Page 3088 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
source-separated recyclables from town centres and events. We note with pleasure the limited one-year trial, but we think this should be permanent.
We are pleased to hear that the budget addresses some of the toxic issues, such as light bulbs and battery drop-off places. The strategy, however, should consider windrow composting instead of just focusing on expensive technologies which cannot provide the same environmental benefits.
I will now move to urban trees. I was delighted—the Greens were delighted—that the ACT Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainability’s report on tree management practices and the renewal of Canberra’s urban forest was released earlier this year. We strongly support the report’s recommendations. Indeed, I wrote to the commissioner back in 2009 asking that the she consider conducting this investigation.
We are pleased the government has responded favourably to the report and is now taking steps to fund some of the recommendations. We would, however, like to see a detailed plan and timetable for the implementation proposals presented from the government for the take-up of all the recommendations.
I would now like to move on to planning and ACTPLA. With the new administrative arrangements, the Greens are, of course, very pleased that we will see at last sustainable planning and sustainable transport and environmental issues all in one directorate. These three are so interrelated, and it was really a problem how it was before. This should be a better way of addressing the government’s concerns and, indeed, those of the community and the Greens’ overarching environmental concerns. But it is important to retain the independence of the planning authority in regard to development assessment.
I fear that making the Director of the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate also the chief planning executive could send the message to the public that ACTPLA is just a normal directorate, totally subject to government direction, including on DAs. We have had a very strong regime in the past few years that DAs are independent. It is important that the distinction between a directorate head and a chief planning executive—who have quite different roles—is maintained.
I was recently reminded of this, because I was advising a constituent about what they could do about a tree removal which they felt was illegal. It was connected to a DA, and I was shocked to realise that, of course, the conservator of trees is now also the Chief Planning Executive. I am not quite sure how he separates the two halves of his brain on this one.
Moving on to happier areas, the building quality forum seems to have been quite a productive process, although there are still a few outstanding and unresolved issues. I am glad it has resulted in a review of the Building Act, and I understand this review will be broader than just building quality. I was very pleased to hear in the estimates process that it will be addressing the energy use of existing buildings. Given that stationary energy use is around 73 per cent of the ACT’s energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, this is really important.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video