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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1050 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

we need to look at the whole picture. The Government has looked at the whole picture. We are aware of the growth of Gungahlin, the timeframe in which that growth will take place, and what initial infrastructure will be required to support that growth.

It is curious, Mr Speaker. We are talking about the need for this reference to the Standing Committee on Urban Services to look at the issue of the Gungahlin Drive extension and yet yesterday, in respect of the capital works program, Mr Corbell was lauding recommendation 22 that says that the Government should bring forward for planning the roads around the airport and Majura Road. Where is the inquiry there? Where is the consistency here? What we have are inconsistencies.

I believe that the Labor Party and the Greens are simply against this extension and will do anything to slow it down. The Government is fully behind the people of Gungahlin. We believe that the people of Gungahlin deserve the infrastructure that they need to be a part of Canberra. They deserve the same level of infrastructure and support that the rest of Canberra has.

Mr Speaker, we will not be supporting this motion as there is a clear process for dealing with this, and that is through the draft planning variation. There is a clear role in that process for the Urban Services Committee to view all of these issues in the one inquiry. We do not believe that there is a need for two inquiries. Essentially, Mr Speaker, this motion proposes a doubling up for the committee's consideration. It is a motion simply to delay proper planning process by adding another layer of unnecessary process.

Mr Speaker, let us make no mistake about this. This motion says to the people of Gungahlin, "You simply don't deserve the same level of infrastructure that other Canberrans enjoy and you can just wait". That is not fair, Mr Speaker. This process is quite clear. We understand the needs of the people of Gungahlin in terms of planning. We understand that when certain population levels are reached other roads will be necessary - Horse Park Drive and then Majura Drive or Majura Parkway or whatever it will be called - because we have done the figures on this. We have done the work. We understand the capacities of other roads like Northbourne Avenue. This can all reasonably be done in one inquiry.

It becomes quite clear, when you take this motion in the context of what is proposed in the capital works program, that it is the intention of the Greens, and clearly now the ALP, to decide the future of Gungahlin Drive before the community consultation takes place. That community consultation is most appropriately considered in the context of the draft variation.

We will not be supporting this motion, Mr Speaker. I think it is merely a delaying tactic by the Labor Party or the crossbenches to stop the Gungahlin Drive extension going ahead. Why do I know this, Mr Speaker? Because I wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Urban Services some weeks ago, saying that all the material that was presented to Mr Moore's committee in the last Assembly should be taken into account. It must be taken into account. A lot of people have put a lot of effort, time and hard work into those submissions and they should be considered in the context of a further inquiry. We believe that the most appropriate place for that to go ahead is in the context of the inquiry that will look at the draft variation.

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