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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3868 ..

otherwise, but mostly successfully—by the opposition and the crossbenchers in this Assembly, it far outweighs the legislative contribution made by the then Stanhope opposition.

I think that there are sound principles in this bill. I believe that these are matters that must be taken forward by this territory, but I think that the execution of this bill is not sufficient for us to implement it at this stage.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (3.52): The government will not be supporting the Nature Conservation (Native Vegetation Protection) Amendment Bill 2004. The objective of this bill is to reduce the incidence of clearing of native vegetation within the ACT and includes provision for the rehabilitation of degraded native vegetation or the revegetation of cleared land to compensate for any native vegetation lost because of approved clearing. It is effectively a system of offsets.

Whilst the principle of green offsets has some merit as a mechanism for compensating for loss of vegetation in landscape protection terms, it has very limited application in a nature conservation context. It is certainly not a panacea for loss of intact native vegetation that contributes to functional and viable ecosystems. Ecological communities cannot be reproduced elsewhere by a planting program.

The ACT already has very good legislation for the protection of native vegetation. The Nature Conservation Act, the Land Act and the tree protection legislation comprehensively address conservation and protection needs. While there is always scope for improvement, we certainly do not need new, narrowly focused, administratively cumbersome and ill-thought through legislation—and that is all this bill offers. The path to success in the conservation of our native vegetation is best served by application of existing legislation in a strategic way through good policy development that is science based and implemented through sound planning and management. The ACT has an enviable reputation for doing this.

The spatial plan is supported by conservation strategies for grassy woodlands and lowland native grassland—examples where conservation outcomes can be achieved in a strategic and integrated way. I also point out that effective outcomes in areas as complex as nature conservation and land use planning cannot be achieved by unilaterally thinking up new laws. Any amending legislation needs to accommodate initiatives already in place and make any transition a smooth process.

This bill has very far-reaching implications for the Canberra community. Farmers and other land managers and the development and the construction sector would be particularly affected. We need to know, and it would be interesting to ask, what are their views? What are the implications for their businesses? What consultation has been undertaken?

The government is seriously concerned that, despite a laudable goal of no net loss in native vegetation, the practical implications of this bill for the Canberra community have not been properly thought through. Add to this an onerous administrative imposition for already busy government agencies and I think the fear is that the intent of the bill will be swamped by process at the expense of outcome.

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