Page 666 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY: I was on the point of finishing anyway. I just wanted to say that issues such as the Woden interchange should not be put aside while we focus on the timetable, because it needs to be brought back onto the agenda. It is always very pleasing when the government, and in this case the opposition, respond to community concern. They are supporting that motion of Mrs Dunne. In fact, I have to thank her for consulting me on the terms of reference that she suggested. Here we are; we are all working together. It is nice, isn’t it?
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.19): On the amendment, I welcome Mr Hargreaves’s cooperation on this matter. He needs to be congratulated on taking on board the issues that are raised in my motion. It is interesting that, although the format of the motion changes significantly, generally speaking the tenor of the motion has not changed.
I quibble a little in that I originally envisaged this as something more broad ranging than just an inquiry into the bus system. Although there is still some emphasis in Mr Hargreaves’s paragraph 1 (c) in relation to the sustainable transport plan, it is much narrower than the original intent of the motion. I could do some fancy footwork and move an amendment to the amendment, but that would be a waste of time because Mr Hargreaves has the numbers and I do not. I should take the victory that has been delivered to me by Mr Hargreaves today in good grace.
We had a discussion, just after the Assembly sitting was suspended, on bringing forward a reporting date, which was something that I had in the back of my mind. I am concerned, as Dr Foskey is, about the shortness of the reporting date. I suggested to Mr Hargreaves—and I put this suggestion now to the planning and environment committee as well—that they might report on that date on the ACTION parts of it but perhaps maintain an ongoing brief to look at aspects of the sustainable transport plan, which has never been reviewed by any committee of the Assembly.
After a few years in operation and some little look at it in its nascent form during the taxi inquiry, there is some value in the planning and environment committee looking at the sustainable transport plan and whether it is on the money. I have always been supportive in general of the sustainable transport plan. I said to the previous minister that I thought the targets were a bit on the weak side and that they could be more adventurous.
My major quibble with this is that we are still looking at Canberra as a place where public transport is provided by buses. Buses may not be the best answer in the future. I know that Mr Mulcahy goes into wince mode when I talk about anything other than buses. I understand there are a lot of practical and financial impediments to moving beyond buses. We see that there are even financial impediments and practical impediments to infrastructure like the busway as well.
These are things that the planning and environment committee should be looking at. The planning and environment committee tends to have a preoccupation with planning issues, and the environment seems to come a distant second in the deliberations. That is part of the structure of the planning and environment committee. It is a busy committee, and it is a good opportunity for it to look at this important environmental issue, because it has a remit in relation to transport.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .