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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (2 April) . . Page.. 1308 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I have to say that I believe that that anticipated rate of growth may prove to be conservative. Over the next 30 years, we as a community will perhaps need to house an additional 100,000 people. At the moment, it is anticipated that the majority of those will be housed in north Gungahlin. At the moment, as the Territory Plan stands, they will be housed amongst high conservation value, well-connected, high value ecological communities of yellow box/red gum.

There are some difficult decisions to be made. We can fight and claw over fully degraded stands of yellow box/red gum of no ecological value, actually with no ecological indicia at all, or we can build in north Gungahlin. These are hard decisions. We will have to house those 100,000 people that we know will be our fellow residents within the next 30 years. We can house some of them in north Watson or we can house them in north Gungahlin. These are the decisions that we as a legislature will have to make.

Mrs Cross: A bit of both.

MR STANHOPE: Absolutely, a bit of both-50 metres here, 50 metres there. Where do we draw the lines?

Mr Smyth: That is what we said in government, but you objected every time.

MR STANHOPE: Another 50 metres into the high conservation yellow box/red gum of north Gungahlin or another 50 metres into north Watson. These are the issues that we are presented with. Mr Smyth is right: those are the issues that are presented to governments.

Mr Smyth: Oh, you can say anything in opposition!

MR STANHOPE: No.

Mr Smyth: Well, you did; it's here.

MR STANHOPE: No, not at all. We said that we would protect these trees and we have. We are now having a debate about an appropriate buffer. It is appropriate, of course, that the motion goes to appropriateness and the definition of appropriate. A buffer is being provided. A notion or a context well consulted with the community is that the buffer will be a road and the road, as proposed in this instance, provides a buffer for the control of any impacts, essentially weed infestations.

Mr Wood: And that's a further buffer.

MR STANHOPE: That's right. The buffer is a buffer against weed infestation. In terms of a site such as north Watson, what else would it be? The buffer proposed is a verge on the western side of 9.5 metres, a road surface of 7 metres, a $5 million verge on the eastern side, and a grass swale seeded with a sterile mix of grasses. The total width of the buffer is to be 21.5 metres.

Some may argue that that is not appropriate. Environment ACT thinks that that is more than appropriate, having regard to the nature of the degraded state of the site that we are talking about-a 21.5-metre buffer to protect against the infestation of weeds in an

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