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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 2692 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

predecessor bodies over many years makes it plain that, by and large, this community and its representatives reject the proposition of Monash Drive. So why put this forward now? Why raise it again? Does Ms Tucker think some of us have changed our minds? I have certainly never expressed any support for Monash Drive, nor will I. Is Ms Tucker aware that this matter has been discussed time and time again and that Monash Drive has been rejected? I also find it interesting that the motion is headed "John Dedman Parkway Proposal", but before we get past paragraph (1) we are talking about Monash Drive as well. So it goes way beyond the specific proposition Ms Tucker is putting.

As to the John Dedman Parkway, again I think Mr Wood expressed the general approach most of us have taken over the years, that is, that the eastern John Dedman Parkway is not a goer, and it is not a goer for a good reason. The western parkway might be. To say that, irrespective of what happens in all of those new developing suburbs up there, the planners are not permitted even to think about the possibility of having to provide greater access for traffic through that part of the city - and this motion says that they are to do no work or further planning - I think is ridiculous. Haydon Drive and Caswell Drive would have to be a bit bigger than they are now; but if the need arises, and I say that advisedly, you could have what could be called West John Dedman Parkway. The real cruncher is that, until we determine what form of public transport predominantly will serve the developing suburbs of Gungahlin, we cannot even make a judgment about that. If it is the decision of this Assembly or the Government, or both, that Gungahlin will be served by a light rail system, and if it is properly planned and properly built, it should, in theory at least, do away with the need for a John Dedman Parkway east or west. Until that decision is made, this motion is meaningless, in my view.

Finally, paragraph (3), which requires the Government now to spend a good deal of money to carry out an environmental and social impact assessment of something that at this stage is only an option, is putting the cart before the horse a bit. I would submit that the Government should not even look at an environmental or social impact assessment of any kind unless it is determined that that is an option the Government is going to pick up. Then you must do such an impact study, but to require it to be done now - and it is not going to be done cheaply - I think is pointless. They might well do it and at the end of the day decide that there will be a light rail system, that there will be no enhancement of the traffic capacity through that part of the city, and we would have spent the money for nothing. Why would you put that obligation on the Government now? That is what the motion purports to do.

I think Ms Tucker needs to do a bit of homework on the history of these things, perhaps even talk to one of us who have been around for a little while and ask what the general feeling is about these matters, before she puts forward motions like this. In my view, the motion is largely unnecessary because all of the things she would seek to do by this motion, with the exception of paragraph (2), which I object to and which puts constraints on the Planning Authority and tells them that they are not allowed to do anything, I think most members of this Assembly would support. We would support the general concept, the general proposition, the general philosophy behind the motion, and we have done for years. We did not just dream it up yesterday or the day before. A little bit of discussion, and we would not be having this debate; we would be using the time debating something more useful, I submit, Mr Speaker.

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