Page 1368 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I recall a motion I successfully moved in this place in 2008 to protect the sensitive environmental bays at Throsby. The Liberals strongly opposed that and ranted about the need for development. They said I was having another GDE campaign again, referring to the campaign to try and save Bruce Ridge, and that essentially we should stop opposing progress and development and give people the roads and schools and churches they want. That was the approach we saw back then, and right now the Prime Minister is looking at ways to loosen environmental protection by weakening the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act so that we can have a development free-for-all in this country.
That is why we support the amendment, which we contributed to putting together. We need support for the living infrastructure plan, the tree canopy target, the climate change strategy and a more compact and sustainable city. That goes to all the issues of how we create a more sustainable city into the future.
Lastly, I want to mention another important area in the amendment—the recognition of our Landcare and ParkCare and conservation groups. These groups play a really important role in looking after the natural environment in Canberra, and I have talked about them many times before in the Assembly over the years. They need sustained long-term funding, rather than going from year to year wondering if they will get funding in the next budget. An important part of what we need to put in place in the future is making sure those groups have certainty about their future funding patterns. We support the amendment.
MS LEE (Kurrajong) (4.20): I thank members for their contributions on this debate. I cannot even pretend to be surprised that the active minds and egos of those opposite felt the overwhelming and compelling need to once again rewrite my motion. After all, that is what they always do, but this one must take the cake. It was a simple and clear statement on purpose—that is, that this Assembly support the planting of one million trees in the ACT over the next decade: a no-brainer for anyone who is serious about a commitment to looking after our environment.
When I look at Mr Steel’s amendment, “overcompensating” is the word that comes to mind. Whilst Mr Steel went to great lengths to try and rubbish my environmental credentials, it is worth noting that. aside from the prepared words and cheap shots from Mr Gentleman in this debate, ACT Labor have relegated the responsibility for the important issue of trees to city services, not even the environment directorate. But Mr Gentleman should be forgiven; he probably has not read my motion. Perhaps it was inappropriate for him to do so.
Given the overwhelming evidence submitted to the Assembly’s nature in the city inquiry, one that Ms Le Couteur was very supportive of, the objections of both the Greens and the Labor Party to a simple, clear and ambitious statement to supporting the planting of one million trees in the ACT over the next decade are nothing short of pathetic. I would have thought that trees and reducing carbon emissions would be core business for the ACT Greens. But, once again, we see that keeping their political coalition partner happy is far more important than supporting tangible and real steps to protect our environment for future generations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video