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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2369 ..

MS TUCKER

emissions in the ACT and he has agreed that we need to be tougher and more assiduous in meeting the targets and the aims of the plan.

I do look forward to seeing a much stronger response to this issue now from the Chief Minister and the department and I look forward to seeing the final report of the first review and, following that, the government's revised greenhouse strategy at the end of the year. I hope that we will soon know how we are travelling towards the target set by the previous government in the existing strategy.

Talking to some of the comments in the Estimates Committee's report and the government's response, I note that the Estimates Committee recommended that funding for the Commissioner for the Environment be increased to enable that position to be filled on the basis of at least 12 days of the month and that the government's response was that a review will be undertaken of the office of the ACT Commissioner for the Environment.

I am aware of that already, of course, but I would just like to make the point tonight that I think that we need to acknowledge that we have in Canberra a state of the environment report which is an excellent example of environmental reporting. I think that it is probably the best in Australia. It is an incredible resource. It is one that I do not think any of us use enough or acknowledge the value of. I intend to have a whole debate on it in the next sitting period so that we can take the time to value that work.

I want to do that because I would be very concerned to see this office downgraded in any way. Obviously, the commissioner does not have just the reporting function-he has the complaints function as well-and the independence of the office is incredibly important in ensuring the accountability of the government of the day in terms of its performance on the environment.

I also noticed that the committee recommended that Environment ACT renew its efforts to ensure that only appropriately licensed merchants are able to sell firewood and the government has responded positively to that as well as to the recommendation that the government work further to reduce community and debt demand for timber species, such as red and yellow box, which are under ecological pressure.

I was very concerned to see the government say in the response that one option raised at the workshop was the State Forests of New South Wales proposal to use logging residue to replace sourcing firewood from remnant vegetation in western New South Wales. Anyone who has taken even a vague interest in statements from State Forests of New South Wales on what they call residue from forests will know that they mean cutting down big, strong trees. That is exactly what they said about the charcoal plant and they were made to look ridiculous. It is because the charcoal plant has folded that State Forests are attempting to find another way of destroying the forests of the south-east coast of Australia.

I know that there is a proposal before the Braidwood council at the moment. It is complicated further by the fact that State Forests poisoned a large number of trees for the charcoal plant, which they denied and then had to admit. They have absolutely no credibility on this issue and I am happy to supply any member with a series of contradictory articles and statements by State Forests about the poisoning of trees on

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