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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (30 January) . . Page.. 47 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

What is sustainability? We often hear this term used and we often see people's eyes glaze over as it is discussed. In the past in talking about sustainability, I have really talked about liveability as a substitute word and for me, in this context, lots of questions are raised about the way we built our city. Following the fires of 18 January, we must ask ourselves whether we have a liveable interface with surrounding countryside.

There have been articles recently raising the question of how we build to minimise the risk of fire, which is a question that some of us have addressed here today. But we must also look at what we plant and where we plant it. There are thousands of homes in Canberra that directly abut nature parks, forests and reserves and, probably for the first time, we are seriously asking ourselves whether they provide liveability and are they sustainable.

It is not a matter of saying, as Paddy McGuinness said, that Canberra was a mistake-we know that that is not the case-or, as others are saying, that we cannot have trees near our houses, but rather of thinking of how we design our urban environment, the built and the planted, to reduce the risk of having the whole thing go up in smoke again. Bushfires are natural for many parts of the Australian environment, but they are not something that we can tolerate in an urban environment. If that means departing from what might be considered the natural look and removing fallen trees and timber, it must be something that we look at.

Just as a little exercise-it was not something done purposely-the other day while driving down Eastern Valley Way my husband and I counted standing 40 dead wattle trees between College Street and Ginninderra Drive. We have to ask ourselves, as many people have asked before, whether we should plant Cootamundra wattle in this town, knowing that it only lives for a maximum of 10 years, and whether we are going to be prepared to take away the dead bits if we do.

Should we start to look very seriously at the way the community deals with these open spaces and the fallen timber on them? When we ask these questions, people might rightly say, "What about Walter Burley Griffin's concepts and what about the bush capital?"Well, what about them? Perhaps it is time that we let Walter Burley Griffin rest in peace. He has many monuments, but he planned a city for 30,000 people. Perhaps it is time that we put aside the old labels "garden city"and "city beautiful"-perhaps they are just shibboleths-and the cliche "bush capital"and built a 21st century vision for Canberra.

In looking at this vision for Canberra, I would like to make a heartfelt plea for those people who are rebuilding their homes and rebuilding their lives. As many of you would know, on Guy Fawkes Day in 2000 my family home was severely damaged by fire. It was not burnt down and it was not entirely destroyed. We did not lose everything that we valued. But the message that comes from someone who has experienced this situation is: let the people of Canberra get on with their lives. Do not impede them in getting on with their lives.

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