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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 689 ..

to the possibility of ensuring that cats did not depredate in Mulligans Flat Nature Reserve and in the new reserve of Gooroo. As we sell the land of Forde and Bonner and, in the future, Throsby, we should consider our attitude and response to cats.

Ms Tucker has moved that there be a ban of cats in Forde and Bonner. I have circulated a motion seeking to amend that so that cats are not banned but permanently confined to premises, either indoor or outdoors—and, if outdoors, in cat runs. Mrs Dunne has moved an amendment that seeks to undertake further consultation on a cat-free zone. I take the point that there are a number of options that we might have considered. A few other options have been circulated, provided by Environment ACT in its advice to me.

It may be that this process has been somewhat truncated and is a little short-circuited. That is the point that Mrs Dunne makes, and I think it is a position well put. Nevertheless, we have an imperative to make a decision before the land is proposed for sale. Decisions have to be made, and people who would purchase in Forde and Bonner need to know that certain circumstances will apply to that land, and it is important that the decision be made before the land is offered. That is at the heart of some of the haste that has been part and parcel of this.

It needs to be acknowledged, in the context of the proposal—and it is a proposal that might apply anywhere in Canberra where there is an interface between suburbs and areas of significant ecological value—that we have a significant investment not only in the ecological value of Mulligans Flat and Gooroo but also—and it is a bit crass to look at these things in these terms—in foregone revenue in not developing urban capable land such as Mulligans Flat and the new reserve at Gooroo.

I have received some estimates that the value foregone, the opportunity cost of declaring both Mulligans and Gooroo, is $500 to $600 million dollars. That is an investment that we have made in foregone revenue. At the heart of the debate, we need to remember that we took Mulligans out of the land release program some years ago—the decision was made at the time by Minister for Planning, Bill Wood, to de Mulligans Flat. Similarly, last year we removed significant other urban capable land at Gooroo to the value, in a combined sense of the two reserves, of at least half a billion dollars.

At the heart of the motion is that we have just foregone half a billion dollars in revenue to acknowledge the ecological value, strength and significance of Mulligans and Gooroo. So what are we going to do to protect our half billion-dollar investment in those reserves? First we de them as reserves to ensure that those ecological values are protected and maintained; then we develop close to the edge, allowing the introduction of cats—major predators—and, having invested the half million dollars, do nothing to protect the investment in a real sense.

That is the argument that is being made here today, and it has been made through the discussion paper. It is a very strong argument to make, and it is an argument that I accept. It is the position of the Conservation Council. It is a position that Environment ACT, the Canberra Ornithologists Group and the Friends of Grasslands all endorse. It is good that we have had this public discussion.

I do not have any disagreement with the point that Mrs Dunne makes about the level of consultation that was achieved. It leaves me with some disquiet that there was not the

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