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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 1001 ..

reverse! Ms Tucker claimed a significant role in the end result of Conder 4A and the change of the road. I acknowledge that it was Mr Smyth’s decision to not have Templestowe Avenue go straight through to Charterisville Avenue but to turn left into Tom Roberts Avenue. That was a brilliant decision and I thank him very much for that. I acknowledge Ms Tucker’s role in it. However, she should listen to the debate before she comes in here and belts people over the head for not acknowledging people’s contributions. Listening to the debate is a good idea to stop yourself from looking really stupid.

Mr Smyth: Two ears, one mouth.

MR HARGREAVES: That is right yes. How about closing the mouth and opening the ears? I did, in fact, acknowledge the roles of Ms Tucker, Friends of Grasslands, the Conder community landcare group, the Commissioner for the Environment and Michael Bedingfield. I notice that Ms Tucker forgot Michael Bedingfield. Good on you! Either do your research or keep your mouth shut.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition’s gracious comments about community commitment. I thought they were called for and I appreciated the comments that he made. He did say that the community is a big winner, and I think that is true. All the rest of the stuff about the loser bit I thought was a whole load of rot and nothing short of bushfire fuel, quite frankly, but we will just dismiss that with the contempt that it is due.

I was interested in the inconsistency when talking about preserving Callum Brae. What an honourable position that was! That was really great—you were going to stick a prison right on it! Let’s get the whole story right, guys. You say, “Oh, we shifted the Jerrabomberra town centre into oblivion; we shifted the Gungahlin town centre; we shifted the AGSO building”—all that sort of stuff—but that strikes me as being a little like “me too-ism”. “Don’t forget me please, sir. I was a good boy in the last government.” Well, okay; good on you!

I have a little difficulty putting yellow box/red gum lowland woodland and grasslands preservation in the same category as that of a standard radiata pine. I am sorry about that. I am very happy to be corrected about this, but, as I understand it, it is true of radiata pine. I could be wrong. The issue is not about the preservation of trees. The issue is about whether you should build on that block. Mr Smyth talked about the connectivity of Fadden Pines up to Colin Hannah park. I suggest that you drive up Budgen Avenue, because Bugden Avenue wrecks the connectivity of Fadden Pines through to Gowrie and has done so for years. There is no connectivity. There are two distinct areas. If you want to argue the point about whether or not to build on that particular block of land, I think that is an argument, a debate, worth having. I have the same difficulties that the Leader of the Opposition has with it. I don’t think we differ. But let’s use the right argument: it is not about the preserving trees at all; it is about preserving the back of the presbytery and about preserving an area for people to use as a recreational area. It has absolutely nothing to do with preserving a standard radiata pine.

Mr Smyth is floundering at sea without his water wings again. Just forget it! Argue the case on its merits and you might win. You can’t see the wood for the trees. That is your problem. You know that you have touched them on the ticker when they yell at you across the chamber. So I am quite happy.

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