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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4112 ..

Mr Whitecross: They do not want you to know.

MS HORODNY: Clearly, it does not want anyone to know. That is exactly right. In Budget Paper No. 4 - Budget Estimates 1996-97 - the section on the environment does not contain any budgetary figures. Why is this so? Most of the items referred to in this section are actions that are already under way. There is very little that is new in this section. What few initiatives the Government has made in the environmental area have been funded from cuts to other environmental programs.

The overall budget for the environmental outputs of Urban Services is virtually unchanged from last year, at a bit over $23m. There has just been a reshuffle of expenditure from one output to another. Much of this reshuffle has been done to free up the $3.1m for the purchase and remediation of sheep dip sites. This is obviously a very worthy program, but it is not new money. It has come at the expense of other environment spending.

Mr Whitecross: Shame!

MS HORODNY: Shame! Yes. In this regard, we are very concerned about the 15 per cent cut to the budget of output class 5; that is, policy advice, administration and regulation. It is this part of the department which develops the major strategic policies relating to nature conservation and environment protection, and it should be regarded as the cornerstone of Government policies towards the environment. The Government says that departmental resources have merely been moved to the delivery end of the department. However, it is our concern that the delivery of environmental services could be ineffective without the overriding strategies and management plans being in place.

This output also contains the environmental regulation function. It is of considerable concern to us that cases of environmental degradation are not being investigated fully because of these budget cutbacks. On another environment matter, the Government made much of its proposal to spend $728,000 on weed control in the ACT; but, despite questioning during the Estimates Committee hearings, I have still not received any information on the breakdown of how this money will be spent. Again, I wonder whether this is, in fact, new money or whether it is just a reshuffling of existing expenditure.

I turn to the transport side of Urban Services. There are no initiatives in this budget that seriously attempt to reduce the level of car dependence that Canberrans have to put up with. For example, we are concerned about the minimal amount of $600,000 that is being put into upgrading Canberra's cyclepath network, compared to the expenditure on roads - - -

Mr De Domenico: Minimal amount?

MS HORODNY: How much are you spending on roads, Mr De Domenico?

Mr De Domenico: About $13m, Ms Horodny.

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