The Canberra Light Rail: A Controversial Decision with Costly Consequences
In a recent letter, Helen Goddard expressed her support for the light rail project in Canberra. However, there's a critical aspect that needs addressing: the financial burden it imposes on taxpayers. The ACT public service had initially advised against light rail, favoring bus rapid transit due to its lower cost and similar benefits. This decision was backed by the ACT Auditor-General, who criticized the business case for stage one, highlighting its reliance on exaggerated economic benefits.
The Costly Reality
The business case for stage two follows a similar pattern, relying on inflated economic gains. Even with these optimistic projections, the light rail project is expected to provide minimal value for the public, barely covering its construction costs. When these benefits are rightly discounted, it becomes evident that this project will result in a significant financial loss for the people of Canberra.
A Legacy of Fiscal Irresponsibility
Andrew Barr inherited a balanced ACT budget with low debt, and residents enjoyed lower taxes than the national average. However, his government's lack of fiscal discipline has led to a significant deterioration in these measures. The light rail project is a prime example of this irresponsible spending.
A Controversial Rise in Popularity
Peter McLoughlin's letter suggests that One Nation's rise in popularity is due to a lack of critical thinking among voters. However, a counterargument suggests that voters have carefully considered their options and decided that neither Labor nor the LNP represent their interests. Both major parties have failed to address critical issues like the environment, housing costs, and credit ratings.
The Australian War Memorial: A Shift in Focus?
Peter Stanley's letter raises important questions about the Australian War Memorial's contemporary relevance. Sue Wareham further highlights how the memorial seems to have shifted its focus from commemorating war dead to promoting military activities. A recent example is the donation of a portrait of Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts, with Roberts herself stating that "space is a war-fighting domain."
Propaganda or Commemoration?
The inclusion of Roberts' portrait in the Australian War Memorial raises concerns. While her expertise is undoubtedly valuable, the memorial is not the appropriate place for such a display. The Defence Department, on the other hand, would be a more suitable venue. The primary purpose of the AWM is to commemorate the sacrifices made by Australians in wars, starting with the "Australian Wars." By celebrating military actions, the memorial risks becoming a propaganda tool, diverting attention from the true cost of war.
A Call for Peace and Collaboration
Jill Sutton's letter echoes the sentiments of many, questioning the lack of emphasis on peace at the AWM. The brave men who sacrificed their lives believed they were fighting for peace. Denise Levertov's poem, "Making Peace," reminds us that peace is more than just the absence of war; it requires imagination and a counter to the normalization of disaster.
Could the government's funding disparity between the AWM and other national institutions be addressed through collaboration? Institutions like the national library, gallery, and portrait gallery should be empowered to explore strategies for peace, analyzing successful cases like Northern Ireland and Kosovo. This collaborative effort could provide a more comprehensive understanding of peace and its maintenance.
Your Thoughts?
Do you agree that the light rail project is a costly mistake? How can we ensure that public transport projects are financially responsible? And what role should the Australian War Memorial play in promoting peace and commemorating our war history? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below!
