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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (8 April) . . Page.. 652 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

Where we depart from the Government, however, is in the detail of the Bill. It seems to us that the Bill has arisen out of a desire to reduce the volume of existing legislation and outdated legislation, rather than as a comprehensive attempt to deal with pest plant and animal control. On the surface, the Bill looks very straightforward; but there are some major issues involved in pest plant and animal control that are not addressed adequately by it. Indicative of this is the fact that the Government has undertaken very little consultation with stakeholder groups over this Bill. It was only at my prompting when the Bill was introduced in June of last year that the Minister acknowledged that he should consult with his own advisory committees - the Environment Advisory Committee, the Flora and Fauna Committee, the Animal Welfare Committee and the Kangaroo Advisory Committee. The Conservation Council and other environment groups were not advised that the Bill was going to be tabled. That is a problem. I understand that the consultation with the advisory committees has happened since, but only recently, and it has been only a very cursory look that they have been able to give this Bill.

What mostly concerns me about this Bill is that it has lumped pest plants and pest animals together under a common control regime. It does not recognise the inherent differences between pest plants and pest animals. The issues involved are clearly very different and the methods of control are totally unrelated. There are no welfare issues, obviously, around weed control, but there are health issues related to pesticide use. On the animal side, there are enormously controversial animal welfare issues in this regard, particularly when native animals such as kangaroos are regarded as pests in some areas, so the control methods used on particular pest animals also can have severe detrimental effects on other wildlife.

We are particularly concerned about how the Bill allows the Minister to declare an animal a pest without any of the controls that apply to the killing of animals under the Animal Welfare Act or, in the case of native animals, without the controls that apply under the Nature Conservation Act. Animal welfare aspects of pest animal control are quite significant. The principle behind the Animal Welfare Act is that all animals should be treated humanely and without cruelty. Pest animals may not be wanted, but that does not mean we should treat them cruelly. All animals deserve to be respected as fellow creatures on this earth and with recognition of the fact that they are living in a way that they are designed logically to live. Natural ecosystems do not have pests because within a natural ecosystem checks and balances occur that counter the effects of overpopulation. It is an inherent part of how ecological systems function.

It is we humans who declare particular animals to be pests because they do not fit into our way of controlling a particular environment, and that goes especially for agricultural systems. However, we should, and we must, take a closer look at our agricultural systems that are creating those ecological imbalances that allow pest plants and animals to thrive. Given these broader philosophical questions, we believe that the control of pest plants and animals should be dealt with by separate Bills, which would then give this Assembly the chance to properly consider the different issues involved.

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