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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1981 ..

that the government’s comprehensive approach to a nature conservation plan is, shall we say, a bit lacking. There are a whole lot of other things.

ACT Forests has had a pretty hard time over the last little while. We have still got bushfire initiatives, but you have to question what is going on when there is significant money this year and in the out years—$9 million—for the planting of pine trees in the burnt-out areas west of the Murrumbidgee. There has been a lot of consultation of a sort, but there has been no discussion in this place and no decision announced about what will be the future of ACT Forests.

We have been waiting for months to get a look at ACT Forests’ business plan for the future. But we know two things: they are going to build them a headquarters but they may not continue; and now there is more than $9 million in the budget to plant pinus radiata or associated pines west of the Murrumbidgee. We have to ask: what is going on?

My favourite item in the environment area is $10 million for an arboretum. There is $10 million this year to plant an arboretum and $9 million this year and in the out years essentially to replant most of the ACT west of the Murrumbidgee. It is either going to be a damn big arboretum or they are going to be very expensive trees.

I do not have a problem with the concept of an arboretum. People have, in a demeaning way, called an arboretum a tree zoo. I think I was quoted as calling it a tree zoo, but I have not done so because I can actually pronounce the word. You have to question the priorities of a government which, when we have so many other problems in our environment, is going to spend $10 million on planting trees in a particular area.

We have not addressed a whole lot of other important rural environmental questions relating to the fire, such as dealing with invasive plants—sorry, that is modern and trendy language for weeds like Paterson’s curse—and the building of fences. We are going to plant an arboretum to get over the fire but we have not done the basics. We have not fixed the weed problem and we have not fixed the fences. You can build an awful lot of fences and spray an awful lot of weeds for $10 million.

I will leave the environment and direct my remarks to urban services. I know I sound like a cracked record, but I want to refer to the old No Waste by 2010 target. This government has absolutely, completely, utterly and without a doubt dropped the ball on No Waste by 2010. We have no idea what this government proposes to do in relation to putrescible waste. I have been asking. The minister was gunna do something. He was gunna go on a fact finding tour just after the last estimates committee meeting, and I know that he did because I saw it in the ministerial travel reports. He spent two or three days visiting Port Stephens and all the other usual spots. I could have done that on the Internet. I have actually downloaded the information about how they deal with putrescible waste in Port Stephens. He did not have to go on a ministerial tour.

We have not even got a feasibility study for this one. We have not got an idea. It is big, it is smelly and it is messy but we do not know what to do with it. This is what is wrong. It is interesting that the government has initiated a recycling award, but the government would never be in a position to qualify for its own recycling award because it is so pathetic when it comes to the issue of putrescible waste. We are not going to achieve our

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