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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3402 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Many people say they are committed to the Y plan and satellite towns. One of the things we do not do is direct high-traffic flows through the centre of a precinct. Yet that is what the western route would do. To run around the periphery, as the eastern route would do, is entirely consistent with the majority of planning for the ACT.

The comparisons go on. There is impact on the bushland-about four hectares for the eastern alignment and about three hectares for the western alignment. But we will work with the AIS to make sure that we minimise the impact. They have said that they agree with that.

I want to make it quite clear, as other members here have-and perhaps the message has not got out-that we want to minimise the impact the Gungahlin Drive extension will have on Aranda residents when Caswell Drive comes up for duplication. The government supports the Aranda residents association and their preferred route for the Caswell Drive duplication. The Aranda residents association preferred route is the government's preferred route. This has been the government's view for some time, but it would appear that that message may not be getting out to all residents, and I want to make our position absolutely clear. Consistent with what we are doing, we want the Caswell Drive duplication to be as far away from houses as possible, to ensure a balance between residential amenity and environmental conservation.

Much has been said. We know about the process that started seriously under Mr Humphries when he was the planning minister. That passed to me when I became planning minister. The criticism that we have raced hastily into this must be refuted. The government has been working on this for almost six years. It is appropriate to do it now. It is the culmination of the process. If this draft variation had gone out in 1999, as I had intended, instead of this year, the work would have been completed well before this.

Ms Tucker made the point that we should build Majura. When the population of Gungahlin gets to about 50,000 people, we will need both roads. That is how that city was planned. It was planned with this level of access in mind.

We have consulted the public. Starting in 1996, there were workshops, there were site visits, there was a telephone hotline and there was a community newsletter. The work was done. In December 1997 the government, through Mr Humphries, announced that the eastern route was the government's preferred position, and we took that to the last election. It was my intention to put the draft variation out in early 1999, but we had the committee inquiry instead. The committee's report was tabled in March this year, and since then we have proceeded with the draft variation.

Cost is important. People have said in this debate that it is a minor consideration, and perhaps it should be, but it is still important. The cost is $32 million for the eastern route and $34.7 million for the western route. The figure for the western route does not take into account the cost of building extra car parking. That would be between $3 million and $10 million, depending on what you built. Whilst it is easy to say that cost is not important, if the difference of $2.4 million became closer to $10 million, that is a significant amount of money.

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