Page 2217 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
people in Gungahlin are going to be making joy rides on the Majura parkway simply because they can. Really, it is a pretty absurd notion and yet another example of the Greens’ selectively quoting.
There are many other examples in this report but I do note that the two examples that the Victorian Auditor-General cites for induced traffic are two roads very similar to the Majura parkway. One is the M25 orbital motorway in London and the other is the Pakenham-Hallam bypass in Victoria. Look, as comfortable as these roads might be in that they are bitumen and they have cars driving on them, I think that is pretty much where the commonality with Majura parkway ceases. I think it is a pretty poor example of the Greens trying to use a government report from another jurisdiction to back up their ambit claims which really are, in fact, ideological claims that this road should not be built.
Dr Bourke has noted a number of things in his motion. Whilst I do broadly agree with most of what he has included in this motion, there are still one or two issues. For instance, it is stated that the Majura parkway will also result in safer on-road cycling. Whilst it may, insofar as riding a bike on the current Majura Road would be pretty dicey at best, this may well be in fact an opportunity to create a segregated bike path which would be better than an on-road bike path. Of course, it has to be costed. But I think our best practice when it comes to cycling is a direct segregated bike path parallel to the road rather than an on-road cycle path.
The motion is also somewhat partisan in that it says that it supports the government’s continual commitment and determination to build Majura parkway. Really, I do not think that sort of language is absolutely necessary. In fact, much of it is not necessary and that is why I believe my proposal that this Assembly supports the construction of Majura parkway is indeed a better way forward.
The saga of Majura parkway has gone on for a little while now. In fact, it was in 2009 that there was a Canberra Times article—almost exactly two years ago, on 9 July—where the Director of Roads ACT, Mr Tony Gill, who I notice is in the gallery today, told a meeting of about 50 people that “while the federal government have given $30 million for the first stage of the proposed road he did not expect it to hand over the money, $220 million, for about another five years”. That was how the article was written in the Canberra Times. Whilst the situation may have changed somewhat, in 2009 they thought it was five years to go. So I just wonder how far away it actually is.
This brings me to the point that I just wonder how committed and how determined this government actually are to building the road. How hard are they actually lobbying the federal government for the other half of the money?
Ms Gallagher: What have you done, Alistair?
MR COE: I get the impression that they go pretty hard and they go pretty fast when it comes to lobbying for the arboretum. However, when it comes to core infrastructure for people in Gungahlin, this government do not seem to go in to bat nearly as hard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video