Page 2916 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
From the Greens’ point of view, we want the funding for the urban forest renewal program to be restored. But we do not believe the funding necessarily has to come from the arboretum. The budget is $3.6 billion. There is no reason to think that all the funding from the urban forest renewal program should come solely from the arboretum project. It is a simplistic argument.
Our amendment, which calls upon the government to restore the funding in the 2011-12 budget—which is when the funding is actually likely to be significantly required, given the timing of the commissioner’s report and the subsequent referral to the Assembly—means that by the time the money is needed, the government will have been in the position to go through its normal budget process of rebalancing the budget alongside the other priorities.
This is how we should do it. I really do not think that the Liberals should be suggesting that rebalancing the budget within an hour of this Assembly debate is the way that the budget should be done. I just do not think it is good process. I cannot believe that Mr Smyth is really advocating that.
Secondly, as the Liberal Party knows, only the government can actually introduce money bills to the Assembly. This, in effect, is trying to be a money bill. They are just putting the arboretum in there to slightly confuse the issue. Thirdly, the arboretum has started. It should be properly managed, which does require funding. It would be churlish not to want it to be a success. The government has already put a lot of money—many millions of dollars—into the arboretum. I cannot imagine it is actually good public policy to create a white elephant on Dairy Farmers Hill. Is that the legacy that the Liberal Party actually wants for the arboretum?
Let us be clear about the arboretum. My predecessor, Dr Foskey, opposed the arboretum initially. This was because of the excessive water use, cost and not focusing on local vegetation. She would have preferred to see locally endangered species be grown there, which we believe would have also been cheaper as well. The current non-potable water strategy at the arboretum was developed partially in response to Dr Foskey’s objections.
In opposing the arboretum, Dr Foskey was also well aware of the fact that the Botanic Gardens and the local national parks all need more funding. She wanted to see that they have adequate funds rather than Canberra having a series of projects which attempt to support biodiversity but are not adequately funded. But we lost that debate. The government has built the arboretum. It is underway. If the Liberals have not seen it, it is underway on Dairy Farmers Hill.
We believe that, given it has started, there will be value in properly completing the project. Hopefully it will serve as a fine tourist attraction for national and international visitors and as a facility that will bring great pleasure to all Canberrans. If the Liberal Party, who were not supportive initially of a project, want to see the vision demolished halfway through, I think that is a shame.
In regard to part 1(c) of the motion, that is just simply a silly part of politics. The estimates report is not a Labor-Greens committee report. It is report of the majority of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video