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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (26 March) . . Page.. 662 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

We also recommended that:

the Government advise the Assembly on the full justification and costs of the proposed stormwater augmentation works for the ACT (especially in the inner north of the city) ...

We chose this particular area, Mr Speaker, because the justification was put to us that there had been one report and the one report said that there may be some legal liability in terms of stormwater. Mr Speaker, it is a good argument to convince people; but we felt that it was rather facile and we believed that it was simply an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the committee. That stormwater augmentation is worth huge sums of money, compared to other areas, and I believe that it is something that needs to be considered very carefully.

There is some irony as well, Mr Speaker, in terms of that stormwater augmentation, in the fact that, on a number of occasions when the previous Planning Committee had asked about the urban infill strategy and redevelopment of the B1 area and the impact it would have in terms of capital works, that committee had been told that this information was not necessary, that there would not be extra expenditure. It would appear, indeed, that the extra expenditure was significantly understated. We say in paragraph 4.14:

... what the committee has now learnt is the costs of the urban infill strategy in Canberra, and especially in the inner north of the city, were significantly under-stated. This year's Draft Capital Works Program reveals that millions of dollars will need to be spent on stormwater augmentation in the inner north. ...

Mr Speaker, we had it explained to us that part of the reason is that, when areas are redeveloped, less water is absorbed; more water hits concrete or roofs and runs into the stormwater system. So it is rather interesting to see a very different picture painted now that it is time to carry out that kind of augmentation.

Mr Speaker, another area that I think was important to look at was the duplication of Mouat Street. The Standing Committee on Planning and Environment has been informed that the feasibility of other options there has not been fully considered. To all of us it seems, Mr Speaker, when we look at a plan of Canberra or when we drive in the area, that the continuation of Ginninderra Drive to Northbourne Avenue is the most logical way to go. Indeed, as this was not carried through, one has to ask what pressure there was to look at the duplication of Mouat Street, with all its disadvantages not only to the residents of Belconnen but also to the residents of Lyneham, O'Connor and Turner.

The committee believes that it is appropriate for us to revisit that area and once again look at the continuation of Ginninderra Drive. I will ask the Chief Minister simply to take a look at a big version of the Territory Plan or to drive out there - I am sure that she has driven on that road on a number of occasions - and ask herself why this road was not continued.

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