General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5

Debate resumed from 26 February 2008

Mr IAN COHEN [3.23 p.m.]: Reference has been made in other debates on reports of General Purpose Standing Committees into the budget estimates process about the behaviour of some witnesses and members. I must say that has not been my experience. Within the understandable confines of the committee hearings that I chair, committee members and witnesses treat each other with a reasonable degree of respect. I believe that the hearings of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 went quite well. I certainly appreciated the input of members of The Nationals and the Government, and of my crossbench compatriot the Hon. Robert Brown, who were members of the Committee.

The committee examined the expenditure of the portfolios of Primary Industries, State Development, Mineral Resources, Energy, Lands, Rural Affairs, Regional Development, Waterways, Housing, Tourism, Climate Change, Environment and Water. We were looking very much at rural issues, and there was quite constructive input from The Nationals representatives in that regard. Some matters were of particular interest. At one stage the Minister for Primary Industries acknowledged to the Hon. Rick Colless that an agronomist at Coonamble had not been replaced. A matter of obvious concern is the loss of such scientific expertise hot on the heels of an announcement by the Minister of the development of genetically modified crops in the region. Of course, everyone is aware of my deep concerns about the introduction of genetically modified crops. The loss of critical scientific assessment at a time of radical revolution in the industry is of real concern to me. The Hon. Rick Colless also raised the availability of drought support workers in these areas—another matter that has not been given due attention. I thank the member for raising issues of such importance.

I asked the Minister about an offer made by an acquaintance of mine in the Byron area, Mr Dailan Pugh, for what would be the first freshwater aquatic reserve in the State. An offer by an individual in the community to have registered this State's first freshwater aquatic reserve in the hinterland of Byron Bay was rejected by the Minister, and I think that is very unfortunate. People in the community are very keen to step forward with offers, but they are not being taken up.

The Government is showing some signs of fatigue; it is weary. I do not say that of the many goodwill Government backbenchers; I am thinking more of the Executive of this Government, the members of which are constantly being brought to order by various Chairs, particularly in the estimates committee process. When I asked the Minister for Energy about peak oil—an issue that is taken very seriously by many members of the House and the community—he responded, "This is the groovy new term from America." Although disparaging, it was not unreasonable I suppose—the Minister has every right to respond in such a way and I do not think he overstepped the mark by doing so. However, it is an indication of the closed mind of the Executive of this Government.

Minister Macdonald prides himself on his scientific logic and research. His staff claim that no Minister, perhaps anywhere in the world, has studied the topic of genetically modified agricultural crops more closely. That may be so, but are we to be relieved by that? But there are other issues involved. There is a wealth of information on peak oil—the issue is whether or not you agree with it. But for an exponent of clean coal to put it down on one hand and to wax lyrical about it on the other, just because it fits in with the State Government Executive, particularly the views of the Treasurer, leaves a yawning gap in reality, as far as I am concerned. An erstwhile left-wing Minister is lauding the benefits of clean coal and has scientific solutions for carbon sequestration, but he is ignoring many other issues under his watch such as forest clearing and unsustainable logging practices.

Before I deal with that issue I wish to refer to some of the issues that were raised in General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. The committee discussed the Game Council, which is strongly supported by the Shooters Party and by Government members. I am sure that Opposition members also strongly support the Game Council. It has often been said that the Greens have a rabid blockage relating to the issue of feral animals, which is not the case. I made it clear at different times, and I made it clear during this estimates committee process, that the Game Council is given preferential treatment. Shooters who are not necessarily sufficiently trained are going into forest areas. I have also said that I support highly efficient experts working on the control of feral animals, so it is not a case that the Greens do not want to kill any animals.

I believe that it is important to control feral animals in these circumstances. However, the Government is going about this process in concert with representatives of the Shooters Party and other interests in this Parliament. It is allowing hunters and recreational shooters into these areas, which is not the way to go. This level of professionalism could impact on other users of these areas, be they businesses or recreational shooters. I have received complaints from people who exercise their horses in these areas. Hikers go into areas that initially are not signposted and, a day or two later, after a long bushwalk, they find themselves in areas that are designated for game hunting. That practice is extremely dangerous and should not be pursued.

Understandably, the Government interprets this issue differently. I do not agree with the Government's interpretation. In so doing, I do not see myself as taking an extremist position; rather I am taking a responsible position that will protect the interests of the public. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 constructively questioned Phil Koperberg, the former Minister for the Environment. At one point Opposition members chose to question the Minister about office refurbishments and about the fact that he was a smoker—issues that were not relevant to debate. Those decisions have to be made by other organisations within the bureaucracy; the Minister was not responsible for those directives.

I regarded that line of questioning as a lost opportunity. Members could have asked the Minister a number of other questions. The Hon. Robert Brown asked about rainwater tank rebate schemes, a question that came within the Minister's portfolio. At the time I was concerned about scarce water resources as many areas in the west of the State were still in the grip of the drought. Minister Koperberg put a great emphasis on the use of our water resources by industry and agriculture but there was a lack of advocacy for environmental flows.

I have no complaint about the reasonable and amicable level of questioning of Minister Kelly, who, as part of his ministerial responsibilities for regional development, extolled the virtues of moving to the country. The Minister claimed that such a move added three years to the lifespan of people. I hope he is right. I know that this is not the Minister's responsibility but there is a lack of medical facilities, backup and support for people in country areas to ensure that they have healthy lifestyles and an elongated lifespan. During the estimates committee process I became aware of how separated various portfolios were. Often there is a need to interlock issues such as regional development with various support systems, be they in Health or other portfolios. There is too little communication in a number of areas and country people are missing out on many of the facilities that people in the cities take for granted.

I and other members in the north of New South Wales have campaigned and made enormous efforts to get radiotherapy units into Lismore Base Hospital. People enjoy the benefits of living in country areas but those who have cancer have to travel to the Gold Coast or down as far as Coffs Harbour to get appropriate treatment. I am glad that the Government promised to locate a radiotherapy unit in Lismore Base Hospital. I look forward to the completion of that unit and I congratulate all those in the community who worked hard to push along the politicians. I asked Minister Kelly a number of questions about voluntary conservation agreements under the Lands portfolio and Mr Warwick Watkins replied to them. Recently the lands department cut rates exemptions for people who voluntarily enter into conservation agreements on sensitive areas of land.

Incidentally, I am sure that voluntary conservation agreements will form part of the debate relating to greenhouse gas mitigation. One of the benefits for people entering into voluntary conservation agreements, which will result in a lowering of the level of profit-making activities being undertaken on the land, is local council rate exemptions. As I said, recently the lands department cut rates exemptions, which provided an impetus for people to move into a binding, legislated conservation agreement. Under the current regime they have shied away from such agreements. After much debate Mr Watkins gave the committee an undertaking to look into the matter, but so far I have not received any reply. I await with interest a response from the department. Similarly, much debate occurred relating to the Byron indigenous land-use agreement [ILUA] and the department dealing with Aboriginal organisations in the area. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [3.38 p.m.]: I noted with interest the comments of Mr Ian Cohen, Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. The committee was productive, we had a capable Minister in Minister Kelly, and Opposition members and crossbench members were given much more time in which to ask questions than has ever occurred in a budget estimates committee.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Are you sure it was the same Tony Kelly?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. However, credit should be given where credit is due. Minister Kelly's approach was in stark contrast to the ministerial efforts of Minister Lynch. Minister Kelly gave inadequate answers to a number of questions relating to regional development and to the flight of people from New South Wales to Victoria and Queensland, which clearly is because of the Iemma Labor Government's lack of economic stimulus.

During budget estimates hearings I asked the Minister for Regional Development to explain why, in any comparative analysis between New South Wales and the Victorian regional development programs, New South Wales spends a sizeable amount less than Victoria does. In the 2007-08 Victorian budget funding of $15.2 million was allocated to regional development compared with the New South Wales budget allocation for regional development of $38.5 million. Analysing expenditure on regional development on a per capita basis, Victoria spends approximately $29.45 and New South Wales spends just $5.60. Considerable effort is made by the Victorian Labor Government to encourage people to move from Melbourne to regional areas of Victoria.

The head of the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development argued that the department is very much a business development agency whereas the Victorian department has other responsibilities such as community development. The Opposition contends that the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development also should be responsible for community development because the portfolio exists to develop regional areas. In too many cases, particularly in the western areas, the community has been left behind by a government that is not focused on their concerns and needs.

The question that must be asked is: Why do businesses migrate elsewhere in search of a fairer system? New South Wales is experiencing one of the largest skills shortages in Australia yet the department thinks that it is a leading business development agency. The brain drain is also evident in statistics on interstate migration. Between 2000 and 2006, through net interstate migration, New South Wales lost 136,300 people, which is the largest absolute loss of all the States and Territories. The largest interstate migration movement involved 289,500 people moving from New South Wales to Queensland. That rate of migration out of New South Wales is unacceptable and needs to be addressed by the Government if New South Wales is to continue to prosper and develop.

In population growth, or non-population growth, percentages New South Wales is ranked the second lowest of all eight States and Territories. Surely that alone is a negative indicator of this State's regional development. For many years the message from Bob Carr was that Sydney is full and people should go somewhere else. But the problem is that we did not look at regional communities—because the Government was, and still is, Sydney-focused.

Additionally, over the past five years New South Wales has had the lowest average annual growth rate of all the States and Territories—0.7 per cent, compared with Queensland, which is at 2.4 per cent. New South Wales also experienced a negative birth rate between 2001-06 of 0.9 per cent, which is the third lowest birth rate of all States and Territories.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.