Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (2 April) . . Page.. 1312 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
forest type of which only 5 per cent remains of the pre-European existing coverage-5 per cent when the government itself says we want to try and achieve 15 per cent protection of this forest type ...
He finished his speech that day by saying:
Our decision in relation to Watson recognises that degraded understorey can be restored and that we can work better to protect these areas of endangered forest types. That is the purpose of the motion; that is the context in which the Labor Party has reached its decision. I urge members to support this motion today.
It is a shame that the leader of the government and Minister for the Environment hasn't got the courage to support that decision today as well, as he did back on that day in 2001.
MS DUNDAS (9.29): I was very much interested in how this debate would go. I was considering it myself and looking at weighing up the different aspects of the triple bottom line-the social, the economic and the environment considerations of this motion, given what is going on in north Watson.
Will the housing that is going to be built in north Watson be affordable and accessible for those on lower incomes? Will we be able, as the Chief Minister has talked about, to house the growing population of the ACT, which is what I understand we are doing with the spatial plan and draft variation 200? We are looking at all those things. We do not have the answers yet, but we are meant to be looking at all those things.
What are we going to do about the environment as our city grows? Not only will we be cutting into grasslands and trees to build houses, but also we will be putting extra stress on the water table, how water flows throughout the ACT, how we contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. A whole lot of things need to be considered and this motion is almost a microcosm of the whole future of Canberra.
I was thinking that if we had the Office of Sustainability up and running and a little bit more focused, they would have been able to provide information to this debate that would help us weigh up those three different aspects. While I was thinking about this motion, I was also thinking about the debates that we had on this issue in 2001. I must say that Mr Corbell, who has been quoted here tonight by both Ms Tucker and Mr Smyth, spoke very eloquently. What he was saying was quite right: we do need to recognise, as Ms Tucker also said tonight, that trees are not confined to the space that they currently fill; it is a matter of what goes on around them, how they fit into the environment around them and what is happening nearby. It has an impact on their roots. How the understorey is maintained has an impact on how the tree will be able to survive.
The area that we are talking about is not currently classified as an endangered ecological community because it lacks the understorey and has been frequently grazed. That has prevented regeneration of the vegetation and restoration of the original woodland cover. But it has been identified by the Watson Woodlands Working Group as a site for possible rehabilitation to promote the resurgence of red gum/yellow box grassy woodland, which I think we would all agree is an endangered ecological community.
The government's current proposal for the north Watson site does not allow for any expansion of the woodland through regeneration or replanting. The Chief Minister has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .