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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 687 ..

Proponents make the point that this is not a complete solution; it is about relieving one of the stresses on endangered birds in a very high quality nature reserve. That raises the question of the nature of the management plan for the Mulligans Flat reserve. When Environment ACT takes over the Gooroo reserve, I hope that we will see a management plan that addresses many of the other issues that put stress on endangered species in this area. We can take away the domestic cats, but there will still be feral cats, there will still be foxes and there will still be people who come in and collect rocks for landscaping and fallen timber for their fireplaces. That cuts down on the places where birds and reptiles can rest and roost safely.

The apparent scope of this motion should be turned to advantage. If you limit the market to non-cat owners, as Ms Tucker would propose to do with this motion, you have to make sure that the area is marketed in such a way that it does not degrade the price of the land. Land is a very highly sought after commodity in the ACT at the moment, so it should not be beyond the wit of people in the ACT—in ACTPLA and in the Land Development Agency—to market a cat-free zone in a way that coincides with people’s desire for environmentally sustainable living environments. There could be particular effort in solar orientation, energy efficiency ratings and sensitive waste water design as part of an environmental village approach to selling land in Forde and Bonner to enhance a future cat-free zone.

I have not had much time to have briefings from the government, but I did receive a very comprehensive one this morning from the wildlife research service. My concern about the motion is that it asks the Assembly to endorse a policy position, which may be a very sound public policy position, put forward by a non-government organisation—the Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra—without the work being done by the government. There has been no investigation of broad scale by the government, and there has been no consultation by the government as to how acceptable this would be in the community.

I appreciate the sense of urgency of Ms Tucker and the Greens to have this passed because it is possible that this land will be auctioned soon. I would also like us to step back and take a breath, which is why I have proposed the amendments that are circulated. I ask leave to move those now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Leave granted.

MRS DUNNE: I move the following revised amendments circulated in my name:

(1) Sub-paragraph (2) (a), omit “Commit to”, substitute “Investigate”.

(2) Sub-paragraphs (2) (b) and (c), omit the sub-paragraphs, substitute:

“(2) (b) given that there is increasing pressure for cat-free zones in all suburbs abutting nature reserves, conduct public consultation about the impact of cat-free zones; and

(c) report back to this Assembly by the last sitting day of June 2004.”.

It says “revised” in my scrawl rather than nicely typed. I move these amendments because of the status of the policy that we are being asked to implement here today. It is

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