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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3011 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

Mr Speaker, in finishing in terms of the Urban Services phase of this debate: I would simply say that we will support the budget-it would be irresponsible of us not to support the budget-but I will closely monitor the issues I have flagged.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming and Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Corrections) (11.09): Mr Speaker, I might just relay a short experience I had last week at a ministerial council meeting which was held at a venue in Melbourne overlooking the MCG, the tennis centre and Olympic Park, where I think the Storm play. I was standing next to one Rod Kemp, the federal minister for sport, and I was able to point out to him some very busy roads tracking through those sporting complexes. When I speculated as to why we didn't see gasping athletes on their knees on the tennis courts or lying about on the grass of the MCG, I think the most intelligent response I got from him was: "Ah, we're trying to learn from our mistakes."

Mr Pratt: Those roads were already in existence, Ted, when those fine complexes were built. There was no choice. Here at least we have a choice, Ted.

MR QUINLAN: We will move them; we will have moved them all.

MRS DUNNE (11.11): Mr Speaker, I would like to take up some of the Assembly's time to speak on the environment elements of the Urban Services budget. Most members who have spoken on the environment have said that what we have before us is a bit of mixed bag. We have a few good initiatives but at the same time we have an environment area in which funding is becoming increasingly under pressure. The $1.5 million over three years is a start but I am coming to the view that Ms Tucker expressed on Tuesday night that perhaps we would be getting nearer the mark if we had $1.5 million every year extra for environment, because there is a lot to do.

As I said in the debate yesterday, the OECD reported that the ACT's natural environment is a credit to us. But we have to work hard to maintain that. At the same time as maintaining our natural environment, we have to take into account environment protection measures, which are underpinned by well thought through legislation. Sometimes you are left with the impression that, because there are not enough resources, some of the inspections that are set out in the legislation are not being applied as rigorously as they could be. I think we need to work hard and put our money where our mouth is to ensure that environment protection is not only underpinned by sound legislation but that that legislation is upheld by sound compliance.

The allocation of $1.5 million over three years in the package A sustainable bush capital in the new millennium sounds really great and there are some good things in there. Ms Tucker talked about the money for extra ranger staff, and there is a bit of a problem here because of a slight sleight of hand. We don't actually have extra rangers; we have extra resources so that more civilian staff, less specialised staff, can do office work and free up rangers. That is a good start but I think it is less than transparent. There are not new people in the field, although Mr Wood, when announcing this move a couple of days or weeks before the budget was brought down, made some play about the fact that there would be new rangers. I don't have a problem with the way this has been done but I think we should be more candid about what is actually happening.

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