Page: 14132
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 13 April 2000.
Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [10.30 a.m.]: I lead for the Government on the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill and I indicate at the outset that the Government opposes the legislation. The first thing I should do is point to the inconsistencies in the position of the honourable member for Monaro. In the opening few lines of his second reading speech, he said, "These amendments to the Wilderness Act 1987 will not diminish at all the concept of wilderness. They will make a minor amendment to the nomination process." That, to put it very charitably, is highly disingenuous. The amendments proposed in this bill would substantially undermine not just the concept of wilderness but also the practical operation of the current scheme.
Moreover, when one looks at other public comments of the member, his real view becomes very clear. He is, in fact, opposed to the concept of wilderness. His opposition to the concept of wilderness, that is, his real belief, is what finds its way into this proposed legislation, and not the reassuring opening words in his second reading speech. The honourable member's other public comments are contained in a media release that he issued last year. In that release he made some comments about a rally that was held at Braidwood on 1 April. As that media release made clear, he was one of the speakers at that rally. It was his media release, so of course he was a speaker there.
The media release quoted the honourable member as saying that all the speakers at the rally, including himself—with the exception of someone from the National Parks and Wildlife Service—voiced their strong concerns about the concept, methods and dubious outcomes of the wilderness process. That expression by the honourable member for Monaro of his great concern about the concept of wilderness seems to me to be his real view. It is that real view that finds expression in this proposed legislation, not his reassuring words that it really does not affect the concept of wilderness.
The other interesting inconsistency in his position is that he claims that the object of this bill is to protect property rights. That is simply wrong. That is not what this legislation will do at all. The bill provides no extra protection for property rights. Indeed, the process of identifying property as wilderness does not affect property rights. That is the current legislative scheme. Identification does not equal declaration. Under the current legislation the declaration of property as wilderness cannot possibly be made unilaterally. Identification does not automatically or inevitably lead to declaration. In fact, to date, only one declared wilderness area has private freehold included in it, and that was only after a voluntary conservation agreement. Notwithstanding the cackles from the National Party, I hasten to point out that the Liberal Party is not objecting, it is National Party members who are interjecting. Despite that, they really need to look at precise legislation that currently exists.
There are a number of significant problems with the proposed scheme set out in the bill. One is the provision that a proposal for identification is regarded as being rejected if the whole process is not completed within two years. It is certainly true that at the moment a majority of the processes have indeed been completed within two years. However, in some cases, for perfectly proper reasons, that period may be exceeded. The need, perhaps at the behest of a Minister, for further research on a proposal may well be denied by the two-year rule in the proposed bill. That then essentially institutionalises inadequate research as part of the decision making process. It clearly has the potential to lead to inadequate quality of decision making. A two-year limit quite simply will lead to bad decisions. It also can be characterised as unduly fettering a Minister's discretion.
Another problem is that the bill expands the scope and scale of recreational use in wilderness areas. At one level this misses the whole point of wilderness. The whole point is that recreational use must be low impact. The proposed expansion of uses contained in the proposed bill is also inconsistent with the approach of other jurisdictions. In Victoria, for example, there is an exclusion of any non-indigenous animal from the area. That, of course, is inconsistent with the bill introduced by the honourable member for Monaro. There is an assumption in the rhetoric behind the bill that there is currently no access to protected areas. In fact, currently there are 3,900 kilometres of public roads through protected areas.
Indeed, after public consultation, a significant number of trails have been excluded from declaration. They include Racecourse and Spokes trails between Werrikimbe, Kunderang and Willi Willi wilderness; Kowmung trail, next to Kanangra-Boyd wilderness; Riverside trail on the edge of Macleay Gorges; Broken Cart track between Bimberi and Goobarragandra wilderness; Barrington trail on the edge of Barrington wilderness; Twelve Mile Road and Tian Jara fire trail next to Bundawang wilderness; Razorback trail between Brogo and Yowrie wilderness; and Mintbush and Monkey Gum fire trails beside Ettremea wilderness.
The key assumption in the proposed legislation is that the current legislation affects property rights, and the proposed legislation will increase protection for property rights. Both assumptions are incorrect. The current legislation in fact provides great safeguards for private property holders. For example, under the current legislation there are no provisions for the management of privately held land as wilderness if the land is not legally recognised as wilderness with the owner's consent. Section 8 (1) (b) of the Wilderness Act prevents declaration of a wilderness area over privately held land unless a voluntary conservation agreement is in place—I place emphasis upon the word "voluntary". There are no provisions at all in the current legislation for the resumption of privately held land if the land is identified as wilderness or if a proposal to so identify it is made.
There are no provisions in the current legislation to compel a private land-holder to enter into a voluntary conservation agreement. There are no provisions presently to constrain the uses of privately held lands while they are subject to proposals under section 7 of the Act. Under section 6 (2) (c) of the Act the director-general may already consider written representations from any person as to whether land should be identified as wilderness. Under section 7 (3) of the current legislation the director-general is already required to notify land-holders of proposals affecting their land. There is great social utility in identifying wilderness. Because of that, this bill ought to be rejected. To put it slightly more colourfully, I quote Keith Muir, Director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness. He said:
Society has everything to gain from having wilderness identified. Mr Webb's legislation would push wilderness identification underground like some sort of illegal activity. It is just paranoid nonsense.
Interestingly, the original legislation—which the National Party now proposes should be altered—had bipartisan support. I would be delighted to hear what the Liberal Party has to say about this. I notice that members of the Liberal Party do not seem to be particularly prominent here in the Chamber. I would also be delighted to hear what the honourable member for Southern Highlands has to say about her National Party colleagues' proposal. I have already referred to the comments of the honourable member for Monaro relating to his strong concerns about the concept of wilderness—which were quite inconsistent with what he originally told the House in the second reading debate. Of course, his position opposing the concept of wilderness—which is contrary to the Liberal Party position—has a long tradition within the National Party.
In 1994 the present Leader of the National Party described wilderness as something "philosophically repugnant" to him. The National Party clearly opposes the entire concept of wilderness. As I have said, however, that is not the position of the Liberal Party. I would be fascinated to hear what the National Party's Coalition colleagues have to say about this. None of them are present in the Chamber to support their position. I suspect that very few of them will vote for the legislation. It seems that, apart from the wonderful inconsistency in the various positions put by the honourable member for Monaro, there is extraordinary inconsistency within the ranks of the Coalition. The proposed legislation is bad and should be rejected.
Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [10.42 a.m.]: It is a disgrace that the Government should choose the honourable member for Liverpool to lead for the Government on this bill. Why is the Minister, or at least the Parliamentary Secretary, not here to speak on such important legislation? The contribution of the honourable member for Liverpool shows that he has no idea about the impact of the current legislation on private property rights. He argued that it has no impact. I advise the Government and the honourable member for Liverpool that the legislation impacts upon private property rights once the assessment process has commenced, because that private property is then blighted by the fact that it has a wilderness nomination on it. A person who owns private property that has a wilderness nomination on it is not able to sell that land, as he or she would be entitled to do if an assessment process were not attached to it. The pathetic contribution of the honourable member for Liverpool can be dismissed entirely on the basis that the fundamental premise for it is incorrect.
I am pleased to support the legislation and I commend the honourable member for Monaro for introducing it. It is very good and commonsense legislation. However, like the honourable member for Monaro, I emphasise that this legislation is in no way an attack on the concept of wilderness. It is all about the appropriate process for the nomination of private land for possible wilderness. When the now Premier introduced the Wilderness Act in 1987 he allowed a situation where any privately owned land could be nominated by anyone for wilderness without the prior consent of the land-holder. Under his legislation, once that nomination has been made it automatically triggers an assessment process that must be carried out by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, irrespective of how suitable the land is for wilderness.
Under the current legislation, after the assessment has been carried out—often at great expense to the taxpayer and after using up the very valuable time and resources of the National Parks and Wildlife Service—the landowner can then refuse the nomination. Under the Premier's legislation it can take up to two years for such assessments to be done. In the meantime, the nomination has created a blight on that privately owned land, making it unsaleable and reducing its value, not to mention the personal anxiety suffered by the landowner throughout that period.
The bill provides that privately owned land will no longer be included in a wilderness nomination without the prior consent of the affected land-holder. Instead of the land-holder having a right of refusal at the end of the assessment process, as he now has, he will have the right of refusal at the commencement of the process. This will save the National Parks and Wildlife Service valuable time and resources and will be a saving for taxpayers. It will also remove a blight on the land-holder's land and reduce the amount of anxiety that land-holder suffers during the assessment of that land.
The effect of the legislation will be to protect the resources of the National Parks and Wildlife Service from being wasted by making an assessment of private land that may later be rejected by the landowner. This is an important point. The National Parks and Wildlife Service budget, as the recent budget papers show, is only about $260 million. Since it came to office the Carr Government has declared almost 200 new national parks. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has a lot of work to do with managing those new national parks. It is totally inappropriate that the service should have its scarce resources wasted by being required to do assessments for wilderness on privately owned land when it is obvious that the landowners will reject the nomination. Landowners should have the right to reject nominations at the commencement of the assessment process.
It is better that a landowner have the right to object up front, thereby saving National Parks and Wildlife Service resources and taxpayers' money and saving the landowner from an unnecessary blight. Of course, this legislation will not prevent a landowner from agreeing to have the land subject to a nomination and assessment process if that is the landowner's desire. If the landowner is quite happy about the assessment process taking place, the nomination and assessment process can be allowed to occur. However, if the landowner chooses to reject the nomination, it is better that that is done up front instead of at the end of the assessment process.
The National Party has, as part of its central platform, the protection of private property rights. Indeed, it was former National Party Leader Wal Murray who sponsored the Just Terms legislation. Similarly, this legislation will prevent a third party from placing an unwanted blight upon land owned by private land-holders. This is good legislation because it puts the right of refusal to have private property nominated for wilderness at the commencement of the process rather than at the end, thereby saving taxpayers' money on unnecessary assessments and saving private land-holders from the anxiety and uncertainty coming from a blight caused by an unwanted wilderness nomination. It is commonsense legislation. I commend the honourable member for Monaro for introducing it and I implore members of the House to support it.
Mr MOSS (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.46 a.m.]: The Labor Party has produced another metropolitan member, and I oppose the bill. My colleague the honourable member for Liverpool was criticised for commenting on legislation of this nature, and no doubt I will also be criticised. But I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this matter, because very recently a constituent of mine approached me on this very issue. The constituent owns property in an area that is about to the declared a wilderness area and is very concerned that his land might be swamped by the wilderness. I was pleased to advise the constituent that there was no way his property could be declared wilderness unless he wanted it to be so declared. Indeed, he has already received an indication from his council that he can proceed with the development of the land, and he is now very happy with the advice I gave him.
Mr D. L. Page: So why waste money doing an assessment?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ballina has contributed to the debate. He will listen to the Parliamentary Secretary in silence.
Mr MOSS: There is a misconception that land-holders' private property rights are in some way compromised by the current Wilderness Act. It is suggested that somehow their land may become protected wilderness without their consent. Nothing could be further from the truth. The statistics alone demonstrate the absurdity of that notion. Declared wilderness currently represents 1.9 per cent of the total land area of New South Wales, or 30.6 per cent of the National Parks and Wildlife Service estate. Since 1995, 899,069 hectares of land have been declared wilderness, the vast majority within existing national parks. Currently only one declared wilderness area in New South Wales contains a section of private freehold land. I refer to 36 hectares of land within Budawang wilderness in southern New South Wales. That land was only included within the Budawang wilderness after a voluntary conservation agreement was initiated by the landowner.
In the 13 years since the implementation of the Wilderness Act in 1987 the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service has received 38 wilderness proposals. As at July 2000, 14 of those 38 proposals contain areas of freehold and leasehold land, and seven are entirely within the National Parks and Wildlife Service estate. Of the remaining 17 proposals, three were assessed as not being capable of identification and 14 are currently under consideration. A total of 21 of these proposals have resulted in wilderness identifications, which in no way affect land-holders' rights to manage their land as they see fit.
On the subject of statutory time limits for consideration of wilderness proposals, the honourable member for Monaro's bill would introduce new provisions under which a wilderness proposal or an investigation is taken to be rejected if the whole process has not been completed within two years. But section 7 of the Wilderness Act 1987 already requires the director-general to consider all wilderness proposals and advise the Minister in relation to them within two years of receiving the proposal. This statutory period for wilderness assessments is adhered to in the majority of cases. Where the statutory period has not been met, the extended time frame for completion has usually stemmed from the need to provide additional information to Ministers on the natural and cultural heritage values of nominated areas, and to incorporate wider government processes such as regional comprehensive assessments.
Clearly, the proposal of the honourable member for Monaro would effectively sterilise the discretion of the Minister for the Environment under the Wilderness Act, restrict legitimate scientific assessment and erode the quality of decision making. I emphasise that if, for example, an area of private land is identified as wilderness but the owner refuses a conservation agreement, that land cannot be reconsidered for wilderness protection. However, it is possible that a change in ownership or circumstances may make a conservation agreement an option. Under the proposed amendments, if this occurs outside the two-year limit it cannot be considered, significantly reducing the flexibility of the legislation. For those reasons we believe that the proposal of the honourable member for Monaro would sterilise the Minister's discretion, and the Government is totally opposed to the bill.
Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [10.53 a.m.]: I support the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill. The bill has two basic claims, although it has many other implications. First, it seeks to change the legislated process of nomination, assessment and declaration of lands deemed to have sufficient wilderness value. It would require the consent of the owner of the land to the process and possible declaration prior to the costly assessment stage. In the event, which is most likely, that the landowner does not grant consent, the process lapses. Apart from the costs saved, there is then no body of information supporting wilderness filed on that land. This information can be used later by third parties to stop any development or activities on the land that have enjoyed previous consent.
The second object of the bill is to give greater access to parks and wilderness areas, which are owned by us all. This would be achieved by altering the definition of "self-reliant activities" to enable access to more areas by means other than only on foot. This would allow, with obvious conditional approval, access to more of our public land by the elderly and infirm, parents with small children, schools, community groups and most other people. The heritage, tourism, education, promotional and recreational potential would be maximised. This would benefit many people, including small communities, small business and land-holders, help to educate our young and help to protect and maintain the park areas. This would largely be in contrast to the situation today, where people are excluded, and sustainable agricultural production and other potential passive uses of the land are lost, at taxpayers' expense. At the same time feral animals, weeds and the ravages of uncontrolled bushfires destroy the very values we all cherish. A constituent of mine, Mr W. G. Hamilton, better known as Geoff, wrote:
I am a worn out Grazier ready for the pension but can't get it as I have too many assets with little cash flow. So people say join the club.
I feel the whole situation is just socialism just taking over gradually ... Labor [seem] to have the ... policy to look after the no hoper and tax anybody willing to work. I was at a native title lecture at Woodenbong where Jane Mossett told the group that with all native title claims the [Aborigines] would take over all land except freehold and lease it out. After the meeting I spoke to a member of the Tribunal and said it was very interesting. One thing [she] told us that there would be civil war because who was going to give up their land without a fight.
I have lost the grazing right to a forest lease which I have used for thirty four years.
Now it is a National Park. I agree with parkland but only small areas, managed properly not millions of acres.
My father rode a horse bareback in 1905 when he was eight years old from the Bellingen River to the mid Clarence River at Ewingar, with a mob of cattle where my grandfather settled.
Mr Moss: Wonderful.
Mr GEORGE: The honourable member might laugh about that. I continue the quote:
He said you could see for miles—
you cannot today—
as there were only be big scattered trees. Once the trees were cut down or killed then the regrowth came producing millions of more trees. So that proves the [Green movement] don't know what they are talking about wiping out all the trees.
I could go on about more things, but I thought it may be of some use for you.
...
Thanking you
W. Geoff Hamilton
I have no hesitation in supporting the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill.
Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [10.57 a.m.]: I appreciate the opportunity that the honourable member for Monaro has granted us all by introducing his bill. National Party members support the Wilderness Amendment (Private Property Rights) Bill. At present the Wilderness Act 1987 says that anyone can put up a proposal to the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife that an area of land be identified as wilderness, declared a wilderness area or added to an existing wilderness area. Assessment of the area is then funded, to whatever extent, by the public purse. This funding comes directly out of the budget or purse of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This compromises other expenditure obligations such as weed and feral animal control and assessment of flora and fauna values within existing park areas. I speak as a person who has a genuine concern about the present situation. There are several national parks, including Kosciuszko and Brindabella, within my electorate and several wilderness proposals are currently under consideration there.
The director is obliged only to notify the owner of the land of any proposal received in relation to that land, but there is no such obligation on the director also to notify the adjoining land-holders, irrespective of their tenure, even though the subsequent declaration of wilderness values consistent with the declaration might have significant financial and management impacts on the neighbouring land. The director must consider the proposal and advise the Minister within two years. The costs are then paid for by the community, even though the land parcel might not have sufficient value to be declared wilderness. This cost of assessment is in no way contributed to or subsidised by the proponents of the declaration.
The proposed Act would modify the procedure that the director must follow when considering privately owned or leased land, and by this very definition any Crown land, vacant or otherwise, including those lands under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, public reserves, easements over public land and other areas and other areas defined by the existing Act except for those lands where substantial or legitimate private interests are affected. I have received representations from many constituents in my electorate, one of whom is John Parka, in relation to feral animal control. His land backs onto a national park area and in a short time he lost 33 sheep which were attacked by wild dogs. This is about wilderness but it also affects national parks.
Our national park is in a crisis at the moment because of a fundamental lack of resources to control feral animals. At any one time there might be only one trapper going through the Brindabella—an enormous mass of land—looking for feral animals, in particular, wild dogs which continue to be a massive problem. Wild dogs attack sheep when they go onto private property. When wilderness areas are locked up people are prevented from going in and exercising further control. Noxious weeds and feral animals are out of control. There is a loss of fire control management and severe problems, particularly in national parks which are going into the proposed wilderness areas. Janice, Lindsay and Noelene Franklin from Brindabella have made many representations to me and are large contributors to this issue. They raised some valid points in their latest submission in relation to the proposal for additional wilderness areas in the Brindabella and Bimbery areas. They said:
There has never been any effective practical fire management in the areas of the Kozciuskzo National Park to the south, South East or west of the Brindabella. Hazard reduction burning, vital for both the protection of the bush itself and for the residents of Brindabella and the ACT has never been properly conducted in the area by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, while only some of the original fire trails have been maintained regularly and others have been neglected altogether.
The submission referred to noxious animals and weeds. They said:
While the threat of a disastrous bushfire has the potential to inflict the most critical and lasting damage in the Goodradigbee and Goobagandra environment, it has been the lack of feral and noxious animal control that has crippled any prospects of our family's future in the area. Until the late 1970s, my father had never seen a live dingo, despite his lifetime's work in the local bush. By the time he left Brindabella a decade later, he caught over 50 dingoes on the fringes of the park, adjacent to the valley. This tally reflects not only the extraordinary explosion of the dingo population but also the total lack of effective management of noxious animals in national parks and the absence of an appropriate and sympathetic policy to protect vulnerable wildlife within the park and stock adjacent to the park.
I have received representations from Aboriginal people within my electorate, particularly in the vicinity of Brungle. They are concerned about future access of four-wheel-drive vehicles into the proposed wilderness area and by people who want to take their children into those areas, or people who may be disabled or elderly and feel that they cannot cross on foot into some of these more precarious areas and who would like to take four-wheel-drive vehicles into the areas. They look after the land. They want to preserve the land for future generations. They do not intend to beat up the bush or to go rally driving through it. These are sincere people who make up the majority of the population: people who are sensible when it comes to protecting our environment. They do not want to see a lock-up. I support the bill.
Debate interrupted by leave.