Forestry Revocation And National Park Reservation Bill

Debate resumed from 21 November.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [4.04]: The main objective of the Forestry Revocation and National Park Reservation Bill is to create national parks and wilderness areas by revoking State forests. Prior to the 1995 State election the Labor Party promised 24 new national parks. This legislation extends the number of new national parks to 38 and makes additions to 12 existing national parks. The Government has indicated that a large number of these areas will be subsequently declared wilderness once the conversion to national parks occurs. I understand that about half the State forests being revoked will be subsequently declared wilderness. Unlike the coalition Government, which converted some national parks to wilderness, this proposal will convert 70 State forests, whole or part thereof - a total area of 238,000 hectares - to national parks and/or wilderness areas. By leave, the document listing the State forests to be revoked will be incorporated in Hansard.


______

State forest areas to be revoked

	area (ha)	total area (ha)
Bellinger River National Park
Bellinger River State Forest 651	2,830	2,830
Ben Boyd National Park
East Boyd State Forest 127	260	260
Biamanga National Park
Murrah State Forest 140	1,430
Page 6557 Mumbulla State Forest 605	1,310	2,740
Barrington Tops National Park
Avon River State Forest 293	65
Barrington Tops State Forest 977	1700
Chichester State Forest 292	2,450
Barrington Tops State Forest 977	10,000
Chichester State Forest 292	1,160
Stewarts Brook State Forest 276	3,670
Chichester State Forest 292	1,500
Mt. Royal State Forest 297	980	21,525
Budawang National Park
Currowan State Forest 820	430
Yadboro State Forest 974	7,200	7,630
Chaelundi National Park
Boundary Creek State Forest 627	3,460
Marara State Forest 628	1,970
Chaelundi State Forest 996	4,630	10,060
Dooragan National Park
Camden Haven State Forest 684	670	670
Dunggir National Park
Mistake State Forest 525	2,500	2,500
Fortis Creek National Park
Fortis Creek State Forest 172	7,838	7,838
Guy Fawkes River National Park
Chaelundi State Forest 996	4,600
Glen Nevis State Forest 656	3,600
London Bridge State Forest 309	2,950
Oakwood State Forest 555	1,900
Paddys Land State Forest 362	2,275	15,325
Gibralter Range National Park
Cangai State Forest 354	330
Gibralter Range State Forest 352	1,570
Gibralter Range State Forest 352	2,420
Moogem State Forest 614	25	4,345
Koorebang Nature Reserve
Mount Boss State Forest 910	465.4	465.4
Mimosa Rocks National Park
Mumbulla State Forest 605	160	160
Morton National Park
Page 6558 Coroobyar State Forest 769	1,400
Flat Rock State Forest 834	1,820
Yadboro State Forest 974	910	4,130
Mount Royal National Park
Mount Royal State Forest 297	5030
Chichester State Forest 292	270	5300
Nadgee Nature Reserve
Nadgee State Forest 125	3,520	3,520
New England National Park
Lower Creek State Forest 161	660
Nulla Five Day State Forest 601	4,340
Styx River State Forest 339	780
Styx River State Forest 339	4,740
Nulla Five Day State Forest 601	13,200
Oakes State Forest 609	2,100	25,820
Nymboida National Park
Dalmorton State Forest 814	830
Dalmorton State Forest 814	6,940
Gibralter Range State Forest 352	2,470
Ramornie State Forest 660	450
Cangai State Forest 354	1,210	11,900
Nymboi-Binderay National Park
Kangaroo River State Forest 21	3,930
Clouds Creek State Forest 111	1,580
Wild Cattle Creek State Forest 488	3,100	8,610
Oxley Wild Rivers National Park
Carrai State Forest 909	5,970
Enmore State Forest 330	1,075
Winterbourne State Forest 316	3,410	10,455
Richmond Range National Park
Richmond Range State Forest 610	8,250	8,250
South East Forest National Park
Bemboka State Forest 1007	590
Bondi State Forest 128	2,260
Cathcart State Forest 607	900
Coolangubra State Forest 547	6,180
Coolangubra State Forest 547	760
Glenbog State Forest 149	8,400
Glenbog State Forest 149	3,050
Page 6559 Nalbaugh State Forest 129	480
Nullica State Forest 545	7,320
Nungatta State Forest 131	1,790
Tantawangalo State Forest 134	5,510
Tantawangalo State Forest 134	3,740
Towamba State Forest 908	90
Yambulla State Forest 126	3,690
Yurammie State Forest 133	3,060	47,820
Wadbilliga National Park
Murrabrine State Forest 947	780	780
Washpool National Park
Washpool State Forest 355	2,900
Billilimbra State Forest 815	3,590
Spirabo State Forest 321	5,500
Little Spirabo State Forest 695	2,780
Curramore State Forest 763	8710
Moogem State Forest 614	520	24,000
Werrikimbe National Park
Mount Boss State Forest 910	1,850	1,850
Willi Willi National Park
Carrai State Forest 909	1,450
Mount Boss State Forest 910	5,900
Yessabah State Forest 602	2,230	9,550
Total	238,333.4

______


Mr D. L. PAGE: The new national parks and nature reserves to be created are Bellinger; Chaelundi; Dunggir; Fortis Creek; Mount Royal; Mount Boss State Forest, now renamed Koorebang nature reserve; Nymboi-Binderay; North Brother, now renamed Dooragan national park; Richmond Range; and the South East Forest National Park. Additions to existing parks include Barrington Tops, Budawang, Gibraltar Range, Guy Fawkes River, Morton, Nadgee, New England, Nymboida, Oxley Wild Rivers, Washpool, Werrikimbe, Willi Willi, Ben Boyd, Biamanga, Mimosa Rocks and Wadbilliga. The Opposition has a number of concerns about this legislation, and I shall address them in terms of two broad categories. Firstly, the Opposition is concerned about the socioeconomic impact of these revocations. The Opposition is of the view that jobs will be lost in timber dependent communities, with flow-on effects for the rural economy and, indeed, the national economy.

The Opposition is concerned about the impact of these proposals on those with grazing permits who will no longer be able to run cattle in the State forests for which permits currently exist. It is concerned also about the impact on recreational users, both four-wheel drive users and horse riders who will lose access to these State forests when they are revoked and converted into wilderness. I shall say more about the socioeconomic impact later. The second broad area of concern is that the conversion to wilderness of large areas of State forests which have been subject to significant disturbance by grazing, mining, logging and other forms of land use, including human settlement, compromises true wilderness values and makes a farce of the concept of wilderness in this State. However, I point out at the outset that both the National and Liberal parties support the concept of genuine wilderness. Indeed, neither the Liberal Party nor the National Party voted against the Wilderness Bill when it was passed by the Parliament in 1987. It is worth
Page 6560
remembering that it was the coalition Government that created the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Therefore I emphasise that the Opposition supports genuine wilderness. However, the Opposition believes that much of what has been proposed for wilderness declaration under this legislation is not appropriate under that classification. I remind honourable members of the definition of wilderness. Section 6(1) of the Wilderness Act states:

(1) An area of land shall not be identified as wilderness by the Director unless the Director is of the opinion that:

(a) the area is, together with its plant and animal communities, in a state that has not been substantially modified by humans and their works or is capable of being restored to such a state -

that is a very important part of the definition -

(b) the area is of a sufficient size to make its maintenance in such a state feasible; and

(c) the area is capable of providing opportunities for solitude and appropriate self-reliant recreation.

An area that has been used for grazing purposes, has had cattle yards on it, that has had dams built on it and has been cleared for open grazing cannot reasonably be declared as wilderness under the definition of "wilderness" in the Wilderness Act. That begs the question: why is the Government running the risk of compromising the definition of "wilderness" in this way? Perhaps it is because there is a political imperative to do so to pay back extreme environmentalists for their crucial preferences in key, marginal metropolitan seats at the last State election and to shore up the Government's so-called environmental credentials at the 1999 State election. This legislation is a vote-buying exercise. The Australian Labor Party knows that some conservation groups have erected billboards around Sydney, have been active in large-scale mail-outs, have organised public rallies and have received substantial media coverage.

I do not believe that anyone should be under any illusions about the politically expedient and morally questionable nature of this legislation. The Opposition has had limited time to consult affected parties as this legislation was introduced less than a week ago. However, I am aware of a number of groups that have major concerns about the Government's proposals. Central to these concerns is the appropriateness of converting State forests, which have been significantly disturbed in the past, into wilderness and the implications that follow from that. As I indicated earlier, significant disturbance has been caused by a range of activities including grazing, mining, logging and other forms of land use. A good example of this negative socioeconomic impact is that wilderness declarations over State forests, where grazing permits exist, will deprive those graziers of their livelihood. I am aware of more than 40 occupational permits which will not be renewed because of this legislation.

I and other coalition members of Parliament recently met with a group of these graziers who are devastated because the Government is treating them so badly. They have farmed the land for generations, in some cases over 100 years. No-one has talked to these affected people to determine what will be the impact of these declarations. These people, who were excluded from making an input into the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council process, are still to be consulted by this Government about their occupational permits. Apart from giving graziers a maximum 12-month extension on their current permits, it seems that no-one has given any thought to the fact that they will go broke. What impact will the release of about 10,000 head of cattle have on an already depressed cattle market if they are forced to sell? Over the years graziers have erected stockyards and fences and built numerous dams. Most of the land, which has been cleared, is excellent grazing land. Despite all this the Government is now saying that the land ought to be declared a wilderness area. No wonder people are upset! I wish to quote briefly from a press release issued on 22 November by the New South Wales Farmers Association. That association requested the Government to let the legislation sit on the table to enable further consultation with affected parties. Mr Ian Donges, President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, said:

We have several concerns about the efficacy of the assessment process. If the National Parks & Wildlife Service has in fact undertaken thorough surveys that the Minister for the Environment has claimed that the Service did, then the assessed Wilderness areas would not have included, as they now have, cultivated paddocks of potatoes and turnips, large areas of fenced and improved lands, and dams and huts.

He went on to state:

Clearly to rely on the existing assessment procedures de-values and politicises Wilderness. In addition there has been little or no contact, let alone discussions with affected lawful occupiers of the land.

Another very good letter from Amanda Watters in the Dorrigo area is worth noting. Last week her letter, which was published in the Daily Telegraph, referred to the problems associated with depriving these people of their livelihood. The MacDougall family, who live on a neighbouring property, will have to get rid of 1,000 head of cattle in a hurry, as there is no alternative place for those cattle to go. Graziers are not the only people who are upset; concern is being expressed also by some genuine conservationist groups that grazing land and land which has been logged is being included in these areas being nominated as wilderness areas. Many of these areas, therefore, do not satisfy the definition of wilderness and bring into question the integrity of wilderness areas and the comprehensive and adequate reserve system. While there may be areas of wilderness that warrant conservation because they have never been disturbed or are capable of being restored to a pristine condition, a significant number of areas have been included that have been disturbed and cannot reasonably be restored and, therefore, do not satisfy the wilderness criteria.

Page 6561

There are real concerns about the process that has been used to establish these wilderness nominations. Because of the speed with which these areas were assessed there was no time to do on-the-ground verification. This so-called rapid desktop assessment without field verification can produce outcomes whereby certain land cannot possibly be defined as wilderness. Let me give one of many examples. The area of Dalmorton State Forest, known as the Cunglebung Run, east of Boyd River, was taken up in 1845 for the purposes of grazing. Since that time cattle have been continuously grazed within this area. A requirement of the early leases was that the country had to be improved, including clearing by hand, ringbarking and fencing. Alluvial gold was discovered in the Mann River area in the 1860s. The town of Dalmorton, to the south of this area proposed for wilderness and immediately to the east of Chaelundi State Forest within the proposed Guy Fawkes National Park, had a population of many thousands in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

During the Great Depression up to 1,000 miners were working in the Wellington Creek area of Dalmorton State Forest. Cunglebung Station homestead, just across Mosquito Creek, became the Pick n Shovel Hotel which, for many years, catered to miners and graziers in the area. At its peak the population of the Cunglebung area was reputed to be as high as 3,000. The grazing and mining areas west of the Mann River have a similar history of disturbance. Grazing dates back to the 1860s. Generally speaking, forest leases and occupational permits for grazing occupy all Dalmorton and Ramornie State forests and parts of Cangai and the Gibraltar Range State forests. As a result of conditions attached to these early leases there are substantial areas of cleared or semi-cleared country within relevant areas and a network of dams, fences, holding paddocks and yards.

The Cunglebung area was part of the old transport route between Grafton and Glen Innes. Fire trails which were constructed in the 1950s are still there today. Since hardwood logging commenced over parts of the area in the 1960s a larger network of roads and tracks has developed. Logging disturbance in the forestry area dates back to the 1860s with the arrival of the first cedar getters. Sawmills were scattered throughout the area sourcing timber from what are now known as Dalmorton, Ramornie, Cangai and Gibraltar Range State forests which fall within the proposed wilderness area. There is still evidence of at least three sawmills within the Gibraltar Range State Forest alone and other mills were located in the Dalmorton area. What does this say about the suitability of these areas for wilderness? The integrity of wilderness areas is being made more dubious by the uncertainty of the boundaries being nominated. Parliamentary Counsel revealed in a briefing given to me by the Government, for which I am grateful, that he had warned the Government that Crown leasehold land may have inadvertently been included in this legislation. Parliamentary Counsel's briefing note stated:

The Boundaries of the proposed national parks exclude any State forest lands which may be held as leases under the provisions of the Crown Land Act 1989 by virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Forestry Act.

Very good! Parliamentary Counsel then stated:

Nevertheless, in view of the large number of plans involved it may be that land held as a lease may have been included, inadvertently, in the land to be reserved as national park or nature reserve.

This Government is unsure as to the correct details relating to the boundaries of the area proposed as national parks - a fact made evident by the inclusion of clause 11 of the bill, which provides for the exclusion of any Crown leases should they be inadvertently included in the national parks system. While this is essential from a philosophical viewpoint, it is also positive proof that the Government is uncertain of the boundaries of its proposed national park and wilderness areas. Parliamentary Counsel has publicly acknowledged that Crown leasehold land could be included in areas covered by this legislation, which highlights the fact that this Government has not done its homework. Today the Government is attempting to ram through this legislation regardless of the accuracy of the boundaries or whether the land meets the definition of wilderness and without any clear idea of what the real socioeconomic impact will be. The Opposition has a major concern in relation to access roads throughout these areas and I will highlight that problem. These concerns are twofold: firstly, those roads which currently serve State forests will have no guarantee of remaining open beyond six months when the State forests are revoked. Clause 9(4) of the bill provides:

The access roads may continue . . . to be used for the purposes for which they were used immediately before the commencement of this Act.

That sounds fair enough. However, the decision whether that road will continue as an access road is entirely at the discretion of the Minister for the Environment and that Minister has six months to decide. The only brake on the Minister for the Environment is the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, who also has a concurrence role.

Mr Yeadon: I'm a very good brake.

Mr D. L. PAGE: Not so far, Minister, let me tell you. A lot of people think that the Minister for the Environment is actually the Minister for forests.

Mr Yeadon: And a lot of people think I am the Minister for the Environment.

Mr D. L. PAGE: There is no difference. What sort of protection is there when both Ministers are laughingly saying that they doing the same job. The Opposition is concerned that the Act is silent on the factors that the Minister for the Environment must take into account in making decisions regarding whether an access road should remain
Page 6562
open or closed. The concern is that in areas declared wilderness the intention of the Government will clearly be to close roads. What will happen when the road provides access to neighbouring freehold or leasehold land?

In those circumstances freehold landowners or leaseholders could be denied permanent access to their properties. Given the hundreds of roads in State forests to be revoked, this is obviously a very realistic and weighty problem. In this circumstance affected land-holders would have no appeal rights. The second concern is that roads that are currently being maintained within State forests will obviously not be maintained when these areas are declared wilderness, or national parks for that matter. This could significantly hamper the capacity to control bushfires and the management of the reserve system generally.

This is a major factor that this country has to consider when creating large areas of reserve. People have put all their energy into building up a reserve system and not very much thought into how it will be managed once it is in place. I assure the House that there are far greater damages to biodiversity from a very hot fire through a national park or a wilderness area than will ever occur as a result of logging or grazing activities. This should be understood and the resources must be available to manage the reserve system once it is established.

There is a range of other issues surrounding this legislation including the socioeconomic impact of the wilderness and national parks declarations on the timber industry. While the interim assessment process social impact study was better than no study at all, it was confined to a general impact on five New South Wales townships. The study failed to quantify any details on social impact in these towns, preferring to rely on the snapshot approach which is of little real value except in highlighting in a generic and anecdotal sense the general impact on timber dependent towns. Honourable members will recall that the Powell report dealt with a number of questions: "What would your reaction be if there was a 70, 50, 30 per cent cut? Would you close your mill? How many people will go on that sort of analysis?" Whilst that report was helpful it was not comprehensive enough to give a clear picture of how many jobs will be lost and the economic cost to the communities affected across New South Wales. In the last few days Margaret Mason from the Gloucester area wrote a letter to the Premier and said:

Dear Mr Carr,

The implications of your Government's decisions on the Forestry Industry are now starting to impact on local communities, and as those whose livelihood depends on a viable timber industry always knew, it is certainly not a "win-win" situation.

That is clearly what the Government has always claimed. She further said:

In the Gloucester district, one logging contractor who employed four men has already been forced from the industry and two other contractors have now no further work beyond this month.

The forced reduction in volume and quality available has most serious ramifications for an industry which comprises one third of this community's economy. It is so unnecessary, as timber is one of our very few environmentally friendly, renewable resources which is more than can be said for the alternative products.

Ms Mason makes a damn good point. Timber is an environmentally benign substance. It is the most environmentally friendly product that can be used: it is renewable, recyclable, biodegradable and solar powered. There is nothing that is more environmentally friendly. A lot of the alternative substitutes such as steel, glass, plastic and so on very seldom stack up in terms of true environment quality. It takes a lot more energy to produce these items than it does to produce timber. Apart from the huge impact on timber workers, their families and timber dependent economies, the impact of these declarations on the cities cannot be underestimated.

In a recent paper the executive director of the National Association of Forest Industries, Dr Robert Bain, stated that a reduction in timber availability would serious affect "not just hundreds but thousands of forest product companies throughout the State, many in the Sydney metropolitan area - most of these in Labor's heartland". Mr Bain stated that the independent publication Australian Forest Industries Directory Buyers and Sellers Guide:

. . . lists more than 2200 companies associated with forest products trading in NSW, of which nearly 1000 are located in the Sydney metropolitan area. More than 40 business categories are listed.

There are nearly 300 metropolitan timber merchants, including 80 in Sydney's western suburbs, 59 in the inner west, 48 north of the harbour and 31 in the city and east.

There are also 1100 furniture manufacturers and wood turners, at least 38 door manufacturers and some 95 retailers of hardware and building materials. In these three categories alone there are 84 companies in the west, 36 in the inner west and another 41 in the city and east.

More than 170 timber merchants, furniture manufacturers, door makers and retailers of hardware and building materials are listed in the electorates of Bankstown, Moorebank and Fairfield, the suburban strongholds of key Ministers Pam Allan (Environment) and Craig Knowles (Urban Affairs and Planning) and backbencher Joe Tripodi.

Let me tell the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, there will be people in your electorates who will not appreciate what is being done with the timber industry. The Opposition intends to let them know why their businesses are not making profits and why they are likely to lose their jobs. Honourable members will recall that the Premier said not so very long ago that whenever the Government made any major decisions it would undertake a rural impact statement.

Mr Yeadon: That was before that announcement.

Mr D. L. PAGE: No, this announcement has been made in recent times. The Government has introduced legislation and said it is wonderful stuff but there has been no rural community impact statement. I am not aware of any rural community
Page 6563
impact statement that has been made by this Government about any decision that has impacted on country people. That is another furphy by the Premier, a throw-away line. When people in the country complain about what is happening they are told that in future the Government will do a rural impact statement, and that is supposed to solve the problems of country people, but it is all forgotten once Government members return to Sydney.

Timber industry stakeholders who will be greatly affected by this Government's legislation strongly dispute the wilderness value of any area where logging has taken place, and rightly so. The Mount Boss State Forest is earmarked for revocation and has been subject to intensive timber stand improvement and there are compartments within it that contain high volumes of blackbutt regrowth. To take these areas out of the system, to lock them up and to deny all access to the resource, does not make any sense at all. The Opposition is concerned about the Government's ability to deliver its 5 x 5 wood supply agreements if these revocations of State forests go ahead. There is considerable concern about this within State Forests also. It was a very interesting speech that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation made about this bill. It is one of those clayton's second reading speeches: it is a speech you are having when you are not having a speech about the legislation. His second reading speech was all about securing the timber industry and the 5 x 5 contracts. He said nothing about conservation.

Mr Yeadon: I am the Minister for forests.

Mr D. L. PAGE: That is right, and the Minister should not forget it. He seems to have amnesia; he has forgotten that he is the Minister for forests. It is important to note that this legislation, which the Government is pushing through this House today, pre-empts the conclusion of the assessment process to create a comprehensive and adequate reserve system under the national forest policy statement. A media release issued on 3 October by the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson, after the Government announced its new forest policy - which included the raft of measures being debated today - stated:

. . . the Commonwealth was seriously concerned that the NSW Government's decisions had pre-empted the nationally agreed Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA) process that was supposed to follow the Interim Assessment Process (IAP) conducted in NSW . . .

"The result of the NSW Government's actions has been to undermine the scientifically rigorous processes that both the Commonwealth and NSW had agreed would form the basis for signing Regional Forest Agreements.

"It is a bit rich for NSW to claim this is an interim decision pending the completion of further detailed assessments, and then lock in a range of long term outcomes . . .

That is a very important point. The Government has pre-empted the process because it has locked in a number of long-term outcomes by doing what it has done before the conclusion of the process. It therefore runs the risk that the declarations will not stand up to scientific rigour. The media release continued:

. . . the Commonwealth is also concerned at the premature declaration of National Parks in the Eden area and the decision not to give interim protection to all high conservation value forests in this area while the CRA process was completed.

"Throughout this interim process we have urged NSW to adopt a precautionary approach to both the industry and environment.

Of course, the Government has not done that. The legislation would deny access to all public land declared wilderness to recreational users except bushwalkers. That would essentially discriminate against the elderly and the young, not to mention horse riders and owners of four-wheel drive vehicles. I assure the Government that recreational users from both the city and the country are strongly opposed to wilderness declarations which close roads and trails to vehicles and horses when the need to do so on environmental grounds is highly questionable. Recreational use varies from area to area. Areas such as Barrington Tops and Nadgee are used by many people for recreational use, and the users of those areas will not be the least bit impressed by being denied access by this Government to this publicly owned land.

I refer now to the financial aspects of the implications of the legislation. There are direct financial costs associated with changing from the present tenure to that of wilderness areas. Those costs arise from the closure of existing trails, the creation of facilities at wilderness boundaries to exclude recreational users, and the erection of signs and interpretive material, not to mention the additional staff required if those areas are to be managed effectively. How will this be funded? What will be the source of the funds? Will they be sufficient to control fire, feral animals, weed infestation in all the new national parks and wilderness areas? If the past is any guide, the appetite of the National Parks and Wildlife Service for new territory will far outstrip its capacity to manage it. For example, how will the Government control the outbreak of Scotch broom in an area to be added to the Barrington Tops national park?

Mr Yeadon: Roundup.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Minister is going to spray it with Roundup! Where will the money come from to control the outbreak of Scotch broom? The Minister has already raided the environmental trusts to fund his job-loss package, so there is no money there. Will the funding come from Treasury, when so many demands are being made on the health, education and police budgets? The Minister might enlighten the House as to where the funding - both the capital component and the recurrent component - will come from. The native title issue also needs to be considered by the Government. The question of whether a wilderness declaration extinguishes native title is still unclear. That is not
Page 6564
entirely irrelevant to this legislation because a native title claim has been lodged on land proposed in the Washpool wilderness area -

Mr Rixon: And the Richmond Range.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Richmond Range is another one. I understand that the Government may well be negotiating with the claimants in relation to this matter. If agreement is not reached between the Government and the claimants, will the Government proceed with the wilderness declarations anyway or will it back off and acknowledge that native title exists within a wilderness area? If that is the case, what are the implications down the track? No mention has been made of beekeepers in this debate. The Government is depriving our children of honey. Throughout the RACAC process and the wilderness assessment process beekeepers have not been properly considered.

Not only do beekeepers support themselves in the honey-making business and thereby stay off the dole, but their bees are busy pollinating the forests and enhancing biodiversity. The Government's attitude to beekeepers is exactly the same as it is to graziers - as soon as their permits expire it kicks them out. Current licence holders will not be able to pass on their licences, and no new licences are being issued. Is the Minister denying that?

Ms Allan: We love the beekeepers.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Government is not denying it. The fact is that it is not issuing any more licences, not renewing licences and not allowing people to pass licences on when they expire. It is kicking the beekeepers - whose bees not only produce honey but encourage pollination within the forests - out of the forests. In conclusion, I emphasise that the Opposition is concerned about the socioeconomic impact on workers in the timber industry, on the livelihood of those graziers who have occupational permits in State forests, on beekeepers, on lost mining opportunities in the mineral industry and on recreational users being denied access to public land, including people from the city who are keen to visit those areas on weekends and people from the country areas. I am aware that deep concerns are shared by a number of my colleagues. The honourable members representing the electorates of Northern Tablelands, Oxley, Monaro, Murwillumbah, Lismore, Coffs Harbour, Myall Lakes, Burrinjuck, Bega and South Coast have all expressed their concerns and have had a number of meetings with various others who share their concerns.

The Opposition is waiting with bated breath to find out how the honourable member for Clarence will speak in this debate. I am sure he will be in there fighting for the timber workers and voting with the Government as usual. He will vote for people to lose their jobs and to extend areas into wilderness that have no place - under any reasonable interpretation of the definition of wilderness - to be included in wilderness, and the Government knows it. The Opposition is concerned that the Government is devaluing the conservation value of wilderness by including land which has been subject to significant disturbance through grazing, logging, mining, human settlement and other forms of land use. What effect will the legislation have on the integrity of our wilderness areas? What will it mean for future declarations? People will regard wilderness declarations with contempt when they realise they relate to large open grazing areas with dams and cattle yards; they will instinctively know that those areas are not wilderness and that the Government is including such country in the declarations. Because of the many problems I have outlined, the Opposition will not support the legislation. It would like more time to address the issues I have raised.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [4.40]: The purpose of the bill is to revoke the dedication of certain lands as State forest, including national forest, and the status of certain lands as flora reserve, and to reserve or dedicate lands as national parks and nature reserves. These revocations implement the conservation decisions made in the Government's landmark forestry decision in September this year. The bill will also revoke the reservation of certain national parks so that the land may be added to other national parks for management and conservation purposes. In addition, it will alter the names of certain national parks that are to become part of the enlarged South East Forest National Park, which was also a cornerstone of the Government's forestry decision. The bill also makes special provisions for certain access roads and tracks within the lands being reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act.

The identified roads and tracks will not be reserved as national park, but will be vested in me as Minister for the Environment to resolve access issues, for example, access to inholdings. To ensure that all access to private inholdings is not potentially prevented by the legislation, a point raised by the honourable member for Ballina, the Government will move an amendment to the bill in Committee to insert a statement in clause 9 that nothing in that clause authorises the Minister for the Environment to close any access road that compromises the only access route to private lands. Freehold and leasehold land will be excluded from reservation. The outcome of the bill will be a greatly enhanced national parks and wilderness system in New South Wales. Prior to the election this Government gave a firm commitment to conserve the national heritage of New South Wales. This commitment included the declaration of 24 new national parks and seven new wilderness areas, as well as additions to nine existing wilderness areas.

The Government's policy is consistent with the broader national commitment laid down in the national forest policy statement, of which the former Government was a co-signatory, that is, to establish a reserve system protecting wilderness and old-
Page 6565
growth forest in addition to establishing a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for forested areas, while encouraging the development of a viable and value-adding timber industry. Unlike the present Opposition, this Government has moved to implement the national forest policy statement. A total of 38 new parks have been established in this State since March 1995, exceeding the Government's commitment for that period. In addition, a total of over 350,000 hectares of additions to wilderness in New South Wales were announced in March this year, with another 150,000 hectares to be added after passage of this bill, which will complete the addition by this Government of more than 500,000 hectares to the wilderness estate in 18 months.

The coalition only ever declared wilderness over existing national parks areas - and even then reluctantly. This bill will allow for the declaration of wilderness over areas of State forest which have been brought into the park system. In addition, new national parks and park additions which are not to be included in wilderness will be created from State forests. Honourable members heard a very long dissertation from the honourable member for Ballina about occupational permit holders in current State forests. The Government worked to ensure that holders of occupational permits were consulted during the consideration of additions to the park estate. On 18 October representatives of the National Parks and Wildlife Service attended a public meeting on this issue in Grafton organised by the honourable member for Clarence in conjunction with the New South Wales Farmers Association. Approximately 75 people attended the meeting, only three of whom stated that they had not received correspondence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service concerning the September wilderness declarations.

In addition, people were advised that detailed maps of new parks and wilderness areas had been prepared by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and were available for inspection at various district offices close by. Service staff have carried out field inspections, face-to-face meetings or phone consultation with occupational permit holders. Evidence of consultation with permit holders is reflected in the new Chaelundi National Park, where the boundary has been adjusted to exclude a land-holder's stockyard. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests -

Mr Chappell: We need a lot more of them.

Ms ALLAN: The honourable member for Northern Tablelands should not be too impatient, because there certainly will be more of them. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests have agreed that occupational permits will be extended until 31 December next year. That is not this year; it is next year.

Mr Jeffery: After five generations.

Ms ALLAN: And on other people's land. Members opposite should get that through their thick heads. Not only will the Government extend occupational permits until the end of next year, but all fees and charges for the permits will be waived.

Mr Jeffery: They keep their permits.

Ms ALLAN: They do not even do that. The honourable member for Oxley is alleging that the Government will keep the goods and chattels that these people possess on the land.

Mr Jeffery: I would not be surprised.

Ms ALLAN: He would not be surprised about anything, nor would I be surprised about anything the honourable member for Oxley says to these people. If they are not aware already through the good offices of the honourable member for Oxley, and I suspect they are not, they should be made aware now, as the Government is seeking to do, that they will be able to remove any of the goods and chattels they own at their convenience. A letter advising occupational permit holders of this arrangement will soon be sent to all affected parties. The honourable member for Ballina spoke about a new alliance that had come to the fore in the past couple of days between members of the farming community and the conservation community, who also oppose the new wilderness boundaries. I presume that the honourable member for Ballina was referring to a statement made by Sue Arnold, purporting to represent the Australian Koala Foundation, on the Country Hour program yesterday, when she spoke at some length to the interviewer about the terrible things the Government was doing to occupational permit holders as result of the wilderness declarations.

Mr D. L. Page: And she was absolutely right.

Ms ALLAN: The coalition believes she is correct, but the rest of the conservation movement certainly does not. The honourable member for Ballina did not present the complete story when he tried to promote Sue Arnold as an icon of the conservation movement. She can certainly be an icon of the coalition, but she is not an icon of the current conservation movement. The Total Environment Centre and the Colong Foundation for Wilderness issued a joint press release this morning rejecting the so-called New Anti-Wilderness Alliance, for whom Sue Arnold is a spokesperson. The press release states:

"The green spokesperson Sue Arnold does not speak for us, nor I am sure, for the vast bulk of the environment movement. In her statement yesterday she admits that she has yet to obtain all the facts but this does not stop her from seeking to halt one of the most important environmental and extensively researched gains in a quarter of a century," said Jeff Angel Director of Total Environment Centre.

It is obvious what Sue Arnold and the coalition have in common: they do not bother to search for the facts. The honourable member for Ballina also said that this legislation will eventually be undone as a
Page 6566
result of the science. It is the science, through the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council - RACAC - and a comprehensive wilderness assessment process that has driven the process. The honourable member for Ballina should keep to his seat and not let his enthusiasm run away with him. I am glad he has dragged his colleague the honourable member for Wakehurst into this debate. The Government will be very interested to hear what he has to say about the best conservation decision that has been made in this State since the 1970s. I look forward to his support.

The revocation of State forests and flora reserves proposed in the bill is part of the Government's historic forestry reform package. The mob opposite is opposing the bill because it does not support the package, it does not support progress for the forestry industry in this State, and it certainly does not support conservation. The Opposition does not support the fact that this package confirms this State as a world leader in nature conservation. Thanks largely to this Government, New South Wales has one of the best national parks systems in the world. The package involves a number of qualities. It involves the establishment of 10 new parks and reserves, including the greater South East Forest National Park, which the Opposition does not want created; it has never supported the establishment of that park. The Opposition has only ever supported a piecemeal approach in the south-east forests of the State. I cannot wait to hear the contribution from the honourable member for Bega on this issue.

The Opposition does not support the protection of the 12 new wilderness areas which, as I have already said, will add about 150,000 hectares to existing wilderness areas. The Opposition does not support the formal establishment of a $5 million Dunphy wilderness fund to acquire private and leasehold land for wilderness additions. Why have not Opposition members mentioned in this debate that many land-holders in New South Wales would like their land to be purchased by this Government for addition to wilderness area? It has been left to this Government, a government the Opposition alleges is essentially urban-driven, to find and provide the money to allow these leasehold additions to be made.

The Opposition also does not support the fact that the Government has deferred from logging an area of at least 800,000 hectares as a result of this package, pending further scientific assessment to establish a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. The Government did not invent that code; it was inherited by the Labor Government as a result of the former coalition Government signing the national forest policy statement but yet again refusing to implement its provisions. The Opposition when in government did not provide a further $500,000, as has been provided for in this package, over the next financial year for comprehensive assessments in the western region of this State. How many seats does the Labor Party hold outside the urban areas of this State? Very few, and the Government acknowledges that. But why is the Government doing more for land-holders outside Sydney than that mob opposite ever did? My colleague the Minister for Land and Water Conservation attended the Forest Products Association annual meeting last week. I do not think Opposition members received an invitation. Were they invited?

Mr Yeadon: No, not at all.

Ms ALLAN: They were not there - they were not invited. They are pariahs amongst the forestry industry. This Government is not only delivering to the conservation movement and to the people of New South Wales coastal cities, it is actually delivering to the forestry industry. The Government will ensure that the forestry industry is dragged into the later part of the twentieth century and is not left with the sort of nineteenth century work practices that the mob opposite wanted to bequeath to the industry. Of all the legislation that will be passed in the next few days, this will be the most important, because it actually puts into place the Government's reform package.

Government members appreciate that there is anxiety amongst occupational permit holders in some areas of the State at present. That is why the Minister for Land and Water Conservation and I have instructed our agencies to make sure that they talk directly to the people who are concerned. We are happy even to talk to the local members who are prepared to speak on their behalf, to try to make the expedition of their issues as smooth as possible. Those people are getting as much support as possible; far more than the Opposition is prepared to acknowledge. The Government does not accept the Opposition's fundamental tenet that grazing will forever impair these areas of land. Many of the areas in respect of which grazing permits have been issued have not been used for grazing purposes frequently, and not even every season. Opposition members do not acknowledge that. Instead they are causing public relations turmoil.

Mr Jeffery: You don't understand what you are talking about.

Ms ALLAN: We understand. The Opposition does not understand that most of the grazing has been on an infrequent basis. Also, even though grazing in these areas has occurred over a period of time, it will not impair the conservation value of those areas that are the subject of this bill. The Government feels very comfortable about the nature of the land that it is now creating as national parks and wilderness and over a period of time all our grandchildren will thank this Government for what the bill will achieve, whether the Opposition likes it or not.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [4.55]: The Forestry Revocation and National Park Reservation Bill will have major serious implications for the electorate of Oxley and also the mid-north coast and north coast timber industry.

Page 6567

Mr Iemma: Tell the truth.

Mr JEFFERY: I always tell the truth, unlike the honourable member for Hurstville. He should be called Pinocchio. The introduction of this bill follows a similar bill earlier this year - the Forests and Flora Reserves Revocation Bill. It is a sleight-of-hand trick to expand the national parks and wilderness areas of the State at the expense of jobs and freedom of access to our natural heritage. The bill before the House seeks to revoke the status of certain forests and flora reserves under the Forestry Act 1916 and at the same time to reserve them as national parks and, no doubt, future wilderness areas. The Government is doing this by stealth. It is declaring the areas as national parks so that, under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, they can then be declared as wilderness areas.

Mr Yeadon: This House is a very public forum. I don't know what you mean by stealth.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister for the Environment should stay in the House and she will learn something. She will never learn anything in her life. She should get out there and do some real work.

Ms Allan: Not from you, except some bad language occasionally.

Mr JEFFERY: You are like Benny. The Minister knows I never use bad language. Under this legislation an area of approximately 100,000 acres will be taken from the people of the Oxley electorate.

Mr Iemma: No, it will not.

Mr JEFFERY: Yes, it will; probably more. In the Kempsey forestry district alone over 62,000 acres will be taken from them. Also, the surrounding forestry districts of Wauchope, Walcha, Dorrigo and Urunga will lose resources under this legislation, impacting further on my electorate. It seems that half of the Kempsey forestry district will be lost. I am talking about half of the resource. The identified deferred forest areas will mean that half of the forestry resource in the Kempsey logging district will be lost to logging - not half the area, but half the resource. The half that has been left to New South Wales State Forests to manage has recently been logged, so it will be necessary to wait for regeneration. The timber industry is a large investor and employer in my electorate. Naturally, the Opposition wants the debate to result in the creation of employment opportunities, the provision of economic viability and a long-term sustainable industry.

The efforts of all firms in the hardwood industry to add further value to this unique resource have been ignored. Kempsey Timbers Ltd is a good example of a value-adding firm. It is necessary for the New South Wales Government to understand that certainty is needed for investment and employment growth. No-one, not even me, advocated a complete roll back of the boundaries of the highest conservation priority. But there is no reason why scientifically controlled, sustainably managed forestry in regrowth areas should have been taken away from the industry. The regenerated forests that will be stolen under this legislation are considered to be worthy of reservation. That demonstrates how well managed our forests have always been. Those forests would have continued to be well managed and to provide a natural resource which generates jobs, strengthens the local economies and in the meantime regrows so it can be used again. What other resource is as versatile?

Further, New South Wales State Forests returns dividends to this State of $26 million per year in royalties. This bill has been introduced with unseemly haste. The honourable member for Ballina raised an interesting point about native land title claims. This bill provides for revocation and reservation and under the same gazettal prevents the opportunity for land councils to make Aboriginal land claims. To avoid land claims the Government is revoking forests and making them national parks by gazettal on the same day. So, that did not become vacant Crown land. I suppose it could be said that the Government is closing a window of opportunity for any land council to claim unencumbered Crown land.

Whilst there are practical reasons for the bill, such as refining boundary definitions, a renewable resource will be taken from the people of New South Wales. One thing I probably agree with is that defining the boundaries of national parks, wilderness areas and forests using ridges was not practical. Rivers and creeks make better boundaries than the top of a ridge. Forestry activity is never conducted near watercourses, so this change in definition will eliminate accidental logging of preserved areas where boundaries meet. It was necessary and commonsense to remove ridges as boundaries. When roads form a boundary, the edge of the wilderness will be 20 metres from the centre line of the road. This will allow road maintenance without accidental disturbance to wilderness. There have been a few examples of that in the past and the bill makes this aspect more clear.

Some wilderness areas are divided by a narrow strip of 50 metres dedicated as national park in order to keep roads open. Again, this is a reasonable action and has practical application. However, the fact remains that this bill is a land grab and not a plan of management for wildlife recovery. It spells disaster for the sawlog and timber industries, and for towns in my electorate because it means that half the forest will be gone. The Government cannot hope ever again to reap dividends of the order of $26 million from State Forests. Despite State Forests being a government trading enterprise and must, therefore, strive for profit, Cabinet has determined what it can and cannot have in order to try to earn a profit. In future it will be extremely difficult to make a profit; the dividends for taxpayers, the shareholders of New South Wales, will be considerably less.

Page 6568

In addition, there is increased compliance with the environment protection agencies and national parks and wildlife regulations, which will frustrate the process. There are always calls for reform packages to save the trees, or save the koalas, for comprehensive assessments, yet the Government still cranks up environmental compliance. The Government has already preserved 50 per cent of the forests, but further restrictions will apply under the provisions of this bill. An example of misguided environmentalism is evident in relation to the rufous scrub bird, which is supposed to be endangered. The rufous scrub bird prefers dense undergrowth, which develops after logging. Once trees mature, the understorey dies out.

Mr Chappell: Read the Chaelundi report.

Mr JEFFERY: That is quite correct. There will be no rufous scrub birds. They will have to toddle off to find a logged forest in which to fossick. The honourable member for Hurstville nods his head in support; I am glad for once he agrees with me. As I said, this bill is a land grab, not a plan of management for wildlife recovery. If the Government were serious about protecting wildlife, it would formulate a plan of management for the preservation of our unique wildlife rather than lock up land. If land is locked up, combustible material increases and that could result in a very hot fire that would destroy everything. The honourable member for Ballina mentioned beekeepers and other such workers who play an important part in ecology.

The importance of the timber industry cannot be overstated and the decision by the Carr Labor Government to pander to the green lobby and lock up forests in my electorate will ruin jobs. The declaration of these wilderness areas and national parks will have a devastating effect on the Oxley electorate: a death by a thousand strokes. Most small mills will close. In addition to the economic impact on forestry workers and their families, others will end up on the unemployment scrap heap such as those in the transport industry, engineering firms, the tyre industry and fuel suppliers, who are all dependent on a viable and vibrant forest industry.

The impact of this bill will have an irreversible snowballing effect and will sound the death knell of north coast areas, particularly small country towns. The social infrastructure of New South Wales will collapse. Not only will country areas be affected; but the impact inevitably flows to the city. Loss of services in country towns that will inevitably flow from this decision will lead to young families drifting back to the city. The energy of youth will be lost and country towns will slowly die. Many other people are affected, such as beekeepers, four-wheel drivers, horse riders, canoeists and cavers to name a few. Reference has been made to the excellent firm Kempsey Timbers Pty Ltd. Value adding should be in addition to, not a substitution for, jobs. As I said earlier, beekeepers have been stung by the Minister because they have traditionally relied on forestry leases. Where will they go? They will be ruined. The promised consultation has not occurred. No-one has spoken to the beekeepers, apart from me and my Opposition colleagues.

Mr Yeadon: I had a meeting with them in the park in Grafton.

Mr JEFFERY: Did you? How did it go? Not too well, I bet.

Mr Yeadon: It was very positive.

Mr JEFFERY: They will not be too positive after they read this bill. Factories in my electorate that burn sawdust for fuel will have to seek other energy sources. The ramifications of this bill are far reaching. Not one scrap of evidence or rational argument has been considered by the Carr Labor Government. It is hell-bent on destroying country New South Wales to satisfy city-bred conservationist demands. Salvage and bush operators will be most severely disadvantaged by the provisions in this bill. Whilst salvage operators have never had any guarantee, at least there were always salvage logs. By reason of this Government's policy, smaller logs of lesser quality are being harvested, which means not enough is left for salvage mills. The logs are all part of the quota because the forests do not have sufficient yield or recovery.

The declared national parks and wilderness areas have embraced the rest of the forests that were set aside. Nothing has happened; we are back to square one and there is still no log supply. Mills are desperately trying to get coupes released, as current supplies have dried up. Many operators have invested in expensive equipment, but this bill will result in many industries operating up river disappearing. Some operators in my electorate have equipment that cannot be used anywhere else. What will they do with it? Will the Minister give them compensation for this idle equipment? These people will go broke.

Proper consideration must be given to these industry workers; they have not been given proper consideration by the Minister to date. Salvage mills in my electorate have major concerns for the future of the timber industry. It is not good enough for the Government to guarantee timber licences for quota mills only. The future of salvage mill operators has been swept under the carpet; they have been forgotten. They play an important role in rural New South Wales. They value add and thereby create employment. Salvage mills need government support through licensing guarantees. They have costs and overheads as do other businesses, including quota mills. Guarantees are needed so that salvage operators can make major decisions for business improvements. No-one can continue a business on such a shaky deal.

The boundaries for the declaration of wilderness areas have caused some problems for officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Many boundaries were incomplete and incorrect. Officers of the NPWS would attend meetings - there
Page 6569
was one at Willawarrin - and assure the people that they would be consulted on the matter. After inspections the officers discovered the boundaries released from head office in Sydney were incorrect. Imagine how those officers felt when they had to return and face the angst of the community. They had to confront the local communities. I feel sorry for them because it was not their fault. Head office did not consult with them. They were at the coalface and would have been able to tell head office the appropriate places for boundaries, if only they had been consulted.

The Minister has the support to pass this bill, unless it is held up in another place. The bill will cause loss of employment in the timber industry. For that reason I bid for a new NPWS office at Kempsey to help offset the changes and ask the Minister to respond positively. These wilderness areas and national parks cannot be declared without having someone look after them. It is necessary to have control over fire, noxious weeds and animals. Personnel will be required to undertake that task. The Minister said the Government gave the industry a guarantee of five plus five. Some parts of the industry received that guarantee; the workers got life. I oppose the bill.

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [5.09]: The Forestry Revocation and National Park Reservation Bill will have an impact on my electorate. I shall indicate those areas which are either in my electorate or adjacent to it. Part of Gibraltar National Park and Gibraltar Range State Forest; Moogem State Forest; Chaelundi State Forest - that area is not in my electorate but it was in the past, particularly when there was a dispute over State Forests resources - Glen Nevis State Forest, London Bridge State Forest, Oakwood State Forest and Paddys Land State Forest in Guy Fawkes River National Park; and part of Lower Creek State Forest and two areas in Styx River State Forest in the New England National Park will be affected. Part of the Nymboida National Park, which was in my electorate under previous boundaries, and probably will be again in the future, will be affected. Parts of Carrai State Forest and Enmore State Forest in the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park; part of Washpool State Forest, Billilimbra State Forest, Little Spirabo State Forest, Curramore State Forest and Moogem State Forest in Washpool National Park; and Werrikimbe National Park, which used to be in my electorate, will be affected. And the list goes on.

In each of those areas are people who will be directly impacted by the loss of resource. People in the communities surrounding those areas will be impacted by loss of timber resource. The socioeconomic impact of this proposal will be far beyond the election commitment by the Carr Labor Government. The proposal will impact seriously on rural industries throughout New South Wales, particularly those in and adjacent to my electorate. The impact on forestry is obvious to everyone. Many of the areas I mentioned have been and remain working State forests. Many of them were logged until very recently yet they are now being called wilderness. Describing some of these areas as wilderness is a total denial of the terminology in the Wilderness Act. They are not wilderness; they were working State forests until very recently. Many of the areas - in fact, virtually all the areas I referred to - have been logged several times in their history.

In these areas there has been mining, grazing and farming by way of breaking the ground and growing crops. There are burial sites and mining and archaeological sites in these areas. There have been and still are beekeeping sites in these State forests. All those uses impact directly and bluntly on those who live in these areas, on those who work the areas in one form or another, and on the communities that they serve. I have spoken many times in the House about this issue and the impact on communities. Tenterfield and Glen Innes are two specific examples. Those towns, which each have a timber mill, rely heavily upon the timber industry. Clearly there is a prospect that both the towns will lose their last remaining significant employer - the local timber mill - because of a lack of resource.

The large companies with access to many of the timbers negotiated as remaining available will cart their timber to larger mills and value-adding mills in larger centres. Glen Innes will suffer dramatically; Tenterfield will suffer; Guyra's private mill will suffer; and the Armidale timber mill will suffer. The same could be said of many other towns. Jobs will be lost. Recently the Premier has made window-dressing type promises, saying, "We have now heard the message from rural New South Wales. We understand the impact that some of our policies have had. We regret some of the burden that the communities have borne. We will ensure that from here on any major policy decisions will be accompanied by a socioeconomic impact statement" - the Premier called it a rural impact statement or a community impact statement - "We will ensure that the policies of this Carr Labor Government will not impact unfairly and inappropriately on those rural communities."

Guess what? It is a big joke. It has not happened; it is not intended to happen in this case. For purely ideological reasons the Government will press on with its claims for more wilderness where clearly, in many cases, it is not wilderness. Much of this country is wilderness; it meets the description and appropriately should be locked up and called national park or wilderness. Many national park areas have been accurately described as wilderness and are worthy of a higher order of protection - that is why they have been called wilderness. Obviously the Government is not fair dinkum when it will not negotiate with current occupational land permit holders, who have cleared, fenced and watered the land, placed stock yards on it and so on for years, who have offered other clearly undisturbed land and said, "Let us have a bit of quid pro quo. You take some of this land and leave us with that land." The Government simply does not recognise that some of
Page 6570
the land, which is not wilderness, and has not been for 120 or 150 years and cannot be described as wilderness, should not be part of the process. On the other hand, other available land could be used as wilderness. All these people are asking for is consultation on the ground.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.