House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Burnside Rotary Awards BURNSIDE ROTARY AWARDS Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:32): Last night I had the pleasure of attending a Burnside Rotary event which followed 26 years of the fine tradition of the Glenside Rotary branch annual awards for what was formerly known as the ranger of the park and volunteers of the park and has now become a leadership and conservation award. Our president David Dewar presided over the meeting and we were ably mustered by Mr Robert Cooper (affectionately known as Bob), who outlined the history of this award. It is to be noted that on this occasion Ruth Charleson won the Volunteer of the Parks award. A commendation went especially to John Mellor. The Leadership in Conservation award went to an employee of the department of the environment in the parks area, Katrina Pobke, from the West Coast. Commendations went to Mr Erik Dahl and a senior ranger in the Outback region, Mr Darren Wilson. Regrettably, due to the floods in Innamincka, he was unable to attend personally, but all were applauded on the night. It came to my attention through a senior representative of the department of the environment who was in attendance that there was a problem in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. I will just mention that, although the minister was not in attendance and unfortunately had another engagement, he was ably represented by Mr John Schutz, a senior officer in the department of the environment, who presented the awards. Nevertheless, coming back to the matter that was raised, I was in the process of outlining to the gathering recognition of Mr Robert Cooper, who annually reported on the outstanding contributions and victories of the Magpies football team. He gave a presentation to explain why he was right that the Magpies were better than the Crows and that, in fact, it was reinforced by our legal system. In any event, as members would know, we have a system of protection of our indigenous species, whether they be bird, reptile, mammal and the like; and a number of our species are in various categories depending on whether they are endangered, vulnerable or rare. Some poor unlikely creatures are in what we call the 'unprotected' list, and they, of course, fall victim to being able to be disposed of, killed or trapped in any way by any one at any time. I was in the course of outlining the process by which we protect our wildlife whereby (and it is all in part 5 of the act for those members who might want to go back and check this) we punish people by imprisonment or fine if they are to take into possession a protected animal or their eggs. I mention the observation made to me on this night, that is, that, within the definition of 'protected animals' is 'mammals', so that the phrase 'protected animals or their eggs' is, of course, inconsistent because mammals are creatures which have live young; so that is one matter to be remedied. During the course of the substance of the topic, I outlined the difference between the Australian crow and the Australian magpie, pointing out that the poor old hapless crow, which is a much more mild-mannered creature, is in the category in schedule 12 as an unprotected species and, as I say, can fall victim to anything. On the other hand, the magpie has the exalted status, in section 54, of having a very specific provision just for itself. Only the Australian magpie is identified in subsection (1), which states: It is lawful for any person without any permit or other authority under this act, to kill an Australian magpie that has attacked or is attacking any person. There is also a special clause for poisonous reptiles, I might point out, which goes a little further. You can kill a snake, for example, provided it is poisonous, if you are attacked, being attacked, likely to be attacked, in the dangerous proximity of or in such proximity to cause reasonable anxiety. I am not quite sure when you ascertain from the snake whether or not he or she is poisonous, but, nevertheless, there is a specific provision for them. There it is members: dangerous magpies, in very, very select circumstances, are able to be killed. They hold that very important mantle in the legislation on their own. They are clearly superior to the humble crow, notwithstanding their behaviour. I have to confess in this contribution that I am a magpie supporter!