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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 699 ..

Mr Corbell: That is the first time you’ve believed me about the land release program.

MR SMYTH: Sorry?

Mr Corbell: That is the first time you have ever believed what I have told you about the land release program.

MR SMYTH: Mr Corbell is right. Is Mr Corbell now saying that we should not believe him in particular? Mr Corbell has said that there is no urgency. I would urge members to agree that we adjourn this—it can come back on next week—to see if we can come to some sensible compromise about how this might go forward. Once the government is urged to do this and accepts it, I think it will trigger a chain of events that could affect far more people than the 17 of us here. Its impact is inconclusive. It will result in some reduction. But what about the closest suburb; what about Throsby? Are we going to do this for Throsby? What about all the other suburbs on the urban edge? Will they now have to have cat enclosures? For consistency you would have to assume that they would.

What do you then do with the existing suburbs? Can you fairly have a clause like this in one suburb and not in a suburb next to it? We are not against it, but we want some more time to consider it. And I want to know how it will work before I vote for such an amendment. I do not believe this is the right way to go about this. Process has been thrown out the window by the Greens, which I think is a shame on the Greens given that they are normally so strong on the process. None of the questions can be answered about what the consequences will be. Will somebody come back and amend the Crimes Act—illegal ownership of a cat in a prescribed suburb, five penalty units? What happens with a cat that is caught in a prescribed suburb? Will they be executed? Are we going to go out and shoot the cat? Is it the cat’s fault? Will they be given away?

Mr Quinlan: Good idea.

MR SMYTH: “Good idea,” says Mr Quinlan. There is the other end of the spectrum. Maybe they should all be destroyed. Maybe the whole of Canberra should be cat free. But what we are doing is lashing out here on something that we have not thought through. I think it is perhaps time to shut the debate down and bring it back next week when we will have a clearer idea of what the implications are. Mr Speaker, I move:

That debate be adjourned.

Question resolved in the negative.

MS DUNDAS (6.10): I inform the Assembly that we will be supporting Ms Tucker’s amendment to Mr Stanhope’s amendment, and then we will be supporting Mr Stanhope’s amendment. Ms Tucker’s amendment is quite sensible because just having a fence does not prevent birds from flying into the area where the cat is enclosed, which could have a major impact. Cats are quite dextrous and quite possibly could escape. I think Mr Stanhope’s amendment is a comfortable compromise at this point to allow people moving into Forde and Bonner to retain cats as pets but in very enclosed ways so that those cats cannot impact on the Mulligans Flat reserve or Gooroo.

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