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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 143 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

For the record, I will indicate what the former Labor Government had indicated on these matters. We had vigorously pursued mass transit options for Gungahlin, as for the rest of Canberra. We did so vigorously, with great determination. We continued that examination in the face of some unpromising reports, but we were determined to find a mass transit solution. Secondly, we had promised not to pursue the Dedman east connection. They were the actions of the former Government.

Finally, on the matter of John Dedman Parkway, I want to refer to the name. John Dedman was a fine and honourable Minister in a wartime Labor government and I find it sad now that his name is connected with a proposed road system that is subject to so much controversy. I would like to see us find a new name for this proposed system. Let us honour John Dedman with some better reference to a feature of Canberra. Maybe a John Dedman Park, not a parkway, in the O'Connor hills would be a satisfactory solution to that.

MS TUCKER (4.35): I have listened with interest to this discussion and the various amendments that are being proposed now. I think one of the really important issues that have to be acknowledged is that we have become trapped basically by past planning decisions that have not been in the interests of the environment or the community. The initial Y plan included an intertown public transport route as well as roads, and what we have ended up with is the roads and not the public transport work. We have had a number of consultations and discussions - they have been expensive, lengthy and very time consuming for the community - over the last seven or eight years. I was involved in some of the very early ones in 1989-90. What we basically need to acknowledge here is that those planning decisions are not appropriate or relevant to 1997. They are certainly not going to be appropriate for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. They are going to be seen as even worse mistakes, and it is time we stopped it. It is a comedy of errors.

We cannot continue to say that it is going to be too hard; that we have to continue to let people drive their cars and facilitate the driving of those cars because that is the way the city is set up. Somewhere someone has to take the stance of actually attempting to shift, if you like, the paradigm. We do not necessarily need cars to travel in a city. We need to be able to move from point A to point B and, if we provide a way for that to happen, for that transport to occur, then that need is met. We have to move away from this reliance on the car. I think Mr Humphries said that only 7 per cent of people use public transport now and that even if there were a revolutionary change to 14 per cent it would still not be adequate and we would still need roads. We may still need a road. We are not saying no roads. Mr Humphries seems to be wanting to put it into this no roads or roads discussion. That is totally ignoring the complexity of the issue. He also says that if someone can show him how to do it he will do it. If someone can give him suggestions as to how to accommodate the transport needs of the community, he will listen.

I must say that I have heard this come from the Government on a couple of occasions and I wonder what the Government thinks their job is. It obviously is not the provision of services anymore because we are going hell-bent into outsourcing. I thought it might be still at least about policy development and working out how we can deal with the issues of the 1990s, particularly the environmental issues but the social issues as well, in a way that

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