Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1286 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
The Minister for Urban Services, Mr Brendan Smyth, did not give the Gungahlin Community Council an ultimatum on the route for Gungahlin Drive Extension or no road as expressed by Mr Corbell.
The Gungahlin Community is now witnessing the continued hijacking of an important debate on roads by politicians for their own political purposes.
Mr Smyth was invited to a meeting of the Community Council to discuss roads and other issues relevant to his portfolio. At the meeting he responded to a number of questions from those present relating to the proposed extension of Gungahlin Drive. Mr Smyth being aware of some of the intense hostility directed, not only at the governments preferred option, but to construction of any Gungahlin Drive Extension, encouraged the Community Council to generate more support for their preferred road from Gungahlin.
Because of the intense hostility from a number of community groups and Assembly members to the eastern alignment and in some cases the mere existence of any road, the Community Council felt compelled to enter the debate to avoid it being hijacked for narrow vested interests.
Mr Speaker, it goes on to say:
Mr Stanhope, Leader of the Opposition, entered the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services late. Without having the courtesy to be present for the entire submission, he accused Mr Smyth of blackmailing the Gungahlin community. We refute this! Mr Stanhope has on two occasions publicly stated opposition to a Gungahlin Drive extension (John Dedman Parkway) (Maunsell Workshops and after his election to the Legislative Assembly). His only interest was political gain NOT public interest.
Ms Tucker invited the editor of Gunsmoke to her office to ask why the Gungahlin Community Council was now fighting so hard to support the road. This could be construed as political interference of a similar kind to that which Ms Tucker and Mr Corbell are directing at Mr Smyth.
The Community Council had hoped that due process would have been followed by members of the ACT Legislative Assembly to assess the most suitable route in view of the extensive studies already undertaken. This is still our hope, however, the campaign by conservation groups has caused us to be more assertive in order to ensure that a clear transport corridor is preserved for present and future needs.
It was the combination of these pressures, which compelled the Community Council to enter the debate and choose a route to support.
This is exactly the kind of political hijacking the Council, the residents and businesses of Gungahlin are heartily sick of. We call on all members of the ACT Legislative Assembly to stop wasting time and money and get on with building the road.
The final paragraph reads:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .