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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2151 ..

It should be noted, however, that displacement of the ADJR Act does not affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue other forms of relief, whether by way of the prerogative orders, or the equitable remedies of injunction and declaration.

On the other hand, the Committee draws attention to subclause 11 (1) which would stipulate a period of 21 days within which a court proceeding could be instituted to challenge an authorisation by the Minister under clause 9. In addition, by subclause 12 (2) a person could not bring a proceeding unless he or she had notified the Minister of this intention at least 14 days before commencing proceeding. These provisions modify the normal rules for invoking the jurisdiction of the courts.

We would really like to have an opportunity to look at that in more detail, but it is just one of the many important and complex issues that are going to be overridden by this process today. (Extension of time granted.) Of course, the government will provide, and has provided, excuses and claims with tears that it would rather not have behaved so badly, but that somehow we have made it do so. That is a feeble and convenient response, but it is not true.

In the first instance, there is the cost-to-the-community argument. In the first case, the government and contractors were warned by Save the Ridge when the contracts went out to tender that there would be community opposition to this road. To settle on a contract that costs us $23,000 a week, even though the contractor is happily engaged in other work, with no regard to potential stoppages is irresponsible at best, but appears more likely to be bloody-mindedness. Clearly, planning for the worst-case scenario is still not a strength of this government.

There is also the argument that this road is needed now. It was not so long ago that Gary Humphries was assuring the community—arguing, in fact—that the Gungahlin Drive extension would not be needed for at least 10 years. While I disagree with the traffic and planning strategy that had the GDE as a key component of the territory’s road network, it was never a part of the urgent plans, even so. Certainly, the duplication of Barton Highway was overdue when it was finally completed and William Slim Drive probably could have been widened years ago. More could and should have been done with Northbourne Avenue already.

But this inaction should not be used as an excuse to stop the appeals and objections and not allow the process to take its proper course. The only reason that the road is seen to be urgent, as I have said, is that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are now competing for the votes of disenfranchised Gungahlin residents that both parties have continually let down over the years through poor urban design and development, year after year.

There is also, of course, the argument that environmental concerns are of no substance or have come too late. In that context, it is salutary to remember that Jon Stanhope, as Leader of the Opposition, was himself quite explicit in his description of the preliminary assessment that was conducted on the Bruce and O’Connor ridges part of the Gungahlin Drive route. On 20 August 2001, at a Save the Ridge meeting, he made the following comment:

The Labor Party is prepared to commit to a detailed environmental impact assessment of the routes. We acknowledge that the preliminary assessment that was

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