Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2232 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Conservation groups put their faith in the ALP that it would reverse the Liberal push to develop this land. Before the election, the ALP, particularly Mr Corbell, made grand statements about the need to protect Canberra's open space. He even put up a motion in this Assembly to keep a similar but more degraded piece of woodland in north Watson as open space. The ALP said it would review the action plan for grassy woodland as there has been an ongoing debate over the ecological value of protecting degraded woodland-and in many woodland areas the trees are intact but the grassy understorey has been disturbed by grazing. The ALP also proposed a review of the adequacy of Canberra's open space system and entrenching its boundaries.

Unfortunately, after the election I and other members of the conservation group started getting mixed messages about what was happening in east O'Malley. We were told that the government was reviewing a proposed development. But then, last Saturday, a small advertisement appeared in the real estate section of the Canberra Times advertising east O'Malley for sale. What a cowardly way of announcing that this land was going to be developed. Here is the government that said in its budget yesterday that it wants the highest possible degree of community participation in decision-making, trying to slip through the sale of 27 hectares of land without anybody noticing. Well, the Greens certainly noticed and we will not let the government get away with this.

My motion today is about saving not a prime piece of real estate but a prime piece of endangered grassy woodland. I am very concerned that the government is proceeding with this sale before its promised review of the action plan for protecting grassy woodlands. There is a strong view within conservation circles that the O'Malley land has higher conservation value than some of the other protected woodlands in the ACT. While it is true that the area to be sold is smaller than the original development area, it has to be remembered that once you put in development there will be degradation of the woodland around the edge due to the impacts of weed infestation, domestic animals and general human activity, and I have had Mr Corbell acknowledge this in the past. Also things like clearing for fire control and putting in stormwater drainage channels et cetera will cut into woodland.

I want the sale of this land deferred until the review of Action Plan 10 relating to grassy woodland has been completed. The action plan was released in mid-1999. The plan itself says that it should be reviewed after three years, which means right now. I understand that the flora and fauna committee have scheduled this review for later this year because the review needs to include the results of field work undertaken during spring.

Selling off east O'Malley now will pre-empt the outcome of this review. It will be a betrayal of the trust that conservation groups put in the ALP and it will make a mockery of the whole system of protecting endangered ecosystems and of the government's plans to want to make the ACT sustainable. I should mention that local O'Malley residents are also concerned about the impacts of increased traffic through their residential streets, which they do not believe have been adequately addressed.

In conclusion, Mr Corbell has been quite inconsistent in supporting protection of north Watson but selling off east O'Malley, which has arguably better-quality woodland. He has a chance with this motion to make amends. There may be grounds for developing some of this land, but I think the government needs to just slow down and have a better look at the ecological value of the land.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .