- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 27 September 2006
Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 43 of 44
| Next Item »
Page: 2463
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 8 June 2006.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [9.34 p.m.]: This bill was introduced to the House way back in June. At the time the Opposition—like the Sydney Morning Herald, Alan Jones, the property industry, farmers, and the environmental movement—had serious reservations about it. Whilst the Government now proposes to amend the bill—there are 61 different amendments in a 16-page document that was given to us yesterday—we still have some reservations about the bill as it is currently framed. We have consistently said that it really should have been provided to all members as an exposure draft bill, which could have been laid on the table over winter, commented on, and then introduced in the House in a relatively complete form.
There are 61 amendments from the Government, and goodness knows how many more are likely to come from the Greens. I foreshadow a couple of potential amendments from the Opposition. It will be a fairly unwieldy piece of legislation—as unwieldy, I might say, as the rest of the Government's threatened species legislation. The legislation was introduced because the existing threatened species legislation is not working. It has been holding up development across the State for no good purpose.
When the honourable member for Bankstown introduced amendments to the legislation in 2002 we heard that only 212 development applications of some 700,000 that were made required the Director General of National Parks and Wildlife to issue director general's requirements for species impact statements. Of those, only 45 required formal concurrence by National Parks, and all but five of them were granted. Of those five, three were subsequently approved without amendment. So all this bureaucracy and red tape resulted in only two rejections of development applications.
At the same time the number of threatened species, populations and ecological communities that are listed under the Act has increased to more than 1,000—100 more than when we last debated threatened species legislation in 2004. There are so many that the Government has now legislated to create a priorities action statement. In essence, it is picking winners and losers. It is saying, "These are the species that we can afford to protect or conserve, or bring back from the brink of extinction, and others will miss out." The Government's threatened species legislation means that both the environment and the property development industry will lose out.
The only winners in all this are the lawyers and consultants employed to draw up species impact statements, and the bureaucrats, who must love the Government's make-work scheme. The Government is now proposing yet another approach—that is, biobanking—to try to unravel the mess it created. I concede that this is truly pioneering work. There are schemes that share some of the same principles that are in use in the United States of America and in Victoria, but nowhere in the world is there an identical scheme to the one being proposed by the Government. Labor has had 12 long years to get this right and it has failed. It has presided over a deterioration in the environment as well as a deterioration in economic growth. We have had only 0.2 per cent growth in this State over the last quarter, and we will run a deficit of probably more than $1 billion this year, despite 10 long years of economic sunshine under the administration of the Howard-Costello Government.
To return to the bill, the scheme has four main components: first, establishing a biobank site on land via an agreement voluntarily entered into between the Minister for the Environment and the landowner; second, creating biodiversity credits where the landowner agrees to undertake positive environmental management and rehabilitation action to improve biodiversity values on the biobank site; third, allowing the credits to be registered and traded to offset a biodiversity impact on another development site; and, fourth, establishing an assessment methodology to ensure the scheme results in the maintenance of, or an improvement in, biodiversity values.
Honourable members might be wondering how such a scheme would work. Let me explain it this way. Landowner A owns 20 hectares of land at Castlereagh in the Sydney Basin, 16 hectares of which has been cleared. He applies to register the land as a biobank site on the basis that 10 hectares of land will be maintained and regenerated as Cumberland Plain Woodland, while 10 hectares will continue to be used as a house block and paddocks. The agreement generates 120 biobanking credits.
Landowner B wants to develop his land at Rouse Hill, but requires approval to clear one hectare of Cumberland Plain Woodland. Under existing legislation he must obtain approval to chop down the trees. Under the biobanking legislation he buys the 120 credits from landowner A, which allows him to clear Cumberland Plain Woodland without having to prepare a species impact statement. Part of the money he pays goes into a trust fund, which in turn pays landholder A an agreed sum each year for a fixed period to help pay for the maintenance of the four hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland and the regeneration of six hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland, that is, six hectares of cleared land.
Under the scheme developers can obtain a biobanking statement from the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation that confirms the number and class of credits applicable to a development. A biobank statement cannot be obtained for clearing native vegetation. That is, the new legislation does not override the Native Vegetation Act. A biobanking statement can be modified at any time before the development consent is issued. The Minister for Planning may declare the scheme compulsory for any development for which biobanking is available. One of the Government's amendments negates that provision. The credits can be cancelled at the request of the landowner if the management actions have not been carried out or if false information was used to obtain them. The biobanking agreement credits are attached to and transferable with the land.
In theory, these proposals sound good. The developer gets to develop a parcel of land that has a small remnant patch of Cumberland Plain Woodland on it on the basis that a larger, more viable tract of Cumberland Plain Woodland is conserved elsewhere. But that is not exactly how the legislation will work. One cannot offset three small, degraded parcels of a particular ecological community for one big one. One can offset them only against the management actions carried out on the big parcel of land, that is, controlling grazing, leaving fallen timber on the ground as habitat, controlling weeds and feral animals, and the expensive option of regenerating the land. That means that only degraded parcels of land that would benefit from those management actions will be able to be registered as biobanking sites. The person who has done the right thing and maintained his or her land in pristine condition, or who has already entered into a voluntary conservation agreement with the National Parks and Wildlife Service will not get any benefit from this legislation.
Overall, the legislation requires a net gain in conservation from the application of a biobanking agreement. If someone wants to cut down a small parcel of Cumberland Plain Woodland, he or she must maintain or regenerate Cumberland Plain Woodland or a rarer ecological community, such as blue gum high forest or turpentine-ironbark forest. Again, that sounds fine in theory. However, in practice someone must determine how many credits will be needed to chop down the trees on that block of land—that is, the biobanking statement—and how many credits will be written against the bigger, more viable parcel of Cumberland Plain Woodland. The methodology for doing that is not in this legislation. Proposed section 127B simply lays down some general guidelines for the methodology. That will be determined at a later stage with the number of credits attributable to a particular management action decided by the Minister. I concede that the Government has drafted an amendment to this section, but it does not clarify the methodology for determining those credits.
This is another instance of the Government asking that it be taken on trust. The people of New South Wales have been doing that for almost 12 years. What do we have to show for it? In 1995 Bob Carr and Andrew Refshauge, the then Minister for Health, said that they would halve hospital waiting lists. I remember that clearly, and I will write it in blood if honourable members want me to. The number of people on the waiting list then was 44,700 and it is now more than 54,000. The train system is a shambles and people have been abandoning it in droves. The economy is being driven into the ground and the Government will run a deficit this year. The Government's transport plan for 2010 has proven to be a complete farce. The Hills was promised a railway line by 2010, but we will now get it in 2017, after a tunnel has been built under the harbour and a line is built to Leppington. It is on the never-never. Sydney's air pollution is now ten times worse than Melbourne's.
As far as threatened species legislation is concerned, we have an impossibly bureaucratic system that does not appear to have saved a single species from extinction. The biggest drawback to this legislation is the fact that when biodiversity credits are written against a particular site, there will be no requirement for that land to be managed to a high standard in perpetuity. Indeed, I understand that 25 years will be the absolute maximum period and it is more likely to be 15 to 20 years. The Nature Conservation Council says, quite correctly, that a biobanking site will not have the same conservation status as a reserve or national park. I wonder exactly how this bill will interact with the major amendments to the Threatened Species Conservation Act that were made by the Government in 2004 and were supposed to spell the end of dealing with threatened species on a case-by-case basis. In his second reading speech on the bill at that time the Minister said:
In too many cases debate has been reduced to a black and white decision: it is either the shopping centre or the orchid; the Grevillia or the school hall; threatened species X or development proposal Y. The bill will improve this situation by allowing the Minister for the Environment … to certify an environmental planning instrument that promotes conservation of threatened species and biodiversity more generally. In other words, threatened species conservation will be considered, and even more importantly satisfactorily resolved, at the beginning of the planning process when the local environmental plan, regional environmental plan or other planning instrument is being prepared.
Despite a debate that raged in both Houses for weeks, and an incredibly complex piece of legislation being passed by this Parliament, threatened species are still being dealt with on a case-by-case, black-and-white basis to the detriment of both the environment and the economy of our State. I cannot understand how the Minister can introduce this legislation in advance of the completion of all of those new environmental planning instruments envisaged by the previous legislation and, indeed, of biodiversity certification.
How can biobanking land swaps be organised when we do not know which habitat is the most important, or how well a particular plant is represented in the region as opposed to being on a single development site? How can one determine the number of biodiversity credits that might be applicable to a particular piece of land in advance of those environmental planning instruments being created and certified? How does one decide the relative value of two parcels of land containing different ecological communities? The Sydney Morning Herald certainly does not think it can be done. An editorial of 10 August headed "Biobank sounds a lot like bunk" states:
The in-principle flaw in biobanking is that it equates a loss of biodiversity in one area with a commitment to retain it in another. Yet every area is unique. In the Sydney basin, the uniqueness may be an area's very location; a few hectares of gully somewhere in the suburbs—and the flora and fauna it supports may be an irreplaceable oasis. Even a thousand similar hectares somewhere else could never make up for its loss, no matter how many biodiversity credits the department thinks it is worth.
There would also be many practical difficulties with biobanking. What will be the objective basis for this proposed ledger of biodiversity gains and losses, of credits and debits? Will the department have to decide that the conservation of a certain area of wattle in one location generates enough credits to offset the loss of a frog habitat in another? Or will there be separate credits for frog habitats and wattles and everything else, making the scheme complicated to the point of being unworkable? And there seems to be no way of guaranteeing that investors will continue to maintain these areas of "high conservation significance" after they've sold the credits. Nor do members of the public have a clear avenue of appeal if they think the department's decisions are wrong …
Offsets may prove even more contentious and costly than confronting environmental problems directly. It certainly does not look like a system the community can bank on.
The Urban Development Institute of Australia was also less than overwhelmed by the original proposals. It pointed out in a position paper on the issue dated 8 August:
Biodiversity banking places a disproportionate emphasis on homebuyers to fund biodiversity protection for marginal benefit...
Biodiversity banking under the proposed arrangements can neither provide certainty nor finality … The biodiversity banking regime as proposed effectively exists outside the NSW planning system. Even if a developer were to purchase credits for a significant portion of the developable area, there is nothing to prevent a Local Council from requiring further land to be reserved for biodiversity protection as part of its s94 contributions plan. Again, when the development application is assessed there is nothing to preclude a council under pressure from residents, requiring yet further land to be ceded as a condition of development for biodiversity protection or indeed refusing the application on the basis of a loss of local amenity.
Biodiversity banking as proposed will create a cascade of conditions with no certainty and no finality, jeopardising development feasibilities and further eroding housing affordability. The Urban Development Institute of Australia New South Wales [UDIA] maintains that biodiversity banking must be complemented by biodiversity certification—that is something we certainly think should happen—and exist within the New South Wales planning system. It needs incentives to offset the cost.
I concede once again that the 61 amendments the Government has circulated have dealt with this issue of the local council requiring further land to be reserved for biodiversity protection as part of its section 94 contributions plan, but the amendments still do not get around the issue that the biodiversity certification and the creation of environmental planning instruments are way, way behind schedule. The Government is putting the cart before the horse in introducing this legislation in advance of those environmental planning instruments being in place.
The Nature Conservation Council [NCC] has been even more trenchant in its criticism. In a letter to me dated 30 August, NCC director Cate Faehrmann listed what she describes as the key problems of the bill. They are as follows:
1. The scheme is predicated on the clearing of threatened species habitats and the destruction of biodiversity values to function. It is a negative, perverse approach to threatened species conservation.
2. The scheme will not prevent development of high conservation value areas. Developments that do not pass the BioBanking test just revert back to the flawed existing system to get approval. Developers can avoid BioBanking (and the existing system) if they are subject to a conservation levy.
3. The most damaging developments are being assessed under Part 3A and are exempt from BioBanking.
4. The Bill promotes the clearing of highly threatened urban areas in return for measures undertaken in much less threatened rural areas (where clearing is constrained by the Native Vegetation Act 2003).
5. There is no guaranteed permanent protection for offset sites, which can later be 'offset' themselves or approved for development by a public authority.
6. Instant loss of biodiversity will be traded for slow gain. Biodiversity credits can be generated and sold before the management actions have been completed or the biodiversity outcomes delivered.
7. There is no compulsory restriction or prohibition on activities that can take place on or near offsets, and they may well be subject to other damaging uses or become isolated by future development.
8. There is no avenue for public participation prior to the issuing of BioBanking statements.
9. The Bill does not restrict offsets to like for like. The scheme could push conservation efforts towards cheap land with different ecological values to development areas. Every area of biodiversity is unique.
10. The Bill does not designate the habitat areas that are irreplaceable, for example, endangered ecological communities and vegetation types with less than 30% remaining.
11. The most crucial details, including the biodiversity assessment methodology, are not included in the Bill. The biodiversity assessment methodology has not been finalised, peer reviewed by independent scientist or trialled.
12. Parties with a record of environmental damage will be allowed to participate and there is no strong commitment to funding monitoring, auditing or enforcement.
Once again I acknowledge that the Government has addressed a number of these issues in the amendments, but it should unquestionably have simply placed an exposure draft bill on the table back in June, let it lie there over the winter, and then incorporated the amendments that emerged from consultation with the stakeholders when the bill was presented to the House. The Property Council of Australia said that it supports the principles and objectives of the current biobanking scheme, but that it needed amendment. The Property Council also listed a significant number of concerns as follows:
First, finalise the detail. Among industry there is a widespread lack of understanding as to how the scheme will work … the Working Groups established by DEC, which the Property Council participates in, are grappling with issues among its members with no clear answers or understanding as to how or when they will be resolved. Meetings routinely end with more questions than answers.
And the Government says, "Trust us on this, trust us to get the methodology right." The Property Council said:
Some of the Groups have only met a few times and the overall Review Working Group has still not met.
Once a site is established and managed, it will need to be maintained. How long is maintenance required? How is in-perpetuity defined?
We know it is not defined as being in perpetuity at all; it is 15 to 20 years maximum. The Property Council continued:
How will DEC be establishing the BioBanking Fund into which payments are made on the sale of credits and funds are distributed to manage BioBank sites?
Second, finalise the biometric tool. Fundamental to the operation of this scheme will be the biometric tool which will assess sites and determine the amount and type of credits earned and also credits required for offsetting.
Despite the Bill being presented to Parliament, the tool has not been finalised nor has it been used for testing or put on exhibition for public comment.
Honourable members will realise the significance of that comment from the Property Council. The council went on to say:
Third, couple the scheme with certification.
The House has already heard arguments along those lines—
Fourth, incorporate a dispute resolution mechanism. The Bill proposes that the final arbiter of disputes will be, surprisingly, the Premier of NSW.
That matter has been dealt with in the amendments that we will debate in Committee. The council went on:
In any event a more workable mechanism to resolve disputes needs to be incorporated into the Bill.
Fifth, understand the market. As noted, there is a lack of clarity regarding the number and class of credits to be included in the scheme for the creation of sites and for offsetting. Linked to this is how the market is to operate.
That is why we believe wholeheartedly that a trial is needed. We have consistently said that a trial is needed and we believe that the Parliament should assist in the creation of that trial. The Property Council continued:
Sixth, subject the scheme to rigorous testing and trialling.
The council agrees with us. On the basis of the amendments that have been presented to us we are not quite sure how rigorous the testing and trialling will be. The Property Council went on to say:
Despite earlier commitments to test and trial the scheme in the Lower Hunter and the Far North Coast, where biodiversity issues are most pressing, these have been abandoned. This is regrettable. A major reform like this should be subject to rigorous testing and trialling where the tool can be applied and can be critically assessed. This has been the case with BASIX throughout its development. A trial would also help to establish benchmarks for threatened species which identify their value and provide a guide to future assessments and the value of credits earned and to be used.
Seven, remove the mandatory requirement capability in the Bill.
That has been done with the amendments. The Property Council continued:
Eight, insurance. The proposals are not clear regarding whether or not insurance can be taken out against maintenance costs for unforeseen hazards and random weather in events such as bushfires, floods, cyclones and the like.
Nine, costs. A detailed financial and cost analysis of the scheme needs to be undertaken by the Department to identify costs likely to be incurred by the land owner, developer and Scheme Manager.
Ten, compatibility. It is essential that this legislation be compatible with federal legislation to ensure they are not incongruent with each other.
At that time the Property Council concluded:
These plans for BioBanking are not sufficiently worked through to warrant passage through Parliament at this time.
That is exactly the conclusion reached by the other stakeholders I mentioned. The devil in this legislation is well and truly in the detail. Unfortunately, while I have looked at the 16 pages of amendments that the Government has provided, there is still a lot of detail that is left out.
On 9 August Alan Jones was also highly critical of the legislation, asking why a developer would buy 7,000 hectares of protected land unless he knew legislation would enable him to make money on the land. He said that he smelt a rat, and there are many people who are making the same observation. Biodiversity should be integral to the biobanking process. It should not be possible to write biobanking credits on any piece of land in the absence of a certified environmental protection instrument that covers the area or region in which that land is located. Yet, according to the UDIA, only 12 of 152 councils across New South Wales have prepared local environmental plans for biodiversity certification. The institute claims that biodiversity certification is no longer a priority for the Department of Environment and Conservation. Yet the Government now proposes to implement a trial of this legislation across the entire State, when only 12 out of 152 councils have prepared appropriate environmental planning instruments and are planning to get the biodiversity certified.
Given the failure of the Government to assist councils in developing appropriate environmental planning instruments, it seems clear that this legislation is being introduced years early. The Department of Environment and Conservation cannot cope with what is on its plate now, and that is clearly shown by the fact that the number of threatened species continues to rise exponentially, by more than 10 per cent a year. It would be nice if the Government could deliver that sort of economic growth for this State. One wonders how the Department of Environment and Conservation will be able to cope with the impact of biobanking as well. As I said before, the scheme is unique; nothing exactly like it has been implemented anywhere in the world. So why is it being introduced now? It is probably because there have been some significant complaints from big donors to the Labor Party about the problems that the threatened species legislation is causing for them. As Alan Jones suggested, there may be some dollars attached to the passage of this legislation through this place.
I spoke before about the need for a trial of this complex legislation before it is enacted across the State. In a letter to me dated 21 September the Minister claimed that the Government's intention to trial the biodiversity banking scheme for two years will be made explicit in the bill. However, the amendments that arrived on my desk yesterday only state that the Minister is to cause a review of the operation to be carried out within three years of the gazettal of the biodiversity assessment methodology. I understand that the Government intends to implement the legislation across the State and not in selected areas, and to allow the exchange of credits between regions. This will create its own set of problems, not the least of which will be if the trial proves to be a failure. I have already discussed this matter with one of the Minister's advisers, who said that if the legislation does not work the Government will scrap it. If the scheme is not implemented in a number of selected areas where environmental planning instruments are in place but is implemented across the entire State and proves to be a failure, frankly, I do not see how the legislation can be scrapped.
Notwithstanding this, yesterday the Property Council of Australia indicated to me that it now supports the bill, largely because the Government has amended it to remove the ability of the Minister for Planning to make the scheme compulsory. Participation in the scheme will be voluntary. Indeed, proposed new section 27ZF spells that out. I repeat: I still cannot see how a trial can operate in the absence of biodiversity certification or at least proper certified environmental planning instruments. The Urban Development Institute of Australia is of the same view. It has also expressed concern that the legislation does not provide a time frame between putting in an application for a biodiversity banking site and having the number of credits applicable to that site signed off. In principle, the Opposition supports the concept of biodiversity banking, and I have been quite open and upfront about that.
Mr Grant McBride: A Paulian conversion.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: What we do not support is the way the bill has been introduced. For the benefit of the Minister for Gaming and Racing, we support the concept of biodiversity banking. However, that does not mean we support this bill. All the stakeholders support the concept of biodiversity banking.
Mr Grant McBride: Wonderful! Twenty minutes of telling us it is no good and now you tell us you support the principle!
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: We support the principle, but only half the provisions have been introduced. We received the other half as a second instalment—shoehorn the two together and see how it works! That is reprehensible. We believe that a trial needs to be exactly that: a trial in a limited number of locations where local environmental plans, regional environmental plans or other environmental planning instruments that promote the conservation of threatened species and biodiversity have been approved. A way forward would be for a select committee of the Parliament to sign off on the methodology for the trial and for another committee of the Parliament to oversight the trial and to report back to the Parliament on its success or otherwise.
The legislation could then be amended in line with the committee's recommendations. Then, and only then, the trial could be extended to the whole State. It is worth noting that the Government's legislation is still opposed by farmers and the Environmental Liaison Office. I indicate that we will not oppose the bill in this House but we will reserve our position in the other place. We want to hear what the Government has to say about my suggestions regarding parliamentary oversight of the trial in particular. We may seek to move other amendments in the other place.
Mr KIM YEADON (Granville) [10.03 p.m.]: I support the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill, which continues to develop the Government's approach of using payments for ecosystem services or market-based mechanisms to more effectively manage environmental outcomes and sustainability. I inform the House that I have a personal interest in two international not-for-profit organisations dedicated to the development of payments for ecosystem services around the world: the Katoomba Group and Forest Trends. In fact, the Katoomba Group is named after our town of Katoomba in the Blue Mountains as the group held its formation meeting in Katoomba in 1999. The choice of location was recognition by the Katoomba Group of the world-leading approach the New South Wales Government was taking to the development and use of innovative market-based mechanisms for achieving environmental sustainability.
It is worth having a brief look at that history, particularly for the benefit of the honourable member for The Hills, who seems to think that nothing is happening, in order to provide context for the legislation currently before the House and to demonstrate the Government's proven track record in the effective use of this type of policy. From its earliest days the Government explored innovative approaches for improved environmental management. These included things like triple bottom line reporting, adopted by agencies such as State Forests, which reports on its financial, social and environmental bottom line; and the development of carbon forests, which provided the framework for how to conduct, monitor and administer carbon trading, which resulted in outcomes like the agreement with the Tokyo Electric Power Company of Japan, which established extensive carbon forests in northern New South Wales. Unfortunately this initiative became severely limited as a result of the Federal Government's failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
Another market-based mechanism project was the reverse auction trading scheme trialled on the Liverpool Plains, where farmers bid for funding from the Government in return for the provision of predetermined environmental services. Of course, one of my favourites is the electricity retailer greenhouse gas abatement scheme, which was one of the first true carbon trading schemes in the world when it was introduced at the beginning of 2003. It still remains the only example in Australia of a market-based scheme to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. The Government was also proactive from the outset in adopting market-based mechanisms for pollution management, with schemes like the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme and the Bubble Licensing Scheme on South Creek in Western Sydney, which has now progressed to include diffuse source pollution trading.
The New South Wales Government has also been at the forefront of national initiatives using trading mechanisms for environmental sustainability through the National Market Based Instruments Pilot Program. In New South Wales this involved three projects to manage salt loads into stressed rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin, the Ulan coalmine at Mudgee, the Norske Skog papermill near Albury and the Moree spa baths. In 2001 the Government released the environmental statement "Action for the Environment", which highlighted the need to use new tools to address the cumulative impacts of new development. Following on from this, the Government later released the concept paper entitled "Green Offsets for Sustainable Development", which proposed three pilot programs using environmental offsets. The paper acknowledged that these pilots would provide the building blocks for the establishment of market mechanisms for sustainability where the environment was under significant stress from new and especially urban development.
It is therefore clear that this legislation is a continuation of, and is informed by, the numerous market-based concepts and schemes that the Government has formulated, trialled and implemented over the past decade. It is this long experience in innovative market-based mechanisms that has provided the skill base and knowledge necessary for the introduction of a scheme like biodiversity banking. While the New South Wales Government has been a leader in the use of market-based mechanisms, it has not been entirely alone in exploring these types of policy approaches. The Californian wetlands banking scheme in America, which has been in operation for some time, has a similar conceptual approach to this legislation. Obviously, much can be learned from the experience of others in the implementation and operation of similar projects.
My own observation of the Californian wetlands banking scheme provides a warning for the need to maintain the integrity of offsets generated for environmental credits under these types of schemes. In some instances in California the creation and banking of wetland offsets were not always adequately monitored and enforced. Likewise, the replacement of destroyed wetlands with newly created wetland ecologies did not always see an exchange of like for like. Just digging a hole in the ground and filling it with water does not constitute an ecological wetland—I think it is called a dam. Under the New South Wales biodiversity banking scheme, vegetation type and cover will be used as a proxy to measure the offset credits generated. The honourable member for The Hills might want to listen to this, as it will give him an insight into some of the methodology that he fails to recognise.
This proxy is a simple yet relatively effective measure for reflecting and assessing a complex biosystem. Vegetation type as a proxy was used extensively in the Government's forestry assessment process that occurred under the New South Wales Forestry Agreement, and much experience was gained by conservation agencies in the use of this proxy. However, that being said, I think it will be important to periodically conduct surveys to test the proxy against actual outcomes for biodiversity conservation on offset sites over time to ensure the ongoing integrity of those credits.
The legislation requires property owners to establish a biobank site by entering into an agreement with the Minister for the Environment. By agreeing to control things like grazing, weeds and foxes for the protection of habitat the landowner will be able to sell biodiversity credits. The money from selling the credits will pay for the long-term management of the site and provide an investment return for managing the land. Money will be paid to landholders from a biobanking trust fund. This will ensure that landholders have the necessary money to continue to undertake the required management action each year. One of the strengths of the legislation is the endurance of the conservation gains over time. Unlike a range of other environmental programs that provide funding for rehabilitation or conservation on private land, this scheme does not run for a limited or defined period of time.
The biobanking agreement is a statutory covenant on the land and applies in perpetuity, no matter who owns the land in the future. It is important to recognise that the legislation does not in any way privatise the environment. Market-based mechanisms are not about selling off the environment to private interests such as developers. The legislation recognises the real-world pressures for continued involvement, particularly urban development, especially in areas like the Sydney Basin.
The bill establishes a voluntary scheme. The fact that it is a voluntary scheme is very important and should allay many of the fears expressed by the honourable member for The Hills. As I said, the bill establishes a voluntary scheme that uses innovative market-based incentive mechanisms in an attempt to achieve sustainable, and indeed improved, environmental outcomes at the least cost to the wider community. That is really what market-based mechanisms for sustainability are about: going out to those in the community who best know their business and the area, providing the financial incentive, and getting them to deal with those problems. t is much better than a command control approach from the centre by people who may not have the required or adequate information to get the best outcome at the least cost. I commend the Minister for the Environment for introducing this innovative and world-leading legislation and I congratulate all the public servants who have made a contribution to the development of this outstanding policy. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.12 p.m.]: I have said in this House on many occasions, and I repeat, that if there is a problem in Sydney, it should be solved in the bush or outside the Sydney metropolitan area. The honourable member for Granville said this legislation is about allowing development in Sydney. I suggest that it is about overdevelopment in Sydney. It is, as the honourable member for The Hills said, an opportunity for donors to the Labor Party to buy land cheaply—and I mean cheaply, by comparison with land in regional New South Wales—as a biobank for land they will clear of natural environment and habitat in Western Sydney to allow mushroom-like growth.
When you travel through the western suburbs of Sydney you realise very quickly that there are bottlenecks in the transport and road systems. People who live there would have to work in the area because it would be almost impossible for them to get into the city. There is now legislation that allows further overdevelopment in Western Sydney, and I understand from the honourable member for The Hills that the Government will move 61 amendments to the bill in this or the other Chamber. Despite the accolades the honourable member for Granville bestowed on the Minister for the Environment, the fact that 61 amendments to the bill are proposed demonstrates that the Government has admitted the Minister's failure with what the honourable member for Granville has described as world-leading legislation.
I find that absolutely amazing. Once again we have legislation that will allow developers to clear land and build houses, shopping centres, et cetera, and overdevelop Western Sydney. At the same time as the Government is introducing this legislation, it is sending car loads of police to harass farmers to the north of Dubbo to see whether they have cleared woody weed regrowth. They will prosecute those farmers to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars and demand, without consultation, that areas of that land be set aside for future conservation value. Eventually, farmers will not be able to use the land that has been cleared, but will have to replant it.
On one hand the Government is going to allow developers in Sydney to destroy habitat, clear land in Western Sydney and build homes on it. On the other hand it continues to persecute farmers in regional and rural New South Wales who are attempting to make an honest living by proper management practices. I suggest there is plenty of land on the North Coast that is covered with native vegetation and could be purchased fairly cheaply. There is also the opportunity to harvest timber on some of that property. Less than a month ago the Government introduced a draft code of practice for private native forestry that will result in that land being locked up. As I have said in this House, in media releases, and at public forums, land containing valuable timber will end up being locked up.
The honourable member for Granville spoke about carbon banking, but the land will be locked up and the farmers will be unable to harvest timber on it in a sustainable manner—timber that is required to build homes in Western Sydney. It has been estimated that this will reduce the value of land in regional New South Wales by more than $2 million. This will allow developers to purchase that land at rock-bottom prices, erect a fence around it, let feral animals breed, let lantana, noxious weed and rubbish grow on it, while at the same time clearing vegetation in Western Sydney to construct houses. I have never seen such a double standard in all my life. The Government does not think outside Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.
Having introduced the legislation, and despite telling us it is groundbreaking, world-leading legislation, the Government foreshadows 61 amendments to it. Madam Acting-Speaker, I well remember the Somersby mint bush in your electorate of Peats. We looked at that rare and endangered species growing on what I would call a sensible development. Native vegetation was found in an industrial subdivision in your electorate and the National Parks and Wildlife Service sought to prevent the development. On that trip we suggested that the National Parks and Wildlife Service should look on its own side of the fence. When it did, it found this rare and endangered Somersby mint bush in great supply. In fact, it was all over the place. I would suggest it was almost a weed. The National Parks and Wildlife Service proposed to lock up what I regarded as a sensible development. Now, I suggest, we have the opposite situation in Western Sydney. For political purposes, for the growth of Western Sydney, the Government wants to clear this land.
This Government has been in office for 12 years yet it blames the Federal Government for insufficient transport infrastructure—a lack of decent bus and train services. It always seeks more money from the Federal Government for roads, but where is the water infrastructure for Western Sydney? We are in the grip of one of the worst droughts this country has ever seen. Nevertheless, when Warragamba Dam was built to provide a water supply for Sydney, I suggest it was not intended to provide water to this burgeoning population in Western Sydney. Without spending any money on infrastructure to improve the water supply to the whole of Sydney, including Western Sydney, which is at the moment desperate for water and on permanent water restrictions, the Government now wants to tell developers that they can destroy natural native habitat and vegetation with a view to further overdeveloping Western Sydney.
I know of a development in regional New South Wales, north of Coffs Harbour, where a family has something like 30 hectares. It was cleared land when they bought it and they have sat on it for many years. They have now put a development application to the Government for what I would regard as a fairly sensible subdivision of the area. At this stage the Government has denied that application because it wants that area left forested. This is regrowth of about 30 or 40 years of age. The Government is suggesting that biobanking may alleviate that problem. It will not alleviate the problem. The development has been knocked back and the land is now worthless. In many other developments on the North Coast native vegetation and habitat laws mean that developers cannot do anything, or what they can do is severely limited. This legislation is proclaimed as world breaking, a world first, yet it is presented to the House with 61 foreshadowed amendments that I am yet to see.
Mr Michael Richardson: That is a world record!
Mr ANDREW FRASER: Yes, that is a world record. I remember that when I was a backbencher I proposed 52 amendments to the environment protection legislation introduced by Tim Moore and he thought that was somewhat extreme. I think I succeeded with 12 in the end, but to propose 61 amendments to one's own legislation certainly is world breaking. It is world-breaking hypocrisy by a Government that looks at New South Wales as Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong, and looks to do political favours for its mates down in this part of the State. I look forward to participating further in Committee when the 61 amendments are proposed. I would like to know who wrote the speech for the honourable member for Granville. He read that speech. I think it was prepared by one of the ministerial advisers sitting in the gallery, because the speech was written with prior knowledge of 61 amendments that have not yet been laid on the table of the House. I hope the Government does not expect us to pass this legislation this evening. If it did, we would have no alternative but to vote against the legislation because we have not been given the opportunity as a Coalition—and I suggest probably the Independents have not seen the amendments either—to properly assess those amendments and see how they relate to the bill as it presently stands.
Again, I have raised the concerns of farmers in regional and rural New South Wales because they are being absolutely monstered by government departments with police in tow over the clearing of woody weeds. I compare that to what is being proposed in this legislation. To talk about world-leading carbon credits is nonsense. As a former Minister for Forests the honourable member for Granville knows we do not have the plantations of softwood and hardwood up to date in this State. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land should have been replanted on a second rotation but have not been replanted. The Government cannot talk about storing carbon. It cannot blame Kyoto or the Federal Government. This Government has not kept pace. It has sold carbon credits to Japan and to Italy but the companies that bought them have not planted the amount of timber they agreed to plant in their original contracts with the people of New South Wales.
We have to have a good look at what rules apply to Sydney and what rules apply to regional New South Wales. That will clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of this Government. If the Government wants to buy land cheaply in the electorate of Bega, in my electorate or anywhere on the North Coast or South Coast because it has ruined the private native forest industry, and it drives the value of that land down and buys it cheaply, but subdivides land worth millions of dollars in Sydney, the people in the bush will pay for it. Bushfires will ensue from the lack of management. Feral animals will breed on that land because it will not be managed properly. I do not trust the Government on these issues. Last weekend we saw fires burning in our national parks, and that frightens me. The Government ought to withdraw this legislation. We heard tonight the letters and comments from several development groups. Let us have another look at the legislation. If the Government is going to biobank, it should do it in its own backyard, not in the backyard of people in regional and rural Australia.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Grant McBride.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:44:20 : Update this page