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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 132 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

They go on to mention what they are. That is one of the conclusions that they reached. The report continued:

The following road solution and sequence of development is indicated:

(i) Development of William Slim Drive connection between Gungahlin and Belconnen as a first priority -

if that had not happened at the time this report was handed down, it has happened since -

(ii) John Dedman Community Option (high level of service) and John Dedman East (low level of service - one lane in each direction) incorporating Clunies Ross link but with no connection to Barry Drive.

A further description of that option was mentioned. The report continued:

(iii) Short Majura Community Option (high level of service) ... road to be linked with Fairbairn/Northcott/Constitution Ave and further south with Eastern Parkway.

A number of other minor road connections were also referred to. It is perfectly clear from GETS that it was the view of the people who produced this study that there would have to be development of roads, and in the order in which they were indicated. We have developed the first of those options as indicated by the study, and the second option is the one that is now under consideration.

Mr Speaker, I also believe that the joint parliamentary committee, although it was less explicit about the need for a road, described in detail the process whereby the need for the road should be considered, and I believe it is perfectly clear from that document as well that the Government would need to consider that route and the timing of that route; not the question of whether that route or a route of that kind was necessary at all. I am open to suggestions from Ms Horodny that a different interpretation could be taken, but I maintain that is the view of that committee as well.

Mr Speaker, these two reports are the culmination of a very large number of government reports over a long period of time on the need for a road servicing the people of Gungahlin. Indeed, the very first identification of a route to service Gungahlin along that corridor between Belconnen and North Canberra appeared in a document published in 1965, The Future Canberra. It also, interestingly, appeared quite explicitly in the Metropolitan Canberra Policy Plan in 1984. That was a very important document which in this place many people still come back to as the supposed touchstone for what planning should be doing or achieving in Canberra. The National Capital Authority, of course, has identified on the National Capital Plan a number of alternative routes for the parkway, and the area on the Territory Plan is indicated as being reserved for consideration in the future, obviously for this purpose.

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