Page 4123 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
seen a series of projects come and go. I will talk a bit more about details, but the bottom line is that having recurrent funding is what is important. And I say this to the stakeholders who are interested in this issue: we have had a 136 per cent increase in recurrent funding since the 2013-14 budget. That means that funding is locked into the budget; every single year that funding will be developed. Our land managers are not reliant on scraping around for project funding each year; they are getting a steady, sustained level of resourcing to enable them to tackle weeds in a steady and sustained way. That is what land managers are supposed to do, and that is what good policy is when it comes to dealing with things like weeds.
We know that we need to apply a longer term strategic planning outlook to weed control in the knowledge that funding will flow over a number of years. And we know that, to be successful, weed control must be a long-term proposition that looks to regularly revisit treated sites to ensure infestations are kept under control. It is pointless to spend money one year and then not be able to come back to a site the next year; you may as well have thrown the money away that you spent in year one. That is why moving to such a sustained level of recurrent funding is a major policy success for TAMS and for this government.
In previous years, the annual weeds budget has been considerably augmented by discrete initiative funding which looked to target a particular weed infestation problem. In 2011-12, for example, $1.5 million was identified to address the build-up of willows and other woody weeds along our waterways. This funding has transformed areas of the Molonglo River and its tributaries: where once dead and dying willows were choking the riversides, now planted native species are afforded the chance to take their place. In the context of Ms Lawder’s walking into this place and saying that funding has been cut, well, there was a project: $1.5 million dollars, a very substantial amount of money. The work has been done; that money does not need to be spent anymore. Let us just be honest about what some of these projects have been.
In the period 2012-13 to 2014-15, $1.380 million was injected to rid the new Molonglo River park of woody weeds such as willows and blackberries. Again, this work has completely transformed the local river environment and greatly enhanced its habitat values. But again the money has been spent, and that it is why it is not in this year’s budget and why some of that project funding has dropped away despite the very significant increase in recurrent funding. In 2015-16, the investment in this Molonglo River park area has been reduced to $200,000 as we reap the benefits of previous years’ investments and focus on ongoing follow-up control.
While it is true that 2015-16 will see a smaller total spend on the control of environmental weeds due to the lapsing of initiative funding, it is important to remember that these initiatives run their course and infestations are knocked down. Less is required in ensuing years to ensure effective follow-up of infestation.
Ms Lawder’s motion makes mention of the Auditor-General’s report into the restoration of the lower Cotter catchment and references to the need for effective and targeted weed control. The government is in agreement with the Auditor-General and announced $2.678 million over four years in the 2015-16 budget to improve its land
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video