I agree, it is unlikely that the states (and the territories for that
matter) will ever agree to cede their land management powers to the
Commonwealth. In Canberra we often tend to forget that the state governments
came first and that the very existence of the Commonwealth depends on a
collective agreement by the states (known as the Australian Constitution)
which defines the Commonwealth's powers as befits a national government, no
more no less. There are very real current and potential future economic
implications for the states and territories if they were to hand over their
land taxing powers, not forgetting their mining royalties, to the
Commonwealth.
There are also, I believe, real benefits for the natural environment in the
existing system of dual responsibility. Evolution and speciation operates at
the local and regional scale, as do state and local governments, therefore
protection of wildlife can be responsive to local issues and not always be
dependent on getting the attention of a national government.
Ian Baird
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Dabb
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013 11:50 AM
To: 'Des Clark-Walker'
Cc:
Subject: true National Parks
Des - This is a complex issue. I doubt whether anyone who has not worked
in relevant areas of government, or otherwise been professionally or
academically involved in it, will understand it.
Broadly, the Commonwealth's role (as in other areas of traditional State
jurisdiction) has steadily increased. Probably it will continue to so, in
fits and starts according to the interventionist or otherwise tendencies of
successive governments to come. The limits of the Commonwealth's legal
role, broadly, are as sketched out by the boundaries of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. In part, this depends on
international agreements. The role of the national government in Australia
cannot sensibly be equated to the role of the US government in that country.
The main practical difficulty in the way of the Commonwealth taking over
(compulsorily - in theory, ways could be found - or consensually) State
national parks is that it would need to establish and fund its own
administrative service, and be prepared address to all the prickly land-use
issues (including answering correspondence from angry birdwatchers) that it
would have responsibility for. I see no possibility of that in the
foreseeable future. State national parks, however labelled, are going to
remain a State responsibility, subject to the EPBC Act and the occasional
muscle-flexing by the Commonwealth as in the Tasmanian Dam matter.
Incidentally, I see the Royal National Park was established in 1879 (22
years before the Commonwealth came into existence) and is said to be the
second-oldest national park in the world.
gd
-----Original Message-----
From: Des Clark-Walker
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013 10:19 AM
To: Canberrabirds List
Subject: true National Parks
In the US National Parks are true National Parks administered and funded by
the Federal government. At a second level are State Parks run by individual
states.
In Australia we have "National Parks" that in the majority are State Parks
administered by the separate states as attested by the proposed NSW
legislative change.
This situation, that differs from that in the US in both name and
administration has probably been addressed before, perhaps many times.
However I believe the
current situation in NSW makes it necessary to revisit this issue.
Perhaps the COG committee could consider approaching the Federal Minister
for the Environment to confront this issue with a view to changing both name
and administration. Federal control and funding of key Parks along US lines
would be timely. Indeed, such a change should have been made many years ago.
Des Clark-Walker.
****************************************************************************
***************************
|
