Page 4245 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (4.03): In general, it is good to be talking about infrastructure, about planning for good infrastructure in the ACT, about roads infrastructure and about any other types of infrastructure. It is also good to talk about the government’s recently released infrastructure discussion paper. We previously had an ACT government infrastructure plan for 2011-21, which was released under former chief minister Katy Gallagher, some of which has not been delivered and probably never will be.
Historically, we have in our territory a long history of well-planned infrastructure planning and delivery. Many of us in Canberra are the beneficiaries of that good planning. We benefit from that legacy. We have a responsibility here to ensure good planning and good infrastructure—that we plan for it and build it for the benefit of future generations. So far, no argument.
We can also consider some of the discussions we had this morning in the debate on the motion about the Molonglo Valley. It is only too clear how important planning of infrastructure is. We have talked a bit about the newer suburbs, smaller blocks, narrower streets, heat islands. These are failures of infrastructure planning and people will suffer as a result now and into the future.
It is nice to have a mature, responsible, sensible and considered debate on Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, which is a pretty straightforward amendment. It is something that we can all talk about and agree on without some of the completely unnecessary commentary in Ms Cody’s original motion.
I also felt, as Ms Le Couteur obviously does, that this was an intemperate motion from Ms Cody. It politicises the planning process. It was unnecessarily inflammatory. It was obvious that it was trying to get a reaction. As Ms Le Couteur has also said, the government have released their infrastructure discussion paper. It is their job now to get on with it. I am not sure why we need a motion in this place except perhaps for the fact that it gives Ms Cody, who is well known as being a loopy headline in search of a newspaper story, the opportunity once again to come up with some inflammatory comments in the Assembly.
I believe her motion has some hypocritical elements. She talks about the importance of roads for the rapid bus network, while in my electorate of Tuggeranong, and in others, buses have been cut and people have been cast adrift from the public transport network. She acknowledged in her opening speech that Canberra was built for the car. She talks in her motion of the Canberra Liberals’ long-held disdain for public transport, which I disagree with.
What we want is the most effective and efficient public transport that stacks up against sound business cases and that best serves the people of Canberra. I do not understand how that is disdain for public transport. So we will not be supporting Ms Cody’s motion today, which politicises the infrastructure planning process. We will be supporting Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, which recognises in a very matter of fact and non-controversial way the importance of long-term infrastructure planning.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video