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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 673 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

A range of issues can be identified there. We have to have that there because the rhetoric of governments of all persuasions is not backed up by the resourcing or the action needed to make sure that it actually happens. I would have to say that of this Government in particular, as identified by the Commissioner for the Environment in his most recent report on the Government's no waste strategy, which highlighted the fact that the resourcing and the commitment to delivering on programs was not backing up the rhetoric from the Government.

That is a complaint that I am receiving increasingly from a range of organisations across the community with an interest in environmental management and protection. It is a complaint that I am receiving from those who are involved with our major parks, involved with our national parks, involved with issues to do with the environmental protection, and involved with issues to do with decreasing the impact of our community on the environment. They are all uniformly reporting to me that the Government's rhetoric is not backed up by the resourcing or the action needed to make sure that it actually happens. Mr Speaker, paragraph (e) gives the Assembly an additional ability to question and scrutinise whether the Government is serious on issues to do with ESD and it certainly should be supported.

Mr Speaker, overall, the notion of ecologically sustainable development is important. It is generally accepted in this place, but we have to put it into practice. We cannot simply allow it to be a mantra which is not in any way seriously linked to the business of government and the process of administration in this Territory. This Bill is a useful step towards achieving that and the Labor Opposition will be supporting the Bill today.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12.03): Mr Speaker, the Government will not be supporting the Bill simply because we think we have the runs on the board on this issue. Mr Corbell said several times in his speech that it is about putting it into practice. I think that this Government has proved by things such as the action plan for endangered species, the greenhouse strategy, the no waste by 2010 strategy, the pollutant loading fees from 1 July 2000, the national packaging covenant and used packaging strategy, the national environment protection measures and the land management agreement for rural lessees, to name just a few from a long and comprehensive list, that it is actually out there doing something.

What does the Bill do? It simply creates more bureaucracy, more pages in annual reports. Mr Corbell acknowledged that public service bodies were already doing these things, and they are; but, more importantly, they are doing them on the ground. We are doing something in reality; we are not just writing about it. We are committed to ESD; but, rather than just writing about it, our actions speak far louder than our words.

There are difficulties with this Bill in that it does not achieve what Ms Tucker has set out to achieve. For instance, there is an unintended consequence as to the scope of the Auditor-General's power in taking the definition of "public authority" from the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act and pasting it into sections of the Auditor-General Act to replace the definition of "Territory entity". By removing "Territory entity" and replacing it with "public authority" under Ms Tucker's amendment we would take from the Auditor-General the power to conduct a performance audit of, for instance, the

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