Page 2709 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that I am most concerned about, in 2005-06 funding for land management fell from $26.5 million to $17.7 million. I cannot actually tell how much money is in the budget for land management because there is no way of comparing like with like, year on, year out. I am looking forward over the years to tracking how much money is being spent on land management because land management is an area that I think is always undervalued.
Mr Barr interjecting—
MRS DUNNE: No, Mr Barr, I am not going to channel Dr Foskey. I am actually going to be an economic rationalist when it comes to the environment because, unlike many people who are involved in the environment movement, I think that it all comes down to economics. If you do not spend the money wisely, you will reap the trouble down the track.
This year’s budget includes an apparent reduction in land management. Year after year we have seen the government’s failure to address weeds. The suggestion by disgruntled members of Environment ACT that there may be cutbacks in the weed program does not make sense in economic terms. If we do not spend money year on year dealing with the weeds, the problem will escalate and eventually we will have to spend a lot more money to get us back to where we were. Year on year we have to be consistent and to keep our eye on the ball. We have to be wise with money and make a good investment in our land. This Stanhope government budget does not do these things.
I do have to give a few bouquets. I think that there is potential in the restructuring of what used to be called Environment ACT. The government should be congratulated on the fact that, for the first time—and this was a failing on our part when we were in government—all the land managers will be together in the one place. I congratulate the government on doing that. It is a very important thing to do, because weeds, for example, or pest animals are not observers of whether land is Canberra Urban Parks and Places land or whether it is Canberra Nature Park or Namadgi National Park.
There should be an integrated approach, and I congratulate the government on that. I think that there is the potential, in the long run, if they spent the money wisely, to make real inroads. The test of this minister for the environment is to do it smart, spend the money wisely and not be parsimonious about really important things. I suppose in many ways I would characterise myself as a brown environmentalist, rather than a green.
Mr Mulcahy: I thought you were an economic rationalist.
MRS DUNNE: I can be an environmentalist and an economic rationalist, Mr Mulcahy. You need to read the literature. There are many of us out there.
Mr Hargreaves: So not a Bob Brown environmentalist?
MRS DUNNE: No, not that sort of brown environmentalist. The more that I have thought about this and read about this and looked into it, I really do not believe in triple bottom line accounting. Triple bottom line accounting is nothing more than tightrope walking. If it does not make good economic sense, it will not end up being done. If we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .