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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2160 ..

broad support of this Assembly. Not surprisingly, the opposition has sought to suggest that the current difficulties are due to failures of government. That is not the case.

We pursued our public commitment to the western alignment. When that was absolutely vetoed by powers beyond our control, we vigorously and efficiently planned for the route now under debate. I would make just one comment—I am not going to get into a full rebuttal of all the comments that have been made—about a four-lane road. It was the Liberals’ commitment to build a four-lane road and they costed that. On that basis, in opposition, the Labor Party said, “Okay; that is the cost of the four lanes—we will go with it.” As it turned out, that cost was not able to produce a four-lane road.

The difficulties holding up construction of this road are due, shall I say, to the generosity of our legislation, allowing very extensive rights of appeal in different ways and in different places. Our legislation is being abused. This is not common legislation. It has, however, been used on a number of occasions in other jurisdictions. Without it the government would face consistent, repeated appeals to an extent that I could not indicate when construction might start and proceed without impediment. The legal actions are designed to stop the road but the decision about a road and then this road, as Mr Smyth says, were made long ago. At this stage these decisions should not be frustrated because the decisions were made democratically.

I heard some words about denial of democracy, but I will support other speakers in this place who have said that everything that has been done has been done within democracy and done democratically. What is happening now is simply acting to frustrate those democratically reached decisions. Mr Smyth sought from me some assurance that we would not undertake nefarious activity, or something, as an outcome of this bill. I certainly give Mr Smyth that assurance. This bill is only about the construction of the GDE and necessary works; for example, work sites that are essential to allow the physical construction of the road. It is not the government’s intention—and clearly this bill does not do so—to provide for extraneous activity.

The concept of this road dates back to the 1960s, and the planning, consultation and all the studies date back to 1990 or thereabouts. The road is an inevitable outcome of the planning and design of our expanded and dispersed city established in the 1960s and 1970s. Now that the population of Gungahlin is growing to substantial numbers, the road must be built.

The government will support the amendment that is forthcoming from one source or another. It is not our preferred position but we do so with the general acceptance that the work can commence rapidly. That is the whole idea of this special sitting—to get things moving.

I repeat that a strong democratic process preceded the decisions to build the road. Democratic decisions should not be frustrated by deliberate exploitation of our laws. It will be clear from the vote today that the road will proceed. It may be further frustrated but I now ask that those opposed to the road acknowledge this democratically reached determination, accept this fact and cease the unnecessary expensive action.

Question put:

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