Page 2833 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
two years since that agreement, and we want to see change. We want to see solar access for everybody, and I look forward to seeing sustainability and riparian strategies for Wright and Coombs. I imagine that my Greens colleagues and I will have further commentary on that when they are released.
So, in summary, LAPS is a very important part of the government, and we are concerned to see that it moves in the most sustainable direction possible.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.47): I went to the majority committee report on the estimates to see what they had said about the Department of Land and Property Services, the Land Development Agency and ACTPLA. You would imagine my surprise, Mr Speaker, when all I found was a list, on pages 107, 108, 109, 110 and 111, and not a single recommendation in sight, as to these three very important areas of the budget. I am then reminded to go to what the Treasurer said about the dissenting report:
The Government is concerned about the direct criticism of the Chair, who the Government believes conducted the hearings in an efficient and professional manner.
It is interesting that we had Ms Hunter in the committee running interference for the Treasurer, then we had the Treasurer running interference for Ms Hunter. It is an incredibly professional report that manages not to find one recommendation for the Department of Land and Property Services, the Land Development Agency and ACTPLA. As Ms Hunter said, it is a very useful guide to the budget. It is a fabulous index to the estimates hearings. There are all the issues and page references, but no analysis and no recommendations. And that is the problem with the majority report.
It is a problem because there are a number of very serious issues in this area, some of which have been covered by Ms Le Couteur as well as by Mr Seselja, in this area—things like the whole-of-government office building, which, of course, we got very few answers on, and the arboretum. Right up front in the dissenting report, there are two recommendations about the arboretum—I read them before and I think I will read them again—which go straight to the heart of what this government is doing. Recommendation 1:
… before committing to discretionary spending on projects such as the Arboretum, the ACT Government should ensure that all the basic needs of the community are being met.
Recommendation 2:
… given their importance to the Community, the Government should divert funding from the Arboretum to the replacement of street trees to maintain the unique look and feel of Canberra’s suburbs.
I do not see how the Treasurer in her commentary on the dissenting report can claim that this is unsubstantiated. She says a whole lot of things:
The Government is concerned about the incorrect and unfair conclusion drawn by the dissenting Members that it has sought to avoid scrutiny.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video