Page 1148 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
legal requirements, transparency, alignment of monitoring and reporting, and the delivery to the environment of a better outcome. There is a need to integrate conservation policies, strategy, legislation and on-ground management implementation. For example, conservation rangers do not have influence to ensure operational knowledge is incorporated into policy and research activities. Opportunity is lost in formulating policy within the greater context.
I actually do not expect too much opposition to this motion, given that all seem to be in favour of it. But the present structure sees conservation functions split between the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate and the Territory and Municipal Services Directorate. ESP, for instance, has control of conservation, planning and research, support to the Conservator of Flora and Fauna, natural resource management programs and the secretariat for the flora and fauna committee.
TAMS has land management and stewardship, boards of management for Namadgi, which I understand is not meeting, Tidbinbilla, Capital Woodland and Wetlands Conservation Trust, Mulligan Flat Woodland Sanctuary and Jerrabomberra wetlands. It looks after rural lands and law enforcement in relation to the nature conservation estate. It has the Parks and Conservation Service, including the fire management unit and natural resource protection unit. It looks after the Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005, the Tree Protection Act 2005 and the Domestic Animals Act 2005.
Some examples of the detrimental outcome of the present structure are a thinly spread field staff and, I believe, reduced corporate knowledge for operations. It affects the lack of integration between the policy and the implementation initiatives and leads to poor environment planning foresight of projects, which we have seen in cases like Throsby, the urban edge, lower Molonglo corridor, Mulligans Flat Road and the Majura valley where, of course, the government has blamed the commonwealth for these delays. But one can ask the question: would it have been avoided if we had had an integrated natural resource management section?
In the lead-up to the last election, the Canberra Liberals were aware of these concerns within the community and, indeed, of public servants within both departments. One only has to remember Mr Corbell’s abortive attempts to destroy the bushfire management unit, which was working perfectly well. It had complete support from across the spectrum, from firefighters through to the conservation groups. But, of course, we had to have the reform. We were able to stop that because what the minister would have done is destroy a valuable unit and gone to this same model—splitting it apart, tearing it apart, to enhance one department over the other.
In the lead-up to the last election, the Canberra Liberals made a commitment to consolidate nature conservation functions under one directorate. I refer to the media release where the leader, Zed Seselja, said, “We will also hire an extra five nature conservation rangers, review the Nature Conservation Act 1980 and bring all nature conservation functions into one directorate.”
It is also worth noting that in clause 3.1(2) of the ACT Labor-Greens agreement for the Eighth Assembly, there is agreement to—lo and behold, it is almost exactly the same words:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video