Page 1701 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 3 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
account in the drafting of the legislation. But now that we actually have a well-credentialled organisation coming forward and saying, “Here are some pointers and here are some models for how you might craft legislation,” we think the government should not sit back and say, “We can’t make it any better. We have created infallible legislation” but, rather, “What can we learn from a well-credentialled organisation, supported by research by the CSIRO? What can we learn to make our legislation better?”
There are lots of problems with our legislation, which is why I will propose, before we get to the detail stage, that this legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment so that the planning and environment committee can look at it, and Dr Foskey’s amendments, which for the most part are meritorious, in the light of the new work that has come to light from the World Wide Fund.
I have spoken to the Chief Minister, the Minister for the Environment, and he says that he will not support that, but I still propose to move that the bill be referred to the planning and environment committee, so that the Chief Minister can give his reasons why he thinks he cannot improve this environment legislation any more. I think it is because he is basically too lazy; he wants to get something on the books so he can say, “I’ve done something. We must do something; this is something and therefore we must do this,” which is the usual approach of this Labor government, especially when it comes to the environment.
I will quote just a few snippets from this report:
Weeds cost Australian farmers $4 billion per year and seriously degrade vast natural areas resulting in the decline of many native species.
Yet, State and Territory weed legislation is generally ineffective in stopping the legal importation of new invasive plant species, as well as blocking the major invasion pathway for the intentional spread of those already in their jurisdictions. This pathway is the continuing sale of large numbers of invasive garden plants, most recently documented by a CSIRO report entitled Jumping the Garden Fence.
That has had considerable discussion in the media. It continues:
Invasive garden plants account for two-thirds of the weeds that have established in the environment in recent decades, and about 70 per cent of all agricultural and environmental weeds.
As I said before, the idea of having a nice garden brought about the prickly pear invasion, the problems we have with Paterson’s curse and a problem that is very close to home that I see quite often. I come from the North Coast of New South Wales and in one of my father’s former incarnations he was a banana grower. We spent years—literally years, through my childhood—spraying, grubbing out, eradicating lantana from banana plantations on the North Coast of New South Wales. Very recently I visited my parents and what did I find in their front garden? A new cute, beautiful lantana plant, bought from the local nursery. I said, “Dad, what are you doing with lantana in your front yard?” “I bought it from the nursery. It must be all right. It’s not like the ones that we used to grub out when you were a kid,” he replied. In fact it is just about the same; it is a little bit smaller, a little bit cuter and the colours of the flowers are a bit nicer, but it still stinks, it is still woody and it is still invasive. This is what happens: people have lost any sort of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .