Page 6021 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
public transport, because I imagine that many of the residents of Tralee are going to work in Canberra or their kids are going to go to school in Canberra or, if they unfortunately get ill, they are likely to go to hospital in Canberra. They will go out in Canberra. They will be spending a lot of their time commuting between Canberra and Tralee, and I think it is highly unlikely that they will ever see a decent public transport system there. We are having enough problems trying to create a decent public transport system just for the ACT, and the people in New South Wales have just for New South Wales. The cross-border issues are always going to make transport particularly challenging here.
Given that we are all in agreement that we want to see greenhouse gas reductions in the ACT, building a development which we know now will be one of the most car-dependent developments in the ACT and the region could hardly be consistent with the commitment that we took on recently for a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I do appreciate that the Liberal Party did not vote for that but they did propose a 30 per cent greenhouse gas reduction and I do not believe that Tralee is probably consistent even with that.
ACTPLA has just finished consultation on the eastern broadacre study. Tralee should have been part of that. We should not have had the dividing line down the middle. It should have been the whole area, not part of the area. We have known since the 1990s that residential development has been contemplated and whatever in the Tralee area. I think it is a real pity that the New South Wales authorities and the ACT authorities have not managed to sit down together and say: “Okay, we do have a border but this is an area which geographically is one area. How are we going to plan this so that whatever development is done works?”
This has not happened. Given that this has not happened, I think that Mr Rattenbury’s motion about Tralee is the appropriate way to go. Tralee is not an appropriate development and it is in our best interests and in the best interests of any potential residents of Tralee to say: “No, this is not the way to go. Let’s stop now.”
MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (8.28): Ms Le Couteur’s suggestion about having a map brings some other interesting options to mind. We could have audiovisual presentations in the chamber here. We could have holograms in the near future. But until then we could have a feature in the Assembly of PowerPoint presentations; that would really add some new levels to discussions we could have here with the illustration of the points that we are making.
On a serious note, I thank Mr Rattenbury for bringing this motion to the Assembly today. This is a timely topic and worthy of discussion. As such I commend and support Mr Seselja’s amendments to adjust the noise abatement zone to include all homes in Canberra and to provide Canberrans with a greater level of assurance regarding this matter through legislation. This amendment is not only a vital improvement to the Greens’ motion; it grounds this discussion in the belief that economic growth does not necessarily equate with a diminished quality of life for Canberrans.
In this regard, issues such as a proposed flight curfew might prove to be undermining for a busy city with economic development and diversification aspirations like ours, and can be construed as draconian.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video