Changes turn Nature Conservation Act on its head

The planned changes have 'turned the intent of the Act on its head'.

"Our Queensland government has recklessly reduced the protection of our natural environment with tunnel vision worship of their four pillars (agriculture, resources , tourism and construction) whilst forgetting that a healthy natural environment is the ground upon which all four pillars stand. Protection for natural assets that has been established after decades of struggle by concerned Queenslanders is being purged by a whim and a pen stroke.

Our Queensland government has emasculated the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) by withdrawing state funding, effectively smashing the ability of individuals and groups of concerned citizens to use what little environmental law we have to protect Queensland's natural environment in the public interest. This is just the beginning". (Russell Constable, Conservation Queensland "Champion of Conservation" 2013)

The proposed changes to the Plants Legislative Framework under the Nature Conservation Act are

 unacceptable!!
Please help by sending a clear message to the minister

 CCA  endorses the  submission lodged with the government by the Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook (ASH). 

The following is from the ASH submission;
The object of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 Current as at 2 December 2012 (the Act) is stated thus: 

The object of this Act is the conservation of nature.
Under the Act, development is limited by the imperative to maintain the life systems
of  nature and the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.

The declared intention of the new framework....

....managing protected plants without hindering economic and social development.
thus, turns the purpose of the Act on its head

The offending statement occurs in Section 2, Issues, para 3, and the full sentence is Therefore, an effective strategy or framework for managing protective plants without hindering social and economic development is imperative if biodiversity is to be conserved for future generations. 

The second, conditional part of the sentence is no more than a nod to the Nature Conservation Act, a trap for the unwary. There is overwhelming evidence that putting development first can never guarantee the conservation of biodiversity - just look at the rest of the planet, and the big polluters in Australia.

The proposed framework will label native plants 'protected' but will 'manage' them to allow development to proceed unhindered 

Write to the environment minister Andrew Powell

Submissions for public comment have closed but the immediate and long term consequences of the proposed changes are so serious, the minister in charge needs to hear from us.

We can let the Hon Andrew Powell know there is strong objection to the direction this government is taking us with the overwhelming lack of  respect for our natural environment.

Send the environment minister an email endorsing the Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook (ASH) submission.

How to email directly to the minister in three short steps ....

Dear Mr Powell
The legacy of the proposed changes to the Protected Plants Legislative framework, of your government, and of your ministry, will be felt by the generations who come after us. Surely you cannot let such destruction be unleashed in Queensland.

I would like to bring to your attention the submission lodged with the EHP on 24th March by the Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook Inc of which I fully support.

Sincerely