Page 3598 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Dictionary.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs, and Acting Minister for Education and Training) (5.14): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 41 to 43 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR STANHOPE: I move amendments Nos 41 to 43 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 3619]. These are also technical amendments relating to the placement of definitions in the dictionary provided in the bill.
Amendments agreed to.
Dictionary, as amended, agreed to.
Title.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.15): At this point I would like to reiterate some of the reasons why the Liberal opposition opposes this particular piece of legislation. There have been things said in this place in the last few days that imply that the Liberal opposition is opposed to tree protection. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are opposed to this version of tree protection. The Liberal opposition, when in government, attempted what I think would have been a far superior model of tree protection.
One of the original aims of the Tree Protection (Interim Scheme) Bill was to create a register of important, significant trees. But the passage of that bill—and it is perpetuated in the current bill—resulted in the extension of the scheme into the private backyards of a large number of Canberrans. The government, in damage control in the last few days, has tried to play it down and say that this would affect only 25 per cent of blocks in the ACT. That is a huge number of people. Since the discussion in the media in the last couple of days, people have been coming out of the woodwork and saying to me, “Why didn’t I know about this?”
The Chief Minister has said that there has been a lot of consultation. I do not know when that consultation took place. We know, from some of the forensic investigation that I have been able to put together, that some consultation probably took place at least two years ago. There was probably a press release that went out when the Minister for the Environment tabled the legislation. That is not community consultation. That is not community warning. Surprising as it may seem, most people do not follow every word that is said in this place. I suspect that the Canberra Times and other places did not even pick up that this was an important issue when the press release went out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .