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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3870 ..

impacted by the new suburbs of Forde and Bonner. Changes such as those Ms Dundas has proposed would offer an extra layer of protection for these areas. The Mulligan’s Flat-Gooroo complex of native woodland, open forest and native grassland is one of the best remaining areas of habitat for two populations of threatened bird species, as well as others with declining populations. I understand that other members will not be supporting the proposed amendment bill. This is a pity, given that the territory’s native vegetation will remain vulnerable and that the government will be able to sell off remnant vegetation without regard to the ecological consequences of its actions.

While I support the protection of remnant native vegetation in the ACT, I do have concerns around the concept of “no net loss of vegetation for the ACT” where this is achieved through “offset” replanting of damaged or destroyed vegetation in a ratio of one-to-one. It is not possible to “replace” native vegetation. Habitat for threatened species and ecological communities is irreplaceable. There is no way that we can achieve “equivalence” when we are talking about destroying old-growth tree hollows or viable, functioning ecosystems.

For example, no amount of plantings could begin to offset the damage done through the removal of the functioning ecosystem vegetation associated with the Gungahlin Drive extension. It is irreplaceable and now gone forever. You could plant 100,000 trees, and even throw in some understorey, and would still not have acquitted the damage done. However, there are occasions when the idea of offsetting could be useful as a last resort where there is no option for protection and retention of existing vegetation. For example, if a small number of trees have to be removed, there could potentially be an offset, but it should be an offset based on habitat values—not at a bargain basement rate of one-to-one.

There has been some interesting work done in Victoria, which aims to objectively and explicitly assess the quality of remnant vegetation through the “habitat-hectare” approach. Issues such as the number and size of habitat hollows, landscape values, social factors, the age, health and type of vegetation and other species affected, for example, must be considered against a native vegetation baseline. If this approach were implemented in the ACT, the Conservator of Flora and Fauna could then potentially make a recommendation as to the appropriate rate of replacement. In this way, we may be able to walk towards a “gain”, or at the very least a “net gain”, in terms of native vegetation in the ACT rather than settling for the concept of “no net loss”, important as it is.

I am concerned also that any offset planting would have to be in an area that would not itself be damaged by intensive planting. Offset planting would need to be in areas that would support viable ecosystems after rehabilitation and which would be protected in perpetuity. Together with replacement planting, there should be provision to enforce recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. The conservator would need to be involved in this part of the equation and in more broadly monitoring the quantity and quality of remnant native vegetation in the territory too.

It is a concern that, in the last two ACT state of the environment reports, the Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out that there is no comprehensive database or long-term monitoring of biodiversity in the ACT. So, while I support this bill in principle, there are a number of amendments that the Greens would have proposed if

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