FORESTRY REVOCATION AND NATIONAL PARK RESERVATION BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [7.30]: I referred earlier to the fact that the assessment process used to revoke certain lands is flawed - a matter referred to in the bill. Some lands might be inappropriately designated for revocation as forests and for subsequent dedication as wilderness areas. Very little work has been done. We do not know what lands will be declared wilderness areas. We do not know the answers to questions concerning access for a number of people with leasehold or freehold land. If we do not know the answers to those questions, it is too soon to deal with this legislation. The Opposition is not opposed to wilderness per se, where it is appropriate; personally, I support it. As I said earlier, I know of many areas where quid pro quo is available. Graziers who have genuine wilderness land are prepared to offer that land in order to keep land which has been cleared and fenced and which contains cattle yards and dams - land which has been used by some of those grazing enterprises for many years.
Why can we not have simple, commonsense negotiation on the ground - a request I made of the Minister for the Environment a few weeks ago? A group of graziers from the north - from the Chaelundi area through to the Queensland border - visited Parliament House last week. I tried to organise a meeting with the Minister for Land and Water Conservation and the Minister for the Environment, but they were too busy to see those people. That group of graziers brought with them evidence of the inappropriate zoning of some of this land. They brought photographic evidence of cleared, open grazing land with fences, stockyards and dams which is to be declared a wilderness area.
Because of the action taken by graziers local officers from the National Parks and Wildlife Service have confirmed that those areas will be declared wilderness areas. A few weeks ago, when I raised this matter in the House, the Minister for the Environment pooh-poohed the idea and said, "That is not right. We have had plenty of consultation. That could not have happened. All this land belongs to the Crown anyhow." The land might belong to the Crown but large tracts of it are not genuine wilderness areas and will not revert to genuine wilderness areas in a hundred years because they have been subjected to significant disturbance over the years. I wish to refer to two letters. The first letter was written by the Watters family in response to my raising this matter in the House a few weeks ago, when I quoted at length from another letter from that family. The letter states:
Ms. Allan said "I emphasise to the honourable member for Northern Tablelands - and take into account the final appeal of his speech - THAT NEGOTIATION AND AT THE VERY LEAST DISCUSSIONS ARE OCCURRING WITH THE SAME PEOPLE WHOSE CONCERNS HE HAS BROUGHT TO THE CHAMBER THIS EVENING." We will enclose a copy of the only correspondence (dated 7th June, 1996) that we have ever received to this date, from the N.P.W.S. or Ms. Allan's department, and wish to point out that very few of the landholders involved were forwarded even this very general letter. You will note that nowhere in the letter does it state that our land will be affected, and in our case the only clue that the area mentioned would affect us in any way, was the name "Bindery-Mann", as the river flowing through this country is the Mann. In fact, it is pointed out in bold print "that freehold or leasehold land CANNOT be declared as wilderness without the consent of the landholder." This statement led us, and others, to assume incorrectly that the land we leased on a now annual basis would remain unaffected by this proposal. We know of graziers who hold Crown Leases (in perpetuity) and Special Leases who purchased these, have borrowed money against them, and had the right to sell them in the past, to whom this guarantee is ineffective. The tenure of these lands has been eroded over the years to such a point that they are now only annual leases (Occupational Permits, Permissive Occupancy Permits etc.)
When it became clear that our Occupational Permit (Annual Lease) would not be renewed it was then up to us to do the leg work, contact the local National Parks and Wildlife Services, and try to extract any pertaining information. This was made even more difficult as we
Page 6581
received conflicting information from the different offices of the Parks and Forestry, in different areas. For example, our local N.P.W.S. could not tell us whether the leases we hold were enclosed in the Bindery-Mann wilderness area or the Washpool National Park.
Upon receiving the letter, dated June 7, 1996, there remained, and we are not sure exactly, but something in the vicinity of 11 days for us to lodge a submission. Obviously these assessments had already taken place and surely it would seem, that the landholders should at least have been extended the courtesy of a phone call or letter requesting permission to do so. Even though we are well aware that this land we speak of does not belong to us, we feel that as lessees we have some rights.
We know of no-one who has had the benefit of this negotiation and discussion Ms. Allan speaks of, unless of course it was at their own instigation, and even then, the various Departments involved are not sure of the facts. We know of people who have contacted the N.P.W.S. to enquire about these proposals, whose questions couldn't be answered, and who are still waiting for their phonecalls to be returned. Of the numerous meetings we have attended, we know of none organised by Ms. Allan or any of her departments for the benefit of graziers affected, and are offended to read what Ms. Allan has stated. Our family sent Ms. Allan a copy of a very similar letter to the one you received, to which we did not even gain a response.
There remain many families who, to this day, have never received any notification from the N.P.W.S. of their intentions. We shall enclose a list of those we have spoken to personally and who are happy to be contacted to verify this.
The people who are dramatically affected by this legislation include the Freeman family of Sheepstation Creek via Dorrigo; the Townes of Nymboida via Grafton; Bazil Quilty of Newton Boyd; the Newsomes of Matheson via Glen Innes; the Chards of Glen View, Pinkett; Fred Cox of Gregadoo, Deepwater; Rod Newsome of Sherwood, Deepwater; Alistair MacDougall of Marenga Station, Hernani; Graham and Robyn MacDougall of Kintyre, Newton Boyd; Bert Williamson of Glenmore, Pinkett via Glen Innes; Kerry Lloyde, 35 Pacific Highway, Ulmarra, who owns land in that area; and Neil Rhodes, 12 Fleming Street, South Grafton.
All those people who use this land and, in many cases, have used it for well over a century for grazing purposes, have been unceremoniously dumped. Over the years their title to these Crown leases has been eroded. It is now classified as forestry land for which they hold grazing permits. They believed that they would be able over the years to continue to have access to this land. I could quote from other letters that I have received from Mr Chard of Pinkett via Glen Innes and from the MacDougalls of Kintyre, Newton Boyd, which refer to the way in which families in that area have used the land. In one instance 7,000 acres of this land supported about 200 head of cattle - which in my view is very low impact grazing. The land was grazed only in winter months.
It was said earlier in debate that these people are not using the land. They are, but they have been farming it at a low level. They have been sympathetic to the environment, which has been an integral part of their grazing enterprises, but they are being turfed out. The environment will still benefit if they are able to manage and are given access to this land. At the end of this process these families will lose not only their grazing enterprises and go broke; towns will also suffer from a loss of economic activity. On the first occasion a fire goes through that area the environment will be destroyed. There is an absolute vandalism of the environment in the name of conservation by people who do not know, do not care and will not meet with the people and discuss their real needs. [Extension of time agreed to.]
Many aspects of this bill are simply being ignored and brushed aside. Honourable members were told that the Premier would introduce a rural community impact statement on all significant policy issues affecting communities in rural New South Wales. This is a classic case in which it should happen, but it has not. As I said at the outset, honourable members talk about the forestry industry with resources for timber mills in our country towns and about the grazing industry with thousands of head of stock. It has already been pointed out in this debate what impact the dumping of umpteen thousand head of stock will have on an already depressed cattle market.
Honourable members spoke about the prospect of mining in the area, an activity that can be confirmed by the Department of Mineral Resources. Beekeepers who have had access to that land for many generations will be forced off it in a short space of time. All of those changes impact on our country towns. The basis of existence of local agricultural communities supporting Tenterfield and Glen Innes is being taken away from them. There would be some sense in what the Government is doing if an absolute and clear-cut conflict existed between environmental values and the use of that land by agricultural enterprises.
I expect the only justifiable reason that the Government is interested in taking back control of this land is that it still has very considerable value. Yet, if the same land has been utilised by these people for the last 120 years or more by many generations of the same family, what damage has been done? I would submit, as I have many times in this Chamber, that there is at least a neutrality, if not a net plus, to the environment in the way in which these people have managed their land. There has been good fire management and good management of flora and fauna. It would do either of the two Ministers and all honourable members the world of good to meet with those people, as I have often requested, eyeball them on their own land, see what they do, and find out why they do it in that way. Any visitor would be entranced by the love of the land and the great husbandry of natural resources that these people have. Yet the Government is engaging in environmental vandalism to satisfy its crazy ideological bent. [Time expired.]
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Langton.
Page 6582