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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1054 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

to the Assembly, and to Ministers in this place and to others, that they want the route settled. They want the decision made to settle on the route so that they can have some certainty that when the time comes to build the thing it will be built.

Mr Speaker, I was Minister for Planning in the last Assembly. I have looked at that issue now at great length. I have little doubt that the route for the road needs to be settled, and in due course inevitably the road will need to be built. In saying to the people of Gungahlin that I believe that that is the case and that the road needs to be built, and that we need to get on with the task of settling on the route, in particular, as an important symbolic stage, at least, in that process, I believe I have been consistent.

Mr Corbell went to the last election saying very clearly to the people of Gungahlin that he supports that road as well. He wants that road to be built. I ask members to have a look at the words of this amendment. This amendment calls for an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Urban Services into, among other things, other transport inquiries and studies held in the ACT and the Government's response; the impact of the proposals on arterial roads; the desirability of improving the use of public transport and other non-car modes of transport; and the desirability of reducing the number of vehicles needing to travel between Gungahlin and southern destinations. What does that sound like? Does that sound like we are going ahead with the road but we want to think about some other things at the same time, or does it sound like issues that may put the road into question in the first place?

Mr Corbell: Is this the same man who released the greenhouse strategy? Are you the same man who released the greenhouse strategy, Mr Humphries?

MR HUMPHRIES: Does it sound like an issue which puts the question of the road up for grabs? I know you are upset Mr Corbell. I know you are upset because you know very well that I am going to go back to the people of Gungahlin and say, "This Mr Corbell, who said he was in favour of the parkway, now wants all these issues to be inquired into".

I pose a further question to members of the Assembly. Supposing that the inquiry shows, as Ms Tucker would be hopeful it would show, presumably, that the improvement of public transport might obviate the need for the road, or that reducing the number of vehicles needing to travel between Gungahlin and southern destinations might obviate the need for the road, or the siting of an eastern ring-road from Gungahlin might obviate the need for the road. There are two different purposes being pursued here. Let us be clear about this.

Ms Tucker: Do you want to close off the option? To help you reduce greenhouse gases and help you reach your target.

MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Tucker would like there not to be a road. I listened to you in silence, Ms Tucker, and I ask you to give me the same courtesy. The fact is that Ms Tucker would like there not to be a road at all. You said so many times, Ms Tucker. Do not look quizzically at me as if to say, "Butter would not melt in my mouth".

Ms Tucker: Have you got a problem with that? No good?

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