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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1049 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Assembly, in the vast majority of cases, have worked very carefully to try to ensure that the outcome they are looking for is the best outcome based on the evidence that is presented to them, taking into account the consultative process with the people who are concerned.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the method put up by Mr Corbell is consistent with the method that was recommended by the committee and it really continues the work that the committee began. That is why it is that those submissions that were made to the Planning and Environment Committee should be available. In fact, they are available to anybody because the committee authorised their publication. That material ought to be available to the Standing Committee on Urban Services so that it can look at these issues in an open and appropriate way and make sure that these decisions are made without the very narrow pressure of a variation to the Territory Plan.

The downside of that, Mr Speaker, is that we are then going to have to deal with them a second time. The variation to the Territory Plan will have to be dealt with, and, if we are looking at pure efficiency, that is not the most efficient way to do it. But we are talking about a route that is not critical for a number of years. We do have time to look at this properly, and I think it ought to be done in that way. To look at the issues broadly, as is proposed by Mr Corbell, I think is an appropriate way, and then move to the draft variation.

The report of the committee should help inform the Minister as to what ought to appear in the variation to the Territory Plan. The draft variation will just cover all the ground again. That can relatively easily be resolved. If the Minister responds positively to the work of the committee and the general view, and the draft variation is consistent with that view, I think we will see a fairly easy passage of the draft variation through the committee. The process does not have to double up unless Mr Smyth decides that he still wants to continue in a way that is inconsistent with those recommendations.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that wide-ranging and different groups of people have an interest in this issue. People in Gungahlin do need to have appropriate transport to and from the city. We have to make sure that we are taking the best steps we can to protect the environment. The people of Lyneham, O'Connor, Kaleen, all of those areas, are entitled to have their areas protected. It has an impact for people who live in Aranda. It has an impact for people who live in Tuggeranong and who wish to go to Gungahlin, or even through to Yass and other areas. This does have very broad ramifications in terms of transport, in terms of the environment, and in terms of that whole range of issues that have been identified by Mr Corbell. I think it does require very careful consideration. That is why I am supporting the motion put up by Ms Tucker, with the amendment moved by Mr Corbell.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12.00): Mr Speaker, the Government will be opposing this motion and the amendment simply because it is delivering an unnecessary level of process that we do not need. Mr Corbell and Ms Tucker are today delivering a slap in the face to the people of Gungahlin and their future. Mr Corbell says that the Government thinks that the only solution is to build John Dedman Parkway and

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