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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 992 ..

I understand that the ACT Planning and Land Authority is preparing a draft variation to the Territory Plan to put this in effect. This is just fantastic news.

Mr Corbell and I have been after this for the best part of 4½ years, to my knowledge—probably longer in the case of Mr Corbell. When you are handed the powers of government, it is nice to see something responsible being done. This is just fantastic. I commend the motion to the Assembly and ask for bipartisan support. I have acknowledged the role of the former Minister for Planning in the preservation of good parts of the Conder area, Ms Tucker’s significant role in the process and Mr Corbell’s role in pushing the issue when we were in opposition and then delivering in government.

I ask the Assembly to note that the Chief Minister has preserved a valuable tract of land as part of the Canberra Nature Park. I am absolutely delighted to have this motion before the Assembly. I hope that the Assembly passes this motion and shares in my delight.

MS DUNDAS (4.08): I am happy to give my support to Mr Hargreaves’s motion, but at the same time I believe it is important to point out that, although the woodland at Conder will be protected, not all of the ACT’s patches of endangered woodland are so lucky. Our Minister for Environment likes to boast that the ACT has the largest proportion of its area protected in conservation reserves of any Australia state or territory. Sadly, however, this does not mean that the ACT has a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system that protects an adequate area of each of our ecological communities.

When Canberra was planned, a large part of the south of the ACT was set aside for conservation, as were the hilltops within the urban area. However, the ACT’s lowland grassland and woodland communities, which had already been severely affected by clearing for agriculture prior to establishment of the territory, were not adequately protected in reserves. Although awareness has increased of the value of lowland ecosystems, no ACT government has committed to adequate reservation of these communities. The action plan for the yellow box/red gum grassy woodland community was a step in the right direction, but it didn’t get us a reserve system that we need to safeguard our biodiversity for future generations.

I welcome the government’s decision to withdraw some land in Conder supporting yellow box/red gum grassy woodland from the land release program. As the motion notes, this area has been protected by a moratorium that I believe was placed on the land by the previous government. It is good to see permanent protection being granted, but what I would really like to see—I don’t think I will—is a commitment from the government to reserving all remaining remnants of this endangered woodland.

We are fortunate in the ACT in having a range of options of sites for urban expansion where biodiversity is not placed at great risk. We should be pursuing alternative sites for development instead of pressing ahead with plans made before the value of our lowland woodland and grassland communities was truly understood. Yellow box and red gum trees can take hundreds of years to develop the hollows needed for nesting by arboreal species like bats. It takes even longer before trees start dropping the hollow branches that vulnerable animals like the brush-tailed phascogale use for safe shelter. These branches create the understorey complexity that benefits many ground-foraging species. If we destroy mature woodland, it is reasonable to view it as an irreplaceable loss when viewed

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