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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 996 ..

make. Yes, they are difficult. Yes, it is always going to require a judgment about the aesthetic and ecological value of a stand of trees versus trying to get a more balanced, sustainable pattern of settlement in the city to address the other sustainability issues we have around transport, access to journey time and so on.

I ask members to reflect on that in this debate. I can see Mr Smyth scribbling away, so I am sure I am going to cop a serve from him shortly. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue for a more sustainable city form with a more compact settlement path and, at the same time, say that every stand of trees must be protected no matter what. There are stands of trees that have value on ecological terms and there are stands of trees that have value aesthetically. We have mechanisms such as tree protection legislation for determining this. But that is different from arguing that every stand of trees needs to be protected. You make judgments about the ecological value of a site. I challenge the Liberal Party and Mr Smyth, as the former minister for urban services, to provide to this Assembly the ecological investigation that shows that somehow their understanding of the ecological value of Nettlefold Street changed from the time that he decided to sell it to when it went on the market. That was the argument the Liberals presented in this place. They said, “Oh, now we know more about Nettlefold Street. We know now that it’s a more valuable site ecologically.” Where is the evidence? You never presented the evidence because there isn’t any. Nothing changed except political expediency. That is all that changed.

I commend Mr Hargreaves for bringing this motion forward. It is an important motion. I ask members to reflect on this debate. It is a crucial debate for the future growth and development of Canberra in a sustainable way.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. I remind members that there is no challenge, but I remind members of relevance. We are discussing Conder 4A.

Mr Hargreaves: Condor is a great big black bird.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: That may be the case. Those of us who don’t go that far for our holidays probably mispronounce it.

MS TUCKER (4.28): I thank Mr Hargreaves for moving this motion as it allows me to remind the Assembly of the sequence of events that first led to a moratorium being put on development of grasslands at Conder 4A. Some members will be well aware that my office was very active on the issue, in 1999 and 2000, in working with Friends of Grasslands to maintain pressure on the government and the Assembly and in ensuring that the matter was referred to the Commissioner for the Environment. Mr Hargreaves, if he were interested in the detail, might have wanted to congratulate the Greens in the Assembly, the Commissioner for the Environment, Friends of Grasslands and the Conservation Council as well. Mr Hargreaves welcomes the government’s move to incorporate the inclusion of Conder 4A into Canberra Nature Park. The really hard work of stopping the development plans was done years ago, overturning the previous government’s intentions.

Given that there was a 10-year moratorium in place, I simply cannot imagine that any ACT government was likely to put that land back on the land release program. I think

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