Forestry Amendment (Control Signs) Bill

Debate resumed from 1 June.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [11.20]: The Government opposes the Forestry Amendment (Control Signs) Bill. It is no more than an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction from the honourable member for Coffs Harbour - dare I say, a predictable reaction. The honourable member has come up with this bill in response to a magistrate's dismissal of charges against demonstrators at the Bellingen Local Court. He has completely ignored the possibility that an appeal could be lodged against this decision. He has also ignored the fact that any doubts raised by the case, in relation to the powers of State Forests, may well be clarified by the due process of law. Indeed, an appeal is in progress.

The Government acknowledges that the proper management of our State forests requires some ability to regulate the activities of people within those forests. There are already provisions in the Forestry Act 1916 and the Forestry Regulation 1994 specifying such powers. These controls are necessary to ensure public safety during periods of bushfire danger, or when logging and other forest management activities are in progress. In periods of excessive rainfall road closures are often necessary to minimise damage, including soil erosion and degradation of the forest environment. As the State forests are increasingly used by schoolchildren, bushwalkers, four-wheel drivers and campers, it is necessary to be able to regulate these visitors in some way. This was acknowledged when the Forestry Act was amended in 1978 to insert section 36A, which relates to the issue of directions by way of control signs.

The Government is not prepared to support a bill such as this until the issues have been clarified by the Court of Appeal and the Government has had the benefit of further careful advice from its lawyers and the agency that is responsible for the administration and management of our State forests. This is to say nothing of the lack of consultation with the many and varied interests who regularly use our forests. Before we put in place too much draconian control of our forests - because they are used not only for timber
Page 1344
production but can provide a whole range of recreational uses for the citizens of New South Wales - we need to be sure we are not being so draconian in our approach as to preclude those recreational and other activities provided by the forests. The ill-considered nature of the proposed amendments is obvious from the clumsy attempt to focus only on the physical description of the form of construction of control signs. This is totally inadequate where communication with forest users may need to embrace a wide range of media and other symbols. The bill may even restrict the flexibility of State Forests of New South Wales in its powers to implement modern, effective, regulatory signage in the forests.

The Government's forestry policy includes wide-ranging reforms which will establish a proper management, regulatory and operational regime for New South Wales State Forests. Most importantly, statutory State management plans will be established according to principles of ecologically sustainable development and with regular community consultation. I know that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour supports consultation. The environmental impact statement process and the results of comprehensive regional assessments of all forest resources will underpin these management plans. The plans will ultimately ensure a proper balance between competing forest values and will remove the grounds for conflict which characterised forest management under the previous, coalition Government. Management of forests under forest management plans which have the benefit of stakeholder input and agreed allocation of the forest resource on a regional scale will avoid the type of conflict which resulted in the emergence of this bill. Hasty, heavy-handed regulation as proposed by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is not the solution to conflict in the forests. It has taken the honourable member some considerable time to come to that quite simple and fundamental understanding.

A number of the reforms proposed in the Government's forestry policy will require legislative action, and accordingly a comprehensive review of the Forestry Act 1916 will need to be undertaken during the next 12 months. If, after the conclusion of the legal proceedings which prompted this bill, it appears that some clarification of the commission's powers is required, the Government believes that this should form part of the wider review that I have foreshadowed. This will ensure that any future provisions are properly conceived with the benefit of full consultation with all interested parties. The reality is that the issue is still before the court. It is the subject of appeal and it is possible that that appeal process could produce a very different result to that which occurred in the local court in Bellingen. We need to determine the extent of the existing regulations in the light of the decision on the appeal, and to then review the whole situation in a cool, consultative and appropriate manner to ensure that everyone has appropriate access to forests for recreation and other uses. We need to ensure that we do not act in a draconian way to stop people from using our State forests where they can be used, and also ensure that the forests are there for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. I know that a number of constituents of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour are interested in having access to State forests to enjoy their recreational value. The Government opposes the bill.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [11.27]: I support the Minister's opposition to this bill. As has been pointed out by the Minister, the Government is in the process of developing a comprehensive forest policy and in that process will review the Act to ensure maximum opportunities for use and protection of our forests. It is important that we develop a plantation policy that will achieve the maximum benefit from our hardwood timber forests - that extremely valuable timber resource - and at the same time ensure replacement plantations of hardwood and softwood in a balanced way. It is equally important that we recognise the recreational and environmental values of our forests, and ensure maximum access to them by those who want to use them. The coastal forest that runs from the Victorian border to the Queensland border is a particularly outstanding asset of the people of New South Wales. I know that in bringing forward this bill the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would have had at heart the best interests of all who use the forests, but the bill is precipitous and ill-considered. In addition, as the Minister has pointed out, an appeal has been lodged against the judgment of the magistrate. If it becomes necessary to amend the existing regulations or the Act as a result, that will be done as part of the Government's comprehensive review process.

Mr Fraser: What are you going to do in the meantime?

Mr GAUDRY: In the meantime the regulations, developed in consultation with the New South Wales Forestry Commission and the forestry industry, provide adequate control. When logging operations are taking place forestry management can ensure that people can be removed to a safe place. That has been tested in the court case, which is subject to appeal. The Minister will take the court's findings into account in framing adequate legislation in the comprehensive package that is being brought forward. The first priority of the Government is forest safety. The matter will be dealt with comprehensively. Legitimate users will not be locked out of forests. There will be no knee-jerk reaction from the Government by introducing legislation detrimental to legitimate forest users. This week the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Monaro, when speaking on a matter of public importance, urged maximum access by legitimate users of forests and recreational reserves.

Four-wheel drive groups have tremendous access at the moment to the east coast forests and national parks. In consultation with such groups, the Government will protect access. Apart from coupes being locked off when forest operations are taking
Page 1345
place, there will be access for people in four-wheel drives, bushwalkers, campers and ordinary citizens in two-wheel drive vehicles. An enormous range of recreational pursuits are available in the forests. We accept that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has good intentions in proposing the bill but the legislation is precipitant bearing in mind the appeal that is before the courts. The Minister and the Government have taken the far more sensible approach of awaiting the court decision. It is believed that changes to legislation may not be necessary, but if they are they will be part of a comprehensive package.

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence) [11.33]: As most members of this House would know, I have been involved in forest industries for a very long time and I am a very strong supporter of them. The industry should have a right to harvest forests and members of the public also should have access to forests. It seems that because of a technicality on signage the courts have held that people in the forests irresponsibly - and I would say illegally - cannot be apprehended. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour merely seeks to address that problem, which is a responsible attitude. In the last few weeks I have heard the rhetoric from Government members, particularly the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, about forest industries being enhanced by the decisions of the Government. People of this State should know that such claims are utter nonsense. The Premier promised 24 new national parks, in addition to wilderness areas. Blind Freddy would know that such decisions have to affect forest industries.

When the coalition was in government there were almost equal areas of national park and forestry - four million hectares. The areas protected under national parks were quite adequate. The other areas should have been available for sensible and balanced harvesting of forests. The forest areas of my electorate have been harvested for more than a century. From the descriptions of the forests of 100 years ago, the present regrown forests are better. They provide a resource and employment. The forest areas should be accessible and people should be protected. At Whian Whian out of Lismore there is a forest which is basically a plantation - 2000-odd hectares. The industry has gone through all the necessary processes to gain approval for logging. Yet the dark greens intend to blockade the forest. What can be done about it? Perhaps there will be another technicality! Nothing seems to be done to allow industry and employment to progress. People can disrupt industry through the courts and other processes and destroy the viability of honest, hard-working people.

Machinery is destroyed. Sand is put into gearboxes. Hydraulic hoses are cut. People's lives are threatened with the danger of a hose blowing. People are being allowed to disrupt the whole economy. Eventually the economy of this country and this State will be destroyed if we do not ensure that the legitimate uses of these areas are maintained. Federal laws are being passed which supplement State laws and which put enormous pressure on the resource industries. An example is legislation on the Federal reserve system. It is aimed at protecting the 15 per cent of species which have become endangered since European settlement. The latest maps I have seen show nearly half a million hectares of leasehold and freehold land being affected. I suppose that again there will be no compensation. This legislation affects people's property. What do we stand for in this country if we do not stand for the rights of people who own property? Yet State and Federal laws detract from the value of property. And we wonder why people are upset! Of course they will be upset when their property is affected. What would Government members say if I put an order on their houses - which would be the equivalent?

A report recently received by the Federal Government stated that we do not need to log native forests because plantations could supply our needs. Where are the plantations to provide the resource? We are importing something like $2.4 billion worth of forest products each year while stifling and destroying our own industry. Government members should tell the residents of little towns such as Woodenbong, Grevillea, Drake, Dorrigo, and Bonalbo where their livelihoods will come from. They are being destroyed at the moment for no good reason. The forests have been very well managed for a long time. We should be doing everything in our power to ensure that people have the legitimate right to harvest the forests and enjoy their amenity. They are beautiful places and the public has every right to enter them and to enjoy them. That is what the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is trying to achieve. I am sick and tired of Federal members such as Harry Woods wringing their hands and doing absolutely nothing. That is one of the reasons I am moving to the Federal Parliament: I am sick and tired of it.

[Interruption]

The Minister can say what he likes; it will happen. I will raise the same issues in the Federal Parliament because I am very concerned about the small towns, employment and the Australian economy. The balance of trade deficit for one month was $2.9 billion. The forestry industry can do something about improving that figure. What are we doing to assist the industry? Very little. The Minister constantly refers to value adding. That is a red herring that has been drawn across the whole of this debate. At the present time, everyone is doing everything they can to value add. I refer to Pidcocks and Notaras in Grafton.

Mr Yeadon: On a point of order: I submit that the honourable member for Clarence is outside the leave of the bill. The bill does not refer to value adding; it refers to control signs in State forests. I ask you to bring the honourable member back to the leave of the bill.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Clarence will return to the leave of the bill.

Page 1346

Mr CAUSLEY: Value adding is obviously a sensitive issue, but I shall speak about that at another time. Access to forest areas is vital to small sawmilling communities. The Minister has claimed that the provisions of the bill will restrict access and will make matters more difficult for State Forests. He should do something about it. I am disgusted with the courts of this country. It seems to me that a number of twisted ideas are emerging from the judgments of the Land and Environment Court. I shake my head and wonder where the sense is in some of the judgments of the Land and Environment Court, which hands down decisions that have serious repercussions for the whole of the State. As I understand it, the courts should interpret rather than make the law. It is evident from some of the judgments handed down by our courts that the courts are trying to make the law. A classic example is the High Court.

Members of the community claim that people who commit serious offences are tapped on the back of the hand and sentenced to the rising of the court or something similar. The community has had enough of this. People in the forest industry are genuinely trying to work; they have equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are not high income earners; they are at the lower end of the income scale. Their equipment is being sabotaged by people who are a disgrace to Australia. They sneak out at night and damage equipment, cut hoses, and unbolt wheel nuts. That is an absolute disgrace. Those people are being allowed to get away it, and it seems that nothing is being done to reinforce the right of people to earn an income. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour understands the situation well because he is very close to it. He understands clearly that people need to be protected and that these areas need to be correctly signposted so that when people are apprehended they can be dealt with for the crimes that they have committed, some of which have been quite serious.

I am beginning to wonder whether people have a right to work in this country. It seems to me that the Labor governments of this country are not all that interested in allowing people to work. Some claim that everything possible should be done to protect the environment. As I have said before, if the economy of this country is destroyed the environment will be destroyed. Empty stomachs do not worry about the environment. Everyone wants to obtain a balance with the environment, but we must also ensure that Australians are able to enjoy the standard of living they have a right to expect and that the forestry industry offers secure employment. The forestry industry is the greatest decentralised industry in New South Wales. It must be defended and protected. I urge the Minister to think carefully about the bill. If it hurts his pride to accept the bill he should draw up a bill to ensure that these areas are protected. If the Minister is able to draft an amendment that is compatible with the rationale behind the bill, I am sure the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would consider it. The bill seeks to ensure that the constituents of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour have the right to work. I urge the Government to support the bill.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [11.46]: The speech of the honourable member for Clarence was a total overreaction. It demonstrated his refusal to allow the decision in question to be reviewed by the court system. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is not prepared to wait for the result of that review. I have a great many friends in the Coffs Harbour area.

Mr Fraser: Name them!

Ms HALL: I do not have enough time to name all my friends in Coffs Harbour.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The contribution of the honourable member for Swansea will be heard in silence.

Ms HALL: All of my friends in the Coffs Harbour area have told me about the local member's reputation for overreacting and about his anti-green reputation. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is trying to circumvent the court system.

Mr Kerr: It is an appropriate amendment.

Ms HALL: Not at all. The bill is about two rednecks getting together to support the one amendment. It is about closing the forests off and keeping them only for logging; it is not about letting people enjoy the forests. It is about protecting sectional interests. In his negotiations with the forestry industry the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, has the support of the industry, the unions and the greens. In seven years in government -

Mr Gaudry: Seven long years.

Ms HALL: Yes, they were seven very long years. In seven years the previous Government created only turmoil and dissension. This bill wants to go down the same old track. I shall move on -

Mr Fraser: I wish you would.

Ms HALL: Perhaps I should speak a little longer about knee-jerk reactions, about failing to listen to what the whole community wants, about destroying the economy and the environment. If the environment is destroyed we will not have an economy. The honourable member for Clarence referred to the Land and Environment Court. Of course he would not agree with its decisions. The only decisions the coalition agrees with are decisions made in its favour. The amendment seeks to repeal the powers provided in section 36A to prescribe by regulation the form or description of control signs. It is a hasty reaction to the court decision by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. The power of State Forests to prohibit entry and to regulate activities within State forests will be clarified by the due process of the law. Legal advice suggests that any possible deficiency in the law as it stands can be overcome by simply prescribing the forms or descriptions of control signs envisaged under section 36A of the Forestry Act 1916. Instead, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour proposes that section 36A be the vehicle for description of control signs.

Page 1347

The amendment seeks to insert into the Act a description of the construction of control signs and of the structures on which they may be affixed. That proposition indicates a misconception of the intent of the section; I believe it is in fact a distortion. As I have said, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is seeking to close off the forests to all but the loggers. He is committed to logging and woodchipping and is totally opposed to the general public being able to enjoy the forests. He opposes protests, even if they are peaceful. The honourable member for Clarence referred to those in the timber industry being among the lowest paid workers. The former Government did nothing to help them.

Mr Yeadon: We are.

Ms HALL: Yes, the Government is looking after them as a priority. The former Government looked after those who own the big machines. The coalition was interested only in opening up the forests for logging and allowing the workers to be exploited.

Mr Gibson: Getting the chainsaws out!

Ms HALL: Yes, get the chainsaws out and go for it! The amendment is clearly not an adequate or sufficiently flexible prescription. Section 36A, as it is presently worded, allows State Forests complete freedom to prescribe whatever form of sign or symbol is considered necessary in the particular circumstances.

Mr Kerr: We are finding this a bit hard to swallow.

Ms HALL: I thought you might. Any idea that you disagree with would always be hard to swallow. During the next four years the Opposition will have to listen to many things that it finds difficult to swallow, because the Government will act; it will not be a do-nothing Government, particularly in relation to the forestry industry. The Minister has already shown how pro-active she is in relation to that issue, and that is only the start. The control signs may need to parallel the symbols commonly adopted by local councils, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and other authorities so that members of the public can remain informed. The Government is big on that, unlike the former Government. Labor will not adopt the closed-government approach of the former Liberal Party-National Party Government: no camping, no swimming, no entry, and vehicle use restrictions. When section 36A was inserted by the then Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources, the Hon. Lin Gordon, he pointed out in the second reading speech that the Government's intention was not to discourage but rather to permit the recreational use of State forests. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour now seeks to change that section.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The member for Coffs Harbour has the right of reply at the appropriate time.

Ms HALL: As the vision of the Carr Government for the future management of State forests includes provision for all forest values, an increase in ecotourism and recreational use can be expected. For the purposes of ecotourism the environment must be preserved. We should not go down the track of logging and woodchipping. The forest areas should be available for enjoyment by all people. As the honourable member for Newcastle said, that includes people with four-wheel drive vehicles. The identification of areas of conservation and heritage value and their protection from logging will ensure the continued attraction of State forests for recreation and tourism. Already some 55,000 hectares of the 3.5 million hectares of State forests are protected in flora and forest reserves. At any time most forest areas are not subject to harvesting or active management and, accordingly, with some limitations, can be made available for sustainable tourism and recreational use. A significant number of ecotourism operators are already taking visitors into State forests, and some forests in close proximity to large urban populations are subject to heavy recreational usage. That is the way it should be. The Government advocates that forests should able to be enjoyed by the people.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: the honourable member appears to be reading her speech. If that is so, that is a contravention of rulings by various Speakers.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! It is accepted practice in this House that in debate members may refer to copious notes. The member is not reading her speech; she is referring to copious notes. No point of order is involved.

Ms HALL: If the honourable member for Cronulla wishes to check my speech for some of the matters I have been raising, he will find that I only have notes.

Mr Kerr: And they are copious!

Ms HALL: They are copious, although one would not need extensive notes to understand the amendments of the Opposition.

Mr Fraser: If you know your subject you do not need copious notes.

Ms HALL: I know my subject. The object of this amendment is to keep people out of forests, the perversion in the course of justice, and the refusal to accept the judgment of the court system. It symbolises what the Opposition stands for. It is symptomatic of the coalition's narrow view on forest management, which is focused on logging, woodchipping, and the traditional usages of the forest.

Mr Fraser: There is provision in the bill for woodchipping. This bill is about signs.

Ms HALL: Yes, the bill is about signs, and the rationale behind signs is to keep people out. As the honourable member for Clarence said, the amendment is all about harvesting the forests and keeping them secure for harvesting; it is about keeping the workers on low pay and maintaining the power of loggers. The Opposition wants to keep the forests for
Page 1348
woodchipping and logging; it wants to keep the greens out. I have taken copious notes about the twisting of ideas by the honourable member for Clarence, about his disagreement with decisions of the Land and Environment Court, and about opposition to the legal structures of the State.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.

Ms HALL: After a process of comprehensive regional assessment and forestry amendment, the Government will protect the areas of high conservation value and identify areas for future sustainable forest management. This approach is unlike that of the previous Government.

Mr Fraser: On a point of order: this legislation is specifically about control signs in the forest. It is not about preserving old growth forests. The member should be brought back to the leave of the bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure that the honourable member for Swansea was making only passing reference to that topic and was about to return to the leave of the bill.

Ms HALL: The Government rejects this knee-jerk reaction amendment which seeks to circumvent the court system. [Time expired.]

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [12.01]: I have just heard one of the more extraordinary speeches delivered in this House in recent times. The member completely missed the object of the bill and misinterpreted the thrust of the legislation which gave rise to this saga; namely, the Forestry (Amendment) Act (No.2), which was introduced in 1978 by the then Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources, Lyn Gordon. The bill before the House is specific and limited. The intention of the Labor Government in 1978 was to provide a management tool for the Forestry Commission; that is, the power to erect control signs. The second reading speech of the 1978 bill referred to that power in the following terms:

. . . have legal effect to prohibit the doing of certain things - for example, the riding of trail bikes in a specially set aside rest or picnicking area . . .

This has nothing to do with keeping people out of the forests and preserving forests for loggers. The 1978 legislation was directed solely at the preservation of recreation areas for picnickers and others, keeping them free of such irresponsible people as those who ride trail bikes in areas unsuitable for that purpose. The then Government envisaged that it was necessary for the Forestry Commission to regulate the use of the forest by certain people under certain conditions. As the then Minister indicated, this included preventing people moving into an area of forest during extreme bushfire periods. Surely the honourable member for Swansea is not suggesting that if we have a bad bushfire year, and if the court has not determined this issue, forest managers should not prevent people entering a section of forest in times of high risk of bushfire? The honourable member's proposition is incredible.

The Forestry Commission was given the all clear by the Minister in 1978 to implement the legislation, but it failed to do so. In the following 10 years of Labor government the department failed to act on the instruction of the Parliament to make regulations. Undoubtedly, during those 10 years the Forestry Commission thought it had the power to act in that way. A magistrate, picking up on a technicality, determined that the department never had that power, even though it had been acted upon for many years. This legislation is not about thwarting the control of the courts, as the honourable member for Swansea suggested. It was believed that the department had a power, but the regulation process was never followed to give that legal authority. The Minister has indicated that we should wait until the appeal process is complete to determine whether the magistrate's interpretation of that section of the Act was correct. I have not had the opportunity since this bill was introduced to avail myself of the arguments made by counsel for those challenging the powers of the Forestry Commission.

Ms Hall: On a point of order: it would appear that the honourable member for Hawkesbury is reading his speech.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! As I ruled earlier, it is a longstanding convention in this House that members may refer to copious notes. No point of order is involved.

Mr ROZZOLI: Obviously, the member for Swansea does not know too much about the member for Hawkesbury. In my 23 years in Parliament I have never used copious notes when making a speech. As the Hansard reporters can testify, the best speech notes they can expect from me are three lines scribbled on the back of a bus ticket. The magistrate determined that because no regulation was made, no power exists. On a strict legal interpretation, that determination is fair enough, and I would be surprised if the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The magistrate pointed out a failure in the system to create the law-making mechanism. Unfortunate as that may be, fault rests with the Forestry Commission for not doing what it should have done with the regulation. The magistrate said that people who disobeyed the signs and entered the forests did so on the basis of the lack of regulation. The magistrate may be acting within the strict legal interpretation of this matter, but the situation shows up a gap in the mechanism required for controls within forests.

If the bill is passed and the Court of Appeal decides that the power did exist even though the regulation had not been made, this bill will not disturb the situation. If the measure is passed quickly, it will pick up what was always the intention of Labor and the department. It is important to plug the gap in the legal status of this control mechanism as quickly as possible. It is irresponsible of the Minister to oppose such a narrow amendment. The bill is very specific and does not relate at all to matters of forest policy. Why on earth the Government has this attitude towards this conscientious and sensible legislation, I
Page 1349
do not know; it simple reiterates the action of a former Labor government. What worries me most in this debate is the emergence of a feature of the Labor Government of 1976-88.

That Government would never accept a suggestion from any quarter, no matter how good the suggestion might be. It was scared that the suggestion might have a hidden agenda; it feared being caught by some convoluted interpretation. That Government did not have the mental capacity to understand that somebody else might have a good idea and, in good conscience, try to help the Government to do a better job. The function of the Parliament is to bring forward ideas and suggestions and test them and to work cooperatively towards a better result. I am sad to see the re-emergence of the attitude of the previous Labor Government. I had high hopes for the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. I have followed his career as Minister and to date I have been impressed with his conscientiousness in endeavouring to come to terms with and discuss problems.

The Minister should understand that the bill is not complicated; it is clear and straight forward and picks up what the previous Labor Government wanted to do in 1978. There are many instances in which the Legislature has made a law but for some reason the relevant legislation is not quite right in its strict legal interpretation. The courts strike down such laws because, although the intent of the Legislature is clear, the words used do not implement the intention. It is then the task of the Parliament, on the advice of the courts, to introduce amending legislation to address anomalies in the wording of legislation to conform with the intention expressed at the introduction of the legislation. Today's bill seeks to implement the intent of legislation introduced by Minister Gordon in 1978.

It is important that it is understood that the intent of the legislation was to give State Forests the ability to control - the Minister used the word "prohibit", but really it was the ability to control - certain functions that in many cases enhanced recreational use and protected people from danger; aspects that would normally be part and parcel of any operation. When one goes into a factory one sees signs excluding entry to certain areas and requesting, for example, that fire stairs be kept clear. That is an important safety precaution. The purpose of such signs is to assist proper control and management. Proper control and proper management were the intention of Minister Gordon and the Government of the day. It has now been pointed out that there may be an anomaly in the legislation; that such signs may not be legal. I sincerely hope that no-one is killed between now and the court's determining whether the magistrate was right. But if that does happen, it will be on the conscience of Government members.

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [12.13]: It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, which is about an important aspect of operations in forests. The actions of the Minister are much better than the proposals of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. In the main, those who use our forests are sensible and highly appreciative of the forests, and I have no doubt that they will obey whatever instructions they receive. It would appear that the proposals of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour are a knee-jerk reaction to a demonstration in a forest about activities going on in that forest, activities that were contrary to the beliefs of many people. The introduction of this amending legislation is a knee-jerk reaction. Honourable members should listen to the words of the Minister. The Government will overthrow this legislative attempt to limit people putting forward their concerns about what is happening in State forests.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has the right of reply at the appropriate time. He should listen in silence to the contribution of the honourable member for Keira.

Mr MARKHAM: The Government opposes the bill because the amendments proposed are a step backwards. If the motivation of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was to clarify the powers of State Forests to prohibit entry and regulate activities within State forests, he should have waited for the final results of the prosecution that is now the subject of an appeal. Alternatively, he could have simply suggested that a regulation be made in accordance with section 36A of the Forestry Act, which was inserted to facilitate forest managers in their control functions. Surely managers of national parks and forests have the ability to direct people without signs being displayed in the manner suggested by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. The amendments proposed by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would repeal the power provided by section 36A to prescribe the form or description of control signs. Instead of providing a workable alternative, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour seeks to insert a crude physical description of the construction of a sign and of the structure on which it may be affixed. What is the honourable member for Coffs Harbour trying to prove by suggesting that the signs should be affixed and should display specific information?

At the time of introducing section 36A a former Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources, the Hon. Lin Gordon, explained that the provision was aimed at facilitating the Forestry Commission in its exercise of powers under the Act to control and regulate State forests. When introducing the amendments, the Minister at the time pointed out that the provisions were not designed to discourage people from using the State forests for recreational purposes. Rather, they were intended to permit the recreational use of State forests to continue and to be further developed, with greater protection and safety for the public and the forest environment. It is obvious that is what happens right now. Why change the thrust of the present legislation? I consider the proposals of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to be an attack on those who want to register their protest about what is occurring, and that is the reason for the introduction of this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Markham.

Page 1350