Page 3331 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
such a referral has not yet been made by the ACT government. While the government may not have final plans ready for Throsby, given that it is in an area that has high biodiversity value, making a referral sooner rather than later would be worth while.
The Canberra Ornithologists Group were highly critical of this development proposal going ahead at all when the issue came before the planning and environment committee back in 2005. They were also highly critical of the bird studies that were often undertaken by the government in preparation for making development decisions, so it was pleasing to hear that COG had undertaken some assessments on Throsby for the ACT government recently, and though we have not seen those reports, they are expected to tell us that superb parrots, a vulnerable species, breed within the development zone, another trigger for an EPBC referral.
Finally, I would like to touch on the implementation of asset protection zones. It seems to me that putting in place asset protection zones for Throsby means one of two things: either the asset protection zones impact on Mulligans Flat and Goorooyarroo or asset protection zones within the planned urban footprint leave little room for the development to proceed. On the first option, it is important that the nature reserves are actually managed in a way that is consistent with their biodiversity values, and this is not necessarily going to be consistent with fire management protection. Natural regeneration and preservation of tree habitats are important for biodiversity.
It is unclear how the implementation of asset protection zones will be managed, but the Greens are calling on the government to include the asset protection zones inside the proposed urban development footprint rather than in the neighbouring nature reserves. We appreciate that this significantly reduces the available footprint for development, but it seems necessary in the circumstances, particularly in light of the way that the nature reserves might be impacted by protection regimes that are put in place in the asset protection zones where measures such as slashing and fuel reduction will take place and that it is not necessarily compatible with the protection of the biodiversity values of the nature reserve.
Of course, the premise of this motion is twofold. Firstly, the Greens think that, given everything that has been said about Throsby over the years, it is highly likely that the suburb should not be developed at all. Secondly, we think it is crucial, as the pressure to expand outwards increases, that we must ensure that we have the planning mechanisms in place to protect our biodiversity. My colleague Ms Le Couteur has spoken many times about the need for good planning processes, and the Greens have also discussed the need for there to be more detailed planning instruments that provide information about biodiversity to developers. This is not a new idea, and there was some talk about government undertaking biodiversity mapping that was compatible with ACTMAPi. We would be interested to hear more about how this is progressing and how it will be used in a meaningful way.
In summary, this is a motion that seeks to put on the table the range of concerns about developing the proposed site at Throsby and some suggested solutions to move us forward both specifically for Throsby and also for other proposed development sites around the ACT. Those people in the ACT who speak for and support strongly our local biodiversity have expressed deep concern about this development but also about
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video