Page 256 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I had thought that we might discuss Mr Corbell’s amendment, but he apparently does not have any faith in his own amendment so I will address what Ms Bresnan has proposed.
Much of what I have said is contained in much of what is to be substituted. I thank Ms Bresnan for that, because the issues are quite large; it is not just about the Tuggeranong lake here. But it is important that we know that the planning of Tuggeranong and the maintenance of Tuggeranong appear to be low in the priorities of the Gallagher government.
That is what the community council meeting said the other night. I read the litany; I can read it again. It took me almost five minutes to read the entire litany. When I close, I may finish by reading it again to remind people what the complaints were. The complaints were largely about the roads, rates and rubbish issues that are the reason for 1(a). It is a low priority in this government. It is an absolute low priority in this government. The people of Tuggeranong, through their community council, spoke about that. If that does not stay, I will not vote for the amendment. If you want to change it in some way, that would be your choice.
Quite contrary to what Mr Corbell said, there is acknowledgement that master planning is going on in the Tuggeranong town centre and Erindale group centre. And it is quite accurate to say that the government had to be persuaded to undertake planning. Indeed, when we did the motion on Kambah that I moved, which got Kambah on the agenda as well, the government had to be persuaded. They resisted. They resisted as they did on Tuggeranong. They resisted Tuggeranong for years. And Mr Corbell was the chief protagonist against that being put on the agenda. To give Mr Barr his due, he understood. He got it; he was a good planning minister in that regard.
As I have already said, Ms Bresnan managed to get up the Erindale motion. Good luck to her. We all understand how the numbers work in this place. But the government did not want to support any of these. And they are gentle words. The government had to be persuaded. That is a true fact; that is a statement.
If we could leave (a) in, I would be amenable to some of the other changes. I think they are mainly words. I think (b) in Ms Bresnan’s amendment, to implement appropriate maintenance programs as a matter of urgency, is a straight lift from mine. It is very important that that actually does occur, because it is the maintenance and it is an expression of the need to develop the maintenance program so that you do understand that things do change.
In terms of artificial wetlands and ponds, I was the first one to put that on the agenda. I remember those days when we worked very successfully with the Sullivans Creek group. At the city edge there, there is a nice wetland. We proved the theory and we are supportive of the theory. In some cases, in other areas, it has not been delivered at all well by the government, with particular blow-outs in their budgets, which is par for the course for this government. But it is important that these things are considered, so I ask that Ms Bresnan might consider leaving my paragraph (a) in place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video