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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3240 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

content could financially affect anyone. But we have been told that we have to await a launch, so that we can have the report and at the same time have spin associated with it delivered to the public through the media.

How much are we spending on this research around the Institute of Sport? Are we spending an equitable amount looking at the impacts on Bruce, Aranda and Kaleen? How much of the department's time is being taken up trying to fix the issues around the Institute of Sport compared to the issues that have been raised by the residents of Aranda, Kaleen and Bruce? Where is the equity for the permanent residents of Canberra? Why can't we just have this information so we can consider it as we continue to again and again debate the issue of Gungahlin Drive extension? Why does there need to be such a delay, unless the government or the Institute of Sport feels that it needs more time to spin the information that is there into something that it is not?

All members of this Assembly will play a part in the decision about the final route of the road. We will all play a part in decisions about the mitigation measures along the route. For this reason, I think it is important and proper that we be given prompt access to this report so that we can have as much time as possible-all of us as members of this Assembly-to consider what it says.

I have no idea whether or not the report actually covers this, but I would appreciate having similar information along the entire route of the Gungahlin Drive extension, from the point where it crosses the Barton Highway to where it reaches the Glenloch interchange. We need all the information we can get, to help us make our decisions.

As members of this Assembly would be aware, the Australian Democrats support the western or community option for the Gungahlin Drive extension-and from media reports I understand that the report that we are debating today does not actually look kindly on the western option. But I am keen to be fully informed. I am not afraid of reading this report. I hope that the government is not afraid of releasing it.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.34): Mr Speaker, the government will be supporting Ms Tucker's amendment, because I think Ms Tucker recognises that the government is acting in good will and in good faith on this issue.

Let me just make the point about time limits. Is this report being held onto for an inordinate amount of time? Well, as I indicated in my speech, the final copy of the report was provided to the Department of Urban Services on 16 September, that is, Monday of last week, and the government proposes at this stage to release the report next week. So within three weeks of receiving the report and having considered the issues it raises, the government is going to release the report-the full report as presented by the consultant. So, with all due respect to Ms Dundas, I fail to see how a period of less than three weeks from receipt of the report until presentation of the report is in any way an attempt to delay its release.

The government is entitled to consider the issues raised by the report-the report that it commissioned-and then to release its report and how it proposes to respond to the issues that are raised in the report. Let me put it to you, Mr Speaker: as soon as this report is released, everyone will be asking, including Mrs Dunne and Ms Dundas, "What

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