I support the amendment because it does give some parameters for agricultural activity. Currently, as clause 19 reads, it does not prevent the carrying out of agricultural activities. Well, you might as well simply say “any agricultural activities”. Within the parameter of agricultural activities, there are some that are efficacious and some that aren't. There are activities that I don't think any park could tolerate if it is charged with the administration of its land. But the way this reads, it's open season. There are instances where a park administration might well want to shut down certain agricultural activities, but with this clause as it currently stands, it has no authority to do so. At least with the amendment there is a reference here to ecological soundness and sustainable practices, but as the clause was put forward, it didn't do anything.
On November 5th, 2014. See this statement in context.