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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 851 ..

MS TUCKER (12.08): Obviously this is a disappointing report from the Greens' perspective. I was concerned when we saw Mr Humphries some time ago present as some kind of compromise the removal of the spur to Barry Drive. I did not think anybody would see that as a rational way of progressing this issue and I am very surprised that it appears to have convinced the majority of members of the committee that is dealing with the issues that are at the centre of this debate.

What we have ended up with is another road which we do not think we should have. But the argument right now is about where the road will go. So we have not only ended up with another major road but we have ended up with a major road which is still going to be very destructive to the Bruce and O'Connor ridges and which basically will have a negative impact on the ecology of that area and on the residents and people who use the area for recreational reasons.

We care about this because we care about the Canberra nature parks, we care about the character of the bush capital, and we care about the integrity of the planning of our city as the national capital. This area is part of the inner hills which, under the National Capital Plan, are identified as significant because they frame the national capital.

We believe that the impact of the ecological concerns about this road is much broader than just the road. There is going to be a wider impact through noise disruption and disruption to wildlife corridors. As I have said already, this area has important recreational significance to Canberrans.

One of the important points that have to be made here today is that there is a better option-an option that impacts much less on the nature park and that, in engineering terms, is a better option. But basically this government, Mr Rugendyke and the big end of town care nothing about protecting the environment or the quality of life of people in Canberra.

I think it is important to look at what we will achieve for the long-term transport needs of this city by building this road. We have heard a couple of people talk about the projected population of Gungahlin. What people know well but do not talk about in this place, in the community or in the media is that this is just the beginning of more freeway building in this city.

It is quite clear from Maunsell that, if we continue to follow our current thinking on transport, there will be a need not for just this road but a road for Monash and an upgrade of Majura-and the Greens do not have a problem with just an upgrade of Majura. Basically, what we know is that, according to Maunsell, when the population of Gungahlin reaches 100,000, traffic from Gungahlin heading south will occupy 10 lanes worth of road space in each direction. Six or seven lanes of this road space will be provided by Dedman, Monash and Majura, and the rest of the traffic will be equivalent to three lanes or four lanes in each direction-you can use existing roads, particularly Wakefield, Limestone and Northbourne.

What are we moving towards? Are we taking a long-term look at how we are going to meet traffic demands if the present dependence on the motor car continues? Are we going to be meeting those demands? Of course we are not. This is the beginning of more

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