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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 187 ..

care about these residents. The traffic flows, with a centre that is likely to quadruple in activity, will impact severely on the area. The Fadden-Macarthur residential area is an inappropriate place to build a structure of the size proposed and to run an operation of this magnitude.

It is clear to me that a significant amount of tree life on the ridge top and in the saddle immediately north of the reservoir will be devastated. This is a beautiful area. The ridge line on the eastern side of Bugden Avenue is a very pretty area, and we will see a massive devastation of that. I am not exaggerating. Once you put in a structure of the size proposed, you will lose a lot of tree life in that saddle area.

I attended the second half of the Tuggeranong Community Centre meeting on Thursday night last, which was dominated by the Karralika issue. About 300 people succeeded in getting into the club, while another 290 failed to but signed petitions outside the club building. At short notice, that was a valiant effort by the Karralika Action Group to mobilise such support. On reflection, it also illustrates the depth of anger in the community. I congratulate the Karralika Action Group and its committee for not only its incredible energy and drive but also its fairness and logical application in this matter.

On Saturday morning at Chisholm shops the residents of Fadden and Macarthur again got together to sign petitions. They worked for at least two hours and had a significant roll-up of people—again, an illustration of the concern. I want the government and the Assembly to take note of that. This impact needs to be taken clear note of. Many people, from more than 22 suburbs, have signed these petitions, and that must be taken note of. We are not talking simply about the residents who are directly affected; we are talking about a community that is very much concerned about a planning process that does not consult and does not take note of the likely impact on our suburbia.

Let’s talk about the residents. Who are they? These are mainstream families. They are the silent majority. At least, they were silent until now. They do not belong to a pro-government, squeaky-wheel lobby, do they? That is the problem. That is why there has been no consultation. These people are not usually squeaky-wheel people, but they are responsible, sensible people, and the government must listen to and consult with them.

Why was this planning process pushed through at all, utilising regulation 12? Why exactly was this an urgent issue, categorised as a top priority in the community interest? How was this of strategic importance when not even five minutes of consultation with somebody could be allowed? The Assembly could be forgiven for thinking the government knew that they could not justify this proposal, for all of the reasons that I have outlined above. If they had announced their intentions and consulted with the community, they would have known that there was going to be an uproar. (Extension of time granted.)

So driven was this government by narrow sectional interests suitable to this government’s priorities that they have taken the risk of crashing through or crashing. They have not taken into consideration the greater interests of the broader constituency. That might be a noble act if the government was seeking to drive a major development project of significant strategic importance, which might justify bypassing community concern. We agree that that action must occur from time to time, but in this case it is not

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