Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 688 ..

a policy put forward by a non-government organisation. I know there was some government involvement, but that seems to have been quite small.

There has been some consultation—it has been open for public comment—but less than a dozen people have commented on it. There have been a couple of articles in the Canberra Times and some talkback radio, but that is not enough consultation on something that is going to have a big impact on people’s lives and housing choices.

I am concerned that the amendment put forward by the minister would have an even bigger impact on people’s housing choices because it imposes quite a hefty cost as well as problems with compliance. In any measure to limit cats in this area there will be a huge issue of compliance—both for the planning authority, making sure that the covenants on the land are being complied with, and for rangers, going around to pick up cats that might be straying in the area. There would be large costs in terms of resources but, if we went down the cat enclosure path proposed by the government, we would be meeting even larger costs with possibly fewer positive outcomes.

I recommend to members that the government investigate this. We have a fair idea of what the impact is on birds, but at this stage the jury is out on whether a cat-free zone will be effective. If at the end of the day we realise the jury is still out, we could adopt the precautionary principle and go down that path, but we actually need to know what the research says about whether this will work. (Extension of time granted.)

Doubt has been cast in my mind because the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has written to all members in the last couple of days expressing its concerns about the effectiveness of cat-free zones. I would like to see the government investigate this, so that a decision that might be made in the future has some underpinning that we can be confident in.

At the same time as investigating that, we should be out there in the community saying that this is what we are thinking and asking what the community thinks. As Ms Tucker has pointed out, there is a community information night tomorrow about the structure plan for Bonner. No matter what we decide here today, when people go to the community meeting about the structure plan for Bonner tomorrow, it needs to be stated quite clearly that the government and the Assembly are looking at some restriction on cat ownership, whether that be cat enclosures or cat-free zones, so that people are warned as soon as possible.

I understand that Ms Tucker is concerned that the land in Forde will be auctioned before this decision is made. Whatever we do, we need to seek an undertaking from the government that the land is not auctioned until this matter is resolved. We should not do it in haste just because the land might be auctioned in a month’s time. Although it is scheduled to be sold this year, no date has been set aside for its auction. On the basis of this, it is time that we took a deep breath and did some more consultation with the community because 10 or a dozen submissions do not make consultation.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (5.21): The government is happy to participate in this debate. A discussion paper prepared by the Conservation Council, but with input, support and assistance from Environment ACT, was distributed and consulted. That paper went

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .