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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 695 ..

Conservation Council was a useful prompt for this debate, but the issue is perhaps more complex than has been presented.

Over the past month or so I have looked at the different views about the impact of domestic cats on a nature reserve setting adjacent to residential areas. I have looked at the work done in South Australia and at the work done by Professor Mike Braysher, who is a member of the Planning and Land Council and an expert on the impact of introduced species on native ecosystems, plants and animals. The conclusion Professor Braysher has reached is that cats are simply one contributor to the impact of human settlement on adjacent nature reserve areas. He lists in his work as equally damaging, horses, rubbish, degradation through development activity and a whole range of other human activities that can also potentially have an impact.

Ms Tucker: And suburbs?

MR CORBELL: Yes, suburbs can have an impact on the nature conservation area.

In some respects I have some hesitancy about simply saying that a ban on cats will address this issue. I have had discussions with the Conservation Council, and they said to me, “Look carefully at what we put together,” and I have. I said to them that I do not disagree with the notion that cats have an impact; I do not doubt that they do. My concern is that the assertion that a ban will address that impact is not entirely tested.

A ban might sound like a wonderful thing to do: they are banned and therefore they are no longer a problem. But what are the practicalities of a ban? How effectively can a ban be enforced, and how effectively can it be policed? I am not convinced that it can be effectively enforced or policed. The action is as much in education as it is in a potential legislative requirement. That is not to say I rule it out; I am just not convinced that it can be done practically. From my perspective, further consideration needs to take place, and the approach the Chief Minister outlined is a reasonable way forward.

For the information of members, the release of Forde is identified on the land release program for this financial year. Originally, it was proposed to be a release in two parts: one part as a government land development project and one part as an en globo sale direct to the market for private land development activity. The Land Development Agency is currently reconsidering the vehicle for release and what approach should be taken in the release of that site.

There is sufficient time over the coming couple of months for the issue to be further worked through before release of the land occurs. Even if it is the government releasing the land, the land will not be released and sold directly to the market to home buyers or builders without an understanding of potential cat management in those estates.

I am confident that the timeframe is there and that the Chief Minister’s proposal is a sensible way forward. It is a complex issue, and I am not convinced that cats on their own pose any greater danger than any other action or being that has an impact on nature reserves. Secondly, I still have reservations about the capacity of a ban to work. The Chief Minister’s amendment provides a good way forward.

MRS DUNNE (5.52): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again.

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