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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 562 ..

MRS BURKE (continuing):

residents, of course, but the whole of Canberra.

Going back to Gungahlin, blind Freddy can see that access and egress are real issues for the residents out there. I have been out there on many occasions at peak times to experience what the residents have to endure and it is not a pretty sight, with road rage and everything else.

Are the residents really being consider or being truly consulted for their opinion? Are we just going into all of this in a carte blanche way? I hope not. Is the government really listening to the needs of the community in Gungahlin and taking into account the needs of all residents throughout Canberra? I hope we do not just pay lip service to this investigation.

However, I have to say that I rather see this suggestion as fanciful, given that the GDE is nowhere to be seen yet. I am wondering, as I am sure are the residents of Gungahlin, when the GDE will commence. Is it just a fanciful notion by the government to deflect attention because the GDE has not gone according to their plan? I hope not.

Mr Speaker, as I have said, the first sod has not yet been turned. This is a major concern, given that we are at 248 days and moving on. How many more days will it be? Where are we going to start? There is still no action; what is happening? Gungahlin, particularly, is a community disadvantaged.

Mr Speaker, before we start down this path, surely we should be pulling out all the stops to ensure that the GDE-a Labor election promise, let's not forget-is completed as quickly as possible. I am not against investigations into alternative modes of transport, as I have said, but not at the expense of delaying in any way the completion of the GDE.

I note Ms Tucker's reference at paragraph (3) (c) to ensuring that Gungahlin residents enjoy significantly improved public transport services. I would say that that can only happen once a major arterial roadway is in place. Again, we must address the issue of the people, where practical, supporting public transport and other transport modes. However, as I say, I agree with paragraph (3) (c) of the motion. We must ensure, first and foremost, that the immediate transport needs of the Gungahlin community are met.

MS TUCKER (4.46): Before I speak to Mr Corbell's amendments, I request that the question be divided under standing order 133.

Ordered that the amendment be divided.

MS TUCKER: Speaking to Mr Corbell's amendments, we can accept amendment No 1. I understand the argument from the government that the investigation is about a proposal, not a recommendation. I do not have a problem with that, particularly if the government wants to clarify and qualify it by saying that it is a proposal, not the government's recommendation. It is of some concern. It makes me wonder a little about the extent to which the government is committed to this proposal, but I accept the argument.

The second amendment deals with a broader issue. This motion presents the government, I believe, with an opportunity to demonstrate that it will not, like the last government,

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