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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3388 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

terms of reference to look at alternative transport options. I was therefore extremely disappointed, as I know many people in the community were, with the superficial report from the majority of committee members. I was even more disappointed about the speed with which the government proceeded with this Territory Plan variation and the refusal by the majority of committee members to have a further inquiry into the variation, even though many doubts had been raised about the credibility of the committee's report and the government's costings of the road.

Given the closeness of election day and the fact that some lead time is required to begin construction, I am amazed that the government has attempted to push this variation through the Assembly in the last week of sitting. I think the whole issue should be left until after the election and after we see what the mood of the voters is on this road.

Another factor to consider is the role that the federal parliament will take in approving this road. I admit that I was originally suspicious of the move by the National Capital Authority to issue a draft amendment to the National Capital Plan that mirrored the government's variation, given that the NCA has had little involvement in this long-running debate. However, I have come to realise that the NCA has a very critical role in this issue, as a significant length of the road on either alignment will pass through designated land of national significance in that the road crosses a part of Canberra's inner hills which form the backdrop of the Parliamentary Triangle.

This is not a case of unwarranted federal intervention. It is something that was allowed for when the ACT was granted self-government. Canberra has always had the dual role of being the national capital as well as the home of many people. The self-government legislation gave the National Capital Plan precedence over the Territory Plan and gave the federal parliament the power to disallow amendments to the National Capital Plan, just as we are now attempting to disallow this variation.

Even if a majority of this Assembly approve this draft variation, it cannot be implemented until the National Capital Plan is amended, and my colleague Senator Bob Brown has already indicated that he is prepared to move disallowance in the Senate. I therefore think the government is wasting its time trying to rush through this variation now before the federal process has been completed.

I think three things could be done now to put off the need for this road: abandon zonal bus fares, upgrade Majura Road and link it across to Gungahlin, and build bus only lanes between Civic and Gungahlin. In the longer term we should revisit the idea of a light rail system to link all of the town centres for which the transport corridors are already marked on the Territory Plan. (Extension of time granted.)

Given that it appears I am the lone voice here in promoting alternative transport options to eliminate the need for a road, if I have to make a choice between the eastern and western alignment then I would have to favour the western alignment and oppose the government's planned variation. The western route is shorter and straighter, so it would be more efficient for car travel and better for fuel consumption and exhaust emissions.

The government say that the western alignment is more expensive, but these figures are extremely rubbery anyway, and the percentage difference between the two options is not likely to be greater-probably less, in fact-than the annual cost of the V8 supercar race.

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