Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1725 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
Let me elaborate on that just a little bit. The trees at north Watson are estimated to be between 200 and 400 years old. They are significant remnant trees, predating European settlement in Canberra. They are trees which are by their nature large, old and have the capacity to drop limbs. They are not the sort of tree that you would want to see in a residential environment. They are unsafe, and it is unwise to allow buildings or dwellings among them.
Yet the government is saying they are going to permit dwellings within these areas but they are going to put tree protection measures in place so the remnant trees cannot be removed. That is an illogical position: you can have no doubt that permitting residential development in this area will lead to residents in the area saying, "These trees must be removed; they are unsafe. They drop limbs. They are a threat to life and property." That would not be an unreasonable claim from potential residents if the government's residential development proposal went ahead. The government's approach not only destroys the intact nature of this woodland; it will also lead to the long-term undermining of its own policy to try and protect significant trees on the site.
Some members in this place and perhaps people outside this place would say that this is a nimby argument from people who do not want development in their backyard and that the environmental issues really do not come into account.
I would like to read to members a quote from a speech by Mr Phillip Toyne, who is a previous director of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Along with Mr Rick Farley from the National Farmers Federation, he was one of the two key proponents for the Landcare movement and the Decade of Landcare established by the Hawke Labor government in the early 90s. Mr Phillip Toyne made a speech at a rally organised by the Watson Community Association in relation to the woodland site earlier this year, in which he said:
The point I want to make about the Watson woodland here is an important one. We are not talking about a 20 hectares local dispute. This is not the sort of thing that comes up before councils at every council meeting all round Australia. It is not the traditional argument between the developer who wants the houses and the locals who want their peace and quiet.
What it is about, is a 20 ha remnant of the most endangered forest ecosystem in the south east of Australia.
When we talk about endangered ecosystems everybody is quick to talk about wet tropic rainforests of north Queensland. Everybody is quick to talk about the tall eucalypts of the Gippsland forests. Everyone is quick to imagine in their mind what an endangered ecosystem looks like.
Well, look here, behind me. There it is-the most endangered ecosystem in south eastern Australia-a humble-looking assemblage of trees. It doesn't look particularly grand. To me it's beautiful. But it doesn't look spectacular.
It's not the sort of thing that usually arouses our passions. But the federal government has secured the agreement of all governments, including the ACT government, to try and achieve a target figure of putting 15 % of each ecosystem into reserve. The amount of Yellow Box/Red Gum grassy woodland in reserve is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .