Page 3473 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We need to actually look at the balance of Canberra. I think what we are seeing is very significant development in Gungahlin, very significant land releases, but it is my view and the view of my colleagues in the Greens that Gungahlin deserves the same open spaces as other parts of Canberra have, just as areas around, perhaps, Macarthur or Fadden have open spaces around them, just as areas right through the inner north, the inner south, Woden, Weston Creek—all of these parts of Canberra—have open spaces. I think that people at Gungahlin deserve the same thing.
Yes, we need to improve the supply of land. Yes, we need to try to ensure that people can get access to housing, and affordable housing, in this city. But that should not come at any price. It is actually about saying to the people at Gungahlin, “We also respect the fact that you want open space.” Mr Seselja, I think, spoke very wisely about the balance we have built in this city between open space and nature and building urban fabric, and I think the extremist agenda or the image he tries to portray around seeking protection for those areas that have recognised national environmental significance is unhelpful to the debate and is a disservice to the people of this city.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Mr Seselja.
Mr Rattenbury: He wants another go.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (9.23): I am having another go, yes, Mr Rattenbury, and I simply respond in a couple of ways. Mr Rattenbury seeks to deny his own words in this place on Throsby because it was Mr Rattenbury who said that from the Greens’ perspective—I do not have the quote in front of me—perhaps Throsby should be a no-go zone. I believe they were the words. I think they may be his words verbatim. “Perhaps Throsby should be a no-go zone.” So it was not like Macarthur where we do have green space in the middle of the suburb, or Fadden or Kambah or other places where we see that. It was, “Perhaps Throsby should be a no-go zone.”
So let us be clear and let us be honest about what the Greens have said about this. It is not that we should have a little bit of green space, a little bit of space for wildlife corridors and the like. We support that. We support that in every suburb. We do not want to see wall-to-wall houses. I suspect the “concrete” comment has more to do with my background than anything else, but putting that aside, let us stick to the facts. The facts are that was what Mr Rattenbury said. He is desperately trying to find Hansard to see whether I got a word wrong. But I look forward to him coming back and quoting the exact words and telling us how different it is.
In fact, Hansard says:
… the Greens’ view is that Throsby may well be a complete no-go zone.
I missed the word “complete”. I apologise. I did not say “complete no-go zone”. I have now just read that off the screen. So I assume that is correct. But those were the words and that was the sentiment. So let us not pretend that it was anything different.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video