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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1047 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The second element of my amendment directs the Government not to proceed with proposals for a draft variation to the Territory Plan for the John Dedman Parkway until the committee, if it has a successful referral today, has presented its report and the

Government has tabled its response to that report. That, Mr Speaker, is a sensible process. There are a range of issues that need to be considered about John Dedman Parkway. As a Gungahlin resident myself, I am perhaps more conscious than most of the traffic issues surrounding that area, but I think it is incongruous of the Government to present John Dedman Parkway as the solution to transport issues and not to address the range of other transport issues that surround transport in Gungahlin.

There is no doubt, Mr Speaker, and the Labor Party has this view, that the ACT Government must plan for the provision of the John Dedman Parkway. Our position has been, consistently, to support planning for the road. We believe, however, that in planning for the road you must take account of the issues surrounding its potential location and the impact that its location will have on existing residents and other areas, and the environmental issues that Ms Tucker raised earlier.

Mr Speaker, clearly, that is why we are supporting this inquiry. We do not believe that the Government has adequately addressed those issues. In fact, we would argue that it has taken action in a pre-emptive way on a particular route. It is selling that position to the community of Gungahlin as though it is going to be built tomorrow, when everyone in this place knows that that is simply not the case. We have to be honest about that. Even if a route is resolved today for the John Dedman Parkway, you will not see any action on that road for another five to 10 years. So the urgency with which the Government is pressing ahead with this process is disappointing when quite clearly it has not addressed the range of issues that we believe need to be addressed.

I would envisage that if the Assembly agrees to this inquiry the Standing Committee on Urban Services will be able to take into account all of the submissions that were previously received, hold public hearings on those, and draw from the transcripts and evidence that it had already initiated but has not completed. It will look at the very broad range of issues that need to be addressed, including the Maunsell study, the adequacy of the preliminary assessment, other transport studies, including public transport studies and rapid transport system studies that have taken place over a period of time, the impact of the proposal on other arterial roads, and issues to do with an employment base in Gungahlin, which is central to dealing with transport issues. All of these things need to be addressed.

We are of the view that the Government has not adequately addressed those issues. Therefore, an inquiry is warranted. Mr Speaker, I move the following amendment which has been circulated in my name:

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