Page 2228 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Hanson. Ms Le Couteur.
MS LE COUTEUR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The next thing I will talk about—again, you would expect me to talk about it, given the subject, but it must be mentioned—is peak oil. Those people who looked at the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, the 2010 one, will find that there is a graph in there. I unfortunately cannot read out graphs, but it shows that 2006, according to the IEA, was the peak of conventional crude oil production. While there have been other liquid fuels increase since then, and I do admit that the IEA does in fact predict that there will be an increase if you take the total amount of liquid fuels, it is all hypothetical things which have not been found at present. There clearly has been, the IEA acknowledges, a peak in conventional oil production.
We need to do all our transport planning bearing this fact in mind. Planning for a more and more car and truck dependent future for Canberra will not serve Canberra in the long term—or even, I believe, in the medium term. It also will not serve from a financial point of view.
The Liberal Party has talked a lot about costs of living. One of the significant issues of cost of living is transport. If a family has to run two cars, as my colleague Ms Bresnan said, it costs them a lot of money. If we could have a decent public transport system, if we could have a system which encourages people to walk or to ride their bike because it has become safe for them, it would be a lot cheaper for Canberra families. It is also a lot healthier. And there are a lot of other environmental benefits, but I will not go there because we do not have a lot of time.
Climate change is the other thing that we must mention in this debate. Last year this Assembly committed to a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The question that the government needs to answer is about how building another large road will contribute to a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The government simply has not answered that one.
I would also like to point out that Mr Corbell was misrepresenting the Greens’ position. The Greens are talking about improving the existing Majura Road. We do acknowledge that work is needed on that. What we are saying is that we should improve the existing road rather than support a new road. Mr Corbell, I live in Downer. I go up and down Northbourne Avenue virtually every day, as I live in Downer and I work in Civic. I am well aware of the congestion issues on Northbourne Avenue. What I am not aware of is that building a four-lane highway in the Majura Valley is going to solve those issues.
I will briefly talk about two other issues. Mr Corbell and Dr Bourke talked quite extensively about freight and that this is a reason for doing what they are proposing. As far as freight goes, I should point out, as the Greens pointed out in the eastern broadacre study, that we do not support the concept of Canberra Airport becoming a 24-hour airfreight hub. I mentioned peak oil and climate change earlier; those are two good reasons why, probably regardless of whether or not the Greens support it, it is unlikely to happen. The economics is going in a different direction. It is not going to increase airfreight. Oil prices are going up, whatever you might think about it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video