Page 24 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
environmental impacts; they are never about how to avoid them entirely. In this case, I guess the only way to avoid that particular lot of environmental impacts entirely is to not put the road on the eastern alignment but leave it on the original alignment.
One issue which is fairly central in our minds in saying that we understand the government’s position is that the ACT is in a budget deficit position. I believe that the ACT government expects that this will be the case for the next seven years. We have to think very carefully about any additional expenditure when there are other things which are priorities which are not being funded. There is a standing order in the Assembly, standing order 200, which basically says that the Assembly cannot make the government spend money. It is about money proposals. I appreciate that this was not a money proposal: the motion was passed; clearly, otherwise it would have been ruled out of order. But I do appreciate the thought behind that standing order, and it is one of the problems in terms of the Greens standing up and proposing to spend the additional amount of money that it now appears that the road would require.
Another thing that has influenced our deliberations is that, as Mr Barr mentioned, if the road was realigned there would be substantial delay. There would be an EIS and a lot of studies to be done. That would mean that the Harrison 4 land release program would be delayed. I know that the Liberal Party has spoken a lot about housing affordability and is concerned about it, as are the Greens. An 18-month delay in this release will not make housing affordability any better. I must say, of course, that the Greens do not think that greenfield development is the only answer to housing affordability; we would welcome a broader debate on housing affordability. But in looking at a change which would put back this release, we have to look really carefully at all the implications of any potential change, and housing affordability is one of the issues. I am not sure that this has all been thought through.
Another issue is this: more than a year ago, when I went out to see the residents of Harrison, they said to me that their number one concern was safety. I could quite see their situation. Where the current alignment, the proposed alignment, is, there is not a huge amount of visibility on each side. That has been one of the major reasons that I have been very concerned about this road alignment. I have to say that I have been very pleased that, as a result of the Greens’ pressure, TAMS have redone the traffic study for the road and, as Mr Barr said, the government has committed that the intersection will be signalised from day one. This will substantially reduce any safety concerns about the alignment. It was a combination of that and, partly, financial issues that caused us to re-evaluate the issue.
Another point was that wherever the road went it was going to have an impact on some residents. Clearly this is not the outcome that the residents of Carpentaria Street desired. In the government’s defence, let me say that this road alignment has been in the territory plan since 2003; while clearly a large road is going to impact on residents, at least this was something that they knew about.
I have spoken earlier about one of our bigger issues being financial responsibility. Clearly if we are going to spend another $5 million there are a lot of things to spend money on. Only about a quarter of an hour ago, in my role as chair of PAC, I mentioned that PAC is going to have an inquiry into ambulances. To give just one instance here, let me say that the current waiting response time for ambulances in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video