Protection Of The Environment Administration Bill (No. 2)

Debate resumed from 26th September.

Page 2259

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.53]: I have a great deal of pleasure in continuing the remarks I began two weeks ago relating to this important legislation. I intend to limit my remarks because I am looking forward to the maiden contributions of my colleague the honourable member for Penrith and my colleague the honourable member for Manly. Before continuing my remarks I wish to make a comment about what I consider to be an alteration to the nature of the debate on this important bill. I am much more confident now than I was a fortnight ago that the Opposition and others will get support for a number of amendments to be moved in Committee. Over the past fortnight we have seen a dramatic turn of events in this State and with the departure of the honourable member for Davidson from the Government ranks we see the opportunity for a much more effective Environment Protection Authority in this State.

It certainly was not lost on me, as I am sure it was not lost on Government members and in particular on the Minister for the Environment, that a number of the comments made at the time by the honourable member for Davidson related to the future of the environment in New South Wales and the need for greater environmental protection. The honourable member for Davidson has certainly said on at least one occasion since that time, and I think in my presence, that there is no doubt he was very confident that the Minister for the Environment had every intention of ensuring that we have a very strong Environment Protection Authority in this State and that he was keen for that to go to Cabinet. Of course it went to Cabinet but the Minister was unable to guarantee the numbers at that level. Despite the fact that I am sure the Minister for the Environment will make a number of disparaging comments about me in his reply, I know from listening to people such as the honourable member for Davidson that at least the Minister's heart was in the right place when he took this matter to Cabinet.

I want to continue the comments I was making about the honourable member for Tamworth. I do not intend to go on at length about this. I want to say to the honourable member that he has been quoted publicly as someone who is almost one out in this Chamber on having great concerns about the limited Environment Protection Authority that this legislation will create. He is trying to link the creation of this authority with the debate which is raging at the Federal level about the issue of economically and ecologically sustainable development. It is unfortunate that a fortnight ago my remarks had to be cut short. I commend to the honourable member for Tamworth a more learned attention to the debate that is occurring. It is not sufficient in this day and age to be swept away by prejudices, particularly those being shown by the business community at present and the fears expressed by them that an effective Environment Protection Authority in New South Wales will destroy potential for economic development in this State. In particular I refer the honourable member to comments made as recently as 23rd September by the Federal Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Ros Kelly. She was trying to destroy the myth about jobs and the environment. It is almost as if an inevitable choice has to occur. She tried to explain the ecologically sustainable development process in which the Federal Government is engaged by saying:

The ecologically sustainable development process will set a framework for integrated economic and environmental considerations at the national level. The aim of ecologically sustainable development, which coincides with the ultimate objective of not only environmental

Page 2260
policy but economic and social policy as well, is to achieve changes in the patterns of economic development by wiser use of resources. It is not about the rejection of development itself.

I believe that is the great trap that some people in our community, including the honourable member for Tamworth, find themselves in today. We have only to look at some of the very important environmental issues that the national Government, and I hope the New South Wales Government, is trying to address - environmental issues that will improve the economy of this State. For example, if we take steps to improve land degradation, that must inevitably translate into increased agricultural productivity. If we take steps to improve the quality of air and water, that must eventually translate into an improvement of the level of health in our community. That will save people such as the Minister for Health Services Management some of the money that he is constantly bleating about trying to save. If we engage in major commercial activities in the environmental area, such as the Memtec initiative so far as the Water Board is concerned, it can only help the state of our economy.

We should not fall into the trap of being frightened about the need for the Environment Protection Authority. Members such as the honourable member for Tamworth must not be oblivious to the very great environmental issues in their own electorates. I remind the honourable member of issues such as effluent disposal from the Fielders Goodman plant in his own electorate. That is a very important company not only in Tamworth but in the State, but a company that nevertheless has important effluent disposal problems. We cannot ignore those sorts of issues and the Environment Protection Authority will not ignore them. The honourable member has only to look at the other local issues, such as the forestry management practices of the Peel County Council, to realise how close to home he has some very pressing environmental issues which he cannot afford to ignore when he is making comments on something such as the Environment Protection Authority.

I now want to make some comments about what is happening to the national Environment Protection Authority. I was very disappointed that, even when the Minister for the Environment had the opportunity to make a second ministerial speech on this issue, he did not talk freely about the need to relate what we are doing in New South Wales to the initiatives of the Federal Labor Government. He may be a bit disparaging of those initiatives, but I do not think he can afford to be. It is something we need to support strongly. I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister. I know he is always open to suggestions from the Opposition on how we can improve that Environment Protection Authority and relate it to what is occurring on a national level. A close relationship has to be developed between the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority that is being set up by the Federal Government and the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. Many elements of the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority will have to be undertaken co-operatively with State agencies - for example, state of the environment reporting. For those members who are not aware of what this is, it is all about obtaining a reliable set of data on all manner of environmental matters, such as air quality, water quality, conservation status of all ecosystems, abundance of plant and animal species, and environmental aspects of the marine environment.

Page 2261
A lot of this data is already being collected by State land management agencies - for example, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Water Resources, the Forestry Commission and the Department of Planning. The Commonwealth also collects that data. Of course, the other major source of that data is academic institutions. The Commonwealth will need co-operation from the States to draw all that information together in a common form. It is not appropriate for the New South Wales authority just to go off and do its own thing, irrespective of what is happening at a Federal level. These days information in our society is seen to be as valuable as gold. I do not believe that the obtaining of information will be an easy matter. Unfortunately, we already have a precedent. Earlier this week the New South Wales Government withdrew from the national endangered species program. We do not need that sort of leadership on important environmental issues. We want to make sure that we will not go our own way in relation to the Environment Protection Authority as well.

According to the Minister for the Environment the draft intergovernmental agreement on the environment, which the Premier is very committed to implementing, has a schedule on data collection and handling. This schedule nominates the Australian Land Information Council as the co-ordinating body. The Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority would then use the data to generate state of the environment reports. So I think we have to discourage overlapping, which could occur if the New South Wales Government does not commit itself to close co-operation at a Federal level. All States except the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth have their own environmental impact statement legislation. The Commonwealth legislation is the Environment Assessment (Impact of Proposals) Act. It applies to Commonwealth activities on Commonwealth land and, in some cases in which a Commonwealth decision is involved, export licences and, for example, the Foreign Investment Review Board. Work has been going on at the national and State ministerial level over the past year or so to develop a common set of principles and guidelines to apply to environmental impact assessment at State and Federal level. Again, this will probably end up as a schedule to the intergovernmental agreement on the environment. There will need to be close co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth to ensure that this work is finalised. Any agreement finally registered and in practice will require continuing monitoring. Proposals for environmental impact assessment which are being debated include the setting up of time limits for all stages of the environmental impact assessment process. This could lead to inadequate assessments unless close co-operation is to occur.

Another initiative that the Federal Government is considering at present is the establishment of a public emissions register. It is intended that the Commonwealth Environmental Protection Authority will maintain a register recording the emission and storage of hazardous materials. The register should be able to tell us how much of a particular substance is being stored, where it is being stored and by whom. It should also be able to tell us what is coming out of chimneys and effluent pipes. Some of this information is collected by some States. In some States, for example, New South Wales, we might have some of that information but we are not ready to share it with anyone. But we have nothing like a comprehensive register at a national level. It is intended that the public emissions register at the Federal level would initially be
Page 2262
voluntary, based on what is being done at present in the United States of America. Again, the success of this register would depend heavily on State co-operation in gathering and, where necessary, verifying data. The register will also put pressure on the State to provide more field staff for monitoring and for site inspections. It may well force the States to take more prosecution action against polluters. Therefore, it is important that the Minister for the Environment, in his final summing up, reassure us that we will work closely with the Commonwealth to develop these further initiatives.

The second stage of the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority proposal is a ministerial council or some equivalent body. This body's job would be to agree to the establishment of national standards and guidelines for air and water quality, the clean-up of contaminated sites, the management and disposal of hazardous wastes and other important issues. This body would also co-ordinate research between the various State and Commonwealth environment protection agencies. Decisions on standards would be by a simple majority of Ministers. Membership of this body would be the same as the present ministerial council. Clearly, this approach to the setting of national standards can only work with the co-operation of the States. The States would be primarily responsible for the implementation and the enforcement of those standards. Of course, this would be one of the functions of the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. There is discussion at present in the context of the intergovernmental agreement on the environment that the Commonwealth and the States should agree to establish a uniform hierarchy of offences and penalties for breaches of laws which are created to implement agreed standards and guidelines. The development of this uniform hierarchy will be one of the goals of the ministerial council.

The environment movement believes that the ministerial council approach will prevent the rapid adoption of decent standards. It believes this will lead to lowest common denominator standards. It has put up an alternative model which would give the Commonwealth far greater unilateral power. One of the amendments which the Opposition will be seeking to move will attempt to ensure that New South Wales will not be bound by inferior standards, even if the Federal Government changes in the future and a government with a lesser commitment to the environment is elected. One of the issues that is being looked at by the States is whether any standards adopted should be absolute or minimum standards. A safer environmental approach would be to say, "We will follow the United States model where the Federal Environment Protection Authority sets minimum standards and individual States are free to adopt more rigid standards if they want to". A conservation group preferred this approach because it provides a safety net if the national standards are too weak. Industry, of course, would loathe it because it fears that the States will compete with one another and have tougher standards, particularly if decisions on standards are left in the hands of the environment protection authorities. One unresolved issue is how much freedom the State and the Commonwealth environment protection authorities will have to set standards without reference to a higher authority. Again, this is an issue that is being negotiated as part of the intergovernmental agreement on the environment. The present draft would give the ministerial council the legislative power to establish standards. I believe that is something that will be hotly disputed in the future.

Page 2263
As I have already said, it is important that we get more detail from the New South Wales Minister about the attitude of the New South Wales Government to the Federal Environment Protection Authority on a number of the issues I have just raised. I hope the Minister addresses this question when he makes his final comments. It is not good keeping this issue a secret. It should not be something shared between the Minister and his environment committee. It is important for the general community and members of Parliament to be aware of the Government's intentions. One of the things to which I referred early in my speech several weeks ago was the fact that it was significant that other governments around Australia that are currently moving to establish environment protection authorities are being able to do so far more effectively than we will be able to do under the proposal we have before us today. I want to refer specifically to South Australian Government proposals that are being debated widely in the community. I know that the Minister takes a strong personal interest in the environment in South Australia. For example, he would be aware that among the proposals coming from the South Australian Government are proposals that will take up most of the amendments proposed to this bill by the Opposition and other members of this House.

The South Australian Environmental Protection Authority will strengthen links between planning and development approval laws to achieve a preventive approach to pollution. It will open up regulatory controls, standards, policies and the decision-making process to public consultation and scrutiny. If the South Australian Government is not frightened of doing that I do not know why the New South Wales Government is. However, the most recent Morgan Gallup poll established that Mr Greiner is even more unpopular than Mr Bannon, so that might be one of the reasons. More important, the South Australian Government is considering the adoption of a charter on environmental quality, setting out guiding principles for environment protection. I note that that very charter includes a number of the issues the Opposition will be seeking to include in this bill - for example, a precautionary approach to environmental or human health risks. It will also ensure that the same environmental rules apply to public and private sector activities. It will include principles of openness, public disclosure, consultation and accountability to apply to all aspects of environmental protection, including standards, policies, priorities and licences.

The South Australian charter on environmental quality includes a right-to-know principle, to apply in the case of particularly hazardous industry so that the surrounding community has a say on matters of emergency procedure, hazard management and environmental improvement plans. The new approach taken by the Government of South Australia - which has a far smaller population than New South Wales and probably proportionately fewer problems than this State, particularly in relation to pollution of the urban environment - will have clear-cut advantages. We in New South Wales are missing out on those advantages because we are ignoring the important principles incorporated in the South Australian charter. The people of South Australia will have a clearer set of rules and a body with prime responsibility for environmental protection. South Australian industries reviewing their environmental performance, and investors planning development, will find it easier to ascertain what is expected of them and with what they must comply. A single licence will be a feasible alternative in South Australia. That State will not have the stupid situation that now applies in New South
Page 2264
Wales. Major industries are trying to bring to the Government's attention how difficult it is to ascertain what is happening.

I turn to the response of the Law Society of New South Wales to this bill, a matter with which in Committee I shall deal in greater detail. A couple of months ago publicity was given to the Law Society's suggestions to the Government about this bill. I have a copy of the document dated 7th May that David de Carvalho, President of the Law Society, forwarded to the Minister for Environment. There are not too many copies of this document available. I believe the document is significant and I am seeking to circulate it widely. Prior to the resumption of debate on this important legislation the Law Society - a very prestigious body within this State - had provided to the Government a series of critical comments about this bill. However, despite the comprehensive nature of those comments, very few were accepted and incorporated in the legislation. David de Carvalho, in his personal letter to the Minister, repeated his assurance that the society will assist in any way possible towards the introduction of useful and workable legislation. That was the society's objective. However, as I say, the Government has chosen to ignore most of the recommendations in the society's comprehensive submission,

The Opposition does not, of course, endorse all the society's criticisms of the bill. However, the society was most instructive in proposing amendments to improve the legislation. For example, the society argued that the definition of the environment proposed by clause 3 of the bill is not consistent with the definition in other Acts, such as the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985, and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Opposition agrees that inconsistency of this definition would serve only to complicate the exercise of the law and confuse those who will have to interpret it. The Opposition proposes an amendment to lead the way in establishing a uniform definition of the environment that can be incorporated into the statutes that comprise the environmental regulatory framework for this State.

The Law Society addressed at some length the function of reporting and developing environmental quality standards. Again, the Opposition will attempt to address, in its proposed amendments, the society's suggestion. The Opposition will, by amendments to be moved in Committee, set a procedure for the publication of reports. The Law Society was concerned about the failure of the bill to provide a timetable for action to be taken by the Environment Protection Authority. The society commented that the only assurance that citizens have about an inactive Environment Protection Authority is a requirement that the authority is to report to the Parliament every two years. Opposition amendments will make that process more regular, by requiring the authority to report annually to the Parliament; and will provide citizens with increased power to enforce the law by giving them access to third party court proceedings.

The Law Society made lengthy comment about the measures in the bill relating to the Environment Protection Authority giving directions to public authorities. The society was concerned that the Premier could not act under clause 12 of the bill as an independent arbiter in disputes between government authorities. In a previous speech I said that the Opposition agrees with that concern. The Premier caves in to every
Page 2265
demand made of him by his National Party colleagues. I instance, for example, logging of the southeast forest, Chaelundi, North Washpool and more recently the withdrawal of the national endangered species program - each a notable cave-in by the Premier. The Opposition believes that a Premier of any political persuasion should be able to provide independent assessment of a case in favour of or against the Environment Protection Authority. Unfortunately that is not so of this Premier. One of the most interesting comments in the Law Society's document is its response to an issue about which I have spoken already at some length in the course of my comments on the bill. I refer to the requirement of the environmental counsel to determine whether the Environment Protection Authority can take action against offending parties. The society said:

No member of the sub-committee -

That is the sub-committee of the society that commented on the legislation:

- was familiar with a statute which contained such a fetter on an agency's authority to institute proceedings for the commission of an offence against statutes administered by it.

The society then expressed grave concern that the second limb of the test that needs to be satisfied prior to consent being given to the institution of proceedings was set at too high a standard. In other words, the society was concerned - as is the Opposition and as are members of the conservation movement in New South Wales - that the proposal in this bill will tie the hands of the environmental counsel and the board of the Environment Protection Authority. Unless there is belief in an absolute guarantee of success in court, the environmental counsel will do nothing. Out of the mouths of the members of the Law Society sub-committee, as represented by David de Carvalho in a letter dated 7th May to the Minister, clear objections have been spelt out. Nevertheless, the Government has chosen to ignore them.

A matter of overwhelming importance in the bill is the future of the Waste Management Authority of New South Wales, and indeed the future of waste management in this State. One difference between this bill and the bill debated prior to the last election relates to the vesting of temporary responsibility for the regulation of waste disposal in New South Wales. The intention of the bill introduced prior to the election was that temporary responsibility be given to the New South Wales Water Board. This bill provides that not only the planning function of the Waste Management Authority but also the operational function of that authority, at least on a temporary basis, will be under the control of the Environment Protection Authority. The Minister for the Environment said in his second reading speech - he is shaking his head; I do not know whether he needs to clear it - that operational activities of the Waste Management Authority were to be transferred to the Water Board but now they will be transferred to a separate operational body that will for the time being report to him while the Government considers the long-term operational future of that body.

He went on then to describe the name of that body. Basically, we have a crisis in New South Wales in regard to the future of waste management. I do not usually refer to newspaper articles but an article in the Australian Financial Review of 14th October
Page 2266
entitled "Waste management at Crossroads" is very informative. The Minister should read it. The present crisis in waste management is very much of this Minister's making. I am pleased that the honourable member for Penrith intends to make her maiden speech during this debate. It is as a result of the activities of people like her and the honourable member for Londonderry that this Government made the major decision that it would not pursue the biggest land fill in the Southern Hemisphere, the Londonderry tip. That was an effective decision by this Government in the lead up to the last State election. However, it was less effective when the Minister for the Environment threw his arms up in horror and decided to end the regulation of waste management in this State and allow local councils to make the decisions.

Instead of a centralised strong authority addressing the issues of waste management, local councils will have that responsibility. In the short term it would be appropriate for the Environment Protection Authority to give serious and competent advice to the Minister for the Environment before he completely goes down the track of deregulating waste management in New South Wales. With the exception of private industry and the Minister for the Environment, no one in New South Wales would wish that to occur. On 14th October Alderman Peter Woods, Mayor of the Local Government Association of New South Wales, made a number of stinging comments about that decision in the Australian Financial Review. The Local Government Association and the traditional friends of the National Party, the Shires Association of New South Wales, also expressed grave concerns to the Government about its intended action on waste management. It might be only concerned people who have given this matter consideration but I should like to think that industry does not wish the present crisis to worsen by the wholesale injection of private sector entrepreneurial activities into waste management.

If more responsibility is devolved onto local government for the administration and regulation of waste management and disposal, an effective system will not be developed. The Waste Management Authority of New South Wales was created because of the mess surrounding waste disposal and its administration, and the need a strong centralised authority. The Minister is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He is putting the planning function into the EPA but unfortunately he has not been prepared to set up a strong authority to manage waste. This State will return to the dirty old days when the more wealthy private industries and, in some cases, irresponsible industry, will have too great a say in waste disposal. I have served in local government and know that at times the right amount of planning and systematic thought does not take place. Over the next few years local government may be vulnerable to initiatives offered by large waste management companies in a desperate attempt to fill the void that the New South Wales Minister for the Environment and the Government have created with waste disposal.

A fortnight ago I attended a conference when the director-general designate of the new EPA was speaking about its future. This was a conference of the Australian Institute of Environmental Health and the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors. One only had to attend that conference to realise the enormous role that the private waste industry will play in future waste management development. The Otto Waste System
Page 2267
Company was sponsoring the first social evening and I think the morning tea on the third day was sponsored by that company also. Closing drinks were sponsored by a number of waste industries; Pacific Waste Management and Transport Waste Technologies were companies also involved. These are industries with a vested interest in ensuring that local councils and shires become receptive to the way they want waste disposed of in this State.

The Protection of the Environment Administration Bill will not provide greater regulation of waste control in this State but will provide a small ineffective planning unit within the EPA. Open slather and poor waste management practices will operate in local government areas. For some years a clamour has gone on in the Hunter region to have a more centralised Hunter regional waste disposal authority. This is because councils in the Hunter region have enormous problems trying to dispose of their waste and are not at present under the umbrella of the Waste Management Authority of New South Wales. Instead of the Minister bringing in proposals to improve the situation, he will bring us all to the level where the Hunter region is now - and that is to deregulate the waste industry in this State. That is not desirable and the State Opposition will not allow it to occur. We will not be the captives of a small number of very major waste companies, including multinationals like Pacific Waste Management. Controversy is raging in the Australian media and the community about the role of Pacific Waste Management. That company is concerned about a program shown on "Four Corners" a few months ago about the company's monopolistic practice. The company is desperately trying to restore its reputation because of matters shown on that program. Pacific Waste Management is a major player in the debate about the future of waste.

If the Government's proposals proceed, the situation will not improve. Last Monday evening several members heard an interesting presentation by advanced management certificated students at the Sydney Technical College, a group called Delta Solution on Why Waste It? In many ways it would have been educational for the Minister. Many of their proposals relate to the need for strong centralised information and regulatory authorities in this State to deal with the present waste crisis. If those students were able to reach such conclusions, why is it that the Minister has the whole waste issue in such a mess that even the Local Government Association and the Shires Association of New South Wales urge that something be done? On a personal level I renewed the acquaintance of the executive director of the Waste Management Authority. Some years ago, as a result of this Minister's generosity, he and I spent a couple of weeks overseas. That man appeared to be physically deteriorating because of the stress being placed on him by this Government. The Government does not know what it is doing in this important area. It should get its act together before experienced bureaucrats are lost from the system.

There will continue to be a wide-ranging debate about this issue. I know that a lot of speeches will be made when the various amendments are moved. I understand also - although not as a result of any direct communication from this Minister, who chooses to treat Opposition members as mushrooms - that the present Minister for the Environment in a desperate attempt to save some of his political face will take some of the amendments to Cabinet next Tuesday to try to get some agreement from his
Page 2268
colleagues in order to ensure that the Government does not suffer too many embarrassing defeats on the floor of the House. I wish him luck when he takes many of those proposed amendments to Cabinet. I shall not hold my breath in the expectation that he will succeed in getting those amendments up, because unfortunately this Minister has an appalling record for getting support from his colleagues on anything. I give him one final message to take to his Cabinet colleagues next Tuesday. I shall quote from the remarks of Sharon Beder, an outstanding Sydney environmentalist, despite the attempts to discredit her made by the Premier. In a speech about the Environment Protection Authority a few months ago she made comments that the Minister should take to his colleagues next Tuesday. She said:

The Environment Protection Authority should be an advocate for the environment. Let other Government departments be advocates for industry, for business, for commerce, for forestry, for roads, for electricity or whatever. If compromises have to be made, they should take place at the political level.

This Government knows all about that, for it is always doing it. She continued:

They should be made by governments within open view of the people. There should be no place for compromises and deals behind closed doors where the future of our environment and the planet is concerned. The trade-offs between environment and economic concerns are not a matter for bureaucrats, and certainly not those with such obvious allegiances to economic rationalism.

In other words we should try to establish a strong and effective Environment Protection Authority in this State. If cabinets want to do deals, let them be played out in the full glare of publicity and constant media exposure; but let us not have the mechanisms and networks built into the legislation before that point is reached. Let us give the Environment Protection Authority a real chance to come up with solid and independent advice to people such as the Minister. I know that he is excited by the magazine he is reading more than by Sharon Beder's comments. We do not want an authority which, in the words of Neil Shepherd, will not change very much in New South Wales. We want an authority that will significantly protect the environment.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [4.33]: I am delighted to support the Protection of the Environment Administration Bill which has been reintroduced to the Parliament. I look forward to its enactment and to the establishment of the Environment Protection Authority. The background to the Environment Protection Authority in New South Wales comes very much from the worldwide movement of concern that is recognised by all honourable members of this House, from the Government, Independent and Opposition benches. It follows the 1987 report by the World Commission on Environment and Development, otherwise known as the Brundtland report, which brought global environmental problems into wide popular and political debate. It focused everyone's attention on issues that were critical not only to middle Australians but also to people across the planet. That has concentrated the determination of governments and opposition parties - politicians of all persuasions - and of community leaders seeking to be in the advance guard, or at least to catch up with what should have been done in a previous age. The problems are widespread. They include desertification, deafforestation, acid rain precipitation, global climate change, ozone
Page 2269
depletion, and toxic substances contaminating the food chain and underground water tables.


In plain English terms we are talking about water pollution, air pollution and serious problems affecting rainforests and the natural environment that we have surely merely borrowed on this day from future generations around the globe. It is on that basis that I am enormously proud, first and foremost as an environmentalist, and second as a member of Parliament, that we on this side of the House have demonstrated once again in this landmark legislation a keen and substantial interest in genuine and balanced reform, taking into consideration economic concerns confronting our world today, and the overriding and passionate endeavours of all of us to protect the environment so that everyone, from greenies to farmers, can get some mutual benefit from it in a natural or corporate sense. As a consequence of that, in July 1989 the Prime Minister and more recently the Premier in April 1990, each delivered a major statement demonstrating bipartisan concern for the environment. In 1990 the Premier in his landmark address entitled "New Environmentalism" was moved to remark that environmentalism has come of age as a political issue. In a brief period of time the environment has matured from a radical issue on the fringes of politics into mainstream concern shared by middle Australia. That is to say, there is now universal recognition, at least in principle, of the need for the preservation of our environment in a balanced way, just as there may be continuing differences of opinion on how to arrive at that very popular and necessary objective.


It is disappointing that the delays in the legislative process have resulted in a delay in establishing the Environment Protection Authority. For years the former Labor Government put off making the tough decisions and spending the necessary money to give teeth and force to the rhetoric that it so often espoused, and no doubt in some part believed. This Government and this Minister have spent considerable time laying the foundations for the development of the Environment Protection Authority, both in terms of structure and legislative framework. This is an appropriate opportunity for us to congratulate those who have been involved in the development of this process. I mention particularly Dr Neil Shepherd, the director general of the Ministry for the Environment and at present the director general designate of the Environment Protection Authority. In his work with the ministry and with his colleagues in the ministry he has been closely involved with the development of this legislation. He has proved his expertise in the field and an understanding of the complex issues involved. Miss Lisa Corbin, who is the assistant director of the Ministry for the Environment, together with my friend and constituent Dr Warwick Forrest, who is the acting director of the State Pollution Control Commission, should be commended and congratulated by all members of the House for their input into the development of the legislation. In my consultations with them I have appreciated their expertise and genuine commitment to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority.


I am concerned that the honourable member for Blacktown, who has spoken briefly for the second time on this legislation, having acknowledged on 30th April the great deal of awareness in the community of the need for the Environment Protection Authority, nevertheless was part of a government that failed to recognise and act upon
Page 2270
that need. Even in today's contribution, though she deliberately and intelligently made a sensible speech which demonstrated the support of the Opposition in principle for the Environmental Protection Authority, in the early part of her remarks there was a conflict that showed some of the problems that must have prevented the former Labor Government from getting the proposal off the ground and coming to fruition. The present Government is absolutely committed to and determined to bring the legislation to fruition.


Since that public consultation process on the establishment of the Environment Protection Authority started in July 1990 community groups, environment groups and industry have contributed to the debate. As chairman of the Government's environment committee I and my colleagues have participated in numerous public forums and met personally with groups holding a wide range of views. Following those consultations I remain convinced that the extensive input gained across the spectrum has been of enormous value. It is with the benefit of that input that I can assure honourable members, on behalf of the Minister and the Government, that we are determined to pursue what I suppose has been very much the modus operandi of the Minister in relation to his responsibilities as Leader of the House: genuine ongoing consultation with the community, the Opposition, the Coalition for Economic Advancement, the Independents, environment groups, industry and commerce to strengthen the legislation that is before the House.


It is worth noting that the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Manly, together with the honourable member for Coffs Harbour - I hesitate to say that for we have different opinions about many of his amendments - have demonstrated clearly an abiding interest in this legislation and have put forward some meaningful, whilst differing, suggestions on the bill. The Government is committed to, and the Cabinet will shortly consider, a range of issues with a view to building on that consultation process and to genuinely developing an approach that will better preserve and enhance the environment whilst taking into consideration the very genuine concerns of industry in the current economic climate.


Unlike the recent comments of the honourable member for Blacktown in this Chamber, in which she tried to pander to each and every interest group that may have access to Hansard, I have no intention of lauding and supporting every point of view which has been put forward on the legislation. I am sure that honourable members will forgive the honourable member for Blacktown on this occasion. Perhaps this was merely due to an unusual lack of preparation. Despite the fact that the bill has been heralded for 18 months, the bill was brought on rather quickly. That may have put her in this position. During a recent speech the honourable member for Blacktown seemed to resolve all conflicts by halving the content of her speech on the second reading debate. The first section of the speech was full of admiration and support for the environment movement, and the latter section seemed to be aimed directly at obtaining support from the Coalition for Economic Advancement. The remarks by the honourable member today demonstrate that it is very hard to marry those objectives. Naturally, the
Page 2271
Government and the Opposition will endeavour to do so, but it will be extraordinarily difficult for her, as it will be for many honourable members, to come to grips with some of those difficult points of conflict.

The honourable member for Blacktown may think that the operation of "double think" may temporarily wash over conflicting standpoints, but it hardly helps in promoting rational, honest debate or in facilitating the resolution of differing standpoints. With respect to the last address of the honourable member for Blacktown, I shall refer briefly to the concerns that she has demonstrated, which I know are genuinely deep-seated, about waste management and waste minimisation, which is the critical objective. The proposal that she put to the House today was that the Minister had washed his hands of all responsibility for waste management and waste minimisation - that is, she proposed that the Minister is now concerned with merely providing a planning process, that he was ignorant and sought to side-step the important issues that involved providing for waste management and minimisation. Her suggestion was that we would talk about the issue and provide the planning mechanisms without actually doing anything demonstrably.

That follows the work of Government and Opposition members, including the previous honourable member for Penrith and the present honourable member for Penrith, on the Londonderry tip issue. Once again, the community was confronted with a tough decision, but found itself wanting. As a consequence of the strong community campaign, strongly supported by me as chairman of the Government's environment committee and certainly by the honourable member for Penrith and her predecessor, Mr Matheson, this Government took the view, responding yet again with a very reasonable, consultative approach to community concern, that it should put aside the option to establish one more big tip. Having made that decision and demonstrated, when there was a majority in this House upholding our Government's views, our real interest in that, we then proceeded to listen to the community and put the tip to one side.

The honourable member for Blacktown suggests that this Government has abrogated any responsibility for waste management. The facts speak for themselves. Whilst she may not be fully aware of the work of this Government, it is fair to say that we have established - and I put this on the record - the Co-operative Research Centre for Waste Management and Pollution Control. That body, which has brought together the University of New South Wales, Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, ICI, Australian Defence Industries, the University of Western Sydney, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Waste Management Authority and other State authorities, with new environmental technology aims to develop solutions to waste management and pollution problems. There are nine projects encompassed in that proposal.

Building on that, as a first step, we have established the solid waste management research and development approach, centring on a materials recovery facility at a cost of $150,000. The first materials recovery facility established in this State was designed to sort mixed recyclables and to enhance opportunities for the marketing of recycled materials. In addition, $400,000 in interest free loans has been provided to assist in
Page 2272
getting rid of wood and vegetative waste, which accounts for some 25 per cent of waste. The environmental trusts legislation is landmark legislation, not just for this State but for the whole world. It has again proved the determination of this Government, which by 1997 hopes to have some half a billion dollars in capital reserves to provide for restoration, rehabilitation, research and development. A large part of that sum - namely, $284,000 - has been given to 11 grants that are directly associated with waste management and waste minimisation.

We on this side of the House support very strongly the legislation designed to develop the Environment Protection Authority and do so in a framework of appropriate consultation. I am pleased to see that in many respects industry and representatives of the environmental movement support the initiative of this Government. In a letter to the Minister for the Environment, Meredith Hellicar, the Executive Director of the Coal Industry Association, whom I know well and respect, said that the majority of industry leaders would agree that strong punitive powers are necessary to deal with those individuals or corporations which take a cavalier approach to environmental protection, provided of course that the law is reasonable and administered in a responsible and impartial way.

I believe that a responsible business community, together with mainstream environment groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, believe overwhelmingly in the urgent need for the establishment of the Environment Protection Authority. For the first time in New South Wales we will be provided with the opportunity to consolidate and streamline the mechanisms of environment protection and enhancement. New initiatives included in this legislation are as follows: the "State of the Environment" reports, a determination to break down duplication and inefficiencies, more money and more legislative teeth. In fact, there has been an increase of some $12 million envisaged in the funds directed towards environment protection, giving a total budget of $56 million. That will provide the opportunity for the establishment and the operation of the EPA to demonstrate the Government's real concern for the environment.

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.47]: I welcome this bill. As this is my maiden speech, I seek indulgence to exercise the licence normally granted to a member, in this case the licence to indulge in environmental philosophy. Not only am I a maiden, but also I have been baptised in this Parliament as an Independent with a degree of the balance of power. In that situation, it might be worth considering the words of Sir Walter Scott. He said, "What shall be the maiden's fate, who shall be the maiden's mate?". The answer to that, no doubt, will unfold as the weeks and the months go by.

As I said, I encourage legislation that seeks an integrated approach to environmental protection. For that reason, I intend to move 13 amendments in the Committee stage. There are a number of important omissions from the bill, and I shall use examples from my own electorate of Manly to demonstrate the urgent need for strengthening it. Firstly, I would like to follow some of the traditions of a maiden
Page 2273
speech and thank all those in my electorate who voted for me and put faith in a true Independent for the seat of Manly. Of course, none of that would have been possible without an effective campaign machine, and to those many hundreds of campaign workers I wish to make this full acknowledgment of my appreciation. I thank my campaign director, Julie Heraghty, and my campaign committee, comprising David Jacobsen, Ann Maria Nicholson, Mark Baxter, Sandra Missingham, Michael Heraghty and Ann Jones. In addition to them there were dozens of helpers, assistants and volunteers who made this successful campaign possible. Most importantly, however, I thank my wife and family, who have given me support over many years in local government and now within the forum of State government.

I am a product of community politics, specifically a resident action group called Residents and Friends of Manly. This group has been described as one of the most successful community groups in the State and I believe it owes its success not to any one person but to its ability to stay in touch with community issues and needs. Its philosophy of sympathetic development, environmental concerns and open government was recently overwhelmingly endorsed in the local government elections by over 42 per cent of voters in the municipality. My recent election as an Independent to the seat of Manly was the result of a 16 per cent swing. There is a message for all of us in the move towards Independents and that is that voters are saying they will not passively accept a government that is unresponsive to community needs. The tradition in a maiden speech is to go on a journey around the electorate and to highlight the issues, the problems, perhaps point out the commitments and the promises that will constitute the agenda to which each of us as representatives is going to work. I could talk about public transport, the problems with buses, the problems with the Manly Wharf interchange. I could talk about the alienation of parts of our national park or the difficulties with urban renewal, with our ageing town centre and our beachfront, and our famous Norfolk pine trees, of which we have lost so many as a result of pollution over the years. But instead I will concentrate more on specific local environment issues and then broaden out into the wider, more global environmental picture.

The problems of beach pollution have deeply concerned the people of Manly ever since the decision was made to dispose of sewage at the North Head treatment plant, only metres from what is arguably Sydney's most famous beach and tourist resort. Over the years, and particularly as the population has increased within the catchment area, sewage has been dumped on our beaches. My introduction to politics was through the issue of beach pollution in the early 1980s, and through a series of lobby groups the community has fought long and hard for their basic rights to clean water and, more recently, clean air. Health surveys in the last couple of years show quite clearly that there is a direct connection between high pollution levels and morbidity in recreational swimmers. Late last year the deep water outfall was commissioned a little early and this has taken the effluent further offshore but, of course, nothing has changed in that the effluent quality is still unsatisfactory. Putting it out of sight and out of mind is no answer and the community will continue to demand full secondary treatment. It is worth recalling the words of one particular cynic who talked about the experience of swimming at polluted beaches. He said, "It's not swimming, only going through the motions".

Page 2274
Another major concern in Manly is the toxic emissions from the daily incineration of more than 30 tonnes of contaminated sludge. I say contaminated because so long as the sewerage system is allowed to be used as a toxic dumping ground by industry, the sludge cannot be used as a fertiliser but must continue to be discarded as waste. As a result thousands of Manly residents have had no choice but to continue to breathe the air, despite increases in respiratory illnesses within the community. Following more than two years of mounting community opposition this Government has promised to phase out up to 90 per cent of incineration by January 1992 for a trial period of trucking. The Manly experiences of dealing with the Water Board and with seeking to gain access to information highlights the need for reform. This bill must acknowledge the value of environmental assets such as clean air and clean oceans. It must also include provisions for openness and accountability - in other words, the right to know. I shall be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to address the issue, based on interstate and international experience.

Not everyone knows that in 1788 Manly was visited by Governor Phillip before Sydney Cove itself. It was reported to be a place of great beauty and bounty. Of course the Aborigines of that day were the true environmentalists. They knew, for instance, what the meaning of the term "ecology" meant. Ecology from its Greek root signifies "the meaning of the dwelling". The Aborigine of that day knew about the husbandry of his or her land, knew about sustainability and knew about conservation. However, it was to this place that Europeans came and it was the values of the European culture that brought destruction. The original inhabitants, like Aboriginal people all around the world, were deeply involved in the natural world both physically and spiritually.

The European arrival brought something far more destructive to the natives even than disease and alcohol - they brought with them an obsession with land ownership and money. The Aborigines were simply added to a list of Australia's flora and fauna and exploited like the rest of the ecosystems. In the relatively short period of 200 years the occupation by Europeans has been catastrophic. And so we have transformed what was a unique and an ecologically intact environment into an ecological disaster characterised by a squalid history of greed and ignorance. We cannot turn back the clock but what we can do is this: we can recognise our problems, admit our mistakes and set goals backed by legislation which will move beyond pollution control towards the real goal of pollution prevention.

I have mentioned the local environmental issues which preoccupy the ordinary residents of Manly but these concerns are only a mirror of the big picture. And we really need to look at the bigger picture, perhaps examine where we are at and how we arrived at these points and what we need to do in the future. Currently the world faces a harsh and frightening fact; that is, in spite of unparalleled advances in medicine, science, engineering and technology - or perhaps even because of these things - we have not succeeded in creating a physical, social and cultural environment in which we can find that satisfaction for the whole person, which is surely the purpose of all our strivings. Our environment is part of us; it is not something separate and distant. It is a bit like the madness of those citizens of Cavafy's Hellenic City who lived in terror of the Barbarians who were coming to destroy them. But the Barbarians never came,
Page 2275
possibly because the citizens themselves were the barbarians and in their waiting they destroyed themselves within their own high gates. We cannot afford to wait for those Barbarians - the Barbarian is amongst us already.

Gradual change that has resulted in our degraded environment has come on slowly, bit by bit, over the last 100 years. As with any change that is slow and gradual, albeit fast measured by our history, it is often hard to identify. The environmental health effects in cities that entail a gradual build-up of toxic or other adverse exposures put us at risk of what Boyden calls the boiling frog principle, that is, we neither perceive nor react to slow health-damaging changes in our environment. Instead, like the hapless frog in the slowly heating water, we adapt incrementally and therefore remain unaware of the external hazard until we reach the limit and we die. When we consider the state of our environment, we are required to look at some of the statistics. In the sprawling cities, such as Sydney, greenhouse offenders reside. With an urban transport system designed around more than one million petrol engines the car is the biggest source of greenhouse gases. Its energy supplies come from coal-fire power stations which daily pour tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The average family car travelling about 12,000 kilometres per year produces three tonnes of carbon dioxide. It has been estimated that planting three billion trees could delay a notable onset of the greenhouse effect for 30 to 40 years. In fact, that number of trees, three billion, is roughly the number of trees that we have cut down in Australia in the last 200 years.

Where did we go wrong? One of the fundamental causes of our global environment problems is the master-servant relationship between rich and poor countries. Without a true international redistribution of wealth, and without a levelling of material standards of living between rich and poor countries, the environmental crisis probably cannot be averted. Poverty, inequity and exploitation will only exacerbate the problem. This explosion of development since the industrial revolution is fast consuming our non-renewable resources. The notion of ecological interdependence is not something our generation learned about at school. We were encouraged to think of ourselves as inheritors of the earth, as masters of the universe. That is changing today. A little ecological knowledge and humility is entering our school curriculum. A successful biological species survives. However, within a balanced ecological system of many interdependent species, the survival of one species should not be at the expense of the survival of others, otherwise the balance is upset and, most importantly, the food supply may disappear. The human species is one very recent experimental product of natural selection. Humans, for more than the first 99 per cent of their years as a species, were a great success: they fed, they bred and they spread.

[Extension of time agreed to.]

Although they exhibited increasing dominance of their local environment and put hunting pressures on various animal species it is only in the last 100 years, a minute fraction of the earth's lifetime, that the balance between the humans and the world they inhabit began to be upset. By any logic the system of finite resources and limited buffeting capacity cannot accommodate such a balance indefinitely. Over the past 200 years we have moved away from spiritual beliefs that linked us with nature to ideological
Page 2276
dominance of nature. We are now faced with our environmental crisis and we are moving back to a realisation that we are part of the natural world and inextricably linked to its survival. Our future depends on conserving its finite resources and reducing pollution and environmental degradation.

There is a convincing argument that our attitudes to our environment are reinforced by our religious beliefs. It has been said that monotheism is easily the greatest disaster to befall the human race, even more so than unfettered development. By nature God, whichever god, is totalitarian. "You will have no other God but He, He will kill those who refuse to worship Him and you are free to destroy the earth because He has instructed us to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it". We have the Gospel that says, "We have dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth". It is not too late for us to learn from the first Australians and from some of our close Asian neighbours whose spiritual systems are based on a closer and more integrated relationship with nature.

An interesting story is told by David Suzuki, the great Canadian environmentalist, about his 10-year-old daughter, who one day looked at him and said, "Dad, we think we're right in fighting to save those forests, aren't we?" He vigorously nodded his head. She said, "But the people who want to cut down the trees also believe that they're right". She asked, "So how do we know we're right?" He said that children have a remarkable ability to see with a clarity unclouded by history, vested interest or belief systems that so often blind grown ups. Every adult would do well to consider the question, "How do we know we're right?" His answer to his daughter was that he did not know for sure. But if we succeed in saving some forests and we turn out to be wrong all that will be lost is some immediate profit. The trees can always be cut down later. But if the logging industry cuts down all the trees and it is wrong, those forests can never be replaced.

It is important that we look beyond the conventional economic framework for our answers. Environmental crisis challenges the basic value system and ideology by which we have come to live. What do we really mean when we talk of the standard of living? How should we value material things against the other things that might contribute to the quality of life, including health? Last century Karl Marx asked, "What is the true source of our material wealth?" At the time Marx was preoccupied with the exploitation of workers by capitalists. Perhaps our answer now is that most economic activity and, therefore, our material wealth depends on the conversion of environmental wealth - in other words, finite resources of nature into saleable products or waste which results in environmental exploitation and degradation. It appears that the creation of wealth and development results in inevitable cost. Today's societies across the political spectrum are coming to recognise that, so long as relentless economic activity is the focal point of society, our environment is at risk. It has been said that the linear consumer economy must be replaced by a circular conservator economy with maximum
recycling and replacement of renewable resources. The WorldWatch Institute has estimated that to slow population growth, protect the topsoil on farmland, reforest the whole of the earth and retire the debt of developing countries an annual expenditure of
Page 2277
around $100 billion would be sufficient. I know that $100 billion sounds like a lot of money. It is, but it is only one-tenth of what is spent globally on arms each year.

And so to the bill itself which will establish the Environment Protection Authority. The words and text within the bill will determine the framework and constitution for the future protection of our environment. This is an important opportunity for us as elected representatives to ensure just that. The bill in its present form does little more than consolidate the Government's existing powers. The Government has chosen to introduce the authority in two stages. We have only one stage to evaluate and, as a result, several significant amendments will be moved. They will seek to strengthen the authority, provide separation of power, and introduce the public right to know and third party standing. As an example, definitions should include the precautionary principle, the concept of ESD, waste minimisation and zero pollution targets. As regards separation of power the Minister determines policy but the authority, at arm's length, is responsible separately for licence standards, prosecutions and audits.

Accountability and the right to know will result in increasing public confidence in the EPA. The inclusion of third party rights similar to those provided in section 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will provide the opportunity to express public interest. One glaring omission is the failure to acknowledge the relationship between environmental protection and land use planning. We need to reamalgamate planning and the environment. Further, we need to establish clearly the role for the authority in determining environmental impact statements. This bill will provide the opportunity to restore the public's faith in the Government's record on pollution in this State. I urge honourable members to support the amendments I have foreshadowed as they will result in a more integrated approach to environment protection in New South Wales as well as a more accountable and independent authority.

[Interruption from gallery]

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call members of the gallery to order and remind them that that kind of behaviour is considered most disorderly.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.6]: I support in principle the legislation that has been introduced by the Minister for the Environment. However, I would like to express some concerns that I have about the content of the bill. I, like the honourable member for Manly, will move during the Committee stage a considerable number of amendments. I have discussed these amendments with the Minister. I believe they are necessary to make this bill work. It should be recognised that the principle of economic advancement must be adopted. It is essential for us to recognise that a strong and sustainable economy is a prerequisite to environmental protection. I have had many discussions with a group known as the Coalition for Economic Advancement. This group represents about 50 business associations and organisations in New South Wales. Today business organisations are extremely keen to ensure that the environment, per se, is protected. But in protecting that environment we must not lose sight of the fact that industry must go on. Jobs that provide money in the way of taxation for this
Page 2278
Government must be sustained. Only by sustaining these jobs will we be able to provide economic assistance to the Environment Protection Authority and the environment.

All parties to the environmental debate, especially those in industry and business, agree that the existing regime in environmental protection is not workable. All parties are suspicious of the role of existing agencies, particularly the State Pollution Control Commission. That suspicion will be resolved only when all parties are given by mandate, as stakeholders, a legislative role in the development of the operation of the Environment Protection Authority. All parties will be required to recognise the competing claims of other parties in achieving workable solutions, rather than merely espousing particular ideological positions. In the past the State Pollution Control Commission has done a wonderful job in controlling pollution. However, I am concerned about the definition of the environment in clause 3 of the bill. This legislation will replace approximately 15 Acts and it will be the first legislation to define the environment. That definition, in paragraph (c) of clause 3(1), includes the aesthetic factors of the surroundings, such as their appearance, sounds, smells, tastes and textures. That definition of itself does not appear unusual. Probably it is a good definition of the environment. However, when that definition is considered in conjunction with clause 12 of the bill, which provides for directions to public authorities by members of the staff of the Environment Protection Authority, I am concerned that those directions will be based on the aesthetic qualities of the environment. Aesthetics is a broad concept. If clause 3 is not amended to acknowledge pollution, as well as the environment, the consequences could be totally unacceptable.

The North Coast of New South Wales, and especially my electorate of Coffs Harbour, are developing very quickly. Councils and other government authorities are given to making decisions within their power, and those decisions are essential for development; for example, the clearing of portions of land to allow for the building of houses and the clearing of land and the provision of dams on rural properties. It would be dangerous to development if a representative of the Environment Protection Authority, in accordance with clause 12(1)(b) may direct any public authority, for example the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, to cease doing anything which, in the opinion of the authority, adversely affects environmental protection, without reference to pollution per se. The stage could be reached where one could not mow one's lawn, because that might of itself damage the environment, or perhaps kill an insect. Clause 12 of the legislation should relate to pollution only, not aesthetics. The clause as it is framed will be totally unacceptable to industry.

The consultative forum to be established by the bill should comprise equal representatives from industry and farming. As I have said, they are the sectors that provide jobs and therefore revenue to the Government so that the Government may continue in government and administer the State. I believe that industry is looking for a marriage with the Government so that the two may arrive at a mutually acceptable solution whereby protection of the environment is enhanced and industry is allowed to continue to provide economic benefits to the community - benefits that it always has provided. If one had an income from sources that did not require one to work, it would be easy to be a total greenie. However, if taxes are not paid because environmental
Page 2279
protection legislation has halted industry, everyone will be on the one level and will be seeking a government hand-out. Unfortunately, unless we ensure that the community's economic considerations are well and truly catered for, we could all be out of work and without an income.

In Committee I shall move a considerable number of amendments, which I shall discuss with the Minister prior to that stage. I have no objection to the Environment Protection Authority having the power to issue directions to public authorities. However, such directions should be issued only after a period of consultation. Clause 12 should provide that any disputes that may arise - which the authority may refer to the Minister or to the Premier - should be referred only after consultation with the Minister in charge of the public authority and the Minister in charge of the Environment Protection Authority. Such a provision would remove the confrontation aspect of the clause, and industry would be able to work with the Ministers. The Ministers would be able to discuss matters and there could be consultation instead of confrontation.

Clause 28 of the bill provides for the membership and procedure of the Education Committee. The explanatory note to the bill states that the committee is to advise on public awareness. The committee is to comprise representatives of educational authorities, organisations concerned with the protection of the environment, industry, local government authorities or associations, other public authorities and the general community. That is wonderful. However, one must remember that the members of the committee are to be appointed by the Minister for the Environment after consultation with the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. The latter Minister is concerned only with the education of schoolchildren, and children could be indoctrinated with totally green ideas. I am concerned that that indoctrination could flow into industry and into the community generally and the result could be that industry will not survive. We should consider public awareness but we should direct that awareness at the community, not at children.

It is acknowledged that the community is and has been very careless in polluting the atmosphere. In the past we all have used aerosol products that have damaged the ozone layer. We have been careless about disposing of chemical products - perhaps pouring them into the sewer or tipping them on the garden. That has been a problem about which we need to educate the public. I specify the public because these days children are very aware of the problem as a result of various programs, including those conducted by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In my electorate of Coffs Harbour the service at Dorrigo regularly conducts camps at Cascade to educate children in the needs of the community and the protection of wildlife. I am somewhat concerned that this legislation could be overenforced. That could result in there being a one-sided authority and education committees that would not consider the economic advantages that must be taken into account in assessing the environment. In many ways in the past the State Pollution Control Commission and environmental authorities have scared industry. This legislation, properly formulated and with amendments, could go a long way towards involving industry in a consultative process and making industry aware of its own actions in damaging the environment. Amendments need to be made and I will be introducing many amendments.

Page 2280

[Extension of time agreed to.]


Consultation with industry will and can be achieved through this legislation. I urge the Minister to speak to the Coalition for Economic Advancement about its amendments. I will be moving more than 50 amendments to the legislation. If some amendments are passed, other amendments may not be necessary. I will consult further with the Minister on this matter. This legislation can be identified with the Chaelundi State Forest and with the logging industry in Coffs Harbour. The logging industry employs hundreds of people. Directions to the Forestry Commission could be given by the Environment Protection Authority when environmental impact statements are prepared and guidelines made. If the industry is working in accordance with those guidelines, an employee representative or delegate of the EPA could view the aesthetic qualities of the environment that may be disturbed. A valuable industry such as forestry on the North Coast, which has operated for many years -


Mr Jeffery: It is under threat now.


Mr FRASER: As the honourable member for Oxley has stated, it is under threat. The Labor Party has no regard for the workers. It is supposed to be a workers' party but it is seeking to block regulation allowing government departments to operate as they should. The interpretation of sections 98 and 99 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act handed down by Mr Justice Stein could affect forestry, farming -


Mr Jeffery: The Pacific Highway.

Mr FRASER: The Pacific Highway on the North Coast needs to be upgraded. The Government is attempting to gain approval for a sewage outfall at Coffs Harbour. The local branch of the Labor Party says that if its party were in office it might not support an outfall. That looks good in the newspaper, but it shows that the Labor Party is trying to con people on the North Coast. It is not seeking to help the battler, home buyer or people who want to build a house near Sandy Beach or in other areas on the North Coast. It is absolutely ludicrous that the Labor Party might stop an outfall.


[Interruption]


Mr FRASER: One should look at the bushfire situation today.


Mr McManus: Who is making this speech?


Mr FRASER: The National Party. The Labor Party's decision not to back the legislation could result in further bushfires occurring, human life being endangered and all environmental legislation in this State being scrutinised. This legislation is good legislation, subject to amendments to protect jobs, workers, industry and the economic base of this State and Australia. My amendments will achieve much in this regard and will help the Government to formulate legislation acceptable to the environmental
Page 2281
movement and industry. That is important. I commend the bill in principle and, once the foreshadowed amendments are passed, this legislation will be great legislation for New South Wales.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Lo Po'.