Page 3346 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY: Thank you. I think that, with respect to the expert opinion of ecologists, the scientists and the people who have worked on the connectivity report and who study biodiversity in cities, as I referred to at the beginning of my speech, these people do not have a personal interest in these issues. These are people who are working hard to protect the values that many Canberrans really appreciate.
When it comes to providing the people of Gungahlin with assets and infrastructure, which Mr Seselja referred to, that is an important point. It was one of the valuable points he actually made in his speech. We do need to ensure the people of Gungahlin have the services they need. I would argue that the protection of natural spaces is an important infrastructure asset for the people of Gungahlin. To have the ability to walk, mountain bike or bird watch in areas such as Mulligans Flat and Goorooyarroo and undertake those activities which are consistent with the ecological values of those areas is an absolute asset for the people of Gungahlin. They value, I suspect, those areas very highly. I have not surveyed them, but I imagine that there are a lot of people taking advantage of those areas. That is actually what we are talking about here.
The people of Gungahlin do not just want roads; they do not just want shopping centres; they also want natural spaces where they can go and enjoy the wildlife that people in other parts of Canberra are also able to access in reserves such as Mount Ainslie, Black Mountain and all the other spaces that we have across this city, which we should be fighting so hard to protect.
I thank the government for their support of this motion. I acknowledge their understanding of the importance of these areas, the importance of the ecological values. I welcome the fact that there is going to be a referral under the commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act because, again, despite the myopic views that may have been put on the table during the debate, the ACT actually is part of the national responsibility for protecting some of these areas. The figures are there of how little lowland native grasslands are left and how much the ACT has. We have a national responsibility there, and it is entirely appropriate that that assessment be done in a national context.
I look forward to seeing the results of those assessments. I welcome the fact that the government is already preparing that referral and understands the necessity of going through that process. And as we move forward and that data comes in, I think we will need to all think carefully about how Throsby might be developed, whether some areas may be further cut from the development plan because of that which the minister described as the neck area and whether that might be protected and other areas still developed or whether the whole area needs protection to ensure the ecological values of the areas are maintained in a comprehensive way that reflects the necessity and the improved understanding of wildlife movements and what it takes to create those protections. I commend the amended motion to the Assembly.
Mr Hanson: I seek leave to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Leave not granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video