Page 2915 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Faced with this acknowledged pressing need and tsunami of decline, there is no excuse for delaying the program unnecessarily. In addition to actual physical tree replacement, this is a program which requires significant planning, education and consultation. The Greens are concerned about the momentum that has already begun to be lost if the program is delayed for a number of years—conceivably beyond the next election.
The environment commissioner’s report into the urban forest renewal program, which the Greens called for and the government has subsequently supported, was initially due in July. Now it is due in September. Even if this report goes to an Assembly standing committee, as Mr Stanhope suggested yesterday, that is no reason for the program be delayed for many years. Mr Stanhope also acknowledged in the estimates hearing that the funding left for this critical program is not adequate. In response to my question, “Do you really think that $1 million is all that we are going to require going forward?” Mr Stanhope answered no; he said that it would not be enough.
So the amendment which I have just moved calls on the government to restore appropriate funding to the urban forest renewal program in consideration of recommendations made by the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, by the 2011-2012 budget and to ensure that there are sufficient funds available to replace street trees where necessary.
I have had some concern that the removal of the funding for this program is partially a political decision, because clearly the urban forest renewal program has been contentious. It has generated strong views from the public and there is a significant amount of negative feedback. The commissioner has had to have more time for her considerations because there has been so much community concern about it. But our worry is that the government may abandon it until 2013-14 because it was an easy decision to put out in relation to what is a very contentious program.
But if the government does accept the amendment that I have proposed and agrees to restore funding by next budget, I believe we are going to be in a much better position to go forward and achieve a good outcome for trees in Canberra—all the trees in Canberra. The best approach now is for the funding to be returned from next year. If the amendment is supported, that is what will happen.
So I call upon Mr Seselja and the Liberal Party to support my amendment because it does achieve what I believe the Liberal Party has been asking for. If you are only concerned about making political points about some trees in the arboretum versus some trees in other places, I agree that you may not support the amendment. But if you are interested in supporting trees in Canberra, please support our amendment.
I turn to the bits of the motion that we do not agree with. This motion is calling upon the government immediately and without delay to divert funding from the National Arboretum to the street tree replacement program. This seems to be a really bizarre request. Why are we diverting funding from the arboretum? Is it just because they both have trees in them? Is that as far as the Liberals’ analysis goes?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video