Page 3416 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
people can feel that it is safe to ride, instead of having the possibility or the likelihood that they will have an accident on their way to wherever.
I guess that is the ideological issue. The Greens are looking forward to the future, whereas it seems to me that the Liberal Party is stuck in the resources of the past, when we were not concerned about climate change and we were not concerned about peak oil. The Greens are concerned about the future. We are trying to build a Canberra which works for the future, not for the past; which works for the families in Tuggeranong and Belconnen; which means that families everywhere do not have to have two, three or four cars, because we have a decent public transport system, and so that one car or no cars will suffice.
I should possibly stop talking about the ideology and talk a little bit more about the various motions. We now have Mr Coe’s motion and Mr Corbell’s amendment, and I foreshadow that I am about to move an amendment. Mr Coe’s motion actually does not say a huge amount. People disagree on the amount of car parking. I think that “adequate” is a loaded word in the motion, and it also refers to the dramatic increase in the cost of parking. As Mr Corbell pointed out, the cost of parking in Canberra is still cheap compared to most places in Australia or the world.
He called on the government to recognise that cars are the principal means of transport for most Canberrans. As I said, they are currently a principal means but this is something which we need to change. So Mr Coe’s motion actually did not have a lot in it.
I now move to Mr Corbell’s amendment, which is similarly fairly light-weight, but I am glad to hear that the government is finalising its transport for Canberra policy. We did already know this, as a result of a motion from Mr Rattenbury, after which Mr Corbell committed that this would be done, I believe, by the end of this year. I am glad to hear there will be the annual release of parking plans for the city to manage parking demand. I hope that it will be managing parking demand not just in conjunction with the land release program but in conjunction with improvements in public transport, improvements in cycleways and improvements in footpath provision.
One thing that I meant to say earlier was that, in terms of the principal mode of transport for most Canberrans, I would actually contend that the principal mode of transport for most Canberrans actually is our two legs. Even people who use cars get out of them and walk to their final destination. I agree that there are a few people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to do that, but for most of us our legs are our principal means of transportation.
Getting back to Mr Corbell’s amendment, paragraph (2) refers to the implementation of a parking strategy and management regime to encourage a greater use of sustainable transport modes. Great, fine. A parking offset—yes, I would like to see it happen. And maintaining territory ownership and management—yes, that is probably a good idea. But Mr Corbell’s amendment is very much about business as usual, and what the Greens would like to see, as I said, is a change from business as usual.
So you will find a revised amendment from me. You will find that it is exactly the same as what was circulated a few hours ago. The revision is that, instead of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video