BRIGALOW AND NANDEWAR COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AREA BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 June 2005.

Mr JOHN MILLS (Wallsend) [10.03 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill It has been a long time coming and I welcome it. It is welcomed because it does something new and something special. I particularly welcome the establishment of the Community Conservation Area as part of this legislative package, which will deliver a modern timber industry in the region, deliver a secure future for the region's timber, gas, minerals and apiary industries, as well as deliver 352,000 hectares of new conservation reserves with high conservation values.

The Community Conservation Area is an entirely new land management tenure, which I understand has been developed specifically for this part of western New South Wales. We heard earlier in the debate that 70 per cent of the original vegetation of this area has been cleared; that the rate of extinction of species is high; that the Commonwealth Government recently declared the Brigalow region as a "biodiversity hotspot", as was mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Heffron, with this legislation reversing that trend; that the land to be protected contains quality habitat for the most endangered species, the best of the remaining vegetation and biodiversity; and that the land to be protected contains forests of high cultural significance to Aboriginal people.

It will be managed to support Aboriginal cultural heritage and cultural practices. Jobs will be set aside for Aboriginal people. This is all part of the package. Aboriginal people will participate fully in the future management of the Community Conservation Area. The two iconic forests—Goonoo and Terry Hie Hie—have been identified as areas that could be managed through indigenous land use agreements. The model for this is the successful Arakwal National Park at Byron Bay. I have been bothering the Minister for the Environment, on behalf of the Aboriginal people of the region, for several years, and specifically since the hand-back last year of Mount Grenfell Nature Reserve to Aboriginal ownership. Therefore, on behalf of the people on whose behalf I was bothering the Minister, I welcome this package as a resolution of those issues.

The Community Conservation Area was described in the Minister's second reading speech as an internationally recognised reserve concept new to Australia, but based on recognised International Union for the Conservation of Nature Reserve categories. The Minister advised that this is a different way of resolving forestry assessments by creating a framework for the co-ordinated management of all public lands. I put on record that this will achieve both permanent conservation outcomes and provide certainty to the various industries operating in the region.

The Community Conservation Area will have three statutorily defined conservation zones. The first will be a conservation and recreation zone, the second will be a conservation and Aboriginal culture zone, the third will be a conservation, recreation and mineral extraction zone. No commercial extraction of timber can occur in those three zones. Statutory responsibility for those three conservation zones will reside with the Minister for the Environment. The fourth zone in the Community Conservation Area will provide for commercial timber extraction and mining. Statutory responsibility for this zone will reside with the Minister for Primary Industries. The Minister told us in his second reading speech that management of the new Community Conservation Area will also link directly to management of the existing reserve system, including the iconic Warrumbungles and Mt Kaputar national parks.

On Thursday 24 February 2005 a joint media release was put out by the Terry Hie Hie traditional owners and the Western Conservation Alliance. The media release made a renewed call for an Aboriginal-owned national park and contained this statement by Mr Lou Swan, an elder of the Terry Hie Hie traditional owners:

Terry Hie Hie is our special area. We are here to make an offer to the government and the people of NSW. If you give us back this little bit of our traditional land, we promise to work with you to protect it forever in a beautiful National Park. I reckon that's a fair deal.

On 23 March the Western Conservation Alliance had an information session in the Parkes Room here in Parliament House. I attended to hear in particular the advocacy on behalf of the Aboriginal people who were seeking an Aboriginal-owned national park in the Terry Hie Hie forest. What has emerged is a different model, but I reckon that this bill will achieve the objective of the local Aboriginal people. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.10 a.m.]: It is with some sadness that I speak to the bill because yet again it demonstrates the Government's blind push to reservation in national parks and conservation areas without any consideration for the communities and industries it will affect. I am pleased the Minister for the Environment is at the table. I challenge him to have a look at the towns of Baradine, Gwabegar and Gulargambone, and to talk to the people of Dubbo and the people of Gunnedah who held a rally about a week ago to protest the legislation. For three years we have been told that the Government was considering a decision that would provide a balance between conservation and timber production. During last year's estimates committee hearing Minister Knowles told the committee that a report produced by the Rt Hon Ian Sinclair and commissioned by the Government—which would have provided a far more balanced result than will be achieved by the legislation—was on the back of every toilet door in Dubbo. But when we tried to obtain a copy of the report we were told it was Cabinet confidential.

It is only fair that the Government and the Minister provide us with the report so that we can assess honestly whether they have considered the people of the region of whether they are simply paying back the Greens preferences from the last election. I have photos that show one side of the road in Baradine—a moratorium managed by National Parks—with cypress pine growing so thickly that no grass or wildflower can grow. There is no fauna of any kind, no parrots, nothing. The area is "dead". The biodiversity that would flourish under a managed forest has been excluded because of non-management by National Parks. Photographs of the other side of the road show an area that has been thinned by logging and a forest floor that has been cleaned up. Everlasting daisies and grass are growing in the area. Lizards inhabit the area. Flora and fauna are surviving well. Forestry operations are doing the area the world of good. It is unfortunate that I do not have an extended time to speak in the debate. I ask the Minister whether he has ever read Perfumed Pineries, which gives the history of the Pilliga. It states that the Pilliga we know today is not the Pilliga country that was settled originally by white settlers.

Mr Bob Debus: I know all the theories.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister says he knows all the theories, but to my knowledge he has never been to the Pilliga or any of the Brigalow areas.

Mr Bob Debus: Yes, of course I have been there.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: He has been there. Why did he not go to Gunnedah last week to talk to the 50 people employed by Gunnedah Timbers who probably will be out of a job because of a decision made by him in the so-called name of conservation?

Mr Bob Debus: No, they won't. They won't be out of a job.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister says they will not be out of a job. His Government negotiated a package with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and others for the people of Baradine and Gwabegar. The only thing Gwabegar has going for it is a cypress mill, which will close, and the Minister knows it will close. The Government will give them $72,000 dollars, which they will put in their pockets and leave town. They will either come to Sydney or go to the coast. The town of Gwabegar will die. It is in the middle of a drought. Where is the socioeconomic statement outlining the impact of this decision on the community? There is none. The grain line has been closed because of lack of maintenance by the Government, which has done nothing. Farmers are struggling in the drought. People who are providing the bread and butter for their families will be offered either $72,000 or $27,000 plus a job—a job that will not last, as the Minister knows.

Mr Bob Debus: It will.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: How many jobs are left at Coolah Tops? Within two years those construction jobs disappeared. There is no long-term employment in the management of the national park.

Mr Bob Debus: They were replaced.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister says, "They were replaced." The Minister should do a head count. He should visit these areas to see the effect of his policies.

Mr Bob Debus: There are more people employed at Coolah Tops now than there were when that decision was taken.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I suppose the Minister will name them in his reply. The legislation will wreak devastation on an area that has been so well managed by Forests NSW, according to the Minister, that it is now good enough to be called a conservation area and national park, even though he will not admit it. The area should be left as it is. It is somewhat laughable that the Minister is developing a new type of conservation that will not allow forestry, which is the only renewable resource industry Australia has, yet he will allow mining. We could have an open-cut mine, get rid of all the trees, get nothing out of them and call that conservation. I am sorry, but the Minister is blinkered. He should sit on a stump, as I have, and talk to the people who will be affected severely by the legislation. I have been to the mill at Bingara, which produces high quality, white ant resistant timber for floorboards and the export market. Under the legislation that product will no longer be available.

The area the Minister has left for logging has been cut already. As the Minister knows, or should know, the rotation on cypress pine is about an 80-year cut. Some areas included in the legislation were never claimed by his friends, the Western Conservation Alliance, and that is fine. The Minister and the Government are failing to listen to the honourable member for Barwon, who has an absolute knowledge of this matter. The Minister is pandering to the Greens, with whom his Government did deals at the last election to give them marginal seats in Sydney. It is an absolute disgrace that those people have never visited the affected areas. I note with interest that members opposite who have spoken to the legislation have no connection with the Pilliga and Western New South Wales.

Ms Linda Burney: Wait a minute.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: With the exception of the honourable member for Canterbury, who has some knowledge of the area. I am somewhat surprised that the honourable member for Canterbury has accepted this decision, knowing full well what a great resource the industry is to western areas and knowing full well how towns in those areas rely on it. But the honourable member for Heffron, the honourable member for Coogee and the honourable member for Wallsend have spoken to the bill.

Mr Peter Debnam: They know nothing.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the honourable member for Vaucluse said, "They know nothing." At least the honourable member for Vaucluse has been into country areas—

Mr Peter Debnam: I used to work for Dalgety.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: He used to work for Dalgety. He knows the productivity of this industry. How are we going to replace this white ant resistant timber? CCA timber is about to be banned. This country is absolutely riddled with white ants. This natural timber has been utilised for many years by people building homes without the addition of chemicals. The building industry will have to look for an alternative to CCA, which may have more dire consequences than arsenic. That is another argument for another day. The timber resource the Minister has left them is such that the $10 million industry that emanates out of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion is shot—it is gone—because the timber remaining is not of the quality or quantity to produce export timber. Those markets will be lost. Not only has he damaged the towns, he has also damaged the balance of payments in Australia.

I would dearly love to go through the bill and the Minister's speech in detail. I do not know who wrote his speech, but I would like to point out its fallacies. For example, the Aboriginal group who protested about Terry Hie Hie did not come from that area. The Moree Aboriginals are against what the Minister has done with the Terry Hie Hie forest. If ever a cypress forest could be called a planted forest—Terry Hie Hie is not really a planted forest, but a well-managed regrowth forest—that would be the one. It is a highly productive forest that will now be closed up. It has gone. The Minister talks about new industries springing up from the residue, but how can there be residue if there is no industry? If there is no residue how can you extract oil? The Minister says that temporary jobs will be given out on the forest floor. The Minister has read the history of the bushfires. One back in the late 1980s all but devastated the koala population because of the way in which the forest had been wound back and poorly managed in certain areas. We must have proper management for timber production from that area.

Mr Bob Debus: That fire started in a State forest.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: It may have started in a State forest, but the Minister must realise how volatile the forest is. I implore the Minister to visit the moratorium area and see how badly managed it is. The Minister has referred to the barking owl being protected. The barking owl cannot find the forest floor in the moratorium area because it is so thickly carpeted by young cypress pine saplings. The area has not been managed. This bill should be all about management. I challenge the Minister to bring forward legislation that will allow national parks to be selectively logged and managed in the way the moratorium area should be managed because of its history. I would love to have the time to read all the parts I have tagged in Perfumed Pineries that reveal the history of the Pilliga. The Pilliga today is not the place it was when white people first came to Australia and settled in the area, and it does not have the type of forest that is described in Perfumed Pineries. Other members who have spoken during this debate have described the way the forest used to be. I commend the honourable member for Barwon for his speech.

I condemn the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for the politics they have played during this debate. This legislation is all about the survival of country towns and an industry that I believe is one of the better industries in New South Wales. This Government has failed to recognise that. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I seek clarification of whether the legislation before the House is legitimate. In schedule 1, zone 1—Conservation and recreation, part 1, areas 1 to 5 refer to maps that are catalogued as MISC R 00279 (Edition 1), MISC R 00290 (Edition 1), MISC R 00277 (Edition 1), MISC R 00307 (Edition 1), and MISC R 00280 (Edition 1). Those maps are not available to this Parliament but in respect of every other piece of conservation legislation, there has been a table outside this Chamber on which the maps were available. I have checked the web sites of the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Lands and I cannot find those maps. I am advised by the Clerk that the map included in the bill showed Pilliga and Gwabegar in the wrong places, and has been amended. The corrected map will be incorporated in the bill when it is received in the upper House, but what a ludicrous situation. This incompetent Minister and this incompetent Government cannot even get the map right and the location of the towns right and have failed to provide to members of this Parliament maps that accurately show the areas that will be reserved under several and separate categories when this legislation is being considered.

I suggest that this legislation is outside the realms of the practice of this Parliament. I suggest it is impossible for any member of this House to assess accurately the areas that are to be reserved without proper maps being available. In the past in this place there have been arguments over what areas are national park, what areas are State forest and what is a conservation area. Separate conservation zones are proposed in this legislation, and members of Parliament need to refer to maps to ensure that we address the correct areas and make our decisions based on accurate maps. This reminds me of the situation with the report provided by the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair. I am sure the Minister would suggest that the report was freely available. The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources, Mr Knowles, has said that the Sinclair report is on the back of every toilet door in Dubbo, but members of this Parliament have been unable to obtain copies, even under freedom of information legislation.

I suggest that the maps referred to in the bill have not been finalised and are mere references in the legislation. I suggest the maps are not available for the scrutiny of this Parliament, which is disgraceful. I believe that this legislation should be withdrawn until members of Parliament, who are responsible for making decisions based on the bill, have an opportunity to examine the maps and be in a position to make comments on each map individually. In the Minister's second reading speech, he stated:

The forests in these regions contain 47 threatened fauna species, and the new conservation reserves will provide permanent strongholds for these animals and birds, including the turquoise parrot, the barking owl, mallee fowls and the swift parrot.

Is it not surprising that those animals are prospering in State forests? I do not believe they can prosper in national parks or conservation areas proposed in this bill because of the lack of management to which I referred earlier. I believe that this legislation is not in the best interests of conservation or the best interests of the people who live in forest areas. The Government has rushed into this legislation without giving it due consideration. If those animals are thriving in a managed forest, why does the area need to be locked up? Why does it need to be turned into a national park or a conservation area? Why is there a need to contend that this legislation will preserve the area? I question the quantity of timber that has been estimated to remain in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. According to the Minister's second reading speech, the area has 67,000 cubic metres of timber, but I believe a more accurate estimate is between 20,000 cubic metres and 25,000 cubic metres of timber.

Mr Bob Debus: What is your authority for that proposition?

Mr ANDREW FRASER: My discussions with employees of State Forests. I will not name them, for their protection.

Mr Bob Debus: It would be a good idea if you did.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I will not name them, for their protection. The Minister should not worry: he will be copping more criticism in another bill that will be debated later today. When one considers that the forests produced products worth $8 million net profit to the Government and that the parks will cost $8 million to administer, the State has replaced an $8 million return to the Government with an $8 million cost, and the bottom line is a loss of $16 million in respect of a renewable resource that could be logged on an 80-year rotation. That is unacceptable to me. I implore the Minister to talk to State Forests employees.

I urge the Minister not to wimp out and show cowardice as he did last week when he claimed that The Nationals organised a rally whereas it was a community organised rally attended by 2,500 people. Those who attended the rally were very disappointed that neither the Minister for the Environment nor the Premier, Bob Carr, explained the Government's actions in ruining their livelihoods. Some towns will die. If the Minister does not believe me, he should carefully consider the position of Nimmitabel, which has borne the brunt of a decision made by this Government. The Minister should consider what the Government has done to the north-eastern and south-eastern forests and the lives that have been destroyed. Jobs have been lost and have been replaced with false jobs that have not survived. The Minister should revisit Coolah Tops National Park and see how many jobs are left there that were created by this Government. The jobs that this bill proposes to create will not last.

I prefer to avoid attacking other members of this House, but I must question the claim made by the honourable member for Northern Tablelands that he had brokered a deal with the Government for timber workers in Bingara. That was a lie. I would like the honourable member for Northern Tablelands to come down to this Chamber and set the record straight. I say it is a lie for two reasons: If he brokered a deal, that means he knew what the Government was planning prior to its plans being made public. If he knew that, he failed to represent his constituents by raising the matter in the public arena. As a result of questions asked in the other place, I am aware that a deal has been done in Bingara and that it is no different from the deals that have been done in other areas to buy out jobs and take them away from hardworking families who have toiled in a renewable resource industry that has served this State so well for so long.

The honourable member for Northern Tablelands, the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Dubbo stand condemned for their inaction and for their closeness to the Government. They have failed their own communities and they have failed the people of New South Wales by supporting the legislation behind closed doors. They will make a bit of a show of not supporting this legislation in the Parliament, but they have sat on their hands for too long and done nothing. The consequences of this legislation will be on their heads as well as on the heads of the Minister and the soon to retire Premier, Bob Carr. I urge all members opposite to vote against this hastily prepared legislation, which is nothing more than a payback to the Greens.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [10.28 a.m.]: Clearly I support the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill. Descriptions of the bill have been given in this House ad nauseam so I will not deal with the bill in fine detail. However, I will discuss some specific matters in an endeavour to bring some sense to the comments that have been made by members on the Coalition side of the Chamber. I have thought deeply about this bill and about what I want to say. I am very familiar with the area covered by the bill and, as honourable members may recall, previously I was a member of the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council [RACAC] when it undertook a regional assessment process.

Part of my role on the RACAC, and part of its role, was to undertake community consultation. On a lighter note, I will never forget one of the more memorable days during my service with the RACAC when we were in the Goonoo. Some bright spark decided that we would have a picnic, but forgot that it was a time when the flies were pretty thick in the Goonoo area, which made for an interesting picnic. My role on the RACAC brought me to understand many of the tensions that we are discussing today. I am now the Convener of the Natural Resource Advisory Council, which, to some extent, has taken over some of the roles of the RACAC.

I have an understanding of the enormous challenge that governments, instrumentalities and communities have in balancing conservation with the sustainability of towns, communities, individuals, families and industry. I want to make it very clear that I strongly considered those factors before speaking to this bill. More importantly, finding that balance was the absolute consideration when this bill was put together. At the end of the day this is not just a bunch of words on paper. During discussion on this bill while putting it together we were extremely cognisant of balancing the socioeconomic, conservation and cultural elements. Everyone understands that that was a complex task and everyone understands that the bill has been considered over a number of years because of its complexity.

The bill is the balance of the issues of conservation, industry and the community. It is a nonsense for the Opposition to say that those considerations were not properly looked at. That is a complete fabrication and quite disingenuous. It was extremely misleading for the Opposition to put forward that proposition. Many interests and views were weighed up and, as I said, the bill is about the viability of individual communities and services for those communities. I cannot comprehend why people who have spoken against the bill would not think that those issues were the fundamental driving principles in putting the bill together. More importantly, I do not understand how people could be so disingenuous to think that the Government would be so dismissive of the needs of individuals, families and communities.

This bill is not about driving communities into the ground, it is about a long-term view across those regions following a very detailed assessment process. I want that to be made perfectly clear: the models that were promulgated prior to the final decisions about the bill were considered and we have heard reference to those models from other speakers. They were certainly part of the extremely important considerations through the complex assessment process. The views of various lobby groups were considered—and I dislike using generic terms—including a very strong green input, as well as farmers, private land owners, industry, communities, indigenous groups and the service centres such as general stores, the local Country Women's Association, and so on, as was the capacity for all those groups to work together. That is the mark of this bill and is one of the reasons why the sorts of comments from members opposite are just absolute nonsense.

The result of that consideration is very much reflected in the Minister's second reading speech and I will not go over it again. Those fundamental principles were considered in this historic bill. Yes, passions have run high; yes, it is complex; but the bill delivers. It is interesting that the waffle from the other side was about not looking at the principles and what the bill actually delivers. The bill delivers 352,000 hectares of high conservation value forests in new reserves in western New South Wales. Let us not forget that it is the west, and to a degree the north-west, of New South Wales and includes both public and private land and creates a new land tenure. How can that be negative? Consideration has been given to the livelihoods of all the people within those communities. Some new industries could flow out of this bill. Although not detailed in the bill, there is an opportunity for the expansion of tourism to the area.

The bill has carefully considered gas and other mining in the area, on which there has already been some exploration. We know for a fact that there is enormous potential for those two industries. The five-year discussion was about striking a balance between conservation, sustainable communities, industry and community involvement. I cannot think of better principles on which to base any legislation. I stress that many factors have been thoroughly considered. There was a need to strike a balance between socioeconomic, environmental and cultural values, and that is what has been achieved in the bill. The national and international benchmark and best practice principles were followed during the assessment process. It would be wrong of us to think that that was easy. The bill guarantees stakeholder involvement and protects biodiversity.

The honourable member for Heffron spoke about how much biodiversity has been lost in the region and the urgent attention that is needed to rejuvenate that biodiversity. The new land tenure guarantees that rejuvenation. The honourable member for Wallsend spoke at length about indigenous involvement, so I will not concentrate on that. However, I wonder what basis was used for the comments of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour in relation to the Moree Aboriginal community. Primarily the land of the Gamilaroy people, and to a lesser degree the Wiradjuri people, is highly significantly, particularly Terry Hie Hie and the Goonoo. Consideration of indigenous considerations was not about cultural heritage and cultural value and the capacity for those practices to continue, it was also about sustainable employment, which is such an important issue within the current indigenous affairs discussion.

Under this bill a community conservation area, a governance structure, community consultation councils and a raft of advisory councils will be established. The governance structure involves the Government, the community and people directly involved in this area. One thing that Opposition members did not mention is that this legislation is not about ripping out the heart of industries in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. I emphasise that an $18 million timber industry and conservation package is included in this bill. I shall not deal with that issue in detail, as I am sure other honourable members have done so. However, I would like Opposition members to acknowledge that that package is included in the legislation.

It is not the intention of the Government to pull out the rug from underneath these industries. The bill has focused on supporting people who want to move out of industry by providing a redundancy package, compensation, retraining and generous awards. People working in the industry have publicly acknowledged that compensation package. Alan Jones referred to the fact that this legislation will protect coal and gas exploration and provide support for private landholders. The doomsayers in the Opposition are wrong. It is extremely irresponsible for them to say the sorts of things that they have been saying because it creates fear and misunderstanding.

Mr Thomas George: Go out there and talk to some of these people.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: If the honourable member had been in the Chamber earlier he would have heard me say that I had. The doomsayers in the Opposition are irresponsible. I had a long discussion with one of the wood collectors in that area and her family.

Mr Thomas George: You should talk to the Mayor of Gunnedah.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: I know the Mayor of Gunnedah; I met her yesterday. I will refrain from being distracted by the doomsayers opposite. This bill, which is world-class practice and the best way forward, will involve all players in this region. This is a national and international approach to achieve the best outcome for everyone. Opposition members should catch up with the new way of doing things. They should not put one industry group ahead of others. I acknowledge that this issue is complex and hard.

Mr Thomas George: Just keep closing down the rural communities.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Through negotiation the Government will achieve its objectives. This is sophisticated and considered—and I chose those words deliberately—legislation. It is the best way to achieve sustainable communities, cultural protection and good environmental and conservation outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.43 a.m.]: The Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill is the culmination of one of the greatest acts of treachery and bastardry—and I use those terms advisedly—ever imposed on rural communities by any State government. The process leading up to this bill involved the selling out of country communities by a cynical, tired old Government for a handful of green preferences. It has received an ambit bid from a group of Greens, most of whom are not local, who have little or no local knowledge, who have no commonsense, and who do not have an understanding of the history of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion.

This bill has ignored the recommendations of 26 of 27 stakeholders—recommendations made by the Brigalow Region United Stakeholders. Amongst those 26 stakeholder groups who have been totally ignored are members of the Aboriginal community. People from the local Aboriginal community came to see me and expressed their disgust and disappointment at the Government's decision and the fact that it totally ignored their recommendations. Those stakeholder groups included local government and conservationists—people who know the country and who are aware that a managed forest produces a better biodiversity outcome than one that is locked up.

I visited the area and walked through the supposedly logged and harvested forests. I could see groundcover, native flowers, insects, birds and wallabies because they had access to those forests. But the forests just across the road that were locked up were akin to a desert. I tried to push through the scrub and found only pine needles on the ground. There was no grass cover, no birds, no animals and no insects. The Greens were ill advised from the start but they never cared that they did not understand the country. This was all about an ambit bid. The Government, to its shame, has won the day. Another act of treachery is the fact that the Government commissioned an independent report, chaired by Ian Sinclair, who undertook a comprehensive review of the forests and the issues concerned and made a recommendation to the Government. The Government has hidden that report ever since.

The Nationals believe that that report endorses the general thrust of the recommendations made by Brigalow Region United Stakeholders. That report states that there is room in that area for industry and jobs, sustainable timber jobs, as well as conservation—something that The Nationals and country communities have known about and been talking about since day one. In pursuit of those green preferences the deal has been done and legislation has been produced, which is bad for conservation and biodiversity outcomes. As I said, those forests will become choked and present a grave bushfire risk. If forests are not maintained, managed, thinned and have fire trails put through them they are inaccessible and become grave bushfire risks.

We saw in Kosciuszko National Park just what can happen if fuel levels are ignored. The fuel built up in that area and the forest was devastated. The alpine gums will never recover. Communities of corroboree frogs and other endangered species have been decimated throughout vast parts of Kosciuszko National Park. That is what will happen in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. Areas that are locked up and underresourced by this Government become a major fire problem. Another negative outcome is that the Government insists that only a certain volume of timber can be harvested in this area, which is nonsense. It is a bit like overgrazing.

If the Government tells the few remaining timber mills that they can harvest in the order of 57,000 cubic metres, industry will say, "Only about 25,000 cubic metres are available annually." If the Government says, "Go ahead and take out the remaining 57,000 cubic metres" those forests will be overlogged and overharvested. This Government does not give a damn about that. This is occurring on the mid North Coast as a result of this Government's decision relating to the North Coast national park during the 2003 election campaign. Remaining compartments are being stressed because they are being overharvested. That is not a good conservation outcome.

As I said earlier, the Government does not care. This is all about politics, it is all about green preferences and it is a disgrace. Members of the Government referred to high conservation value in the compartments that are being locked up. If they had a sense of history they would understand that up until the late 1870s that country was grassland. That forest came about only because of reduction burning by Aboriginal people who used fire extensively in that area. As a result of a serious drought in that area it was no longer grazed and the forest had a chance to grow. So how can that area be called an old growth, high conservation value area? We stand for biodiversity and conservation outcomes, but let us have a little commonsense and balance in this debate.

The Government has buried its head in the sand regarding the impact of its decision on local communities. That is the great scandal in this legislation: The Government has sold out those communities and those families that for generations have relied on the jobs provided by a sustainable timber industry. I refer in particular to small country towns such as Baradine, Gwabegar, Bingara and Gunnedah—which is a bit larger. The timber industry is important to the economies of those towns, particularly during times of drought. When life on the farm is pretty tough and not a lot of income is generated—the winter crop yield in New South Wales is down 55 per cent this year—the timber jobs continue to inject money into the local economy. But those jobs will not remain in any great number as a result of this Government's decision.

The Brigalow forests resource generates 241 direct timber jobs and 472 jobs downstream. This is a drastic decision, although the Government has sought to downplay its impact on jobs and families. History will show that it had a significant impact on jobs, families, local economies and on country communities. One has only to recall the Government's decision in relation to the Coolah Tops National Park in 1995, which was one of the Premier's first productive forest lock-ups. The Premier claimed at the time that the 23 families who were sustained by the local timber mill at Coolah would find jobs in the tourism industry. That was not true. None of them did, and all but one of the families affected have left the district. We were told that those workers would be made rangers in the national park, but not one of them was. It is all spin from the Government, then and now. There are no additional jobs in the tourism industry in these parts of the State. The Government is trying to appease people and cover up the fact that this decision is all about politics rather than good policy and good outcomes for country people.

In 1996 the Premier promised that rural communities impact statements would be prepared in relation to every significant Cabinet decision that affected country communities. Where is the rural communities impact statement relating to this devastating decision? Obviously none was prepared because, if it had been, the Government would have realised the impact its decision will have on country communities. That is another broken promise from the Premier. Earlier this year or late last year the Premier promised on Alan Jones's radio program on 2GB that the Government would take no decisions that adversely affected the timber, mining and apiary industries in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. But he has gone ahead and taken such a decision, so that is another broken promise.

The Government might think—as one Labor member suggested—that this is simply a rant and rave from the Leader of The Nationals. But The Nationals aim solely to represent country communities, and we will be vocal in our objections to this devastating decision. Lest Government members think we are biased, I refer them to the comments of Federal Labor Member of Parliament Craig Emerson, who, to his credit, has spoken out about this decision. I understand that as a young man he spent some time in the Pilliga region. He spoke recently in Federal Parliament about a:

… threat to small NSW towns by a Carr Government decision to withdraw large areas of the Pilliga State Forest from wood production.

He continued:

The decision has the potential to devastate country towns like Gulargambone, Gwabegar and Baradine... Bob Carr is worried about overcrowding in the Sydney basin. Where will the people of Baradine go if the town is devastated? Destroying small country towns like Baradine would be shortsighted.

That Labor member's views are exactly the same as those held by The Nationals, local government and the affected communities.

Mr Thomas George: He's endorsed you.

Mr ANDREW STONER: He has endorsed exactly what The Nationals are saying. I refer also to a motion passed by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Workers Union. The executive recommendation moved by John Robertson states:

That the correspondence be received and in the first instance Labor Council seek an urgent meeting with the Minister of Forestry about the proposal to re-classify the Pilliga State Forest as national park and that a copy of the correspondence be forwarded to the ALP.

That is a recommendation to the peak body in the union movement, the Labor Council, which was also ignored by the State Labor Government. Not just The Nationals but local government, Federal Labor members, the union movement, the media and, of course, the affected families and communities believe this is very bad legislation and treachery on the part of this Government. I note that the Mayor of Gunnedah Shire Council, Gae Swain, has taken a keen interest in this issue. A rally was held in Gunnedah recently, which the Premier declined to attend. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, whose Federal electorate encompasses Gunnedah, has invited the Premier to visit the town to listen and talk to people and consider the impacts of his decision. I think that is a sensible invitation that the Premier should take very seriously. I know that Gae Swain and the good people of Gunnedah will ensure the Premier gets a good reception. This is not a political stunt. We want the Premier to get out of Sydney, to talk and listen to people and to appreciate fully the impacts of his decision. I believe this legislation represents the most cynical abuse of power in the history of this State. The day this legislation is passed by the House will be a day of shame in New South Wales. The Nationals will oppose it most strongly.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [10.57 a.m.]: I was shadow Minister for Forestry, and Shadow Minister for Land and Water Conservation from 1995 to 2003. Debate about the future of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion began in about 2000. At that time I spoke to many people in the Pilliga and Goonoo areas and in surrounding towns. During my tenure as shadow Minister for Forestry the Coalition decided to support the Brigalow Region United Stakeholder [BRUS] option. I think it is important to record exactly why we chose to go down that path. Essentially, it is because that option satisfied 97 per cent of the conservation objectives that were sought while offering security to the timber industry and to those communities that depended upon it. The BRUS option would have been—and I believe still would be—a win-win situation for the community and for the conservation of that region.

During my involvement with this issue it became obvious that the BRUS option enjoyed overwhelming support. As I recall, 26 of the 27 stakeholders supported the option, including the Aboriginal community. Local mayors and communities certainly supported the BRUS option strongly. I take this opportunity to commend those local communities for the way in which they have approached this issue. They are keen to ensure their survival but their arguments are based on clear, sound tenets. They are not anti-environment; in fact, they are keen to see the Pilliga retain its biodiversity. They are about making sure that rural communities that are dependent on the Pilliga continue to survive. The Leader of The Nationals briefly referred to the commissioning by the Government of the Sinclair report. It is high time the report was made public because it would add to the debate. The Premier issued a press release on 25 August 1996 claiming that a rural communities impact statement would always be available in relation to Cabinet decisions. I took him at this word, but like so many other promises that have been made, there has not been any follow-through with a rural communities impact statement in relation to this decision.

Yesterday the Leader of The Nationals moved to give precedence to his bill relating to rural communities impact statements. The bill, which is on the notice paper, seeks to make rural communities impact statements compulsory before the making of significant decisions that impact on rural communities. The Coalition wanted to introduce the bill today so we could highlight what is happening in the Brigalow Belt. The Government agreed to the motion moved by the Leader of The Nationals, but then abolished private members' day altogether so the legislation cannot be introduced. I wonder how serious the Government is about examining the impact of its legislation on rural communities.

The bill before the House goes much further than the BRUS option in relation to locking up the Pilliga. It takes out 348,000 hectares whereas, from memory, the BRUS option took out about 189,000 hectares. The impact of that will be access to timber will be curtailed by approximately 35 to 40 per cent of the available resources. The Government has said, as it has said in the past in relation to the north-east and south-east of the State, the timber industry will have 20-year contracts. However, those contracts do not provide the security that the Government claims, because even though they are fully compensable contracts, the Government has two options in relation to breach of contract. The first is that it pays cash if there is a lack of supply to the timber industry. Frankly, the communities do not want the cash because once it is paid to a particular mill the jobs disappear in any event. The communities want the resource so that the mill continues to operate and the jobs continue to be sustainable.

The second option is that timber has to be provided from somewhere else. That is occurring in the north-east of New South Wales. The timber industry has 20-year compensable contracts but because of the amount of timber that has been locked up the resource is having to be sourced from the mid North Coast. That is why we see trucks laden with logs driving up and down our highways supplying mills in the north-east of New South Wales from the resource on the mid North Coast. I do not believe that is a sensible way to operate the timber industry. It is certainly not environmentally friendly when one considers the greenhouse gases emitted from trucks and the damage done to the roads. It is much better to have the resource reasonably close to the processing units.

The Government's short-sighted decision will have long-term impacts on the communities it affects, in particular, Baradine, Gwabegar, Bingara and Narrabri, where 241 direct jobs will go, as well as many more indirect jobs. There will also be a substantial downturn in mills at Gulargambone, Gunnedah, Coonabarabran, Gilgandra and Dubbo. The net exports of timber from Australia will be negatively impacted to the tune of about $25 million. This is happening at a time when there is a strong demand for cypress, which is a highly regarded timber because of its white ant resistant properties. A few years ago the Chinese were very keen to import Australian cypress.

Apart from the impact the bill will have on rural communities, it will, unfortunately, lead to a bad environmental outcome. On many occasions when I have been in the area it has been pointed out to me by knowledgeable people in the environment movement, predominantly locals, that if the Pilliga is not managed properly it will end up with cypress growing all over the place—a bit like a hair on a cat's back, as the saying goes. The impact will be that not only will there be smaller trees that are less saleable in terms of timber production but there will also be a loss of biodiversity. Instead of the ground being cleared in some places and timbered in others, it will be completely dominated by small cypress trees. According to the experts, that is negative for biodiversity.

About 15 or 20 years ago, a study was conducted by the CSIRO in the north-east of the State in the Murwillumbah management area by 13 top ecologists. They found that biodiversity increases if there is a range of age of forest. If a forest is being harvested on a rotational basis there will be a variety of younger, medium-aged and older trees and more biodiversity will occur. What is often lost in this timber debate is the possibility of having a well-managed forest and maintaining a strong biodiversity outcome. Indeed, the CSIRO says that biodiversity outcomes in managed forests with variations in age are better than when the forests are left on their own and allowed to grow old.

I am concerned about the legislation both from a social impact and conservation and biodiversity perspective. The Government has shown that it is out of touch with the community, which has a strong voice. It could not be more clear that it wants to adopt the BRUS option, which will provide a sensible outcome for the environment and protect the communities that are dependent on the Pilliga. I am disappointed that the Government has introduced this legislation. It has the numbers to force it through in this House but it is making a big mistake as far as the community and the environment are concerned. The one positive note in this legislation is that it provides for access to coal and gas reserves, and that is a sensible outcome. Overall, the legislation will have negative outcomes for communities, particularly those that are dependent on the timber industry in the Pilliga.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [11.07 p.m.]: I represent an electorate in the State's south-east, that has been subject to a process similar to that contained in the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill. The community of the Pilliga believes that the Government has not listened to it in any way, shape or form. That is also what happened when the regional forest agreement process was undertaken. The Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions cover a vast area of some 77,000 square kilometres stretching from Dubbo to the border. The bill increases undoubtedly the percentage of bioregions protected in reserves from 3.4 per cent to 9.5 per cent in the Brigalow Belt South region, and from 0.9 per cent to 2 per cent in the Nandewar.

Of particular interest to South Coast members is the funding of the restructuring package and the funding that will be made available to conservation and green groups and the like from the waste levy. The waste levy has been collected from areas such as the Shoalhaven local government area, meaning that money raised from levying residents in those areas will be used to fund greens groups in the north of the State. The objectives of the bill are clear. It provides for the abolition of the Waste Fund, which was established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, and for the transfer of that money to the Environmental Trust Fund. Payments to the Consolidated Fund made from the Environmental Trust Fund will be used for purposes of forestry restructure and a number of programs and schemes in the regions.

The Government has not been sufficiently specific on how those funds will be spent. I inform the House that local government ratepayers and others on the South Coast regard the waste levy as nothing other than a cash cow for the Government, which will now use those funds for entirely inappropriate purposes, contrary to the specific objectives and purposes for which the waste levy was established in the first place. I note that the Minister for the Environment is at the table for this debate because I want to quote what was said on this issue back on 25 November 2003 by one of the Minister's good friends, Councillor Greg Watson, mayor of Shoalhaven City Council:

The fact that the NSW Waste Fund has a current cash surplus of $57 million indicates that the whole levy scheme was inappropriate and ill conceived. This so-called levy is a blatant de facto taxation revenue grab by this State Government.

Some $13 million ripped from South Coast communities will be diverted to restructuring in the State's north. It angers the people of the South Coast that money ripped from local communities will fund green groups in the north. That is not only inequitable but outrageous. It is a great shame that the Minister did not pick up the telephone, call his great mate Greg Watson and have a lengthy discussion about the fact that millions of dollars from the South Coast will be diverted not only to restructuring programs in the north of the State but also to funding of green groups involved in the process. That is outrageous. That money from the abolished Waste Fund is to be spent far away from the communities from which it was raised is an absolute outrage.

The arguments against this bill, particularly those regarding timber-related issues, cannot be ignored. The industry used to extract 70,000 cubic metres of sawlogs a year from 470,000 hectares. The sustainable yield from the 122,000 hectares of cypress forests left is just 23,000 cubic metres, less than half the 57,000 cubic metres guaranteed by the Government. That will lead to overcutting in remaining forests, with sawlogs being brought from hundreds of kilometres away. As we know, compensation will be paid to the mills. Many of the jobs to be created simply will not be permanent. Many people whose livelihoods will be affected will not be entitled to compensation.

The new reserve category of community conservation area blurs the boundaries between national parks and State forests, and the concept can be applied in future to other national parks and State forests. That is another issue that should not be forgotten in this debate. This has occurred in other parts of the State. We are scheduled to debate a bill later this morning in respect of which that type of instance has occurred, putting enormous strains on local communities. That is particularly important given that the Government has a significant track record of increasing the size of the national park estate without providing appropriate resourcing for that expansion.

My primary concern as a member of Parliament representing a South Coast electorate relates to the Waste Fund. The fund was originally set up to reduce waste and improve recycling outcomes. The fact that money from the fund will be used for the purposes I have mentioned is an outrage. In 1996 the Carr Government promised to hypothecate 55 per cent of the waste levy to resource recovery. Over the past two years, all of that money has gone into consolidated revenue and the amount of waste going to landfill has grown by almost a million tonnes. So the Government is not using money from the Waste Fund for the purposes and objectives set at the time the fund was established. It is concerning that money collected from South Coast communities will be appropriated in the way that the Government has outlined. Local communities are furious.

Millions of dollars a year are being taken from the Shoalhaven at a time when a significant sea change is occurring in that region and infrastructure is under enormous strain and pressure. For the Government to use hard-earned ratepayer dollars in this way, when it should be reinvesting that funding in local communities, is unacceptable. It is deceitful. Local communities, particularly in the Shoalhaven, are outraged. I am intrigued to know whether the honourable member for Kiama will participate in this debate. I would like to hear what he has to say about this matter. This proposal is unacceptable and inequitable, and the Government will pay heavily for it in the years ahead.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [11.17 a.m.]: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area Bill. From the outset, I indicate that I will oppose the bill. In my six years in this Parliament I have not seen such dishonesty in the various positions adopted on the matter as I have in relation to this bill and all of the issues that have culminated in the debate today. First, the Government said, so many years ago that I cannot remember, that a decision on this issue was imminent. Communities could not have been left any more uncertain than they have been for at least the past five years with various discussions, debates, research bodies, task forces, groups and bodies such as the Sinclair inquiry. I have lost count. I can recall only the more prominent ones that have been the subject of public debate.

The Government, the Premier and the Minister have been very dishonest in suggesting, throughout the period that this issue has been in the public arena, that the discussions—including those recorded in Hansard, from which I have refreshed my memory this morning—the processes, information, research and timeframes would be in any way acceptable to the community. Those discussions and processes have not been, nor could they be, acceptable to the community. That is particularly so given the level of uncertainty about the matter and the fact that the Government has ignored much of the information that it has on a wide range of issues. That is why I oppose the bill. The dishonesty and misrepresentation does not end there. That takes me to the contributions made during this debate. These are sensitive issues. Balancing conservation issues with employment and industry and other possible adverse effects flowing from this proposal is a very sensitive matter. There is no doubt about that. That is no revelation.

I am still trying to work out whether the shadow Minister, who led for the Opposition, was for or against the legislation. I have not been able to absorb the issues he raised because there were so many of them. It was a bit like a scattergun approach. But that leads me to other contributions, and the one I want to highlight came from the honourable member for Tamworth, whom I congratulate. He has come in for a bit of criticism and a fair bit of politics has been played. Dishonesty about this issue is not confined to one side of politics. The honourable member for Tamworth has kept a sober head. He said, "I want this mill, which everyone in Gunnedah believes is a viable mill, to continue." I support him wholeheartedly. He said, "Let's have an independent assessment." Why is he saying that? He is saying, "Obviously, we can't trust the Government to say this is the sort of timber that is available, given the processes, the enormous amount of time and information that have been part of this process but have not been listened to." He said, "Let's have an independent process."

The honourable member for Tamworth is saying, "Let's also not just take the timber industry's view on it." In my view that gives credibility to an independent assessment; it makes the Government accountable for its commitments. It also says to the industry, "This is an independent assessment of what is available and accessible." I support him because that will force the Government's hand on the 20-year contractual arrangements that have been offered to Gunnedah and ensures that the Government will honour proper quality and quantity targets, which have to be part of the decision-making process. An independent assessment as suggested by the honourable member for Tamworth would help us to deal with facts rather than politics.

The contribution of the inarticulate and incoherent member for Barwon contained so many errors that I could not possibly deal with them in the time I have available. However, as the standing orders allow me to respond to those allegations only during my contribution, I intend to take that opportunity now. The criticisms of the honourable member for Barwon were interesting. I will read directly from his contribution because I would not want to misrepresent him more than he has misrepresented himself:

In the past three years, where has the honourable member for Northern Tablelands been in relation to this debate? … He does not want to stir up his Labor mates. Instead he has left his people out to dry.

The honourable member for Barwon is referring to the sawmill at Bingara, but I remind him that Bingara is in his electorate. These are not Richard Torbay's people; they are Ian Slack-Smith's people. His first error is that he does not know that he is criticising his own community. It is interesting to note that it is not the first time he has criticised the people of Bingara. I was working closely with the people of Bingara because they were concerned about their lack of representation. They made contact with me—his people made contact with my people. They said, "Richard, we have to take the compensation package that is being offered by the Government for the Bingara mill because we have no choice."

I accept that circumstances, supply, creditors and other matters affecting the Bingara mill have left them no choice but to accept the compensation that is on the table. Who would begrudge them that? I congratulate them on their honesty, which made negotiations so much easier. We must keep pressure on the Government to deliver the compensation package for which they are still waiting. When a mill operation has been honest and open about its circumstances, the Minister should help them. What happened? What did their local member do, having said nothing about it in this place? I went back only three years, but I could not find anything from the honourable member for Barwon, apart from yesterday's contribution. The Northern Daily Leader of 7 May carries the great big headline "MP's doom remark 'misinformed'". Who could it be referring to? The article states:

THE "political point-scoring" surrounding the NSW Government's decision to lock up 350,000ha of woodland, forcing Bingara Cypress Pine Mill to close, has left prominent businessman Rodney King less than impressed.

Even less impressive, according to the Bingara Newsagency proprietor, was Barwon MP Ian Slack-Smith's doom and gloom predictions for the soon-to-be "ghost town".

"I'm extremely surprised that someone who's supposed to be our representative in Parliament has such a limited knowledge of the Bingara economy," Mr King said.

To suggest that the mill closure could see Bingara turned into a ghost town is laughable.

I personally would have expected more from him."

The article continues, but it embarrasses me to have to continue to remind the House that the honourable member for Barwon forgot that Bingara was in his electorate and that members of that community are almost desperate to come into the Northern Tablelands electorate, seeking some form of representation. The honourable member for Barwon is not a bad bloke; you would have a drink with him. But as one of his constituents said to me—and this sums him up—"Great bloke, but he's a hopeless member." That is why he has announced his retirement two years out from the election. Only yesterday another constituent said to me, "He's retired already." It is disappointing that he would choose the forum of this House to attack me. He said that I had not previously raised the issue of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. I know it is difficult to do a computer search—you have to click on "Legislative Assembly" then you have to click on "Torbay". It is difficult; it is hard to find. I have to say humbly there are a huge number of speeches under my name compared with the number of speeches under the name of the honourable member for Barwon.

I looked, I clicked and it says "Brigalow Belt South Bioregion Assessment Process". No-one would have found "Brigalow" in that! It says, "Matter of Public Importance". Wow! Who led in that debate? Torbay! I wonder who he is. The honourable member for Barwon, having said that I had not raised it, did not do that research. I am happy to present him with a copy of it. The other interesting thing about the matter of public importance was the speakers. I raised the matter because the community had raised those concerns with me as they had not been raised by their local member. Dr Refshauge, the then Deputy Premier and Minister for Planning, responded on behalf of the Government and rejected much of the contribution. Obviously, there has been a lot of byplay since that time, and that has culminated today. The third speaker was Mr Tony McGrane, the former member for Dubbo, strongly representing the electorate of Dubbo. It was very important that such strong centre should continue. The right of reply obviously went to the member who had raised the matter—me.

The honourable member for Barwon was right. When this matter of public importance was debated there was an omission. It was called the Coalition. None of them contributed to the debate. That deals with the second allegation raised by the honourable member for Barwon. Again it was false. I heard the contribution from that moderate, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. Country communities have been sold a pup by the Government and it has been watered and nurtured by the Opposition. The august member for Coffs Harbour made a contribution to the debate in which he left out more than he put in. Why? Did anyone know or does anyone remember that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, with great fanfare, introduced a bill called the National Park Estate (Brigalow South Bio-Region Reservations) Bill. What happened? He gave notice of it and he introduced it. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Notice of the motion was given on 29 October by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. On Wednesday 17 November, Mr Speaker conducted a callover and asked the Clerk to read the order of the day. The Clerk called on the National Park Estate (Regulator South Bio-region Reservations) Bill. What happened when it was called on?

Mr Alan Ashton: Postponed?

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: No. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not bother to turn up. The Opposition's great answer to the Government's inaction on the issue was the Opposition's bill, but the Opposition did not bother to turn up to debate it. I am advised by the Parliament that the bill lapsed. It is wrong for the honourable member for Coffs Harbour—that rocket scientist who could not get a seconder for the leadership—to suggest in this House that the Opposition somehow held anything other than a hoax over the community. The Opposition's bill lapsed because the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was not even in the Parliament when it was called on for debate.

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Where was he?

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: He was doorknocking in Dubbo. And I must say that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour had a very successful campaign: the Independents were very happy with the fruits of his labour in that campaign! I again congratulate the Independent member for Dubbo who, in common with the honourable member for Tamworth and other Independents, unashamedly represents her electorate. Independents do not play the silly games that the Opposition and the Government have perpetuated throughout the debate on this issue. I call on the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to come into this Chamber and explain why his bill, which was supposed to be the answer to concerns over the Government's inaction in relation to this issue and which he exhorted to the community with great fanfare, lapsed. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not mention that in his fine example of misrepresentation during this debate today.

Another issue that I wish to discuss is the lack of transparency and honesty that has been mentioned in relation to the compensation measures. It is difficult for many who are involved in the timber industry to deal with so many issues of uncertainty without also discussing the need for compensation. To be fair, the Government has put a compensation package on the table. I will deal first with Bingara on which the honourable member for Coffs Harbour challenged me. I wish I had more time because I have a lot of material that I think would be quite helpful. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Barwon, another nice bloke, said that Torbay purported to have made some sort of special deal with the Government. I will tell the House what the special deal was.

When the Government made its announcement and Bingara Cypress Pine had agreed to the compensation, it was important for somebody to step in and extract the guarantee from the Government; otherwise, why would anyone believe the Government? It was critical for someone to go in and get that guarantee. To be fair, the Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment at the table and the Minister for Primary Industries agreed to meet me and agreed to sign off on an arrangement whereby jobs would be secured not only in New South Wales forests but also within the national parks portfolio. If enough displaced workers were prepared to stay on—and the reason that we wanted the information to be made public was that we wanted the timber workers to be given a choice to stay in that region to contribute their skills, with concomitant flow-on effects to the community—that is what the Government was offering.

It was important for that opportunity to be locked down. The Government signed off on that arrangement, and I am prepared to show evidence of that to the honourable member for Barwon, if he bothers to ask me about it. The discussions I had were directly with the mill and the workers. The honourable member for Barwon has not asked me about that, but I nevertheless would much prefer to share the information with him instead of listening to him make inaccurate statements that were reinforced when the honourable member for Coffs Harbour followed suit.

Everybody involved in this debate agrees that Gunnedah has a viable mill. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. It is my strong view that the honourable member for Tamworth is searching for a way to make the Government accountable on quality and quantity issues, to obtain guarantees, and to make the matters in contention compensable. I have already congratulated the honourable member for Tamworth for the role he has played. There should be compensation, if the Government does not deliver on the promises constituting the 20-year agreement. That is where the honourable member for Tamworth is taking this issue, and that is where it should go.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for The Hills should stick with the hairy-nosed wombat. What has not been said is that there have been active negotiations on compensation in respect of Gunnedah, and the community has not been informed of that. There is enormous goodwill in the Gunnedah community. In common with the residents of Bingara, the residents of Gunnedah have a right to know the subject of the discussions, the stage they have reached, and whether there is the will among mill owners to pursue the 20-year compensation arrangement with guarantees as to quality and quantity. If the arrangement falls through, compensation processes will proceed.

Mr Thomas George: It is not worth the paper it is written on.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: Is the compensation worth the paper it is written on? That is what the mill owners are currently attempting to negotiate.

[Interruption]

I am forced to point out—obviously the shadow Minister does not know so I have to enlighten him—that members of the family have been in contact. I have a copy of an email from which I am happy, without causing too much concern, to read extracts.

Mr Michael Richardson: You have 50 seconds left.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I will be happy to discuss the matter with the honourable member for The Hills later, if he wants to know the truth. The email states:

My … [family] will be meeting with the head honchos from state forests tomorrow …

The email arrived today.

Mr Thomas George: Head honchos?

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I am quoting an email. Obviously, I am speaking too quickly for the honourable member for Lismore. The email states:

My concern … is that the local MP and the community want Gunnedah to remain open.

The email goes on to say that the family feels that compensation is the best measure. The community deserves to know the truth. The honourable member for Tamworth is completely vindicated by this correspondence that shows that he and the local community are trying to keep the mill open. It is important for there to be some honesty and transparency in this process rather than the bias and political tactics being displayed by an Opposition that did not even bother to turn up to debate its own bill.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.37 a.m.]: The whole issue of the Brigalow is very important for regional New South Wales. It really goes to the heart of what the Government's program has been over the past 10 years and what its program will be up until the 2007 election, and that is a very green focus that is not concerned about what happens in western New South Wales or what happens to jobs. I think the Government is not even concerned about what has happened in the Pilliga. The evidence of management of the Pilliga forest is not conclusive to support the proposition that it should be locked up and that that is the best way to manage it.

Mr Alan Ashton: Is the Brigalow in your electorate?

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Whether issues are strictly relevant to a member's electorate has never been a factor determining whether a member speaks or does not speak, but I can tell the honourable member for East Hills why this bill is relevant to my electorate. Today the Government's actions affect the Pilliga, but tomorrow it might be the Berrima mill, the red gum forest in the Murrumbidgee in my electorate, the forests along the Murray that are in my electorate, or the jobs that go with timber mills and rely on the forest industry in timber regions in my electorate. This bill is very relevant to my electorate. I represent only one electorate but I represent people who live in western areas of New South Wales and I am concerned about those people. While this legislation does not directly affect residents of my electorate, that does not mean I am not concerned about it. I am very concerned about this bill.

This is a deliberate political ploy by the Labor Government to appear to be green and to appear to be doing the right thing. The Premier has announced that a nuclear power plant will be constructed in the Swansea electorate yet at the same time he tells us how green he is by locking up the Pilliga, and he is moving farther south. The Opposition is very concerned about that decision. People are moving out of western New South Wales. Decisions such as this will result in further population loss, and that is why the Opposition is so strongly opposed to it.

The honourable member for Northern Tablelands holds a very safe seat, and I give him credit for that. Obviously he does his work well, as is reflected in the percentage of the vote that he won. However, I have an issue with the contribution to debate by the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, which was highly critical of the Government for obvious reasons. At the same time, it was highly critical of the Opposition. The Government's decision on the Pilliga will have no political implications. The Labor Party does not hope to win the seats of Northern Tablelands, Barwon or Tamworth.

For Labor, Pilliga is essentially an expendable part of New South Wales, and those timber jobs are expendable. With the support of the Greens this bill will pass through the upper House without too much trouble. The Leader of The Nationals has committed to change this decision when the Coalition is elected to government in 2007. If we are going to stop this movement south, into my electorate, the Government of New South Wales will have to be changed. Certainly in western New South Wales there is a strong feeling for a change of government. That change will not impact on the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, he holds a very safe seat, but let us all work on getting rid of the Labor Government in New South Wales.

It would be very difficult for a member of The Nationals to win the seat of Northern Tablelands; it would be a lay-down misère that Richard Torbay would retain that seat. I am not being political, I am asking him to help change the Government in New South Wales. He was getting stuck into the Coalition, and that would help Labor stay in Government. I congratulate again Dawn Fardell for winning the Dubbo by-election. The people who were happiest about that result were the Labor people. On the night of the by-election I saw the Minister for Police at a function and he appeared to be even happier than the honourable member herself. The point I am trying to make is that the only way we can stop this decision and further ones like it is to change the government. I urge all non-Labor members of Parliament to support the removal of the Labor Government in 2007.

Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [11.44 a.m.], in reply: I do not wish to delay the House too long but obviously with a bill of this magnitude, which has aroused passions, I ought to spend some time in response to those passionate contributions. Bearing in mind the contribution of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, if there is anything at all that The Nationals excel in, it is predicting economic mayhem and disaster for country towns. That, and their now entirely tired and silly rhetoric that suggests that conservation is done for city people only, that suggests that somehow or other country people do not care about conservation, has not even a shred of meaning left in it. That once influential party seems to be better at trashing the reputation of the bush than at anything else. The Nationals have a long history of constantly talking down the economic prospects of country New South Wales.

Without exception, all members of The Nationals have predicted economic and social disaster after each of the forestry decisions of the past 10 years. I remind the House that we are dealing now with the fifth regional forestry agreement that has been negotiated in this State in the past five years, and we are doing it on the basis of principles agreed between all the governments of Australia at the Council of Australian Governments in 1991. We are not doing something aberrant; we are implementing nation-wide policy. As long ago as 1944 National Party governments—the Country Party—opposed Labor decisions to create national parks.

Members on this side of the House would be interested to know that 60 years ago Premier McKell introduced landmark legislation to establish what we now call the Kosciuszko National Park. Today, Kosciuszko is recognised the world over as one of the principal and most important parks in Australia and has become a massive tourist drawcard that generates literally hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy of southern New South Wales. At that time the then Country Party lacked the McKell vision. It was then, as it is today, fixated on its fear of change and progress. In 1944, the Country Party member for the seat of Raleigh, Roy Stanley Vincent, said:

… a crime is being committed in revoking the state forests … there is a menace in this bill to the sawmillers.

He set a theme which has continued: None of The Nationals predictions has come true when it comes to the creation of new national parks by visionary Labor governments. After the sky fell in on Kosciuszko, The Nationals got a bit of breathing space until 1983, when the Wran Government saved the State's remaining rainforests, on the North Coast. That decision is seen today as one of the Wran Government's most visionary policies, one that has helped the North Coast become a booming tourist Mecca with a vibrant economy and culture. Who would deny that?

As did Roy Stanley Vincent before him, Leon Punch, a redoubtable warrior I admit and the then Leader of the National Party, fell over himself to declare that that decision would hasten the demise of the North Coast timber industry, resulting in a tragedy for Casino. The member for Coffs Harbour at that time, Max Singleton, whom I remember, declared that the creation of the Washpool National Park—which is now on the World Heritage List—would, in his words, "have a terrible effect on Casino and Grafton". He also said:

.. along the Clarence River, in the districts of Coffs Harbour, Bellingen, Nambucca, Macleay, Hastings, Gloucester, Dungog, right through to Maitland, the timber industry is in chaos.

I will not detain the House with the many quotes I have by Ian Causley, or the former member for Coffs Harbour, Bruce Jeffrey, and indeed the present member for Ballina, Don Page, all of whom predicted the end of country towns between Newcastle and the border, between the coast and Tenterfield. The current member for Coffs Harbour claimed in his contribution today that the revocation of the Coolah Tops State Forest "will destroy the town". He said that when it happened and he said it again now. Back in 1996, when the honourable member for Coffs Harbour claimed that the town of Coolah Tops would be destroyed by a decision to revoke a State forest, the population in that part of the world was 3,770.

At the last census the population of Coolah Tops was 3,851. So it has not turned into a ghost town. Anybody who stops to think just might conclude that the upturn in fortunes of many of the towns that I have described and others that I have not mentioned—Kempsey and Taree have had increased populations since forestry decisions—are linked with forestry decisions. They might learn from history and, instead of predicting the end of civilisation, they might conclude that balanced conservation and forestry policies lead to better social and economic results for small rural communities.

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I would like the Minister to point out to the communities of Woodenbong, Urbenville and Benalla that their timber supplies and their mills—

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Lismore will resume his seat.

Mr BOB DEBUS: In order to sustain and improve the cypress industry the Government will provide $80 million to create new jobs, to assist mills to leave the industry, to compensate workers with either new jobs or generous redundancy packages, to develop joint investment strategies to better use the timber resources that exist and to add value to the industry's products. A total of $14 million will be available to assist mills that will cease production to fund or provide for generous business exit payments based on the well-established principles of the forestry industry structural adjustment packages used in previous forestry agreements. I remind the House that some mills, both cypress and ironbark mills, voluntarily nominated to leave the industry permanently before the Government made this decision.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Insultimber had no resources.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Insultimber had no resources because almost no ironbark is left.

Mr Andrew Fraser: That is a lie.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is aware of the Speaker's ruling in relation to claims that members are telling lies.

Mr BOB DEBUS: For the most part I avoid responding to interjections from the honourable member but I need to tell him that I stood in Insultimber's yard and talked to representatives about these very matters.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Is that when they had 75 employees or when they had seven?

Mr BOB DEBUS: Was that when it had a lot of ironbark available, or when it did not? The honourable member is being ridiculous. The Government made it plain that 50 permanent jobs will be created for the cypress thinning industry. Seventy new jobs will be created in zones 1 and 2 of the community conservation area.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Painting rocks.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Not the least of the problem is that Opposition members, for the most part, are afflicted with the most extraordinary levels of ignorance about how any of these matters work. For all their remarks about painting rocks, the fact is that we are talking about giving displaced timber workers fieldwork jobs in national parks. They exist by the thousands in other parts of the State and they are jobs that are much praised. The cypress mills that are not affected by this decision, that is to say, the cypress mills that are not withdrawing from the industry, have been offered 20-year wood supply agreements. This long-term security is unprecedented for the cypress industry, but it is not unprecedented in other parts of the State where that kind of certainty has been arranged by previous forestry agreements.

That kind of security is unprecedented. The 20-year contracts are being offered to the linked mills run by the Paull family in Baradine and Gunnedah; the mill in Gwabegar run by Tom Underwood; Gulargambone Cypress; Ramiens at Dubbo; Austins at Quirindi; and Burns at Baradine. At the same time the small ironbark sawlog and fence-post operators who are continuing will receive five-year licences. I mentioned earlier in the debate that over five years the $15 million Timber Industry Fund would provide the timber industry with assistance for investment, leading to value-added activity.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The Minister should also advise the House why he has provided business exit—

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister does not have to advise the House about anything. There is no point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.

Mr BOB DEBUS: I briefly mention the question of thinning, which has been discussed only in the most incoherent fashion by those opposite. Broadscale thinning of cypress regrowth is necessary in State forests where the primary aim is to maximise the growth and quality of cypress sawlogs. As I have indicated, the Government will provide $12 million over the next five years to bring that thinning program up to date and continue it indefinitely in the future. It is an essential part of improving the productivity of the forests and ensuring a sustainable timber industry in the long term.

[Interruption]
The cypress thinning package, which is in no way understood by those opposite who are most vociferous, will provide up to 50 jobs for both displaced timber workers and some dedicated jobs for the Aboriginal community—35 permanent jobs for displaced timber workers and 15 permanent jobs for Aboriginal people. Conservation reserves, as distinct from State forests, obviously are managed primarily for biodiversity to provide a range of habitats; they are not managed to improve the growth of forests for a commercial purpose.

Therefore, the cypress thinning programs that will go on in the future in national parks will have a different aim to those that will go on in State forests. Leaving aside the technical detail, the thinning programs that go on in national parks will be focused on improving biodiversity. I deal now with the timber supply model. The claims that were repeated by most Opposition speakers during the course of this debate alleging that the forests in what in future will be called zone 4 areas, in other words, in State forests, will deliver neither quantity nor quality of white cypress over 20 years.

Mr Andrew Fraser: And State forests.

Mr BOB DEBUS: That claim cannot be supported scientifically. The proof that these claims are spurious in the first instance is that they were made so vociferously by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. So far as I can tell, these claims are based, for the most part, on casual visual observations from passing motor vehicles that have been driven around the forests, or simply on some flawed calculations that are made on the basis of total areas of State forest. Those calculations are manifestly flawed. As was the case with the previous forestry assessments around the State, the Government used a detailed understanding of the sustainable yield of white cypress in the Brigalow and Nandewar region.

A full inventory of the forests in the Pilliga area was compiled during 1999 and 2000 by Forests NSW as part of the Government's carefully planned and implemented assessment. Trees were exhaustively measured across large areas to provide information on the cypress resource. Approximately 500 plots covering more than 400,000 hectares were included in this process. Variables for individual trees were measured at each plot, and included the tree species, tree diameter, tree height, crown condition and harvest status. Information about the plot site was also recorded, and included forest type, stand structure and the height and density of regeneration.

This detailed information was then used in a sophisticated computerised wood model designed and developed by Forests NSW to estimate the long-term volume of high-quality white cypress pine for the timber industry. Among other things, these estimates account for log diameter, log length and any defects. I emphasise that this wood system is cutting-edge technology that has developed from the previous work undertaken in the coastal forest assessments. I gave that long description because I wish to demonstrate that the Government's assessments are based on decent science, not the everyday prejudice of several dumbos opposite.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: The Minister said that the north-east and south-east coastal forests have sustainable timber yields. They do not, and he knows that.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour must tell the House which standing order has been breached.

Mr Andrew Fraser: The Minister is misleading the House.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! That cannot be the subject of a point of order, as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour well knows. He will resume his seat.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Standing order 17—

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! Misleading the House does not constitute a breach of the standing orders. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Look at page 63 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. The Minister has misled the House today and on several other occasions.

Mr BOB DEBUS: To the contrary, I underline the fact that the modelling done for previous forestry assessments has always been accurate and has delivered the predicted sustainable timber yields. In the past The Nationals and sometimes elements of the timber industry have claimed that a resource would run out but that has never come to pass, and it will not come to pass in the case of the Brigalow and Nandewar regions. I turn to another matter that has not been discussed in the debate so far. There has been some public comment about the possibility that mills in the areas adjacent to the Brigalow—to the south and to the west—might be part of the Brigalow and Nandewar decision. The Government has decided that any mills located towards the Riverina and further out into the Central West that wish to be included in the exit package and to receive the business and work exit payments may volunteer to leave the industry should they wish to do so. Other mills in these areas may also apply to participate in the Government's generous investment program to value add and better use the white cypress resource.

The Government will also offer the non-Brigalow mills 20-year contracts to stay in the industry. Any timber that is freed through this process will be offered to mills in the Brigalow and Nandewar areas and the additional timber will be supplemented by a concerted effort on the part of Forests NSW to source and extract timber from private and Crown timber lands. It is anticipated that several thousand cubic metres will be provided to the industry from these sources, based on historical data of the white cypress available from other sources. I mention this because, as a result of that particular initiative, it is expected that considerably more timber will be available in future to be supplied to the industry. For the sake of the record, I should mention that that part of the decision in the Nandewar and Brigalow areas that has classified areas of land for conservation and mineral exploration has been settled with the Department of Mineral Resources. No part of that decision has not been verified by the Department of Mineral Resources. Therefore, we remain as sure as it is possible to be at this time that the decision will keep available those areas with significant prospects for gas exploration, in particular.

The only other matter that I shall draw to the attention of the House is the question of the Gunnedah mill. Aside from Gunnedah, the negotiations with mill owners were conducted, one way or the other, with a high level of co-operation between mill owners and Government representatives, regardless of the specific outcome in any particular place. In Bingara the mill owners are desirous of leaving the industry and in other places they are not. In one case the owner is still considering his situation. I think it reasonable to make some reference to the Gunnedah situation because it has been so thoroughly aired and discussed—

Mr Michael Richardson: Controversial, would you say, Minister?

Mr BOB DEBUS: And it has become controversial, at least in local media terms. I point out that the Paul family, who own the Gunnedah and Baradine mills, have been afforded very favourable treatment by the Carr Government over a number of years—I do not criticise that, but it is a fact—in line with their place as the major player in the white cypress industry in the State. Let me be clear: The Government has always wanted the family to be a major player in the Brigalow region—we have always wanted a large timber mill in the region—and we have done everything we can to keep those mills operating. We will continue to take all reasonable steps to ensure they keep operating and to keep in full-time work the 60 workers connected to their linked operations in Baradine and Gunnedah.

The importance of the Paul's operations was recognised at the very beginning of the Brigalow forestry assessment, when they were given combined 10-year contracts for 27,000 cubic metres per annum. No other mill was offered such a generous package, which was a specific commitment to their long-term viability. Those 10-year contracts allowed the rebuilding of the Baradine mill, which had burnt down in the late 1990s, and helped the family to secure loans and investment that ensured that those two mills have operated as viable, linked businesses ever since. It is important to emphasise that these existing contracts still have five years to run. The Government is committed to fulfilling these contracts to the very last detail, both in terms of the quantity of timber specified in the contracts and in quality terms.

Let me be clear on behalf of the Government: If the main principals of the Gunnedah and Baradine mills, George and Paddy Paul, want to sit on their current contracts for the next five years and see where things are at in 2010, the Government will go along with that decision. However, the Government is prepared, as part of the Brigalow decision, to extend much greater security to the Pauls. We have offered the two mills combined new 20-year contracts for 33,000 cubic metres per annum, which is an increase of 6,000 cubic metres per annum. This means that the Paul's mills will have a guaranteed supply of 660,000 cubic metres of high-quality white cypress over the life of the new 20-year contracts. This compares with 135,000 cubic metres contracted for the next five years, plus an additional 40,000 in annual quotas that are not formally contracted—which is their existing situation.

From any objective point of view the Government's offer to Pauls is a fair one. The Government has committed to 20-year contracts and believes that both the quantity and quality of the timber will be available over the life of the contracts and beyond. That is why the Government will write the contracts in those terms and underwrite the contracts. I point out that the contracts are extremely valuable: they can be traded on the open market. Therefore, they are compensable by the Government of New South Wales if they are not fulfilled. Nevertheless, the Pauls have repeatedly and publicly maintained that they do not believe that the quantity and quality of the timber is available to fulfil the new contracts.

The Government remains adamant on the issue. It has been the subject of intense scrutiny by our best experts and the best advice it has received is that the timber on offer to the Paul family operations in Baradine and Gunnedah is definitely there. I described earlier in the debate the scientific processes that have been used to come to those conclusions. Extensive expert work has been done over the past six years, and so far as the Government is concerned, notwithstanding the pleas of the honourable member for Tamworth, the issue as being closed. The Government wants the Pauls to remain as a permanent part of this important industry. It wants them to sign 20-year contracts. The Government believes that if they chose to attempt to close down one of their mills that would be their decision.

The Government will provide generous business and worker exit payments to the three mills that voluntarily chose to exit the industry as part of this overall decision—that is, the cypress mills at Bingara and Narrabri, and the hardwood mill at Baradine. Any other mills that ask for a similar package will have to make out a proper business case if they want to leave the industry, a policy that has been explained to the mill owner, Mr Underwood, at Gwabegar. Everyone agrees that he is nature's gentleman and he is conducting negotiations in the most sensible and reasonable of ways. However, we have pointed out to the mill owner at Gwabegar that since he has come after the event to discuss these matters he has to make out a business case for it. That is not new; it is longstanding policy. In other forestry assessments on the coast, timber mills that have wanted to exit have had to demonstrate and make out a case that they had been adversely affected by a government forestry decision. People cannot stand around and expect that the Government will shovel barrow loads of money into their front apron pocket just because they asked. The Government proposes to continue to follow that policy for the mills in the Brigalow region.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: The Minister referred to the shovelling of money. I would be intrigued by his response in relation to the Waste Fund levy that many honourable members raised in this debate.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr BOB DEBUS: That is not a point of order. However, ever so briefly, despite the weird claims of the honourable member for Bega that the Government tried to hide this issue, I made a point to describe the new proposals in my second reading speech. I said that section 7 of the Environmental Trust Act would be amended to provide for the trust to deal with the following issues: selected waste reduction, resource recovery and waste management programs that are presently funded by the Waste Fund, the purchase of water to enhance environmental flows, the declaration of new marine parks and the provision of funding to local government and environmental groups of the sort that presently exists under the Environmental Trust Fund. Instead of having a Waste Fund on the one hand and an Environmental Trust Fund on the other, it will be a new body with a lot more money to be used for the purposes that the Waste Fund and the Environmental Trust Fund have always been used for, and some other related purposes as well. There is no mystery. I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I want a ruling from the Chair. I refer you to schedules 1 to 8 to the bill, pages 17 to 59, which detail some 148 maps that are pertinent to this bill. Those maps are not available to honourable members outside this House, as has been the practice. I cannot see how this House can vote on this bill without the maps being made available to us. There have been errors and inconsistencies in the past even when maps have been provided. The 148 maps have not been provided but they are mentioned in the bill. They contain a large amount of detail that is pertinent to this legislation, yet as legislators honourable members have not had access to them. The maps are not even available on the web sites of the Department of the Environment and Conservation and the Department of Lands. These maps have been referred to by the Minister and are detailed in the bill, yet they are not here for our perusal or inspection.

I do not and cannot understand how we can pass this bill, if maps that are an integral part of it, are not available for our inspection. I want a ruling as to how we can pass legislation with that sort of detail mentioned in maps that are purportedly to be made available to honourable members so we can give due consideration to them, yet they are unavailable from anywhere or anyone that I have asked about them. I believe that we will act outside the terms and conditions of this legislation if we allow it go to a vote without the maps being made available to us.

Mr BOB DEBUS: To the point of order: During my second reading speech I offered anyone who wanted to see the maps the opportunity to approach me for them.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Further to the point of order: It is not a matter of an offer by a Minister. This House is not run just by one side. We aim to represent the people of New South Wales and information that is mentioned in legislation to be passed by this House must be freely made available outside this Chamber. Two maps, with no real detail on them, are outside the Chamber but they do not represent the schedules in the bill. The 148 maps should be inside and outside the Chamber for us to peruse. An offer from the Minister is not good enough. They should be tabled so that parliamentarians can have an opportunity to inspect them. I cannot accept that paltry excuse from a Minister. They are not available from his department, on the web site or in the Parliament. If the Minister has the maps, I ask for debate to be suspended until such time as they are produced so that we have had an opportunity to peruse them.

Mr BOB DEBUS: Further to the point of order: These maps are not part of the bill and they are available on the web site.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I have heard enough. I intend to rule on the point of order.

Mr Andrew Fraser: They are part of the bill—have a look at it. They are named in the bill. If they are not part of the bill, they are referred to in it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The matter raised by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour does not prevent the House from proceeding to vote on the second reading of the bill, given the availability on the web site of the maps referred to.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

[In division]

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: Mr Speaker, my point of order goes back to a ruling before you took the chair. The legislation that honourable members have been asked to vote on contains eight schedules in which are mentioned 148 maps that are not available to members of this place. Members cannot make an informed decision on this bill unless those maps are made available to them before the vote is taken. Those maps form part of the legislation; they are mentioned in the legislation. I submit that honourable members are entitled to inspect those maps, especially as the Minister has maintained that the existence of supply of 57,000 cubic metres can be proved by those maps. Unless those maps are available to honourable members, we cannot be sufficiently informed to vote on the legislation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need to hear from other members on the point of order. The Acting-Speaker has already ruled on this matter. I have sought and been supplied with advice that the maps do not necessarily constitute part of the bill, and consequently their unavailability does not impinge upon the second reading debate. That being so, I will allow the division to proceed.

Ayes, 50

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Barr Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Ms Burney Miss Burton 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 Mr Knowles Mr Lynch Mr McBride Mr McLeay Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Morris Mr Newell Mr Orkopoulos

Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mr Price Dr Refshauge Ms Saliba Mr Sartor Mr Scully Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Mr Tripodi Mr Watkins Mr West Mr Whan Mr Yeadon Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Noes, 33

Mr Aplin Mr Armstrong Ms Berejiklian Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Mr Fraser Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard

Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Kerr Mr Oakeshott Mr O'Farrell 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

Pairs

Ms Gadiel	Mr Humpherson
Mrs Perry	Mr Merton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I note on page 4 of the bill there is a map—

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Are you canvassing the Speaker's ruling?

Mr Andrew Fraser: No, I am not. This is a separate point of order. The map is headed "Brigalow and Nandewar Community Conservation Area". The map is inaccurate. It shows that Pilliga is where Gwabegar should be and Gwabegar is where Pilliga should be. We are passing legislation that has a map in it that is geographically wrong. This Chamber cannot pass the bill when a map included in it and forming part of it shows towns in their wrong spots. How can the bill be passed?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat. The Chair has ruled on that matter.


Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [12.31 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Barr Mr Bartlett Ms Beamer Mr Black Mr Brown Ms Burney Miss Burton 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

Mr Orkopoulos Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce 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 Mrs Fardell Mr Fraser Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher

Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Kerr Mr Oakeshott Mr O'Farrell Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Pringle Mr Richardson Mr Roberts

Ms Seaton Mr Slack-Smith Mr Souris Mr Stoner Mr Tink Mr Torbay Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire


Pairs

Ms Gadiel	Mr Humpherson
Mrs Perry	Mr Merton


Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.