Blackberry is a Weed of National Significance and has long been recognised as a significant pest plant because of harmful effects on biodiversity and farming. Yet under the defective NSW Biosecurity Act, it was assessed as not warranting Priority Weed status in the South East Region of Local Land Services. This was because blackberry is relatively widespread and well-established in the Region, unlike 'new and emerging' weeds that are more cost effective to control at the early stages of invasion.

Blackberry was assessed as being effectively beyond control, and not warranting legal status that would mean a biosecurity authority can order that it be controlled. Part of this logic is that when a weed is relatively common and/or widespread, it is seen as unreasonable to require one land owner to control or eradicate it given that it is likely to be present on neighbouring or nearby properties. This is based on the premise that no biosecurity authority has the resources to check all properties and to impose control orders equitably. The bottom line of this logic is that the State and its mostly-Council delegates do not invest adequately in biosecurity management, especially when it comes to biodiversity protection. But this has harmful consequences for conservation values, some farming purposes, for scenic amenity (roadsides and rail corridors full of weeds), and even for bushfire management.

The assessment process for evaluation of a pest species' status is undertaken at State, Regional, and optionally Local Government(s) scales. But assessments are not required to be fully informed or fully transparent. State and Local Governments have a conflict of interest when assessing pest species' status in that they don't have or don't want to spend the resources needed to deal with the full extent of biosecurity threats, so there is a risk that their assessments will downplay their potential obligations and costs. Control authorities should not be the sole decision-makers when it comes to pest species' assessments because of this actual or potential conflict of interest. The process should be independent, expert-driven, consultative, and transparent.

Blackberry, and several other weeds not afforded Priority Weed status in the Region are recognised in a range of authoritative sources as significant threats to biodiversity and other values, yet the Biosecurity Act's defective assessment process effectively ignores this. The situation can see species that are listed as individual threats or parts of declared Key Threatening Processes under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act and its Commonwealth equivalent given no meaningful legal status under the NSW Biosecurity Act. 

Without any legal obligation to control blackberry or several other recognised pest plants, land owners and land managers can opt not to take any action to suppress it or stop it spreading on to other lands, including into formal conservation reserves. This shifts the cost of control from government agencies that have significant weed issues on their lands, such as Transport for NSW, Australian Rail Track Corporation (Cwlth), some local Councils and some private or corporate land owners, onto other land owners, including the NPWS. The National Parks & Wildlife Service will try to control weeds within its reserves because of general obligations under its Act and Plans of Management that are not necessarily limited by the Biosecurity Act. But with neighbours and near-neighbours not obliged to even suppress blackberry, the NPWS faces increasing costs of re-invasion no matter how well it does its work with its very low budget. The same applies in State Forests where FCNSW seeks to control at least some weeds, especially in plantations where they can increase fire risks, reduce access for maintenance, and harbour pest fauna.

The Biosecurity Act contains a 'general biosecurity duty' that may have been intended to function as a catch-all provision that would allow a biosecurity authority to require a land owner/manager to control biosecurity threats whether they are declared priority species or not. However, the provision is poorly worded, has been tested in Court and found to be ineffective. This leaves costly civil action as the only alternative for a land owner who is being affected by another land owner/manager not managing pest species. This would not be necessary if the Act was properly designed and worded.

This petition calls on the Premier to amend the NSW Biosecurity Act (which was made by a previous government) to give greater emphasis to the impacts of pest species on biodiversity values when assessing a pest species' status. The assessment process must entail consideration of all relevant information sources about the threat that a species poses, including checking Final Determinations, Conservation Advices/Listing Advices, threatened biodiversity profiles, Saving Our Species plans and the SoS database, and expert consultation. It should be expert-driven, avoid all conflicts of interest, genuinely consultative, and transparent. The fact that a pest species is widespread and common should not be a basis on which to reject it being classified a Priority Weed or given another status that allows a biosecurity authority to mandate that all land owner/managers take effective action to suppress or eradicate it (on a case by case basis).

The Minister responsible for the Biosecurity Act is Tara Moriarty, Minister for Agriculture. But no Minister for Agriculture should have carriage of this Act because of the potential for a conflict of interest to arise, and because biosecurity management is not just about or even primarily about agriculture. That's part of what is wrong with the current Act and its administration - biodiversity gets sidelined. Local Land Services is not the best-placed agency to administer the Act. Instead, the Premier is asked to shift carriage of the Act to the Minister for the Environment, and for NSW DCCEEW to administer the Act or at least be in charge of the assessment process, with LLS required to assist with its implementation. This is not intended to exclude or diminish the voices of farmers as land managers on the front line of biosecurity issues. It is intended to ensure that assessments of species and the resources required to deal with them is based primarily on the best available science, and that biosecurity and biodiversity conservation are far more integrated in how they are managed.