Page 6007 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
infrastructure such as sewerage works are yet to be effectively dealt with. I am concerned that the artificial border between the ACT and Queanbeyan is leading to a poor outcome which will be bad for all residents on both sides of the border.
As I indicated earlier, Queanbeyan residents are part of our community and in that regard we should be starting to think about better regional planning with better engagement for all stakeholders, rather than pitching New South Wales residents against ACT residents. We share too much for this to become the paradigm in which we operate.
It is for this reason that I have proposed in the motion the establishment of a commission that would work to ensure cross-border planning is undertaken in an integrated and cooperative manner. This is a positive suggestion to try and ensure, short, medium and long term, that we operate as effectively as we can with our colleagues across the border to get the best possible outcome for all the citizens in this region. We will over the years ahead be sharing more with Queanbeyan residents rather than less as our residential and industrial areas start to meet and as our shared transport objectives are developed.
I understand that the current government has sought to engage with the New South Wales government and the Queanbeyan council on a number of different issues over time and I welcome that. But perhaps it is time for a more formal mechanism to take the regional planning process to a new level of cooperation and engagement.
When it comes to the discussion about south Tralee in particular, it is worth noting, as I have in the motion, that there is significant opposition to this development, and it is for a range of different reasons, some of which I agree with vehemently; others I am not so sure about. But at the end of the day there are clearly a number of significant problems with this proposed development. And those views have been expressed by the federal government, the federal coalition, Airservices Australia and a number of airlines as well as various community councils, which I have noted in the motion, including Tuggeranong and Weston Creek.
I think it is also important to note, because this is what might be described as a controversial issue, that this motion is about protecting residents and not about protecting the airport. Anybody who has listened to some of the comments I have made over time knows that the Greens do not necessarily support unending expansion of the airport and that we have reservations about building future industries off the back of the growth of the airport.
We have been clear in our criticisms of the airport developing new office facilities at the airport site, not because the buildings are not of a high quality—in fact, they absolutely are—but, rather, we have been concerned about the construction of an office precinct away from where people live and that this development has prevented that office development happening in other parts of Canberra where it is desperately needed, in particular, Gungahlin.
We have also taken issue with some of the predictions that Canberra airport are making about their expansion of services: more international flights, flights that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video