Page 148 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
city is the same as we are proposing through the spatial plan in Canberra, that is, high densities along public transport corridors and around centres, supported by dedicated public transport right-of-way corridors that service those employment nodes. As soon as you move away from the city centre you see low density.
Of course, Mr Mulcahy’s immediate predilection here is to say that, if they are in South America, they must be inferior to us. Mr Speaker, I would encourage him to read the planning literature. I would encourage him to talk to people in areas such as Portland in the United States. Portland draws on the experience of that city in Brazil as a very good example of how you can make public transport work effectively and well and integrate it with urban developed. If we could remove some of the wonderful snobbishness from this debate, we might actually have a rational debate about how public transport can work better in Canberra.
Mr Speaker, the government’s position on this matter is quite clear. The government is undertaking detailed feasibility and planning work to look into what is the best possible corridor, what are the engineering issues, what are the planning issues, and what are the land use issues associated with putting in place this type of dedicated right of way. The government has never said that the funding is there to proceed with this project. To suggest otherwise is mischievous at the very least. Of course, as Minister for Planning, I want to see this project proceed. I think it would be a good project for Canberra. I know that it would improve public transport infrastructure in Canberra, I know that it would improve public transport patronage in Canberra and I know that it would fundamentally change the way Canberrans view public transport, and change it for the better.
That is the government’s agenda. At least we have one. At least we have a proposal that we want to move forward with, that we want to advocate, that we want to dedicate our time to, to explore and to work out whether it is actually going to work. In comparison, we have from those opposite no agenda, no philosophy, no commitment, no ideas, no initiatives, no concept, no policy. That is what we have from those opposite. It is a disgrace that the opposition in this place has no alternative point of view when it comes to how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this city for the second most significant generator of those gases, the private motor vehicle.
They have been in opposition for over four years and have made no commitment whatsoever to address the issues of modal shift, of getting people to choose not to use private motor vehicles for every single journey and to choose to walk, to cycle or to catch a bus. They have no policy. They have no alternative. Their only approach in this place is to say, “What the government is doing is rotten, hopeless, bah, humbug.” That is all we hear from Mr Seselja and those opposite. That is not good enough. Come out and engage us on what the alternatives are, come out and tell us what you would do instead, and then we would have a good debate, then we would have a positive debate. Mr Speaker, I wish to move the circulated in my name to address Mr Seselja’s motion.
Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your ruling on whether the amendment proposed is compatible with the motion. The motion is about the busway and Mr Corbell’s amendment seems to be avoiding mention of the busway in any substantive way. This issue comes up regularly in this place, Mr Speaker, as the government attempts, essentially, to gut motions that it finds inconvenient. Today, we have an amendment that is almost contrary to the views expressed in the original motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .