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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 840 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

Members will be aware by now that this inquiry attracted 900-plus written submissions. Some of those submissions ran to book length, while others were a simple few lines that expressed the views their authors wished to make known to my committee. I would like to acknowledge from the start the committee's appreciation of the thought, research and sheer hard work that so many members of the community put into making a contribution to our work on this matter.

Mr Stanhope: It is a pity you did not listen to them, Harold.

MR HIRD: The Leader of the Opposition should know what is in my report.

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Hird! Ignore him.

MR HIRD: You should know that interjections are against standing orders, Mr Stanhope. You are always preaching that.

Mr Stanhope: What, you did listen to them?

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! There are people who are very interested in this report. You should give them the courtesy of allowing them to listen. That goes for both sides.

MR HIRD: As well as the 910 written submissions, five petitions were lodged. Of these, three petitions, containing 1,568 signatures, specifically opposed the eastern extension of the proposed roadway through O'Connor Ridge, while a further petition of 448 signatures asked for protection of the ridge generally. During the inquiry, the government took those views on board and announced that this part of the proposal would not proceed. The fifth petition, of 24 signatures, opposed the proposal outright.

The committee was addressed by 53 witnesses, 48 of whom represented community and business organisations. We also had to take into account the John Dedman Parkway preliminary assessment, better known as the Maunsell study, as well as another nine studies or inquiries into transport issues. We also had to look at the government's responses to these studies and inquiries. We did all of this in just under two years, despite the large workload that members know that my committee bears. We did it thoroughly and with great attention to detail.

I advise members that I originally felt that the committee had a feeling of scepticism towards the Maunsell report and its findings. However, as we worked our way through it, we became more and more impressed by its technical competence and in the end found it to be a most useful resource.

I would like to say that the committee's report represents a unanimous position. However, my colleague Mr Corbell, as is his right, has seen fit to dissent. Mr Corbell will address his dissent in due course. He will undoubtedly attempt to justify his course of action. I will leave that to my colleague. But I must say that, in reading his dissenting report, I can find only one area where he is in disagreement with Mr Rugendyke's views and mine. It is an important area, of course, as it relates to the route of the Gungahlin Drive extension as it traverses the areas between Ginninderra Drive and Belconnen Way.

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