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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1762 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

worked on, such as improving other roads, including Horse Park Drive, improving public transport in a range of ways, including increased bus services, bus only lanes, ADART services and possibly light rail. Planning and where employment is put are major factors in this regard as well.

Another problem with this decision and the government's decision on developing woodlands, not to mention the Nettlefold Street trees, is the way they cut across our heritage obligations at both territory and federal level. The Commonwealth has approved the provision of more than $31/2 million for natural heritage trust projects in the ACT, many involving conservation and restoration of remnant vegetation patches.

The intrinsic value of remnant vegetation is well documented and cannot be easily or quickly replaced. The partnership between the Commonwealth and territory governments has the goal of working for bush care to reverse the long-term decline in the quality and extent of Australia's native vegetation cover. For the ACT, the main concern was "the cumulative effects of clearing small areas of native vegetation"and the agreed additional outcomes for the territory were the long-term conservation of native vegetation remnants and that any clearing of native vegetation is managed so that requirements to conserve native biodiversity are not compromised. O'Connor Ridge and Bruce Ridge are certainly relevant in this discussion.

In the recently finalised ANZECC national vegetation framework work plan for the ACT, the Commonwealth and territory governments agreed that for discrete sites containing critical habitat or other values of significance the application of off-reserve conservation mechanisms and responsible town planning is the preferred approach. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that responsible town planning approach. No matter how many times the government puts it on paper, that is not what it is doing on the ground.

We support the general principle behind the increase in the water extraction charge, but we are concerned to see that the increases are applied equitably. For example, how will low-income households with large families be dealt with? While it is generally good to have the increase relate to the degree of usage, I would be interested in exploring how it can also be progressive and not punitive for low-income earners.

I think that there is an overall problem in this regard in that the government does not have the policy decision-making role in terms of the water abstraction charges. I understand that it is basically a matter for ACTEW and that ACTEW will put a proposal to the ICRC about how this abstraction charge will be imposed on the consumers. That seems to be a pretty basic policy decision and I am surprised that the Assembly or the government is being sidelined from the making of this decision. That is something that I intend to raise in the Assembly because I think that some legislative changes need to occur.

On the social issues, the government's Wednesday media release on the social aspects of the budget claims that this budget will build Canberra's social future. There are certainly some new initiatives in areas of identified need. These are very welcome, particularly as importantly they build on the research work and consultation and the results of a number of Assembly committee inquiries. I must say that when I saw the initiative about youth workers in schools and a couple of other budget initiatives, I thought that the situation is

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