Page 2973 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Heritage and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.02): Madam Speaker, let me restate here the view that the primary argument for establishing the Flora and Fauna Committee is that a forum would then be available for independent scientific and objective examination of nature conservation issues. This is particularly relevant to the committee's primary function of determining whether a species or ecological community is threatened with extinction and advising the Minister accordingly. This is not to say that the community views on the criteria to which the committee would work should not be taken into consideration, and it is a prescribed requirement that they be developed in consultation with the public. However, sound scientific judgment, free from parochial or possible political influences, is important as the final arbiter of what the final criteria should be. Making them a disallowable instrument has the potential of allowing non-scientific arguments to determine their final form.
MR MOORE (11.03): Madam Speaker, the argument that Mr Wood presents, as I see it, is based on the notion of scientific objectivity. Of course, there is a whole set of writing and study on post-structuralism which deals with this whole notion of scientific objectivity. All of us know that, if you find two scientists giving an objective opinion, they can often be complete opposites. The two scientists will offer objective opinions which much more often will vary somewhat. Those scientists do not have to answer in any way to the community.
By making this a disallowable instrument we take the responsibility that we have as elected representatives for assessing whether or not those criteria have been evolved through appropriate scientific objectivity in so far as that is possible. I say "in so far as that is possible" because, whenever we are talking about objectivity, we must recognise that everybody who comes to whatever the scientific approach is comes with their own baggage; they come with their own preset ideas, with their own parameters; and when they weigh up issues they look at things and they exclude things; and they have available to them certain sorts of information, as is the case for members of this Assembly. So, the notion of scientific objectivity is certainly being questioned significantly by the post-structuralists. I would argue that, to use that as a reason for excluding such a set of criteria from scrutiny by this Assembly, is an inadequate argument.
MS SZUTY (11.05): Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the consistency of argument, because we already have a number of sections in this Bill which do come under the disallowance provisions of this Assembly. They include section 15X, which relates to the draft strategy or variations and powers of the Minister, which the Assembly can review; section 21, the making of declarations and the declaration of species, community or process, which the Assembly can also review; and section 23C, the action plan, which the Assembly can already review.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .