Page 4126 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(i) the Government’s environmental weed program focuses on priority species such as African lovegrass, serrated tussock, St John’s Wort, blackberry, Chilean needle grass and new incursions, such as Madagascan fireweed; and
(2) calls on the Minister to report back on progress on the weed management program on the last day of sitting in February 2016.”.
In this amendment I have sought to retain elements of the original motion put forward by Ms Lawder, but I have made clear the points that I have just made in my speech, including that the underlying money for weed control, the recurrent funding, which is what allows for long-term sustained work, has increased substantially, to $1.2 million per annum, more than double what it was just two years ago—more than double. That is a significant investment in weeds control. Seventy-nine per cent of the total annual weeds budget is now recurrent funding so, again, we are not seeing that stop-start work that, as Ms Lawder rightly pointed out, is highly problematic when it comes to weed control. We have sustained ongoing funding.
I have noted in here the funding for the lower Cotter catchment and also the increased effort for ParkCare coordinators. Finally, I have undertaken, as Ms Lawder requested, to report back by the last sitting day in February 2016 on progress on weed management here in the ACT. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (12.24): I will speak to the amendment and close. You have got to love it when Mr Rattenbury says that he substantially agrees with the motion and then says “omit all text after (1)” That obviously substantially agrees with the thrust of the motion.
There was some discussion in Mr Rattenbury’s remarks about recurrent funding and not a stop-start approach. In a way, I think we are talking about the same thing, despite Mr Rattenbury trying to categorise it as not being the case. What we need is a good, solid recurrent funding base so that we can have ongoing maintenance and keep weeds under control. But there will be times when new weeds come into the ACT, and that is when you need what I would call project-based funding. The recurrent base should stay there; there should be some immediate injection of funds to help to try to control that new weed, that new incursion into the ACT. Then, potentially, if necessary, the recurrent funding may also have to increase slightly on an ongoing basis. Despite Mr Rattenbury’s attempts, I do not think we are talking about something different. When I said we do not want a stop-start approach, I was referring to the fact that the recurrent funding and what I would call project-based funding, when you combine them together, appear to represent a substantial decrease in funding.
Mr Rattenbury also referred to the fact that the Weeds Advisory Group meets twice a year. He said it met in February. It would have to meet pretty soon to meet that timing of twice a year; there is not a lot of time left in the year. It is important to ensure that that group meets, to provide us with the scientific input into the management of the weeds.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video