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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 698 ..

habitat and there must be limitations to protect it. There are questions about how appropriate fencing would be determined. Would there be trained inspectors or something? I understand that people want to have an easy time with their cats, but this is just too big a risk in this particular area. It is important that we address the problem up front rather than step by step as time goes by. While cat enclosures are not a particularly attractive option, they might prove effective. “Appropriate fencing” is not an effective option.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (6.04): I just want to raise some questions about how we enforce this. Have we really thought about what we are doing here? What is the fine for having an illegal cat in the suburbs of Forde and Bonner? I note that in the AWAC submission they say that some of these things like a cat-free zone will put enormous responsibilities onto Domestic Animal Services, Environment ACT. How do you capture a rogue cat? I am sure it is quite easy. I know, from having been urban services minister, many of the ladies and gentlemen up at Domestic Animal Services. If somebody reports a rogue cat, how do we catch it? How will we enforce it? Will we be locking up grannies that have a cat with them? What do you do when somebody gives your two-year-old daughter a cat for Christmas or for her birthday: “Oh, no, take the cat back; we cannot have cats in our suburb”?

We are not opposed to the concept of trying to make the reserves cat free. But, as Mr Corbell said, the problem involves not just cats. Cats, dogs, other animals and other things impact on these reserves. Are we going to lash out and make a whole area cat free or, in the case of Mr Stanhope’s amendment, require that cats be put in an enclosure? Who is going to monitor the enclosures? Is it part of the planning process? Is it an approved structure? Is it an unapproved structure? What schedule will it go into? Where do the cat police come from? Who is going to lock up granny? And what if somebody is reported as having an illegal cat and when the inspector turns up they say, “No, it’s not my cat.” Will the inspectors have the right to enter properties and search under the sink for the cat food? Will they search the laundry for the tub of kitty litter? I just think the way we are going about this is entirely wrong. I cannot forget how Ms Tucker is always so keen on process, yet she has said, “That does not matter. We’ve had enough consultation”—consultation described as inadequate by the Chief Minister—“let’s just do it because I’m in favour of it.” That is not good process.

The way to make this work, if we really want it to work, is to bring the community in with the decision that we reach. This will be interesting because, as I said earlier, parts of the suburbs on either side of Forde and Bonner will be closer to Mulligans Flat than the furthest reach of Forde or Bonner, away from the reserves. So somebody 500, 600, 700, 800 metres—perhaps even a kilometre—away will have to build a cat enclosure, but somebody who will border the reserve right next to Bonner or Forde will not. There is no logic to and no equity in this.

We have heard from the minister responsible for planning that there is no urgency and that the release of the land is some time away and proper consultation can be carried out. Perhaps the Chief Minister will stand up and tell us what he has told the Minister for Urban Services about how this will be enforced. The Chief Minister is not listening; perhaps he might like to listen, because he is putting a burden on his own department, the Department of Environment, and on Mr Wood’s department to enforce something.

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