Page 3733 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 29 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If we have increasing traffic being driven into those areas because of congestion in places like Northbourne Avenue, which is what some residents are reporting, we need to take steps to deal with those. All of those things carry a cost as well, and they are not inexpensive. There is considerable cost associated with those sorts of measures. That does not mean we do not need to take some of those measures, but if we do not provide alternatives, those pressures will only get worse and the cost of those will increase.
Dr Bourke touched on the issue of expansion of Northbourne Avenue. I have certainly commented on that before. It is worth contemplating the consequences of that. Do we eat into the median strip? Do we start eating into the nature strip on the side? I do not think that the scenarios for expanding Northbourne Avenue are very viable at all. Again, the necessity of providing alternatives is very clear.
There is of course much more to be said in this debate. There has been a particular focus on light rail in the discussion. It is certainly part of the package. But overall, Dr Bourke has highlighted questions about the future of this city: where do we want it to land and what do we want it to look like in 20, 30 or 50 years time?
I am very proud to be part of a government that has taken a decision to ensure that Canberra does not become the worst case scenario that one could imagine—congested, and sprawling to the far corners of the land available to the territory—but in fact is seeking an alternative vision for the future of this city that is people focused. It is about providing a livable city that is not choked by congestion but that has fast, modern and efficient public transport systems and the other options that go with it—the active transport options around good cycling and walking infrastructure. We want to have a healthy city, a livable city and one that people want to stay in—a city that is forward thinking and is attracting the sort of residents who are innovative and who are about ensuring that this city has a good economic future.
In a competitive world—and, again, some of us in this place have worked in that expat scene where labour is mobile and some of the best people are looking for what are the attractive cities to go for—I think Canberra, in making sure that we continue to be a livable city, will attract some of the best people and it will ensure the diversification of our economy, which is something we are going to discuss later today.
Bringing the best people requires having a great city to live in. Projects like light rail and seeking to build an alternative urban form to some of the other possible scenarios are the sorts of things that will attract some of the best people to this city and continue to drive innovation and economic opportunity in this city into the future.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.27): Very briefly, I want to point out the anomaly in Mr Rattenbury’s argument about livable cities. We have heard a lot about livable cities all having light rail, that we have to be a livable city, and that 10 of the most livable cities in the world have light rail. There is the expectation that we can become a livable city if we have light rail. It misses the point, of course, that the world’s most livable city does not have light rail, and it is Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video