Committee Hearing - Aspects of Agriculture

A pubic hearing of the Standing Committee on State Development inquiry into the Aspects of Agriculture in New South Wales was held on 29 August 2007 in Sydney. I will focus my observations on the first speaker Professor Michael Archer.

Professor Archer, the Dean of Science from the University of New South Wales raised concerns about two things that he stated are under the threat of extinction; animals and plants and the communities of regional Australia. The current challenges Australia faces include the drought and climate change and as a regional Australian I have a concern and awareness of these issues which made Professor Archer’s speech very timely and interesting. Professor Archer provided the Chair with a copy of his book Going Native and spoke about the need to re-examine land management practices that will increase sustainability as the effects of climate change will only continue to threaten. Professor Archer stated the demand for none-native products such as sheep, cattle and cotton is too high in this country and that we shouldn’t be looking at replacing them with dependence on native species but rather using both.

Professor Archer began his argument with the notion that the kangaroo industry needs to be valued. In the current drought he mentioned there are dead cattle everywhere, whilst kangaroos have adapted to the harsh Australian conditions for thousand of years, so why aren’t we paying attention to them? A valid point, one that seems so bleeding obvious. He mentioned that graziers would not have the expense of fencing, as kangaroos cannot be fenced. I did not understand how graziers would control or maintain their kangaroos and Professor Archer didn’t elaborate, but continued with by stating that the health of consumers would increase, as kangaroo meat is healthy. The environmental advantages of kangaroos were provided by Professor Archer who stated they have soft feet which don’t cut up the soil like sheep and cattle. Also kangaroos require less water than sheep which will be most useful as Australia continues into record history long drought. The next point he raised that kangaroos fart less was unexpected but definitely stuck in my mind! Professor Archer said the methane production by cattle and sheep were contributing factors to greenhouse gases and kangaroos thus don’t add to this problem. You sure do learn something new everyday! Professor Archer began to talk about native plants when he was interrupted by the Hon. Melinda Pavey who told him he only had a few minutes remaining and that most of what he was saying was in his book and therefore they would move to questions. I had the impression that Professor Archer could talk for hours and I believe he mentioned at the beginning of his presentation that being brief on this topic would be difficult. That is when the often-difficult skill of concise communication is needed, one that I find challenging as well, which is why I have limited my observations to Professor Archer’s speech for this blog entry.

The Reverend Hon. Fred Nile asked some questions such as is there a need for a kangaroo industry board like the sheep and cattle board and is kangaroo meat really a healthy option choice? Professor Archer replied yes to both questions. The Hon. Michael Veitch then moved the questions away from kangaroos and wanted to know about water sustainability and Professor Archer again used the kangaroo example of using less water to back some of his ideas up. He again stated that Australia should be depending on native species that do not require as much water. If I was Professor Archer I would’ve used one of my favourite sayings “I hate to be Captain Obvious here but…” because it is so clear that Australia with over half the land mass as desert, an ongoing drought and limited water supply we should be utilizing native species that have been around for thousands of years to create sustainability. It is too obvious! I just hope Professor Archer’s information is not wasted and gets acted upon. Professor Archer’s arguments made me more passionate about the sustainability of the environment in this country and as a result my political decisions will be more heavily based on those who show commitment to environmental issues.

Lobbying for rural dental health

A Public Dental Health Forum was held on 26 September at Parliament House to mark the first anniversary of the release of a report which nominated 33 recommendations to the state government in regards to rural dental services. The forum provided lobbyists, who aim for improved rural dental action, the opportunity to speak about the report and raise concerns that the recommendations have being ignored. After reading an article on this forum in the Western Advocate I contacted Marj Bollinger from the Rural Dental Action Group who gave me insight into the life of a lobbyist, committee hearings and this public forum. Mrs Bollinger is one of the co-founders of the Rural Dental Action Group which has been lobbying for better funding allocations to rural dental services for over three years (Marj Bollinger 2007, pers. comm., 3 October). The Rural Dental Action Group were invited by the Australian Dental Association in conjunction with the Greens to make a submission into the report and to point out what has happened since the NSW Government Inquiry three years ago. Mrs Bollinger stated that this forum was important as she didn’t want the report to be just another “dusty document” and it was her role as a lobbyist to have it “acted upon” (Marj Bollinger 2007, pers. comm., 3 October). Mrs Bollinger said the matter fell into the “too-hard basket” for the State Government and mentioned that the forum was well attended with a range of representation with the exception that there were no members of state government in attendance which “doesn’t give you much confidence” (Vaz, 2007). The concern for rural dental health is NSW is amplified by the spending on dental services. In 2006/07, the Northern Territory spent $40 per person, while Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania spent $34 and NSW spending just $18 (Vaz, 2007). I asked Mrs Bollinger how she raises the profile for this issue and in the past three years she has written letters to 830 politicians to convince them “in a constructive way” about rural dental health (Marj Bollinger 2007, pers. comm.., 3 October). She said it was critical that she was “persistent” and wrote to all politicians because dental health was a state and federal issue (Marj Bollinger 2007, pers. comm., 3 October). She said it was important to “identify the problem, find a solution” and then use the media to create attention about rural dental health (Marj Bollinger 2007, pers. comm., 3 October). The “persistent” letter writing generally resulted in a committee hearing where Mrs Bollinger has put forward the Rural Dental Action Group’s case (Marj Bollinger 2007, pers. comm., 3 October). The committee hearings also include questioning the speaker, which Mrs Bollinger said, lasts for half an hour so it is crucial that the speaker knows their information (Marj Bollinger 2007, pers. comm., 3 October). I asked Mrs Bollinger what was coming up for the Rural Dental Action Group and she mentioned that there were no committee hearings in the near future but would continue the Group’s monthly meetings in Orange (Marj Bollinger 2007, pers. comm., 3 October). This article and interview will be useful for the assessment on CSUPharma. I would like to thank Marj Bollinger for her interview and Ellen Vaz from the Western Advocate for her assistance.

Reference:

Vaz, E 2007 “Sensible dental plan needed in rural Australia”, The Western Advocate, Monday October 1