Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 1963 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

The conservation of areas of high ecological value is an action which benefits the whole community, not just those who visit the area on a particular day. It is, therefore, quite appropriate for the management of nature reserves to be funded from general revenue. There is also the very practical problem in the ACT that the costs involved in setting up an entry fee collection system in a place like Namadgi National Park, with its multiple entry points, may be more than the revenue gained. There is also the danger that, once an entry fee system is established as a major funding source for park management, there will be pressure generated to use the money collected to fund measures to encourage visitor numbers and thus increase revenue, and not to spend it on nature conservation.

In conclusion, let me say that the Government needs to accept that there is no quick and easy way to make money from the ACT's parks and reserves. Nature-based tourism in a limited form may be appropriate in our parks and reserves, but this should not be promoted at the expense of preserving our natural environment. I note that the Government has already tabled its response to this report and has agreed, or agreed in principle, to all of the committee's recommendations. I hope that the Government sticks to these agreements, and particularly adopts the priorities that I have just outlined.

I must express some cynicism, however, about Mr Humphries's bold assertion in his ministerial statement accompanying the response that this Government is committed to putting the environment first. If only the Government would actually put this into practice by, for example, putting more resources into the management of our nature reserves, supporting our initiative to establish environmental accounting in the ACT, establishing a stand-alone environment department rather than having environment functions scattered across the bureaucracy, speeding up the introduction of the long-promised integrated environment protection legislation, putting more effort into cleaning up contaminated sites and seriously implementing the ACT greenhouse strategy, then perhaps we could believe their commitment to the environment.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.05): Mr Speaker, I do not close the debate, or do I?

MR SPEAKER: No; Mr Kaine is to close the debate.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Kaine does, yes. I am not sure that I am entitled to speak again, but I thought that if I could not speak before the debate closes I would seek leave to do so. I can speak without leave? All right.

Mr Speaker, let me make a couple of comments in relation to what Ms Horodny has had to say. Let me disabuse her of the impression that caring for the environment is all about tokenistic acts like having a department with the word "environment" in its title or establishing bureaucratic structures supposedly dedicated towards protection of the environment. My view, Mr Speaker, is that what really matters is what you actually do out in the places where the environment is at risk, not what you do inside offices here in town. In that respect I stand by the statement that the Government does give priority to protection of the environment, and I believe that our record shows that quite clearly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .