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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1300 ..

that this Assembly has to ask itself today in this debate is whether that is a reasonable assertion for her to make.

Ms Tucker has a philosophical view about the provision of road infrastructure. That is fine—I understand the Greens’ position—but does she have the right to say that there has been a failure in process and a failure in examination and investigation, simply because she disagrees with the substantive outcome? You can have a sensible, reasonable and detailed investigation of all these issues and come up with a finding which does not necessarily agree with Ms Tucker’s view of the world. That is what has occurred and I think it is rich to criticise the process when you are losing the debate. She should make the argument on the substance of why the road is not appropriate. We have heard those debates from Ms Tucker in the past. There is no reason why she cannot do it again and debate the substance, the in-principle matter. But I believe that to debate it on the matter of process when the process clearly is, and has been, extensive is unreasonable.

I think it is worth drawing to members’ attention exactly what studies took place. The 2002 preliminary assessment—which, despite its name, was a very detailed investigation—looked at all the impacts of the western alignment from the Glenloch interchange to the area adjacent to the AIS. In 2002, not 1997, it looked at the impacts on Aranda, Black Mountain, Bruce Ridge and adjacent to Kaleen, near the Kaleen grasslands. That work was done in 2002 and it was done in a very detailed way.

The 1997 PA looked at the route for the eastern alignment from the Barton Highway to Belconnen Way, and that included the route to the east of the AIS—behind the AIS. Further studies were undertaken specifically in the area between Ginninderra Drive and Bruce East and Belconnen Way in 2003—last year. So to suggest that there has not been adequate investigation of these issues is unreasonable. That suggestion has been proposed by Ms Tucker only because she has an in-principle objection to the road. I accept that that is her position. I do not agree with it and the government does not agree with it, but that is not the same as saying there has been some failure of process. There has not been any failure of process.

I was interested to read the comments of some of the scientists in the paper on the weekend. I have to ask the question: where have these people been for the past seven years? There has been an Assembly inquiry into this matter and there have been two preliminary assessments. They were publicly advertised and submissions were received. It is not as though no-one knew about it. People made over 100 submissions to both PAs.

So where have these people been? I think it is simply the case that they do not agree with the road. That is fine: they are entitled to not agree with the road but they are not entitled to question the process which, in the government’s view and in the view of any reasonable person, is, to say the least, comprehensive. As I outlined in my earlier comments those processes do not apply simply to projects such as the Gungahlin Drive extension, they also apply to other major pieces of infrastructure in the city.

The government’s position on this matter is a reasonable, detailed and comprehensive one. It is not a decision taken lightly or without angst. No-one likes—I do not like—building a road in that location; it is not our preferred outcome; but as a government we have accepted that a road needs to be built. I again challenge members in this place who are opposed to this road to demonstrate how they believe construction of the road can be

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