Debate resumed from 26 November 2008.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.08 a.m.]: Rural lands protection boards are the front line for managing animal health and pest control issues in New South Wales. They comprise 47 boards across the State, underpinned by 130,000 ratepayers in rural, country and coastal areas. The Government commissioned a report via the State Council of the Rural Lands Protection Boards into reform of the current system. A group called Integrated Marketing Communications did the report following an examination of organisational structure, administrative functions and service delivery. The report was done as a desktop review, and therein lies part of the problem with the way in which this review has been carried out. The directors and staff of the boards and many landholders feel that they have not had proper opportunity for input into this review.

There is no doubt a need for reform of the current system, which was put in place many years ago. Certainly agriculture has changed in that time, as has the demographic across country and coastal New South Wales. However, if we get this wrong, it would be very serious, particularly in relation to biosecurity issues. Recently we had an outbreak of equine influenza and the rural lands protection boards were the front line in dealing with that issue. Whilst we support change, we should not be hastening the change, and we should not be cutting out the views of those who know how to manage rural lands diseases, pests and so on. The Government justifies its proposal to change rural lands protection boards via this bill by saying that net savings of $8 million to $8.3 million will ensue. Rural lands protection board staff and directors, and landholders, are not convinced that that is the case.

The proposal under the legislation is that rural lands protection boards will be restructured and renamed. Boards will be reduced from 47 to 14. There will be a State policy council created with 28 members, two members from each of the 14 boards, and that council will establish working groups for particular policy areas. The 14 new rural lands protection boards will each have eight members—local ratepayers will elect six, and two will be appointed by the elected directors based on merit. Merit selection will be defined as expertise and experience in law, business, financial management, and so on. Under the new legislation, a nine-member State management council will manage the 14 new rural lands protection boards. Eight of those members will be chosen on merit by the State policy council and the ninth member will be the Director General of Primary Industries or his or her nominee, who will be responsible for statewide biosecurity.

There will be a centralised payroll, accounting, auditing and treasury function in Orange where the current rural lands protection board head office is located. There will be centralised rate notices, annual land and stock returns, a new animal health management matrix, which will hold the board accountable for ensuring that statewide programs agreed to between the Department of Primary Industries and other stakeholders are implemented. It is pleasing to see that the Government is not proposing to change the management of travelling stock routes, which are critical in rural life and in agriculture, particularly in the west of the State. Calculating rates will change quite noticeably with the minimum rateable area for a district increasing from 4 to 10 hectares. This will be welcomed in more built-up rural areas, rural residential land and the like, such as coastal areas and areas around, for example, Queanbeyan. In the far west, where properties are significantly larger, rates will begin at 400 hectares.

The Nationals and the Liberal Party agree with the need for reform. However, the process by which this reform has been undertaken is seriously flawed. We warn that if this legislation goes ahead we will achieve a suboptimal reform. Not all of the changes that I have mentioned are negative—we support many of them. However, if we want to get the reform right we need genuine consultation and a genuine opportunity for input from all stakeholders. Many concerns have been expressed to The Nationals, including centralisation of power and resources, cost savings not eventuating, autonomy being compromised, regional offices possibly closing, and certainly that the January 2009 deadline for implementing these changes is unrealistic.

No response has been received from the Minister or from the Rural Lands Protection Boards State Council to correspondence from concerned rural lands protection board directors and staff. During the Coffs Harbour annual conference for rural lands protection boards the State Council did not allow the opportunity for boards to voice their opinions. Boards were led to believe—incorrectly—that the report would be debated at length. This did not occur. Information about these changes is not filtering back to ratepayers currently or to existing boards. The promise by the Labor Government that all local offices will remain open is in doubt, particularly as eight Department of Primary Industries research sites were closed in the recent mini-budget. They were termed in that document as excess offices. Once the changes to rural lands protection boards have been implemented there is no guarantee that the shopfronts in the newly amalgamated board areas will remain open.

The appointment of 14 general managers for the new boards was well underway prior to the legislation being debated or passed, with 11 of those general managers having been appointed prior to 21 November. Why this has been made a priority when a number of rural lands protection boards have asked serious questions that remain unanswered by the State Council is a matter of concern. The January 2009 timetable is unworkable to properly implement the reforms. My office has been contacted by a number of rural lands protection boards. The vast majority acknowledge and accept the need for change, but they are concerned about the process and that the recommendations they have put forward have not been properly considered. There are concerns that the local knowledge of current directors and staff will be lost, particularly in terms of policy development and service delivery in the future. I received correspondence from James Maslin of the Forbes Rural Lands Protection Board, who stated:

As Chairman of the Forbes RLPB I am very concerned with some of the changes being implemented ... The main problem that I wish to bring to your attention is the centralising of land transfers. It is obvious the IMC and those still pushing this have no concept of the amount of work that is done with land transfers and the value of local knowledge when portion numbers and areas aren't correct. At the moment virtually all 47 Boards have one person and sometimes another part time doing transfers, these aren't inefficient people, and some like one girl in the Forbes Board have been doing them for over twenty years and has the knowledge to know if something has not been entered correctly. It is expected that six or seven in Orange without local knowledge will be able to do the same and do it efficiently.

We the Directors have never been consulted on the final report, it was released to the media the same day we received it and the Minister announced his acceptance without allowing any discussion from the people who own the RLPB—the ratepayers and Directors. I am in no way trying to stifle necessary changes but essential efficiencies must be maintained. A minor concern that could be more important than it sounds the new name "Animal Health and Pest Authority". The Directors were asked to give a list of suggested name changes. This was certainly not one of them and we believe will not be representative for the growing number of minimum ratepayers who don't have animals and believe they don't have pests.

He goes on to say:

After further consideration I believe the new "Animal Health and Pest Authority" will be totally irrelevant to possibly 50% of rural land occupiers. Any rural land occupier who does not have animals and does not care about foxes and rabbits are irrelevant to them will rebel against paying rates to an authority that is irrelevant to them. These people would include grain growers, grape growers, orchardists, minimum ratepayers and many more.

This is one board expressing concerns about not only the process, the outcomes of the process, and particularly the opportunity lost by the Government to take on board these concerns and expert knowledge. Rural lands protection board staff is being lost as we speak. They know the writing is on the wall and they are seeking other employment, with a great degree of uncertainty about their future job prospects. The general consensus is that not enough consultation on the report took place with directors, and proposals put forward by rural lands protection boards were not considered. The State Council appears to be taking a one-size-fits-all attitude by grouping the majority of so-called good boards with the minority of bad boards. Today's Land newspaper carries a letter to the editor from Mr Max Hams, the chairman of the Broken Hill Rural Lands Protection Board. He states:

I recently read the Member for Monaro, Steve Whan's introduction of the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill to the NSW Parliament and could not help feeling dismay and anger at the absolute garbage contained in that speech.

It is easy to see why the world is in such a mess when people in a position of power can spruik such rubbish and make policies which are doomed to fail because they aren't based on facts.

Unfortunately, it is the working people who have to pay for, and suffer, the consequences of these ill-conceived policies and legislation

I have serious concerns about the budget for the new State Management Council being approved only by the Minister.

Given the present State Council's track record, and the unaccountable waste of money which has occurred, I believe there will be serious blow-out of the cost of administration in Orange.

These forced amalgamations are simply a forced takeover of the entire RLPB system by government and State Council, who expect it will be easier to control 14 large boards than 47 smaller ones.

The Government is definitely not taking the stakeholders along with it in these changes. That is why the Coalition believes that the reforms will be suboptimal and calls on the Government to hold the legislation over. It should not be rushed through in this sitting but should be left on the table until the people who have the expertise, experience and knowledge on the ground have had a proper opportunity to have an input into this process. As I said, the Coalition is not against reform—we believe reform must take place—but it must be the right reform and it must involve all stakeholders.

The Coalition is also concerned about the purported $8.3 million in savings. The Government has not provided the current boards with any economic modelling to support that figure. A cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken before this legislation as proposed by the Government is enacted in January. It is disappointing that the Minister for Primary Industries did not facilitate a meeting of all state directors of rural lands protection boards to discuss their concerns about the recommendations published in the review following its release. Why is there such a rush to make these changes? Why are the Minister and the State Council accelerating this legislation through the House? Are there concerns that if the Minister and the State Council consult with the boards that the recommendations could be rejected?

These changes are important and necessary, but the process has been seriously flawed and those who stand to be affected by these important issues of biosecurity, control of pests and the health of our livestock—all rural landholders—should be consulted. Our livestock is the best in the world and we are a disease-free nation and our trade depends on that. This is an extremely important issue and that is why we ask the Government to hold over this legislation, to consult more widely, to take on board these concerns and to introduce amended legislation next year with the support of this side of the House.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [10.23 a.m.]: I will make a fairly brief contribution to the debate on the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008. The overview of the bill is self-explanatory and the Leader of The Nationals has read it to the House. It refers to the New South Wales rural lands protection board review undertaken by Integrated Marketing Communications Pty Ltd, the review of the boards' rating system undertaken by Richard Bull and the changes to the principal Act. Those changes involve renaming the boards and districts as "livestock health and pest authorities" and, as far as some rural communities are concerned, the dramatic amalgamation of boards that reduce the number from 47 to 14.

I can understand rural communities being very protective of their rural lands protection boards and their predecessors, the pasture protection boards. They have an interesting history and they have been part of the New South Wales landscape for well over 100 years. They kicked off in the 1800s. I believe they were once known as scab boards because they were charged with addressing diseases affecting sheep and the like. They quickly became an acceptable part of the rural community and they have done an excellent job through the generations. I suggest to members of the Opposition, and particularly The Nationals who are obviously defensive about the role of the boards, that this legislation is simply part of the evolutionary change and reform that is occurring in the way that rural lands and areas are being administered, and certainly in regard to the way that rural lands protection boards have been administered.

Members would be aware of the dramatic changes at government level that have seen the amalgamation of government departments. New South Wales agriculture now is very much covered by the broader umbrella of the Department of Primary Industries. The changes have been dramatic, particularly since this Government came into office. In 1995, when the Labor Government was elected, I was confronted with a review of rural lands protection boards that was carried out under the authority of former Ministers for Agriculture Ian Causley and Ian Armstrong. A number of recommendations were made about how that process should take place. Amalgamations and financial accountability were high on the list of topics to be examined.

A number of changes were made in the early years. The first and very painful process was dealing with the question of amalgamation. We had about 56 boards and we wound that back to 47. That modest amalgamation of boards caused an outcry. I remember the well-publicised rallies held in the battle to stop the amalgamation of the Merriwa and Mudgee rural lands protection boards. The people of Merriwa, which is a small country town, were fighting to save a service. The town had lost banks and government departments and the residents saw the amalgamation of the board as losing yet another service. The residents were given assurances about offices remaining open and the service being maintained, and that only the location of the board and its administration would be affected.

That is the principle behind this legislation. It will not affect the excellent work done by the experts working through the rural lands protection boards to safeguard our primary industries. It will wind back the cost of administration of the boards. In the 1990s we had to deal with the different financial standards applied by each board. It is glib to say that some boards were not submitting financial returns and people would claim that the records of some boards were kept in a shoebox under the bed. Of course, some boards did conform to appropriate financial procedures. The boards were rate-collecting entities—they were taking money from the public in one form or another or under one levy system or another—and the Government felt that there should be some form of accountability. Despite criticism, it was decided that the boards would be covered by the Public Finance and Audit Act arrangements. That was a costly process, but it was a wake-up call for the boards that the money they collected from the public had to be properly accounted for and that returns had to be lodged in the same way that any other public or private entity would be required to do so.

There has been continual change since the 1800s in the way that we administer these boards. The board boundaries were originally based on police boundaries. It was common practice in those days to use police boundaries when setting up many organisations. It was seen as easier than coming up with a new process. As a result, the board boundaries took no account of landscapes, environmental conditions and the suitability of stock. Some coastal boards were responsible for administering parts of the inland, so police boundaries were perhaps not the most suitable basis for managing livestock and landscape issues.

Another matter I put on the record is the excellent work done by people who work for rural lands protection boards or pastures protection boards, or whatever they will be called under this new arrangement. Those officers will continue to do an excellent job. In generations gone by there has been a view that holding office on those boards was a training ground for National Party or Country Party members of Parliament. It is fair to say that may have been an exaggeration, but many of those people who held a position as directors on those boards were very much a part of the rural political landscape. Many members of this Parliament and the Federal Parliament, particularly in years gone by—National Party and Country Party members—will proudly show on their CV that they served, as did their fathers and grandfathers before them, on the boards of various pastures protection boards and rural lands protection boards. That should not detract from the excellent role they play.

In effect they were rural people representing their local electors, and the qualified people they employed who looked after the livestock and so on did an excellent job. One might say that is a form of rhetoric, but the Legislation Review Committee gave a good rundown of the history of this particular legislation. While I do not intend to read slabs of that into Hansard, I refer members to it. We should recognise the work that was done by rural lands protection boards during the recent outbreak of equine influenza. I also recall, because I was involved in it, the outbreaks of Newcastle disease that afflicted many parts of the State, including the Hunter and the western suburbs of Sydney, and the poultry industry in general. The public in the metropolitan area saw just how valuable these experts were in containing a disease. They worked with New South Wales Agriculture and all the other government departments that were involved and provided a model for other countries in how to control an outbreak of disease of this nature and protect an industry that was so valuable to this State. I do not think the ability to look after an exotic disease outbreak will be affected by this legislation.

The legislation is all about tidying up the administration of the 47 boards around New South Wales, which are funded by a comparatively small rate base. It was crying out for reform, and that has been carried out by consultants and a former National Party shadow Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Richard Bull, who did an excellent review of rural lands protection boards and, I believe, provided a very objective report. In supporting the bill before the House I say to members of the Opposition, who obviously are being lobbied by rural communities, that this is another part of the evolution of reform of rate-based organisations, whether they be scab boards, livestock boards, pastures protection boards or rural lands protection boards. The boards will continue, but their funding and how the rates are set and the number of people in administration as opposed to those who are doing work on the ground will be enhanced by the legislation. The Government has made some tough decisions in bringing forward this bill; members should support it.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [10.33 a.m.]: I, like all members in this place, recognise the need for reform of rural lands protection boards or pastures protection boards in New South Wales. The question that arises relates very much to process and the potential fallout from this legislation, which was not intended by the Government. It is on that premise that the Opposition is arguing the need for consultation, particularly among landholders who might not necessarily know about these reforms or what they mean. On behalf of coastal ratepayers I welcome some aspects of the legislation, but I still have some very serious concerns about the further centralisation of power and decision making, given that we are talking about the front line of managing animal health and pest control in New South Wales.

We have to recognise that the process involves 130,000 ratepayers across the State who will want to have an input. At the moment they have not been given that opportunity. We need only read the Land today to see the response, which I think is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the reaction to this legislation. We are asking the Government to give it more time and to go out and find out what people think about these reforms. We think that is a sensible way forward, particularly given that board numbers will be slashed from 47 to 14. In my electorate and that of the member for Monaro we have a board that could have done with a lot more assistance from State Council by way of provision of information and support. Again, we are looking at a board that is trying to deal with the anomalies that might exist between a coastal zone and the Monaro. The forms of agriculture, the practices and the responses to animal health and pest control vary and one has to wonder what contribution the geographical placement of these boards has made to the problems in the current system. I would like to see further examination of this process given that the number of boards will be cut from 47 to 14.

Another concern, of course, relates to the loss of knowledge and local input. We see this all the time in other areas of government in relation to centralisation, particularly in rural communities. My concern is that we are going to see a loss of knowledge and expertise. We have just been through the equine influenza disaster, during which those involved with rural lands protection boards demonstrated an enormous amount of expertise. Where does that information go now? Has it been gathered? Is it going to be lost? I worry about the process laid down in this bill and the loss of expertise. I do not think anyone would dispute the need for reforms relating to governance, but let us see what the outcome of that process will be. We are hearing a figure of $8 million in cost savings being mentioned. Where is the benefit to ratepayers in those cost savings? Where is the economic modelling that was undertaken to determine those cost savings and why can that not be made available across the State so that people can look at it and assess it properly?

The restructures had started to take place well before legislation had been debated and passed in this place; there are some questions around that process as well. In some ways the Government is railroading this through. However, some unintended consequences of the bill need to be properly examined and I believe the Government has an obligation and a responsibility to go back to those communities and have the proposals properly assessed. Yes, there are conflicting viewpoints around the State depending on the need for reform and the level of reform required, but I believe it is important for the Government to take a step back and go back to the drawing board. I encourage the member for Monaro to read the Land today because he has copped a caning, and I think there will be more coming towards the Government if it does not take the time—

[Interruption]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Bega does not need the assistance of Government members.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I am happy to quote from the letter from Max Hams, the Chairman of the Broken Hill Rural Lands Protection Board in the Land, in which he says:

I recently read the Member for Monaro, Steve Whan's introduction of the Rural Land Protection Amendment Bill to the NSW Parliament and could not help feeling dismay and anger at the absolute garbage contained in that speech.

I hope the member for Monaro did not write his speech. He will be able to confirm that. It is worth delaying this process for further consultation. As I said before, I do not think anyone in this House would dispute the need for reform. It just needs to be done properly and in a consultative and collaborative way with country New South Wales.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [10.40 a.m.]: In examining the proposed changes in the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008 to the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 the question must be asked: Will these changes benefit farming and rural communities, improve the management of animal disease plus insect and vegetation control, while maintaining or improving the world-class animal health and pest control systems that exist in New South Wales? Will the new method of managing the State's 600,000 hectares of travelling stock reserves benefit the environment and the farming community? Will it provide an appropriate level of local management, and will local producers have their opinions and concerns satisfactorily listened to and addressed?

No doubt many challenges face the existing board system, including an increased number of boards experiencing higher budget deficits, higher administrative costs, shifts in land use patterns and the changing expectations of ratepayers. However, this legislation ignores the input that local organisations are desperate to provide. It fails to recognise the great strengths of the rural lands protection boards [RLPB] system, which includes local knowledge, local vigilance, and local response by professionals, immediate response capacity and community building. I have received more than 1,000 letters plus emails and telephone calls from RLPB ratepayers on this issue. I am surprised that more members have not spoken loudly in opposition to the legislation. I have received letters not only from the Tamworth Rural Lands Protection Board, but also from the Northern Slopes, Yass, Cooma, Bombala, Broken Hill, Grafton, Central Tablelands, Milparinka, Tweed-Lismore, Hume and Hunter rural lands protections boards, among others, all expressing concern at the lack of consultation and inadequate time for submissions on boundary changes.

The various boards raised concerns about the loss of financial autonomy and the creation of another level of bureaucracy. Ratepayers are concerned that a centrally operated land database may compromise RLPB systems and compromise the primary role of biosecurity. They told me of concerns about job losses, the inadequacy of $1.8 million allocated to fund the review, the loss of ratepayer representation on the new boards, and the potential for an increase in payroll tax liability. In addition, the Tamworth board has expressed serious concerns about the boundary changes. I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions regarding this important concern; however I am still waiting for a response while we debate this legislation today. Having said that, yesterday afternoon I received a letter addressing the concerns of the Bombala board that I had raised, but the Tamworth concern has not been sufficiently answered.

In a number of meetings, representatives from the Tamworth board expressed support for the concept of reviewing operations, but are understandably upset that their concerns have not been addressed in the process. The Chairman of Tamworth RLPB, Geoff Britten, said to me, "They've taken a chainsaw to the system when a handsaw would have done." Local farm ratepayers do not oppose change, but the consultation process has been patently inadequate. Of the 1,027 ratepayer letters received by my office, only two expressed opposition to the Tamworth RLPB submission to amalgamate with the Coonabarabran board only. Meetings were held, but the local input and suggestions were ignored. The Government appears to think that when people sit in the same room it equates to community and stakeholder consultation. This is not the case. There is an obvious need to continually evolve, as the eloquent member for Mount Druitt said earlier, and to adapt and improve efficiencies, but the bill leaves a lot to be desired in the opinion of the many people who have contacted my office.

Gunnedah Shire Council supported the submission to amalgamate Tamworth and Coonabarabran but expressed its concern that a centrally operated land database used by staff lacking local knowledge may potentially result in inaccuracies and that matters that require accurate information on particular land parcels may be compromised. It is also concerned that no cost savings will follow amalgamations, given the associated problems. It points out that any loss of local jobs to a regional centre in another district is a very real concern, especially during a period when councils are focussed on increasing local job capacities. The concern of the RLPB Customer Service Officers Association that 33 managers positions, 100 customer service operators positions as well many ranger and field assistant positions will be lost is justified. Can any member representing rural communities remain silent if jobs are threatened within their backyard, especially when there are such grassroots concerns about the whole issue?

The member for Bathurst continually referred to consultation with the State Council as the peak body as though that was sufficient, and that ratepayers concerns had been addressed through this process. That is clearly not the case. What about consulting with the farmers who fund the scheme and incorporating their suggestions into the process? My conversations and contacts indicate that the vast majority, probably 30 out of 47, of RLPBs around the State oppose the changes in their current form. The Minister's staff have kept me appraised of progress as they developed the legislation and I thank them for that, but despite promising to allow me to see a copy of the bill before it was introduced, I saw nothing until the legislation was under debate.

The Tamworth board is well run, profitable and efficient. Just because other boards do not have the expertise or financial skills to operate successfully, does not mean that a good operation like Tamworth should be dumped into a remediation process that will not deliver the appropriate outcomes according to my local ratepayers. It is necessary to strengthen the relationship between boards and the Department of Primary Industries, as biosecurity is a key factor that must be a priority for the future. But surely it would help to have the ratepayer base on side to get the best results. Of course, one question constantly keeps being asked: What will happen to the funds and assets of good operations? The Government is saying, "Trust us—we will look after everything properly." The community remembers how electricity county councils were dismembered and their funds moved into Consolidated Revenue. My feedback is that the community does not trust the Government on this issue.

The member for Barwon pointed out that the IMC report on which the Government has based the changes was viewed by the farming community as a draft for further discussion—not as a final document. I fully agree with his point. When the number of boards is cut from 47 to 14, a massive amount of experience and expertise will be lost. Has the Government learned any lessons from the equine influenza outbreak? We need vigilant, experienced people on the ground when serious threats like equine influenza occur. I have listened with interest to the many contributions made to this debate, but the ambiguous ramblings of the member for Coffs Harbour yesterday left me confused as to where he stands on the bill. One of the statements from his contribution was:

The Government has the opportunity to consult in a full and open manner before the legislation reaches the upper House. If the Government meets that challenge the Opposition will support the legislation

Another was:

On the basis of $8.3 million worth of projected savings anyone who read the report would be silly not to support it.

He said also:

We fully support the thrust and the intent of the Integrated Marketing Communications [IMC] report and the State Council in relation to a review of rural lands protection boards across New South Wales.

Then he stated:

The Coalition does not support the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008

Mr Richard Amery: So that cleared that up.

Mr PETER DRAPER: That cleared it up completely. My constituents are telling me, quite loudly, that the opportunity to get this legislation right has been wasted through poor consultation, and I agree because of the number of people who have expressed that sentiment. As I said, the eloquent member for Mount Druitt referred to continuing evolution. Most of us would remember Darwin's the Origin of the Species and the survival of the fittest. I sincerely hope that the remaining board members will be fit enough to survive this process.

Mr Richard Amery: I didn't mean to be that scientific actually.

Mr PETER DRAPER: I thought it was very analytical. He also referred to the board as being a training ground for Nationals members of Parliament. I hope that is not a reason to institute changes like this. I welcome the training grounds. I think they need quite a bit of training, to be honest. In conclusion, let me quote from the report of the Rural Lands Action Group on this issue:

The paper presented to State Council and used by the Minister for Primary Industries as the base for sweeping and radical changes to the RLPB system lacks depth of investigation, and often draws conclusions that lack common sense. It appears to be a discussion paper, and cannot be used sensibly to encompass wholesale changes without further in-depth analysis of the costs of implementation, and the social and environmental effects it will have on country areas of New South Wales.

After receiving a massive amount of feedback from my local community on this issue and after speaking on behalf of the ratepayers who have contacted me—local RLPB members, employees and their families—I strongly oppose this bill in its current form.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [10.49 a.m.]: I speak in debate on the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008. Having visited rural lands protection board [RLPB] offices in my electorate, in particular, in Condobolin and Narrandera, I have several concerns about the proposed reforms in this legislation. There is no doubt that, like most organisations, there is scope for the reform of rural lands protection boards. The issues that have been raised with me usually come from ratepayers and relate to RLPB rates that they have to pay.

Over the past few years many concerns have been raised about the change to the hectare size of rating lots. A number of citrus and grape growers came to see me and asked why they were required to pay RLPB rates for services that they did not require or access—for example, locust control, fox baiting and management of current stock routes. They are happy to pay on a fee-for-use basis but they have raised questions about those rates, which is fair enough. Recently the RLPB resolved an issue confronting the St Francis De Sales Regional College in Leeton, which had been given an RLPB rates notice. There is no doubt that there is scope for reform of the fees that farmers have to pay to rural lands protection boards.

In light of that, if this reform proposal had been accompanied by proposed reductions in the rates that members have to pay, I would have been inclined to support it. If the Government had indicated that additional services would be provided, or that rates would go down, that would have been an incentive to support the bill. Over the past 13 years the track record of the New South Wales Labor Government has revealed that it commissions many reports and states that it will save ratepayers a great deal of money but, in the end, those savings never eventuate, in particular, in the centralisation of services.

Essentially, this proposed reform will reduce the number of RLPBs and centralise them in larger centres, for example, Wagga Wagga, Orange and Dubbo. In New South Wales centralisation rarely leads to improved services and reduced costs, and I give as examples the areas of education and health. When services have been centralised costs do not go down and services do not improve. Those are my major concerns about this legislation and that is why I will not support it. I support reform, but nothing in this reform package has given me any comfort. Costs will not be reduced and services will not be increased. The Auditor-General's report into World Youth Day, which was released yesterday, revealed the Government's commitment to that event. Initially it was meant to be only $20 million and the Government said that it would generate a number of benefits for New South Wales. World Youth Day ended up costing $100 million or $120 million.

Mr Steve Whan: It was $100 million.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr John Williams: You are not attacking World Youth Day.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: No, I am attacking the New South Wales Government for getting most of its research and information wrong, as it got it wrong with World Youth Day. The report that has been commissioned by the Government has forecast savings to rural lands protection boards, but we have witnessed on many occasions that any information given to us by the New South Wales Government cannot be relied upon. I do not take great stock of any report that recommends reform in this area. I am concerned about the loss of jobs in country New South Wales. I have been informed that about 50 jobs will be lost in towns in country New South Wales that can ill afford to lose them. In Condobolin the RLPB will lose 1½ full-time equivalent jobs and 13 jobs will be lost as a result of the proposed closure of the Department of Primary Industries field station. That represents the loss of 14½ jobs in a town that has suffered a great deal as a result of this drought.

On the issue of job losses alone it is difficult for me to support the reforms in this bill. In addition, we have been given no reliable information by the Government that this will reduce rates and result in the provision of cheaper or better services. For those two reasons other Coalition members and I will not support this legislation. I commend the work of the Condobolin Rural Lands Protection Board. Last week I had a conversation with some of its members. They do great work in trying circumstances. The recent locust plague prompted the RLPG to put up a map showing daily changes in locust locations. Rural lands protection boards do a terrific job to help the farmers of New South Wales.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [10.55 a.m.]: I congratulate the Goulburn Rural Lands Protection Board, which does a phenomenal job in an area that has had to carry some heavy burdens, for example, the ovine Johne's disease that scoured that area for so long. Central to this bill are the proposed amalgamations. Some people see amalgamations as cost savings and others see them as centralisation. Indeed, amalgamations can be both. The amalgamations proposed in this bill should enable some economies of scale and, in particular, economies of scale in administration. However, economies of scale to one person could represent a job loss to another.

Local graziers and farmers in the Goulburn district want staff employed at the Goulburn Rural Lands Protection Board properly remunerated and afforded workplace protection. Currently, Goulburn Rural Lands Protection Board administrative staff do not receive wages consistent with public service rates. If the newly amalgamated boards are to attract and retain high-quality staff, some of those savings could be used to better support staff and ensure a high standard of service. It is entirely unclear from the bill whether savings will be used for staffing and service improvements, or merely fee reductions. Many farmers in every part of New South Wales would welcome fee reductions, but local communities would welcome better standards of service.

I hope that the amalgamations do not remove technical officers from local areas—for example, the local veterinarian in the Goulburn area must be retained. If the veterinarian's position moves to the new regional headquarters it would be a tragedy for farmers in our region, which is a leading beef and sheep area. Farmers with only a few hectares complain that the current RLPB set-up does not meet their needs. They are hoping and expecting that these changes will mean greater access for them. The Goulburn board has carried the load for ovine Johne's disease, the National Livestock Identification Scheme, as well as a growing number of State regulations imposed by the Department of Primary Industries.

All boards, including the Goulburn board, believe that the staff available cannot hope to administer the increasing number of regulations to a satisfactory level. Instead, the RLPBs have become a cheap way for the Department of Primary Industries to impose regulations without having to find the resources to ensure that they are properly administered and policed. In these amalgamations it is important to ensure that local knowledge is not lost, or that the culture of vital local commitment is replaced with a culture of remoteness and disinterest. If the move from local area health boards to regional area health services is anything to go by, regionalisation could represent the same disaster for local animal health and pest control standards as the regionalisation of health has for local hospital service standards.

Graziers in the Goulburn area have told me that their local RLPB is carrying a heavy administrative workload, in particular, in the area of financial reporting requirements. Again, one might have thought that with advances in computer technology it might not have been the load that it once was. Sadly, the answer seems to be no. It is imperative that these reforms provide an opportunity for improved processes and greater support from the department, which along with the taxpayers of New South Wales, is the grateful recipient of the free administration and management of rural pastoral lands.

In these circumstances it is vital that the bill be held over until consultation with local communities and stakeholder groups can be completed to the extent proposed by the Leader of The Nationals. Governments only get so many chances at reform and to make a mistake now is to condemn livestock management in New South Wales for years to come. It is vital that local knowledge and commitment to livestock health standards are maintained and that in reforming our boards those crucial ingredients are not lost. The best public administration is administration with public support and commitment. The boards are a high-quality and cost-effective example of this and, for the sake of further consultation, it would be irresponsible if the Government were to proceed with this bill at this time.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.00 a.m.]: I acknowledge the contributions of all members to the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008, in particular, the shadow Minister, who led for the Opposition. I, too, have received correspondence on this important issue, including correspondence from the Chairman of the Wagga Wagga Rural Lands Protection Board, Mr John Walker, who expressed concerns about the bill. Directors of the board were concerned about changes to the board that will significantly affect service delivery to ratepayers and centralisation of financial land management functions to Orange that will lead to approximately 50 customer service officers and a minimum of 33 managers or executive officers losing their jobs. They stated that the current 47 boards would be amalgamated into 14 regions, with a main office employing a general manager and an estimated two customer service officers.

Currently, offices will remain open at this stage as so-called shopfronts, with a manager and two to three customer service officers, but in future they will have only one. In many cases this will have a major effect on small rural towns. They also state that district veterinarians and rangers throughout the region will not be affected by the change. Boards currently pay little or no payroll tax. With the proposed changes the regions on average will pay $65,000 each per annum, making the combined payroll tax for the State RLPB system of $910,000. Payroll tax was not even discussed in the review; merely estimated savings. It was suggested that any increase in costs was summarily dismissed as not being significant. The State Council of the Rural Lands Protection Boards cannot answer questions asked about this matter.

The directors of the Wagga Wagga Rural Lands Protection Board wanted me to ensure that their comments were placed on the record. In doing so, I acknowledge the great work of local RLPB staff, management and board. I have a good professional relationship with them. As a landholder, I understand the importance of the work they do on the ground. Currently they are fighting the locust plague. Indeed, this morning when I rang home we had locusts in the paddocks, as have many others. Rural communities face many challenges: if it is not ovine Johne's disease it is horse influenza or some other outbreak. I place on record the detailed submission of the Rural Land Action Group in response to the Integrated Marketing Communications review. It is important to do so because, although no person would be opposed to finding efficiencies in the system, these efficiencies must be productive and progressive, something this bill will not achieve for the reasons previously outlined. Much more could have been done, and indeed people have written in to the Land calling for the bill to be delayed to provide for proper and professional consultation. The submission states:

The RLPB system is well serviced by locally based Boards who have intimate knowledge of the areas they manage. When given autonomy to manage their areas local directors, with strong community service intentions, do a very good job. This is the corner stone of the system.

A regional network comprising eight regions already exists, and this network should be strengthened to allow a more formal level of cooperation by forming regional boards. The regional boards would be advisory in function, and would meet biannually to discuss their board's financial position, animal health and TSR plans, voluntary amalgamations, resource sharing possibilities, and any challenges faced at regional level.

The regional board would consist of two directors and the manager/administration officer from each board in the region.

The combination of local and regional Boards will continue to strengthen the RLPB by ensuring that decisions are based on local knowledge, and continue the community building strength of the system

General comments on the IMC reportGeneral comments on the IMC report

The IMC report has outlined very radical changes to the Rural Lands Protection Board system but has given no consideration to the ramifications of those changes on the very people who fund the system, rural ratepayers. It would appear to be a poorly thought out paper designed to fit a preconceived system more suited to strengthening bureaucratic intervention, and retracting representation by ratepayers by reducing numbers of Directors by 80%.

The report is regarded by the action group as a discussion paper, lacking detail upon which to make the decisions that have been made by the Minister for Primary Industries. The conclusions drawn are tenuous at best, deceitful at times, and without credibility where financial costings are incomplete and inadequate.

The Rural Land Action Group was formed to address the inadequacies of the report and the subsequent decisions that were made because it is our fear that the implementation of the review findings will significantly impact on rural ratepayers, particularly the professional farmers, while not significantly addressing the problems within the system that lead to the review in the first place.

IMC reported in their preamble that "it is appropriate finally to pay tribute to the massive contribution made by volunteer Board directors and their committed teams of skilled local staff across the decades. Historically, these people have delivered massive benefits to the State of NSW and to Australia and their collective and individual contribution should not be underestimated." In this vein we feel our collective contribution can continue as we attempt to guide the present government to accept that they have made a hasty, ill-advised, and untested decision to accept IMC's findings without proper consultation with the stakeholders involved.

The review identified that the great strengths of the RLPB system include:

? Local knowledge
? Local vigilance
? Local response by professionals
? Immediate response capacity
? Community building

The Rural Land Action Group commend the report on these findings, but believe the implementation of the restructure will destroy the very strengths that have been outlined. The group is very mindful that these strengths must be maintained, despite realizing that changes are needed to the system.

The group has been mindful that any changes to the system must encompass economic, social and environmental rationale, whilst the IMC paper omitted any social and environmental discussion and that their economic discussion was based upon flawed financial analysis that stemmed from State Council. The repeated stating of cost-cutting measures of $8 to $8.3 million has since been refuted publicly despite it being a cornerstone of the argument for change. Once that assumption was dropped the implementation process should also have been stopped until proper cost analysis was carried out.

I will lay the report upon the table for the edification of members and administrative officers involved in drafting the legislation. The report continues:

Major recommendations of the IMC ReviewMajor recommendations of the IMC Review

IMC recommend the RLPB be renamed. The only argument formed by IMC for this statement is one anonymous quote from a submission of the NSW Government's Review of the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998.

One person's opinion, as far as the IMC team is concerned, carries enough weight to change an entire corporate name, without regard for the cost of changing that name, which could be into the millions of dollars by the time every sign in the State is changed, and without any regard to the cost borne by ratepayers to market that name, and logo, in the past few years. The cost to ratepayers of changing the name somehow was neglected by IMC in its review. The fact that IMC could not come up with an appropriate new name is noted by the action group.

We agree that part of the core business of the system going forward is to be as New South Wales's advisor, regulator and facilitator in animal health and in pest animal and insect management. We do this now. We must be mindful that New South Wales also has a large number of private veterinarians whose livelihood is based on animal health functions and we must not be seen to compete for their work.

The memoranda of understanding between the Board network and DPI has long been overdue for renegotiation because of the significant public good undertaken by the Board vets to help keep significant disease risks at bay, and who are required instantly by State agencies if the State is threatened by a disease outbreak. This became abundantly evident in the outbreak of equine influenza from a government quarantine station last year. The EI outbreak was a good wake up call to address possible confusion in the chains of command for exotic disease control in Australia.

IMC recommends that the number of local Boards be reduced from 47 to 14. The Rural Lands Action Group strongly opposes this radical shift for a number of reasons:

Ratepayers representation is cut by a reduction of elected directors by 80% in this radical plan. That means that 80% of the wise and experienced decision making is cut from the system. As IMC realised these people have delivered massive benefits to the State of New South Wales

The areas covered by the new Boards are vast. As an example the Western board runs from the Queensland border down to the Victorian border. The dilution of local knowledge, local vigilance and immediate response capacity, the identified strengths of the present board system, will be severe. Directors will not know their Board area well enough to make informed, efficient decisions. Ratepayers will bear the brunt of poor decisions.

Directors will move from providing a community service to part-time employment. Part of the strength of the present Board system is that directors fulfil their obligations because of their desire to see the best possible outcomes for the community they live in

The Action Group believes that some amalgamations would occur under a voluntary scheme. Boards that do not consider themselves to be viable would be encouraged to amalgamate rather than be forced to by the Minister. This could be achieved within the existing regional setup of eight regions where cooperation has already improved the use of resources and could be expanded under the watchful eye of the experienced directors of the boards within the region.

IMC have, we believe, made the fatal flaw of expecting good financial viability to come from increased size of Boards alone. It does not happen that way.

The document goes on to explain that. Mr Acting-Speaker, I seek an extension of time.

Extension of time not granted.

It is shame that I have not been given the extension of time I sought, because the document outlines many more concerns expressed by the Rural Lands Action Group. Given that I have limited time, I will lay the document upon the table for members' edification. The conclusion of the document states:

The paper presented to the State Council and used by the Minister for Primary Industries as the base for sweeping and radical changes to the RLPB system lacks depth of investigation and often draws conclusions that lack common sense. As previously stated it appears to be a discussion paper and cannot be used sensibly to encompass wholesale changes without further in depth analysis of the costs of implementation and the social and environmental effects it will have in country areas of NSW.

The very strengths of the present system will be thrown out because IMC have not been vigorous enough in their analysis and have indeed used State Council staff costings instead of their own findings.

This action group proposes as an alternative plan that all local boards be retained, but with the view to establishing which boards could voluntarily amalgamate. The existing regional areas would be strengthened by the creation of boards of advice who would meet at six month intervals. These boards would comprise two directors and the manager from each of the boards within a region. The boards would be responsible for receiving a monthly report from each board, including financial statements, TSR activities and conditions, pest animal and insect activities and animal health activities, all in line with plans of management. This board would help establish voluntary amalgamations where it was deemed appropriate.

In conclusion, I note that the Parliamentary Secretary the member for Monaro copped a swipe from writers in today's Land. He will continue to do so if he continues to follow the path of implementing legislation without decent consultation.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [11.15 a.m.]: It is a very sad day for rural New South Wales when a member is gagged when he seeks to represent the people of the Wagga Wagga area by putting the case on behalf of the rural lands protection board in their area. It is a very sad day when the so-called member for Country Labor gags the member for Wagga Wagga when he is succinctly putting the case on behalf of the people of Wagga Wagga. It is a disgrace. I am sure the people of the rural areas of this State will never forget that, and I hope they do not. It is a disgrace that members cannot have their say on such an important issue.

Mr Steve Whan: Fifteen minutes and three hours debate.

Mr Thomas George: It does not matter. The Parliamentary Secretary says that we have been debating this bill for three hours. I want him to get his facts right for a start. Secondly, it is such an important issue for members on this side of the House, together with the Independents. It is not just The Nationals. Together with the Independents, we are trying to put the rural voice across in this House, and it is a disgrace that we have been gagged. I place that on record with no fear of contradiction.

A number of members have highlighted the overview and objects of the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008, so there is no need for me to reiterate them. However, I point out that it is not just The Nationals who are trying to voice the concerns of the people of regional New South Wales; it is also the Independents. Sadly, this Government has not been listening to what the people of regional areas of the State have been saying with regard to the bill. They do not dispute that there should be some reform. However, it is the process that is in question. That is what we on this side of the House have been harping about, and still we cannot get the message through. The reaction of the Parliamentary Secretary the member for Monaro shows that Government members have not been listening. I hope that we can go on with this debate for another three hours, but I think it will be a waste of time anyway.

As I think all members in this debate have highlighted, we are concerned about the loss of local experience and knowledge. I will highlight a few concerns about the effect of the legislation on the North Coast of New South Wales. Originally the reforms covered areas as far down the coast as Coffs Harbour. However, I am pleased that commonsense has prevailed and it now covers the Grafton, Casino, Tweed and Lismore Rural Lands Protection Boards. However, there are many concerns about the legislation, and I will highlight some of them. I want to touch on the contribution to this debate of the member for Mt Druitt, for whom I have a lot of respect.

The handling of the recent equine influenza outbreak by the Department of Primary Industries and the handling of the outbreak we had at Newcastle by New South Wales Agriculture, as it then was—referred to by the member for Mount Druitt—was an unbelievable mighty job, but they were able to work with local experience. At that time we had officers all around the state but sadly today they do not exist. Those officers have either taken redundancies or their positions have become vacant. Those positions are gradually being wound back in country and regional New South Wales and, as a result, we are losing local expertise and knowledge. I hate to think of what would happen now in country and regional New South Wales if we were to suffer any outbreaks without that local expertise and knowledge.

I heard it said that originally this was done on police boundaries—they are out of date today. The police boundaries were splitting towns, and that is not on. I hope common sense will prevail. We draw boundary lines on a map but those boundaries have split towns in two: half a town is in one rural lands protection board area and the other half in another. That is not sensible. Wherever I have been around the State listening to issues these matters have been highlighted to me. I met with the Casino Rural Lands Protection Board and the Tweed Lismore Rural Lands Protection Board. I want to place on record the concerns of those boards, most of which have already been highlighted by other speakers. Two thirds of all ratepayers in the amalgamated Casino Rural Lands Protection Board, Tweed Lismore Rural Lands Protection Board and Grafton Rural Lands Protection Board area will pay minimum rates. What that will do to those organisations financially is of major concern.

One of the key elements of the review was based on the poor financial viability of a handful of boards in this State, and many boards have projected budget deficits. I have been told that was often caused by the boards being forced to keep rates down. Minimum rates and service fees are outside the control of the individual boards, and the financial stress this has caused has been a major concern to boards on the coast. Rates will need to rise to cover the loss of minimum rates in some of these areas. Many people already object to the rural lands protection board rates. I do not know how they are going to pick up any losses they have. The decentralised administration has not been costed or scoped in relation to what functions will be carried out. To prove that it will result in savings of staff, premises and overheads there needs to be further consultation at a local level to sort through these issues. The speed of implementation has also been a major concern to all the boards that I have spoken to.

I recently attended a meeting at Legume and Liston—part of the Tenterfield area, which the Speaker and I represent—where concern was expressed because that board has already been through an unsuccessful amalgamation affecting the Tenterfield end. The Tweed Lismore Rural Lands Protection Board is concerned that the review was undertaken by IMC at the request of the State Council and that the State Council presented the recommendations to the Minister with no consultation at a local level. The board has many reservations regarding the changes, as they appear to be inaccurate and uninformed. That is the strong message that has been coming from all these boards. The directors I met with believe the projected savings of $8 million to $8.3 million stated in the report are incorrect and unsubstantiated—

Mr John Williams: Probably interest on the $50 million.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: That is right. The report included a disclaimer regarding the figures. Figures quoted to me as savings in manager salaries and on-costs of $80,000 per manager were believed by the two boards and their executives to be absurd and grossly overstated. The figures given of 47 managers on $70,000 per year is incorrect; most are on less than $70,000 and nine of them are on approximately $45,000 per year. Due to a lack of consultation the figures are based on assumptions and lack facts to back them. The boards also made the point that if they were a board of management of a public company which took a similar proposal to an annual general meeting they would have been laughed out of the meeting by shareholders as being most unprofessional and incompetent, and not having any sound financial figures and future projected outcomes to support such a restructure. The figures also did not include the cost of redundancies, or the additional cost of payroll tax.

The issue of payroll tax is continually being raised. That is another major burden that they look like being forced into. Initial figures for the North Coast regional board show that it will be worse off financially than if the three boards operated individually. This will ultimately result in increased costs for the ratepayer, which I touched on earlier. They believe that the amalgamated board will be more costly to run than it would be to run the three boards individually.

The Tweed Lismore Rural Lands Protection Board believe if the minimum rateable area of 10 hectares is introduced it will mean a great loss of revenue: many smaller areas exist within the north-eastern corner and the landholders still require a service in many respects but they will not all be ratepayers. There are a number of small unit holders in the Northern Rivers area. Ever since I was elected Laurie Stubbs has been making representations to me, to the rural lands protection board and to other areas, together with submissions to inquiries relating to these smaller areas. A lot of those small block holders believe they do not get any benefit whatsoever from paying rural lands protection board fees and they object to it. That is not only isolated to the northern part of the State but applies right up and down the eastern seaboard.

Mr Steve Whan: That is why we are making it 10 hectares.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: Yes, but that then reduces the income. There are some small landholdings that have goats. In my area we have problems with ticks. I can assure the Government that it will have the greatest war on its hands if it tries to hand over the responsibilities for tick control to the rural lands protection board. That is not going to be accepted. That is a major concern to all stockholders, not only in my area but across New South Wales also. The problems associated with ticks cannot be handed over to the rural lands protection board. As I have said, the Speaker and I represent the Tenterfield area anda big part of the rural lands protection board is in that area. People have expressed strong concerns about the shopfront now closing at two o'clock. I did not think that the shopfronts would be interfered with, but they are closing at two o'clock.

Mr Steve Whan: The change has not happened yet.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: I know, but an administrator was appointed and now the shopfront at Tenterfield is closing at two o'clock. Already it is an STD call to Tenterfield and now people will have to go to Armidale, which is another 200 kilometres down the road from Tenterfield. The local communities have to work through the many issues in consultation with their local boards. I join with my colleagues in saying that reform is necessary, but the consultation process must be tidied up.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.30 a.m.], in reply: I thank all members who participated in the debate on the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008. A number of members participated in the debate, including 10 Opposition members and two Independents. Despite the Opposition's cries that they have not had enough time, their voices have been heard for more than three hours on this bill. Most people in New South Wales would say that if they could not get their point across in that time they probably are not effective representatives. There were a number of positive contributions in the debate, and I want to highlight some matters in reply. The Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008 will make much-needed changes to the rural lands protection board system that will benefit farmers and ratepayers across New South Wales. These reforms will increase the level of services that are provided to ratepayers, and ratepayers will benefit directly from a reduction in administration costs and the reallocation of resources to front-line services.

During the debate the shadow Minister for Primary Industries and his colleagues raised a number issues, many of which were based on misinformation. It was a bit of a last-ditch effort by some members who are resisting change and want to hijack some of the reforms. Previously the shadow Minister has strongly supported the reforms, and in his speech he essentially supported the reforms. He said that the Opposition supports the reforms and the bulk of the Government's initiatives but they should not happen now. Unfortunately, that seemed to be the Opposition's theme. It is an easy way out for an Opposition to say that there should be reform but not to offer an alternative or give an opinion on what should happen. They just oppose it because they think there are a few easy votes in it. It is a cheap, cowardly way to address a difficult issue. We see that from them over and over again. On 6 June 2008 the shadow Minister said:

It was essential for the RLPB State Council to commission this independent review

The shadow Minister said this on the basis that:

Some areas of the RLPB network were financially unstable, not prepared for modern technological changes, and there was a pressing need to develop a stronger chain of command system for emergency animal disease outbreaks such as Equine Influenza.

Further in support of the reforms he said:

The downsizing of the number of local boards from 47 to 14 will make the level of services more cost-efficient, freeing up money within the RLPB system to increase opportunities for future development.

He applauded the State Council for taking this bold step. Now he and his colleagues do not have the courage to vote for the reforms that he so vigorously supported only a few months ago.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: The Parliamentary Secretary is misleading the House. The comments made by the shadow Minister were made before the findings of the report. We now are hearing from our constituents that there has not been any post-consultation on the report. We are representing their interests.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! There is no point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary may continue.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: The Parliamentary Secretary is introducing new material into the debate. He is not entitled to do so under parliamentary procedures. I ask that you refer him back to the bill before the House, which we have debated.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I get unlimited time in reply, so you are not wasting my time by taking points of order.

Mr Andrew Constance: I am not wasting time.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! There is no point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary has not introduced any amendments or changes to the bill. The debate was wide-ranging and a fair degree of latitude was extended to all members who contributed to it. The Parliamentary Secretary has the call.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Bega clearly has no comprehension of the standing orders of this place, despite nearly six years as a member. He should go and do some homework. I am quoting the shadow Minister, who applauded the State Council for taking this bold step and went on to say:

The recommendations laid down by the IMC review—

the member for Murray-Darling believes that the shadow Minister had not seen the review at that time, so he must be very clever to know the recommendations—

will make the RLPB system more effective and definitive in its role as New South Wales's adviser, regulator and facilitator in animal health, and I welcome their initiative.

I turn now to specific issues raised in the debate. Half-truths have been made about travelling stock reserves. Travelling stock reserves are Crown land, whether they are managed by the rural lands protection boards or by the Department of Lands. Contrary to the comments of Opposition members, including the member for Murray-Darling, this bill does not change anything about travelling stock reserves. Recommendations in the reports suggested reform in this area. I can inform members that under the current system of rural lands protection boards 18 boards have asked for 198 travelling stock reserves to be withdrawn and passed over to the Department of Lands. They have done so because they consider they are unable to afford the management of the reserves and that the reserves would be better managed by the department.

It is not new for the management of travelling stock reserves to be transferred to the Department of Lands; it happens every year. The only change that is being proposed—an administrative change, which is not in this legislation—is that each board review the way in which travelling stock reserves are currently being used and managed. It is a very sensible approach. I inform the member for Murray-Darling, as he should be aware, many reserves in the Western Division are not affected at all by this process. I assure the House that the Government is committed to ensuring that those travelling stock reserves that are transferred to the Department of Lands are available to farmers and drovers in times of need.

Contrary to comments by previous speakers, considerable consultation has taken place on this process. In late 2007 the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards recognised the need for the system of rural lands protection boards, which it oversees, to be reviewed. That is why in 2007 the boards provided input into the terms of reference for the review. Integrated Marketing Communications [IMC] undertook the review, with 67 submissions from New South Wales Farmers, the Department of Primary Industries and a range of others. Following the release of the report in June 2008 the State Council continued to consult with boards on a number of significant implementation issues, including external boundaries for districts, office locations, district names, internal boundaries and organisational names. That is reflected in this legislation. The reform agenda presented in the bill dates back to about 2003. A statutory review of the Rural Lands Protection Act was undertaken in 2004. That review included a number of groups, such as the Department of Primary Industries, the Cabinet Office—

Mr Andrew Constance: It has taken you four years.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The Opposition interjects that it has taken four years. One minute Opposition members say it is too quick; the next they say it is too long. They are bouncing around all over the place. They are the flip-flop party.

Mr Kevin Humphries: Point of order: The Parliamentary Secretary is misleading the House. My point of order also relates to relevance. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the IMC report was presented in June. Basically, the transparency and consultation ceased after that. We have offered bipartisanship in this matter and the Government has refused it.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Kevin Humphries: You are leaning on the State Council and you will get a poor result.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! The member for Barwon will resume his seat.

Mr Kevin Humphries: You are breaking down the strengths that this system was designed to set up.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! The member for Barwon will resume his seat. I call the member for Barwon to order. The Parliamentary Secretary has the call.

Mr STEVE WHAN: What amazes me is some of the comments we have heard from the member for Barwon and others on the other side of the House. On the one hand, they say that they agree that reform is needed—and the shadow Minister basically agreed with everything in his speech on this bill—but, on the other hand, they say that they do not think any change should occur. A number of Opposition members spoke about fewer eyes on the ground and were crying out about the loss of directors. In this State at the moment there are 380 directors and 400 staff on rural lands protections boards.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Lismore compares this to the board of a public company. He said they would be laughed out. A board of a public company with 380 directors and 400 staff would certainly be laughed out.

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: My point of order is on relevance and on the Parliamentary Secretary misleading the House. My comments referred to taking a proposal to a board without proper consultation.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! There is no point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary may continue.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The Opposition's absence of knowledge of standing orders always amazes me. I would like to deal with some of the issues raised, but if I do not get time to deal with them I apologise to the people who read this later because this debate needs to be concluded this morning. Locals in my area have raised some issues with me and one related to disease control—an issue raised also by the Murray-Darling. The member for Murray-Darling and others seem to think that by making an area bigger the incidence of disease-free areas—for instance in Bombala, which is free from bovine Johne's disease—will change. In fact, the disease control boundaries will stay; they will not change. The member obviously did not understand that.

I would like to raise a few other issues in the very short time I have left to speak. The member for Coffs Harbour raised a number of issues. Unfortunately, because of the constant interjections I am not going to have a chance to deal with those. Some of those issues will be raised in the upper House. The member for Coffs Harbour and the member for Burrinjuck talked about disease control. There are still property identification codes, and ratepayers on land under 10 hectares will still be part of disease control. Many of the issues raised by the Opposition about biosecurity are not relevant. The member for Murray-Darling said the cost of permits is too high. They will be exactly the same as they are at the moment. The Opposition clearly does not understand that.

Mr John Williams: Point of order: Once again, the Parliamentary Secretary is misleading the House. We are talking about uncontrolled stock movements in these areas—nothing to do with some arrangement or some dream that he has got.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! There is no point of order. The member for Murray-Darling will resume his seat.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The agreement in principle speech and the response forms part of the legislation. The Minister has clearly indicated that issues were raised in debate that he will not respond to. It is not good enough that they are responded to in another place. The issues were raised here; they should be responded to here. I ask you to direct the Parliamentary Secretary to respond to those issues we raised. They are serious issues and we need to have them responded to so that members making a decision on this legislation will have the agreement in principle debate to refer to. If there are consequences of this debate that are taken before a court of law—for example, on the fact that there is still a notional and current capacity within the legislation—we need to ensure that those issues are addressed by the Parliamentary Secretary. I ask that you direct the Parliamentary Secretary to address those issues.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! There is no point of order. I cannot direct the Parliamentary Secretary to respond in a particular way.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I will continue my remarks at another time. We have seen a ludicrous and juvenile performance from Opposition members, who clearly are not fit to be members of this place.

Mr Andrew Constance: Mr Acting-Speaker, I draw attention your attention to the time.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! I am well aware of the time.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I would have liked to respond more fully to this bill. Unfortunately, I will have to continue my reply at a later stage. I am happy to finish my reply tomorrow and we can vote on the bill next week if that is what the Opposition wants. The member for Murray-Darling and others raised some issues about the size of boards—they liked the smaller boards in the area that the member for Murray-Darling represents.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.