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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2116 ..

Mr Humphries: By whom?

MS HORODNY: I believe that was in Mrs Carnell's area. She was asked by Ms Tucker. You have to take responsibility for what you each say. The fact that you are uncoordinated is no excuse, I am afraid. The Minister also told us that the development of management plans for nature reserves in the ACT will be a priority. However, the development of the nature conservation strategy which should provide the overall framework for these management plans is running two years late.

The Environment Minister has also declared grassy woodland as an endangered ecological community, but at the same time the Chief Minister is promoting the development of a major vineyard at Pialligo that will destroy the remnant woodland there. You have to come to terms with that, Mr Humphries. On the one hand, you are saying that woodlands are an important ecological community in the ACT. On the other hand, you plan to devastate that area completely. We are still waiting for the action plans to be prepared for the endangered species that have already been declared. When will they be ready?

I turn now to other parts of Urban Services. We are also very concerned about the insufficient effort that is being put into achieving the Government's target of eliminating waste going to landfill by 2010. The ACT is still sending 270,000 tonnes of waste to landfill, not including the waste going over the border or to places like Fairbairn Park. We recognise that there is already a good kerbside recycling scheme in place for some household waste; but we need much more effort put into recycling other household waste, such as the range of plastics that are currently not being collected in the ACT and also the vast amount of organic commercial and building waste, of which only a small proportion is currently being recycled. Mrs Carnell, just a few days ago, said that she is spending $20,000 on a study into recycling for the building industry. Yet we already have a very good facility at Pialligo that still does not get any business from this Government. When will you be putting your words into action?

We also have concerns with the work of the Planning and Land Management Group of Urban Services. The Government has claimed that its key planning consultation process, the local area advisory planning committees, are to be expanded by an extra three committees; but this has come at the expense of a reduction in the number of LAPACs in North Canberra from three to two. We believe that a reduction in the number of these LAPACs is a quite retrograde step, given that this is the part of Canberra that is experiencing the most redevelopment pressure.

Mr Humphries: I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. I think Ms Horodny is debating the second arm of Part 10, Planning and Land Management. We are talking about the Urban Services budget other than Planning and Land Management at this point in time.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order.

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