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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2717 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

This amendment that Ms Tucker has put forward is a nonsense amendment. She has come clean by stating that she does not agree with the road anyway. She does not agree with the John Dedman Parkway or Gungahlin Drive. Well, I would like to give her a hot flash seeing she is trying to give me an education in political awareness. The fact is that Gungahlin is well and truly in Ms Tucker's electorate, and I hope people remember that on 20 October.

I turn to my colleague Mr Corbell. He referred to report No 67 which I mentioned earlier today. When I look at figure 9 in that report, what has changed under draft variation 138? Nothing. Not a thing. Not a smidgin. So what's the hoo-ha? As my colleague Mr Rugendyke said, it was a choice between the western route which Mr Corbell agrees with or the eastern route. The western route goes through a marsh, directly in front of the AIS, and directly in front of the Bruce Stadium.

Mr Corbell said that the government is bulldozing this matter through and that I have my riding instructions. I think he used those terms. Well, let me inform Mr Corbell, who was in the public hearings when we did this inquiry over two years, that we had people from the AIS saying they did not want a four-lane highway out the front. The minister for sport earlier this day identified that we could lose such an institution and lose jobs. But not only that, there would be a four-lane highway out at the front of Bruce Stadium. Who did we have from the Bruce Stadium? The Brumbies, the Raiders and the Cannons. These people came forward to say that they supported the eastern route.

When all is said and done, what about the people of Gungahlin in the electorate that Ms Tucker is supposed to represent? They said through their community council that they support this route, the eastern route shown at figure 9. Nothing has changed.

So why do we need to go to more expense? Is this another one of Labor's tricks, to go to the expense, or is this a Labor delaying trick? Do they want to delay this? If they do not they will support our recommendation on draft variation 138, because it will take at least another 12 months before this matter is resolved, if indeed the people from O'Connor ridge allow it to be resolved. It is clear from what has been said that they are not willing to have a compromise. They have had the IPT route redirected.

It is interesting that Ms Tucker does not know there is an IPT route parallel with Belconnen Way. She should look at the Territory Plan. The government has taken that out. The government took the spur out at the request of Mr Rugendyke, which I thought was a sound idea. It does not go through an area known as O'Connor ridge. I know the area very well. Why do I know the area very well, you might ask. The fact is that I used to go to that area with rubbish because it was a local rubbish tip for the area for many years. There is also a rubble rubbish tip located in that area, and there were small industrial buildings along the old Weetangera Road. The people from O'Connor ridge may not know that, they might be too young, but that is the area.

I have a friend of many years standing who lives in Dryandra Street, O'Connor and he and his family are annoyed when there is activity at Bruce Stadium. The O'Connor ridge people should have raised the issue. People park along Dryandra Street and stalk through this area to get to Bruce Stadium. So much for it being maintained. Hundreds of people use that area to park their vehicles and do untold damage to this area that they call an environmental sanctuary.

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