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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2329 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Potential growth in industry is in environmental industries. It is possible to have a win-win situation here. By having strong criteria to select the businesses we will support, we can encourage businesses that have an environmental focus, or at least businesses that will not damage our environment with their activities, and that will be good for business and the economy as well as for the sustainability of our local environment.

I do not think this government is serious about the environment. The fact that they want to put a freeway through O'Connor Ridge shows that they still do not understand what most people would regard as intelligent planning for cities into the new millennium. I am also concerned because the fact that they do not take greenhouse seriously tells me that they do not understand the issue. It would be useful for them to tap into the experiences of some of the countries around the world now that, particularly through extreme climatic events, are suffering from the effect of greenhouse emissions. While I understand that we have only a small part to play in limiting global emissions, we have a responsibility to do everything we can. We are well able to do that in the ACT, as we are a reasonably capable community in information technology knowledge and resources.

MR QUINLAN (9.49): I will talk on the whole exercise. This section of the budget is a smaller, cut-down version of the budget as a whole. It contains at least one program on which we are going to spend a lot of money this year but not a lot next year. We have this theme, which is starting to become common, of creating large numbers by calling the job that you have to do a program and then having the hide to put it under initiatives.

I have mentioned before in discussing this budget that I think every Canberran has their own personal pothole that they drive past every day as a reminder of the degree to which we have not maintained the assets and the roadways of the ACT. We have let them fall into disrepair and now, in this budget, we talk about all the money we are going to spend on roads as some form of initiative, when it is effectively a catch-up.

Mr Moore: I take a point of order under standing order 58, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker. The member is digressing from the matter at hand. I hope you will accept my point of order.

MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Tucker): Mr Moore, you are not being helpful. Please proceed, Mr Quinlan.

MR QUINLAN: Also included under initiatives is $4 million to be spent on a trip system, which is $4 million that is going to fix up a prior shambles. How this rates as an initiative beats me. The one I really like as an initiative is the million dollars or so going into ACTION buses because the plans for ACTION this year, which flow into next year, did not work. We have this initiative, but we had better put more money in because our zone system and our changing bus routes did not work.

As I said, the Urban Services budget is really a cut-down version of the overall budget, with its extended programs to create big numbers and the illusion of doing lots. It has a few glib lines in it. We have a Streetsmart program and a Lakesmart program. That sort of superficiality has become a hallmark of the Carnell government.

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