Page 1971 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 June 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
thinking government would have gone to option B; but no, they did not. They went for option A in the full knowledge that it is going to lead to 316-second delays for people at that intersection. It is absolutely outrageous. If this government think they are on to a winner by announcing a signalised roundabout at that intersection, they are gravely mistaken.
Mr Rattenbury criticised the opposition by talking about how we just support greenfields, in effect, paving the forest and building more roads. This is a minister who is part of a government that is supporting the construction of Moncrieff, Jacka, Taylor, Throsby, Kenny, Lawson and Denman Prospect. If Mr Rattenbury was consistent with his own language how could he possibly sign off on those new estates? We have no problem with those estates, but how does Mr Rattenbury criticise the opposition for greenfield development when he is part of a government that is signing off on all those new estates? How does he do it?
You can rest assured, Madam Speaker, capital metro is not going out to Throsby or Taylor or Kenny or Denman Prospect. How does Mr Rattenbury sit in this place, criticise the opposition for greenfield development and yet support all those initiatives? It is outrageous. If he does not feel somewhat hypocritical or guilty I would be very surprised. It is a big call to criticise the opposition about greenfield development when he is rubberstamping greenfield development right across the ACT.
Mr Gentleman brags about these duplications, yet he does not even understand that the Ashley Drive duplication is stopping at Ellerston, and he does not understand the price differential if they went the extra 300 metres to Johnson Drive. He claims there is not enough demand to go to Johnson Drive. You would think that would have been the number one question he asked when he got this briefing from Roads ACT and they said, “We’re going to do an Ashley Drive duplication but we’ve decided we’re not going to do the final 300 metres. We’ll do the couple of kilometres in the lead-up, but we won’t do the final 300 metres.” Did Mr Gentleman just nod his head and say, “Yep, fair call”? Surely he asked the question, “Why aren’t you going the extra 300 metres? Isn’t it going to be cheaper? Aren’t we going to get economies of scale by pushing the bulldozers an extra 300 metres and doing the extra bitumen?” You would think that would make sense. You would think there would be some critical thinking from this minister, or you would hope that at least.
You would hope that somebody in cabinet—perhaps not Mr Rattenbury because that might take away some herbage which might be deemed greenfield development—would have asked the question, “Why don’t we go the extra 300 metres? Why don’t we just carry it through to Johnson Drive?” Mr Gentleman has not even thought about it, it seems. When we asked the question today, he did not even know what the hindrance was and what the additional price would be if they were to extend the Ashley Drive duplication all the way to Johnson Drive.
Ms Fitzharris spoke about the government’s commitment to Gundaroo Drive and also Horse Park Drive. Something else I am sure she is aware of, because the Gungahlin Community Council clearly said it in their survey, was the preference to do all the roadworks at once and get them over and done with. “Don’t do it in stages. Do it all at once. Get it over and done with. We’ve suffered long enough.” What has this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video