Montage of cardboard cut-out incident manufactured by the Opposition in 2008FEDERAL Cowper MP Luke Hartsuyker had more than flying foxes in his sights at Maclean yesterday.
The MP wants a flying fox colony removed from near Maclean High School and is intent on seeking a solution in Federal Parliament.
Yesterday he slammed the Maclean Flying Fox Working Group as a 'bureaucratic con'. He described Federal Page MP Janelle Saffin as a fence-sitter who had not been genuine with the high school's P&C committee.
Mr Hartsuyker went on the attack at the launch of his petition supporting the removal of the Maclean bats.
Mr Hartsuyker told a small group of media and residents outside the Maclean High School gates that a private member's bill was being drafted. If passed it would provide emergency powers to the Federal Minister of the Environment for the removal of the bats because they posed a public health risk.
"This petition will send a clear message to the Minister and will provide the Clarence Valley with a voice," Mr Hartsuyker said.
"It is outrageous that our school students are exposed to diseases of the third world. Co-existence is not working, disperse the bats now."
Now Mr. Hartsuyker knows full well that there has never been a case in this country where the vulnerable protected species the Grey-headed Flying Fox has directly transmitted Hendra or Nipah viruses to humans. There is of course a vaccine available for the Lyssavirus which is transmitted by a bite/scratch from an infected mammal, but the incidence of this virus is extremely rare and there have only been two cases in the whole of Australia.
He also would be well aware that an properly constructed application to the NSW Government would allow a limited period bat dispersal license to be issued as has happened in the past (it would be interesting to discover just who has been advising Maclean High School P&C to go down the rather torturous joint application route it has taken).
Yet the lack of rampant disease in the playground and an easier alternate route to bat dispersal permission does not stop our doughty, disaster peddling Coffs Harbour politician from holding forth - thereby making Labor MP for Page Janelle Saffin appear very balanced and genuinely constructive in comparison.
3 comments:
I love the post.
A quick clarification though, things have changed in bat land and it is no longer possible just to get consent from DECCW before a dispersal is undertaken.
Consent must be sought from both DECCW and DEWHA (the federal department that administers the EPBC). This is why CVC and DET had to go down the double application process. The P and C have never submitted an application to the best of my knowledge.
cheers
Thanks for the input, Anonymous.
I did realise that there are both federal and state government departments involved.
However, as the DEWHA departmental flow chart indicates that any application received for bat dispersal would automatically be passed onto the relevant state agency to assess and create a report which is then sent back to the federal minister for consideration, it made more sense for the P&C to have requested the NSW Government to progress the application directly with the Commonwealth for its consent.
After all, it is one of the NSW Government's own state agencies which is allegedly experiencing negative impacts from the bat colony and, the state government still has it within its own power to issue limited period permits while longterm solutions are being found.
And yes, the P&C appear more interested in reacting to pre-election National Party politiking than in seeking a genuine longterm solution and, therefore is apparently not willing to complete a dispersal application or be part of the working group created by the CVC-DET applications or for that matter to participate in any co-existence scenario at present.
Everyone involved could have handled this matter more efficiently but sadly politics on all sides got in the way.
Unfortunately I am not sure which flow chart you are referring to.
Matters under the EPBC are referred back to the state once a. they have been assessed as a controlled action (which must happen at a federal level) and
b. the assessment method has been decided to be bilateral agreement.
There are a six different possible methods of assessment, including the bilateral agreement. NSW and DEWHA do not have a bilateral agreement for assessment of _this_ sort of matter, although I understand there is an agreement for other matters.
The assessment method decided in this (and the other proposed relocations) has been a Public Environment Report.
The second page of the pdf on this page shows the various types of assessment methods that are available: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessments/flowchart.html
The legislative arrangeable that are in play around flying-foxes are complex. It has taken me some considerable time to grasp when and where the different legislation has effect and what effect it has.
I suggest if you are interested in the process around this you talk to the EDO North Coast as they will be able to explain it much more clearly than I can.
Post a Comment