Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 6 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1684 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
The National Capital Plan specifically states that the pine plantation in the Greenhills area should be used in a way that reinforces the landscape character of the area and provides for multiple uses of the area. This is what will happen if we proceed with replanting as soon as possible.
Currently, because the area is under rehabilitation, it is not available for its normal range of uses by the Canberra community-cycling, bushwalking, running, dog walking off lead. A whole range of activities that normally occur in that forest area have not been possible because of the fires and the rehabilitation work.
The ACT government does not support any proposal to consider the burnt area for alternative land uses. To change the land use to residential or other built purposes would destroy the landscape fabric of the area and significantly compromise the setting of the area as a backdrop to the central parliamentary part of the city.
Mr Wood has outlined very effectively the range of issues the government has already considered in detail as part of its response to the destructive fires at Christmas time. For those reasons, the government is not prepared to support this motion.
MR SPEAKER: A matter has just been brought to my attention in relation to the first Dundas amendment. I would draw members' attention to standing order 140, which reads:
Every amendment must be relevant to the question which it is proposed to amend.
I am advised that the first amendment moved by Ms Dundas significantly widens the scope of the motion moved by Ms Tucker. I will quote from Ms Tucker's motion to illustrate the matter. Paragraph (1) reads:
undertake a review of the future land use of the pine plantations-
I emphasise this part-
burnt out in the Christmas bushfires, including, but not limited to ...
Ms Dundas' first amendment seeks to widen the scope of the motion to all land and is therefore inconsistent with the original motion. I accordingly rule that amendment (1) is out of order.
Amendments (2) and (3) negatived.
MS TUCKER (6.26): I will make a few closing comments. I would like to respond to some of the comments from Mr Wood. He made the point that we cannot log native forests in the ACT. That is correct. That is because the ACT decided that it was sensible to protect the forests through having parks. We once had a hardwood industry here. There was logging in the Brindabellas up until the 1960s. Houses built before the 1960s were built with hardwood. As consciousness grew about the impact of logging in the Brindabellas and water quality in the Cotter catchment area, there was a move away from logging hardwood.