BAN ON CATS GOES TOO FAR

CATS are problematic for the natural environment.

They may be domesticated but they retain primal urges to hunt and kill.

That creates undeniable challenges for native fauna against such a fearsome, introduced predator.

That in turn creates a dilemma for planners as they grapple with the rapid expansion of human settlement.

That is the backdrop to the battle being waged on the Queensland border over the Leda proposal at Cobaki.

This area contains a number of endangered animals including the long-nosed potoroo, a type of rat-kangaroo, which are vulnerable to domestic cats.

But the NSW State Government’s response to this potential threat has been excessive.

Its ban on any cats for this development sets an ugly precedent that could imperil this and other badly-needed development projects in our region.

While the welfare of these native animals should be given careful consideration, it must not trump the desperate need for affordable housing.

The Tweed is in a housing crisis, especially to deliver shelter to those who can least afford it.

This is another case of confused priorities by our decision makers.

What’s more important, the potoroo or the pour souls spending 17 years on the housing commission waiting list.

Let’s put this in context.

The State, backed by Tweed Council and its Mayor Katie Milne, has banned cats but is prepared to roll out millions of tonnes of concrete, steel, asphalt and the rest of the material to build a town the size of Murwillumbah.

If they’re so concerned about the potoroo and other vulnerable animals, surely this mini-city poses a greater threat to them than a cat ban.

This is a development featuring two schools, a shopping centre, extensive medium and low-density residential accommodation, as well as the supporting lifestyle amenities including parks and playgrounds. If cats can’t live there, why are they even contemplating approving it?

Surely a development of this scale – and the Tweed desperately needs this largescale supply of affordable homes – must allow for the most basic elements of daily life: The ability to care for a pet.

And let’s not forget the huge social dividend of pets.

Countless medical studies have proved their benefit to our quality of life. In particular, they help the sick, the lonely and those with mental health challenges.

Moreover, the Tweed has a higher proportion of elderly citizens who often rely more heavily on cats and dogs for companionship. In this respect, banning cats is an anti-human approach.

And there’s also the practical considerations.

How, for starters, would it be policed? Tweed Council has already admitted it does not have the resources to enforce Leda’s proposed compromise – to stop cats going out at night.

This development is so significant and so vital to this region that this cat ban smacks of ideologically-driven stupidity.