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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3396 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

the ACT did have a say on this matter at the election in February of 1998. Obviously that was not the only issue that was considered in that election, but the fact remains that the issue was out there for public consumption. There was no doubt on the part of the people in various parts of Canberra who opposed the eastern route that we stood for the eastern route, and people had the opportunity at that election to pass judgment on that view. If you can interpret their view in any particular way, good luck to you, but it is very difficult to do that in the context of a broad election campaign.

There is one argument I particularly want to focus on in my remarks today. It is an argument about inconsistency. Again, it has been suggested that every argument in this matter is one in favour of the western route and not the eastern route. I want to focus on one of those arguments: the argument about proximity of the western route to the residents of Kaleen. The suggestion has been made that the western route is not deleterious to the interests of people in Kaleen. The suggestion has been made-

Mr Smyth: It is a furphy, Mr Stanhope said.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. Mr Stanhope said that the argument about Kaleen was a furphy. When I suggested recently at a public meeting that the western route took the road closer to Kaleen, or that at that point the road was taken closer to residents anywhere in Canberra than any other alternative part of the route, Mr Stanhope was indignant in his protestations and said that that simply was not true.

It is worth recording that the present western reservation for the road comes to within about 150 metres of the southern end of Kaleen. It also comes quite close to the northern end of Kaleen, but that is the road that of course services both the eastern and western routes.

Of course, it is possible to move that road reservation. I take it from what the Labor Party have said that if they were successful in winning government at the election in October they would move the route somewhat to the east, further away from Kaleen, perhaps along the dotted line which has been indicated in the papers which have been handed around today in this debate.

An alternative western route which has been much discussed is further to the east than the one which is indicated by the road reservation. But that road itself is still only 250 metres from the back fences of the people in the southern part of Kaleen.

Mr Stanhope in this debate said that you could put the road half a kilometre away from the residents of Kaleen. Let me concede in this debate that you could do that. You could create a dogleg in this road so that it skirted right away from Kaleen and came in much closer to the residences of the AIS, and you could probably achieve half a kilometre between the residents of Kaleen, at the southern point at least, and the western route.

But there are two problems with that alternative. The first, on my advice, is that you cut much more closely into the sensitive part of the grasslands to the north of Ginninderra Drive. The environmental impact of that alternative is significantly greater than it is for a route further to the west.

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