.
The ACT Auditor-General criticized the stage one business case, pointing out its reliance on inflated economic benefits. The business case for stage two faces the same issue, using these inflated figures. Even with these optimistic projections, the project is expected to barely break even.
Once these inflated benefits are realistically assessed, the project is projected to result in a significant financial loss for Canberra residents. Before the current administration, the ACT had a balanced budget, low debt, and lower taxes compared to the Australian average. Now, things have changed significantly for the worse.
But here's where it gets controversial...
Peter McLoughlin weighs in on the rise in popularity of One Nation, suggesting it's due to a segment of the population not carefully considering their choices. However, he counters this, arguing that people have thought long and hard and have chosen to vote for an alternative to the Labor or LNP parties. Both major parties, in his view, have disappointed voters on issues like the environment, living costs, and the standard of living.
And this is the part most people miss...
Mario Stivala offers a blunt assessment: with One Nation, the situation is dire; with the current government, the situation is already problematic.
The Australian War Memorial: A Shift in Focus?
Peter Stanley's letter raises concerns about the Australian War Memorial (AWM), suggesting it's out of touch with contemporary Australia and its primary purpose: to commemorate war dead. The institution seems to be increasingly focused on promoting military-related content. A recent example is the donation of a portrait of Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts, Australia's first space commander, who stated that "space is a war-fighting domain."
Sue Wareham argues that while the Air Vice-Marshal's expertise is valuable, the AWM is the wrong place for this portrait. The Defence Department would be a more appropriate location. The AWM's shift towards celebrating military achievements risks becoming war propaganda, moving away from commemorating the sacrifices made in wars, including the "Australian Wars."
Talk about Peace
Peter Stanley's suggestion to "change the guard at the Australian War Memorial" resonates with many. The soldiers who sacrificed their lives at war believed they were fighting for peace. Jill Sutton asks where the consideration of how such peace might be maintained at the AWM is. She suggests that peace is not just the absence of war, but requires "the imagination of peace, to counter the familiarisation of disaster".
Could the government's generous funding for the AWM, contrasted with underfunding for other national institutions, be rectified by greater collaboration between them on strategies for peace? The national library, gallery, and portrait gallery should be resourced to provide an analysis of how peace was achieved, for example, in Northern Ireland and Kosovo.
What do you think? Do you agree with the concerns raised about the light rail project and the AWM's focus? Share your thoughts in the comments below! Is the focus of the AWM appropriate?
