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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 841 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

The rest of Mr Corbell's dissent seems to me to be a matter of emphasis, as the issues he addresses are addressed in the body of the main report, which generally concurs with what he says.

Before I go into the recommendations of the committee, there are a number of points I would like to make to members. The committee spent a great deal of time reading and hearing evidence relating to the fast-tracking of the development of the district of Gungahlin without making adequate allowance for the installation or planning of necessary infrastructure. I do not want to labour this point, but it is vital that this practice never be allowed to happen again. Let us learn from the past and not let it happen again in the future.

The issue of public transport took a great deal of our time. We-the majority of the committee, at least-consider that there are no simple solutions to the comparatively low levels of patronage of our local public transport system. Our recommendations show an awareness of the need to improve services and to look at alternative services. They also show that this type of planning should happen prior to this type of development rather than after it.

A lot of time was spent on the public transport issues, but as chair of the committee I endeavoured to keep discussions to the terms of reference and confine discussions on public transport to how it affected Gungahlin residents. I believe that Mr Corbell, in his dissenting report, has raised the matter in a more general way. While there may be-probably is-room for the discussion, I do not believe this is the place for it.

Mr Rugendyke and I believe that the options we have outlined for Gungahlin in our recommendations are realistic options for the government to work with. They recognise that simple statements of the desirability of using public transport will not entice residents out of their cars and that planning has to be on the basis that cars will remain the most popular form of transport for tomorrow, next week, next month and next year.

Gungahlin is heading for a population of around 110,000 and, with growth of around 4,000 people per annum, is Australia's fastest growing urban area. One thousand five hundred families per annum moving into Gungahlin equates to around 3,000 additional motor vehicles per year on the roads of Gungahlin. As planning legislators, we need to acknowledge this trend with actions that will not see these people disadvantaged purely because of where they live.

The committee also spent considerable time looking at issues relating to other transport routes directly affecting the movement of traffic in and out of Gungahlin. We found that some of these led naturally to the possibility of alternative traffic flows, some of which have territory-wide as well as New South Wales and federal implications. I will detail some of these issues later. However, it is important to note that the successful implementation of all the strategies contained in the document will require a significant contribution from the Commonwealth. The government will need to develop some good cases for our cousins, the Commonwealth government, on the hill. I am confident that the evidence in this document will support our case.

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