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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3932 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

I know that you, Mr Speaker, and others do not agree but I strongly believe that one day we will have a heroin program that will save the lives of people we are not getting to with other programs.

I was disappointed that we could not put in place the SIP, the supervised injecting place, at this time but it will happen. Let us ensure that we do not let those projects or other innovative approaches to the drug problem in this community go by the wayside simply because they are too hard. Yes, they are hard and, yes, we will end up with significant community division. But we need leadership and courage and we must continue down that path.

I am really disappointed that the very fast train has not been given the nod by the federal government at this stage. I certainly have not given up, and I am sure nobody has, but I am disappointed that the federal government has not had the courage to say, "Well, yes, let's give it a go."

I am also disappointed that we have not been able to reach an agreement with our local indigenous community with regard to Namadgi National Park. I think that would have been an enormous positive for reconciliation generally, and I believe that it would have brought our local indigenous community together. But I know it is something that Mr Humphries and the government will continue to attempt to achieve.

Mr Speaker, I am disappointed because I do not think we have come to grips with what is sustainable development or what a sustainable city actually looks like. I think the debates over the last few weeks have shown categorically that we are still as an Assembly - I have to say that those opposite are the major offenders here - very good at saying no to everything and not saying yes to anything. We have not reached a view on what a sustainable city actually is or what it looks like.

We know that from an environmental perspective, from a liveability perspective, we simply cannot sustain a continued expansion of our city into greenfield sites. It is not just about cost. It is about energy. It is about the huge environmental toll of continuing to build further and further away from workplaces. Such expansion is not sustainable and it is not appropriate for any community. Some people will want to live in these areas and we must as an Assembly ensure that people have a choice.

It is very naive to assume that Canberra looks like it did in the 1950s, with mum and dad and a couple of kids who want to live on a quarter - acre block with a Hills hoist. A lot of people want to live in medium - density developments. A lot of people want to walk to work. A lot of people are single and are in separate houses. Canberrans are getting older and they do not necessarily want to live a long way away from their friends and from their families. If we are to achieve that sustainability, both from a people perspective and from an energy perspective, we are going to have to change our views on urban infill, heaven forbid, or to use Ms Tucker's words, urban consolidation - and for the life of me, I cannot see the difference.

Mr Speaker, I think it is a bit tragic that we have almost stepped back from that really important issue for Canberra. Governments in the future are going to have to be able to afford to run this city and they will have to do it at times when the economy is not as good as it is at the moment. They are going to have to be able to afford to run a bus

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