Page 606 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Biodiversity Conservation Act. These grasslands are predominantly found in the northern part of the territory on the undulating plains in the north and the rolling hills and valleys of Naas Valley. Examples of these grasslands can be seen in government areas, on private land and on rural lease and agistment properties, and many of these areas have already received protection status in the ACT following implementation of the ACT lowland woodland conservation strategy.
The government actively monitors endangered woodland communities across the territory to better understand threats that these areas might face. Threats and pressure on woodlands can come from kangaroo grazing, rabbits, foxes, feral cats, weeds, fire and, of course, urbanisation. The government currently monitors 104 sites and, generally speaking, there has been an overall reduction in weeds. We have plenty of examples of Paterson’s curse, Chilean needle grass, and serrated tussock throughout Canberra. In my electorate of Kurrajong, African lovegrass is rife, so I can only assume it is present in all grassy woodland areas across the ACT and will be a constant threat to woodlands, pastures, nature strips and gardens.
As it focuses on trees in north Canberra, this motion surely has universal support, and so it should. I could not imagine a circumstance in which the government would contemplate any redevelopment that would remove old-growth yellow box trees in any number or remove endangered grasslands. However, this is not the first time these concerns have been raised. Back in 2003, Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker sought to have similar land in Watson protected and managed sustainably. In earlier times, as shadow minister, Simon Corbell sought to have the area protected. However, in response to the 2003 Tucker motion, the responsible Labor minister, Bill Wood, said the government did not agree with the proposal. He suggested that, while the trees were worth protecting, the area was overgrazed and, in effect, of no real importance. That is contrary to what Labor members said in opposition. In opposition, they were going to protect the area at whatever cost. There has been some suggestion that in 2003 Environment ACT suggested that the understorey was degraded.
Seventeen years later we are all a little wiser as to the importance of preserving our endangered natural environment. One point I think we can all agree on is the importance of protecting our great bush capital. It is a responsibility that is incumbent on all of us. In this particular block, redevelopment would result in the buffer between the current urban environment in Watson and Mount Majura nature reserve being lost. We know the impact that loss of tree density can have on temperature and on amenity. We know the important role that trees can play in mitigating the effects of climate. In the ACT we have an enormous advantage over many other cities, both here and overseas, because of the number and distribution of trees.
As both Mr Rattenbury and Ms Stephen-Smith said, we are all aware of how important this area is to our constituents and our local residents. But over the course of successive Labor governments, we have seen the loss of grassland and a great number of native trees. We have also seen the neglect of introduced trees. Lack of maintenance of trees in old suburbs in my electorate is commonplace, and in new suburbs, despite all the promises, areas like Wright are barren. How many trees and how much topsoil was removed from suburbs like Lawson or Crace? Will the same
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video