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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 138 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

The inquiry that I am proposing under the Planning and Environment Committee will enable us to provide that better framework back into the debate. We will be able to seek responses to what has not happened thus far. We will be able to include the wider range of options that have now been floated in terms of public discussion and debate. We will be able to have a closer look as to the Government's thinking, the limitations of funding, the timetable that is proposed and the nature of decisions that might be made in regard to the outcome of the Maunsell study and in regard to the other studies which, as I said earlier, may actually preclude future options rather than include them and may actually cut out what will eventually be perhaps a more sensible solution.

We have already seen the building of Gungahlin Drive, which shocked quite a few people, because, as someone has already mentioned in debate, it seemed to preclude any possible connection to the Barton Highway, via Ellenborough Street, via the Lyneham and O'Connor Residents Association option, that has been sort of partially put into the Maunsell study. Now, that is untenable because the whole mess of Ginninderra Drive and that Ellenborough Street link to the Barton Highway deserves far closer attention. Even if it is a very long-term plan to reconnect those more sensibly, the laying down of Gungahlin Drive already is not very helpful in that look at the bigger and longer-term issues of the roads in that area.

My amendments seek to do several things: First, to stop the decisions that are planned to be made as a result of the current study; to then put before the general public the study, the response to the study, the range of Government thinking in regard to the study and some sort of explanation as to where the Government is at in terms of the responses to all the previous work that has been done. I would suggest that that would be a necessary precursor before public submissions are sought or public debate has begun. I will be putting that proposal to the Planning and Environment Committee if this study is adopted and then, of course, in collaboration with my colleagues on that committee, I would propose that the terms of reference would be then framed and the consultation process would begin at an appropriate time which would be negotiated with the four members of the Planning and Environment Committee, which means that Government representation would be heard. I am by no means suggesting anything cut and dried yet; but my general thinking is that we can begin this process in June, finish it by August or September, and then the Government processes can pick up from there.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.12): Mr Speaker, I have circulated an amendment in the chamber. I think I will need leave to move it and I now seek leave.

Leave granted.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I would urge members of the Assembly to consider this amendment, for a simple reason. In a sense it is trying to achieve the same thing that Ms McRae's amendments are seeking.

MR SPEAKER: You cannot move your amendment yet. We will have to get rid of Ms McRae's amendments first, but you can talk to it.

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