Water Catchment Policy

Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [5.32 p.m.]: Last Friday night, 25 June, I was invited to a meeting of approximately 60 or 70 very angry and hurt land-holders in the Taralga district of the Burrinjuck electorate. These people are good and decent Australians who are prepared to pull their weight to make a fair living and contribute to their society. They are furious that this State Government is getting in their way with red tape, idiotic regulations and heavy new costs which are simply government revenue raisers.

Page 1617

The Government must realise that there is a much bigger cost associated with its actions, namely, the cost of people losing their livelihoods, leaving their homes and watching what they have worked a lifetime for being slowly but surely destroyed. That is why the Ministers opposite who bothered to go to their own party's annual conference had a civic reception from the people of my electorate on Saturday. This was not a knee-jerk protest because Ministers were coming to town: it was a desperate - for some, a last-ditch - effort to make this Government listen and learn.

The people are angry about the small dams policy. The Government has not explained to them in any meaningful way why it now demands that only a variable percentage of the 10 per cent run-off of surface water will be available to farmers for any purpose whatsoever. Was it not barely a decade ago or less when land-holders were being urged to drought-proof their farms by building dams? Was it not the wild green elements that were saying that dams are good because they help to protect environmental flows in rivers? And was it not the land-holders who responded - because they respect leadership and their environment - by co-operating, but who now are being slugged and penalised because they did exactly what they were asked to do?

Taralga land-holders are complaining bitterly about this Government's Sydney Water catchment rules. The people made it clear that they feel their rights to farm productively and to develop new agricultural enterprises are at great risk. Quite rightly, they pointed out that the very basis of farming in that area is water: Whoever controls water controls the stock numbers, a part of farm input costs, land use and development applications. They have pointed out that State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 58 is fundamentally flawed. If the Government pursues the important question of Sydney's water supply quality, why does it put land-holders near Goulburn out of business in the name of that cause?

Why does the Government not attack the issue laterally by using a combination of reasonable land management practices and water quality technology to ensure that the disastrous bungling of this Government is not repeated? The story does not end there. The Taralga meeting was addressed by a long-time Labor Party supporter. It was clear that he had come to the end of his tether. Over many years he has given selflessly of his time and energy to support the Australian Labor Party. For decades he has been a prominent trade union leader, but he made it crystal clear to all who attended that he cannot, and will not, abide what this Government is up to.

He asked why the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs refused to even return his phone calls - not once, but time and time again. This man is livid about the idiotic new septic tank regulations that will commence operation this week. He said that a creek runs through his property and he will not be able to install a septic tank. A biodegradable toilet would cost him $9,000. What is he supposed to do - just hold on? He said that he has been told to put up a fence 50 yards on either side of his creek. He is not allowed to put in a decent sized dam and his property borders a national park, which entails problems with wild animals, vermin, fencing and weeds.

He is also the type of land-holder who desperately needs the weed eradication agent, Frenock, but that has been withdrawn from the market without the provision of any decent alternative. Government members might wonder why that man is not happy with this Labor Government. Another property holder was telephoned by a bureaucrat from the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, as best she could make out. This public servant gave only his Christian name. He gave no surname, no return phone number and no address. The message was, "I'm ringing to ask you when the gates on your property will be open."

Understandably, the land-holder replied, "Why?" The bureaucrat responded, "I want to count your eucalypts." Again, understandably, the land-holder asked, "Why?" The reply was, "I've got every right to do this." The land-holder was visibly and understandably upset and said, "No, I am not going to let you onto my property without at least informing my husband. You've got no right to be on my property." She is very upset. Is it any wonder that there is a great deal of cynicism about this Government's attempt to regain some sense of credibility when this Labor Government changes colour like a chameleon to create a breakaway Labor Party, which really is not Labor, but then really is?

Is it any wonder that this Government is on the nose in the bush? Does this Government ministry wonder why it was bailed up in Goulburn on Saturday over waste dumps, SEPP 58, small dams policy and FreightCorp jobs? I have summarised just some of the concerns of the Taralga meeting to place them on the record. It is high time that this Government was called to account for its wild excesses. This is not a game: These people are hurting emotionally and financially. The people of
Page 1618
my electorate want a reversal of the anti-government meanness which permeates the Labor regime - an anti-bush sentiment that even the Minister for Regional Development has admitted. [Time expired.]

Mr STEWART (Bankstown - Parliamentary Secretary) [5.37 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Burrinjuck for her contribution and for mentioning the concerns raised at the land-holders' meeting that she attended in her electorate. Some of the concerns that she raised are taken very seriously by this Government, particularly in respect to water catchment. This Government listens, and this debate is a good opportunity for her to take up those concerns, as I certainly will on her behalf with both the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation.

The Labor Party has put a great deal of time and effort into the water catchment policy. The process has involved consultation with stakeholders, an approach and focus that has been adopted by other governments such as the Federal Coalition Government. There is a great deal to be gained out of what has occurred in the last three or four years of this Government. We will look at this issue carefully. We do not need to make hasty decisions; we need to make decisions based on equity and future water catchment use. That is what the Government has been about. I will refer the matters raised by the honourable member to the Ministers concerned.