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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 995 ..

I dispute the points made by Ms Dundas. I don’t think any serious ecologist is going to argue that the Nettlefold Street site, or the site that she is now concerned about close to Nettlefold Street, is part of some integrated nature reserve network in the ACT. Yes, they are remnant trees, but I would argue that it is nigh impossible to justify that they were, in some respect, part of a remnant ecosystem which is going to contribute to the preservation of that ecosystem overall in the ACT. The way you achieve preservation of this ecosystem is through a sustainable reserve structure. By “sustainable”, I mean integrated, linked together, connected to existing areas of nature reserve. Nettlefold Street is not one of those and neither is the other site in Belconnen which Ms Dundas raised with me in question time today. They are not able to assist in creating a sustained system of reserves that connect to one another. They have aesthetic value—

Ms Dundas: They have ecological value too.

MR CORBELL: and some ecological value, but you cannot argue that they are of the same status as incorporating large areas of remnant woodland into an integrated reserve network. This is the judgment we have to make as a city. We need to encourage consolidation of our town centres for a range of uses and we need to encourage consolidation of the existing urban area. If we want to prevent the continued sprawl of the city, the continued push out of the city, we need to contain that, and that means we have to ensure that services, especially services in town centres, are available.

If we want to meet our other objectives about minimising transport time, about access to service and facilities close to residential areas, then we have to continue to permit the consolidation of activities in areas like Belconnen. So what is the judgment to be—that every tree has value and that it should be retained or that the location of services and facilities in a dispersed pattern in our town centres, such as at Nettlefold Street or at the other site in Belconnen, are a justifiable outcome in terms of building a more sustainable city?

Ms Tucker: We really need another liquor barn.

MR CORBELL: Ms Tucker might not like liquor barns, but other people do. There is a diversity of services.

Ms Tucker: I said we really need another one.

MR CORBELL: That is an incredibly snobbish attitude.

Ms Tucker: This is the balance we are talking about.

MR CORBELL: That is a very snobbish attitude by Ms Tucker when she says, “Oh, we don’t want another liquor barn.” This is about providing a range of services—whether it is a liquor outlet, a supermarket or a retail outlet. Would you have a problem if it were a chemist facility? This is about providing for a range of services and facilities close to our town centres, supporting our town centres, supporting the dispersed employment pattern we have in the city, supporting access to services close to where people live and reducing journey times. That has to be a sustainability objective too, doesn’t it? Of course it does in building a more sustainable city. These are the judgments the Assembly needs to

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