Page 2970 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Promises of legislation similar to the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, made by the Minister in the lead-up to this Bill, have not been kept. The Bill, unlike its Victorian counterpart, does not guarantee the undiminished conservation status of any indigenous species, whether common or rare, and therefore will only deal with species or communities when they are at the edge of existence. The Bill therefore does not follow ecologically sustainable development principles as it does not apply the precautionary principle to species and communities, but is designed for sustaining and recovering species after the damage has been done.
While the Conservation Council is not totally supportive of the extent of the Government's moves in this area, as the Bill is a substantial improvement on the existing Act they want to see it proceed at this stage. Also included in the fax were a number of specific comments which relate to a number of the provisions of the Bill - 10 in all. I do not propose to go through them; but I think the Government, and perhaps members of this Assembly, may like to keep a close watch on the implementation of the Act to see whether there are further refinements that can be made at a later date.
Mr Stefaniak has quite rightly raised the issue with regard to the criteria in proposed section 18 coming under the Assembly's scrutiny in terms of the Assembly being able to disallow the conservation of a species or ecological community or the ecological significance of a threatening process. I understand that the Minister has some comments to make in regard to this issue and I look forward to hearing what he says. But at this stage I would be inclined to support Mr Stefaniak's amendment to the Bill.
MR MOORE (10.52): Madam Speaker, I think, to put things into perspective - in spite of the disagreement the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra has on some aspects of this Bill - it is appropriate to congratulate the Minister on getting to this stage, because it is clearly a significant step forward. No matter what action we take, there are always going to be particular questions over particular issues that need to be resolved. I think one issue that is most important, though, that is raised by the Conservation Council and that I would like to see the Minister act on quickly, is their point 2, namely:
The Bill must include provision for Interim Conservation Orders or Stop Work Orders from the Conservator which override other land and planning legislation. Interim Nature Conservation Strategies or variations should also be included to facilitate swift action where necessary.
I think that is an issue that does need to be taken up and considered by the Minister, and I would be interested in his response.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to draw attention to the amendment proposed by Mr Stefaniak, that has been circulated although not moved yet, in relation to disallowable instruments. The real question for me was: Why was it that the Minister decided to exclude this particular section from the disallowable instruments when, under proposed section 23E, he allowed a whole range of other things as disallowable instruments?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .