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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2718 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

I go back to what Mr Corbell said. Nothing has changed since my committee brought in report No 67. If anyone can show me today that there has been a change in respect to figure 9, which is what draft variation 138 is all about, I would certainly take it back to the committee. There has been no change. This matter started back in the 1960s. This matter was looked at by the joint parliamentary committee in 1991 under the chairmanship of Mr Langmore, whom you worked for, Mr Corbell. The fact is that the Labor Party, under-

Mr Corbell: Do you know which route he recommended, Harold? Which route did he recommend, Harold? He recommended the western route.

MR SPEAKER: Be quiet, Mr Corbell. You are not at a caucus meeting now.

MR HIRD: The Labor Party, under the Follett government, if they had been fair dinkum when they were developing the district of Gungahlin, would have put in this infrastructure. You always hear them saying that we want to create employment out there. Where is the road system? Why isn't the road system there? Of course, it was as an oversight. If we had done it then, under the Follett government, it would have cost millions of dollars less than what it will today. You, sir, and your colleagues, and the Greens, are delaying this urgently needed road. This road is a lifeline to the citizens of Gungahlin and it is urgently needed. I urge members not to support the amendment moved by Ms Tucker, because Ms Tucker has indicated that she does not want the road in any case. So much for the Greens.

MS TUCKER: I seek leave to speak again to my amendment.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I thank members. I think it is necessary to make a couple of points about Mr Hird's recent comments about the need for haste. I think Mr Rugendyke also commented on that. It is interesting to reflect on the history of this. There is a media release here from Gary Humphries in 1997 saying the road would only be considered for construction when Gungahlin's population reached a high enough level to justify it, and the estimate was that this population level would not be reached for around 10 years, which is the year 2007. Of course, that has changed dramatically.

Mr Hird seemed surprised that the Greens had taken a position on the road. Of course we would prefer no road. We have been lobbying on behalf of Gungahlin residents for seven years to have some proper public transport service, employment and so on. I am sure Mr Hird, when he thinks about it, will remember all those debates we have had on that issue, and it would not be a surprise to him at all to hear the Greens say that. But, of course, he belongs to the party who made public transport more difficult to access in Gungahlin.

I think there are several things that have to be said about the responses to my amendment. Neither Mr Hird nor Mr Rugendyke have addressed any of my arguments. They have not addressed the very interesting change in figures since they had this committee inquiry. I will repeat them. The figures they dealt with were $22 million for

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