The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.12 p.m.]: In recent years the Environment portfolio has had a ministerial revolving door—Ministers express all the right things about climate change and making the renewable energy shift, about waste management and making the recycling shift, about biodiversity, conservation and reconciliation with traditional owners. Plenty of fine words but very little action, which has resulted in New South Wales falling behind the rest of the nation in climate change and environment policy. That has resulted in the introduction of a bill before Parliament this week, in which we are considering future regulation of Aboriginal heritage in the context of omnibus changes to the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act. In 2010 we should not be considering Aboriginal traditions, culture and heritage in the context of an antiquated Act that regulates the State's flora and fauna. What an embarrassment to the Labor Party; it has placed the Parliament and indeed all citizens of this State in a shameful situation.

I will have more to say on the amendments when that bill is debated in this Chamber. However, I advise the House of the policy decision of the Liberals and Nationals to establish a separate Aboriginal Heritage Act and change the context from "flora and fauna" to a genuine heritage context. I noted the thoughtful remarks of the member for Pittwater in support of this approach, when he observed that traditional European approach to heritage separates the natural and the built environment. However, for Aboriginal culture everything is connected, so that things we attempt to define as objects are really about place; and places are connected to landcapes, dreaming and a spiritual way of life that is inextricably woven together. This approach must be respected and managed respectfully. Our plan has the support of all key stakeholders, because the current position is deeply offensive to Aboriginal people, and frankly shames us all.

The Liberal and Nationals parties have also announced our policy to protect Crown land at Crescent Head, known as Goolawah Stage II, which the current Government has earmarked for subdivision and sale as blocks for housing. It is high-conservation value, featuring endangered species, precious koala habitat for the koalas that live there and, most significant of all, is right in the narrow neck of a wildlife corridor connecting Limeburners Creek Nature Reserve with Hat Head National Park. Last week I visited the site with John Jeayes, a committed, knowledgeable and positive conservationist, who has been smeared by the Minister for Lands, Tony Kelly, in Parliament in a pathetic effort to conceal his own embarrassment. I thank Mr Jeayes for his campaign to save this precious and strategic fragment of pristine forest. We will reverse the actions of the current Government to develop the land and instead incorporate it into the new Goolawah National Park.

Yesterday Minister Sartor introduced legislation to establish a Riverina red gum national park. The Liberal and Nationals parties have been very clear in opposition to a national park because we do not believe it is the right model for management of red gum forests, which are thickening and in ill-health due to the loss of the natural flooding and Aboriginal fire management regimes.

Our position acknowledges the strong views of the citizens most affected by the decision, and their love and commitment to the red gum forests. We recognise the significance of red gum wetlands, and respect international obligations to protect habitat for migratory birds under the Ramsar convention. We do not oppose a reserve system for red gum forest. We accept the overwhelming scientific opinion that an interventionist management regime for red gum forests is essential to maintain the health of the forests. We oppose the establishment of a red gum national park because it is not the right model to allow for active management and community engagement. We do accept that, if established, it will not be possible to reverse a national park. Why? Because the mathematics of the Legislative Council after the next election will make it impossible to undo the framework established by the legislation.

On that basis, I have informed the Minister that we cannot negotiate amendments to any legislation that includes a national park because that model is so detrimental to the environmental and economic interests of the region. I note the Greens are also opposed to the legislation, albeit for different reasons. The Minister's five-year transition plan is the worst possible outcome for the environment and the economy—in fact it is not a plan at all, it is his way of deferring payments to industry and commencement of a national park because the Treasurer, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, would not fund the arrangements. When Minister Sartor went to Canberra to obtain water from the Federal Minister Penny Wong, he was forced to come home empty handed. No money, no water.

This farce means he may not have the numbers to pass the legislation in the Legislative Council, so enter the Shooters Party and its cynical negotiations on the shoulders of our principled position, which will see them vote for the national park in exchange for the glory of increasing the payout to industry. I understand that after years of ducking difficult decisions and driving environment policy with the handbrake full on, Minister Sartor now wishes to release the brakes and hit the accelerator. From too little we lurch to too much—there needs to be a middle approach in the interests of sustainable, fair and ethical policy.