Page 5035 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
development that allows, and will continue to allow, Federal public servants to be concentrated in the Civic area. That will contribute to the downfall of our decentralised plan and be to the detriment of that plan. Of course, there will be a detriment in environmental terms and a detriment to the ordinary people who live and work in Canberra, particularly when we have a situation where 91 per cent of people who live in the Tuggeranong area need to move outside Tuggeranong in order to work.
What we should be aiming for is a reverse of that, where the vast majority of people in Tuggeranong can also work in Tuggeranong so that the trips they make, whether by public transport or by private transport - preferably by public transport - can in fact be taken over much shorter distances and be much less demanding in terms of the fuel supplies used in this Territory. That, of course, would be a major contribution as far as the greenhouse effect goes, and a major contribution as far as preserving non-renewable fossil fuel resources and the use of those fossil fuels are concerned. It should be clear to each member of this Assembly that any further development of office blocks in Civic is unacceptable, because you do not have the control mechanism to ensure that those positions are not taken by Federal public servants. The only option left for us is to ensure that, in fact, office block development does not continue in Civic, until such time as the development in the town centres has reached an appropriate balance between Civic and those town centres.
Members' Behaviour : Members' Rights : Kings Highway
MR BERRY (12.06 am): This year has been filled with firsts; but I think there are two firsts that need to be referred to, as far as this adjournment debate is concerned. One is the first that occurred on the last sitting day, 29 November, when violent behaviour was allowed in this Assembly. There was the inability of the Government to cope with disciplining its members, and there was also the inability of the Speaker to call that member to order and deal with the matter in a way that would bring respectability to this place.
Another first that I want to refer to is the first this evening, when, in an arbitrary way, a member's right to speak was taken away from him. The fact of the matter is that the member was debating a matter that was before this place. More than one member interjected, as I recall, in the course of that discussion. The interjections were taken by the Speaker, one would assume, to have been appropriate and legitimate, and thereby encouraged some response to those interjections. The interjections, of course, were entirely relevant to the debate. So also was the member's response, as far as I could make out. I think, Mr Speaker, that your actions in this matter do nothing for debate in this Assembly; rather the contrary. They, indeed, stifle debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .