Page 1860 - Week 06 - Thursday, 5 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
legislation so it becomes a strong link in the broader regional and national pest management chain. It continues:
The political benefits of adding clauses 4 and 5 are that the ACT can move from having the weakest legislation to having the strongest, and signal that it wants to be a strong link in the national weed management chain and implement national best practice.
Mr Glanznig goes on to suggest particular amendments which I considered turning into amendments today. For instance, he proposes that the minister declare and prohibit the supply of any plant under classes 1, 2 and 5 of the New South Wales Noxious Weeds Act. I have not had the opportunity to find a way of making that work effectively. It would be a good thing to do but we would have to do it in a way that did not tie us to the New South Wales Noxious Weeds Act, which I think would be unfortunate.
As a result of that, the conversations with and correspondence between my officers and the World Wildlife Fund confirm my view that, while this is an important piece of legislation, it could be made better—despite the views of the Chief Minister—by reference to the planning and environment committee.
By doing that we can come up with a couple of amendments that would make it a much better piece of legislation that would make us leaders and the strongest link in the chain, rather than the ones dragging behind and definitely the weakest link. I commend the motion to refer this to the planning and environment committee for investigation and report.
Question resolved in the negative.
Detail stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.04): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 to 20 and 23 to 26 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
DR FOSKEY: I move amendments Nos 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 to 20 and 23 to 26 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1931]. The amendments I am suggesting deal with two issues—first, changing the responsible officer from the chief executive to the conservator of flora and fauna in various places of the legislation; and, two, including in the legislation the term “propagation” as well as “supply”. Although these changes are simple of themselves, they involve changes right throughout the bill—hence the large number of amendments on the sheet circulated.
The first set of amendments deals with our amendment to change the responsible officer to the conservator of flora and fauna. We are proposing that, in a number of places in the legislation, the relevant officer be the conservator of flora and fauna rather than the chief executive.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .