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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4896 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

which is just across the border. Queanbeyan has a tree preservation order, as indeed do most of the shires surrounding the ACT. My understanding, and my advice, is that there has been no reluctance on the part of residents to plant trees for fear of them not being allowed to remove them in the future.

I am disappointed that members want to adjourn this debate. It sounds to me again that people do not want to make a hard decision. It is not such a difficult decision. It is something that people should have been thinking about. Members of this Assembly have had the opportunity to think about this for a very long time. It is not as though the issue came up for the first time when we tabled our Bill. It has been around for a jolly long time. We had this discussion back in 1995. In fact, when the Government put up an amendment to the Nature Conservation Act to take out - - -

Mr Berry: We opposed it.

MS HORODNY: Yes, that is right. It wanted to take out the provision that the Labor Party had put into the Nature Conservation Act some years before. Unfortunately, the Liberals and Mr Moore and Mr Osborne voted together to amend the Nature Conservation Act to take out the provision that you required a licence to take out eucalypts over two metres in height. It is disappointing that that happened in 1995. We argued against it then. We have tried to work, in the meantime, on some of the arguments that people presented at that time. We have tried to find a compromise and to work on some of the difficulties that people said then that they could not agree to.

I am disappointed that this has happened at this time. It would have been a lot easier if members had indicated the direction that they were moving in on this issue last week, or even before that. Even though I have said that perhaps we have been the only members lobbied, I know, from the groups that I have spoken to, that they have lobbied other members in this Assembly. So, it is not a new issue; this is not the first time it has been on the table, and it is a shame that this debate is being adjourned.

Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.

Motion (by Mr Stefaniak) proposed:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

MR MOORE (6.45): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, on a number of occasions in this house I have raised the issue of conflict of interest, and today I wish to raise it again. Today there was a debate on the Tenancy Tribunal (Amendment) Bill and in that Bill I had sought to ensure there was a situation whereby a tenant could take a landlord, or, for that matter, a landlord could take a tenant, before the tribunal to consider excessive rents. It has been drawn to my attention since the debate, otherwise I would

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