Page 141 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am sure everyone can see that the sooner this occurs the better it is—for the ministers, for the public, for the environment and for stakeholders. What this motion today simply says is that by 30 June, the end of the financial year, 126 days away, the government will implement what they have already agreed on. This is one of the very rare policies which would have tripartisan support in this place.
Not only is it supported here, Madam Speaker, but stakeholders such as conservation and environmental groups have also indicated that this is their preferred model. It should be relatively straightforward. I ask members to see that we all have a chance to show our commitment to the environment, to support the rangers and other staff and to ensure we have stronger environmental outcomes.
On March 20 last year Minister Rattenbury stated, “Mr Smyth’s suggestion that it should have been done by now is, I think, unwarranted and not in fact the case.” So I ask Minister Rattenbury: what about now? It is another 344 days into the term. It has been almost 500 days since the parliamentary agreement was signed. Why have we still seen no action on this agreement? Minister Rattenbury said that he looked forward to an announcement in the near future about how this was going to be most appropriately delivered. I would have thought “near future” would have been by now or close to it. Mr Hanson stated in the same debate last year that the government would drift if no specific time frame was set and that we would be waiting months or even years for action to be taken. Sadly, this appears to be the case.
I do not want to see another motion passed which simply acknowledges once more the Labor-Greens agreement. We want actions and outcomes. It is a reasonable motion. It supports effective and efficient governance to improve conservation management. It gives a reasonable time frame and I look to members for their support to make it happen so that we can stop talking about it, make it happen for the benefit of all, and improve our environmental management. I commend the motion.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Health and Minister for Higher Education) (10.52): The government will not be supporting Ms Lawder’s motion this morning, although I do welcome the opposition’s interest in and support for measures to bring together the ACT’s nature conservation functions.
I think that when you reflect on the debate that was had in March last year, a number of the comments made by contributing members still stand. I think there is agreement that a single conservation agency and how that is shaped needs detailed consideration on a range of issues, and we are continuing this work. Our work on it needs to be guided by a clear set of principles and benefits. The timing for administrative and structural changes in the way we administer the public service, and in this case the nature conservation area, are at the discretion of the Chief Minister and not the Assembly.
On the day of the debate back in March, I think Mr Rattenbury pointed out that the opposition has itself had a couple of different positions on this. They have argued that a single agency should both be in ESDD and in TAMS. This illustrates that there are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video