Page 2922 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
At this stage, we do not know what the federal department of the environment’s advice on the Molonglo valley will be, although we do know that it exists. Very disappointingly, we understand that neither the correspondence from the ACT government to the federal government nor in the other direction is accessible to the public. However, I hope that when we have the new open government website the correspondence will be on there.
I can only hope that the ACT government is following the federal advice very closely and that the federal government has very good processes in place for checking the implementation of its advice. The fact that Wright and Coombs have been excised from the EPBC process completely means that the onus is doubly on the ACT government to ensure that the ecological values are well protected.
Some of the positives in the development of Molonglo include the sustainability adviser who looks at plans for each private house being built and can help homeowners understand how to improve their plans for sustainability outcomes and associated incentives and rebates; the $1,000 rebate for energy efficient heating or cooling appliances, although I note with significant regret there is no rebate if you build a house which simply does not need heating or cooling; mandating seven-star housing for multi-unit and terrace housing in contract conditions. (Second speaking period taken.)
There is the intention to establish a materials recycling depot, like Village Building has at west Macgregor; sites for community gardens being put aside; an investigation into cogeneration and trigeneration of energy; plans for something like the bush on the boundary, which I understand will be called mingle in Molonglo; and better consideration of public transport options from the beginning.
This is not as yet a clear commitment. We have asked about this. We understand some consideration is being given here. We would like serious consideration to be given to it so that as soon as there are people, there are buses; that the right habits are established from the beginning. This will save people considerable amounts of money by not having to buy an extra car. An extra car costs $5,000 to $10,000 a year to run.
We note that there has been some work done on child-friendly planning and actually some consultation with young people, which is great. But there are still a lot of areas we remain concerned about. One is the continued lack of commitment to providing non-potable water to households, which may seem fine now, but there will be another drought and we need to be ready.
Another is the lack of plans for a cycle highway to get Molonglo residents priority cycle routes directly to Civic and the parliamentary triangle. We are unsure exactly who is responsible for funding and coordinating cycling infrastructure, not just the cycle highways but the recreational paths and the internal commuter paths within the suburbs. And we are unsure as to whether the paths near the river will be in the recreational zone, the ecological protection zone, the suburban footprint or perhaps the outer asset protection zone, which may in fact be a good idea, although that could lead to a lack of shading due to a lack of trees.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video