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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1457 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There are some indigenous initiatives which are welcome, but I feel that there is not a holistic approach or a substantial and systemic approach to these issues.

On the environment, I notice Mr Smyth put out a very cranky press release. Apparently he thought I was out of line in something I said on ABC radio this morning. He said I had said the government was doing virtually nothing on the environment and listed a number of what he called initiatives. I know there is $22 million in the environment budget. I was talking about significant initiatives. The $22 million that is spent on the environment is the job of the government and Environment ACT, so I am not going to give huge brownie points to the government for maintaining those programs.

My comment was about what were highlighted as significant new initiatives. One of them was the garden waste strategy, which is an ongoing initiative. Funding for greenhouse gas initiatives has decreased from what was projected last year or the year before.

A number of the items Mr Smyth listed in his press release are existing programs. Some of them I am interested in. We have not been able to find them in the budget. He says there is $970,000 in capital works funding for the implementation of nature-based tourism. We could not find that amount, but we are happy to be corrected if that is true. I might go through that later if I need to, after I have made more general comments.

Spending on the environment has not increased as much as spending in other areas. Total expenditure in the budget is up 6 per cent on the 2000 budget, yet the $22 million in the environment budget is only up 2 per cent from last year, which is not even keeping up with inflation. Despite this, there is a need to fund new measures such as the new firewood licensing scheme and the tree protection scheme, which I point out would probably not exist if it had not been for non-government members pressuring the government to adopt them. The animal welfare legislation will also have to be implemented.

They are listed in the media release from Mr Smyth. Mr Smyth says that there is $200,000 for the implementation of the interim tree protection register, including three additional positions created in Environment ACT. I would be happy if Mr Smyth could tell me all the initiatives he has listed are to be funded by new money. I wait for that statement as well.

One environment measure deemed worthy enough to be included in the government's list of budget initiatives was the garden waste recycling service, which is just a continuation of the existing service. On the other hand, the initiative from last year's budget to establish a domestic organic waste collections systems seems to have vanished, and the government still has a long way to go in achieving the target of no waste to landfill by 2010.

Another initiative, the ACT greenhouse strategy, is just a continuation from last year. In fact, it was a motion from the Greens in the last Assembly that forced the government to adopt a greenhouse gas reduction target. The total money allocated in this budget for the greenhouse strategy is a reduction on the amount promised in last year's budget. Last year the government said it would provide $160,000 per year for the greenhouse strategy, but in this budget it has cut the forward estimates to less than $60,000 per year.

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