Page 3185 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have not heard Mr Gentleman speak up and support my motion because here we are talking about the integrity of the committee system. After my four years here, I can say that it is one of the best features of this Assembly. It is where people come together and talk and work together for the community no matter what their political affiliation.
I am glad that there is a very short chapter on solar amenity. There is a suggestion that places be sited accordingly. There is actually a recommendation on this. I point out again the glaring lack of a recommendation about increasing the attractiveness of public transport by having in the very first stage of the infrastructure development a rapid transit bus lane that can be upgraded to light rail. How can this government talk about integrated public transport—a sustainable public transport plan—when it cannot even put a recommendation in a report to that effect?
It is deeply disturbing. There is a schism here between the paper policies, the words of Labor members and the delivery. Things can change, however, and the climate change science is making it very clear that they have to change. The response has to be a lot more rapid than we are seeing here. Nonetheless, I do acknowledge and applaud the fact that this report does take into account many of the community concerns.
Turning to biodiversity, has there been a bird study in this capital city in the last five or 10 years? What is happening to our birds? Do we know that? Do we know how many raptors there are? We do not really know from the studies that were commissioned by ACTPLA here. Dr Debus had his points to make. He is a scientist speaking out. Scientists do not do that very often. They are very careful about maintaining their objectivity and their lack of political adherence to one side or the other. But they care and they are passionate about their topic.
He pointed out that there had been inadequate studies. I think that across Canberra we have concerns about introduced birds’ dominance. I refer, for example, to the impact of increased numbers of currawongs making this place their home due to drought. There is nothing out there to tell us about it. Biodiversity is one of the big key issues. Not only does it sequester carbon but we have to maintain everything we have and build on it. Therefore the Kama reserve was never enough.
There is still, I see, an option that we could end up with a lake at Molonglo. ACTPLA has realised it is unpopular; so the language has changed. But we have to make sure that it really listens. Lakes are a bit like dams. They are old technology and they really do not answer the needs of the world that we are into today. The Liberals, of course, put up their Tennant dam proposal. We know that that was bad policy. The ACT government has said that over and over again. Labor has knocked it back. Yet here we are talking about a dam on the Molonglo, our last bit of river.
The Molonglo is our responsibility. We are not just looking after it for us. It is part of the Murray-Darling system and we need to consider ourselves in the context of the whole region, in the context of a future where we do not know the challenges. Molonglo is our test case for that. This is a great project. The government can make this the most fantastic place if they want to. (Time expired.)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .