Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [8.16 p.m.]: I support the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill 2012 and the Government's stage one coastal reform. I begin by making a few quick remarks—

[Interruption]

If we get the sea level rises that the Hon. Cate Faehrmann has forecast I could have waterfront views in Guyra. I acknowledge the hard work of Legislative Assembly members Mr Geoff Provest and Mrs Leslie Williams, who, amongst others, have faced serious erosion issues in their electorates. The Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage has visited those electorates to inspect the problems. Terry McDermott, a resident of Lake Cathie, has also shown me some of the issues at Port Macquarie. The uncertainty and the unrealistic regulations under the previous Government were not achieving anything. This bill will go a long way to addressing some of the temporary measures, as well as the long-term reforms, that are needed.

The Government's coastal reforms have been prompted by the angst felt by many coastal landowners. Many of these landowners have had notations on their section 149 certificates that did not appropriately reflect future coastal hazards. I acknowledge Gosford City Council's recent decision to remove section 149 notations relating to projected sea level rise impacts. The new guidelines to be issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will help councils develop appropriate section 149 certificate notations relating to any coastal hazards that may affect a property. Many coastal residents have also raised concerns about significant increases in their insurance premiums.

While regulation of the insurance industry is a Commonwealth Government responsibility, this Government is concerned about any increases in the cost of living for families. I understand that the Insurance Council of Australia indicated at a Floodplain Management Association workshop last month that the increase in insurance premiums seen by many people is due to the inclusion of "flood cover" on their policy where previously it was not included. The Insurance Council also advised that this was not due to sea level rise projections, as insurance premiums are set based on the risks expected over the 12-month duration of the insurance policy rather than potential risks many years ahead.

In addition, the council noted that these insurance premium increases may have also been affected by the general increase in the cost of insurance. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald in July stated that insurance premiums have risen by up to 35 per cent in some cases in policies that were issued in the past few weeks, amounting to hundreds of dollars a year in extra payments, with companies saying that an unprecedented streak of "extreme weather" was the cause.

It noted that the Insurance Council of Australia said that disasters including Cyclone Yasi, the Queensland floods and a spate of other major floods and storms had forced up the cost of reinsurance—that is, the insurance that backs up commercial insurers. The Chief Executive Officer of the Insurance Australia Group gave a presentation in July, noting that last year the Oceania area, which includes Australia, contributed 17 per cent of the entire world's insured property losses. Until last year the area had averaged just 3 per cent for the proceeding 30 years. Based on this information, it is clear there are many factors affecting insurance premiums in coastal areas that are outside the control of this Government.

The Government recognises the impacts that increases in insurance premiums can have on household budgets. The Government will work with the Commonwealth Government as part of the stage two coastal reforms to ensure that the views of coastal residents are considered in the Commonwealth Government's regulation of the insurance industry. The current stage one reforms, of which this bill is a key component, as well as the forthcoming stage two reforms, are a clear demonstration of the Liberal-Nationals Government's commitment to develop the right approach to managing our coastline. I am pleased to support this bill.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM [8.21 p.m.]: In speaking against the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill 2012, I echo the comments made by my current and former colleagues. I will discuss some issues that I think will result from the legislation. The issues have not yet been fully considered but I know them well from my 13 years in local government in an area that is well known for its coastal erosion. The area is well known because of its history. There has been much talk about future scenarios but little talk about history, climate variability and what we do or do not know of the past. In many forums relating to coastal management in which I have been involved over the years I have always raised the important issue of worst-case scenario planning.

Worst-case scenario planning requires us to look at the history of an area and look to modelling events that have happened in the past against today's situation. Many of us would be surprised if we saw that modelling happen. Only when such modelling is done can we consider some of the poor decisions made in the past without reflection on the likelihood of an event recurring. Part of my concern about the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill 2012 is regarding some perhaps unforeseen issues that might arise when the Government does not take the leadership role of requiring local government to consider appropriate guidelines when undertaking long-term strategic planning.

When we talk about strategic planning—particularly greenfield sites and new areas opened up for development, some of which are along the coast—planning requires us to think about intergenerational equity. What might be there in the future? Some of us probably live in dwellings that might be 100 years old, heritage homes. When people make that big investment for their lifetime they consider it is something that will transfer to future generations. That requires us to think in a 100-year timescale. The legislation that was in place previously was important because it required that sort of thinking. It required us to look at what might happen in the future, and it is the Government's role to consider the likelihood of future risk to human life. We must also consider the risk to investment, which is important.

Two points have been raised in this debate by members on both sides concerning the removal of the responsibility to apply section 149 certificate warnings and information. Probably no other point is more important for anyone purchasing property than to know the constraints of their land, whether it is slip, flooding, contamination by past practices that might endanger the health and wellbeing of people or coastal erosion. They are known problems associated with natural processes. Section 149 certificates are important because they reveal to a prospective buyer what they are investing in. I know many people who have considered buying coastal land.

Since 1998 Byron shire has had in place the principle that section 149 certificates identify that risk. When people have investigated and found that the risk exists they have decided not to take that chance because they cannot get insurance or a mortgage. Why would they take that risk with the major investment in their lifetime and not have something they can pass on to their children? That is the importance of section 149 certificates. Everyone expects government to advise people of risks, to let them know that before they make an investment there is certainty about the longevity of that investment. While it sounds good that people should not have these constraints put on them, the Government's action in removing section 149 certificates is of concern.

Mr David Shoebridge: It's retrograde.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: It is a retrograde action to remove the Government's responsibility to inform people about what they are investing in and what risk they are taking, not only with their lives but with their investment. Another principle relates to local government. I consider, perhaps cynically, that the legislation is removing the Government's role to inform local government about its responsibility to undertake good planning. Despite the comments about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] and sea level rise guidelines, there has been some misinterpretation of those figures. We all know that the baseline consensus decision from the panel is that by 2100, with the variable factors added in over 0.59 metres, there is the likelihood of a 0.9 metre sea level rise. The Federal Government has gone beyond that; it has gone to 1.2 metres. These figures are being used to advise and inform.

We have had little discussion in this place about the impacts of flooding and estuaries—two associated factors on the coast that are also impacted by sea level rise. The bill seems—this concern has been raised—to be narrow in its positioning and outcomes, because I do not believe it is really about good science or good planning. This is about lobbying from an influential and powerful group of people who live in the coastal zone. I know how effective they can be because I have been subjected to a lot of their influence, lobbying and—dare I say—threats for the past 20 years when I have spoken out against the right of people to do something that will impact on everyone's enjoyment and enhancement of public space, our commons, the beach. There is no other place like it for Australia. The beach is where we can all gather and be equal. Everyone strips down to their bikini or their budgie-smugglers.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What about Richard Jones?

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: Some people strip down to nothing, which some former members of the House were caught doing on the beach where everyone is equal. It is an Australian tradition to enjoy our wonderful beaches, the sand and the surf. That area is also a great asset for our tourism industry, a place of enjoyment and wellbeing, a place for fun, sports, yoga, walking and taking the dog for a run. It is an important part of our cultural identity that could be lost if we allow this protection to occur. The idea that we allow people to protect their property and put at risk the community's opportunity—

[Interruption]

There are many lawyers in this House who, I am sure, understand the good faith principle. It is the principle that, when one makes a decision, one needs to make it with the knowledge and understanding of a potential risk. Putting aside the hysterics about a nine-metre sea level rise, we know that there are issues about the likelihood that in 100 years or less there will be a chance that damage could be done, not only to private property but to public property. There are many cases that have defined this principle. I draw members' attention to an often made comment about the Byron coast and what has happened there. I find some of the comments that have been made in this Chamber offensive because members do not have the information to understand it.

After the 1974 cyclones on the North Coast, the NSW Public Works Department commissioned a report to look at the coastal area from Byron to Hastings and to consider the likelihood and possible impact of future events. Cate Faehrmann referred to the 2010 speech of Ian Cohen, MLC, which referred to the fact that a Coalition Government put in place the principle of planned retreat after doing expert studies that looked at the risk. That outcome was put in place to ensure that people could have time-limited occupation of a fragile and at-risk area of land to allow enjoyment of a coastal area as long as people were not at risk.

I am concerned that removing from the bill the provisions that require local government to consider future risk, and by leaving it as a choice that councils can make, the liability of future councils and communities will be at risk when in 20, 50 or 100 years time people look back and say, "Why was I allowed to build here? Why was it subdivided?" If a council made that decision, would the people be protected by the good faith principle? Are they protected under section 733 of the Local Government Act, when they know that this information is publicly available? The Government is willing to rip away the important work done by the previous Government. It wants to put in place guidelines that direct councils to take a precautionary approach.

If it were a matter of The Greens having a precautionary approach, it is fair to say the figure would be higher because we have serious concerns about what will happen in the future. In 1978 when the Government considered the report of the Byron to Hastings study conducted by the NSW Public Works Department, it put in place the coastal hazard policy. It seems to have been forgotten that the 1988 Cabinet adopted that coastal hazard policy. It produced a manual that provided instruction to local government and prescribed that councils would consider climate change.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It did not prescribe a planned retreat though.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: It did prescribe an option. The Hon. Catherine Cusack might like to go back and do some research. She will find that in the manual of 1990 planned retreat is actually—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: I have read the manual.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: I am sorry if you have not read it completely and found—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is not prescribed.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: It is not prescribed; it is defined as an option.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Point of order: I cannot hear the member's speech. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Could you ask the members to keep quiet please?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. Members will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: In 1988 Cabinet adopted a coastline hazard policy that looked at the need to produce a manual relating to the amendment of the relevant Acts to provide immunity from liability in respect of advice provided or acts done in good faith in respect of coastline hazard matters, provided councils followed the principles set down in the manual. Those principles are very clear. They require the necessary assessments and studies to be done and consideration of options that are available. Those things are to be done with expert advice. That usually comes down to engineers, who will tell us that carrying out works in a coastal zone—whether it is rocks, big bags of sand or hunks of concrete—will have a flow-on effect. That is the reality of carrying out works in a coastal zone.

The debate about attempting to control nature or the coast is something that I thought we had won 20 years ago when scientific evidence provided us with the information that proved that we cannot hold back the force of nature with big bags of sand or rock walls. In Byron people often ask me, "Why don't you look after the coast and put in a jetty?" I tell them that we have had two jetties but that they did not work. They ask what happened and I tell them that they were washed away during cyclones. That is what happens when dealing with the forces of nature. If the Government wishes to win the trust and respect of communities it needs to understand that we are talking about people's future lives and investments. If the Government allows them to do things that put those lives and investments at risk it will be negligent. The bill also removes the responsibility of councils to look at long-term future planning. I quote from an interesting paper that was written by a current member of Parliament.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Ah, Dr Peter Phelps.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: No, not Dr Peter Phelps. It was Mr Robert Stokes from the other place. I refer to a paper entitled, "That sinking feeling: A legal assessment of the coastal planning system in New South Wales", by Zada Lipman and Robert Stokes.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: What year?

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: In 2011. It states:

Provide statutory immunity for the State.

As this article has shown, there are no statutory exemption clauses, such as s 733 of the LG Act that apply for the benefit of State government, although the Civil Liability Act does confer a limited type of liability. It is therefore necessary to extend the protection in s 733 of the LG Act to the State or provide some similar form of statutory immunity. Disclaimers in guidelines are clearly insufficient to protect the State from legal liability.

At the same time, consideration should be given to including lands owned by New South Wales government entities and to development projects assessed under Pt 3A of the EPA Act to the management regime imposed on all other coastal land. The State government should be fulfilling a leadership role in relation to coastal planning, and should subject itself to the same management regime it seeks to impose on other coastal landowners.

They are fine words. It will be interesting to see how the Government proceeds with its own coastal land management because, from what I have seen of late, it is not preserving the interests of future generations. This bill is shifting responsibility from the State, which has a leadership role in defining statutory planning rules and guidelines for local government and saying, "It is your choice. You can choose what level or assessment you apply." I do not think it is fair or right for the State Government to do that. It creates a subjective situation for local government and that will be borne out in future because as many a court case has shown, when local government acts in good faith it is all about the knowledge that is out there. We know only too well there are issues associated with management of the coast and sea level rise that should be considered if genuine attempts are being made to do strategic planning and to take a precautionary principle approach to that planning.

This bill is of great concern. It is disingenuous of the Government to talk about consultation when local government has not been properly consulted about this legislation. Consultations will continue next week and the week after and the Government will go to some of those communities and say, "We are here to consult but, by the way, we have already done these things to you." That is what we will be doing to coastal communities by passing this bill. We are imposing a future risk on them. We are allowing some private property owners to protect their lands and that will impact on the public interest and the public good, and I think that is abhorrent.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [8.41 p.m.]: I commend the words of my fellow Greens members of Parliament. Jan Barham has a wealth of experience as a mayor of a coastal council and has had to confront head on these very issues in her local community, including staring down a pretty vigorous and at times unprincipled attack from a series of well-heeled landowners who sought to privilege their private interests over and above the public interests of the broader residents of not only Byron shire but also New South Wales. I commend her for her tireless work in that regard. I also acknowledge the words of my colleague Cate Faehrmann.

Essentially what this Government is seeking to do with the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill is hand over the difficult politics of dealing with the issues of sea level rises and potential coastal inundation from the State Government to local councils. Under the existing law the State Government has made it mandatory for coastal councils to do the work. Councils have to get the best scientific evidence about the threats coastal communities are facing from sea level rise and inundation. Councils are required, working with that best evidence, to put in place careful management of their coastal fringe and classify land according to risk. They have to proactively manage risk for the good of the public and for the good of any future purchaser or developer of coastal land.

The previous Government came under a lot of political pressure for having put in place this mandatory requirement. This Government has caved in to that pressure and is seeking tonight to remove that mandatory obligation from local councils and effectively make it a discretionary matter for them. What kind of sea level rise should be taken into account? It is up to local government. Will they put in place a particular management regime for their coastal land? The Government's attitude is, "Well, it is really up to local government. We are not going to force you to do anything, guys", because the State Government does not want to take the political heat and most definitely does not want to take the legal responsibility for acting. The Government wants to hand it all over to local government and say, "You guys make the individual decisions and if you stand up for science and the long-term interests of your residents you can take the political heat from the coastal landholders whose land you will be classifying as at-risk." The State Government does not want to do it. It would rather hand it over to local government and hope that local government will fix the problem.

Of course, local councils will be under enormous pressure not to act in accordance with the best science and not to classify at-risk coastal land because, as we saw in Byron shire, many of the property owners on coastal land are extremely well heeled. They are some of the most well-heeled residents in the community. They also sit on land that is greatly prized for short-term development opportunities. That combination of the interests of developers and the interests of well-connected and well-heeled coastal property owners is extremely powerful in local communities and will force many local councils to not act on the best science and take the kinds of decisions needed to protect the public interest.

There are two aspects to the public interest that need to be considered. The first is that in this bill individual landowners will be allowed to put in place ad hoc coastal defence work and do it without any rigorous scrutiny about what impact protecting, most often in the short term, a small section of private land will have on coastal currents, the dynamic coastal environment and on often enormously prized public assets, whether they be the entrance to an estuary or a public beach that is used by locals and people from far and wide. A problem often arises when one part of the coastline is interfered with; you change the currents and the impact of wind and waves. You will find that the neighbouring beach is entirely lost in the next storm or over the next season. That does not seem to worry this Government. It just wants a quick political fix and for a small group of coastal landowners to have the capacity to protect their private property on an ad hoc basis.

Of course, if it can be done, if private property can be protected after rigorous study and key public assets can be protected at the same time, that should be allowed. It is allowed under the existing Act. What is not allowed under the existing Act is to cover public land with sandbags and other short-term ad hoc defences to protect private land without any rigorous study of the impact on other public land, other private property owners and even the long-term survival of the private land that is sought to be protected. This bill fails the public interest in that regard. It also fails the broader public interest of ensuring that prospective purchasers and developers have full market information when they purchase property that might be subject to coastal inundation and sea level rise. Let us be very clear about it: For most people their home is the most substantial investment they will ever make, particularly if it is a coastal home. It is an extraordinarily large investment for ordinary families. Often it can cost a million dollars or more in some of these areas.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: And the rest.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection from the Hon. Robert Borsak. If people are purchasing five or 10 years down the track and shelling out $1 million-plus for coastal property surely they should have the best information available about the future risks to that property and what the threats are in terms of coastal inundation and local erosion. Where do you find that information ordinarily for property in New South Wales? It is on the section 149 certificate.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Google.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I hear the inane interjection from the Government Whip about Google. It shows the level of intellect that he is applying to this debate. It ought to be found on the section 149 certificate.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: The nanny State.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection about the nanny State. This is about providing information to people before they shell out $1 million-plus in purchasing a property and mortgaging themselves to the hilt. They deserve to know whether that property is facing inundation or is under threat from coastal erosion. But this Government is removing the obligation on local councils to include that information on a section 149 certificate and effectively giving councils discretion as to the extent to which they want to give notice to future purchasers and existing landowners about the threat of coastal inundation to their property.

What does that mean? That means the Government gets a short-term political fix because it does not have to take the heat of facing up to the reality of climate change. It means local councils across New South Wales will not be taking steps in the near future to properly classify whether their land is at risk of coastal inundation and coastal erosion. It means that people will be without full and sufficient information at hand when they mortgage themselves to the hilt to purchase these properties. It is a loss for the general public.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Buyer beware.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I acknowledge the interjection of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: "Buyer beware." People cannot beware of something if they have not been advised about it. That is the purpose of the section 149 certificate. The idea that individual property owners should drop a quick $50,000 or $100,000 on a consultant to take out a local flood study and a local coastal inundation study to work out the likely impacts of flood and coastal inundation before they purchase a property is a remarkable contribution. It goes to show that this is a second part of the Government's approach to this. It is handing over the risk from State Government and local government to individual property owners and individual buyers.

Denial about the reality and impacts of climate change is at the root of this legislation by this Government. It does not matter how much it wants to tinker with the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill, it will not stop the proven scientific fact that we will face impacts from the sea level rising over the coming century. When it comes to working out the impact of the sea level rise, I would much rather take the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change than the Government Whip or Minister Page. One thousand years ago we had another government which thought it could ignore the impact of reality and ignore the impact of the sea: Good old King Cnut, who was the king of Denmark, England, Norway and bits of Sweden. According to Wikipedia, 1,000 years ago King Cnut was a bit like Barry O'Farrell:

Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings ...'"

That is the same situation we are seeing with Barry O'Farrell. He can amend the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill; he can pretend that sea level rise is not going to happen; he can wander down to the beach at Malabar and command the sea not to rise, but it will make no difference. Climate change is a reality and sea level rise will be an ongoing reality over the next century. There is nothing that any conservative government can suggest that will change that.

Dr JOHN KAYE [8.52 p.m.]: I add to the words of my colleagues on this matter. Since the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill 2012 was announced on the day of the local government election by the Special Minister of State it has continued to disturb me, not just because of the substance which Mr David Shoebridge and my other colleagues have outlined, but also because of where it comes from. It comes from two profoundly frightening places. The first place it comes from is a desire to pander to the existing owners of high-value coastal property who are disturbed by the fact that if the truth is told about the risks—

[Interruption]

Dr JOHN KAYE: Madam Deputy-President, may I ask that I be heard in silence?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Members, particularly the Government Whip, will cease interjecting.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President. One of the most disturbing aspects of this legislation is that it is specifically written to pander to a small number of extremely wealthy landowners who own high-valued coastal properties and who do not want the truth told about the risks to the future of that property. By taking away the mandatory section 149 certificate warnings about potential sea level rise and inundation, the real estate market does not function with full information. A Coalition Government that is committed to markets understands that they do not operate without appropriate information. Basic consumer protection is essential to the operation of markets. Basic warnings—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Rubbish.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I will take that interjection. What the Government Whip says is information is not needed for markets to operate. Maybe we should—

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I call Dr Peter Phelps to order for the second time.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Markets without information means that purchasers do not know what they are buying. They have no understanding of what risks they are buying when they fork out millions of dollars for these properties. It is simply unfair to those who purchase property which could face substantial inundation to buy without the appropriate warnings. The most frightening aspect in writing this legislation is the power of those wealthy landowners. The impact will be on those people who will shelve out a big proportion of their life savings and end up with property that could be inundated.

The second disturbing aspect of where this legislation comes from is the pandering to climate deniers. With a few exceptions, I do not believe this Government is full of climate deniers. The majority of the members of The Nationals and the Liberal Party are educated and open-minded enough to accept that the overwhelming consensus of scientists is correct. We face a serious and substantial risk that global climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere will very likely change sea levels, increase storm activity and pose a threat to the integrity of coastal properties.

It is made worse because they are pandering to the Alan Joneses of this world; they are pandering to the vocal minority of climate deniers. The pandering to that small vocal minority is not only poor public policy but it is also deeply disturbing. This sensible Government understands the science and knows the dire warnings relating to climate change, which places at risk not only private property but also public property. However it chooses to ignore those warnings and instead will write legislation that panders to the small number of deluded individuals who are operating out of malign motivation and who are operating out of profit motivation from the mineral and fossil fuel industries.

For those of us who spend time at the beach and areas close to the shore, a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of the dynamics of currents, storms, sea flows and sand makes it absolutely clear that one individual taking private action in an uncoordinated fashion to protect their coastal property means they are not solving the problem. They are solving the problem for themselves but they are exacerbating it for others. They are exacerbating it for their neighbours, they are exacerbating it for people who may be kilometres away, and they are exacerbating it for public landowners. There is no solution to sea level rise that can be gained by any individual acting alone. There are many examples of people in the coastal areas of New South Wales and Victoria who have tried to hold back the sea and have caused problems for their neighbours.

Anybody who has spent time at the mouth of the Tweed River, the Myall River or the Shoalhaven River will understand how sensitive sea flows are and how easy it is to disturb the natural flow of sand and end up with unintended consequences. Shoalhaven Heads is a fine example. The mouths of the Myall River and the Tweed River are excellent examples of what happens when ill-informed coastal protection work goes wrong. I note that the Hon. Paul Green is nodding. He knows what human intervention did to the mouth of the Shoalhaven River and the potential catastrophic consequences for the hamlet of Shoalhaven Heads. The next time there is a big flood in the upper Shoalhaven River, Shoalhaven Heads will cop it.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is not their fault.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Madam Deputy-President, it is almost impossible to talk with the Hon. Catherine Cusack shouting at me.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I once again remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

Dr JOHN KAYE: This is a serious matter, but sometimes this is not a serious Chamber. Coastal protection works must be undertaken in a coordinated fashion. Individuals taking their own actions will cause unintended catastrophic consequences for those around them and possibly in the long run for themselves. This legislation enables people to implement individual private solutions, whereas solutions should be public and coordinated.

I am also deeply concerned about the amendments to section 149 certificates. It is a basic tenet of a market economy that consumers are not deluded and that they are warned. Mr David Shoebridge asked whether people who buy a coastal property and find nothing on the section 149 certificate are expected to have their own coastal study conducted at a cost of $50,000, $100,000 or $200,000 in order to establish the likely risk to their land under any of the sea level scenarios caused by the increased storm activity that is being forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and prior to the Coalition Government coming to office by the Department of Environment and Climate Change. It is simply ridiculous to allow that to happen.

This legislation does not deserve to pass this Chamber. This Chamber, this Parliament and this Government are better than this legislation. We should say no to the motivation behind it and to its substance. We should be working to address the challenges of coastal erosion and doing so in the full knowledge of the science that says we are in for a tough time on the coast. We should be developing coordinated solutions that work for everyone. It should not be every man or woman for themselves. We should all work together to protect as much of the coast as we can. This legislation removes that capacity, not only in substance but also in intent. It removes the capacity for people to work collectively for a common solution to sea level increases and coastal erosion. This legislation does not deserve to pass. I wish to be associated with the remarks of my colleagues the Hon. Cate Faehrmann, the Hon. Jan Barham and Mr David Shoebridge in opposing this legislation.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.04 p.m.]: My contribution will be brief and, as usual, to the point. I did not intend to speak on this legislation, but having heard the contributions of members of The Greens I simply could not cop it; I decided that I must say something. Their speeches were redolent of class warfare and their hatred of private ownership of property. The argument about the State Government transferring responsibility for this potential problem to local government is hypocritical. What about the imposition of the E2 and E3 zones? Councils will have to address that problem.

This legislation also demonstrates that the Government still has not learnt that when a party wins an election it is awarded a prize—it is called "government". It should not half do bills; it should do them properly. I hope that the Government will tear down more of these fabricated bricks of Green-Labor ideology that have been built into our legislation over the past 16 years—the Native Vegetation Act comes to mind. While I support the bill, I give the Government half marks—the bill is not quite good enough.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.06 p.m.]: I do not think I have ever heard such drivel that not one, not two, not three but four members of The Greens delivered in this Chamber.

Dr John Kaye: You always say that.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I have never said that about The Greens before. The only benefit I can see from the display to which they have subjected the Parliament to today is that it will help the public of New South Wales to understand how this wretched mess was created. That was the mentality that drove the ridiculous deal which The Greens did with the Labor Party prior to the election and which caused this mess to be inserted in the coastal protection legislation.

Dr John Kaye: Which deal was that?

The Hon. Robert Brown: There were so many.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Yes, there is a long list. However, on this occasion I am talking about the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill 2010. There was not one, two or three versions negotiated between Frank Sartor and The Greens; there were no fewer than 77 draft bills while The Greens exacted their pound of flesh. I am glad that the Hon. Jan Barham has spoken in this debate. I will put aside all the waffle—

The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order—

Mr David Shoebridge: A deal is where you send someone out to sell your environmental credentials before—

The Hon. John Ajaka: I will wait for Mr Shoebridge to finish his rant. With all due respect to Mr Shoebridge, who consistently raised points of order about interjections, I ask that he now allow the Hon. Catherine Cusack to speak without interjection.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! Dr John Kaye asked to be heard in silence; he will show the member with the call the same respect.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The measures that the Government is seeking to repeal in this legislation relate to an argument that the Greens-controlled Byron Shire Council has been having with a group of property owners on Belongil Beach. All of a sudden the spit of sand, which is 15,000 years old, is falling into the ocean. The Greens would have us believe that that is simply nature at work and that nothing can be done. The Byron Shire Council-owned works at Johnson Street are acknowledged as causing erosion north of the beach and that has caused a great deal of land, both public and private, to fall into the ocean. Members opposite are saying that we should blow the whistle and leave all those property owners stuck with the negative implications of the publicly funded, council-owned engineering works that are causing the problem. You people are very strong—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The reference to "you people" is completely disorderly. Remarks should be addressed through the Chair.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The member should refer to the appropriate party.

Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order: Dr John Kaye's point of order did not relate to how the Hon. Catherine Cusack should refer to a group of members. The point of order was that the honourable member should not address her remarks to "you people" but through the Chair.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! I remind members to address their remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: It is a triumphant moment for The Greens. They would have us believe that selfish private property owners are inflicting damage on the rest of the coastline at public expense. In relation to the coastline, sand beaches on the North Coast are falling apart, which, without exception, has been caused by misguided, government-funded engineering works back in the 1950s. The implications of those works have left private property owners stuck with the bill. The reality is the complete reverse of what The Greens would have us believe. Byron Bay council has to rebuild a collapsing wall, otherwise the whole of Byron Bay central business district will end up in the ocean; but that will have negative impacts further along on private property owners who have been seeking to defend their properties in the wake of these publicly funded works causing their properties to wash into the ocean.

It will come as no surprise that the Liberal Party supports the principle of private property. Clearly, there is no such support from The Greens. In fact, they show disdain and contempt for the principle. They use weasel words in relation to consumer information on the purchase of property. The nanny State information The Greens endorse affects 9,000 property owners on the Central Coast who have had their property titles blighted by section 149 certificates. I will provide an example of the stupidity that is occurring on the Central Coast. The mapping of that area has been carried out on a topographical basis. Property owners now have this blight on their property title as a result of a carte blanche topographical study. The whole concept of individual property is disregarded.

I have visited a beach where a property on a dune is seriously in danger of collapsing in the event of storm surge. I would describe it as the most at-risk property I have seen on the Central Coast, but because the property is on top of the dune, which is quite high, it is not blighted by a section 149 certificate. All the houses behind that property are affected because they are on lower ground. Members must understand that talk of science and best available information is absolute rubbish. The formulas are applied on the basis of other formulas. They are not, as suggested by Mr David Shoebridge, based on the statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in relation to sea level rise. The sea level rise policy statement on which the formula resides is based on a CSIRO document that was derived from an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change document which was followed by the then Department of the Environment and Conservation.

The department then developed its own science around that, decided that the New South Wales coast is a hotspot, added another nine metres, or whatever number it arrived at based on the worst-case scenario, and factored in a precautionary principle. It then made projections that would have us believe that since 1990 the waters off the New South Wales coast have risen by one centimetre every year. In other words, they have risen by 22 centimetres since 1990. Patently that has not occurred; it is rubbish. I have said to Minister Parker, and I have repeatedly said to my Government, that the sea level rise policy statement put in place by the Labor Government should have been repealed in April 2011; it is complete rubbish. The second aspect is that the policy assumed that the whole coast was being eroded and washed away. That also is patently not the case. The laws of accretion are in place to deal with that. The sand does not disappear; it moves. On every beach parts will increase and parts will erode, and beaches change over time on a soft coastline.

I am not a climate change sceptic. I ask the Government Whip, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, to respectfully not listen to my next remarks. The issue that New South Wales faces is the warming of the oceans which is changing the currents and the way they work. First, that has an impact on our soft coastline. Secondly, it has an impact on the weather and causes storm surge and much more severe and frequent events. Temporary protection works are completely nonsensical. They were a system designed to frustrate property owners. It does not work and is a fraud on private property in New South Wales. One of the provisions in Labor's legislation was that a property owner could only put in temporary protection works if a storm was underway or imminent. That meant property owners could only lay sandbags if the beach had eroded to within three metres of their house. At that point the owner, if he or she had pre-authorisation, was able to obtain a certificate from an engineer which stated that the sandbags to be used complied with the standard for sandbags. The certificate then had to be taken to a council officer, who then issued a further certificate which stated that the engineer's certificate had been received.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Meanwhile back at the house.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: This is all occurring in the middle of the night during a storm surge. Meanwhile back at the house, and at the house next door and the one next to that, what is happening? Contrary to the comments of The Greens, Labor took the block-by-block approach, which we criticised as nonsensical. People could not lay sandbags on the beach to protect the whole beach. This Government has the chance to repeal that provision and take a holistic approach. That is one example of a ridiculous provision that this Government is repealing. I believe that storm surges are a real threat not only to our soft coast but also to estuary areas. The New South Wales coastline extends for 2,100 kilometres. People say it is too big a problem because of the length of our coastline. But we are only talking about a select number of places and a limited part of the coast that is being impacted by past engineering works. Property owners should not be left holding the baby because of bad public policy.

On a Google map one can see the erosion on the beach at Lake Cathie. The beach is very jagged. Inside each bite into the beach is a stormwater pipe that is used for draining the streets of Lake Cathie. That is what is causing the erosion of those dunes. That is not natural and it is not the responsibility of the residents. The residents have no capacity to repair that problem. Woody Head has a beautiful beach on the North Coast that is eroding rapidly. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has property and a caravan park at Woody Head. Under a policy devised in 1977 the service established, I believe quite sensibly, a dune rehabilitation program to try to defend those public assets.

The ability of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to rehabilitate dunes to act as a buffer to defend government property—an action I support—is a right that should be extended to residents up and down the coast. Residents of Wooli are requesting rehabilitation of the dune so that the beach will protect the homes of everyone. It is not a matter of selfish residents. I totally reject that concept. But what will happen to the rest of the public and government assets if we just let all these properties fall into the ocean? If the spit at Belongil gives way, the entire Belongil Creek will flood. Byron Bay—which is three-quarters swampland, most of it drained—will be inundated. The impact that will have on everyone in that town will be a massive, irreversible disaster. We want to support the natural feature and protect the high conservation value land behind it.

It is infuriating to sit in this House and listen to the completely dishonest representation that is being dished out by The Greens. It is not about holding back the sea and King Canute; it is about managing storm surge. I welcome the Government's repeal of red tape. However, I am in heated agreement with the Shooters and Fishers Party that the legislation does not go far enough—this is not even half an Act. The Government has told local councils that it is no longer mandatory to follow the ludicrous sea level rise statement but that it will still give advice and information. In reality, that will still bind most local councils to the sea level policy. This stupid policy mandates, for example, the Bruun rule when Bruun himself has said that the rule should not be used in this context. This policy has been completely discredited and the department knows it, but because the department has no better information it will rely on it. That is the basis on which the section 149 certificates are being issued and it is ruining the value of people's properties in the process.

That sea level policy statement needs to be repealed. It needs to be torn up and we should start again. We need to act in the interests of public land as well as private land. There are enormous amounts of valuable public land and beaches at risk of falling into the ocean. The Greens talk about protecting public access to the beach but that access is being lost. One almost has to abseil to get onto Wooli Beach. The same thing is happening at Old Bar, but there is a simple solution. Old Bar was the former mouth of the Manning River. It broke off in the 1950s, which left the beach unprotected and the beach is now eroding. If Old Bar is artificially rebuilt the beach will improve. It is not an expensive solution but the dithering that went on for six years under Labor has made the problem more expensive and more difficult.

I applaud this legislation but I call on the Government to go further. A great deal more needs to be done. Funding is available to implement common-sense solutions. Even if the Government tried to manage what would be doomed public land if nothing was done, it could help co-fund the protection works required. I repeat, what is going on on our coastline is not natural and it is not due to sea level rise. Up and down the coast we have breakwaters to open the mouths of rivers that are naturally silted. That is what is causing the serious erosion on the North Coast. It is unfair to the property owners—a small number of people who are expected to bear the full cost of past mistakes. The Government has a responsibility to those people. I applaud all of those people who are standing up for their basic rights. I deplore The Greens for its intimidation, lies and vilification of private property owners, who want nothing more than their basic rights.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [9.23 p.m.]: The Hon. Catherine Cusack's contribution to the Coastal Protection Amendment Bill cannot go without response. It is clear that the Government is anti-science. The CSIRO, the United Kingdom Bureau of Meteorology and NOAH all recognise—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Is that Noah's Ark?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The member does not even know what NOAH is. Those opposite are basing it on the science of Noah's Ark. We are experiencing sea level rise but there is nothing a private individual can do about it. An individual undertaking his or her own work will not hold back the tide. It is not about The Greens being ideologically opposed to private ownership; it is about being honest with the people of New South Wales about the science. So many of those opposite are driven by ideological viewpoints and they fail to recognise the science. None of those opposite is across the realities of climate change, which are now observable—for example, the hottest year on record in North America and the melting of the Arctic. Those opposite are turning their backs on science and vilifying The Greens, the scientists and those who recognise the need to be honest with the people of this State. People need to be told that they can do nothing in the face of metres of sea level rise.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Read this—here is the rise.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Where did you get that document from? Perhaps Wingnuts Are Us? The forecasts are very conservative.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: The UK Bureau of Meteorology.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Point of order: Do I have to be yelled at? The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps should be ruled out of order.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: The member asked me where I got this document from. I got the evidence of lack of climate change from the United Kingdom Bureau of Meteorology.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham will not respond to interjections.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It is clear that the globe is warming. It is clear that the sea is rising. The latest CSIRO modelling clearly shows—from data derived from altimeters and satellites—that the sea is rising. This policy will do nothing to protect communities. Community response will deal with climate change. It is incumbent on a responsible government to put aside its ideological opposition because climate change is politically inconvenient. Those opposite have dug themselves into a hole. The scientific evidence is increasingly mounting. This ideological response is completely responsible. The seas will continue to rise. Significant sea level rise has already been locked in. The Hon. Catherine Cusack said it is just an issue for Belongil Beach. It is an issue for the entire globe. This issue will affect every ocean on this earth. Some of the scientific predictions are catastrophic.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: How much?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My understanding is that the latest predictions are in the tens of metres over the coming decades and hundreds of years. The member laughs and mocks me.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Skyscrapers.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: When one considers the rate of melting in Greenland it is very concerning. If those opposite turn their backs on the science they will be condemned. The Greens are taking the responsible approach. The Government is making a similar ideological attack to that of the Hon. Robert Brown on any legislative instrument that protects the environment. History will condemn the Government for its foolishness.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.28 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their very illuminating contributions to this important bill. Notwithstanding some of the misleading rhetoric and perhaps self-indulgent collective musings of The Greens, the proposals in this bill represent a very significant step forward for managing erosion threats along our coastline. The Government's stage one coastal reform clearly demonstrates that the Government will not shirk its responsibility to help communities and councils deal with this difficult issue. It would be very instructive homework for The Greens and those on the other side to reflect upon the words of the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who I think put it better than anyone else, in relation to the difficulty of these issues and the struggle for local landowners which has gone on for far too long. Finally, the Government has decided to act and I am pleased that the bill will address some of these problems.

The bill is an important part of the stage one reforms and winds back some of the excessive red tape the former Government introduced into coastal management. The main provisions in the bill relate to improving the ability for coastal landowners threatened by coastal erosion to take responsible actions to reduce erosion impacts. The ability for landowners to place large sandbags as temporary coastal protection works will be increased, as the requirements relating to where and when these works can be placed will be reduced. These changes are both sensible and practical. No longer will landowners need to wait until erosion is occurring or imminent, or wait until they have obtained a certificate from council or the Office of Environment and Heritage; they will be able to place these temporary works on their land at any time.

Landowners will no longer be limited to placing temporary works on their land only when a building is threatened by erosion. This restriction will be lifted, allowing works to be placed to benefit vacant land. Under related changes to the code of practice, landowners will not be limited to placing these works at only 14 authorised locations. This will be expanded to cover any erosion-prone area. The bill continues the ability for landowners placing temporary works under the Coastal Protection Act in their land to avoid the need for any other type of approval. If landowners want to place larger or longer-term protection works, the opportunity to lodge a development application remains open.

When it is necessary for landowners to place temporary works on public land, the bill makes this easier for landowners while retaining important controls to ensure the appropriate use of public land. The bill doubles the allowable time for landowners to use public land responsibly to two years. These changes reflect the Government's commitment to supporting landowners while also protecting the public interest. When the previous Government increased the penalties in the Coastal Protection Act for illegal dumping it got it half right. Higher penalties for dumping rocks, construction waste and other dangerous objects such as car bodies were reasonable. However, placing sandbags on beaches to protect property is not a transgression of the same order as dumping a rusty car body. The bill restores the balance by halving the maximum penalties for lesser offences relating to sandbags and the inappropriate use of temporary works.

I turn now to section 149 certificates, which play an important role in informing future purchasers of land about development restrictions and hazards that affect a property. It is important that the information on these certificates is appropriate, accurate and not misleading. Many Central Coast residents have expressed concern, to which some members referred, about inappropriate section 149 certificate notations relating to sea level rises. The bill removes the requirement to include notations on these certificates relating to coastal hazard categories. It is more appropriate that the requirements relating to coastal information on section 149 certificates be under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. To support this, the Government will be developing new guidelines for councils to provide clear guidance on how to describe coastal hazard information on these certificates.

We want all section 149 certificates to inform, not to inadvertently mislead. The Opposition is opposing the bill on the basis that Labor got it right with its package. Clearly, that is not the case. The Opposition's concern about the changes to section 149 certificate notations is also unfounded. As the Minister said earlier, these certificates are important for providing information to future purchasers but they also need to be accurate. The bill effectively removes duplication on section 149 certificate notations relating to coastal hazards. These will now be consolidated under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Late last year the Office of Environment and Heritage held eight workshops along our coast, from Ballina south to Moruya. These workshops were attended by committee groups, councils and other stakeholders. Indeed, the Government will consult further while it is developing its stage two coastal reforms.

I note that the current penalties will remain for actions that will seriously damage our coast or risk public safety. However, the Government recognises the difference between sandbags and construction debris, and the bill appropriately adjusts the penalties accordingly. In conclusion, this is a sensible bill that aims to better support landowners threatened by erosion while ensuring that the public interest is preserved. It reduces the red tape introduced by the previous Government and is an important step in this Government's path towards a sound approach to managing erosion threats to our coastline. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Mr Ajaka Mr Blair Mr Borsak Mr Brown Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr MacDonald Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Mason-Cox Mrs Mitchell Reverend Nile

Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Tellers, Mr Colless Dr Phelps

Mr Buckingham Ms Cotsis Mr Donnelly Ms Faehrmann Dr Kaye Mr Moselmane Mr Primrose

Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Shoebridge Mr Secord Mr Veitch Ms Voltz Ms Westwood

Mr Whan Tellers, Ms Barham Ms Fazio

Mr Gallacher	Mr Foley
Mr Harwin	Mr Searle

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.


Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, on behalf of the Hon. Greg Pearce, agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.