Page 662 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The motion is primarily about the aesthetics of Canberra, which is also what Mr Stanhope spoke about at great length. We should keep Canberra as an attractive and pleasant place to live where we do not have overgrown grass or weeds. Obviously we agree with that too; I think everybody does. Overgrown weeds and grass are not just unsightly, they can be a safety issue because of snakes and fire risk. They are not really nice to walk through or to leave kids to play on or play sport on. So, all in all, if you have a lawn, it is good to keep it mown. We all agree with that.
We all agree that the government should be providing a well-resourced and efficient mowing service through TAMS. I note the government have said they have put an extra $1 million this year into mowing, and I quite understand that that is well needed, given the rain this year. Possibly improvements can be made—improvements can always be made. I think the government would be very interested in any specific improvements Mr Coe might suggest for better ways of actually managing the lawn mowing task. Clearly it is a large task, and if we can make even small improvements, it would be a good thing for Canberra.
We had a lot of discussion last year in the Assembly about trees and the way that TAMS manages the urban forests in Canberra. As a result, I wrote to the environment commissioner about this and we have had a review of how TAMS manages the urban trees. That has already resulted in some improvements.
Probably the first step in getting improvements to the government’s mowing policy is to publicise and promote the government’s policy on mowing. This was the suggestion my office made to Mr Stanhope’s office, and I thank him for including the suggestion in the amendment which he has just circulated. My office also suggested this to Mr Coe’s office, and I understand that he also accepts that this is a good amendment.
Mr Coe’s original motion calls upon the government to do things like develop a clear policy as to who is responsible for mowing land adjacent to private property, including road verges. I know that the government in fact has a policy on this. It is quite comprehensive, and if you go to the TAMS website it is quite easy to find. I appreciate that most people do not spend their time searching the TAMS website; it is just TAMS tragics like myself—and I am sure Mr Stanhope and Mr Coe—who do things like that. Like everything, it can probably be improved, and it certainly can be better publicised and promoted.
I have also had unhappy constituents like Mr Coe has, but my experience is that often they become a lot happier and understanding of the problem when they understand the policies and the reasons behind them. I strongly support the parts of Mr Stanhope’s amendment which talk about publicising the policies. People need to know who is responsible, what the gradings are and that some areas are going to be mowed more often than others. Glebe Park is kept in very good condition. That is kept in much better condition than your average bit of median strip. I think that is a quite reasonable policy, and I think most people in Canberra would agree that that is a reasonable policy.
Looking at Mr Coe’s motion, I think the government’s facts on weather in its amendment are more correct. I understood that 2010 was supposed to be the fourth
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video