Page 2318 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As a community here in Canberra, we have to make decisions about land use. Do we want greenfield urban development or do we want to leave the land in its natural state, and how do we encourage more urban infill rather than greenfields? I know that as the debate around Molonglo continues, we will be engaging in a discussion about which areas are going to be able to be protected as reserved areas and which bits will be, effectively, concreted over. After we have made those decisions then we need to manage our wildlife and domestic animals in a way that protects our natural habitats as best as possible. The reality is that we live in Canberra surrounded by landscape.
When it comes to the provision of accurate information we have no doubt that it is in everyone’s interests for the government to be as open and transparent about the provision of information in relation to culls as they can be. Indeed, I will propose an amendment to Mrs Dunne’s motion that extends the information that we think should be made available to the public to include not just information about the conduct of the cull but also about the rationale. It is of note that, even with a press release and a fact sheet that was produced this time around, there are still questions that the public wants answers to—questions, frankly, that I would also like answers to. For example, what are the current population numbers in each of our reserves? How many animals will be culled in each of our reserves? What is the current understood density of kangaroos in those areas, given that numbers of kangaroos per hectare are the key determinator on which the kangaroo management plan is based?
This leads me to another amendment that I will propose to Mrs Dunne’s motion, which is to remove clause 1(d). This is a petty clause that seeks to denigrate those who oppose the government’s view and who are exercising their right to voice their opinions on an issue about which they care passionately. This clause, in that it does not name names, seeks to malign all of those who oppose the government’s view. I would suggest that the government would not seek to reinforce this position. In fact, I trust Mr Stanhope will support this suggested amendment by the Greens.
It is not in the government’s interests to remain closed to proposals and thoughts from the community, just as it is not in the community’s interests for the government not to provide accurate information to the public. I hope that the government will support the proposed amendment to remove this clause, and I hope that Mrs Dunne might also reconsider the clause, given that it seems unnecessary for us as a legislature to malign community opinion, no matter what form it comes in.
With regard to the disposal of carcasses, as we are all aware, the government’s current practice is to bury the carcasses when kangaroo culls are undertaken. I suspect, and it has become clear in the discussion, that what Mrs Dunne’s motion goes to here is that there is come consternation that, having undertaken a cull of the kangaroos in the territory for biodiversity reasons, it seems wasteful for us not to utilise the carcasses in some way.
I also have some sympathy with this view, though I would also note that waste occurs in regard to the use of our resources all of the time in many different places, and this is perhaps not the most galling demonstration of resource waste in the ACT. For a start, we are talking about a relatively small number of kangaroos and potentially a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video