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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1095 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

achieve a similar purpose are completely unnecessary and are surplus to requirements. Of course, they are not. Their proposal is that the range of issues that go to meeting the transport needs of the people of Gungahlin are not worthy of investigation by the Urban Services Committee.

It is preposterous to suggest that the interests of the people of Gungahlin and the interests of other people in this particular road - in fact, the interests of all Canberrans - have already been satisfactorily met. It is preposterous to suggest that the consultation has been so well conducted, the inquiries have been so complete and rigorous, that we need no longer look at the range of transport options and other impacts that we need to take into consideration in relation not only to Gungahlin but also to the rest of Canberra. What about the public transport needs, the environmental needs and impacts, and the range of possibilities in relation to the development of a public roads and public transport infrastructure? To suggest that we are so across the issues and so much of one mind in relation to them that they do not warrant inquiry by the Urban Services Committee, or that the people of Gungahlin or any other affected person does not have some interest in seeing this matter further inquired into, is just nonsense for someone who was involved in some of the previous negotiations.

I can assure you that they were most unsatisfactory. There is a wide range of issues that have never been appropriately reviewed or looked at in relation to public transport or public infrastructure as it affects or involves Gungahlin, and all those areas that would be affected by the construction of the proposed John Dedman Parkway.

The other point that must be responded to in relation to this is the subterfuge, the pea and thimble trick, the magician's trick, that has been used here by the Minister in an attempt to give some impression that this road will simply appear overnight if only the Government is left to get on with its business. The Government has signalled quite clearly - Mr Humphries signalled it at the time of the Maunsell inquiry, and it has been repeated again by this Minister, under pressure - that it is not proposed to develop this road, if it is to be proceeded with, for another 10 years. Yet this has been run up the flagpole now as a subterfuge.

Mr Rugendyke: It is a rush job.

MR STANHOPE: Well, not so much a rush job; it is actually a pretence, Mr Rugendyke. They are pretending that they are doing something by suggesting that they are committed to this road. Yet, when you ask the Minister, when he is forced to be honest, he says, "Well, we are not actually building it for 10 years, but we would like the people out in Gungahlin to think that it is only us that will deliver, but not for 10 years". That is well beyond the time that the Minister will be a member of this place. He cannot possibly last that long.

Ms Tucker: He is saying six years now.

MR STANHOPE: It is down to six years now, is it? He has dropped four years off it. The people of Gungahlin will be interested to hear, Minister, that you have reduced your 10 years to six years. But, let us be honest about this. We are talking about six years.

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