Page 2236 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We do not believe that a brand new gleaming four-lane highway down the middle of Majura Valley is necessarily the answer that we need. We think there are other possibilities here that will ensure that the people of Gungahlin get offered real transport solutions, not some of the false promises that are blindly being put forward to them by those in other parts of this chamber. We believe, and we will put this out in writing today, that roads play an important role in Canberra as part of our overall transport network. So all—
Mr Coe: Why do you need to clarify that?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Coe!
MR RATTENBURY: Because, Mr Coe, you keep coming up with the sort of verbal garbage that tries to make some other impression for the people of Canberra. So just for your sake, so you do not have misquote us in the future, here is what the Greens believe. We also know that the Majura Road is a busy single-lane route and it does need improvement. There is no doubt about that and, again, we state that very clearly. It is currently used by many commuters as well as freight traffic. It carries around 16,000 to 18,000 vehicles a day.
We believe that targeted upgrades can be made to the existing Majura Road for significantly less than the cost of the new Majura freeway and with much less impact on the ecosystem of the Majura Valley and existing land uses such as the various recreation facilities in the Majura Valley—the mountain bike facilities, the Girl Guide facilities and the various things that take place in the Majura Valley in its current form.
We also believe that the considerable savings achieved by the upgrade approach can be invested into quality public transport solutions specifically designed to serve the busy, growing areas of Gungahlin. We also, as Ms Bresnan, I think, has spelled out quite well, believe that some of the benefits, or the alleged benefits, of building a freeway are illusory and will not bring the solutions for the commuters of north Canberra. The residents of Gungahlin, the residents of the inner north, need real solutions, the solutions they deserve, not the false promises that are being put out there.
I think the strength of Ms Bresnan’s motion is that she actually seeks to answer some of the questions that we do not believe have been adequately answered to date. I think that she has raised the points in quite an evidence-based sort of way. She has not stood up and said, “I reckon this; I reckon that.” She has actually brought forward with this debate some evidence rather than just ideology around the fact of what has happened in other cities and in other parts of the world.
Somehow there seems to be a view in this chamber—at least the old parties, the agreeing coalition, seem to have a view—that despite the fact that everywhere else in the world produces evidence, somehow Canberra is magically different. Well, it is not. What Ms Bresnan is seeking is to actually undertake some scrutiny of this proposed road project.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video