Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (12 March) . . Page.. 913 ..
MS DUNDAS (continuing):
conservation strategy also began last year and, I understand, was due for completion in this year.
Last year we saw the government defer the release of residential land at east O'Malley, which supports some high quality and lower quality areas of the yellow box/red gum grassy woodland. The ACT Democrats commended the government for their decision at the time but, like the ACT Greens, we hope that the government protects this valuable area for the longer term.
The existing commercial, community and residential land release program, which runs for four years, was obviously developed without the benefit of information collected as part of either the revision of Action Plan 10 or the development of the ACT woodlands conservation strategy. It seems reasonable to revisit the release program in light of this new information because I do not think it is true to say that the protection of this endangered community was the most contentious issue surrounding land releases in 2002.
The Territory Plan was substantially developed by previous governments and does not have enough emphasis on the protection of endangered ecological communities. Considering that the plan will certainly be revised to implement the outcomes of the non-urban land use study, this motion is not calling for a separate round of amendments. It just requires incorporation of biodiversity considerations in the review process.
It would be optimal if the government ensured that the woodland strategy work done to date was directly incorporated into the non-urban land use study as an overlay, along with the overlays identifying infrastructure constraints. I hope that this will be the outcome of this motion.
In relation to the amendment, I hear the government's concerns that the motion goes too far in calling for all areas of high and very high conservation value yellow box/red gum grassy woodland to be given long-term protection. But I think substituting it with what the minister has put forward, goes back too far the other way.
The motion as it currently reads calls on the Assembly to:
review the Territory Plan to ensure that all areas of high and very high conservation value yellow box/red gum grassy woodland and natural temperate grassland are given long term protection.
The key phrase there is "all areas of high and very high conservation value", which I assume would include areas of sound ecological condition but would also encompass those that have importance to the surrounds they are in and are on the brink of being no longer viable. If we then step in and say, "We do not think this has sound ecological condition or is relatively intact, and we should disregard it,"we are ignoring the point that we are looking at areas that we deem need to be conserved, whether or not they are in the best state at this point in time. If we can intervene now, we will be able to maintain them and ensure that in the future we will have this very important part of our ecological community sustained.
I understand the minister's concerns, but the motion as it stands does not call on him to find every yellow gum/red box grassy woodland in the ACT and put a fence around it. It
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .