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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1550 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

deliver services in accordance with the statute, the Land (Planning and Environment) Act. Instead, the Government's response is to reduce the level of staff by nearly 10 per cent, to take $1.5m out of its budget in the coming financial year, to market test a number of its functions and to reduce the number of development applications that will be approved within statutory time limits. (Extension of time granted) Planning in Canberra deserves better. Canberra deserves better. Planning in Canberra should be a high priority for any government. Maintaining the integrity of the planning system and the agency that maintains the system should be a high priority. Recognising the need for a planning agency that can actually undertake planning, that can actually plan proactively, should be a high priority. We have seen none of that from this Government.

Looking at the environment side of the budget, we can see some concerning trends. Again, the issue of jobs is high on my list of concerns. I raise the issue of jobs in the environment area because over the past 12 months there have been two significant reports from the Standing Committee on Urban Services which have outlined the committee's unanimous concern at the lack of resources within Environment ACT to do its job, to undertake and implement things such as the draft plans of management which the committee has been asked to comment on in relation to certain areas of the Territory. The concern has been expressed in an unambiguous, clear and direct way. The committee has on two occasions in two significant reports expressed its serious concern that the ability of Environment ACT to undertake the work it is required to undertake under law in managing and maintaining the ACT's environment reserves is seriously compromised and is grossly inadequate. Yet the response of this Government has been to ignore those recommendations, not to accept in any way that they are an issue of concern and to blithely suggest that everything is well.

We know that everything is not well. We understand that. We hear it every day. In the coming financial year Environment ACT will have to absorb eight job cuts or a total of 16 job cuts over the next two financial years. It is ironic indeed that this Government feels that it is appropriate to spend more money on signage on Northbourne Avenue than on a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - $500,000 will be spent on signage alone on Northbourne Avenue. For a government that claims that greenhouse gas emissions are a high priority in its environment agenda to spend only $340,000 - $160,000 less than is to be spent on signage on just one avenue - underlies exactly why people seriously question the credibility of this Government's environment agenda. The intent may be there, the goodwill may be there, but it is not backed up by the concrete action that it so desperately needs.

Another concern in the environment area is in relation to the failure of the Government to effectively justify the implementation of the water usage charge, which is intended to raise $1.7m. It is not in any way linked to strategies to improve water quality or management. Instead, it is simply designed to be fed into general revenue. I have no doubt that people would feel more sympathetic and give greater support to this charge if they knew that it was being used to improve water quality or management. But, from my reading of the budget papers, that is not what this Government has done. It is not an environmental safeguard. It is merely another revenue-raising exercise.

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