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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2241 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The view of the community was clearly put that the current Action Plan 10 is more an action plan for development. There are very broad concerns about this. This review is necessary. As I said, the review has not been completed because surveys which are designed to inform the action plan are to be conducted in spring.

If I understood correctly-and, again, please correct me if I am wrong-Mr Corbell or Mr Wood seemed to be saying that they have been informed that we don't need to wait for this review of Action Plan 10 because Environment ACT, I think it was, or maybe the land release people, have said that they know the outcome of this review will be such that this development could occur anyway.

Mr Corbell: Kerrie, if you want a briefing, why don't you just ask for one?

MS TUCKER: So Mr Corbell is-

Mr Corbell: Just ask for a briefing.

MS TUCKER: I am quite happy for Mr Corbell to speak again if he likes. But the point I am making is that Mr Corbell has said that he is prepared to pre-empt this process. He is prepared to pre-empt this process for reasons which he has not explained to this place, and that is absolutely unacceptable, particularly considering the statements he made to the community before the election. He sounds exactly like the Liberal minister sounded before the election. That is why people feel so betrayed by the position taken by the Labor Party. Anything that the Liberals have said today is no surprise. We expect that.

The argument has been put up that this is a water sensitive urban design. Great. The Greens have quite a good record on supporting water sensitive urban design. We would like to see it in Kingston foreshore, Mrs Dunne. Mrs Dunne said there have been opportunities to have a demonstration project-opportunities which her government totally failed to take up. You cannot argue with any credibility that because this urban development is water sensitive it is okay to take away one of the most endangered ecosystems in our region.

Mr Wood talked in his speech about regional responsibilities. That is exactly one of the key arguments about the endangered grassy woodlands, and he is well aware of that. The argument that somehow this little bit is not going to matter has no credibility at all, and I think they must realise that. It should be clear to members, but apparently it is not, that this area is an important remnant woodland area. It is one of the largest remnant areas left in the ACT.

Mr Corbell, I think, or Mr Wood, spoke about how we can maintain large trees within the development. I have heard Mr Corbell agree with people at rallies at north Watson. When Mr Smyth was pushing that line, Mr Corbell was saying, "We know that does not work." When you look at the integrity of a grassy woodland, you know very well that it is not just about trees that are standing. It is about fallen trees as well; it is about the ecological value of timber on the ground. In pre-empting the review of Action Plan 10 he is arguing that we can maintain trees in this development and somehow maintain ecological integrity, that the ecological integrity issues will be dealt with by water sensitive design, and that somehow a balance has been reached.

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