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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 148 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

I am very concerned that the Government is avoiding the issue of a transport strategy for the ACT. They are absolutely avoiding it. They are saying there is one; it is somewhere. Mr Humphries says he actually has not seen it. He does not know what is in it, but he is relying on that strategy from a previous Assembly to somehow carry us through. He has no idea of what we are doing now in the ACT in terms of public transport, in terms of roads, in terms of cycleways, in terms of employment opportunities, where the development and growth is in the ACT, and whether that bears any resemblance to the strategy that was developed some years ago. I have real concerns about these amendments because I do not think they are taking us where we need to go. I will not be supporting Ms McRae's amendments.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (4.54): Mr Speaker, I was slightly bemused by some of Ms Horodny's comments in relation to this matter. She seems to be hell-bent on stopping the world. I would have thought that what we wanted was a process which was going to draw in the wider concerns of people about this project and allow us to make decisions in a more informed context. I cannot see how halting public consultation about the alignment of the road will lead to a more informed decision about future transport needs of Gungahlin.

Mr Speaker, our position is a simple one. There are a number of studies which were identified as needing to be done by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in the Federal Parliament. What we are saying is that, prima facie, we would like to see those things done. We would like to see the Government reporting to the Assembly committee on what is going on, so that the Assembly committee can form an informed view about these issues in reporting back to the Assembly.

As Ms McRae said, if the Government has some fantastically good reason why one of these studies is no longer required it is open to it to put that argument to the committee; but, prima facie, these things do need to be done and we would like to see a process involving the committee which will ensure that we can make some progress. I do not see that as being a horrible abrogation of our responsibility, as Ms Horodny suggested. On the contrary, I see it as being about the Assembly taking responsibility for ensuring that planning is done properly in the ACT and that all the issues that need to be considered in making decisions about the future transport needs of Gungahlin are taken into account. That is why we moved our amendments. We want these things done, unless the Government subsequently comes up with a good reason why they should not be done. We also want to know the outcome of the public consultation that is currently under way. With these four things and the result of the public consultation we will be in a position, through the Assembly committee, to progress this matter. I think that that is a sensible course of action.

I am surprised that it does not meet with the Greens' approval; but, quite frankly, I think it is extreme to suggest that we should completely halt this process because of some concerns. It is open to the Assembly committee to identify and take account of those concerns in considering the outcome of the Maunsell process. The fact that some concerns exist is not a reason for abandoning the community consultation that is under way.

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