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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 136 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I put on the record again that I am not adamantly a diehard advocate of the John Dedman Parkway in its current location or with any of the particular alternative routes which have been indicated. I would love, as a Minister in the Government, to be able to think that we could put off for a long period of time expansion of that magnitude, but I also do not think it is responsible of me to rise in this place and pretend to my constituents that I have any vision whatever of a real alternative to that. Until I do have that vision, I owe it to my electorate to proceed with some sensible evaluation of what the real issues are.

MS McRAE (4.03): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move together both of the amendments that have been circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

MS McRAE: I move:

Omit (from the introductory paragraph) "stop any further work", substitute "not make any decision".

Insert (in the final line of the introductory paragraph) after "Assembly", ", following an inquiry by the Planning and Environment Committee,".

By way of explanation to begin with, I want to put on record that, despite the selection of a particular headline by Graham Cooke because I suppose it added a bit of spice to the story, I do not seek to oppose the Greens' motion today. Anybody who went on to read the story would know that it did not in any way insinuate that, but I do want to put it on the record because some people have started to jump up and down and say we are just in opposition.

I seek to bring into the public arena some of the concerns and fears that have been raised. From listening to the Minister it becomes quite apparent that a lot of them can be allayed. My amendments today and the motion that will subsequently flow tomorrow under Assembly business will provide an avenue whereby a lot of the concerns that have been raised can be aired in an open and thorough way. The Minister has said, quite rightly, that he is not wedded to a particular option; that the study at the moment is looking at alternatives and that no decisions have been made.

The major concern that I hear over and over again is not so much that a decision may be made to not go ahead with the road in any hurry but that, as a result of the current study, the Minister will decide where it will not go, in which case the options will be cut out in five or 10 years' time when the road has been begun. The fear that I hear from my constituents is that, by not proceeding with the road but by proceeding with particular decisions, future options are cut out which may in time prove to be more attractive than they seem to be at the moment. A process of public inquiry can at least tease out some of those concerns and let a more thorough and public airing of them be made.

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