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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (12 March) . . Page.. 916 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The amendment is using slightly different language. I am certainly not belittling the notion of connectivity-of course, that is important-but there is scientific discussion around the value of fragments, as well as the value of remnants. There are certainly scientists who, when we want to talk about Nettlefold Street, would be arguing that the process there has not properly taken into account the value of that area-and not just the aesthetic value. There are very old trees there that are used by bird species. Those trees have allegedly been incorrectly identified-two scientists have told me that now-so it does not give you a lot of confidence in the process currently underway, just on that site.

We have the words "that are of sound ecological condition"in Mr Corbell's amendment. I do not understand why that is inconsistent with the notion of high and very high conservation value yellow box/red gum grassy woodlands. I thought that high and very high conservation value yellow box/red gum grassy woodlands were of sound ecological condition and relatively intact. But what does that mean? Maybe we have a different language now. Maybe we are judging differently what is high and very high conservation. I do not know where this has come from. What is "relatively intact"?

I am concerned about this language. I do not know where it is coming from and, because I do not know what it means, I will not support it. I know what "high and very high conservation"means, so I will stick with that.

Question put:

The Assembly voted-

 	Ayes, 12  			Noes, 2

 Mr Berry  	Ms MacDonald  		Ms Dundas
 Mr Corbell  	Mr Pratt  		Ms Tucker 
 Mr Cornwell  	Mr Quinlan 
 Mrs Dunne  	Mr Smyth 
 Ms Gallagher  	Mr Stefaniak
 Mr Hargreaves  Mr Wood

MS TUCKER (11.43): In closing the debate, there were a couple of points made to which I would like to respond. I will start with the last speaker, Mrs Dunne. She was talking about what she saw as the tensions between needing to house people in the town community, but also protection of the environment. I agree that that tension exists, but the debate today, which we so often have in this place, is on where to draw the line.

I make the point again that there is only some 5 per cent of the original yellow box/red gum woodland left in our region. We must take a regional perspective in any discussion on this endangered ecological community. It is a very serious situation that we have to deal with in our region, with only 5 per cent left.

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