Page 3389 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
rundown look about it. Maybe that is a precursor to your government’s decision to close it. When I talk about physical problems, I mean the physical state of the buildings.
I am also concerned to hear reports from some of the schools that programs in relation to physical education for students are not being—
Ms MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the time for the debate has expired.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fact, it has not. Carry on.
MR STEFANIAK: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also concerned to hear reports in relation to the growing problem of obesity in our schools and the fact that the standards set down by the department and set down by governments are—
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for debate has concluded.
Tree Protection Bill 2005
Debate resumed.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (4.47): Before lunch, I was saying that the government should scrap this crock of legislation—legislation that I fear has now become so bolted on that it needs to be rethought. I think it was Dr Foskey that made those comments.
I had a chance over the lunch break to think how we might assist the government overcome the dilemma of informing all Canberrans about the legislation. The answer, to me, is obvious: send a copy of the 96-page bill to every Canberra home. That would resolve the issue. This would ensure that the government could wash its hands of the matter and once again put the onus back on the Canberra community.
The Minister for the Environment before lunch scoffed and laughed, saying he is amending the legislation of the former Liberal government—legislation, I should add, that was so badly hijacked by the Greens and Labor that it lost its true intent and purpose as proposed by the Liberals at that time. So let the Minister for the Environment not forget that one.
Moving on: it will be crucial to also highlight to the general public—page 9, part 3, proposed section 13 (2) (a)—the finer nuances of pruning in order that they do not break the law by mistake. My colleague Mr Mulcahy alluded to that, where people may fall into a trap merely because they do not know the ins and outs of this very intricate Tree Protection Bill. This of course must be done also in accordance with AS4373. Perhaps we should also explain to the Canberra community what exactly AS4373 is. Also for good measure, we could throw in a copy of that for every household, for the Canberra gardener.
As I and other members have alluded to earlier today, if the impacts of this legislation were not so serious for the Canberra community, it would be funny. I also see a real problem with this, setting neighbour against neighbour. The requirements are simply nonsense. Search warrants, powers to enter premises, power to seize things. Excuse me
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .