2016-08-18
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:
1. Clause 1, lines 4 to 7, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
2. Clause 1, page 2, line 1, omit “(b)” and insert “(a)”.
3. Clause 1, page 2, line 4, omit “(c)” and insert “(b)”.
4. Clause 1, page 2, line 12, omit “(d)” and insert “(c)”.
5. Clause 1, page 2, line 18, omit “(e)” and insert “(d)”.
6. Clause 1, page 2, line 26, omit “(f)” and insert “(e)”.
I believe these amendments are a test for those substantive issues that I want to pick up relating to clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6. I have also got a couple of brief questions for the minister as well.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER — Actually just in the way of a question or two for the minister, through you, Chair. In the minister's closing in the second-reading debate she mentioned in relation to this committee that she had consulted some of the recent members of the committee and that there seemed to be little support for continuing the committee, hence the clause that we are dealing with, which aims to abolish the committee, and the purpose of my amendment is to not abolish the committee.
One of the members, who is detailed at section 65(3)(g) of the principal act, is:
… a person whose name is included in a panel of not less than 3 names submitted to the Minister by a body that the Minister considers to be representative of conservation interests …
Can the minister tell me who the most recent representative on this committee was for conservation interests, please?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I think we will inevitably have to move on. I just want to make one further point. I have gone back to some of the members who were on the committee even further back in the years, including Friends of the Earth, who were paying particularly strong interest to the impacts of agricultural chemicals and sprays, and continue to do so. My understanding is that the most recent conservation interest represented under subsection (3)(g) was actually someone from the Landcare sector.
The members of this committee included, according to this section, people who work with agricultural chemical products, representatives of manufacturers of agricultural chemical products, representatives of the aerial spraying industry, a representative of the ground spraying industry, a representative of the interests of consumers and someone who is a representative of local government. While I agree that the Landcare movement is certainly a conservation interest, they are also actually a consumer of sprays; they use agricultural chemicals to do their work. That is really doubling up in relation to consumers and other people who are directly involved in using it. While technically they might fall under the realm of having a conservation interest, I would have thought a conservation interest would have been represented by people who are worried particularly about the impact of these chemicals on the environment. It is my information that due to the way the committee was run and due to the nature of the committee and the fact that it is clearly stacked with people who have an interest in consuming, manufacturing and using the sprays there was little to be gained back then in Friends of the Earth continuing its involvement.
It seems perhaps your predecessor, Minister, decided to put someone on there who really was just another consumer of the product. If at some point we can get onto the record who the last conservation representative was, that would be handy. However, I think we should proceed and I am certainly intending to proceed with my amendments to retain this committee under the act, which is tested here in clause 1.
To access full speeches and debates please visit http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/hansard where you can search Victorian Hansard publications from 1991 onwards.