1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Assembly
  4. 4 September 2002
Contact Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

Native Vegetation Management

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript         « Prior Item | Item 24 of 57 | Next Item »

About this Item
Speakers - Page Mr Donald; Aquilina Mr John; Fraser Mr Andrew
Business - Matter of Public Importance


    NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Page: 4598


    Matter of Public Importance

    Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [4.27 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on native vegetation management in New South Wales. The National and Liberal parties want a native vegetation management regime that is practical and workable. We generally support the objectives outlined in the Native Vegetation Conservation Act but believe that the Government has chosen an unnecessarily complex, intrusive, costly and highly regulated implementation model that is fraught with problems. I said as much when the native vegetation legislation was passing through this Parliament. Indeed, I indicated that we supported the principles contained in the legislation but we did not believe that the implementation arrangements introduced by the Government were appropriate. Accordingly, we voted against the legislation in both Houses.

    The recent independent report by the Auditor-General has confirmed many of our concerns, and I intend to refer to that later in my contribution. The reaction of land-holders to the many draft vegetation management plans that are currently on public exhibition as we debate this issue reflects widespread concern about the impact of the legislation on them. That is a major problem for this Government and for subsequent governments because the land-holders are key players in native vegetation management, bearing in mind that 87 per cent of the native vegetation in New South Wales is on either privately owned or leasehold land. In other words, the land-holders are the real custodians. If I have one single complaint about the way in which the Government has gone about this exercise, it is that it has not involved enough of those upon whom the management plans will most directly impact to ensure that they have a sense of ownership of the plans.

    The deprivation of land-holders of a sense of ownership is the major weakness in the management regime that has emerged in New South Wales. The genesis of that problem may be found in the decision in August 1995 of the Carr Labor Government to introduce State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 46, which effectively prohibited land clearing, except for some exempt categories. That was done without consulting any stakeholders such as the farming community, and the legislation destroyed the trust that had previously existed between custodians of native vegetation, the land-holders, and the Government.

    The message received by landowners from the Carr Government as a result of that action was that the Government did not trust them, despite the fact that up to 40 per cent of landowners are involved in Landcare groups and that the total catchment management arrangements that have been in place since 1989 have been supported by landowners. The landowners have a demonstrable commitment to sustainable native vegetation management, albeit with some exceptions. However, the tragedy is that the Government's message has been basically that it does not trust landowners, and since 1995 matters have gone pretty much downhill. Recently I went to Western Australia and was impressed by the relationship between the Government of Western Australia and land-holders.

    That relationship is different from the relationship that exists between the Government and land-holders in New South Wales. That difference is explained by the strong sense of ownership in Western Australia of native vegetation management and salinity management problems, and by the fact that landowners have major input into the development of management plans. The Western Australian Government is not afraid to give landowners a position of strength on consultation committees, whereas landowners in New South Wales believe they do not have a voice in the preparation of plans. Clearly, that is not a desirable outcome, particularly when those who bear the greatest impact of management plans are landowners. Later in my contribution I will canvass some of the ways in which native vegetation management in New South Wales can be improved.

    I turn now to comments made by the Auditor-General in his report entitled "Department of Land and Water Conservation-Regulating the Clearing of Native Vegetation". A number of stinging criticisms were made by the Auditor-General, an officer who conducted an independent, non-political evaluation. The Native Vegetation Act requires a native vegetation conservation strategy to be developed, yet the report notes that some four and a half years after the Act came into effect, that strategy has still not been announced. The Auditor-General believes that is an important matter. I am sure that the Minister will say that a strategy will soon be devised. However, even if that is true, it must be a tremendous source of embarrassment to the Government that four and a half years after the introduction of legislation that specifically provided for a strategy to be implemented, no strategy has yet been devised.

    The lack of a strategy has created a major problem. It has caused a great deal of confusion for the committees that are endeavouring to formulate regional native vegetation management plans. It has also produced inconsistencies between plans. To illustrate the point I am making and for the benefit of the Minister, who may wish to take it on board, I cite the example of compliance. The issue is whether the onus of proof should rest on the defendant-that is, the farmer-or on the Government in determining whether a breach of the Act has occurred. Some of the plans suggest that a farmer will be presumed to be guilty unless he can prove his innocence; other plans suggest that farmers will be treated in the more traditional manner and regarded as innocent, with the onus resting on the Crown to prove guilt. Some plans are silent on the issue. I cite that example merely to illustrate the point that if a strategy had been implemented it would have addressed those types of issues and provided consistency throughout the State. In the report the Auditor-General also said:
        In our opinion, the complexities and the lack of accountability have contributed to the present position, whereby a whole-of-government approach to the protection of native vegetation in NSW has not been developed.

    The Auditor-General also makes the observation that, although the Department of Land and Water Conservation [DLWC] regards itself as the lead agency, in fact a number of other major players, including the Native Vegetation Council, the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, also have a role. As a result the outcomes are unlikely to reflect a whole-of-government approach. The Auditor-General also said:
        There are currently no objectives or targets to measure progress in conserving native vegetation. Only one, of a possible twenty-two regional management plans, has been approved since the Act commenced.

    That is a particularly telling point because it is important in any serious discussion of native vegetation for the Government to determine where it stands currently and where it intends to go. The data shows that throughout this State roughly 35 per cent of the vegetation that existed prior to European settlement has been cleared. The rate varies from region to region. The bioregional analysis indicates that some districts have greater cleared areas and some other parts of the State have less, but it is important to concentrate on high-risk areas. Another interesting recommendation by the Auditor-General stated:
        In our opinion, DLWC needs to... target those areas of highest risk in terms of the conservation of native vegetation and the protection of threatened species [and] consider self regulation for areas that are assessed as low risk by using an enforceable Code of Practice and arrangements for external audit.

    In other words, more attention needs to be focused on areas needing greater levels of management, and the Auditor-General is suggesting that for areas in which native vegetation is a less important matter self-regulation should be considered vis-à-vis a code of practice. I believe there is merit in that suggestion. The criticism made by the Auditor-General of insufficient targets is valid, but as this State embarks on a process of native vegetation management it is important to know where we started and where we are likely to be in five or 10 years time so that progress can be measured. If clear targets and a starting point are not defined and if monitoring is not undertaken, the achievement of objectives will be extremely difficult. The Auditor-General also said:
        There is also a lack of comprehensive information about the status of, and changes to, native vegetation across rural NSW.

    The Auditor-General's opinion reinforces the point I have made. The report also stated that in the development of a strategic approach, a strategic plan at a Statewide level is needed and that the absence of that strategic plan has meant that many regional vegetation management plans will have been developed without the guidance of a New South Wales strategy or targets. [Time expired.]

    Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone-Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading) [4.37 p.m.]: At the outset I thank the honourable member for Ballina for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House. By and large his comments have been constructive. Obviously, I want to debate with him where the Government is coming from and where it is going in relation to native vegetation management. I point out that since coming to office almost seven years ago the Carr Government has made significant inroads through its natural resource management reforms. The fact that New South Wales is the first State in this nation to undertake a comprehensive review of native vegetation should be acknowledged. No doubt many people might claim that the review was long overdue, but this State was, nonetheless, the first to instigate a comprehensive review, and I am proud that New South Wales continues to lead the way in native vegetation management in Australia.

    The Government embarked on native vegetation reforms in August 1995 and is now well into the implementation phase. The Native Vegetation Conservation Act was introduced in January 1998. Honourable members would be aware that the community-government partnership approach fostered by the Act has enabled the Government to make progress through numerous initiatives which place New South Wales at the forefront of native vegetation management in Australia. The honourable member for Ballina referred to the Auditor-General's report which was released a few weeks ago. Significantly, the report recognises that native vegetation management is a complex and difficult issue, and that balancing environmental, economic and social considerations is extremely important. I welcomed the report when it was issued and I welcome it now. I made a thorough study of the report because I see it as a constructive report that will assist the Government in progressing this issue in the future. The report raises constructive issues that give us a sense of direction. However, it took a long time to compile and write and a lot has happened in that time. The Government has undertaken exhaustive community consultation to establish how native vegetation should be managed-an issue that has been accelerated as the weeks and months have passed. More consultation will be undertaken with farmers, local government, catchment management boards, conservationists, indigenous communities and others.

    As I said earlier, I welcome the findings and recommendations contained in the Auditor-General's report. It is a constructive contribution which will improve the performance of the department. The report confirms the direction embarked upon by the department. Significant progress had been made in a number of areas that are highlighted in the report. The Auditor-General's report also emphasises the importance of having comprehensive information about the status of native vegetation across New South Wales. Some of the issues raised in the report must be addressed, and the honourable member for Ballina referred to the preparation of plans. The Auditor-General said in his report that, to date, only one of the 22 plans has been completed. However, a number of other plans are substantially advanced. By Christmas 10 more plans will be completed, and another four or five will be completed early in the new year. So a number of reports which have been developed over time will be completed.

    Honourable members might ask why it has taken so long to complete those reports, and there are a number of reasons for the delay. As I said earlier, New South Wales is leading the way in the compilation of these reports. There is a continuing and increased need for community consultation as we reach the finalisation of these reports. We must win the confidence of the community and remember that there are different views in the community on this matter. We will be damned if we seek community consultation and we will be damned if we do not. If we speed up the process, impose time constraints, and try to stick to those time constraints without engaging in appropriate consultation, we will be accused of excluding those in the community who wish to have a say in the matter. The Government would then be accused of not gaining the confidence of the community.

    I am determined to ensure that appropriate time is allocated for community consultation on these issues. All representatives in the community, irrespective of what aspect of the community they represent, must have some input into these plans. The honourable member for Ballina asked me earlier why this process has taken so long. The information that was available to prepare these native vegetation plans was sparse. Over the past couple of decades the compilation of data on native vegetation and its detailed mapping was woeful. If we are to draw up comprehensive and meaningful plans we must take into account all the data that is available. The Government has allocated $17 million to ensure that we have an appropriate and detailed mapping process in place.

    Mr Fraser: We need more.

    Mr AQUILINA: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour says we need more. "More" is akin to "the length of a piece of string". This Government has provided more funding than has ever been provided in the history of this State and other States. Over the past four years this Government has spent $8 million on the detailed mapping of native vegetation. Another $9 million will be allocated for that purpose over the next four years. When that process is complete this Government will have developed the most comprehensive and detailed native vegetation maps in this country. I acknowledge that more can be done and more detail can be included, but we must work with the data that we have.

    An essential part of getting these maps right is gaining the confidence of the local community. Quite often members of the local community are the source of the information that is required. Much of the data that is required for the mapping of native vegetation has to be obtained with the co-operation of private land-holders, because much of the vegetation is on private property. If we are to proceed along that path we must gain the confidence of the land-holders. The Native Vegetation Conservation Act established the Native Conservation Advisory Council. As recently as last Thursday I had the pleasure of addressing that council at one of its country-based workshop meetings in Wellington.

    Neill Inall, the Chairman of the Native Conservation Advisory Council-he was recently appointed for another three-year term-is leading a knowledgeable group of people with a wide range of views and interests in this matter. They are providing a positive input into this whole process of native vegetation planning. They are also providing assistance to the department and to me in that regard. I look forward to their contribution over the months and years ahead. The Auditor-General's report, which was positive, gave an account of what has happened to date. I am concerned about what is happening now and what should happen in the future. I again emphasise that we are rapidly gaining pace. One plan is already gazetted, another 10 will be completed before Christmas, and another five will be completed early in the new year. More significant consultation will be undertaken with various interest groups and more detailed data will be provided. [Time expired.]

    Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [4.47 p.m.]: When native vegetation legislation was first introduced communities were told that if they wanted a native vegetation plan all they had to do was ask for one. A month or two ago the honourable member for Ballina and I went to a meeting in Grafton that was attended by a few hundred people. I asked people at that meeting-primary producers and land-holders-whether they had requested a plan. No-one had been given a plan even though plans had been requested; and the plans that had been received did not represent what the community needed or wanted.

    Those plans do not represent what the Government wants if we take into account the regional forest agreement [RFA] entered into by the Government. Under the RFA and the long-term wood supply agreements signed by this Government, 30 per cent of the timber supplied to fulfil those long-term wood supply agreements had to come from private properties. On 23 August the National Parks and Wildlife Service sabotaged the Clarence native vegetation plan. A letter dated 26 August from Mr Gaine Cartmill to the Minister states:
        At the final meeting of the Group on Friday 23rd August members of the Group were devastated by a late submission from the National Parks and Wildlife Service member of the Group who did not attend the meeting.

        This submission attempts to change not only the main content of the recommendations but also is a very late attempt to alter the definition of Rainforest, Riparian, under represented Vegetation Communities, High Conservation Old Growth, Rocky Outcrops, Heath and Scrubs and Critical Habitat.
    I will read part of the submission of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I ask the Minister to take note of this because he must understand the view of the National Parks and Wildlife Service on this matter. The submission stated:
        Rainforest vegetation. NPWS does not endorse the current definition adopted from the Plantations and Reafforestation Act and defined as "any contiguous area of woody native vegetation dominated by rainforest species and with the rainforest structure" and has proposed an alternative definition...
    So this government department, which supposedly is providing advice to the committee, has said it will not accept the definition recommended by the committee to be contained in legislation to be put forward by the Government. This department is providing advice to try to get an outcome on this native vegetation plan, but the department is saying it does not accept the definitions in the legislation and therefore wants to alter the definition in the native vegetation plans. That flies totally in the face of the Government proposal. The Minister should talk to the people of Richmond. Karen Smith, who lives in the Kyogle area, told me she found out about the plan only three days ago, although some 83 per cent of her 553-acre property will be affected.

    A man rang to tell me that under the Richmond plan he will lose $600,000 worth of timber from his property. He is saying the Government can have that timber, but he wants compensation for the value of the timber he will lose. I think the honourable member for Lismore knows Valerie Feros, who also rang me to say she is devastated by the plan. Some 400 people in the Kyogle area were contacted last week, and only two of them knew there was a native vegetation plan in existence. They are saying to me, to the honourable member for Lismore, and to the honourable member for Ballina, "Why have you not contacted us and advised us about this plan?"

    I have read this plan, which is more than an inch thick. Not many members of this House have read the plan. I do not think the Minister has read it. Why is it not in plain English? Why is it not in a format which these hard-working people understand? Many of these people do not have daily newspapers delivered to their doors, in many cases they do not have television reception, and some in the upper areas do not even get radio reception. They are hearing about this plan more by accident and are not being advised about it. The Minister and the honourable member for Bathurst might laugh about the fact that those people do not have television or radio reception, but those people do not know that the plan is in the community. The plan should be shelved.

    I am told that the period for making submissions on the Clarence plan will be extended until 20 September. But I am not aware of any extension of the period in which to make submissions on the Richmond plan, which concludes on 9 September. The Minister is indicating that there will be an extension of that period. These people want an extension of time beyond 20 September. I know that the Cabinet subcommittee is to meet on 21 September. I have a letter to the honourable member for Lismore from the Tenterfield Shire Council that says that council representatives have advised that the committee was not afforded the opportunity to review the Tenterfield document. That council is rejecting the plan. Communities throughout the North Coast and the Northern Tablelands are rejecting what has been put forward so far. The Minister claims to have consulted the community, but that consultation has not occurred. These people are desperate because they believe they will lose the use of their land and the livelihood they gain from it. The Minister has not allowed adequate consultation on these plans. [Time expired.]

    Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [4.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Minister and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour for their contributions to this debate. I should point out that a number of other honourable members would have liked to speak in this debate, but the standing orders did not allow that. They are the members representing the electorates of Lismore, Barwon, Murrumbidgee, Burrinjuck, Upper Hunter, Monaro, Orange, Myall Lakes and Northern Tablelands. I thought, in conclusion, I should read briefly from a paper sent to me by the Far North Coast District Council of the New South Wales Farmers Association, which has identified a number of concerns of all landowners in relation to the Richmond Regional Vegetation Management Plan. This paper and the concerns expressed in it are broadly representative of the sorts of concerns that people have been expressing right across New South Wales. The Far North Coast District Council of the New South Wales Farmers Association says, in relation to the regulations, exemptions, restrictions, standard conditions, advisory guidelines and so on proposed by section D, that the "management plan is overly complicated and difficult to understand". It says that the plan has an "unrealistic and restrictive definition of 'clearing'", pointing out that the definition includes thinning, burning, lopping or injuring native vegetation in any other way.

    The district council says that the plan involves "additional costs and administrative workload to farmers". It says that the plan will result in a loss of land use. It is pretty obvious that it will. The council comments that the socio-economic assessment has not been done properly. The Auditor-General pointed to that fact. The district council says that the plan places on landowners a presumption of guilt until proven innocent-a complaint to which I referred in my earlier remarks. The council states that the incentives and compensation provisions are proposals only and that no funding is proposed to back up the incentives and compensation proposals. It says that the plan will lead to a devaluation of land. It will certainly do that through the provision of restricted use of land. It further comments that the category maps are not a guarantee of freedom to farm.

    These sorts of concerns are being expressed all over the North Coast at the moment. It would be in everyone's interests if the Minister were to grant an extension of public consultation, particularly in relation to the Clarence plan, on which public submissions will close on 20 September. That date should be extended until at least the end of September. The same comment applies to the Richmond plan and the Tenterfield plan. It is important that the Government give proper consideration to the submissions made on these native vegetation management plans. I understand that the Government is planning to gazette all these plans fairly soon after submissions are made to the Government. That gives me the impression that the Government is paying lip service to public consultation; that it will get the submissions and make a decision to gazette the plans a week, two weeks or a month later. How it can do that and properly assess what the public is saying about the plans, I would not know.

    I would like to close by saying how the Coalition parties would do things differently. Under a Coalition government, the Native Vegetation Conservation Act will be one of a number of pieces of legislation that will be replaced by a more integrated, clearer and more practical Resource Management and Conservation Act based on the principle of sustainability. In the short term, however, we will develop and implement a new native vegetation management regime. The key differences between our approach and the current legislation would be that we would have more genuine community participation, more incentives, more education, more trust of landowners, less regulation and less prescription. We would have increased representation of primary producers on regional vegetation committees.

    Only community members on committees would have the right to vote should a vote be required. That is, the agency representatives would provide advice only. The bureaucrats would be on tap, not on top. All community representatives would need to reside in the area to which a regional vegetation plan applied. Community consultation would be much more open and inclusive of those most directly affected by the legislation. Proper consideration of the social and economic impact of the legislation would occur at the local, regional and State levels. Committees would be provided with sufficient quality data to make informed decisions. We would increase the money available to retain and enhance native vegetation from $2.5 million per annum under the Labor Government to $15 million under a Coalition government. This would involve the payment of stewardship fees and other payments to encourage the enhancement of native vegetation. We would also provide for compensation where appropriate.

    Forestry operations on privately owned land will be removed from the Native Vegetation Conservation Act under a Coalition Government and made subject to a separate audited code of practice, much along the lines of what occurs in Tasmania. In general terms, we want to build a trusting relationship between land-holders and government agencies-a relationship that has been destroyed by the Sydney Labor Government. We want a genuine partnership, based on a co-operative approach, not one based on confrontation and distrust. This is important if we are to achieve positive outcomes, because more than 87 per cent of native vegetation in New South Wales is on private or leasehold land. The Coalition would do things very differently. Our proposals would be much fairer than those being presented by the Sydney Labor Government. [Time expired.]

    Discussion concluded.


Last modified 05/12/2007 16:39:46   :   Update this page