Page 3076 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
about the GDE—whose fault is it that it is there at all, whose fault is it that it was not there sooner and whose fault is it that it was not cheaper? Really, we are avoiding the main questions.
Let us go back to 2005, when the opposition supported the government changing the law to let the work proceed. We know that there were court rulings, we know there was work by the Australian wildlife assessment unit, and we know there was no environmental impact statement. It is funny how we did not have the opposition or the government calling for an environmental impact statement on the Gungahlin Drive extension when such a statement is recognised as being so important by the opposition with regard to the gas-fired power plant and data centre. We have to be consistent about these things. If we care about the environment down there in Tuggeranong, we care about it in O’Connor too. Show me that you do. I do not think so.
I really have to be very cynical about the government saying that they had this covered in the budget. I think this was the what-if item: what if the opposition promises to fund a GDE? It is just tucked away in there as a just-in-case item. It is a maybe item—“Well, let’s hedge our bets and let’s not explicitly point it out in case we do not have to.” The Treasurer’s statement says:
The Program also makes provision for future projects required to meet the transport demand as the result of urban growth. These include Parkes Way, Majura Parkway and the duplication of Gungahlin Drive Extension ($84 million).
So what is that $84 million for? It could be for any one or all of those projects. I believe it looks very much as though the government plans to match the opposition step by step. I think the opposition should test this. Why does the opposition not suggest that we have a light rail or that we put dedicated bus lanes on every new road? Come on, opposition; if you do it the government will say, “Me too.” So do it. Go for it, opposition!
I just think it is incredibly short-sighted. It shows me that the Stanhope government’s horizon is so short that it is as short as the next election. It is an horizon of eight weeks. We have not even heard that there is going to be a transit lane incorporated into this. We know that Gungahlin people are calling out for light rail; they are calling out for light rail down Flemington Road. Here we have an opportunity—and this government is going to spend $83 million on a road that is going to be a fossil in 10 to 20 years. Let us face it, we will not need four lanes in 10 to 20 years.
Where is the vision of this government? Where is the evidence that its transport planners are reading the literature? Do we have a minister for roads? We certainly do not have a minister for public transport. That one has been let drop. How can we possibly talk about duplicating the Gungahlin Drive extension without planning to put a rapid bus transit lane there? That should be the very least if there is not to be the potential to have it upgraded to a light rail route in the future.
We have a minister who is not interested in listening even to his colleagues in the Assembly. Mr Mulcahy made a good point, which the Greens have been making for a decade or more, about the need to go back to a system of planning where we have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .