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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3390 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

To help members, I will refer to a very significant submission from a group of people who were prepared to do the work and tap into the expertise. The submission contains a table of bird species. Species which would not normally be found in gardens and depend on the ridge for nesting sites, seasonal passage and refuge are marked with an asterisk. These birds include the common bronze-wing, the black-shouldered kite, superb parrot, Horsfield's bronze cuckoo, the shining bronze-cuckoo, the scarlet robin, the red-capped robin, the eastern yellow robin, the western gerygone, the speckled warbler, the superb fairy-wren, the mistletoebird, the spotted pardalote, the double-barred finch and the red-browed firetail.

This submission was put together in 1997 and since then Freudenberger and the CSIRO have carried out a study on habitat values around Canberra and the impact of fragmentation. (Further extension of time granted.) In this project, O'Connor Ridge was assessed very highly for bird habitat, including species vulnerable across New South Wales such as the speckled warbler. So when Mr Moore and Mr Osborne went for a walk, I hope they were thinking about the impact on vulnerable species across New South Wales.

I hope when they went for their walk and looked at where they thought the road was going, they asked themselves what was meant by "hard edge". From now on the precedent will be: if we want to save an area, we will put a freeway through it; it will give us a hard edge. Where is the hard edge from government which respects the ecological integrity of its nature reserves? Where is the hard edge of an approach to planning that respects social and environmental integrity when the government is making planning decisions? Where is the hard edge that comes from responsible government?

When Mr Moore and Mr Osborne went for a walk I also wonder if their estimation of the impact was influenced by projections of the density of residential development in the area in the future-an increase in development which this government, of course, supports; and so do the Greens if it is done in a sensitive way. We will, of course, see increased density around our city.

Mr Smyth: Where?

MS TUCKER: Normally in most cities-and I have not heard the minister say he does not think it is advisable-we see an increase in density around areas that are near particular facilities. We have already seen an increase in density in the inner northern suburbs. Where is the estimation of the needs of the people, the humans, who live there in respect of their access to those wild areas, to those nature parks? When you went for a walk to determine your position, you should have considered the environmental value of birds and flora and, of course, the other less easily understood environmental issues such as the impact of greenhouse emissions on this city, Australia and the world.

There is enough evidence-people are well aware of it, and this came through in our committee deliberations-to show that the more you build freeways, the more you facilitate car usage, the more cars will use the roads. This government, which has picked up and progressed the Greens' motion to produce greenhouse targets in respect of energy use in buildings, has done nothing at all in terms of transport. They speak very proudly of their achievements in greenhouse emission reduction whenever international visitors are here but where does this proposal fit into that plan?

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