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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 693 ..

and we can do something about pressure from depredation to support our native birds, mammals and reptiles.

It is critical that cat management measures are in place prior to the sale of land in the area adjoining Mulligans Flat reserve and the Gooroo woodland to ensure that adequate protection is afforded not only to native wildlife but also to people buying into the area, in that they are informed of their obligations and are well aware of what is going on.

The decline in woodland bird species is of particular concern in the Canberra region, where six threatened bird species are facing substantial survival pressures as a result of land clearing, pollution, overgrazing, urban development and the recent fires and drought, in addition to potential depredation and disease dispersal by feral and domestic animals. Minimising domestic cat incursion into nature reserves is integral to a management strategy aimed at stemming the continued decline of threatened bird populations and other sensitive fauna.

Cat-free areas do not affect cat welfare or pose an unfair restriction on cat owners—being unable to live in two of Canberra’s suburbs—when the alternative is a serious threat to biodiversity. That is why I am happy to support this motion. I think the amendment put forward by Mr Stanhope does provide some form of halfway measure, where people with cats are still able to live in Forde and Bonner, but those cats must be permanently confined to either the house or cat runs—enclosures. That may also deal with the situation.

I am interested in hearing where debate has progressed around this Assembly in relation to which of these amendments will be best, but it is important to note the timeframes that we are working to. The timeframe for the sale of this land is in the government’s plan for this financial year, and it would be unfair to impose restrictions once the sale of the land has gone through. So I support having this debate today, and I hope we can find a satisfactory resolution.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the opposition) (5.41): I believe that all members have received a letter from the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which says that they are not convinced. This is the body that is charged with advising the government on the welfare of animals in the ACT. It says:

The Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra has been vocal in expressing their views that these areas should be cat free. Experience in other areas of the country—eg, Magnetic Island in north Queensland and Sherbrooke, Victoria, have shown that cats are not as responsible for wildlife loss as has been thought, and that cat control was not as necessary as had been considered. Public education targeted at making cat owners more responsible has been effective in reducing the impact of cats.

The problem with putting these cat-free zones in place is that the depredations in these areas are already occurring. It is quite well known that cats are willing to travel many kilometres at night to an area where they know there is a source of fresh food—in this case, small marsupials and native bird life. The problem is that we are moving too quickly on an issue that has been brought up by the Conservation Council and brought to this place by Ms Tucker with—I think I heard the Chief Minister say—deficient consultation with the public, or at least less than adequate consultation.

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