Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 7 Hansard (30 July) . . Page.. 3033..
MS TUCKER: I am sorry, I have misrepresented him. He says that he did not say that. He referred to the white paper as addressing some of the issues. He would agree that he said that. I would point out that one of the key recommendations of the summary document from ACTCOSS on the white paper was that no further action be taken on economic and industry policy development until such development can be informed by the other elements of the Canberra plan, the spatial plan and the social plan and that the economic white paper should include a thorough multidisciplinary analysis of the relationship between economic, social and environmental factors in the overall development of the ACT and that this analysis should be used as the basis for developing economic and industry policy. There are a number of comments in this response document about focusing on the top end, which is really the point of my amendment to Mr Hargreaves's motion today.
Amendment agreed to.
MR HARGREAVES (12.13): In closing the debate, I thank members for their contributions. It is always welcome to have such input from such gigantic minds. Mr Speaker, there is a coincidence with the figures shown in the Hudson Report. The figures are the most optimistic for some time, as I have mentioned: the lowest level of unemployment since November 1986 and a trend unemployment rate of 3.6 per cent, the lowest on record. There is a coincidence there with the business incentives issues that this government has been pushing and promoting, the partnerships.
There is a coincidence between the emergence of the economic white paper promising partnerships between the community and business and promising further growth and the figures released in the Hudson Report. I do not think that there is any doubt about the coincidence between the activities of this government in promoting employment since it has been in office, just under three years, and the emergence of these figures. In contrast, the best the Liberals could do was CanDeliver, which did not deliver. I am not going to speak any longer. I think the motion, as amended so eloquently by Ms Tucker, deserves to be passed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Nature Conservation (Native Vegetation Protection) Amendment Bill 2004
Ms Dundas, pursuant to notice, presented the bill and its explanatory statement.
Title read by Clerk.
MS DUNDAS (12.15): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Mr Speaker, since European settlement in Australia, people have been steadily clearing native bush to make way for agriculture, housing and infrastructure. Most states now have a ban on native vegetation clearance, but for some unknown reason the ACT lags behind. If we keep clearing native vegetation at our current rates, we will loose our name as the bush capital.