Page 4244 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
a massive toll on our community, and having the right infrastructure is an important part of preventing it. Sometimes new roads and upgrades are appropriate.
The point we are seeking to make is that we need to change the government’s general approach to transport planning and spending to stop it being so focused on roads and cars. More investment in roads will build a car-dominated city in the future like the one we have right now in Canberra. Most infrastructure planning experts agree that roads expenditure inevitably makes driving an even more attractive option and therefore entrenches congestion and emissions and essentially disadvantages the most vulnerable in our city who are either unable to drive or cannot afford to run their own car.
Infrastructure planning needs to recognise that when we reach 100 per cent renewable electricity—about now—more than 60 per cent of ACT greenhouse emissions will come from transport. Almost all these emissions are because of private car use. This is the number one issue we need to address to reach zero emissions in the ACT, as the government has promised.
The Labor Party have been very vocal about their support for reaching zero emissions and are justifiably proud of this target. The Greens have pushed this, and we are very proud of it too. But at the same time, the Labor Party is forging ahead on new road projects which will entrench car driving and transport emissions. It is not obvious that these two things are compatible. It is possible that we will have a very quick transit to zero-emission private vehicles, in which case we need to have the infrastructure in place for the delivery of the energy for this, for the hydrogen or the electricity. With the exception of the Woden bus depot, that was not in this plan.
If the Labor Party are genuine about climate change, they would be taking a prudent and reluctant approach to road building. They would be focused on more sustainable modes of transport and doing all they can to avoid infrastructure that entrenches unabated use of the private car. They are not doing that. How do they explain these two conflicting positions?
I am not trying to say that it is going to be easy to reduce car use in Canberra. It will take a different attitude and changes to our traditional approach to transport planning, and there will be political pressure. I would like to see the Labor Party at least try a bit harder on this and not show such a clear disconnect between their words and their actions.
The Greens see this motion as a regrettable politicisation of the ACT’s new infrastructure plan. However, I am quite pleased that some of the conversation from all speakers seemed to recognise that roads were not the be-all and end-all of planning in Canberra. I urge all members to vote for my amendment. The “calls for” wording in the motions of both Miss C Burch and Ms Cody should have qualified as business as usual for the government. The government have put out an infrastructure plan. Would they not implement it? The government has recognised the problems with network 19. Would they not fix it?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video