Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 390 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Mr Humphries said, "Let us look into this weeds strategy and make comments about it". We will do that, and I am sure that many in the community with great knowledge will also do so; but it will not come to much if the Minister does not fund it. We are talking about the Commissioner for the Environment today. Recently we had the Government's response to the commissioner's first report. The Minister agreed with practically everything in the report but has done nothing to provide funds to do anything. It would be a waste of time and of money if there were to be no financial investment into this weeds strategy. That is related to, but a little different from, the proposal by Ms Horodny. This is a more specific look at chemicals and their use in weed control. It is appropriate that the commissioner take that on board. Given the outstanding work that that office has done so far, I expect a very good result, a very positive report, something that will give us good information and suggestions on the way to proceed. It is a good source from which to get the information we want.

MR MOORE (11.57): Ms Horodny is keen to get up and close the debate. I will keep my speech brief because there is general agreement in the Assembly. That agreement is quite refreshing on an issue like this. I think some credit goes to Mr Wood. I have spoken two or three times in this Assembly about his appointment of the Commissioner for the Environment. This motion will effectively take the Commissioner for the Environment into an ombudsman style of work. This will be a proactive exercise rather than just a reviewing exercise for him. I think it will be an improvement in the role, although it will probably still fit within what Mr Wood originally envisioned for him. These issues have not come up, because for some time he has been doing what I think would best be described as an environmental audit.

The issue of resources is, of course, a very important one. A genuine inquiry of this kind - I think Dr Baker is an appropriate person to do it - will require adequate resources to ensure that it can consider the full range of options available and get the best information back to the Assembly. Once that is done, then it may well be appropriate for the Planning and Environment Committee to look through the report and to assess how the Government is going to respond to it in the same way. That is the course we have taken in the inquiry into the current report of the Commissioner for the Environment. We want to ensure that such reports do not die in a bureaucratic malaise but rather are dealt with issue by issue in an appropriate way. I think that is a very effective way for the Assembly to operate together to try to achieve what we see is best for the Assembly. I congratulate Ms Horodny for bringing this motion to the Assembly. I think it is a very sensible way to go.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.59): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short additional contribution to the debate.

Leave granted.

MR HUMPHRIES: I thank members. The question of cost was raised. I forgot to cover that when I made some remarks before. I understand that the cost of the public element of the inquiry will be $2,000 or so, for such things as advertising and possibly room hire, transcription services and so on. That money is not available in the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .