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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1057 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The patronising comments from Mr Humphries and Mr Smyth about how they are doing all these wonderful things for the residents of Gungahlin really do turn my stomach. They turn my stomach, Mr Speaker, because for the past four years this Government sat on its hands and did absolutely nothing for the people of Gungahlin. Time and time again representation was made about the problems with roads in Gungahlin. Time and time again representation was made about the need for a service station in Gungahlin. Time and time again representation was made about the need for a town centre in Gungahlin. Now, at the end of the day, after five years, they suddenly realise that Gungahlin exists, Mr Speaker. Well, that is simply not good enough. I will not copy the patronising comments from the present Minister for planning. He was not here in the last Assembly. He clearly does not understand the debate, and clearly is making a terrible attempt to play catch-up, Mr Speaker.

Let me put it on the record, loudly and clearly: Labor supports the need to plan for the John Dedman Parkway. We support the need to plan for the provision of that road for the Gungahlin community. We said that at the last election, and we are saying it again now - - -

Mr Smyth: Just not now. Just not yet.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr Corbell has the floor. Order! Have you finished, Mr Corbell?

MR CORBELL: No. It is quite clear, Mr Speaker, what Labor's position has been in relation to that road, and that position has not changed. You would think, Mr Speaker, that in a civilised society, in a sensible and articulate society like the Canberra community, you would make sure that any provision for any major piece of infrastructure is done in the way that accommodates the interests of all the communities affected, and, indeed, takes into account the interest of the environment. There are plenty of people whom I meet on a daily basis in Gungahlin who say, "Well, of course; that is a reasonable thing to do". It is reasonable to look at how it affects the communities that it is going to serve and impact upon, and how it is going to impact on the environment.

This man, who released a greenhouse strategy and campaigned hard on a greenhouse strategy in the last election, stands up and says that he thinks the desirability of reducing the number of vehicles needing to travel between Gungahlin and southern destinations is somehow a hidden agenda not to build the road. The hypocrisy is bizarre, Mr Speaker.

Mr Smyth stood in this place and said he could not understand why I was moving this amendment when a committee of which I am a member, which inquired into and reported on the draft capital works program, said that the Government should be planning for the provision of Majura Drive. There is nothing inconsistent in that, Mr Speaker. There is nothing inconsistent in that at all. Quite clearly, as this Government knows, that road also needs to be planned for. That road also needs to have work done on it so that at some stage in the future it too is developed. When this Government goes around talking about the wonderful things that the upgrade of the airport will provide, why are they not doing the work involved in planning for the Majura Parkway as well? That was what the committee was saying. Clearly, like the debate in 1997, Mr Smyth has not read the report, Mr Speaker. He simply has not read the report.

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