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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1046 ..

MR CORBELL (11.48): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will be proposing an amendment to Ms Tucker's motion which I will move at the end of my speech. Mr Speaker, quite clearly, the issue of John Dedman Parkway is a contentious one, and it is one which has significant interest not only for residents in Gungahlin but also residents in North Canberra and across many areas of Belconnen.

It is important, Mr Speaker, that this Assembly ensure that the John Dedman Parkway is considered in an appropriate way and with a full canvassing of all the issues that it raises. That was the intention of the last Assembly in its last year when it initiated an inquiry by the then Planning and Environment Committee into issues surrounding the John Dedman Parkway. Unfortunately, as Ms Tucker has already alluded to in her speech, the inquiry was not able to be completed, at least in respect to the parkway issue. In making a statement at the end of the last Assembly, the chairman of the committee at that time, Mr Moore, made the following comment:

We do not think that a full airing of these issues will occur in the consideration of a draft variation to the Territory Plan to preserve the Option 3 route reservation and to delete the reservation to the west of the AIS. Therefore, we consider that our successor committee should be allowed to fully examine all of these issues and report to the Fourth Assembly before it is asked to consider that draft variation.

Quite clearly, Mr Speaker, the intention of the committee was made crystal clear in the last Assembly, and what Ms Tucker is endeavouring to do is initiate that process. I have spoken with Ms Tucker, and with Mr Moore and Mr Kaine briefly, about this issue. Whilst we are supportive of Ms Tucker's intent, we believe that the process she has outlined for how this inquiry should take place is a rather complicated one and does not allow the committee, which really should be doing the work, to get to the heart of the issue straightaway. That is why I am proposing my amendment.

My amendment, Mr Speaker, once I circulate it, will delete the provision for the Government to report on the range of issues that Ms Tucker has outlined in her motion and instead request that the Standing Committee on Urban Services inquire into and report on proposals for the John Dedman Parkway, taking account of a range of issues. This will then allow the committee to get on with the job of picking up the 52 or more submissions that already have been received on this issue. I have them here, Mr Speaker - 52 submissions plus numerous other expressions of interest. They have been made and they have not been considered by the Assembly, or by a committee of the Assembly. For that reason it is appropriate that those be allowed to be considered in relation to this contentious issue, but it should be done, Mr Speaker, in the context of the terms of reference as put forward by the previous committee. My amendment effectively reinstates those terms of reference agreed to by the P&E Committee in the last Assembly and to which 52 citizens or organisations have made representation but have not yet had their views considered. That, Mr Speaker, I believe is a more straightforward and more sensible process.

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