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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1745 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Environment ACT, to help them care for the two new parks and to help rehabilitate the previous Stirling Avenue reserve.

It is clear, I believe, that we have acted appropriately in protecting the significant trees in the area, both through the classification of some of the land as urban open space and through the interim tree protection legislation.

It was interesting to hear Mr Corbell-and I thank Mr Corbell for this-acknowledge that the ACT has a good record on the protection of these areas. The advice that led us to protecting these areas is the advice that says that it is appropriate to save five hectares as parkland but that the other areas are so degraded that they do not have the ecological values that Mr Corbell seems to ascribe to them. The government needs to look at the whole. It needs to look at developing our city in response to changing needs and the community's overriding wants.

The residential land in this site is proposed for release in the 2003-04. It will provide home buyers with choice in inner north locations. As I have said consistently, we will not go ahead until more work is done, because we need to make sure that we get it right. We need to think about how we provide more older persons accommodation for our increasing ageing population close to shops and communities where people already live and at the same time protect those parts of the ACT that we all value.

We also have to make sure that we use our infrastructure to its maximum benefit, ensuring that, as we have a thriving population, our buses are well used, our schools are well used and our local shops are well used, to support small business. We also need to ensure that young people who want to live in low-maintenance town houses in central areas, for instance, can be accommodated.

We have taken a considered approach, based on advice from experts within the department, who suggested that we should move the Gungahlin town centre, which we did. It is based on advice from experts who said that we should not build in the Jerrabomberra area.

Mr Corbell: You just give the same speech each time.

MR SMYTH: Mr Corbell interjects that it is the same speech. I am sure he does not want to hear again how much the government has done. What the government has done is quite significant, and you cannot hide from that fact. The government will continue to do what is appropriate.

The dilemma with Mr Corbell's motion is that it is another one of his reviews with a fixed outcome. Mr Stanhope in recent statements has said that they want honest, open, accountable government, but here we start with a review that already has determined the outcome that the Labor Party would like. So much for a review. It is hardly a review at all. The government is not afraid of a review. I have circulated an amendment which will propose that a proper review be done of the area to determine whether the area should be residential or whether it should be urban open space.

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