Page 1509 - Week 05 - Thursday, 12 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The precautionary principle advocates the implementation of preventive measures where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, even if there is a lack of scientific certainty as to the causes and effects of this degradation.
Perhaps, in the light of this precautionary principle, we may wish to reassess the impacts of the Government's policy of urban infill and urban consolidation. Given that we are yet to officially see the urban consolidation study, which I understand makes it clear that urban consolidation may force the economically disadvantaged, young families and, particularly, those people who rent to Canberra's urban fringe, we should hasten slowly with this program until its environmental and social justice implications are better accepted and understood. We have the opportunity to do this, Madam Speaker, as the West Belconnen and North Watson developments proceed.
Another area in which I feel I should take issue with the Minister's speech is in regard to the Territory Plan. The plan does more than require consideration and amelioration of environmental impacts. The Land (Planning and Environment) Act requires environmental impact statements, which I have discussed before extensively with reference to the West Belconnen development in particular. If all we do is look to ameliorate the effects of our actions on the environment, we are not abiding by the cautionary principle outlined by the Minister. It is important that, as a community, we view environmental impact statements not as enabling documents but as objective assessments of the value in environmental, ecological, wildlife corridor and habitat terms, and allow them to rule out developments, if that is what is indicated.
Madam Speaker, I feel that the Government is in a difficult position with its role of managing development to take into account the needs of a growing population in the context of shrinking natural and economic resources, but the hard decisions do not include only taking away from the environment to satisfy these needs. It also means passing by some opportunities because of the need to leave something behind for future generations. The Government is to be commended on its stance on Mulligans Flat, which we debated in this chamber on Tuesday of this week.
I am pleased that the Government has adopted more environmentally friendly codes for houses and other buildings. The introduction of energy efficiency ratings is very welcome. In the Canberra of the 1990s we can do better than continue to build housing estates with north-facing garages - another matter which we have discussed in this Assembly before. I am pleased to see the Government introducing these guidelines, and the housing industry adopting the spirit of the energy efficiency ratings, which can only result in better environmental attributes in our new housing stock.
Madam Speaker, I am not convinced that the Minister's next point about avoiding urban fringe development necessarily follows from the last point. The Government has constantly indicated that its research shows financial and infrastructure benefits from urban infill. However, the opponents of infill programs in Canberra have put into the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .