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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2708 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Interestingly, the committee goes on to say that if this timetable is achieved-that is, the timetable the majority has set out; that the matter be resolved before the end of this sitting of this Assembly-it expects construction to commence on the road in 2002-03. That is some time next financial year. Mr Deputy Speaker, if that is the timetable, what is the rush? There is a pressing need for better transport links for Gungahlin. The Labor Party has acknowledged that time and time again. The Labor Party has argued, and will continue to argue, that the most appropriate alignment for that key arterial road link is the western alignment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is an opportunity, because of the controversial and contentious nature of this debate, for it to be resolved in the most democratic way possible. Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke should not be afraid of that. It is called a general election. At the general election the people of Canberra will have a choice. They can vote for a Liberal Party that is bulldozing ahead with the eastern alignment, or they can vote for a Stanhope Labor Party which will implement the western alignment, the least destructive, the most efficient and the most effective transport link for Canberrans.

Mr Rugendyke: That is a fair choice.

MR CORBELL: That is a fair choice. The problem, Mr Rugendyke, is that if we pursue your course of action that choice will be denied people. Let me explain to you how it would be denied. If this draft variation is approved prior to the end of this Assembly there is absolutely no reason why the land currently designated for the western alignment cannot be put to some other purpose, and once that is done, Mr Rugendyke, potentially even before the October election, what happens if people do want the western alignment? They will not have a choice, Mr Rugendyke. Clearly, this has not occurred to you.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that is the proposition that Mr Rugendyke and Mr Hird are putting to us today. Mr Rugendyke says he wants choice, but he is prepared to endorse moves that will remove that choice for electors in the October election by removing the area for review for the western alignment, and by removing the opportunity for an incoming government to choose to implement the western alignment. That is what he is doing by endorsing these moves today.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the committee also says in paragraph 13 of its report that it believes that draft variation No 138 substantially picks up the recommendations of the committee in its report No 67. The majority of the committee has not paid close enough attention to these issues. For example, were Mr Rugendyke or Mr Hird aware of the fact that the second flora and fauna overpass had been removed from the government's preferred option? Were they aware of that? Perhaps they would have been aware of that if they had bothered to conduct an inquiry and they had bothered to call public submissions, but clearly they have not, and they abrogated their responsibility when they bothered not to care.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have seen over the past three or four days alone a number of revelations that at the very least warranted a call for public submissions. They included material obtained by the organisation Save the Ridge as to the government's efforts at costing the road and its misleading information provided to the committee in its previous inquiry, the inquiry that Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke rely upon so heavily in justifying

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