Natural Resources Commission Bill
Native Vegetation Bill
Catchment Management Authorities Bill
Page: 5283
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 12 November.
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.01 a.m.]: I stand here to speak on legislation that is dishonest, deceptive and severely damaging to country and coastal New South Wales. It saddens and disgusts me. However, I welcome the Government's change of heart in relation to using the guillotine to ram the bills through last night. It is only proper that members be given an opportunity to raise the concerns of those in the rural community regarding these three cognate bills. Farmers and land-holders have been lied to; it is as simple as that. Despite months of positive rhetoric, backslapping farm visits and carefully stage-managed media opportunities with farm leaders and environmental representatives, Labor Minister Knowles has engaged in a calculated attempt to con our hard-working and honest people.
The Minister has deliberately misled and deceived thousands of farming and land-holding families across this State. He has treated us as stupid. No matter what slick excuses the Minister gives us, the simple fact is that he promised country and coastal New South Wales that this legislation would reflect the Sinclair report's recommendations and intent. The bills in fact do the opposite. Labor has twisted and misconstrued the Sinclair report to the point of giving rapists and murderers more rights before the law than our farmers and land-holders have. The Government is sterilising vast tracts of land and further taking away the right of farmers and land-holders to manage their property.
This legislation will impact for generations on farmers and the rural communities that depend on the farm economy, yet this House of Parliament has been given very little time to debate the issue properly. The Government has dumped more than 27,000 words of legislation onto the Parliament and people of country and coastal areas with insufficient time for consultation or debate. In the second reading speech the Minister praised the legislation—historic agreement, wonderful, wonderful—but it is interesting that he is now calling it only draft legislation. I thought that when bills come into the House they are legislation, not draft legislation. The Minister has obviously recognised that there are a few problems with the bills. One wonders whether the Minister is on his game in terms of being fully cognisant of what is in the bills, because he seems to be backing down and referring to draft legislation.
The Government should have done what has been done in other cases involving complex bills: it should have simply introduced an exposure draft and then brought the real legislation in for debate next year. We would then have an opportunity to debate it after having talked to people throughout rural and regional New South Wales. The Minister seems to be undecided about whether it is real or draft legislation. I thought it was real. That is why I had the horrors—and still have the horrors—about these three bills.
The introduction of these complex bills with indecent haste and the stated intention of the Leader of the House to guillotine them through were perhaps an attempt to avoid the Federal Productivity Commission's draft report into the impacts of native vegetation and biodiversity regulations, which is due next month. Why the indecent haste? Surely it would be an advantage to have better information before taking decisions about issues as significant as those contained in the three bills. Part of the inquiry of the Productivity Commission was the examination of property values and returns and the flow-on effects to regional communities. The Minister, as a former property valuer, would be only too aware of the impact of legislation on property values and the earning capacity of properties. Surely we should have the benefit of the Productivity Commission report before making decisions that will have impacts for generations to come.
The three bills are riddled with flaws and hidden consequences that will be shouldered by farmers, their children and their grandchildren. Stakeholder groups and The Nationals and Liberals must be provided with the opportunity to go through the bills with a fine-tooth comb. Today I call on the Government to treat the bills as exposure drafts only and bring them back for proper debate in the New Year. As I have said, the Government has done this with bills in the past. Apart from the Minister issuing a press release saying that these reforms would start in January, there is absolutely no reason that the legislation should not be put off until next year to allow proper and thorough consultation. It is imperative for the future of country and coastal New South Wales that we get this legislation right. Let us take the time to sort out the mess and bring it back next year. I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading:
That the motion be amended by leaving out the word "now" with a view to adding "on the first sitting day in 2004".
This legislation will severely impact on regional development and jobs in country and coastal areas. While the Premier is now concerned about a burgeoning population in Sydney he is directly contributing to the problem by gradually shutting down rural New South Wales. On that matter, where is the Premier? We never see or hear from him after he has grabbed a headline with some slick grab. He slinks back to his glass office tower in the Sydney central business district. The Government's enormous media machine has gone into overdrive, leaking to a metropolitan newspaper this week's alleged land clearing figures in a bid to garner support for it to push this legislation through. This shameful manipulation of the media to spin concocted stories of land-clearing rates gives a clear indication that Labor has set the farming community up to fail. "Official guesses"—what will Labor's spin doctors think of next? I gave the Minister the benefit of the doubt. When we debated the agreement by motion for urgent consideration some weeks ago, I gave him the opportunity to refute a newspaper report attributed to a government source who had referred to the issue being like the wild west, with rampant land clearing and raping and pillaging.
I gave the Minister the opportunity to refute that, but he did not. The Government source was ticked off by the Minister. This is propaganda of the worst order. There is no coincidence involved in the timing of this. By dropping the story about official guesses into Monday's Sydney Morning Herald, the Government is making a clear attempt at manipulating the media to pull support out from under farmers in this debate. The Government's approach is all about pulling support out from under the farming community in the lead-up to this debate so that the continuing green agenda of the Premier and his mates can proceed. From day one, The Nationals warned that the devil would be in the detail, and the more detail we have seen, the greater is the number of devils that have popped up. I did not believe that Labor would be so blatant. This legislation is more anti-farmer than the much-maligned Native Vegetation Conservation Act.
I am gobsmacked that the Minister gave a second reading speech littered with rhetoric on how these bills mirror the Sinclair report. He either does not know what the bills contain or has engaged in a deliberate attempt to mislead the House. I ask the Minister at the table, Minister Knowles: which one is it? I was struck by a sense of deja vu when I heard the Minister's second reading speech. Back in 1997 the then Minister for Land and Water Conservation, Kim Yeadon, made a speech during the second reading of the Native Vegetation Conservation Bill, and made promises of community consultation, ownership of plans, and regional approaches. Then, as now, Labor promised it would encourage partnerships between land-holders and the Government, allow affected regional communities to participate in the development of plans, and establish on-the-ground committees to represent the full range of community views.
In 1997, these proved to be the calming words before the storm of the tough enforcement regime and draconian regulations that followed. As Leader of The Nationals, I have grave concerns that more than just Kim Yeadon's carefully crafted rhetoric will be handed down from one Labor Minister to the next. It will also be the empty promises of genuine reform. The current Minister has alienated the very people who have a vital role to play in the future conservation of our natural resources. He should not forget the majority of the New South Wales landmass is privately managed, and 87 per cent of the State is either leasehold or freehold land. He is choking land-holders with green tape.
It is not just stakeholders and the Liberals and The Nationals who are deeply concerned by this legislation. This Parliament's Legislation Review Committee, which includes Labor, Coalition and Independent members, has released a damning assessment of these bills. Among other functions, the Committee's role is to report to Parliament on whether legislation coming before it trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties and inappropriately delegates the legislative power. The Legislation Review Committee Digest No. 6 of 2003 dated just yesterday states on page 10:
The Committee notes that the right against self-incrimination (or "right to silence") is a fundamental right. This right should only be eroded when overwhelmingly in the public interest.
The Committee refers to Parliament the question whether compelling a person to make self-incriminating statements that (although not themselves admissible in criminal proceedings) may inform criminal investigations or be admitted in civil proceedings, unduly trespasses on personal rights.
That finding refers to clause 32 of the Native Vegetation Bill. The Legislation Review Committee also refers specifically to clause 40 of the Native Vegetation Bill in the context of trespass upon personal rights and liberties. The report states:
Under cl 40 the burden of proof is effectively reversed. Once it has been established that prohibited native vegetation clearing has occurred, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, the landholder must prove that he/she was not responsible for the clearing to avoid liability.
The report also states in relation to clause 40 of the bill:
The Committee notes that the Bill reverses the onus of proof for owners, occupiers and managers of land in relation to native vegetation offences, once prohibited clearing of native vegetation is substantiated.
Mr Ian Slack-Smith: Russia sounds good.
Mr ANDREW STONER: As the honourable member for Barwon says, Russia's totalitarian Communist state is beginning to sound good. The report also states:
The Bill effectively deems such persons guilty unless they can prove their innocence or provide evidence regarding the matters set out in the Bill.
The Committee refers to Parliament the question of whether this trespass on personal rights is undue, given the object of facilitating the protection of native vegetation.
The report states in relation to clause 41 of the Native Vegetation Bill:
The Committee notes that the Bill reverses the onus of proof for certain persons concerned with the management of a corporation in relation to native vegetation offences alleged to have been committed by the corporation. The Bill deems such persons guilty unless they can prove their innocence or provide evidence regarding the matters set out in the Bill.
The Committee also notes that individuals may be proceeded against and convicted even if the relevant corporation has been proceeded against and convicted under the Bill.
The Committee refers to Parliament the question of whether this trespass on personal rights is undue given the Bill’s object of facilitating the protection of native vegetation.
The report also states in relation to clause 36 of the Catchment Management Authorities Bill:
The Committee notes that the broad power of entry contained in clause 36 of the Catchment Management Authority Bill 2003 trespasses on individual rights.
The Committee refers to Parliament the question as to whether this is an undue trespass on rights.
The Committee further notes that there is no limitation on the class of persons upon whom these powers can be conferred. In addition, there appears to be no formal instrument or procedure for conferring these powers on persons. Nor is there any requirement on such persons to produce identification.
The Committee has previously noted its concerns regarding legislation which confers powers which significantly affect rights, without setting appropriate limits or guidelines as to whom those powers can be conferred – or their qualifications …
The Committee has written to the Minister to seek his advice as to why there are no requirements regarding the qualifications or attributes of persons who may have powers of entry conferred upon them for the purposes of the proposed Catchment Management Authority Act 2003.
In relation to clauses 15 and 28 of the Native Vegetation Bill, the committee notes that the matters to be prescribed by regulation are central to the effective and fair operation of the ensuing Act. The committee has written to the Minister seeking an explanation as to why the matters referred to clauses 15 and 28 are not prescribed in the Native Vegetation Bill 2003. The committee refers to the Parliament the question of whether allowing these significant matters to be prescribed by regulation is an appropriate delegation of legislative power. That is just one example of what the committee says about these deeply flawed bills. The committee comprises members of Parliament from all sides of politics. It is not being political; it is simply saying that these bills are deeply flawed. I will now go through, bill by bill, the major concerns of The Nationals. I note that these concerns are by no means exhaustive. As mentioned earlier, proposed section 40 removes a farmer's right to the presumption of innocence. That is a gross violation of the human rights of land-holders.
Mr Ian Slack-Smith: It is the Mugabe bill.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The honourable member for Barwon has an alternative title. What happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty? It is no wonder that the Minister is backing away from this legislation and calling it a draft, as if he can have a bill somewhere between an exposure draft and legislation on the table of the Parliament, which until last night was going to be guillotined. I can understand why the Minister is backing away from it. From where has this notion, of removing a farmer's right to the presumption of innocence, come? It was not in the Sinclair report. I want the Minister to give a full and frank explanation of how this came about.
Under the Native Vegetation Bill third-party proceedings can be commenced in the Land and Environment Court regardless of whether a person's right has been or may be infringed because of a contravention. That leaves farmers open to vexatious litigation. A person is not excused from giving information, answering questions or producing documents under this provision on the ground that the information, answers or documents may tend to incriminate the person. Development consent for broadscale clearing is not to be granted unless the Minister is satisfied that the clearing concerned will "improve or maintain environmental outcomes". There is no definition of "improve or maintain environmental outcomes" and productive outcomes have been ignored. The Nationals have major concerns about the definitions in this bill. I would like to know how the 1983 date for the western division and the 1990 date for other areas of the State were reached in relation to the definition of regrowth, particularly given the rate of growth of vegetation on the coast.
Mr Andrew Fraser: And in the Tablelands.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour makes a good point. Native vegetation grows much more quickly on the coast and the Tablelands. A tree planted on the coast in 1990 will have grown substantially by now. It defeats the purpose of having a more recent date for regrowth on the coast as opposed to the western division. Proposed section 8 of the legislation defining broadscale clearing will massively impact on farmers and land-holders. The removal of one tree in remnant native vegetation or protected regrowth for a fence post will see a farmer prosecuted for broadscale clearing. This was all about getting the Premier a cheap headline, but farmers will now have to deal with this draconian definition. Why did the Government not use the definition in recommendation 16.7 of the report that was ticked off by the Sinclair group? Proposed section 6 of the legislation defining native vegetation differs from the Sinclair recommendation in several ways, including defining vegetation as indigenous if it is of a species of vegetation or it comprises a species of vegetation that existed in the State before European settlement.
Mr Peter Black: Cheap headlines.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The honourable member for Murray-Darling should be quiet. He will need to explain this to his electorate, so he should listen.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will address the Chair.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Some species defined as indigenous in the bill may be inappropriate in various areas of the State. Why has the Government not used recommendation 16.1 in the Sinclair report, which contains the definition of native vegetation in the existing Native Vegetation Conservation Act?
Mr Peter Black: How long is this bloke going to last?
Mr ANDREW STONER: A lot longer than you, Blackie. Proposed section 7 differs from the Sinclair recommendations by adding to the definition of clearing of native vegetation "any other act that is intended or reasonably likely to kill native vegetation". This could include, for example, the removal of a limb of a tree that inadvertently harms the tree. This is green in the extreme. The tree huggers have hijacked this legislation and their fingerprints are all over the definitions, which will catch out not only farmers but also people on rural residential land. The honourable member for Murray-Darling should be listening because he will have to explain this to his electorate.
Sinclair report recommendation 16.2 also states "but excludes clearing for routine agricultural management activities and the legislative exclusions or exemptions". That has disappeared from the bill. I note that the current definition of clearing under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act provides that clearing native vegetation or protected land does not include sustainable grazing. That has also disappeared. Where was that recommended in the Sinclair report? Proposed section 9 of the bill defining remnant native vegetation and regrowth also does not resemble the Sinclair recommendation. Proposed section 5 excludes national parks and other conservation areas and state forest land in direct contradiction to the Sinclair report, which recommends that government agencies should be subjected to the same tests as other managers of native vegetation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Proposed section 11 relates to the meaning of routine agricultural management activities and ignores recommendation 16.8 (a) of the report. The section states that a routine activity should include clearing of native vegetation for maintaining existing cultivation, rotation or grazing areas. It is amazing that in his second reading speech the Minister mentioned Ian Sinclair and the Sinclair group a dozen times. However, the legislation does not look anything like the report; it is completely different. Much has changed between the Minister's second reading speech and now. He is now backing away from the legislation and calling it a draft bill. Proposed section 11 causes major problems for farmers and land-holders. Do the 10 metre and 20 metre fence buffers mean 10 metres and 5 metres either side? If so, it is ridiculous. What about airstrips outside the western division? A distance of three metres is grossly inadequate as a buffer for windmills, bores and stockyards. This presents a major occupational health and safety hazard for farmers. How are farmers meant to drive stock along roads not more than five metres wide?
Mr Ian Slack-Smith: It's a joke.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The honourable member for Barwon is correct. I note that the Sinclair report recommends clearing for the construction of rural infrastructure and does not define distances. Who made up the distances? Was it done on the back of an envelope by one of the Minister's advisers during a coffee break? It was certainly not done by someone from the land or who works on the land. Such a person would know that this is ridiculous. Although the Sinclair report lists clearing for private native forestry as a routine agricultural management activity, that has disappeared from the bill. Regulations in this case may extend, limit or vary routine agricultural management activity. This Government is saying "Trust us. Everything will be fine." Given its track record, how could any farmer or person in a rural community trust the Government on this issue?
This will leave farmers at the mercy of bureaucrats dreaming up how they can limit farmers' activities. Proposed section 22 provides that land-holders may submit draft property vegetation plans to the Minister for approval. However, have we not been told all along that that is the role of the catchment management authorities? So much for devolving power to the bush! Proposed section 23 provides that a property vegetation plan has effect only if the Minister approves it—again directly in conflict with the Sinclair recommendations. Proposed section 26 gives the Minister power to terminate a property vegetation plan. Where is that recommendation in the Sinclair report? Should that be the role of the catchment management authorities? The section also allows for regulations to make provision for reviews of property vegetation plans after 10 years or another specified period. Again we are asked to trust the Minister. We might trust Minister Knowles, but he will not be in the job forever. We have seen a succession of Ministers responsible for Natural Resources. Remember the honourable member for Mount Druitt, remember the honourable member for Riverstone. They rotate.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.
[Interruption.]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of The Nationals will address the Chair rather than the gallery.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will remain silent.
Mr ANDREW STONER: We might trust the Minister, but when he moves into the Premiership and we get another Minister for Natural Resources, will we be able to trust him?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his contribution to the debate.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Proposed section 10 provides for the protection of regrowth. It makes a farce of the Minister's rhetoric about devolving power to regional communities. It is not in line with Sinclair recommendation 16.5, which provides that "protected regrowth means that native vegetation regrowth that a catchment plan has identified as worthy of protection …". The Sinclair recommendation would give power to the catchment management authorities. Proposed section 31 allows officers to enter land to determine a breach, whereas under the existing Native Vegetation Conservation Act an officer must be of the opinion that a breach of the Act has occurred before entering the land.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Third party rights are ensconced in the bill.
Mr ANDREW STONER: As the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said, third party rights are ensconced in this bill. People in the bush are saying that State environmental planning policy 46 looks pretty good by comparison with this bill. This section also gives an authorised officer the discretion to allow a person to assist him or her. Given the Minister's rhetoric in his second reading speech about enhanced compliance and the use of the satellite, I have no doubt that those powers will be used to set farmers up for prosecutions and the like. Further, given the rhetoric in the newspapers to which I earlier referred, the Government's agenda is clear.
The Government has blatantly failed to devolve genuine decision-making powers to local communities, as promised. The Catchment Management Authorities Bill provides no guarantee that catchment management authorities will assess property vegetation plans. Consent rests with the Minister, and he has the power to delegate that role to any other government official. The Minister has discretion over appointments to catchment management authority boards.
Mr Andrew Fraser: You mean Labor mates.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Well, on the basis that area health boards are stacked with mates, one wonders. The Minister has discretion as to appointments to the catchment management authority [CMA] boards, which leaves open the possibility of stacked boards delivering outcomes dictated by their political masters. The composition and size of the CMAs is at the Minister's discretion. The CMA areas are huge and have vastly different topographies and communities of interest, such as the Murrumbidgee CMA, which stretches from Balranald in the west to Cooma in the east. The Minister may alter local catchment action plans as he sees fit; there is no requirement for ministerial alterations to have the approval of the CMAs.
The CMAs have been given the power to compulsorily acquire land. They are also given the power to levy landowners. The impact of this power cannot be imagined. If a mismanaged CMA has funding problems, or a green-stacked CMA pursues what it believes are worthwhile projects to the detriment of land-holders, who will pay for it? This will be yet another tax on rural land-holders.
The Natural Resources Commission Bill abolishes a number of bodies including the Coastal Council, which could mean a reduction in focus on coastal development issues. Members of The Nationals who represent the North Coast electorates would know that this is a very significant issue. Coastal development is proceeding at a very rapid pace and this issue requires some specialisation and focus. Yet the Minister is abolishing the Coastal Council and wrapping it up within the Natural Resources Commission. The Nationals will be watching this closely. It is interesting to note that the Natural Resources Commission will report directly to the Premier, not the Minister, and that the commission will oversee the CMAs. Therefore, the Premier and his large band of green hangers-on will have the ultimate control of the CMAs.
The CMAs are meant to be the bodies through which power is being devolved from the city to the bush. Recently there was a rally by people involved in private forestry from the electorate of the honourable member for Lismore, among others. They protested against the bill's implications for private forestry. Under the bill the selective harvest of forest timbers on private land will now require a property vegetation plan. I can already see delays in getting those plans. With the Natural Resources Commission having to devise targets and the catchment management authorities having to devise catchment action plans, only then will the CMAs or the Minister be able to tick off on property vegetation plans.
That delay, of at least a year or more, will impact heavily on mills that rely mostly on timber from private land. They will be forced to downsize or close, leading to the loss of hundreds of jobs in regional communities. It should be noted that State Forests and sawmillers have come to rely more heavily on timber from private land, due to Labor's lock-up of State Forests into national parks. Labor has used the smokescreen of devolving power to local communities to try to slip through the draconian and far-reaching Native Vegetation Bill. Claims that the Government is giving power to local communities are rubbish.
Mr Craig Knowles: Vote against it.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Minister, just wait to see our position. Through this legislation the Minister and the Premier have concentrated power in their own hands. This is sloppy legislation; it is unclear where it sits in relation to local environment plans and State environmental planning policies. Which has supremacy when it comes to the crunch? This bill is an appalling betrayal of land-holders, the timber industry and the communities across rural, regional and coastal New South Wales. I am deeply concerned also by Labor signalling an enhanced compliance effort. The Minister has indicated that he will be ramping up the use of eye-in-the-sky technology to spy on farmers. There is a problem with that: can satellites determine what is native vegetation and what is not? No, they cannot.
No wonder we have official guesses and rubbery figures dropped to the media to try to pull the rug out from under farmers trying to protect their legislation. It is no wonder Labor is using propaganda, in a shameless and disgraceful way, against the hardworking farmers in this State, and then seeking to back it up with its eye in the sky and increased compliance. It is a disgrace. Given Labor's heavy-handed methods of the past, this does not bode well. Who can forget Labor's training of departmental staff at the Goulburn Police Academy? I note that we have not heard one peep about this legislation from the so-called Country Labor members. Will they have the courage to support The Nationals in attempting to fix their Government's mess?
Mr Steve Whan: We're supporting the farmers.
Mr ANDREW STONER: If you can sell this to the farmers, you can sell ice to the Eskimos.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order. The Leader of The Nationals will address the Chair.
Mr ANDREW STONER: I ask the Minister to explain how he will avoid our rural industries going into a state of flux over the next 12 months while the National Resources Commission and the catchment management authorities scramble to develop and implement targets. The Minister is abolishing the Native Vegetation Conservation Act and replacing it with these three bills, but what happens between now and when the standards and targets are developed? Has the Minister thought about the implications of his far-reaching legislation?
Mr Andrew Fraser: What are the standards and targets?
Mr ANDREW STONER: Precisely. I do not know how can one apply a statewide target or standard right across this vast State of New South Wales. But it will take the Government at least 12 months to sort this out. In the interim, our rural industries and farmers are in limbo. What happens when a farmer moves his cattle into a paddock to avoid flooding and they trample or eat native vegetation? Will that farmer be prosecuted? If a goat escapes its paddock and damages or kills native shrubs will the farmer be prosecuted? Will a rural residential block owner not be allowed to have a horse or cow roaming on the property in case the animal damages native vegetation? It is clear that this nine-year-old Government has rushed this legislation through to meet media deadlines, rather than make a genuine effort to reform the way we deal with natural resources in this State. The Minister cannot be everyone's best mate in the bush and then shaft them in Parliament. The Minister gets only one chance, and he has just blown it. This was his first real test as Minister for Natural Resources, and he has failed. I call on the Minister to resign.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [10.42 a.m.]: I support the Natural Resources Commission Bill and cognate bills, which make historic and far-reaching changes to the present arrangements for resource management in New South Wales. They are historic because of the strong, collaborative partnership and level of trust between the major stakeholders. It is a unique time when our State's farmers, environmentalists, and government and other community groups, including indigenous people, come together on natural resource management. The media, including the Land, have lauded this new deal. New South Wales farmers, whom we have seen in the Parliament today, have been intimately involved in its development.
These bills ensure the allocation of $406.3 million to fund locally driven organisations and land managers responsible for managing the State's natural resources—local people with real money-making decisions. One publication states that the legislation will ensure an end to broadscale land clearing of remnant vegetation and protected regrowth; the creation of locally driven organisations responsible for making decisions about natural resource management; direct funding to land managers to assist with conservation and management of important areas of natural vegetation; and the creation of the Natural Resources Commission to set standards and targets for natural resource management, and to audit the performance of locally driven organisations. This is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation we will see this parliamentary term. The three bills represent a sea change for land management in the Monaro region.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The standing orders provide that members are not permitted to read speeches during second reading debates, although they may refer to copious notes. It is apparent that the honourable member for Monaro is reading a speech that has been prepared for him by the Minister's office. I ask you to rule that that is not allowed in this Chamber.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro obviously has several sets of notes before him on the lectern. I suggest that he is referring to items in those notes for the purpose of his contribution rather than reading a speech.
Mr STEVE WHAN: Over the years that I have been talking to farmers, environmentalists and land managers in the south-east of the State I have constantly heard about the need for two things: locally driven solutions, and funding to help farmers and land managers implement the solutions. During the election campaign earlier this year the work of the Wentworth group was well received by farmers in Monaro. Over the years we have heard grumbles about the establishment of more committees, but if you are to do things in a consultative way you need to put together these sorts of groups. The Sinclair committee, which was appointed to determine how to implement the new approaches, was also well received in Monaro. The Monaro community is committed to better managing our land and other natural resources. Many local farmers have spoken to me about their desire to protect remnant native vegetation. Those farmers recognise the value of biodiversity and native vegetation for the productivity and long-term health of their properties.
We have already seen some important local projects in Monaro driven by local farmers and land care groups. I refer to projects such as the million-dollar preservation of remaining native grasslands in Monaro, a project announced by the former Minister, the present Speaker. The Native Vegetation Bill is a great step forward for land management and conservation. It gives farmers certainty, and provides a simpler and more effective regime for land managers. I note the comment of Mr Rob Anderson, the Senior Adviser and President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, as reported in the Land of Friday 7 November. Mr Anderson said:
The changes will benefit the majority of farmers in the state, by giving them more flexibility in the way native vegetation can be managed, and access to major funding for on-farm conservation.
This legislation will be great news for farmers in the Monaro electorate. It provides greater certainty for plantation native forestry, which is an important achievement. The new catchment management authorities will ensure that locally based bodies have real resources to address land management issues on the ground. I do not suggest that implementing the catchment authorities will not be complex. Monaro is part of two of the new catchment regions, Murrumbidgee and Southern Rivers. I acknowledge that particularly in the Cooma-Monaro shire we may see challenges as the shire straddles the two catchments. Cooma is on the Murrumbidgee catchment, while Nimmitabel is on the dividing of the waters, as the town's motto says, with rivers on one side of town flowing to the Snowy system and those on the other side to the Murrumbidgee.
I know we will be able to work through these issues and make these authorities effective, because they will be driven by local people with strong support from the Government. I look forward to seeing the development of the working relationship between the new authorities and the many volunteers and existing groups in Monaro, particularly people like the land care groups along the upper Murrumbidgee River and Snowy River systems. I look forward to working with local farmers to make sure this works for them.
I am aware that last Monday the New South Wales Farmers Association postponed a briefing in Cooma to clarify some issues that it has been discussing with the Minister, and I understand that those discussions have been going very well. The Minister is addressing the issues that have been raised, and I understand he is also addressing issues raised by the Legislation Review Committee. This strong support leaves the National Party out on its own—still desperately searching for relevance in this debate. I vividly recall that the only response from the former National Party member at a New South Wales Farmers Association election meeting was to snigger behind his hand as this process was discussed. I also vividly recall the looks of dismay on the faces of local farmers at the apparent lack of a constructive approach.
Mr Ian Slack-Smith: Who was that?
Mr STEVE WHAN: The former member for Monaro, Mr Webb. Here again today we have seen an inability on the part of the National Party to get a constructive process under way, and to work with rural communities to put solutions in place.
Mr Andrew Stoner: It's The Nationals.
Mr STEVE WHAN: The Nationals. I cannot keep up with the name changes. Once upon a time I think the word "Country" was in the name; now there is only Country Labor. Unlike The Nationals, farmers and land managers in the Monaro have moved on. There are no heads in the sand; there is no pretence that we can ignore the problems caused by overclearing or poor land management. We have had too many tough years to believe that we can ignore those issues. Yet still The Nationals can only whine and carp. They are out on their own as everyone else supports these bills. For weeks they have been desperately searching for allies in their political game.
Mention was made earlier of a protest outside Parliament House yesterday. The only person that The Nationals found to protest on this issue was one of their former shadow Ministers, Peter Cochran—a good friend of mine who rings me up and gives me lots of advice every now and then. However, in this case I think he is wrong. He dredged through the archives and made a number of outlandish claims that were backed up by the Leader of The Nationals. This important and complex legislation will give farmers confidence that this Minister will continue to prove that he is willing to listen and make changes where necessary. Most importantly, he is prepared to take this great step forward for land management, farmers, and conservation in Monaro. It is a win-win situation. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.50 a.m.]: It is with sadness that I speak to the Natural Resources Commission Bill and cognate bills. The Government and the Minister for Natural Resources have conned the people of regional and rural New South Wales. The Premier and this Government adopted a report, the Wentworth report, that was written by a group of scientists at a pub. The Government said, "We will implement this report." If half a dozen farmers got together in a pub we would call them a mob of drunks. However, this group of scientists to whom I am referring was called the Wentworth group. The report was then referred to Ian Sinclair—a man who was described by the Minister for Natural Resources at a recent farmers conference as "that crusty old Nat". In his second reading speech the Minister said:
Most particularly I thank the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, who chaired the group, for his wisdom and his stewardship in these matters. He is truly one of a kind...
He went on to state that the bill delivered the Sinclair report's standard definition for "native regrowth" and "protected regrowth" which would end broad-scale clearing. Ian Sinclair was named by The Nationals as the old warhorse. By using him as a tool against regional New South Wales the Minister has turned him into a Shetland pony. I feel sorry for Ian Sinclair as he has been conned by the Minister. When I spoke to Ian Sinclair he said, "It is not my report. I only had stewardship of it. It is the report of the New South Wales Farmers Association and it has been endorsed by the Wentworth group." So far as I am concerned, Ian Sinclair and the New South Wales Farmers Association have abrogated their responsibilities to the farmers of New South Wales.
Mr Steve Whan: Anyone who does not agree with you.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: I have spoken to many farmers and foresters and I know how this piece of legislation will impact on them.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro will come to order.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: When this bill was introduced at 10.50 p.m., Mal Peters was present in the gallery. He saw the look on my face and he saw me shake my head. He said to me later, "Do you have problems with this legislation?" Of course I have problems with this legislation! Mal Peters has not seen it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore will come to order.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: No-one has seen the legislation and its disgraceful provisions. Clause 7 makes reference to the clearing of native vegetation. The removal of a limb from a tree or any activity that might cause a tree to die is regarded as broad-scale clearing. What a joke! Recent media releases refer to the fact that the equivalent of 200,000 football fields are being illegally cleared of native trees and grasses every year in New South Wales, which is a lie. Government members know that is a lie, but they continue to issue media releases which state that farmers are destroying the land. They are not. This legislation punishes farmers who, through good management and stewardship, have looked after their lands for generations.
Farmers who have not clear-felled their properties and who have managed riparian and other areas on their farms will be disadvantaged by this legislation. They will not be able to remove a tree from their properties without first obtaining a property vegetation plan from the Catchment Management Authority. The Catchment Management Authority, a body that is appointed by the Minister, implements those plans for 15 years. I recently had a discussion with members of the regional health boards. The area health board on the mid North Coast has nine members, eight of whom are card-carrying members of the Labor Party.
Mr Craig Knowles: That is not true.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: It is true. The Minister appointed Jenny Bonfield, Paul Sekfy and Peter Thorpe. What is Harry Woods, a former publican and former Minister for Local Government, doing on the Catchment Management Authority?
Mr Ian Armstrong: He is pulling beers.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the honourable member for Lachlan said, he is pulling beers. That is about all he will do. The Catchment Management Authority will devolve authority to local government. The question that I ask and which the Leader of The Nationals asked earlier is: What takes precedence in the Coffs Harbour local government area? Is it the local environmental plan, the vegetation management plan which states that farmers can clear only three metres from a boundary fence line? Or is it the definition in the bill that refers to 10 metres? Under this legislation councils will be given power to police these provisions. They will employ best management practices, not necessarily the practices that are referred to in this legislation.
People in my electorate are disappointed with this legislation. They do not know where to turn. At 6.30 this morning a potato grower in my electorate telephoned me and said, "We have heard about this legislation and we are frightened by it." Yesterday I received an urgent message from the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, which states:
Politicians will be deciding how you manage native vegetation tomorrow.
Politicians will not be deciding this issue. The bureaucrats who wrote the Wentworth report and ignored the recommendations of Ian Sinclair will be deciding this issue. The message continues:
This affects your property.
Over the past six months the NSW Farmers' Association has fought tooth and nail to get a better way to manage natural resources on our farms.
Farmers have been dudded by this legislation. The legislation does not contain the provisions that farmers thought it would contain. The message further states:
The Association has been your voice in the halls of parliament.
I take exception to that statement. The voices of farmers are not being heard in the halls of this Parliament. The person who is seeking Labor Party preselection for the 2007 election has not been looking after farmers; he has been looking after himself. The message continues:
However, the Bill currently in Parliament does not reflect the promises made by the Government to implement the system agreed to by the Association.
Earlier the honourable member for Monaro said that farmers, Mal Peters, and other members of the New South Wales Farmers Association supported this legislation. They do not support the legislation. This document, which was issued last night, states that they do not support this legislation. The document also states:
It is only because we've been riding shotgun on this whole process that we now have assurances from Minister Knowles that changes will be made.
I remind honourable members and members of the public of the changes promised by this Government relating to plantation forests. We were promised that changes would be made and that those plantations would be given back. When the legislation went through the upper House those provisions were left in it unaltered. We will not get the amendments to that legislation that we need. There might be some tinkering at the edges but we will not get the amendments that we need to represent farmers in our electorates. Farming areas and rural residential blocks will be affected by this legislation, but people living in urban growth areas in Western Sydney do not have to comply with it. There is one rule for the bush and another for the city. People can clear whatever they like in Sydney but farmers in regional New South Wales are not allowed to manage their farms, which they have successfully managed for generations and which they will hand on to their children so they can continue to create wealth for this country. The final paragraph from Mal Peters' letter states:
I have put the Minister for Natural Resources, Craig Knowles, on notice—that he has the future of rural NSW in his hands with this Bill.
It is not just the Native Vegetation Bill; it is the Catchment Management Authorities Bill and how the membership of those authorities will evolve. An appointment by the Minister will result in a Greens balance and a Labor Party balance. Farmers will not get the representation they deserve and need to ensure that catchment management plans will be handed down properly. There were promises that private native forestry would be excluded from this legislation. That forestry already goes through a strict regime of prescription and management. For the past two or three years that forestry has gone through processes that have meant a reduction in resources, but it has been managed properly. It is not given an exemption under this legislation.
Where will the Government get the resources to provide the 30 mills on the North Coast? They require timber from private properties to survive. The mills cannot get the resources from State forests because it is estimated that there are between 150,000 and 180,000 cubic metres of native vegetation left to supply a guaranteed 269,000 cubic metres. The Minister will not be able to look to private property to fill that gap. The Government will close down or severely affect 30 mills. In relation to the property vegetation plan, the statewide standards have not been set, the regulations have not been set and we do not know what effect they will have. It may be 12 months or two years before any private land can be logged for the provision of timber. If it takes that long, how will David Dent from Grafton survive? He gets 100 per cent of his resource from private land. He cannot survive. He employs 16 people in his mill. They will be out of a job because of this legislation.
Mr Steve Whan: Rubbish!
Mr ANDREW FRASER: The honourable member for Monaro, who has been a member of Parliament for about three minutes, says "Rubbish!" He is such a know-all. He thinks he knows all about the will of the people in relation to local government, but he has ignored them. He is now ignoring the complaints from farmers. He will vote with the Government on these bills and see his constituents out of work yet again.
Mr Steve Whan: Which way are you going to vote?
Mr ANDREW FRASER: I will vote against the bills—they are the most dastardly bills I have seen in a long time. [Extension of time agreed to.]
The people of regional New South Wales, who were represented outside this Parliament yesterday, do not trust the Government; they do not trust the process; they do not trust that there will be impartiality in this regard; they do not trust the statewide standards yet to be set; and they do not trust the Government to set regulations that they can work with. These bills frighten me. The other day we raised concerns with the Minister's office, but we did not get answers. We raised concerns and got only one answer, which was, "We think that is a drafting error. We will fix that." The rest of our concerns were ignored. The Government wants to push these bills through because of a media release stating that is has to be finalised by 1 January 2004.
The Leader of The Nationals indicated he will move an amendment. Why does the Government not put out draft bills until next year? All the concerns highlighted by New South Wales Farmers and others could be adjusted and fixed. Why does the Government not leave the bills in the community for a little while and forget the media releases put out by the Premier saying that it has to be in by 1 January. Farmers would then have an opportunity to go through these bills to see whether they can be improved to an extent that is acceptable. The assumption that farmers in New South Wales are devastating their land is lunacy. In my electorate approximately 70 per cent of the native vegetation is still in national parks, State forests and council reserves.
Why are we now looking at farmers, those rural land-holders, who have managed their property for native vegetation? Why would we now penalise them on the 30 per cent that is left? The frightening thing is that the Wentworth report said that the $120 million to be allocated as part of this process—with $400 million of old money and $120 million of new money—would fence rivers. Rivers would be increased to a total of 20,000 kilometres a year. Let us look at the definition of "rivers" in this legislation. It says that if you have a run in your paddock that holds water in time of high flood it is regarded as a river. Are the regulations going to state that you must fence it? I would suggest that they are. I would suggest that the Greens agenda is alive and well, and once this legislation is implemented the catchment management authorities will be able to do what they like.
Why has the Minister appointed one catchment management authority that runs from north of Taree through to the border, with more than a dozen catchments and who knows how many sub-catchments? How can they be managed collectively? They cannot. How can there be equitable representation on a catchment management authority that is going to have 10 or 15 members? It cannot be done. Those catchment management authorities will be political bodies forcing power down with regulations that will be misconstrued, I would suggest, by individual local government employees who will put their own interpretations on them.
Mr Steve Whan: What is your alternative?
Mr ANDREW FRASER: The alternative is to get this right. The bills should be put out until February. As the honourable member for Lachlan said, we might as well go back to State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 46 because it seemed fairer. This bill cannot work—it will not work—anywhere on the North Coast. The Wentworth report and the Sinclair report referred to compensation to farmers. We will not see it. Compensation is not mentioned in this bill. Instead of a carrot and stick approach, we have a stick approach—there is no carrot. The farmers will be belted by third parties who, for whatever reason, wish to play games with them. They will complain about a farmer, put in a complaint to a catchment management authority, and then walk onto the property. Catchment management plans can be altered at any time within the 15 years. It could take two to three years to get them approved. How will the farmers and the foresters survive? How would a farmer fence all his waterways and manage a property—out of his own pocket?
Mr Peter Black: You don't.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: But that is what will happen under this legislation. I guarantee it. The Government should listen to what the farmers are saying. It should look at the Wentworth report and the Sinclair report. It needs to understand how this will destroy regional and rural communities, the wealth producers of Australia. It will destroy them. The people who drafted this legislation do not understand the bush—they do not understand anything past Western Sydney. That is evidenced by the fact that the growth areas of Sydney are excluded from the legislation. This legislation is biased against farmers and regional communities. The honourable member for Monaro will be looking for a new job after the next election.
Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [11.08 a.m.]: I am pleased to support my coalition colleague the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources in relation to the Natural Resources Commission Bill and cognate bills. Unlike the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, I will not ask for an extension of time. I draw the attention of the House to some of the key elements in this $406 million package. One key element is the establishment of 13 community-driven organisations across New South Wales to take responsibility for the enactment of this bill. To my great delight, these 13 organisations replace an existing 72 boards and committees, including the existing 19 catchment management boards, 20 regional vegetation committees and 33 water management committees. Of the 13 catchment management authorities, no less than 6 are either wholly or mostly within the Murray-Darling.
Despite the claims of this pathetic "Notional Party", these organisations will not be Labor Party hacks. I do not gainsay that the six farmers referred to earlier were not members of Country Labor. However, an increasing number of farmers are joining Country Labor as a result of the collapse of the "Notional Party" because we represent their interests. I refer to the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Lower Murray-Darling, Western and Central West catchment management authorities. I draw a line down the middle of a map of New South Wales. To the north the Western Catchment Management Authority includes Bourke, the Lower Murray-Darling Catchment Management Authority is centred in the Wentworth shire, the Central West Catchment Management Authority includes the Lachlan shire—it is a pity that the seat of Lachlan will be abolished in the next redistribution—the Lachlan Catchment Management Authority includes the town of Hillston, the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority includes Hay, and the Murray Catchment Management Authority is to the south. Those great communities are led by the mayors of Murray, Balranald and Wakool shires.
The Natural Resources Commission will oversee these catchment management authorities and will provide the Government with independent advice on natural resource management issues in the rural and urban context. The commission will report directly to the Premier, underscoring the importance of this organisation to country and regional New South Wales. In the interim, a committee has been established to oversee the actions of the Government and to do the requisite fine-tuning. The chairman, referred to by the "Notional Party" as a Shetland pony, is the Rt. Hon. Ian Sinclair. He is a great friend of the honourable member for Lachlan, the real leader of the former National Party. I refer to Mal Peters, who is in the gallery. Members of the "Notional Party" called him a Labor Party pleb. He has my enduring respect. I will give him a membership form, but I do not think he will sign it. What can one say about Jeff Angel? The least said the better. Another member is John Kerin, a colleague with whom I have been on the campaign track in the bush. He is a great man and he was a great Federal Minister for Primary Industries. Rick Farley is not bad. I refer also to Jennifer Westacott. Five out of the six members are good value.
I congratulate a number of people on their efforts. I congratulate the Minister for Natural Resources, Craig Knowles. Did honourable members hear the "Notional Party's" reference to mayors earlier today? The Minister received his training as a mayor. These processes were initiated in 1999. The honourable member for Mount Druitt claims he did not develop a taste for seafood because he was never in local government. That is his only real flaw. The Speaker, John Aquilina, was another great mayor, as was his an immediate predecessor, John Murray. I refer now to four great starters. The first, who carried on the process for four years, was Genny "Evil" Slattery, one of the greatest kneecappers in this House, who led with dedication. I refer also to Kimberley Ramplin, Leanne Shedden—who was driven out of the House when Stoner the Goner was speaking—and Elise Schumacher. These incredible people are driving this process.
I acknowledge the New South Wales Farmers Association, with whom I have had extensive negotiations in the place "The Notionals" refer to as the bush, where they never go—the great west of New South Wales. Numerous meetings have been held with mayors at Ivanhoe, where Country Labor, for the first time in history, had a swing of 29 per cent, bringing in a vote of 55 per cent—a swing made possible through the help of the "Notional Party". Local mayors have worked long and hard to ensure that we remain on the right track. I make special mention of a group in the Bogan shire known as the Fiveways group, in particular I refer to Brian Plummer, and Joe and Gabby Hayes. I shall go through the history of what I regard to be the toughest nut to crack in relation to regional native vegetation plans. A number of Ministers have visited Fiveways. The first visit, some time ago now, was supposed to be a secret visit by the Premier. Also present were those I have already mentioned, plus other colleagues. Lo and behold, during this secret visit two helicopters flew overhead and a car rally zoomed past. The Premier observed the car rally whilst listening to the reasoned arguments of the Fiveways group. The honourable member for Mount Druitt was also present.
We inspected some of the worst cases of erosion that one could imagine—erosion occasioned by a monoculture created by new growth. I am always fascinated about the elements within the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I do not refer to the workers—I have the greatest respect for them—I refer to elements within management of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Environment Protection Authority and the former Department of Land and Water Conservation. These people are the Stalins of the twenty-first century. They have no regard for reality; they are driven by a blind culture. They do not care about the erosion created by the monoculture of black pine and woody weed. This is new growth. I have photographs of long ago that show this country was woodland; it is now choked with woody weed.
The twenty-first century Gestapo would have us think that it is regrowth. It is not. Interested people should read Tim Flannery's book The Future Eaters, which describes the way in which the Australian landscape has been degraded through the death of the megaherbivores 30,000 years ago and there being not enough Andrew Frasers—that is, not enough bushfires. We run around with our 650 tankers and put out bushfires when they occur. This has led to erosion. After Richard Amery, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation went out and met the same people. After him, the Minister for Natural Resources met the same people. It has taken a long time to get to this stage, but I believe we have got it pretty well right.
I must mention some of the issues that still need to be addressed. One issue is native vegetation. Why on earth would The Nationals not take an interest in native vegetation, because they will be declared the first endangered species? One outstanding issue is that of illegal clearing. I have had discussions with the Minister about what has been put forward—and I am referring in particular to the mid west, and whether the clearing was illegal is still a matter for debate. In terms of the definition of "remnant vegetation", I am totally aghast at the notion that these monocultures are in some way defined as "remnant vegetation". Clearly, that is total rubbish. I have had consultations with the Minister about woody weed, which is a problem peculiar to the Western Division and especially Murray-Darling. We have a total invasion of woody weed to the extent that many of my graziers can no longer graze cattle or sheep; they are reduced to grazing goats. Some of them, the Franciscos and so on, are putting in more goats to improve the quality of the feral goat. But at the end of the day these are desperate measures because woody weed, which these neo-Nazis would have us believe should be there, has come in and obliterated native grasses.
The "Notional Party" referred to private forestry. I have discussed this matter with the Minister. Private forestry will continue. In terms of the private forestry, I must recognise some of the great people who have contributed to the development of what we are doing. I am referring to Ken O'Brien at Barham and Graham Campbell at Balranald. They are great people who have a vested interest in the red gum industry, which is vital for the continuance and the wellbeing of the Murray-Darling. Finally, we still have problems with and debates about water sharing. I have one massive problem: when the water sharing plan for the Murrumbidgee was formulated, for some unknown reason the lower Murrumbidgee was left out. The fact of the matter is that unless water gets through the lower Murrumbidgee the water will not get into our organic growing areas. That matter needs to be addressed.
In conclusion, the brief contribution by the Leader of The Nationals was a total and absolute disgrace. I do not know who wrote it, but have a look at it. When the honourable member for Lachlan was the Leader of the National Party in 1998 The Nationals had 20 seats. When the honourable member for Upper Hunter was the leader in 1999 The Nationals went into the election with 17 seats and came out with 13. At the election on 22 March this year the number of National seats reduced from 13 to 12. I will not cherrypick the 12 Nationals who are left, because leadership of the sort we have seen today is leadership to nowhere. [Time expired.]
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [11.23 p.m.]: I shall make a brief and hopefully constructive contribution to this debate. At the outset let me say that while I am no longer the shadow Minister, I was the shadow Minister for eight years. Natural resource management arguably is one of the most important areas of public policy in New South Wales at the moment. Earlier, the Leader of The Nationals gave what one might almost describe as a forensic analysis of the legislation. I do not propose to go over the areas that he and other members have highlighted, although I will say something about private forestry. The first point to make is that, because this is such an important issue, it is important that we get it right. The Minister for Natural Resources needs to take on board the concerns of the New South Wales Farmers Association and people who have a long history and experience in developing a model in New South Wales that will work.
The fundamental challenge before any government in this area is how to develop an integrated model that is basically streamlined without losing the expertise that is necessary to deliver outcomes on the ground. Essentially, that is what it is about. It must be said that this particular model—replacing 72 committees with the Natural Resources Commission, an advisory council and 13 catchment management authorities—provides much greater opportunity for integrated outcomes in natural resource management. I have long been a supporter of providing a more integrated approach and a much simpler model than what we developed in this State over the past seven or eight years. So to that extent there is something positive to be said about this particular model. However, I am concerned about the potential loss of expertise in some areas. For example, I shall comment on the Coastal Council.
I served on the Coastal Council under both Coalition and Labor governments, and we had a lot of pressure in relation to coastal management issues. While the Coastal Council was not everybody's cup of tea, I think it made a constructive contribution to management issues in New South Wales. Indeed, the Coastal Council developed the first coastal policy for New South Wales and then later refined it. While State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 will stay in place—I think that will be well received by people who are concerned about overdevelopment on the coastline—I am concerned that a model that by its very definition must deal with issues way beyond coastal management could, if not properly resourced, see a reduction in the focus by the catchment management authorities in particular but the commission in general, and possibly the advisory council, on key issues that previously were addressed by bodies specifically set up to focus on particular areas of natural resource management, whether it be the Coastal Council, the Healthy Rivers Commission, the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council or any of the bodies being abolished under this legislation.
The fundamental challenge for the Government is to ensure that in this transition it does not lose the expertise and corporate knowledge that exists now, and that the resourcing of all the different facets of natural resource management is more than adequate. That is the first and overriding point I make. The second point is that the catchment management authorities will have the ability to introduce its own levies. My concern is that if this is not managed intelligently it will be possible, under either this Government or future governments, for the burden of reform in natural resource management to be placed directly at the feet of land-holders via a catchment levy. It is fairly well established that land-holders alone should not bear the full burden of natural resource management reform. Under the model being put forward, there is a possibility that we could see a transference of responsibility from State agencies and the State Government to land-holders via this mechanism which will enable catchment management authorities to put in place levies designed to bring about natural resource management outcomes. I come back to the matter of providing resources to ensure that the catchment management authorities do not feel that they have no alternative but to impose on land-holders a levy that is in some way compensating for a lack of commitment by Government agencies and governments generally.
Mr Craig Knowles: A $4 million kick-off is not a bad start.
Mr DONALD PAGE: That seems like a lot of money but we all know that the issues we are confronting are substantial. In terms of salinity alone, we are talking about billions of dollars over time to bring about appropriate outcomes.
Mr Craig Knowles: But it's not a bad kick-off.
Mr DONALD PAGE: It is a kick-off. If I can use a rugby analogy, at the moment the ball is in the air and we are waiting to see whether you spill it when it comes down or whether it is going to a ruck or a maul. Let us hope you repeat the performance of the Wallabies last Saturday, that you do not drop the ball and that you meet the demands put in front of you.
I am concerned about the exclusion section of the native vegetation legislation. While most of those exclusions are justified and necessary, I am concerned that there is no mention of sustainable forest harvesting on privately owned land. That is a serious issue. As I understand it, at the moment a property management plan is needed for each property and that plan must take into consideration private forestry operations. Because of the lock-up of Crown resources under the forest agreements on the one hand and the requirement of government to supply timber to the timber industry on the other, there is a real chance that over time there will be an undersupply of timber, and that timber will have to come from a private resource. If the Government is serious about meeting its obligations to the timber industry, it will need to have a mechanism in place that enables access to the private resource on a sustainable basis. I am concerned that no provision is made under the exclusions to develop a code of practice for an ideal model, similar to the one in Tasmania, under which people agree that they will harvest in a sustainable fashion. This code is audited from time to time, everyone knows where they stand and there is some certainty in the process. At this stage that is not in the legislation.
One of the big challenges in natural resource management is the potential conflict between local government planning, local environmental plans [LEPs], and catchment-based planning instruments, whether they be water plans, vegetation plans or, in this case, catchment management plans. It needs to be acknowledged that from time to time there will be potential conflict between what is permitted under an LEP and the provisions of a catchment management plan. I could not see in the legislation any way of reconciling those differences. I suggest that if there is confidence in the catchment management plan, the LEPs should be brought into line with it and made consistent at the first available opportunity. It is not necessary to change local government boundaries to meet catchment boundaries. The LEPs should be consistent with the catchment management plan, provided there is confidence that the catchment management plan will deliver the desired outcomes for the particular catchment.
The last point I make is that the threatened species legislation seems to hang over this proposed model. It is a complex issue because threatened species are special. I am concerned that under this model one could do the right thing, end up with a property management plan and have it registered on the title, but have no real certainty because under the threatened species legislation part of the property could be deemed to be critical habitat. If that were so, a concrete plan on the title that allows routine agricultural activities and other matters—for example, private forestry—may have the threatened species legislation hanging over it in such a way that the intended certainty is not provided. I do not know how to solve that problem, but it is a significant issue that the Minister might like to address in reply.
I am concerned about resourcing. I seek a commitment from the Minister that the expertise in bodies like the Coastal Council will not be lost and that the focus on the grass roots level will not be reduced, because it is at the grassroots level that one gets practical outcomes. A great deal of funding has gone into natural resource management across the country—not only in New South Wales—and we have to make sure that that funding is put into achieving results on the ground. The proposed model offers the potential for some improvement in that regard because it provides for a more integrated approach and the abolition of many committees. On the other hand, in so doing there is the potential for the loss of a great deal of expertise. People have been working for seven or eight years on a range of committees and their corporate knowledge should not be lost. We must make sure that they continue to make an ongoing and positive contribution to natural resource management.
Finally, I am concerned that the arrangements for catchment management authorities to levying land-holders should not be used as an excuse for future governments to avoid their responsibilities and put more responsibility onto individual land-holders, thereby taking away the overall responsibility of government to provide sustainable outcomes in natural resource management.
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.36 p.m.]: As the member who followed the honourable member for Ballina on the Coastal Council when it was established in 1997 I am pleased to follow him in this debate and to thank him for his contribution. I also take this opportunity to again congratulate the Minister and the Government for setting up the Ministry for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. The Natural Resources Commission Bill, the Catchment Management Authorities Bill and the Native Vegetation Bill deal, in a comprehensive and forward-looking way, with the sustainability issues faced by New South Wales and, indeed, the whole nation. This package of legislation makes a commitment to drive the process to bring sustainability into agricultural life and the management of our water resources and vegetation resources. As the honourable member for Ballina said, the bills focus on that area of New South Wales that is subject to the greatest pressure, the coastal strip, where continued population pressure will create situations that need excellent governance.
Obviously, that governance can come from State level as well as from local government level, but it also needs the continued engagement of the community and of those who have been involved over a period of time in the various bodies that this bill will replace. That process will involve building on the efforts that have gone before and not lose any of the great strengths. As the parliamentary member of the Coastal Council, I take this opportunity to thank Professor Bruce Thom and all the members of the Coastal Council, both government instrumentalities and the various community representatives, whether they represent the development community, the landowner community or the nature conservation movement. They have worked in a forward-looking and thorough way to bring to the coast the focus that it deserves. The Minister in his second reading speech made it clear. He said:
The Coastal Council, made up of government and non-government representatives and chaired by Professor Bruce Thom, is a good example of the work done by these organisations. It has been ably advising the Government on coastal management issues for a number of years. The Natural Resources Commission will not in any way diminish our focus on the coast. Rather, we recognise the fundamental links between coastal issues and the myriad of other natural resource issues.
At the recent coastal conference a broad range of members passed a motion supporting that focus. People cannot stand at the head of a tide and lose focus on the area of the coast where, as the honourable member for Ballina ably put it, there is an increasing pressure of population. Balancing development and protection of the environment on the coast is necessary. The Minister's second reading speech shows that that will be the focus. We look forward to a continuing involvement of coastal issues in the development of catchment discussions and policies. The Government has given coastal issues strong emphasis with the Coastal Protection Act, the development of a comprehensive coastal assessment and the upgrading of the coastal management manual.
The Coastal Council, led by Professor Bruce Thom, had a good connection with councils up and down and the coast, providing ongoing advice on coastal issues. I am sure this will continue within the commission, the catchment management authorities and the advisory committees. I am sure that clearing of vegetation on the coast will be focused on by the commission and the catchment management authorities. This package of legislation will bring enormous positive change in the management of our natural resources and the protection of coastal assets—economic, natural and social. The coast has the greatest population growth and this will continue to be the case. I note that this morning's paper refers to population pressure in Sydney and the resulting increase in population in the Illawarra, the Central Coast and Newcastle. Such changes will occur up and down the coast. We have to get the balance right and this package of legislation will assist in doing that. I commend the bills to the House.
Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [11.44 a.m.]: This legislation was a great chance to get it right. There are a couple of steps in the right direction in relation to catchment management authorities and property vegetation plans. But I believe the Minister has blown it by putting out a half-cocked production that I would describe as the Mugabe bill. The legislation is far worse than State Environmental Planning Policy No. 46 and the Native Vegetation Conservation Act. There is a chance that the legislation could be fixed, but as far as I can determine at this time the bill has nothing to do with the Sinclair report. I believe that the Minister used Ian Sinclair simply to make the report look good. I note that the honourable member for Monaro said that the legislation has been supported by the New South Wales Farmers Association. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Peters, the President of the association. I am fairly sure that he got an unpleasant surprise when he realised that the legislation has nothing to do with the Sinclair report.
There has been great praise and acknowledgement of the Wentworth group. Apparently some eminent "scientists" met in a pub named the Wentworth. That is how they became the Wentworth group. Their catchcry has consistently been: Stop clearing! That is all they have said. They claim that clearing is causing the blue-green algae blooms in the Murray-Darling and our vast salinity problems. The salinity levels in the Murray River have been decreasing since 1949. The area of New South Wales with the highest salinity is Western Sydney, which is exempt from the legislation. Let's get real! Charles Sturt discovered that the Murray River was salty and noted in his diary blue-green algae blooms in the Darling River. I suppose he turned to his crew and said, "We must stop land clearing. That is what is causing the problem"!
I am a farmer and I think I am a reasonably good one. My neighbours are also good farmers. We are hell bent on sustainability and making sure that our land this year is better than it was last year. I believe that 99 per cent of farmers in New South Wales have the same attitude. But this legislation indicates that we are environmental rapists intent on completely denuding the country of productivity. To me this is insulting legislation, and I think many farmers agree with me. I bought my land: I have title to it. It is freehold unrestricted. I carry out good, sustainable farming practice on my land. It is a tragedy that in a society people who choose not to own land can, at no cost to themselves, influence laws and take action according to their own philosophy—it has nothing to do with scientific reasons or methods—to restrict, control or even ruin people like me. That is insulting to the people of New South Wales. We are the best farmers in the world. There is no doubt about that, yet we are being imposed upon by people who believe that we are environmental terrorists. To me, the environmental terrorists in our State are the extreme Greens.
This legislation has been written by pure idiots. Imagine not being able to clear land more than three metres away from a windmill! If the windmill is 20 feet high and the trees are 30 feet, what a waste of time putting up a windmill! You would not pump any water. It is absolutely ridiculous. If vegetation cannot be cleared more than three metres from a stockyard you would never wear it out because you could not get the stock into it to start with. The legislation was written by fools. If I fell one shrub I can be charged with illegal broad-scale clearing. That defies all belief. If the catchment management authorities have a shortfall they will have the power to impose funding levies on farmers. This is another tax on producers in New South Wales. The $406 million will go to paying bureaucrats who, if it were not for farmers, would not have salaries, jobs or a living. The analogy is that these people are living off the sweat and production of farmers. We dip sheep to get rid of a little insect and there might be a relationship between the two.
One important and scary aspect of these bills is that the extreme environmentalists—that is, third parties—can initiate proceedings against any farmer, for no reason, regarding the farmer's activities, and the farmer must prove that he is innocent. Earlier in his life the Minister was a valuer. Would there be any chance of my making a vexatious claim on his land, leaving the claim in place until court proceedings had been completed, waiting for him to go broke, waiting for the price to drop, and then withdrawing the claim and buying the land? This legislation could encourage people involved in real estate to make vexatious claims on land, tie the property up in a court case without having to prove anything and then take over the land when the land-holder goes broke. That is a frightening aspect of these bills. This legislation has been developed by spin doctors. It is unworkable and insulting, but there is a chance that it can be fixed. However, that will take some fair dinkum work by people with commonsense.
The Catchment Management Authority and public vegetation plans are good ideas. However, there must be flexibility, because farmers will have to get down to the nitty gritty of deciding what they will do with their land in 15 years. If time stood still, I could be doing the same thing, but given new technology and crops and advances in modern machinery I would no doubt be farming differently then. If I were not, I would go broke. We must have a certain amount of flexibility. We must have proper vegetation plans so that if a person is cropping he can switch to grazing if the financial situation deems that appropriate. That is important. I have no problem with vegetation plans, but there must be flexibility. I also have no problem with the Catchment Management Authority, but it must have the power to make decisions because every catchment in New South Wales is different.
I come from a little town called Wee Waa. To the north is rich, heavy black soil and to the south is red, light soil. Those areas require totally different land management strategies. That happens in many other places across the State. This legislation can work, but it is in the hands of the spin doctors. I ask the Minister to take it back and to inject some commonsense into it. If that happens and it enables farmers in New South Wales to become more productive—not bankrupted as a result of land being locked up by the extreme Greens—The Nationals will support the legislation. It is up to the Minister. At the moment the legislation is totally unacceptable. The Minister should take it back, do his homework and consult the New South Wales Farmers Association. I am sorry the honourable member for Monaro is not in the House. I want to question him about the New South Wales Farmers Association fully supporting the bill, not the Sinclair report, because I believe that, like us, they have been dudded.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [11.55 a.m.]: Debate on the management of the environment and native vegetation is certainly not new in this place or in this State. Indeed, I suspect that parliaments have been talking about it one way or another since they were first established. People who own and manage land and who make their living on the land admire and respect it. Land is the basis of every job, the quality of our lives and our future. There is probably no subject on which there has been more rhetoric and fewer results in recent years. When the Coalition was in government in 1988 it introduced amendments to the soil conservation legislation that were simple and served the purpose of conservation well. Legislation relating to total catchment management was introduced in 1991. I was the responsible Minister, along with the Hon. Ian Causley.
That legislation attracted widespread support, including the support of the New South Wales Livestock and Grain Producers (Industrial) Association; it served a function. But I made one fundamental mistake. The legislation required committees to have a 51 per cent land-holder representation. It should have referred to primary producers. In many cases those committees were captured by people with interests other than that of land-holders or people who cared for the land. There are plenty of reasons for land management to be raised again.
When the Carr Government came to power in 1997, the responsible Minister introduced native vegetation legislation. At the time I was the Leader of the National Party and I opposed that legislation. I got a fair hiding for doing so, but I was right, and that was acknowledged later. In 1999 legislation was introduced and again I opposed it. The Opposition was asked to move amendments and it was suggested that there was no point in trying to amend flawed legislation. If the legislation is fundamentally flawed it cannot be amended to make it workable. The Opposition moved a couple of amendments on behalf of farmers organisations and they were defeated in another place. This point has been a long time coming, and once again we face controversy.
If any legislation passed by this Parliament is to work it must have the confidence of the majority of people it affects. If honourable members want people to drive on the left-hand side of the road, the majority of drivers have to agree that is appropriate. If honourable members opposite want native vegetation policies to work, the majority of people have to believe they will do the job and that they can work within the parameters. If that confidence does not exist, the legislation will not work. There would be conflict, doubt and different interpretations and, as sure as God made little apples, we would be back here in four or five years debating further amending legislation addressing the same subject and not achieving our objective of looking after the environment and protecting native vegetation in this harsh, dry country.
I unequivocally support the protection of the environment. I am cognisant, as are previous speakers, of the history of this legislation, the Wentworth group, the Sinclair report and so on. I am also conscious of the history of European settlement. We have not been here for long and we do not know much. Oxley said when he crossed the Darling River the second time that it took him a day and half to find water fresh enough for his horses. The water was saline even then. He said that when he went across the Evans Plains near Bathurst he was surprised about the progress he was able to make over sparsely timbered plains. If honourable members do not believe me they can look at Oxley's records in the library.
Every three months or so we read an article in the newspaper, see a television program or hear a radio program about disastrous broadscale land clearing in Queensland or New South Wales. Apparently the equivalent of thousands of football fields are being cleared. But what the media reports do not say is that satellite technology is being used to determine land clearing and that it does not distinguish between the various types of vegetation. For example, it does not distinguish between 8,000 or 10,000 hectares of turpentine, which is a woody weed, and 8,000 or 10,000 hectares of yellow box, white box and gums. All vegetation appears to be the same colour on the satellite image. If members do not believe me, I suggest they look at the maps in the Parliamentary Library or the Mitchell Library and they will see exactly what I mean. The technology is great, but it is very much flawed; it does not make that distinction. Therefore the figures that are put forward are totally wrong. I will argue that anywhere, at any time.
Mr Craig Knowles: I agree with you. I have said it in the Parliament.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG: The Minister agrees with me. We have to get that right if we are to manage the issue of land clearing. That is a challenge to us as members of Parliament, it is a challenge to the farming organisations, and, in particular, it is a challenge to the scientists. If we are to manage the environment we have to manage issues such as woody weeds. We have to be able to manage the introduced species to the native environment. We have to be able to manage such species as Paterson's curse, saffron thistle and Scotch thistle, as well as the myriad regrowth in the Western Division.
A constituent of mine who lives west of Lake Cargelligo owns some leasehold property under a special lease, the details of which I will not go into. The constituent is severely restricted because of the type of lease, but he is quite happy with that. Some 15 years ago, in an average year without drought, he ran about 9,000 sheep on the property. However, he now runs only about 4,000 sheep, because of the whipstick pine regrowth on that property. The pine regrowth would not have occurred 100 years ago, but it has occurred now because we have learnt to control fire and we have also changed the whole management process. Unless that whipstick pine regrowth is controlled, the most severe wind erosion one could imagine occurs.
About 12 or 15 years ago the CSIRO conducted an intensive study into wind erosion on a well-known property southwest of Bungendore, on top of the windy plains between Bungendore and Braidwood. One of the findings in the extensive CSIRO report was that where there was regrowth of eucalypt saplings or seedlings and it was not controlled because white man had controlled fire, and the density of the regrowth seedlings prevented the native and natural grasses from propagating. Once again, the wind erosion factor was horrendous. I would be happy to tell anyone who is interested how to obtain a copy of the report, and I am sure that the person who owns the property, who is well known, would be quite happy to talk to them. I do not believe that the legislation addresses those fundamental issues. On behalf of the land-holders and land managers, I do not believe that this legislation will achieve its stated objective of better land management. I must declare an interest in this matter. I am an agriculturist and lessee of extremely fertile agricultural land. The land has a river frontage, it has native timber and some native pasture, and it also has highly improved pasture.
Mr Thomas George: And your wife, Jenny, does all the work.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG: My wife does all the work—and she does it very well too. Recently we have been going through some very tough times. Last weekend when I was having a bit of a walk around the property I noted some native grasses growing back in tree guards that were put up in the last couple of years. I also noted some very undesirable weeds growing. As I understand this legislation, I would not be able to deal with those tree guards, which were planted with the yellow box seedlings over the last 12 months or so. The seedlings are now about a metre high. We would not be able to deal with the weed growth there, because it is very difficult to cut out weeds selectively where whitetop grass seedlings are about 10 centimetres apart and weeds are in the middle. One would almost need a pair of tweezers to pluck them out.
In 1984 I planted yellow box trees in and around the cattle yards on my property. The other day we were going to put cattle in the yards. As we approached the yards we noticed a very large limb in the forcing pen behind the crush, on top of the yellow box tree. So the man who helps my wife do all the work got out his chainsaw and cut up the limb, and we carted it out so we could use the cattle yards. Why did the limb fall off the tree? The reason is very simple: the tree had grown big, and the limb had grown over the top of the fence and depressed the fence. When the wind came up, the limb broke off at that point because it had no elasticity.
Under this legislation I would be liable, and someone would take me to court. Then I would have to pay to defend myself, under the principles of French law. In this country we have always worked on the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty; that is fundamental in Australian law. I understand that the reverse applies under French law. However, under this legislation a person can be required to demonstrate their innocence at any time. This could lead to vexatious litigation. For example, if a person leased a property and for some reason there was some bad blood and the owner wanted to get the lessee off the land, would that not be an opportunity to put pressure on the lessee by giving notice of land abuse? That is just one suggestion. I could give 20 more examples, because I have been around for a long time and I have seen how the land works. This is a flawed concept, and the Minister must reverse it. People are innocent until proven guilty. The Crown is responsible for two things: taking our taxes, and giving us proper protection. That is the entitlement of every land-holder in this State. It is commonsense protection.
The cost of defending yourself in court is enormous. If you go to a court for a two-day hearing and have expenses of less than $50,000 you are doing pretty well. If the hearing goes a little longer you are probably looking at $100,000, which is a lot of money. Previous speakers, including the honourable member for Barwon, referred to the distance of buffers from such things as windmills, and I would like to offer something else for the Minister to consider. Most of the mills in the southern part of the State have 30-foot wheels, with a 15-feet diameter, and a 24-foot or eight-metre tail. A 24-foot tail spinning a full 360 degrees with a three-metre clearance will not work the mill, because the tail will be knocked off as soon as the wind changes.
The solution is to clear a strip of 10 metres as a fence buffer for about 30 feet. The average tabletop truck is 2.7 metres wide, which leaves a clearance on either side of the truck of less than a metre. Driving livestock up and down a three-metre track will seriously erode that land. I wonder whether the department will come out afterwards and put some gravel on the track for us, and repair the erosion and drainage problems that have been created. There are many anomalies in this legislation, and I ask the Minister to take cognisance of the amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party, which I unashamedly support. The Minister needs to get it right, and I am happy to work with him to do so. We are on the way to addressing the issues, but this legislation has more warts than a warthog in the Macquarie swamps in a drought.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.09 p.m.]: The Leader of The Nationals and the members representing the electorates of Coffs Harbour, Ballina, Barwon and Lachlan have adequately put forward The Nationals concerns about the legislation. On behalf of the constituency that I represent I express extreme disappointment that the legislation fails to give real decision powers to local communities. Enough has been said by members from our side highlighting concerns with the bill generally, but one of the emails I received—and I am surprised that members on the other side of the House have not received any emails—was from Rous Water. Three questions were asked in the email and I would like answers to them. In relation to native vegetation legislation it stated:
Does it define (or mean) floodplains and dry watercourses as wetlands?
If so, do SEPP14 requirements then apply to such areas?
If so, what are the implications for spraying (weed control) of drains, creeks, etc. by local authorities?
The honourable member for Lachlan highlighted concerns about committing a clearing offence. Under the present guidelines of clearing under native vegetation, a constituent in my area cleared some country and thought he was doing the right thing. But the department came along and questioned him, and he said, "I am not making any comment." The department said, "Righto, if you don't, we will have to take action, or, if you would like to give us a statement, we will then decide whether we prosecute you." He then reluctantly gave the department a genuine and honest statement, which was used to incriminate him. That statement, which was the basis of his defence, was used against him. It concerns me that he was forced into making a statement for the department to decide whether it would take action, and now he is left with no defence. It concerns me where we are going with such issues.
It is apparent from the number of emails and phone calls I have received that my constituents are concerned that this legislation is being rushed through. I was very honoured yesterday that some of my constituents got out of bed at 3.00 a.m., travelled all the way down from the North Coast—that is no mean feat in a bus—and then left Sydney immediately after the debate in the House yesterday afternoon and were back home this morning. I would say they would be too tired to work for the next two or three days. But they felt that strongly, and I know that many more constituents have expressed those concerns, so I place that on the record.
Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [12.12 p.m.]: As other speakers have said, the Catchment Management Authorities Bill and its cognate Native Vegetation Bill are very important. I thank the Minister for allowing the number of speakers that he has this morning, and we have heard various opinions. I acknowledge that Mal Peters from New South Wales Farmers is present in the gallery this morning. Speakers have raised their concerns and The Nationals have certainly raised their concerns, as have many of our members. Some individuals have congratulated the Government, others have raised extreme concerns, and others have been everywhere.
I note that the honourable member for Murray-Darling said that we have pretty well got it right, or words to that effect. Even he is acknowledging that they have not got it completely right. As for the audacity of the honourable member for Monaro saying it is in the interests of farmers, I do not know which farmers it is in the interests of. As a member of the Legislation Review Committee I am aware that many people have used its digest to obtain information on these bills, about which the Legislation Review Committee has raised a number of concerns. The committee is concerned that the bill trespasses on the rights of individuals, that it does not give sufficient defined powers, and that it delegates powers beyond what the committee believes is totally desirable. Paragraph 1 on page 5 of the digest states that the object of the bill is to establish an independent commission to provide the Government with advice on natural resource management. Paragraph 3 states:
(3) The objects of the Native Vegetation Bill … are to:
• provide for, encourage and promote, the management of native vegetation on a regional basis in the social, economic and environmental interests of the State—
complete with an $11,500 fine—
• prevent the clearing of remnant native vegetation and protected regrowth unless it leads to better environmental outcomes;
Again, complete with an $11,500 fine—
• protect native vegetation of high conservation value having regard to its contribution to such matters as water quality, biodiversity, or the prevention of salinity or land degradation;
Again, subject to the appropriate fines—
• improve the condition of existing native vegetation, particularly where it has high conservation value; and
• encourage the revegetation of land, and the rehabilitation of land, with appropriate native vegetation, in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
Again, in conjunction with the appropriate fines. Paragraph 14 on page 7 states:
14. The second reading speech noted that the purpose of the … bill is to "fulfil the Government's commitment to end broadscale clearing by reforming native vegetation management in New South Wales." It repeals the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997.
The Committee then went on to note that the bill does trespass on personal rights and liberties. Paragraph 29 of page 9 of the digest states:
29. Clause 32 of the … provides the Director General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (the Director General) with powers to obtain relevant information about a possible contravention of the ensuing Act:
The Director General may, by notice in writing served on a person, require the person:
(a) to give to an authorised officer, orally or in writing signed by the person (or, if the person is a corporation, by a competent officer)—
With no definition of what "a competent officer" may be—
and within the time and in the manner specified in the notice, any relevant information of which the person has knowledge, or
(b) to produce to an authorised officer, in accordance with the notice, any document containing relevant information.
Paragraph 30 states:
30. Failing to comply with a written notice from the Director General … or giving false or misleading information in response to such a notice, constitutes an offence with a maximum penalty of $11,000 …
A number of speakers have noted that a person may inadvertently give incorrect information that was, to the best of their knowledge, given in good faith, and that the information can be used against them and that they may end up in court. Paragraphs 36 and 37 state:
36. The Committee notes that the right against self-incrimination (or "right to silence") is a fundamental right. This right should only be eroded when overwhelmingly in the public interest.
37. The Committee refers to Parliament the question whether compelling a person to make self-incriminating statements that (although not themselves admissible in criminal proceedings) may inform criminal investigations or be admitted in civil proceedings, unduly trespasses on personal rights.
The committee said it also has concerns about trespass on personal rights and liberties. It noted that clause 40 of the bill states:
(1) In any criminal or civil proceedings in relation to a contravention of [the Native Vegetation Act], if it is established that native vegetation has been cleared, the onus of proof that the clearing is excluded from or permitted by this Act lies on the person who seeks to rely on the exclusion or permission.
(2) In any criminal proceedings in relation to a contravention of this Act, the onus of proof that the person had a reasonable excuse (as referred to in the relevant provision) lies on the person charged with the offence.
In other words, they are guilty until they prove their innocence. The committee also noted:
45. Although it is increasingly common for legislation to reverse the burden of proof in relation to the issue of whether the accused had a culpable state of mind it is still quite unusual to require the accused to show that they did not engage in prohibited acts …
61. The Committee notes that the broad power of entry contained in clause 36 of the Catchment Management Authority Bill 2003 trespasses on individual rights.
62. The Committee refers to Parliament the question as to whether this is an undue trespass on rights.
63. The Committee further notes that there is no limitation on the class of persons to whom these powers can be conferred. In addition, there appears to be no form of instrument or procedure for conferring these powers on persons. Nor is there any requirement on such persons to produce identification.
64. The Committee has previously noted its concerns regarding legislation which confers powers which significantly affect rights, without setting appropriate limits or guidelines as to whom those powers can be conferred—or their qualifications …
82. The Committee refers to Parliament the question as to whether allowing these significant matters to be prescribed by regulation is an appropriate delegation of legislative power.
The honourable member for Murray-Darling acknowledged that there are bad farmers. Indeed, all honourable members would agree there are good and bad farmers and some in between. However, this legislation will impact adversely on responsible farmers who follow good land management practices. When I was a property owner I accepted the responsibility to leave my farm in a better condition than when I purchased it, and the vast majority of farmers do likewise.
I ask the Minister to encourage all the sound practices that have been taking place over the past decade. Farmers are now more responsible and acknowledge their responsibility to improve property and the environment. Instead of restrictive legislation, the Government would do well to lead by example. I am a councillor on Orange City Council, which does not have tree preservation orders because Orange is known as the colour city, the city of gardens, and everyone is proud of their own little patch. The council is setting a good example. Perhaps more grants could be awarded and more open days held to highlight the advantages of better farming. These events could introduce ways to decrease salinity and highlight the advantages of tree belts.
I acknowledge that the Government holds field days from time to time that responsible farmers invariably attend, but, unfortunately, irresponsible farmers do not regard their attendance as necessary. I am unsure about ways in which those farmers could be encouraged to implement better practices. Perhaps that could be achieved by promoting pride in their farming achievements and improving land practices, rather than introducing restrictive legislation, which merely creates angst and rebellion. Once again the Government has it wrong.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.24 p.m.]: I do not intend to reiterate previous comments. However, as a Liberal member who represents a rural and regional constituency on the coast, I wish to highlight a number of concerns. I note the presence in the gallery of Mal Peters. I believe that the public relations aspect has overtaken the substance and practicalities of the bill. Goodwill and a desire to ensure an integrated approach to natural resource management are important. Indeed, the bill contains some excellent components and highlights the many benefits for catchment management authorities and property vegetation plans.
A number of concerns have been raised with me over the past week. When the Minister reflects on his parliamentary and political career, hopefully it will not include mistakes of the past where this process must be repeated a couple of years down the track. Further consultation over the next couple of months would ensure that the devil in the detail is addressed, particularly the concerns raised recently by stakeholders. This size of catchment management areas is of concern, although the move towards regionalisation is an important step. It is vital for grassroots people to participate in the process. The membership of the catchment management authorities being left to ministerial discretion may lead to stacked committees, and although the Minister is a little more red than green—
Mr Craig Knowles: Red? Wrong colour, I suspect, my friend. Take that back.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I am happy to withdraw that remark. There may be questions about openness and transparency with ministerial appointments. The most contentious aspect of the legislation relates to certain definitions in the bill, namely, "clearing", "remnant vegetation" and "regrowth". These aspects are fundamental and have caused concern among people in the Bega Valley, as has the power of catchment management authorities to levy land-holders.
My electorate is diverse in that it encompasses both farming and coastal areas. I am concerned that the abolition of the Coastal Council of New South Wales will remove from bureaucracy and government the focus on coastal development. Although the Coastal Council did not always have the support of the community, it served an important role in making recommendations directly to the Minister about coastal issues. I guess the bills lead to further questions. For example, where does it leave State environmental planning policies and local environment plans for councils? That is another area of concern. In terms of reporting, providing for the Natural Resources Commission to report to the Premier and not directly to the Minister is a convoluted approach.
Mr Craig Knowles: The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal works in exactly the same way.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: It is an area of concern in relation to this. Many farmers in my area want to see locally driven land management solutions. Some key components in these bills need to be acknowledged as good and sound, but again I question the practicalities and delivery of them. There must be more time for consultation, certainly with farmers on the ground. Farmers also want to reflect on and digest, with the leaders of their respective lobby organisations, what is provided in the legislation. To that end, I call on the House to postpone passage of these bills to allow for that consultation to take place.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [12.31 p.m.]: It is with mixed feelings that I speak on these three bills. I have mixed feelings because the media campaign in the past three or four weeks has been positive in many ways. Many positive comments have been made about the Sinclair report, and a lot of positive things have been said by land-holders, New South Wales farmers and many groups that have a distinct interest in this legislation. The comments we heard were good, because the current system has been a complete disaster almost from the beginning, when this Government introduced the original native vegetation legislation. My point is that the present system could not have been much worse. Many land-holders resented the original legislation, the former Department of Land and Water Conservation and the whole regulatory regime. There were many problems. We were all pleased to read the good report that came out of the Sinclair committee. There are good things in that report.
The Nationals expressed some concerns, which were printed in the Land a few weeks ago. Certainly, the role of the Opposition in the Parliament is to raise what we see are potential problems. The Leader of The Nationals, the honourable member for Oxley, said that the devil would be in the details. Now that we have seen the details, we know that the Leader of The Nationals was correct. There is no denying that this is a complex issue, and I concede that it is impossible to get it right first go. However, I am of the opinion, as are other Opposition members, that this legislation has gone far from the mark. Legislating for a regulatory regime and a consultation regime for vegetation, land and water management is complex and difficult. Providing members of Parliament, industry representatives and farmers with only a few days to consider the legislation makes it much more difficult. I certainly support the call of the Leader of The Nationals to lay the bills on the table as draft bills so that any necessary corrections can be made.
The Minister has foreshadowed that some changes will be made in the upper House, and we hope that those changes will be positive changes. However, having had only a few days to consider the legislation, we do not know the true nature of the legislation and what its impacts will be. I turn now to a couple of significant points. The process has been interesting. I have a problem with the fact that these bills have been introduced as cognate bills. All three bills are significant, and honourable members need the opportunity to speak on them separately. The legislation will have far-reaching implications for all electorates in New South Wales, not only country electorates like mine. As I said, the rhetoric of the Government, the Minister and the Premier, the comments from industry representatives and the like, and the personalities that have been brought into this process are interesting because I believe they have been used to hide the real threat of these cognate bills—that is, the Native Vegetation Bill. I liken it to a landmine; when an explosive device is hidden under the ground or perhaps native vegetation, everything on the surface looks nice but the danger lurks underneath.
The Native Vegetation Bill, which I believe is the real danger, is designed to satisfy an urban constituency more than a rural constituency. However, a bit of a sop has been thrown to the rural constituency in the form of the catchment management authorities and divesting some of the consultation and advise processes to farmers. I flag that as one of my significant concerns. The idea of catchment management authorities is good. For a long time farmers have been saying that they want a greater say in the process, and it is a good idea for the membership of an authority to include farmers—I know it includes other groups. I have the same concerns as those flagged by other speakers in relation to the size of the catchment management authorities. That is a difficulty because we do not want too many committees. In the past the committees were so large that, for example, seven representatives covered a massive area like the Lachlan Valley or the Murrumbidgee Valley, with the Hay Plains at one end and alpine areas at the other end.
There is some concern about the membership of the catchment management authorities. The area health service boards seemed to be a good idea when they were introduced in 1996. Nominations for the Greater Murray Area Health Service included a few Labor Party branch chairmen. That was not surprising. However, I will not disparage the chairmen of the Labor Party branches. The Opposition has serious concerns about membership. On many occasions the Premier has championed himself as having the greenest Government New South Wales has ever had. I cannot imagine for one second that he would let go of control of the management of native vegetation, including water.
Obviously, there will be control over who is appointed to these boards and how much of their advice to the Government will be heeded. The Natural Resources Commission will have a great deal of influence, as will the Minister and the Premier. The Government is pursuing a green agenda. The Labor Party had a preference deal with the Greens during the recent election campaign, and I am sure it was not made lightly or to be thrown away by this legislation. That is of serious concern. I believe we will revisit this legislation in years to come as the implications of it become known and as people start to see that it is not working as well as the rhetoric led us to believe it would. The final point I make to the Minister is that farmers can get it right. It is time that environmental groups understood that farmers can get it right. We have a very good example of how farmers can get it right. In my electorate of Murrumbidgee key water management is of particular interest, and farmers have got it right in the way they manage water.
Murrumbidgee Irrigation, Coleambally Irrigation and Murray Irrigation have done a lot of work. Members of those organisations have got it right in many respects. There were, and will continue to be, issues about water quality and the like. However, farmers in those irrigation corporations have identified the problems that are a threat to their viability and have set about correcting them. They have achieved this through government funding and through funding projects themselves. Salinity in the Murray River at Morgan, South Australia, is at pre-World War II levels. Obviously, that is because of some capital works along the river. However, it has a lot to do with the things farmers have been doing to improve our riverine environment. I use them as an example of how farmers can get it right. They do not want to trash the land or native vegetation; they want a future for themselves. No responsible farmer or businessperson is going to trash his own livelihood. I hope that we are coming out of the worst drought in 100 years. Farmers should be commended for putting in place on-farm and financial programs to help them survive the drought.
I found through conversations with banks in my electorate that very few farmers had to sell their farms as a result of the most recent devastating drought. Things have been tough but not many farmers had to sell their entire properties, which is different from previous droughts. That is an example of how farmers can get it right if they are given the opportunity to do so. Over-regulation only fosters what has already existed in native vegetation reforms, and that is conflict. If there is conflict or if farmers believe that the Government will be heavy-handed they will not co-operate. I refer to a classic example with respect to the plains wanderer. Farmers invited environmental groups and government regulators onto their properties to identify habitat because they wanted to do the right thing and protect the habitat of the plains wanderer.
That research inhibited farmers. Word gets around pretty quick in rural communities and there was a significant drop in farmers complying with any requests for entry into their properties. That is not what we want, that is not what farmers want and that is not what the Government wants. If the Government continues to regulate in the manner contained in this package of bills, particularly in the Native Vegetation Bill, there will be non-compliance from farmers because they will feel threatened. That is the most significant problem with this legislation. The Sinclair report contained some good points. However, this legislation is using those good points to hide some draconian provisions. I support the amendment of the Leader of The Nationals asking that this legislation be postponed. It will have serious consequences for New South Wales.
Mr CRAIG KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources) [12.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in this important debate. I recognise that there were some good and considered contributions, just as there were the same old contributions with the usual rhetoric and scare-mongering that have been a hallmark of natural resources debates since I came to this place in 1990. Natural resources legislation always attracts the polarised views of communities and stakeholder groups, and is therefore fertile ground for people who want to scare the living daylights out of people where no such need exists. Having said that, I also place on record my great appreciation of the farming communities and regional productive communities I have had the privilege of meeting and working with over recent months.
It has been a joy to work with people who have a great commitment to the notions of sustainable natural resource management and integrated natural resource management. If people want to see some of the best practice, they should go to our farmers in Australia and see it in world-class terms. That is a given. If one removes the fear and looks at the opportunities presented, this is a great opportunity for communities to work together to get something beneficial and to move us beyond the historic rhetoric, the historic argument, the historic polarisation that has existed as the hallmark of these debates since they started decades ago. The position of The Nationals today has to be explained and put on the record. When the honourable member for Lachlan was the Leader of the National Party he said that if The Nationals did not like a bill there was no point amending it—that it was better to vote against it, start again and get it right. I can probably search Hansard and find Leon Punch saying the same thing, find Wal Murray saying the same thing and find the honourable member for Upper Hunter saying the same thing.
However, today The Nationals have moved an amendment—they do not want to oppose the legislation; they want to defer it. It would have been more honest for Opposition members to say, "There are parts of the bills we can live with and parts that continue to need work. However, let us put this in a positive sense for our communities and get it right and make it work. Let us then argue for a deferment in those terms." Today Opposition members made accusations that these bills are worse than rapists and murderers—to quote one honourable member—draconian and time bombs. All those horrible notions suggest this is bad legislation. If it is bad legislation, they should have the courage of their convictions and vote against it. They should have the guts to stand up and be the party they once were; they should follow the traditions of Punch, Murray and Armstrong and say no. Most people in the bush tell me the second-best answer after yes is no, not maybe. Today The Nationals have dished up a maybe amendment. I make absolutely no secret of the fact—in fact, I see it as a positive in the way we work with natural resource issues these days—that we work with communities until we get it right.
I pay tribute to the honourable member for Ballina, who made a considered and thoughtful contribution to this debate on a number of key points. For many years I have regarded the honourable member for Ballina as one of the more thoughtful members of this Parliament. He said, "There is a great opportunity in this bill to get it right, but the issue is to get it right." Therefore, the question is: How do we get it right? We get it right by continuing to work together. As I have said from day one, and as I have said in recent days as various stakeholder groups have raised concerns, the Government will keep working on it until it is debated in the upper House. If necessary, we will amend the bill. That logical, sensible, commonsense approach reflects what most members opposite were saying—that is, "There are some good things here. We do not want to lose them so we will not vote against the legislation, we will not say no. We will not have the courage of our convictions but we will try to keep the issue going." I am doing the same thing, but my commitment goes one step further: the Government will work with the various communities and groups, such as NSW Farmers and other farming groups, to get it right.
I will explain the situation again for the record and for those who may take an interest in this debate. Today we are dealing with bills in this fashion and not introducing a bundle of amendments into the Legislative Assembly because of the forms of the Legislative Council, which has a cut-off date for Government legislation so it can complete its program by the end of the year. The initial cut-off was close of business last night, but it has been extended by a couple of days through negotiation. I will use the opportunity presented between the close of the debate in this House and the resumption of the debate in the upper House to continue to work with farm communities, the NSW Farmers and anybody who wants to be part of continuing to improve the bills. I have no hesitation in acknowledging that the Government will amend the bills to make them better, to instil commonsense and to get it right, as the honourable member for Ballina said. How will we do that? We will use Sinclair. We will use the group of people who worked on this issue from day one, since the last election, and we will continue to work with them sensibly and properly.
The Nationals are now like a dog between two trees. The old maxim about St Augustine is that he said, "Lord make me chaste, but not just now. I want to do it, but not just now—a little bit later." The Nationals are saying, "We don't want to say we like this stuff because that would be a concession to the Government, but we will not say no to it". Nonsense has tumbled out of the mouths of The Nationals this morning. We have this mealy-mouthed, dog between two trees, equivocal approach of an attempted deferment. That does a disservice to the people of rural New South Wales. The National Party changed its name to The Nationals, a new brand purporting to represent a community. However, they are giving that community uncertainty. If they were truly representing regional communities and truly believed what they said, they would just say no.
The Government will continue to work through all the issues raised by honourable members today. People outside this Chamber have also raised questions about the bills. It is not surprising that there are questions of detail and arguments about the wording of the bills. The translation of the spirit and intent of the Sinclair report into legislation requires further work. To my memory, while I have been a member of this place substantive natural resources legislation and environmental legislation has had the same method of passage. That is the way these things are, and that is the way we will continue to work through them. The process started with Sinclair, and it is entirely appropriate that it conclude with Sinclair. Over recent months government officials have sat at the table. Equally, many people beyond government have had a chance to have a real say. It is about getting it right and reflecting the spirit and intent of Sinclair in the bills; it is not about getting bogged down in the legal hieroglyphics, the interpretation. It is the task of those people who sit down over the next few days to continue to work on it.
I recognise the people who have put so much time and effort into building this legislation over the past few months. Their efforts should not be disregarded in the terms expressed by some members of The Nationals today. Too much good work has been done and too much has been built that is of value to simply treat it in the way that it was treated by some honourable members today. It is a slap in the face, and I do not think it truly reflects what some of the members opposite think. They have all said that they liked the idea of less red tape and fewer committees. They want the money to go direct to farmers. They like the idea of property vegetation plans. They want all of those sorts of things articulated. That they described the bills as they did says more about them and their capacity to participate in this debate, and more about their disconnection or dislocation from their communities, than anything I could ever say. In my view, they should just vote against the bills. However, they will not do that. The Leader of The Nationals could not do what Ian Armstrong said he would do in his speech, and what people such as Leon Punch and others would have done. If they did not like it—
Mr Andrew Stoner: We have heard all this. It is tedious repetition. Get on with it.
Mr CRAIG KNOWLES: I know you do not like it, but I have had to listen to your tedious repetition since 10 o'clock this morning. It is now my turn. The Nationals sprayed the bill and then said, "But we sort of like it enough that we are not going to vote against it." In the next few days the Government will work with the Sinclair group to further refine the bills and to present amendments in the upper House, having regard to the timetable of its sittings. We will continue to work to get this right. I thank the people from NSW Farmers who are in the gallery. They have a tough job, a big job, to do. They do good work on behalf of their membership. They will be integral to the work we will do over the next couple of weeks, as will the other members of the Sinclair group. I understand that the debate on these bills will resume in the upper House on 2 December—or at least in a fortnight's time—and we will put forward our solutions. I commend the bills to the House.
Question—That the word stand—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 51
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Ms Hay | Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Knowles
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano | Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 32
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr McGrane
Mr Oakeshott
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R.W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pair
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Question—That these bills be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 53
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Ms Hay | Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Knowles
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McGrane
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Oakeshott | Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 30
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith | Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R.W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pair
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.11 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]