Page 2891 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Some might consider this to be an appropriate answer, but in fact it is another indication of the government’s failure to consider projects all the way through to the end before they begin it. Too many times, we have seen this government undertake multimillion dollar projects on a whim, with impetuous decision making. We have seen it in relation to the urban waterways project in Dickson, Lyneham and O’Connor, where the government are spending more than $30 million on Mr Corbell’s pet project but failed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis or to work out how much we would charge for the water which is extracted from the system.
We have got a multimillion dollar project but there is no plan for how it might be promoted. There is no plan for how the government might pay for its upkeep. There is no strategy on how the trail might generate revenue to pay for that upkeep. It is not done because it is not completed. Where is the cost-benefit analysis for the upgrade of the Centenary Trail? What are the benefits? What benefits will this trail bring to the economic, social and environmental fabric of our community? The government simply does not know and it is willing to throw $3.3 million of taxpayers’ money at an unknown benefit.
And lest people might say that I am opposed to this project, I think that it is in fact a project that potentially has a great deal of merit, but, as in all of these things, before we spend money on it we should know what the benefits will be for the community. I think that the Centenary Trail has great potential to generate tourist interest in our natural areas but unless it is marketed appropriately we will not get that benefit.
I note the answers that the minister gave to questions relating to the control of pest plants and animals in the estimates process. I acknowledge that there are significant challenges and that the directorate has a range of programs and additional funding to tackle the problem. It is encouraging that there is, especially in relation to rabbit control, a will to go back and capitalise on improvements that have been made over previous years. But I am still quite concerned that, even with additional funding, there is still a long way to go in the area of pest plant and animal eradication.
I will be watching progress in this area particularly closely because the ACT government does not have a great record of weed and pest animal eradication. It does not have a great track record in this area and it is an area of considerable concern. If we let weeds, feral animals and over-populated animals get out of hand, it will have a huge impact on our biodiversity.
On the question of our biodiversity, I note the comments made by Mr Rattenbury in relation to the number of ranger staff and whether the ranger staff are appropriately placed. I also note the recommendations of the estimates committee and the government response on this matter. I think that it is fair to say that the government only gave passing consideration to the recommendations.
I think that there is a great deal of merit in the argument put forward by the writers of the estimates committee report when they called upon the government to consider placing nature conversation rangers in the department of sustainability rather than keeping them in TAMS. I agree with the comments made by Mr Rattenbury that we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video