 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Luckily, this Chamber is big enough that it does not take too long to count the numbers and work out what is happening. I am disappointed that it appears that the motion will not succeed. I will not go over the substance of the debate again, but I make a couple of key points. I and the conservation groups that I have spoken with are not opposed to some 90 per cent of the regulations. In discussions I have been involved with there is no disagreement with the fact that there are some problems that the other regulations are seeking to fix.
For instance, one of the regulations that is causing concern relates to where you have perhaps a pest plant growing among native vegetation. There are some problems in the State, and that is readily acknowledged by conservation groups. Their particular concern is that, effectively, the regulation virtually gives open slather. Unfortunately, the experience with native vegetation regulations is that exemptions are often put in place for a good reason and then they are used as an avenue to cause clearance that really was not necessary.
For example, there is one famous case of a property in the Mid North where there were a number of mature trees. As I understand it an adjoining landowner catered for tourists by having picnics among these trees on the property. They were not causing any problems but the property manager took affront to this and erected a fence. He fixed them by putting in a fence, but it did not run in a straight line. He put in a fence that weaved its way around the trees and then he went in and knocked them all over. He used the regulation that allows the removal of trees along a fence line. He deliberately built a fence that wandered around these trees so that he could stop people having their picnics among the trees.I can understand that he could have a problem with people having picnics on his property, but to stop them he used a regulation that was put there for good reason. A number of property owners do not want trees along their fence lines, but then people get smart and start doing things like that. Sometimes they cut down trees for fence posts. It is amazing how many fence posts are created under that loophole.
The problem is that a couple of these regulations, in the view of some groups, were tackling a legitimate problem but they were so wide open that they were capable of not only being used for legitimate reasons but people were able to claim that they had a pest plant problem and they no longer had to seek the sort of permission they had to seek in the past and clearance occurred. When asked why they did it, they could say, `I had a pest plant problem.' End of story. That is what we are concerned about. Members have to acknowledge that conservationists do not want pest plants in Australia any more than farmers want them. Conservationists do not want broom and all these other things going wild. It is not that they are opposed to pest plants being removed; it is just that they are concerned about having proper checks and balances in some cases.
I am disappointed because I moved this motion of disallowance on 25 August last year—almost a year ago. I put it on notice and said to the Government, `I am not going to rush this because I recognise the regulations are all there—
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have not. I have not rushed this because I recognise that all the regulations were put there for good reason, and I was not trying to undermine the whole system. I spoke about the Native Vegetation Act earlier in another contribution. I am a supporter of the Native Vegetation Act, but it does have a couple of flaws, just as there are a couple of flaws in these regulations. I was quite happy—until the numbers eventuated tonight—to let it sit there in good faith, trying to give the Government a chance. The Government has not legitimately tried to discuss this issue by sitting all the parties around the table. It has consciously avoided that, and that is really disappointing. The Government just did not tackle the issue at all. It appears that it has been lucky because, if two members of the Labor Party were still members of the Labor Party, I would have had the numbers and the regulations would have been disallowed.
By being reasonable, by doing the right thing and giving the Government 12 months to address a problem which it has not sought to address seriously at all, has worked against things, as the situation has evolved. So much for being reasonable about things. The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, you give the Government an even break and see what happens. I know absolutely that a couple of loopholes will be abused and abused badly. There is no doubt in my mind that that will happen, and I will be left to say, `I told you so.' There is no comfort at all in saying that. It is doubly disappointing because the Government is now saying that the whole Act is under review anyway. I would prefer it if these issues, which are covered under the regulations, were tackled as part of a full review of the Act, hopefully with full consultation. It is worth noting that a whole set of regulations were recommended by the Native Vegetation Council. However, the Government did not pick them up, and they were ignored.
The regulations we are now considering came largely from a Government back bench committee rather than from the Native Vegetation Council and the Native Vegetation Branch. Again, that is very disappointing. I am worried about the direction this is all heading. We have to have something that works and produces a win:win. Unfortunately some people make problems when agriculture and environmental issues overlap. It need not be so, and I cite people like the Henschkes who have proved that you can be enormously successful without having to be an environmental vandal. A large number of primary producers know that and live that way. Unfortunately, we have a set of regulations that are open to abuse, and the truth is that there are enough people out there who will abuse them and as a result we will regret that the regulations were not disallowed. I can only say that I am disappointed. Being reasonable with the Government is not the way to go and perhaps I have learned a lesson.
The Council divided on the motion:
AYES (10)
Elliott, M. J. (teller) Gilfillan, I.
Holloway, P. Kanck, S. M.
Pickles, C. A. Roberts, R. R.
Roberts, T. G. Weatherill, G.
Xenophon, N. Zollo, C.
NOES (11
Cameron, T. G. Crothers, T.
Davis, L. H. Dawkins, J. S. L.
Griffin, K. T. Laidlaw, D. V. (teller)
Lawson, R. D. Lucas, R. I.
Redford, A. J. Schaefer, C. V.
Stefani, J. F.
Majority of 1 for the Noes. Motion thus negatived.