Page 2783 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
from park care groups and rangers. So between now and the annual reports hearings we will be trying to piece together the puzzle that is our non-urban parks management to see whether we can get a clearer picture of the direction of our resourcing across the board, because through estimates hearings it is becoming increasingly obvious that we cannot get the detail that we seek in parameters that we think are useful and meaningful to those constituents who value our natural areas.
Indeed, we were told in estimates that TAMS has “deliberately integrated its land management activities” and that there is not a regularly distinct breakdown between urban and non-urban parks. This intrinsically makes it more difficult to determine the value that we put on our non-urban areas as opposed to our urban areas.
This takes me back to the comments made by the Chief Minister in his press release last August when he said he was keen to engage with the Canberra community about what level of service is appropriate and about how precious our parks are. Can I say to the Chief Minister that it is very hard to engage in that conversation when we do not actually have an easy understanding of how much is spent on our non-urban parks.
I turn to some specific issues that were not funded in this year’s budget, at least as far as I can determine. Firstly, it was confirmed there is no funding in 2010-11 for a state-of-the-park report for Namadgi, which is a disappointment. I am not really sure how focused the government is on Namadgi. The management plan is still to be released. The revised draft management plan was debated publicly in mid 2008 in the Sixth Assembly, the previous Assembly, and yet we still have not seen the final version. So we are unclear whether a requirement for a state-of-the-park report will be included in that plan. But the signs are not looking too positive.
It has taken a long time for the government to get a management plan in place for Namadgi. I know the National Parks Association released a document in 2002—that is right, 2002—indicating what they thought should go into a new management plan. Nearly eight years later we still do not have the plan. I am sure that the National Parks Association awaits this publication with some anticipation.
One of the things that the NPA wanted to see in the management plan was a requirement for a state-of-the-park report. Such a report would come into its own as an indicator of the ecological values of the park. This would seem important to me, especially against the backdrop of a government that seems more concerned about the anthropocentric indicators for parks and reserves in their budget report. Indeed, while I can sense some frustration at using the report on the delivery of programs for pest plants and feral animals as a budget indicator, as has been used over the last couple of years, I am more perplexed at the new budget indicators that Parks, Conservation and Lands have set as targets for next year—that is, customer satisfaction with the management of nature parks.
From questioning in estimates, it appears that this is to be the only indicator of successful outcomes in our nature parks. While I too think it is not a bad thing to know whether people like the toilet blocks, the barbecues or even whether there are enough rubbish bins, what about the fundamental reason these places, in particular Namadgi, exist?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video