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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 20 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I endorse the comments of Mr Wood and Mr Corbell, which I think acknowledge that this is going to be no short-term quick fix but rather a long-term plan to require a reversal of that trend of recent years, or recent decades perhaps, an attack on particular categories of weeds and the particular nature of weed problems - for example, roadside weeds - which have for too long escaped the attention of government.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Moore for his comments as well. I am sorry that in my presentation speech I did not make reference to his standing committee's report, but I think it is mentioned in the weeds strategy itself. Undoubtedly, we have all had some preoccupation with this issue over the last few years. I am pleased to be Minister at the time when we are able to actually commence a strategy which has looked at this issue comprehensively and, I think, has created, as far as we can determine at this point in time, some viable solutions to those problems.

I have to wonder what I need to do to satisfy Ms Horodny on these sorts of questions. I would have thought that $728,000 in a single year on a strategy which attracted maybe $50,000 or $60,000 in previous years was a pretty substantial attack on a problem which, by consensus, we agree needs to be addressed on a much more serious basis. Ms Horodny has asked how that money was broken down. I gather that she asked that question in the context of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago and that information has now been supplied to her. If she has any further questions about it, I am very happy to try to clarify the matter further. But none of the money is being wasted, as far as I am concerned. It is all money going towards effective treatment of the problem. I gather that there will be a strong community reaction to assist in the delivery of that money effectively, because the community was closely involved in the development of the weeds strategy, both through the early stages, such as in the public hearing conducted in relation to the invasive weeds and feral animals report that Mr Moore referred to, and also more recently in the production of a draft weeds strategy, which in turn led to the document before the Assembly today.

Ms Horodny made reference to the study by the Conservation Council into developing the GIS. Just for the record, the fact is that she failed to mention that the study was paid for by an ACT environment grant, which produced, I think, some very valuable inputs. Similarly, the Conservation Council has had a particular concern about roadside weeds. I have met with Mr Butler from the Conservation Council, we have talked through those issues, and as a result in the early stages of this strategy there will be a focus on roadside weeds.

Ms Horodny also said that we had eschewed a strong legislative approach to the weeds strategy. Of course, the Bill before us this morning - the Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill - was a way of increasing the legislative strength of our response to this issue. But whatever is in that approach reflects, essentially, the community consultation that was conducted around the weeds strategy. So, if Ms Horodny wants a stronger approach, then I would be anxious to discuss that stronger approach with the parties that helped us put together the weeds strategy in the first place, to make sure that that is consistent with what they think ought to be in the strategy.

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