Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 2695 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

main reason you need large roads is for commuter traffic. It is usually two lanes less if you have them using public transport. I guess what I am trying to bring out here is the strength of feeling in the community about the hills of this place. We heard Mr Kaine say that this is a well-planned city and a lovely city to live in, and I agree absolutely. That is what we as residents were fighting, and what I as a member of the Assembly will still fight, to maintain.

I believe that the original plans of Canberra were better, but they were corrupted in the 1960s and 1970s in terms of roads and car dependence. Yesterday in the Canberra Times we saw an item on greenhouse on the front page, for a change. We have to take serious steps as governments to stop this dependence on motor cars, and this city is basically planned around people having cars. When we are looking at new areas, we have to take steps such as Mr Wood suggested, where you look seriously at light rail, at seducing people out of their cars, even if the costs seem to be great. Once again, we have to argue the long-term costs and benefits of these sorts of decisions.

Mr Moore was concerned about paragraph (3). I do not think I am saying that this has to happen now. I guess the essence of this third point was to say that we ask you to look seriously at that community option and take steps to give a good social and environment impact assessment of it when the time comes to look at this issue. I agree with Mr Wood that it is probably something we should be looking at now. Even though Gungahlin has not grown as fast as expected, why do we have to wait until the last minute again and say, "Oh God, we have a problem; let us sort it out."? If we were looking at this now and considered all the recommendations of the joint parliamentary committee, which basically came out against the planners and in favour of the community's options, we could be getting a thoughtful solution to the needs of Gungahlin residents. The Liberal Government, as with the Greens, have a commitment to an increase in density of housing in the inner city areas because there is obviously an environmental imperative, and we hope it can be done so that it is socially just and harmonious as well.

The other thing you need to understand is that, if we do that, the value of the hills, our open spaces, becomes much more important as well. We need to keep those areas as untouched as possible. I recognise that any kind of roadwork in any city is going to have some environmental impact, but what we are saying in this motion is that you recognise that those hills not only have a recreational and spiritual, if you like, benefit for the people of Canberra, but also function as corridors for wildlife. So there is a real reason to keep the ecological integrity of those areas intact as much as possible.

I think I have covered all the points I wanted to make. I could seek to amend paragraph (3) in regard to the Government looking at transport options for Gungahlin, if members think it is necessary.

MR SPEAKER: What are you proposing, Ms Tucker?

MS TUCKER: People were concerned that there should be a qualifying phrase on the end of the third point, so I am happy to amend that now if it means that people will support the motion. I am not quite sure of the process.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .