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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (21 February) . . Page.. 511 ..

MS TUCKER: You have to bring the people with you-I agree totally with that. I am right into carrots, and I am right into giving Gungahlin more options. I like carrots, we want more carrots. The carrots we want to see are in the form of better public transport, so that people would prefer to use it.

When this debate started, I think Mr Humphries said that maybe in 10 years we would see this road. Now, suddenly, it is urgent. It is interesting that when Mr Humphries said it would be 10 years before anything happened, I do not remember Labor saying, "No, no. We must do it sooner-2002, minimum!" That did not happen. We do have time. This is not withdrawing infrastructure that exists. We have an opportunity-we have time to do these things.

MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, order! We are very interested in the paradigm shift and all that sort of thing, but you are really introducing new information. Could you stick to the misquoted and misunderstood bits?

MS TUCKER: I needed to make really clear what I meant. I am concerned that Mr Corbell has said on the record that basically the Greens' position has not taken Gungahlin residents into account. I refute that. That is why I have been trying to explain, Mr Speaker, that in fact the contrary is true. We, the people in this place, are the ones who must look at the situation for the Gungahlin residents, in a way that will bring results.

MR SMYTH (5.06): I think the cases have been put quite succinctly, Mr Speaker. Members are well aware of where they all stand on this matter.

The basic premise of good planning is that you do not put arterial roads through the middle of precincts, and that is what the Minister for Planning will do. He will put a road through the middle of a precinct. The Labor option is bad planning.

Mr Corbell brought indignation to the debate on the very thought that the government might shift from an election promise-that sacrosanct of sacrosancts, the election promise. That makes me rise just to refresh his memory on some of the promises that have already been broken. We have had seven sitting days and, on a quick count, I can recall at least seven promises that have been broken by this government.

So we move into, I guess, the issue of core promises and non-core promises. I remember that they were going to release, upon receipt, the Gallop report, and they did not. I remember a progress review of vehicle testing that they were not going to release. Then they were, then they were not-and now I think they are. I don't know whether that one counts, because it has possibly been broken twice.

I think there was a promise to reduce the use of consultants, yet all we seem to have are reviews and consultants. We also had a promise to use local firms and consultants. That has not happened yet, so I guess you can call that a broken promise. There was the promise to meet the national average for the number of police officers. That one was broken before the election was even held, so maybe it does not count. That is an interesting guide to what the future of their promises is, Mr Speaker.

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