Page 2923 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(b) that the ACT Budget has gutted the program to replace existing street trees by $11.2 million;
And it has. There it is: $11.238 million, on page 98 of budget paper 3. There is the money gone: $3.7 million in the coming year, $3.7 million in the following year and $3.7 million the year after that—money taken from the budget. So the program has been gutted. I do not know how you can disagree with that. The next point in our motion says:
(c) the Greens/Labor Estimates Committee report which failed to address the reduction in the Government’s street tree budget, despite it being raised in committee hearings;
And it has failed to address it. If you raise it as a key issue, the question then is: what are you willing to do about it? The Greens and the Labor Party were not willing to do anything about it in the report that they tabled. There is not a recommendation about this or the arboretum. There is no recommendation. No wonder Mr Hargreaves was so happy when he said, “The government can be very happy with this report.” I am sure they are—because there is no analysis. There are very few meaningful recommendations, and there is nothing on behalf of the trees of Canberra. It is just allowing Jon, the great tree killer, to continue on his merry way.
This is an important issue and paragraph 2 of our motion says:
(2) calls on the Government to immediately, and without delay, divert funding from the National Arboretum Canberra to the street tree replacement program, ensuring that there are sufficient funds available to replace street trees where necessary.
The government always ask us where the money should come from. We have given them a solution. It is not a solution palatable to the individual who is building his own legacy project for when he leaves later in the year. But it is a good solution. It allows the arboretum to continue but it certainly allows the replacement program for dead trees to continue, to protect that which people love so much about Canberra and indeed to help protect the birdlife and the animal life that rely on street trees, on trees in reserves, on trees in parks, on trees on the nature strips, on all the trees in Canberra in which live the fabulous birdlife that we have and that people are so pleased with. Indeed, I was there when the Chief Minister launched the last edition of the local ornithological guide to the birds of Canberra. Then, of course, there is the wildlife that rely on these trees.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Greens will not stand up for this motion today and stop Jon the tree killer.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (3.58): I rise to thank Ms Le Couteur for bringing on her amendment today. The reason I thank her is that she has actually brought some common sense to this debate and potentially saved the Liberal Party the embarrassment of putting forward a motion containing a set of straight-out factual mistakes. Ms Le Couteur explained that very well at the start of her speech when she spelled out the difference between the street tree replacement program and the urban
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video