Page 1705 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 3 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
combating weed threats. With assistance from the ACT and Australian governments, the Australian Native Plants Society exchanges environmental weeds that have been planted in gardens for more friendly native species.
I might just say, by way of digression from my prepared speech and going to the report Jumping the garden fence prepared by CSIRO on behalf of the World Wide Fund, it is interesting to note that the 10 most important garden plants currently for sale in the ACT—or described as currently for sale—and in relation to which the report is somewhat critical of the ACT are black locust, two species of broom, cotoneaster, firethorn, Japanese honeysuckle, the Lombardy poplar, olive, radiata pine and white poplar. It is notable, however, that, as a result of the bush friendly nursery scheme, the only one of those 10 species available for sale in nurseries in the ACT is in fact olive—and there is quite a specific reason for that, related of course to its commercial use within the ACT—and it goes to explain the success of the strategy underpinning the ACT government’s successful approach to pest plants in the past. Working with nurseries, the 10 identified most invasive garden plants concerning the CSIRO and the World Wide Fund in Australia are not sold in the ACT—none—with the exception of the olive, for reasonable purposes.
The commercial supply of prohibited pests is established as a strict liability offence in the bill. The criminal code provides for the use of strict liability provisions where a defendant can reasonably be expected, because of his or her professional involvement, to know what the requirements of the law are. Therefore, the mental or fault element can be justifiably excluded. The strict liability offences in this bill have been carefully considered and are limited to particular circumstances—for example, people engaged in the commercial supply of plants or animals can be reasonably expected, because of their professional involvement, to be aware of the duties and obligations under the law. Strict liability offences act to discourage reckless behaviour by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. They are included in regulatory schemes by all jurisdictions where the proving of intent is difficult if not impossible. The Criminal Law and Justice Group, the Human Rights Commissioner and the Assembly Standing Committee on Legal Affairs have assessed the penalty provisions of the bill. Strict liability offences are minor, with the maximum penalty limited to 50 penalty units.
There are foreseeable circumstances where the supply of prohibited pests may be warranted—for example, scientific research. The bill provides that in these circumstances a designated official may issue a permit for supply if satisfied that it would not result in the spread of the pest in a way that would endanger the environment or agriculture. The bill also establishes offences for reckless activities such as the use of vehicles and machinery contaminated with the prohibited pest or the disposal of prohibited pests in ways that could contribute to their spread. I think members are aware that New South Wales has recently amended its Noxious Weeds Act. It also provides for the declaration of classes of pests and the prohibition of supply of certain pests.
The Pest Plants and Animals Bill has a high degree of consistency with New South Wales legislation, and I think that is particularly important as we share a common border with multiple points of entry. Our pests are New South Wales pests and vice versa. In the interests of harmonisation of pest legislation, the government needs to ensure that the declaration of pests in the ACT is undertaken in a consultative way, so that there is a high degree of commonality and a regional approach to pest management. It is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .