22912
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Wednesday 19 May 2010
______
The President (The Hon. Amanda Ruth Fazio) took the chair at 2.00 p.m.
The President read the Prayers.
APPROPRIATION (BUDGET VARIATIONS) BILL 2010
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.
Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.
Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Second readings set down as orders of the day for a later hour.
PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE
Report: Citizen’s Right of Reply (Mrs J Passas)
Motion by the Hon. Kayee Griffin agreed to:
That the House adopt the report.
Pursuant to standing orders the response of Mrs J. Passas was incorporated.
______
Reply to comments by the Hon Amanda Fazio MLC in the Legislative Council on 18 June 2009
I would like to reply to comments made by the Hon Amanda Fazio MLC on 18 June 2009 in the Legislative Council about myself.
Ms Fazio makes two accusations, which adversely affect my reputation:
That I am "an absolute lunatic"; and That apart from "jumping on the bandwagon of a genuine community campaign for easy access" at Summer Hill railway station, I did not have anything to do with securing the easy access upgrade at Summer Hill.
Ms Fazio's first assertion has no basis in fact whatsoever and is offensive.
Her second assertion is demonstrably false. My involvement in the campaign to secure easy access at Summer Hill Railway Station began in 1994 and continued throughout my period as a councillor on Ashfield Council until the project was complete in 2002.
His Worship the Mayor of Ashfield, Councillor Ted Cassidy, has provided me with a reference, which outlines my involvement in the campaign. In his reference he states:
In 1994 I recall Julie attending a meeting of Ashfield Council expressing concern on anti-social issues relating to Ashfield Park. Julie also pursued at that time her concern that the historic Summer Hill Railway Station was not accessible for people with a disability or for mums with baby in pram or stroller. …
During her first term (1995-1999) on Council Julie vigorously pursued the issue of accessibility for Sumer Hill Station. I also campaigned with her outside the station during that period as did a number of residents with a disability and mums with baby in pram or stroller. These incidents were reported in the local newspapers of the time ("The Courier" and "District News") …
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22913
Julie's campaign had the support of all Ashfield Councillors and eventually the State Government of the time in the early 2000's conceded the need for priority. Funds were allocated and the current equal access of lift and pedestrian ramps to all platforms of Summer Hill Station were provided.
If it were not for the drive and compassion that Julie pursued in her commitment for equal access for Summer Hill Railway Station and the support that Ashfield Council gave to the issue, people of all ages suffering disability whether it is permanent or temporary would still be discriminated against in the eyes of the community.
Mr Bruce MacCarthy, Member for Strathfield from 1996 to 1999, also has provided me with a reference outlining my involvement. In his reference he states:
As the Member for Strathfield (1996 to 1999) I was aware of her passionate interests in other community causes, particularly the campaign for better access to Summer Hill Railway Station, which she championed along with local resident, the late Paddy Davies, who lived close to the station, in Bogan Street.
When Summer Hill was incorporated into the seat of Strathfield in the lead up to 1999 elections, Julie and Paddy sought my assistance in fighting for "Easy Access" to the station. At that time, the Government was not showing any sign of interest in the idea. I recall asking a question on notice on the subject in late 1998 and getting a non-committal, 2 line response from the then Minister for Transport.
It was only when, at Julie's invitation, I announced that the then Leader of the Opposition (Peter Collins) would come out to see the station with a view of making an election commitment, that Labor got interested. The then Minister's Parliamentary Secretary came out on the same day and promised that something would be looked at. …
I have seen a letter dated 29 March 2010, by the Mayor of Ashfield attesting to Julie Passas's interest in the Summer Hill Station issue back as far as 1994. There is nothing in Clr Cassidy’s letter with which I would disagree. In particular, I have no hesitation in agreeing that, without Julie's vigorous championing of the cause of better access to Summer Hill Station, the residents of Summer Hill might still be waiting for the improvements.
In contrast to Ms Fazio's comments, Mayor Cassidy observes in his reference:
A community without people like Julie would be a lot poorer.
Mr MacCarthy concludes his reference with this observation:
Every community needs someone like Julie Passas who is not afraid to speak out loudly when good causes arise. ______
CLIMATE CHANGE
Motion by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) the bipartisan report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts "Managing our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate: The Time to Act is Now" outlines a pathway to managing the Australian coast in the national interest.
(b) the recommendations from the report identify the need to:
(i) commission a study on international coastal zone governance arrangement including polices and programs for addressing impacts and adaptation strategies
(ii) increase investment in coastal based climate change research
(iii) improve access to and consistency of information relevant to coastal zone adaptation
(iv) consider infrastructure adaptation needs of local government
(v) address disaster mitigation
(vi) investigate insurance issues
(v) request the Australian Law Reform Commission to undertake an urgent inquiry into climate change legal issues
(vi) define coastal ecosystems protection and assessment including wetlands, migratory birds
(vii) develop an action plan to protect coastal high conservation value areas
(viii) provide a national repository to identify Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural heritage sites.
(ix) request the development of an Intergovernmental Agreement on the Coastal Zone to be endorsed by COAG, and
22914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
(c) the Australian Coastal Councils Conference Communiqué highlights the calls from coastal local councils across Australia for assistance in dealing with the complex and daunting social, economic and environmental challenges of climate change adaptation.
2. That this House calls on the Government to:
(a) support all 47 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts report
(b) urgently work with the Commonwealth Government in responding to the inquiry report, and
(c) report back to the Legislative Council on actions taken to engage with the Commonwealth and State governments at Council of Australian Governments meetings.
PETITIONS
Bangalow Motorway Interchange
Petition requesting that the House direct the roads and Traffic Authority not to construct the proposed Bangalow motorway interchange as part of the upgraded T2E Motorway, and instead ensure that through traffic stays on highways, received from the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.
Religious Education and School Ethics Classes
Petition opposing the newly proposed secular humanist ethics course in public schools and calling on the Government to support the cancellation of the ethics course and express its support for scripture classes, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
IRREGULAR PETITION
Leave granted for the suspension of standing orders to allow the Hon. Robyn Parker to present an irregular petition.
Tingira Heights Development
Petition requesting an immediate halt to any development of or construction on 3-5 James Street, Tingira Heights, on the grounds of the discrepancies in the environmental impact assessment for the site, received from the Hon. Robyn Parker.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
Private Members' Business item No. 11 in the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Sylvia Hale.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
Debate on Committee Reports postponed on motion, by leave, by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.14 p.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 266 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding Cessnock City Council, be called on forthwith.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22915
This matter is urgent. On 7 May the Minister wrote to Cessnock City Council indicating that he was considering removing the council's planning powers. He gave the council 21 days within which to respond, but he failed in his letter to provide any details why those powers should be removed from the council. Subsequently, the council wrote to the Minister requesting details, but the Minister has failed to respond appropriately, although he stated publicly that he has, supposedly, approximately 26 pages of complaints. This matter is urgent because 21 days from 7 May is 28 May. As it is now 19 May, I suggest that the documents should be made available, and once that is done, the council would need to write to the Minister seeking time to consider the information contained in them.
The matter is urgent because it is in the public interest that these matters are in the public domain. If the Minister has received complaints about the council, those complaints should be known to the council. The tenet of our justice system is that one has the right to know the nature of an accusation. Clearly, in this case, the Minister has not observed that convention or obligation. This matter should be treated as a matter of urgency and dealt with accordingly.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.16 p.m.]: The Government opposes urgency of this matter. The House has a lengthy list of Government business that must be dealt with today. At this point in time the matter is not urgent. If the Greens wish to raise the matter on another occasion, they can do so on Thursday, which is reserved for private members' business.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.17 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the motion for urgency. The Leader of the Opposition gave an adjournment speech on this very subject last week.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 22
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Brown Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Mr Cohen Mr Khan Mr Smith Ms Cusack Mr Mason-Cox Ms Ficarra Reverend Dr Moyes Tellers, Mr Gallacher Reverend Nile Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Harwin
Noes, 17
Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Ms Griffin Mr Primrose Mr West Mr Hatzistergos Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Kelly Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Macdonald Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Mr Moselmane Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz
Pair
Mr Lynn Mr Della Bosca
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Order of Business
Motion by Ms Sylvia Hale agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 266 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
22916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
CESSNOCK PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.25 p.m.]: I move:
That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Planning, the Department of Planning, the Minister for Local Government, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, or the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water relating to Cessnock Council:
(a) all documents relating to the Minister’s consideration of the appointment of a planning panel under section 118 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1978,
(b) all documents created since September 2008 relating to the processing of development applications, rezoning applications and proposed rezoning applications for the Hunter Economic Zone or other rezoning within the Cessnock Local Government Area, and
(c) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. Although the Minister for Planning has been vocal about the number of complaints he has received relating to the Cessnock City Council—up to 26 pages of complaints—it is extraordinary how reluctant he is to make the complaints public. I fear that by his doing so, the complaints will show either that they emanate from one source, which is perhaps the electorate office of the member for Cessnock, who is anxious to somehow discredit his political opponents, or that they are complaints from significant donors to the Labor Party whose development aspirations in the area so far have been frustrated by the Land and Environment Court.
I find it disturbing that a Minister would seek to intervene in the affairs of a publicly elected council by announcing he is considering removal of the council's planning powers, not providing evidence to substantiate his intended action and, by his vote, indicating that he still will not make the complaints public. Clearly, the Minister must have something to hide. The Cessnock City Council, other members of the House and I will be very eager to find out just what the Minister has to hide.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.27 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I support the motion. As the shadow Minister for the Hunter, I outlined the Opposition's position on this matter in an adjournment speech on 13 May. I am pleased that in the wake of my adjournment speech and questions that have been asked by the Opposition on this matter the Greens now seek clarity on behalf of the people of Cessnock.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.27 p.m.]: The Government opposes the motion.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Tony said he was happy to do it.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I knew it would be a surprise. This motion is a waste of the time of the House and, were it to be passed, would represent a massive waste of time and resources of the New South Wales Department of Planning. The department's time would be better spent on the important strategic planning work it is undertaking in the Cessnock region rather than photocopying paper for members. Not only does this motion represent a monumental waste of time and resources, it also does not even reflect the very simplest level of understanding of the relevant legislation by the proponent.
Section 118 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, under which the Minister has acted, is perfectly clear. The Minister must give the council 21 days to show cause why a planning panel should not be appointed. Of course, that is precisely what the Minister did. No doubt, in the course of preparing its response, the Cessnock City Council will wish to discuss with the Minister his concerns, specific or otherwise. That is entirely as it should be. It is not for the House to delve into the right and proper processes that already have been followed in this case. Moreover the legislation clearly states that once the Minister has considered the council's response and should he decide to appoint a planning panel, he may do so only when he has, by order published in the Government Gazette, provided reasons for his decision. The information this motion is seeking will, under the terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, be made publicly available at any rate should the Minister decide to exercise his powers under that Act.
As a result, this motion either represents a clear lack of understanding or is nothing more than a frivolous attempt to get political mileage out of this issue. I suggest that it is both. The people of Cessnock
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22917
deserve better from this House. Many of the concerns raised with the Minister about the council's planning performance have come directly from local Cessnock residents—mums and dads who want to get their home built or their renovations done, but who have been held up and frustrated by the council at every turn. These local residents, and those larger organisations that are looking to invest in the Cessnock area, do not want further delays and barriers being put in the way of good planning in Cessnock, and that is precisely what this motion would do.
Department of Planning staff located in the Hunter region are working hard to progress a host of new comprehensive local environmental plans [LEPs] in the region, including for the Cessnock council area. This is important strategic planning work that will not only deliver planning certainty for local residents but set the necessary framework for job-creating investment to take place in the region. One of the main reasons the Minister has asked Cessnock council to show cause why a planning panel should not be installed is because of delays in progressing its new comprehensive LEP. I am sure the residents of Cessnock do not want this work further delayed by transforming professional planners at the Department of Planning into photocopy clerks simply to satisfy the merest political whim of the Greens and the Opposition. Clearly, this motion should be rejected, and the Government opposes it.
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [2.31 p.m.]: The Minister for Planning had a number of concerns about the planning performance of Cessnock council and has now written to the council asking it to show cause why a planning panel should not be appointed. The Cessnock local government area forms an important part of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, with 19,700 new houses to be provided in land release areas to meet demand for the next 25 years. To implement the important objectives of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, each council is expected to progress the rezoning of land for new housing in a timely manner, to update its overall planning controls in line with the local environmental plan [LEP] template and to deal with development matters in a timely and efficient manner. The Minister has concerns with Cessnock in each of these areas. The most recent LEP submitted by the council at Greta, Cliftleigh and the Oaks at Cessnock has taken between three and four years to prepare.
The Hon. Robyn Parker: You say "Greta"; we say "Greeta".
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Unlike the Hon. Robyn Parker, I have lived in Singleton. That is what we called it when I lived there. These delays certainly do not assist the timely delivery of land for new housing. Two other LEPs at Bellbird North and at Kitchiner for approximately 4,500 lots have taken more than three years to reach the Department of Planning, and in both cases the plans were submitted with significant unresolved issues. This has led to delays for the Department of Planning in finalising the plans. Both plans have been referred to the Planning Assessment Commission, and the commission has raised concerns with parts of the plans submitted by the council. In the case of Bellbird North there are concerns with the impacts relating to agricultural, tourist and economic values. There was also an unresolved objection from the Department of Primary Industries.
The council's actions in seeking to add further land at Bellbird for rural residential development, which had not even been advertised, are of concern. Even after submitting the plan, the council asked that it not be forwarded to the Minister until a suitable infrastructure plan was completed. This led to further delay as council was unable to finalise this plan, despite it being considered at a number of council meetings. While the plan has now been submitted, these are not the actions of an efficient council. In the case of Kitchener, the issue of conservation offsets had not been resolved by the council, and there was an unresolved objection from the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. Having such unresolved issues has made it difficult for the Department of Planning to be able to finalise these plans in a timely manner.
The council's comprehensive LEP, and the delay with its progress, is another area of concern to the Minister. The council started the process back in October 2006, and the plan was placed on public exhibition from July to October 2009. The council subsequently extended this exhibition to December, and issues raised during exhibition mean that the council is now likely to re-exhibit the draft plan. Council has to try to move this forward as a matter of priority. As yet, there has been no firm decision from the council about changes to the plan and whether it will be re-exhibited. As one might expect, the ongoing delays and uncertainty are of concern to the Minister. That is why he has now written to the council asking it to show cause why a planning panel should not be appointed. That is the action of a responsible Minister—one that the House should be commending, rather than wasting time on this pointless debate.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.34 p.m.], in reply: Sometimes I marvel at the Government's determination to waste time in this place. Clearly, no-one has an issue with the legality of the Minister's move. Clearly,
22918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Government members have been briefed on what they see as some of the delays. But the facts speak for themselves. The State average for assessing development applications is 75 days. Cessnock council's average is 80 days. However, we know that held up within the Department of Planning for more than 12 months have been zoning applications that involve the release of a minimum of 4,500 lots. So I think the Minister needs to look to his own department, rather than Cessnock council.
The Minister, in answer to a question in this House only two days ago, said that he would be "happy to make public the complaints that he has received". Either the Minister was misleading the House when he said that and he has changed his mind because he realises just how frivolous those complaints are, or he realises just what they will reveal about the motivations of the Government and of him in asking this of Cessnock council. It is time for public disclosure. If the Minister has nothing to hide, there is absolutely no reason for these documents not to be released.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 22
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Brown Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Mr Cohen Mr Khan Mr Smith Ms Cusack Mr Mason-Cox Ms Ficarra Reverend Dr Moyes Tellers Mr Gallacher Reverend Nile Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Harwin
Noes, 17
Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Ms Griffin Mr Primrose Mr West Mr Hatzistergos Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Kelly Ms Robertson Tellers Mr Macdonald Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Mr Moselmane Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz
Pair
Mr Lynn Mr Della Bosca
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
MINING AND PETROLEUM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (LAND ACCESS) BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 21 April 2010.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.44 p.m.]: When I spoke previously about the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010 I referred to the change to a definition put in place by the Hon. Eddie Obeid when he was Minister for Mineral Resources. When I spoke to the Hon. Eddie Obeid earlier I indicated that I am looking forward to his buying a farm at Crookwell so we can get the roads in the area improved. Sometimes one has to disclose an almost pecuniary interest. Following weeks of consultation in relation to this bill with various concerned parties, yesterday I finally met the Brown and Alcorn families. Mr and Mrs Brown are in the Public Gallery. I suspect that I have to declare a pecuniary interest. The Hon. Eddie Obeid would know about families—
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22919
The Hon. Rick Colless: He does not know about pecuniary interests.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We will not go into that; that is a different matter. From talking to Mr Alcorn, I discovered that his first cousin is Russell Gay from Nowra. Russell Gay is my father's second cousin. So I declare with pride—I am not sure whether Mr Alcorn would—a relationship between the Alcorn and Gay families.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You do not have to abstain.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile says that I do not have to abstain from speaking or voting on the bill because of that tenuous link. I have received lots of correspondence, both for and against the legislation, to which I will refer. The views of different people deserve to be examined and given proper consideration. On 22 April 2010 the New South Wales Bar Association wrote:
Retrospective laws move the goalposts
The Bar Association has condemned cynical moves by the New South Wales Government to retrospectively extinguish important property rights for farmers, which were recently upheld by the Supreme Court.
The government has introduced legislation overturning a Supreme Court decision upholding the right of all relevant landholders to be consulted about access arrangements for a mining company to explore a farmer's property. In Brown & Anor v Coal Mines Australia Justice Schmidt ruled that BHP's exploration licences for the Liverpool Plains were invalid.
"Retrospective legislation such as this unilaterally extinguishes individual rights without providing any right of appeal", said Bernie Coles, QC, senior vice-president of the Bar Association. "The impartial administration of justice is an essential feature of our democracy, and yet the government is happy to overturn valid legal rights won in the courts."
"It is one thing for the government to propose changes which could overcome the effects of the judgment in future cases—
That is an important statement—
but it is unacceptable for government to overturn existing legal property rights with the stroke of a legislative pen." Mr Coles said.
"Appeal rights exist to allow parties to protect their interests in the court system. It is fundamentally undemocratic for the government to retrospectively intervene and take sides in private litigation" said Mr Coles.
They are important words from the New South Wales Bar Association in relation to this bill. The Opposition did not even see a copy of the bill that was introduced in the Legislative Assembly until 20 minutes after the commencement of the Minister's agreement in principle speech. That sort of indecent haste and lack of consultation really is a concern. The bill was introduced to address some problems, and the Bar Association says there is a degree of legitimacy in bringing in a bill to do that. However, the concern was how much further the bill went. That was the problem: no-one knew. A lot of people said we should just vote against it because we did not know the ramifications of the legislation. That is what my colleagues in the lower House did. They voted against this bill certainly because of the lack of consultation and their concerns about the form in which the bill was introduced. We had not had time to examine it and we had not had time to prepare amendments. We also had not had time to consult the affected parties.
When the bill came to the upper House later that same day, with the support of the crossbenches—the Greens, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and the Shooters Party—the Opposition had the numbers to adjourn the debate. We were able to do that not only because we had the support of those members, but also because the NSW Farmers Association and others put a lot of pressure on the Government. Faced with the situation that debate on the bill was going to be adjourned anyway, the Minister, to his credit, came to the House and indicated that he would accept the adjournment to allow community consultation, which we certainly supported. When I moved to adjourn the debate the Government accepted the motion and there was no division.
We have now had time for that community consultation. Opposition members have been out there talking with all the interest groups on a daily basis, swapping legal opinions, analysing those opinions and then going backwards and forwards to Parliamentary Counsel. On the Opposition side we are on draft G of the amendments, and even in that draft we have found one or two errors that we will have to consult further about before the amendments are debated in Committee later tonight. They are only minor drafting errors, I might add. That is what we have done. What has the Government done? We have not crossed Government members' paths
22920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
during any of this consultation. I have not seen them out there; it is the Opposition consulting the various groups. We have come back with 22 amendments that we have carefully worked through with the community to make sure that the bill is improved, will be workable and will achieve the things we need to achieve.
The NSW Farmers Association initially came to us and said, "Why don't you just put in a deeming clause? If there was likely to be a problem in the future why didn't the Government just put in a deeming clause?" I have to say that that is a pretty good question. Why did the Government not decide in the first instance that a letter would be sent and people would have 28 days to respond and if there was no response it would be deemed that they had been consulted? That would have removed all the angst and concern that this bill had gone the extra yard. But the Government did not do that and consequently we have had to analyse the bill and try to remove the problem areas where the Government has taken a step too far, while still addressing the issues in which we strongly believe.
The key issue is the Brown and Alcorn cases, which were supported by the NSW Farmers Association. I am sure that there are farmers in this Chamber, including me, whose money went into the fighting fund that was originally developed in the Whitlam years. We went to Canberra on a cold winter's day and Ian McLachlan, from memory, headed that deputation to protest about wool prices and other matters and the Government's lack of action. The legacy of that time is an appropriate one and families now receive assistance when issues such as this arise. I know the families have put in a lot of their own resources, time and effort, but having help from the National Farmers Federation fighting fund has been important for that community.
That brings us to today. As I indicated earlier, I will refer to some of the comments for and against the bill. It is important that the various positions be detailed, but I will try not to take up a huge amount of time. The first comments I will refer to are those of stakeholders who support the bill. I refer to an open letter to the members of the New South Wales Legislative Council from the chief executive officer of the New South Wales Minerals Council, Dr Nikki Williams. It states:
The NSW Minerals Council urges all members of the NSW Legislative Council to support important legislation before the Upper House to simplify arrangements for land access for minerals exploration in NSW.
Dr Williams goes on to say:
…the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010 deals with very specific, unintended consequences of a recent Supreme Court decision. The decision in Brown & Anor v Coal Mines Australia; Alcorn & Anor v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd 2010, NSWSC 143 imposes highly restrictive obligations in the creation of land access arrangements between explorers and landholders.
Further on, Dr Williams states:
The Supreme Court Decision has declared that now any entity with a registered interest on a land title (mortgage, easement, right of way, covenant) must now be a party to a single negotiated Access Agreement.
This decision has made it very difficult for explorers and landowners to negotiate access to properties in NSW for exploration. This has become un-workable for many explorers. Other states and countries stand to benefit as exploration in NSW becomes too difficult.
I have a letter from Dr Craig Stegman, General Manager of Northparkes Mine, who states:
Northparkes has spent in excess of $1.5 billion on constructing and operating the mine, much of which has found its way back into the local community. The future of our business beyond 2024 depends on being able to continue to explore for new copper-gold resources in our exploration licences around our mining operations, made more urgent by the long time line to bring new discoveries into production.
Further on, he says:
As part of our 2010 exploration program, Northparkes had identified 220 separate landowners (the owner in fee simple) as pictured below and had already negotiated voluntary access agreements with 180 of those landowners. However, the Supreme Court Decision determined that any entity with a registered interest on a land title (mortgage, easement, right of way and covenant) must now be a party to a single negotiated Access Agreement. As a result, Northparkes suspended its $3 million exploration program and regrettably laid off 12 people in April until the legal uncertainty surrounding land Access Agreements could be clarified. Northparkes has since undertaken title searches on land covered by our exploration licences; the searches identified over 700 separate titles, many with multiple parties with a registered interest. Put simply, Northparkes is now required to establish over 700 separate Access Agreements, many involving multiple parties.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22921
Obviously we are extremely concerned about the incredibly costly and bureaucratic aspects of this process and believe this will significantly delay a restart to our exploration programs. The penultimate paragraph states:
We therefore urge you to support the Government's Mining and Petroleum Legislation Bill 2010 in full. This legislation does not diminish landowners' rights; it removes the unnecessary bureaucratic aspects of the current legislation ...
I received a letter dated 7 May from Ian Cribb, Chief Operating Officer of Xstrata Coal, which states:
Xstrata Coal writes to ask for your support ...
Xstrata Coal NSW (XCN) is the major coal producer in NSW. We operate 16 mines, employing approximately 4,500 people directly ... plus a direct contribution of $350M to the State Government in the form of Royalties and Payroll Tax.
The consequences of the decision in the Brown case have made the administration and execution of exploration programs in NSW so cumbersome as to be almost unworkable. Already this is having a substantial adverse impact on our business. Exploration programs that were in place at Tahmoor and Bargo have been impacted and future projects are in jeopardy.
Another letter from which I wish to quote is from Robert G. Cameron, chief executive officer at Centennial Coal:
Dear Duncan
Centennial Coal Company Limited write to ask for your support for the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010 ...
We currently have several exploration programmes underway and have successfully negotiated land access arrangements which work satisfactorily for both ourselves and relevant landholders.
We note with dismay however the recent court decision regarding such agreements and are concerned that our agreements will become invalid and, along with future agreements, involve a bureaucratic nightmare. It is also true that the actual landowners' rights will be diluted by the need to involve other parties.
That is a cross-section of the concerns that have been expressed to us by supporters of the bill. A cross-section of those who are opposed to the bill includes the National Farmers Federation. On 4 May, David Crombie from the National Farmers Federation wrote to me and said:
The NFF is seriously concerned about the inequity faced by farmers when responding to mining or mining exploration on their property.
The AFFF—
That is the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund I mentioned earlier—
has funded the Brown matter since it was first heard in the NSW Mining Warden's Court and continued that funding for the appeal in the NSW Supreme Court of the Mining Warden's decision that has led to the landmark Brown decision.
Funding of cases by the AFFF requires an applicant to prove that the case could result in a significant precedent in the interests of Australia's farmers.
The NFF is of the view that the Brown matter has been one of the most important cases funded by the AFFF in recent years as it seeks to test the argument that the regime in NSW to manage the agricultural and mining interface has been unfair, inequitable and poses a serious risk to land and water resources.
The letter also states:
The NFF is deeply concerned that the proposed retrospective legislation seeks to not only rewrite the definition of 'landholder' in a way which reduces some individual rights, but specifically seeks to remove the obligation for miners to properly detail their operations in 'access agreements', removing the fundamental legal rights of landholders to protect their properties from potential damage.
On 10 May Charles Armstrong, President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, wrote to me as follows:
The NSW Farmers Association ... urges all Members of the NSW Legislative Council to oppose the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010 ... in its current form.
Charles Armstrong then states:
In the attempt to simplify the exploration process for the mining and gas sector, the drafted amendments would result in the removal of the existing legal rights of landholders. This is through:
1. The removal of the ability of landholders to protect their land by including conditions of the Exploration Licence as enforceable provisions within an access arrangement;
2. Narrowing the definition of landholder; and
3. The creation of multiple confidential Access Agreements.
22922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
In his penultimate paragraph he states:
Whilst the Association opposes the proposed amendments, it is sympathetic to the need to provide a mechanism to validate access arrangements that may otherwise be found to be invalid under the Mining Act 1992. The Association however believes that such a mechanism should not be based on a retrospective removal of rights of landholders; as would occur under the Bill in its present form.
Members will recall me quoting earlier from a letter from the Bar Association. I received a letter dated 21 April from Mary Macken, President of the Law Society of New South Wales, which states:
I am concerned that there has been no opportunity for adequate consideration of the provisions of the Bill by Parliament or by relevant stakeholders including the legal profession.
That letter goes on to state:
This is the second time in my recent experience that legislation has been introduced in haste as a response to a judicial decision.
The President of the Thoroughbred Breeders Association sent me a letter dated 7 May expressing concern about several amendments, and said:
We also write to request that more time, at least ten days, be given to enable landholders to properly access the implications of this complex Bill. This will enable all stakeholders to provide considered and constructive comments.
As you are aware neither the Opposition nor landholders were consulted in the drafting of this Bill. For a Bill that will have significant and damaging unintended consequences on all landholders and farming families it has been drafted in great haste with little care or attention to detail.
Opposition members have received many and differing views from many stakeholders. Whilst some members might agree or disagree with many of those views, those valid views all need to be considered. We need time in which to examine this bill properly and to propose changes to it. The Opposition is proposing 22 amendments to the bill in general terms to remove the retrospective impact of the bill; to clarify title and to remove the onerous provisions on farmers that the Government had in its bill; to remove the inadvertent consequences that hampered further mining exploration and to give some surety for the future; and an amendment with a deeming provision—a suggestion that came from farmers—as to the sensible way in which this should have been done in the first instance to ensure a better process for the future than was intended in the original bill.
Our amendments ensure that the exploration licence conditions are included in the individual access arrangements and that notification of a proposed access arrangement is given to parties who have interests in the land. The amendments also ensure that reasonable costs of obtaining legal advice are met by the explorer and also that most access arrangements are to be in writing.
It has not been easy to arrive at these amendments. Because of the problems caused by the court decision and by this legislation, it has not always been possible to talk easily to the stakeholders with whom we normally speak, even in tandem with others. I must praise the stakeholders. Given the emotion that attaches to an issue that is so important for the major stakeholders, the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council have approached the task reasonably positively and have produced a sensible proposal. The personnel from both organisations have been outstanding, given the huge pressure placed on them. The importance of this issue to the farming industry should not be underestimated. The concern and angst of people affected by mining is self-evident, particularly when one wanders through regional areas, as I do regularly.
The concerns of those who have investments and who employ people should not be underestimated. The major stakeholders have expressed their concerns, and I can only commend the appropriateness of the attitudes of those with whom I have worked on this issue. The foreshadowed amendments have been proposed in good faith to improve both the bill and the lot of many. This bill results from what happened at Caroona, which has created concern in the agricultural and mining industries of this State. Currently, I am working with some of the interest groups and others to prepare a private member's bill that would, we hope, prevent a repetition of the Caroona problems. That bill would propose a pre-expression of interest provision to address the mining and agricultural issues—land and water—before an exploration licence is granted.
Had something like that been in place prior to the introduction of this bill, these problems would not have arisen. It is not smart to speak with hindsight—and I am not blaming anyone—but we did not put such a provision in place and we face this problem. A letter that I received from the NSW Farmers Association, dated 19 May, states:
The NSW Farmers Association (the Association) has reviewed the amendments from the NSW Nationals and support these amendments in total. Attached to this letter is a copy of the amendments (C2010-00F NATS) for your information.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22923
Those amendments, which the Opposition will move in Committee, were developed, in part, from seven concerns that farmers put to us initially and two of our own concerns about the bill's retrospectivity, particularly regarding the Brown and Alcorn families and those who did not voluntarily enter into agreements at Caroona. As that matter is still before the courts the Opposition believes it is inappropriate to legislate about it. The Opposition also believes that major improvements can be made to the remainder of the bill. Ultimately our support for the bill will be determined by the amendments that are passed by this House.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.15 p.m.]: The Shooters Party supports the principle of the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010, which appears to us to have arisen from the Supreme Court decision in Alcorn and Brown v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd and should not create any slowing down or stoppage in the current access agreements that operate validly across the State. We understand that there are up to 8,000 of them. We received almost to a letter the same correspondence as our Nationals colleagues. Therefore, I will not refer to that correspondence in detail as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did so very well. We echo the concerns of many stakeholders, including those elucidated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that elements of this bill were clearly retrospective. We differ slightly from Nationals members in our opinion of retrospectivity: we believe the retrospectivity is related to the parties to the Supreme Court action and no-one else.
In the time we have had to properly assess this bill after the initial debate was adjourned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we have had endless consultations with the NSW Farmers Association and the Minerals Energy Council. I too express my gratitude to the officers of those organisations, to Mr Sean Morgan, in particular, and Ms Sue-Em Tan from the Minerals Energy Council, for their help and advice. I thank also the NSW Farmers Association for making available to us the opinion of their legal people. The Shooters Party perhaps does not have the horsepower of the major parties so we try to take the most simplistic approach when considering legislation, particularly regarding amendments. The Shooters Party has proposed a few amendments, most of which are fairly simple because they start with the word "delete" and have nothing else. We note also that the Greens and the Government have foreshadowed some amendments.
At the end of this debate, probably later tonight, we will have a far better piece of legislation. I echo the concerns of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this type of legislation requires more than 15 minutes or an hour to examine and debate. I am pleased that on the last occasion the Government agreed and supported the adjournment. We all now have had time to examine it, but not too much time has passed in respect to the effect on all the other "valid" access agreements and projects in train at the moment. If the legislation can be structured so that it represents a balanced position and is passed today, everybody will be a winner to a certain degree, but not everybody will get everything they want.
Since the debate was adjourned and we have had an opportunity to consult, a few things occurred that really opened my eyes. In one particular case my colleague and I corresponded with a farmer and later spoke to him on the phone. Initially the farmer was running the line that seemed to be widespread—that the whole bill was retrospective and that the Government was trying to trash democracy, et cetera. Having spoken to him, I now understand why he felt that way. In 1997 he was approached by an exploration company that presented him with a two-page access agreement. I have a copy of the agreement, and if it was not so serious, it would be humorous. The farmer refused to sign it, but unfortunately he was convinced by the exploration company that he and whoever else owned the land did not have any rights that would entitle him to prevent the exploration taking place on the land.
Since 1997 the farmer allowed not one but several exploration companies to have access to his land and carry out exploration. They paid nothing, and the farmer has believed since 1997 until recently that he had no rights. That raises issues that may be outside the leave of the bill. However, I notice that the Government, the Greens and The Nationals have circulated amendments relating to how access agreements should be formulated. In my view the amendments do not go far enough. Unfortunately there is probably insufficient time to deal with the issues of landowners' rights in detail and I am not sure whether those matters are within the leave of the bill, but I would like the amendments to be extended to reflect a properly balanced position for the sake of farmers who are faced with an access agreement that is presented by an exploration company or a mining company. One of the issues is disclosure.
When a person obtains an insurance policy, it is a legal requirement that that person be given a document that sets out full disclosure of a consumer's rights. Somewhere along the line we as legislators should find a way to ensure that access agreements comprise not just a template dealing with environmental conditions, but explain to the farmer his or her rights, outlines the process that ensues when he or she does not wish to sign
22924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
the access agreement, and provides the farmer with full disclosure regarding what might occur in the future. Heaven knows how many farmers, who are flat out trying to make a living in damn hard conditions, do not have the time, the knowledge or the experience to understand their rights. That is a matter that should be taken into consideration in the context of this legislation.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated in this House that he has been working with stakeholders to develop amendments that may improve the legislation and possibly pre-empt some of the problems that have emerged in the operation of the Act. I recall he made that commitment at the conclusion of debate on a bill introduced by Ms Lee Rhiannon. The Shooters Party stated that although we did not support Ms Lee Rhiannon's bill, we would attempt to do whatever was possible to address the issues. Of course, we have not been able to get very far at all. However, I have had discussions with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I can state that the Shooters Party will be pleased to support any efforts he may make to improve the legislation.
Farmers have pointed out to me that irrespective of whether an exploration company has defined rights and defined obligations under an exploration licence and an access agreement, nothing exists that will enforce compliance. We know that under the Mining Act there is a huge pool of money available in a rolling fund to guarantee rehabilitation of mined areas, but it seems to me that the exploration licence part of the equation has been neglected. In a television interview, a spokesman for BHP stated that the surety attaching to an exploration licence was $100,000, yet the cost to the company of the exploration licence was $100 million. That matter should be addressed. If it cannot be addressed within the leave of the bill, I call on the Minister to address the issue during his reply. It is a matter that must be dealt with quickly; we cannot wait for years for some action to be taken. It is not sufficient for farmers to have the tools to judge whether an exploration licence condition is being breached; they need to understand whether the Government will use its compliance powers to enforce adherence to the agreement and licence conditions. The Government should also ensure that surety and fines should be significant enough to make the mining companies stand up and pay attention.
During my visit to the Gunnedah and Liverpool Plains local government areas, I spoke with representatives of both councils and both chambers of commerce. When I returned to Sydney, I received emails from members of the chambers of commerce and councils with whom I was not able to meet to hear their points of view. One way or the other, I received a pretty good briefing on the views of the community as a whole, not just about farmers concerned about their land. During my visit I spent some time talking to shopkeepers, young people and older people I met in the streets, and some relatives of mine who live in the area. I spoke to them all about their thoughts in relation to mining. I was amazed at how much alarm and concern have been created in the community by the chain of events relating to mining. It is an understatement to say that the issues are divisive—they are deeply divisive.
During my visit a discussion on a local radio program on the subject of mining exploration and mining licences in Werris Creek revealed the ridiculous situation of some local business people who, having indicated support in writing to the Minister, were not game to have their names made known publicly for fear of retribution in the community. That has probably occurred since time immemorial in this country in relation to all types of issues—forestry, mining, farming, et cetera. Although there were differing views on whether mining is supported or not, a couple of concerns were common to all sectors of the community. First and foremost was the worry about damage to water resources, irrespective of whether it was town water or water used for farm irrigation purposes.
When I returned to Sydney I discussed with the Minister delays in the commencement of the vital water resources study of the Liverpool Plains area. I note that that appears to have been attended to, and I express my gratitude to the Minister for taking the appropriate action. The second issue that appeared to be prevalent in the community, not just the farming community, was the general view of the existence of inequity or imbalance in the negotiating position of landholders vis-à-vis mining companies. When people think of mining companies, they think of corporate giants such as BHP. When they think of farmers, they think of people with mortgages that numerically are greater in dollars than is the area of their farm in hectares. There was a general feeling that an imbalance exists.
Later I will discuss some of the benefits perceived by the community in relation to mining, but a concern associated with a mine opening, a mine closing or a major abattoir closing in the Gunnedah Basin was the impact upon the community as a whole. It can be devastating. The same type of effect is likely to occur in the southern Riverina district, but that is another issue for another day. Because the Government accepts royalties on behalf of the people of New South Wales, the Government has an obligation to very carefully
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22925
examine the planning and infrastructure requirements for major projects instead of merely considering the construction of rail lines to move the coal. The Government should include consideration of retaining or increasing TAFE teaching positions and opening courses in the towns affected by major projects.
One of the concerns of some of the local industrialists in the Liverpool Plains area is that they will not be able to compete with wages paid by the mines and that it will be difficult for them to train tradesmen because, as a result of the centralisation of TAFE, many courses were shifted from Gunnedah to Newcastle. They are important matters to take into consideration. It is no good having hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth flow into a community over a number of years if the community is divided by a lack of infrastructure and we end up with winners and losers.
Miners who move into a town are highly paid and able to afford houses and rents that other people in the town cannot afford. What happens? Does the town lose its community and people from its community? Community infrastructure is necessary to meet the growth in population in those areas. All those issues need to be considered. It appears that the Government has not communicated its intentions to local communities, certainly not through elected local government representatives. I urge the Government to immediately undertake to talk to the two councils and tell them what they can expect by way of infrastructure if the mines go ahead.
The Shooters Party does not have as many amendments as The Nationals do, and our amendments differ from theirs in a couple of areas. As I said, we support the principle of the bill. We will wait to see how the amendments flow. We do not care whose amendments get up. This is not a political game; it is a case of what is the best outcome for all concerned. We do not want winners and losers out of this. We want to end up with a bill that addresses most, if not all, the problems as best that the bill can.
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.31 p.m.]: I support the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010. A prospector cannot simply walk onto anybody's land and take over while he explores for minerals. Nor is an access arrangement the only thing a prospector needs to get started. Many would have us believe that mining companies are not restricted in any way, shape or form from exploring on private land. This is simply not true. In fact, the requirements in New South Wales are more comprehensive than those in any other State and protect landholders' interests. There are many requirements to fulfil before one can access the land and many obligations to comply with both during and after exploration. The process starts even before an exploration licence is granted. As a first step, the applicant must advertise in a statewide newspaper and a district newspaper that an exploration licence application has been made.
The advertisement must specify to what land the application will apply. This lets the community know what is being proposed. Once an exploration licence is granted, it gives the titleholder the exclusive right to explore for minerals specified in the licence. It does not automatically entitle the holder to enter any of the land in the licence area. A licence holder must negotiate an access arrangement with landholders before being able to explore on their land. The bill makes clear exactly who is included in this definition of "landholder". If a titleholder wishes to enter a person's property, written notice must first be given to the landholder. The written notice must inform the landholder of the titleholder's intention to obtain an access arrangement.
It must also contain a plan and a description of the area of land over which access is sought. It must include a description of the exploration methods intended to be used. In most cases the landholder and the titleholder are able to negotiate an access agreement directly. If they cannot reach agreement over access within 28 days, the titleholder can ask the landholder to agree to a mutually acceptable arbitrator to help them. If this proves difficult, there are further provisions for the process to help the parties develop an access arrangement. It is important to note that the holder of an exploration title may conduct exploration only in accordance with an access arrangement.
Access arrangements can include a wide range of matters. For example, they can include, when access is permitted, on which parts of the land exploration can take place, and how the landholder's assets are to be protected. They can also include the kinds of exploration that can take place and the compensation to be paid to the landholder. As well, the parties often find it useful to deal with the resolution of disputes and to set out the ways in which the access arrangement can be varied. If a prospector breaches a condition of the access arrangement, the landholder has the right to deny access to his or her land. Once an access arrangement is in place, further approvals may be required.
The exploration licence contains strict conditions designed to minimise the effects of exploration on the environment. Conditions are set depending on the extent of the exploration area and methods used. The
22926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
conditions divide the types of exploration activities into three categories. These categories have differing approval requirements. The conditions make sure that any disturbed areas of land are rehabilitated. In most cases exploration has a minimal impact on the land. However, if an environmental assessment process indicates the likelihood of significant environmental impact, the exploration licence holder must prepare an environmental impact statement.
This requires the applicant to give much more extensive consideration to possible environmental impacts and how they will be managed. The titleholder is required to lodge a substantial security deposit with the Government to ensure that the conditions of the title are complied with. All these requirements provide landholders with a very clear understanding of how access to their land for exploration will take place. They ensure that when the holder of an exploration title is given access to land to explore, every effort is to be made to respect that land and to leave it in the best possible condition for the owner. This bill will further improve confidence in access arrangements for landholders and titleholders. I commend the bill to the House.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.37 p.m.]: I thank previous speakers for their lucid presentation of this case. On behalf of Family First I speak on the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill, the object of which is to amend the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991. In particular, this bill amends the definition of "landholder" so that an exploration company only needs to make an access arrangement with a person who has exclusive possession of a property or a right to exclusive possession. It removes the requirement for exploration companies to negotiate access arrangements with secondary landholders such as easement holders or mortgagees. It retains the right for secondary landholders to claim compensation if their interests are adversely affected during exploration, and it provides an exploration company with the flexibility to make more than one access arrangement when there is more than one landholder for a property.
I want to discuss two issues about the bill at this stage. The first issue is the introduction of this bill, which shows the New South Wales Government's complete disregard for a decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The amendments to the mining and petroleum Acts will validate all existing property access agreements and force into the Land and Environment Court the Caroona agreement set aside by the Supreme Court. Finally, I will discuss the consequences of the legislation in securing Australia's food supply. The legislation before the House today shows that the New South Wales Government has no regard for the law or the New South Wales Supreme Court.
Justice Schmidt ruled that BHP had breached the Mining Act 1992 by failing to notify all interested landholders, including mortgagees, and that the New South Wales Wardens Court, since abolished, had made serious legal errors in finding in BHP's favour. In addition and importantly, Justice Schmidt found that BHP had not adequately detailed how it intended to protect the environment during its exploration operations, validating a key community concern. The Hon. Robert Brown spoke about the significance of that community concern and I do not need to repeat it.
This bill is an attempt by the Government to overcome a recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court. In common law countries such as Australia, the doctrine of the separation of powers is an indication of a working government and democracy. Evidently it is non-existent in this State. In the current case before the House, the Government perceives the Supreme Court decision as an encroachment and erosion of its power. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition outlined the concerns of the Law Review Committee and the New South Wales Bar Association about this very matter. In a High Court comment a former Chief Justice of the High Court said:
It is self-evident that the exercise of judicial review will, from time to time, frustrate ambition, curtail power, invalidate legislation, and fetter administrative action The High Court from time to time disappoints the ambitions of legislators and Governments. This is part of our system of checks and balances. People who exercise political power, and claim to represent the will of the people, do not like being checked or balanced.
How true that is in this case. The Supreme Court decision highlights that judicial decisions can hamper the execution of important government policies. Their effect can be to work against "administrative efficiency", Justice Schmidt said. For the public service in particular, decisions made by the judiciary can mean that plans are thwarted, policy is impossible to implement, and there is an increased expense in carrying out administrative procedures. Private property rights, although subject to compulsory acquisition by statute, have long been hedged about by the common law with protections. These protections are not absolute but take the form of interpretative approaches where statutes are said to affect such rights. The common law caution to the
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22927
Legislature in exercising its power over private property is reflected in what has been called a presumption, in the interpretation of statutes, against an intention to interfere with vested property rights. In Clissold v Perry, a land resumption case, Chief Justice Griffith said:
In considering this matter, it is necessary to bear in mind that it is a general rule to be followed in the construction of statutes such as that with which we are now dealing, that they are not to be construed as interfering with vested interests unless that intention is manifest.
The High Court decision considered the infringement on individual property rights. The High Court judgment considered the following approach:
In its application to property rights, this long-standing interpretive principle is consistent with international developments in the recognition of human rights since World War II. Although not specifically protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the right to property was recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in various other international instruments.
Australia is a signatory to that Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let me consider for a moment the issue of property rights. Firstly, limiting the definition of "landholder" to a person who has exclusive possession or a right to exclusive possession of a property, and removing the requirement for exploration companies to negotiate access arrangements with easement holders or mortgagees, seeks to completely reverse the recent New South Wales Supreme Court decision in Brown & Anor v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd, in which the landholder's rights were upheld by Justice Schmidt and BHP Billiton's license to explore for coal on the landholder's property were deemed invalid due to a lack of consultation with all landholders.
The Supreme Court decision provides greater certainty of rights of farmers whose land is covered by an exploration agreement. The Supreme Court judgment was concluded after careful consideration of the facts and evidence presented to the court. This bill raises questions as to whether leaseholders or even squatters may be deemed to potentially have exclusive possession or a right to exclusive possession over land, so would the proposed amendments to the bill seek to allow those parties to have the right to enter into access agreements with mining companies? Secondly, another interpretation of the bill may be that it nullifies a recent decision by the Land and Environment Court, in Rosane Pty Ltd v T & P Clarke, that exploration licence conditions should and can be attached to access agreements. As a result of those two aforementioned judgments the rights of landholders with regard to mining exploration have significantly improved. So a detailed review of the proposed bill needs to be undertaken with an area of express interest being the proposed amendments to section 141.
Thirdly, proposed amendments to section 158 also pose some concerns. Presently access agreements terminate when a bound landholder either ceases to be a landholder, or dies. Significantly the bill seeks to provide that access agreements with two or more parties do not terminate if one party ceases to be a landholder. Rather, in the circumstance in which the land under an access agreement changes landholders, the agreement will continue to operate until it is replaced by a new agreement, whether by agreement or by the determination of an arbitrator or the Land and Environment Court. This amendment could result in significant impacts to property values should the landholder seek to sell his or her property.
Finally, I want to talk about the significance of the Liverpool Plains area and our national food security. Agriculture is a vital contributor to the New South Wales economy with New South Wales being Australia's most productive agricultural State. Agriculture contributes $10.2 billion to the New South Wales economy and employs more than 122,000 people. This represents 26 per cent of the total value of Australian agricultural production. As well, agriculture is the biggest land user in New South Wales with an estimated 63.6 million hectares or 79 per cent of the landmass of New South Wales being used for agricultural activity.
The Liverpool Plains is critical for the nation's food security and contributes $332 million to the gross domestic product annually. The Liverpool Plains is part of the Namoi catchment that feeds into the Murray Darling Basin. According to the National Dryland Salinity Program, it is the only catchment where cropping is the major land use, and is by far the most fertile and productive. I have spoken about the Liverpool Plains in a previous speech and on that occasion went into some detail about the significance of what is regarded as the most productive form of agricultural land in Australia. The Liverpool Plains is well managed with high-output aquifers, it has reliable summer and winter rainfall, and has high water holding capacity with exceptionally fertile volcanic soils. I will not repeat what I have said in other speeches, but let it be said that the Liverpool Plains is outstanding agricultural country.
The National Pollutant Inventory confirms that the Liverpool Plains does not produce food in an environment contaminated by any industry waste. The mining industry liberates tonnes of toxic metals, fine
22928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
silica dusts or carcinogenic petroleum hydrocarbons. It also leaves a legacy of acid mine drainage, poisoned rivers and creeks, highly saline evaporation ponds, and unpredictable methane scalds. The ability to produce quality food is directly related to the environment in which that food grows. On the Liverpool Plains, local farmers produce food from clean air, clean water and nutrient-dense soil.
The future of every organic farmer in this part of Australia, which brings added value to their crops and assures overseas sales for the benefit of Australia, is placed in total jeopardy if mining access continues. As discussed before, the Liverpool Plains yield 40 per cent of the national average. The 16-year average produced by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries shows consistent, drought-proof winter and summer annual crop production to be over 180,000 tonnes of wheat, over 200,000 tonnes of sorghum, over 5,000 tonnes of oats, over 2,000 tonnes of soybeans, over 60,000 tonnes of barley, over 29,000 tonnes of corn, over 19,000 tonnes of sunflowers, and over 1.2 million tonnes of cotton.
According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, the food bowl of Liverpool Plains brings to our table each year the following items: 365 million loaves of bread, 62.5 million packets of pasta, 144 million bottles of beer, 5.4 million packs of muesli, 8 million litres of sunflower oil, 58 million boxes of cornflakes, 276 million pairs of jeans, over 200 tonnes of sorghum for cattle and chickens, $110 million worth of beef production and massive production of chickpeas, soybeans, mung beans, canola, olives, turkeys, pigs, lamb and wool.
Mr Ian Cohen: And lentils.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: And lentils and pulses, if you like. Lest people think that mining exploration does not interfere with this production, I will quote an email sent to all members of Parliament by Mark Stewart. He writes:
Dear Members,
I believe that this bill is before you this week, I write to you so that you may be aware of the disruption to landholders caused by miners and the environmental damage miners have caused in this area. I am sure that other areas have suffered even more.
Basically I think that entry for exploration should be a matter between the landholder and the explorer. Our experience with our local miner, Hillgrove mine (Straits) has been dismal.
Their first contact with us was by letter which had a return address upon it. When we replied to them the letter was returned 'not known at this address'. We then wrote to their office in W.A. with what we considered to be our requirements for access - no reply from them. We were then in touch with their local people and virtually denied them access (a moot point, as they have the NSW govt. behind them in this regard).
The exploration of neighbouring properties was quite disruptive to us, drilling rigs about 600m from us for months, very noisy and dusty. My wife was suffering a Menieres attack at this time and on several days we had to vacate our home due to the noise. The plumes of dust were going several hundreds of metres up and depositing all around including on our roof and drinking water catchment. This dust was admitted by Straits to contain heavy metals such as lead, arsenic etc.
During this exploration they cut a neighbour's fence for drilling rig access and did not fix it properly, as a result Mr Coventry's cattle escaped onto the Grafton Rd resulting in the police being called. The explorers also entered crown land, Clark's Gully travelling stock reserve where they carried out maintenance on their rig with a resulting oil spill. The above were photographed and sent to the relevant dept. (at the time Primary Industries, mining division). To the best of my knowledge there was not any follow up by the Dept.
Hillgrove village was also subject to visual, aural and smell pollution during their mining operations.
This experience of a so called responsible miner has firmed our opinion.
In closing he writes:
Our experience of the previous operator of Hillgrove mine was similar. An open cut mine approximately 600m from our property was very troublesome, once again noise, dust and explosions which shook our house severely…The site has been left as a hole which is visible on the southern side of the Grafton Rd (Waterfall Way) about 22 kilometres from Armadale, just near the Old Hillgrove Road. The promises made by the miner about mediation etc were not carried out and nobody seems to know what happened to the supposed bond put up by the miner. The conditions of the council approval were also not complied with and the council were not interested in policing them, instead when the mine was for sale they donated some of the ratepayers funds to the seller to help him sell.
Another fault with the exploration and any subsequent mining is that the landholder may be compensated to some extent but the neighbours receive no compensation or consideration under the mining rules.
I feel that some of the above problems could be minimised if the landholder had more say about what happens on his land and more say in the granting of exploration rights and any subsequent mining activity, because I believe that the landholder is the person most interested in his local environment being looked after.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22929
There is no question about the authenticity or the accuracy of that statement and I thank Mr Stewart for it. In conclusion, whatever uncertainties we face with the world economy, protecting prime agricultural land will ensure that Australia will always be able to feed our population with high-quality, safe, nutritious and affordable food. Liverpool Plains must remain a pre-eminent food exporter contributing to Australia's gross domestic product, export growth and international leverage. Australia now has less than 6 per cent of arable land. We must protect the prime areas, in particular the best of all, the Liverpool Plains. It is Australia's vital source of food security. According to the Australian Farm Institute, the productive capacity of Australia needs to be sustained if each farmer is to continue to feed 150 Australians and 650 people overseas.
Food security is vital for the future of Australians and farmers' rights are vital for all Australians. Farmers are sustainable managers of their land and the environment and they play a vital role in driving regional and national economies. If governments take away their fundamental right to manage their land and cultivate a productive sustainable return, then governments should compensate them significantly for that loss. It is fundamentally for this critical reason that I support the farmers of this nation and strongly oppose this legislation.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.56 p.m.]: The Greens strongly oppose this bill. We object to the bill's contents and we object to the insult that this bill directs to farmers and the community of Caroona, who have resisted the push by BHP Billiton into their prime agricultural land to explore for coal. The work they are doing to protect their land is taking a stand for all Australians. Clearly this bill should be voted down. People listening to the debate or who may later read Hansard could conclude that the bill does not have the support of the majority of members. But we know that the bill will in fact be passed—I only hope that it will be amended and slightly improved. However, it should be defeated. The legislation is not needed.
I say that people listening to the debate or who read Hansard at a later stage could conclude that the bill does not have support because The Nationals representative, Mr Duncan Gay, and the Shooters Party representative, Mr Robert Brown, referred in their speeches to the concern about aspects of the bill. They particularly emphasised comments they had heard from people in farming communities. Mr Gay talked about the concern and angst within communities being considerable. Mr Brown talked about the alarm and concern and said it was an understatement to think this concern was not considerable. I certainly echo those comments. The uncertainty that haunts the lives of many farmers these days is quite troubling.
[Interruption]
I am sure that Mr Duncan Gay, who is interjecting, hears these statements time and again and receives emails and phone calls to this effect, because these issues are bringing great difficulties to the day-to-day lives of many farmers and their families.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Not just this issue; lots of issues.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the member's interjection. I imagine that Mr Duncan Gay would agree with what I am saying. In some farming communities the expansion of coalmines is a matter of overarching concern. When farmers see what is occurring in the Hunter Valley they know that is not the future they want. They do not want a future with a massive loss of farming land, contamination of water catchments and dust blowing over their land. They do not want such a future, which in many cases would end their farming practices. I acknowledge those real concerns. After listening to Mr Duncan Gay and to Mr Robert Brown, I believe they were reflecting those concerns. However, I understand that Opposition members and some members on the crossbenches will not vote against this bill, which will present us with a serious problem. Many people often try to walk on both sides of the road: they say that they are listening to the concerns of farmers, but they do not deliver on their promises.
The Hon. Robert Brown: It is called balance, Lee.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is not balance. The balance is the legislation that is already in place.
Pursuant to resolution business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
UNEXPLAINED WEALTH LEGISLATION
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. I refer to the Premier's announcement targeting the unexplained wealth of organised criminals. Can the
22930 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Attorney General explain why that announcement has been delayed by some 13 months since the original resolution by the Standing Committee of Attorneys General asking States and Territories to enact similar legislation based on a Commonwealth model?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In many ways the proposal that has been considered by New South Wales is unique, although it complements what has been done at the Federal level. As I understand it, that has been the subject of detailed discussions not only between New South Wales police and the New South Wales Crime Commission but also with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I indicate for the benefit of the member that these landmark reforms give the Crime Commission power to confiscate wealth from suspected criminals, their families and associates if they cannot prove that they were legitimately obtained.
These reforms will give law enforcement agencies new and expansive powers to go after the Mr Bigs of organised crime who attempt to conceal the sources of their wealth. These reforms are part of a coordinated plan to target organised criminals and will complement similar schemes that, to this point, have been implemented only by the Commonwealth, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Moreover, uniquely, 50 per cent of the proceeds obtained under this regime will be directed to the Victims Compensation Fund to ensure that victims have access to payments to assist them in counselling and rehabilitation as they put their lives back together. I refer to some of the commentary that has been received from persons who have endorsed this regime. They include Martha Jabour, Executive Director of the Homicide Victims Support Group, who said:
We're taking the cash from criminals that cause the pain and suffering and giving it to victims who deserve support and care.
Victims of Crime Assistance League Vice-President, Howard Brown, also supported the unexplained wealth provisions and said:
It will also fully reverse the burden of proof onto criminals, which can only be a good thing.
As I said, the Government also consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions, who supported the reforms, saying that they represented "a modern, effective means of striking at the proceeds of crime", and who emphasised the benefits that would flow from half the proceeds going to the Victims Compensation Fund. Currently, under the criminal assets recovery legislation, the commission must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that an individual was involved in serious criminal activity before obtaining orders against his property. Under these provisions the commission will only have to show a reasonable suspicion of that. The burden of proof will then lie on the suspect to show that the assets were not obtained through criminal activity.
The laws will apply only to serious criminal activity, as defined under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, which is restricted to drug and firearm offences, and serious offences involving money laundering, extortion, violence, bribery and corruption. The court will also have the discretion not to make an order when it would be against the public interest to do so, and it will be able to take into account any unduly adverse impact on innocent parties. The right to appeal the making of an order will remain, and the current safeguards under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 will continue to apply. These include the existing privilege against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings, which will be clarified to ensure that it applies also to unexplained wealth orders.
Similar to the recently passed Commonwealth legislation, provisions will also be included that allow the court to revoke an unexplained wealth order in certain circumstances. As I said earlier, senior officers in law enforcement from all Australian jurisdictions have been working on a national response, and that group is operating under the Standing Committee of Attorneys General. At meetings in 2009 and 2010 it was agreed by most jurisdictions, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria, that developing unexplained wealth provisions with mutual recognition across borders would be of great assistance in combating crime. Following this, the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments have implemented the unexplained wealth provisions, which complement those regimes in the other jurisdictions. [Time expired.]
WOLLONGONG HARBOUR
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Can the Minister update the House on the heritage listing of Wollongong Harbour?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: No doubt the configuration of Wollongong Harbour provides us with a unique insight into the operation of a colonial and early twentieth century shipping port. The New South Wales
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22931
Government is committed to ensuring the long-term protection of Wollongong Harbour's historical and aesthetic features. On 5 May I was proud to announce the listing of Wollongong Harbour and surrounds on the New South Wales State Heritage Register. Following initial consideration by the Heritage Council of New South Wales, the proposed State heritage listing was advertised from 20 January to 25 February 2010. A total of 58 submissions were received, all supporting the listing.
The Heritage Council recommended that I list the harbour on the State Heritage Register, which is what I did. The listing includes the harbour, the crane pedestal, the two lighthouses, Flagstaff Hill and fortification, Brighton Lawn, Smith Hill fortification, Osborne Park and the remnants of the historic tram line, the old courthouse, Customs House and the sea baths. The Wollongong Harbour precinct is of State heritage significance as it contains the oldest and most intact blocked-wall harbour in New South Wales built by convict labour. The precinct as a whole is a complex, cultural landscape containing a number of elements that clearly demonstrate the use and development of the area over time from its original construction in 1837 to 1844 when it was the southernmost port of the colony, to its later use as a bustling coal port, and finally as the home to the Wollongong fishing fleet and current recreational uses.
The change in usage of the harbour reflects the broader trends in the economic development of New South Wales from 1937 to the present. Other features of the precinct, such as the fortification, demonstrate the late nineteenth century New South Wales coastal defence strategy, and the collection of ocean baths demonstrate the changing pattern of recreational bathing from the 1830s to the present. The precinct's significance is enhanced through its association with two of the most important colonial engineers, George Barney, who designed and constructed the Belmore Basin, and Ernest Orpen Moriarty, the first Engineer in Chief of Harbours and Rivers, who designed the outer harbour and the Breakwater Lighthouse.
As the independent New South Wales Heritage Council states, the listing of the harbour will not preclude "limited sympathetic development and adaptive reuse of the harbour precinct in line with the site's identified heritage values". This heritage listing will help to guide the proposed revitalisation of the precinct as any major works for the sites would be subject to decisions or advice from Wollongong City Council and the Heritage Council of New South Wales. The Heritage Council will also play an important role in approving a conservation management strategy, which is now being prepared and developed by the Land and Property Management Authority.
MINING SUPER PROFITS TAX AND FERTILISER
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. The Treasurer would recall my question last week relating to the impact of the Federal Government's resources tax on fertiliser prices for farmers in New South Wales and his comment that he would only "monitor the situation". Given that the Rudd Government is now preparing to back out of applying its new resource super profits tax on the phosphate sector after representations from the quarry industry, does the Treasurer acknowledge my concerns as valid and recognise that there is in fact an issue? Can the Treasurer detail to the House exactly what phone calls, written correspondence and contact with the Federal Treasurer, if any, he has had in relation to these issues?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the member for his question and interest in this matter. I appreciate the interest about the resource super profits tax, which has been hotly debated around the country. I note also the consultative process the Commonwealth Government is undertaking. Of course, as part of the New South Wales Government's response, we have been speaking with the Minerals Council and with various private sector—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Minerals Council does not represent quarry owners.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Let me finish. We have been speaking with various miners in the industry. Both Treasury and the appropriate agency have been examining the impacts of the super profits tax.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What have you done?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I have had a conversation with the Federal Treasurer on this matter and raised a number of issues in which I am interested. We have had quite a reasonable discussion about it.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Was this one of them?
22932 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: We had a number of discussions about the impact on New South Wales from the super profits tax and what the various implications could be. Obviously, this matter involves a consultative process and discussion about the transitional arrangements that will be put in place. Certainly, much noise is coming from sections of the mining sector. I believe it is appropriate to have a robust debate about the implications for the State and national economies. It is appropriate also to have a consultative process with the Commonwealth. The New South Wales Government will continue to discuss this with affected areas of the New South Wales economy and liaise with the Commonwealth on this matter.
AGED CARE FACILITIES
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: On this day when former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam entered a nursing home, I ask the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, on behalf of the Hon. Linda Burney, Minister for the State Plan, and Minister for Community Services, the following question without notice. Is the Minister aware that the number of people over the age of 65 will double in the next 40 years and that there are twice as many women as men in the over 85-year-old population, meaning that public environments need to be planned ahead of time for the known needs of elderly women? Is the Minister aware of the aspects of planning that can make an environment age friendly, including appropriate infrastructure to support mobility, enough seats in public places to offer rest, enough public restrooms, sufficient transport, and being encouraged to age at home near established friends, doctors and shops— [Time expired.]
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I have always been a firm admirer of Gough Whitlam. I have met with him on many occasions and we have had a number of discussions over the years. I am always pleased to see he is still around and contributing to society, and he remains forthright in expressing his views to the world. He is one of the great political icons of Australia and, of course, one of the great political heroes of the Australian Labor Party. It should be acknowledged that his contribution to the Australian community has been important and valuable. In relation to the rest of the member's question, which was long and detailed, I will take that on notice and get a response from the Minister.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask a supplementary question. What action is the Government taking to plan for the provision of all aspects of age friendly environments in this State?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will take that question on notice also.
WORKER PROTECTION
The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What action is the Government taking to provide protections for some of our most vulnerable workers?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the member for his question and his ongoing interest in looking after the most vulnerable workers. Cleaners are among the most vulnerable workers in the workforce; they work extremely hard in difficult conditions. Often they work late into the night and early in the morning cleaning the daily mess in our office blocks, schools and hospitals. Their short shifts, fragmented workplaces and unsociable hours can make for a difficult family life. Instead of a full-time job, cleaners are often forced to collect two or three part-time jobs just to make a living wage. Cleaners' employers deal in contracts that have a relatively short term. This leads to regular turnover of labour as contracts frequently change hands at worksites. There is intense price-based competition for contracts, and this leads to ever-tightening schedules and greater workloads.
To make life even harder, cleaners are often the victims of underhanded work practices: cash in hand, underpayment, no job security and no superannuation. These workers need our support. That is why the New South Wales Government has signed on to the Clean Start Agreement. I am pleased to inform the House that this morning the Government made a commitment that guarantees fair wages and conditions for government contract cleaners across the State. All New South Wales government contracted cleaners are now guaranteed fair pay, fair hours, fair workloads, job security, fair treatment and fair rights. The Clean Start Agreement also locks in wage increases for the next four years, to ensure wages keep pace with the rising cost of living.
The Government is a significant purchaser of cleaning services and I am confident that our lead will encourage more private companies to take up the Clean Start Agreement principles to ensure that all cleaning staff have the conditions and job protections they justly deserve. Now that this commitment has been made, the Government has pledged to work with unions and employers to help improve the working conditions of cleaners and clean up the industry itself.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22933
I commend the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and its members on their work in improving pay and working conditions for cleaners across Australia through the Clean Start initiative. With the Clean Start program, they have raised the bar in the cleaning industry and are making sure cleaners have a voice. The Government's decision to sign on to the Clean Start Agreement puts this Government in line with other jurisdictions around the country, including Queensland, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia.
However, I have been made aware that in Western Australia the Barnett Government walked away from the Clean Start Agreement. As we know, the Liberals have form: they cannot be trusted to protect the most vulnerable in our workforce. We know from the experience under John Howard's WorkChoices that they support a race to the bottom. We know Tony Abbott is planning to bring back WorkChoices by another name, bring back individual contracts and scrap unfair dismissal rights. The Hon. Greg Pearce should know because he attended the same conference I did when Eric Abetz, the Federal shadow Minister said, "We want to take the monkey off the back of employers when it comes to unfair dismissal and we want individual contracts."
The Liberals have form and their interjections reinforce that. That is why cleaners in this State are rightly concerned that if Barry O'Farrell is elected in New South Wales, he will back out on protections for cleaners, just like his counterpart in Western Australia. Cleaners around the State want to know: Will Barry O'Farrell, the Leader of the Opposition, reverse the Government's commitment if elected in March next year? Will he strip away these protections and throw hardworking cleaners on the scrapheap? That is why today I call on the New South Wales Opposition to sign on to Clean Start. I call on the Opposition to join the Government and help the most vulnerable workers, back these protections and promise cleaners the rights they deserve. [Time expired.]
METROPOLITAN CYCLEWAY PLAN
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, representing the Minister for Transport and Roads, the Hon. David Campbell, a question without notice. In light of a recent NRMA report that found road congestion was costing the New South Wales economy hundreds of thousands of dollars as average travel speeds ground down to less than 31 kilometres per hour during peak hours, what is the Government doing to remedy this situation? Will the Government delay the new expansive metropolitan cycleway plan and ensure motorists do not lose any vehicle lanes? Will the Minister ensure the new cycleways are restricted wherever possible to parks, reserves, national parks, beachside and lakeside locations?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the member for his question and for his interest in this important matter. I inform the House that the New South Wales Government is taking action to combat congestion on New South Wales roads.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: What—bus lanes?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: That is a real oldie. The Government is encouraging increased use of public transport, investing in major infrastructure to expand the roads network and targeting work to address known pinch points on the road network. Only last month the Government introduced the MyZone fares structure, which has made travelling in and around the greater Sydney and surrounding regions easier. It may interest members to know that as a result of the introduction of MyZone, the weekly cost of public transport has been capped at $57, and 94 per cent of journeys are the same price as or cheaper than before, and commuters travelling longer distances will benefit from savings of several hundred dollars each year.
The Epping to Chatswood rail link has been completed and introduces more than 100 new weekday services and 8,000 additional seats to peak hour travelling. On-time running on CityRail trains is at record high levels. The Rail Clearways program has resulted in $2 billion being invested to enhance capacity and reliability. The New South Wales Government is also investing in 300 additional new growth buses worth $136 million for Sydney, the Illawarra, the Central Coast and the Hunter. The Metropolitan Transport Plan includes more than $50 billion of investment in transport over 10 years to build on current investment.
Major investment is taking place on the roads network. The Government is undertaking investment in new and upgraded links to expand our roads network. Completed projects include the M5 East, the City West link, the Lane Cove tunnel, the Eastern Distributor, and the M7 orbital along with major upgrades to Victoria Road and Parramatta Road. The Metropolitan Transport Plan has a fully funded roads program for major highways and State and regional roads, as well as Sydney road upgrades that will be worth more than $21 billion during the next 10 years.
22934 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about cycleways?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will get to that. The Government is investing $100 million in works to target known pinch points so that traffic flows will be improved at key congestion points on Sydney's major road corridors. The pinch point strategy targets peak hour traffic hot spots by developing measures to maintain travel speeds. In relation to the issues raised in the question about extended cycleways, I undertake to obtain an answer and convey that to the member.
MINING ROYALTIES
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I direct my question to the Treasurer and refer him to the Rudd Government's resource super profits tax that includes a proposal to reimburse mining companies for the amount of royalties at current rates that are paid to State governments. Does that lock in the New South Wales Government to current royalty rates for existing mines and new projects and reduce the ability of the New South Wales Government to impact upon mining investment in the State? Given that the Treasurer already has acceded to a Commonwealth Government proposal to deduct upwards of 35 per cent or more of New South Wales GST to fund the Rudd Government's health proposals, has he significantly reduced flexibility within the New South Wales Government's budget with these two Rudd Government agreements?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the member for his question, to which I will respond in reverse order. I will begin with the issue of health reforms. Guess who opposed them? Whatever New South Wales gives to the Federal Government and whenever the Federal Government reduces its GST allocation—that will come back to New South Wales. Indeed, during negotiations on health reforms at the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting, Premier Keneally was able to obtain an additional $1.2 billion for the New South Wales health system plus an additional $500 million for health services in New South Wales that the Commonwealth Government looks after. That represents a $1.7 billion gain that Premier Keneally was able to achieve at the Council of Australian Governments discussions in relation to health. She led the nation on health reform discussions and delivered for all the States as head of the Council for the Australian Federation.
We need to think carefully about the question that has been asked about royalties because it gives away the strategy of the Liberals and The Nationals for the future. They are already plotting to increase royalties paid by the mining sector. Why else would they ask this question? I know that the Hon. Greg Pearce is a responsible hardworking member of the House. I am positive that he would not have asked this question unless it was to gain further information for his secret plan to fund all those unfunded promises his reckless Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, continues to make—a wheelbarrow of promises that Barry O'Farrell keeps filling up with more and more promises. The Hon. Greg Pearce, as a responsible shadow Minister, knows that when promises are made, they must be paid for. He is not like phoney Tony in the Federal Parliament, who makes up stories. The Hon. Greg Pearce knows that he will have to find the money for all those unfunded promises that he keeps hearing from Barry O'Farrell—promises that Barry O'Farrell keeps making, but cannot fund.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: I am pleased that the Treasurer has conceded the next election and is pointing to the fact that subsequently I, as Minister for Finance, will have to find some funds.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Does the member have a point of order?
The Hon. Greg Pearce: I want the Minister to be relevant.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may continue to be generally relevant.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Commonwealth Government has made it very clear that it will reimburse the mining sector for State royalties. That was negotiated with the States at the announcement of the response to the Henry tax review. We welcome that. We have no plans to increase royalties. However, it is clear that this is in the front of the minds of members opposite. They want to increase royalties paid by the mining sector to help to pay for some of the unfunded promises. They know that they will be exposed when they cannot pay for all the unfunded promises.
MICROBIZ WEEK
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I address my question to the Minister for Small Business. What is the New South Wales Government doing to help home-based and microbusinesses?
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22935
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: For the fifth year, the New South Wales Government will host MicroBiz Week from 31 May to 4 June. With 45 events scheduled in Sydney and regional New South Wales, this year's celebration of microbusinesses will be the largest ever. Microbusinesses employ fewer than five employees and most are single owner-operators with no employees. Most are based at home. These are people that the Coalition used to be interested in. MicroBiz Week events will be held in Albury, Armidale, Batemans Bay, Campbelltown, the Central Coast, Dubbo, Lithgow, Newcastle, Nowra, Parramatta, Penrith, Sydney and suburbs, Tamworth, Wagga Wagga, Wollongong and Young.
The theme of this year's MicroBiz Week will be "Connecting for Profit". A range of experts will be speaking about how microbusiness operators can increase profit and grow their business using cutting-edge technologies. MicroBiz Week provides a great opportunity for home-based operators to hear the latest thinking and to learn about the newest business ideas. Microbusinesses are one of the fastest-growing sectors in the New South Wales economy, making up approximately two-thirds of the State's 679,000 small and medium size enterprises. With an estimated quarter of a million home-based businesses operating across the State, the New South Wales Government recognises the important contribution this sector makes to a strong economy.
Home-based businesses, or microbusinesses, are growing at a phenomenal rate, with technology and the Internet changing the way people conduct business. Some of the many challenges for home-based businesses include finding customers, combating isolation and networking with peers. These topics and many more will be addressed in events throughout the week. Through the events, the New South Wales Government is helping business owners to enhance their skills and develop their businesses. Feedback from last year's MicroBiz Week was positive. Many participants said they had improved their business skills. They also told us the greatest benefit of running a microbusiness was the joy and satisfaction of creating their own business, but they cited as major benefits being their own boss, working around family obligations and being able to work in a more relaxing environment.
Home-based business operators come from across the business spectrum, but they are mainly in the services sector. There are scores of service-based companies, such as those in marketing, design or consulting. The one thing they all have in common is their entrepreneurial nature. Research by the small business website, Flying Solo, found that as time moves towards 2011, microbusinesses are showing a high degree of confidence for the future, even following a challenging period during the global financial crisis. The survey found that the biggest challenge for microbusinesses over the past 12 months was finding customers, which was rated at 49 per cent, followed by there being "not enough hours in the day", which accounted for 34 per cent, and "getting the business model right", which accounted for 30 per cent.
Start up a Business Day on Thursday 3 June highlights the need for good research and planning when starting a business. With ABN and business name registrations peaking in June before the start of a new financial year, the day will highlight the requirements, pitfalls and processes involved with starting a business. By their nature, home-based business operators are strong users of digital technology. Accordingly, this will be a major focus during MicroBiz Week. The events of MicroBiz Week are some New South Wales Government initiatives helping microbusiness owners enhance their skills and develop their businesses.
MOUNT PENNY EXPLORATION LICENCE
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources. Following the call for tenders for the exploration licence at Mount Penny near Bylong, did the Minister have any conversations with Mr Eddie Obeid in relation to the Mount Penny licence or the preferred tenderer, a company called Monaro Mining? Is the Minister aware that Locaway, a company owned by members of Mr Obeid's family, had bought property in the Bylong area immediately prior to the tender process for Mount Penny and that a childhood friend of Mr Obeid's son Moses, Mr Justin Lewis, has bought property adjacent to the Locaway property at Bylong?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: These questions are clearly the questions for which the Sydney Morning Herald has been seeking some answers. Let us make it clear: I had no discussions about who owned land in the Mount Penny area. The first I learnt of it was when I read an article in the Australian Financial Review late last year. In terms of the other issues, if anyone believes there is anything untoward, they can take it to the appropriate forum.
BUSHFIRE DETECTION TECHNOLOGY
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for
22936 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
the Central Coast. I refer the Minister to the answer he gave in this place on 22 April, in which he said that the trial by the CSIRO and the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre of a new bushfire technology in the Tumut region will "potentially save thousands of forests as well as life and property". Given that the trial ceased at midnight last Sunday, when will the Minister publicly release the results of the trial and the technology's implications for greater bushfire protection for regions such as the Blue Mountains?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The member is correct; the trial has ceased. The data is now being assessed by the relevant scientists who conducted the research. I anticipate that some results will be available in about June or July.
EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest employment data for New South Wales?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his interest in this matter. There is more good news for the New South Wales economy. This morning the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations released the skilled vacancy index for May 2010. This index, which reflects the number of job vacancies advertised through newspapers, shows that newspaper job advertisements in New South Wales increased by 4.6 per cent in May compared with the previous month. The national average was an increase of only 1 per cent. Compared with the same time last year, New South Wales has recorded growth of 44 per cent in the number of newspaper skilled job advertisements. New South Wales' growth is significantly stronger than the national average, which was up about 24.4 per cent. These figures are good news for the New South Wales economy.
Yesterday the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox asked me a question about jobs growth in New South Wales. I am happy to provide the House with further details on employment growth in New South Wales. As I have said before, New South Wales is leading Australia's economic recovery out of the financial downturn. That is a fact: 3.9 per cent growth in State final demand in the first half of the financial year, which is more than any other State. This information is from the official data of the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], the official keeper of statistics in this country and the definitive source. What happened yesterday? It is clear that the author of the question was the shadow Treasurer, who has yet again sadly misled the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox. I know the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox is a cautious and careful member who would never deliberately make a mistake in asking a question. But, frankly, I would expect nothing less from the former merchant banker and shadow Treasurer, who has learnt at the knee of his Federal leader and fellow northern beaches resident, phoney Tony Abbott. Good old phoney Tony! The shadow Treasurer tried to use the ABS data to deliberately misrepresent the true extent of jobs growth in this State.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: The Treasurer is making imputations about a member of the other place. I ask him to withdraw those comments immediately.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Only the member to whom a comment has been directed can seek the withdrawal of the comment; no other member can ask for it to be withdrawn on that member's behalf. However, the Treasurer should be careful not to make adverse reflections upon or imputations about another member of this House or the other place.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The data that was quoted yesterday was old. I am sure the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox did not write the question himself; I am sure someone else wrote it. Clearly, it was an attempt to talk down New South Wales for a cheap political headline, because a check of the latest data tells a different story to the question asked yesterday. Was that done deliberately or accidentally? I do not know. Did the member write the question or not? I do not know. If members opposite had looked at the latest data relating to employment they would have seen that in the past two months New South Wales has been a powerhouse for full-time jobs. In the past two months more than 40,000 full-time jobs have been created in New South Wales. To be precise, according to the ABS, 40,681 jobs have been created in the past two months. [Time expired.]
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer elucidate his answer?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: That is just in the past two months and that is the latest official data from the ABS. Herein lies a lesson for the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox when he relies on the work of others.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22937
This data largely shows that working women of this State are returning to full-time employment, which is great news for the economic stability of New South Wales families. Of course, members opposite do not want to know about that, and they certainly do not want the people of New South Wales to know about how the economy of New South Wales continues to show the green shoots of recovery and to lead the nation. Since March last year no other State has seen a reduction in its unemployment rate compared to that seen in New South Wales—down 1 per cent compared with a fall of 0.3 per cent nationally.
Yet again, members opposite have taken statistics and cut and pasted them to find the worst possible story for this State. They cannot stomach good economic news for this State. They cannot stomach the fact that New South Wales is leading Australia into the recovery stage. How sneaky it is to take data from the global financial crisis period, twist and turn it and try to sell it! I am sure the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox is seething underneath that smile. Yet again, the shadow Treasurer has flicked him the hospital pass, with old, out-of-date data trying to talk down this State. Where did they learn that trickery? Tony Abbott has told us: Do not believe what they say because they do not mean it and it is probably not even true. That philosophy of Phoney Tony is being faithfully followed by members opposite.
RAILWAY SLEEPERS
Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources. Did the Minister ever write a letter to the then Victorian Minister for Public Transport and the Arts, Lynne Kosky, about railway sleepers? If so, when did he send the letter? What representations did the Minister make in his letter to the then Victorian transport Minister, Lynne Kosky?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the member for his question. If I recall correctly, I made some representations to the Victorian Government about the issue and use of railway sleepers made out of natural timber sourced from New South Wales. I am glad that Mr Ian Cohen asked this question. The research I have seen suggests that timber sleepers have a lot of environmental benefits over concrete sleepers. Concrete sleepers have a very high and intensive carbon output in their production—one of the highest of any industry. Anyone who has assessed the cement industry will know that it rates very high in terms of carbon output. Red gum timbers last a long time. They may have a second life as sleepers, which are often used in gardens across this nation, and for other purposes. In that sense, the carbon is often stored for an extremely long time. In fact, research conducted by Forests NSW has shown that many timbers, although cut down initially, survive for a long time even after they have ceased being used for the productive purpose for which they were intended initially. That research was conducted at a number of sites, particularly waste sites. Timber left at those sites 80 and 90 years ago was extracted and found to be in almost the same condition as when it was put there.
The Hon. Rick Colless: So why did you shut down the timber industry?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: We are dealing with sleepers. I make no concessions in relation to this. I believe red gum timber is a very fine timber for use in railway lines. In fact, lots of people have come to that same conclusion. Yes, I made representations, if I recall correctly, on behalf of the companies in New South Wales that had significant contracts—in the order of $4 million per annum—for rail sleepers in Victoria. I do not resile from that. I did the right thing and made those representations, on balance, first, for good, sound environmental reasons; secondly, because they provide a very good base for railway tracks; and, thirdly, for socioeconomic reasons in the Riverina.
BATHURST HOSPITAL CLINICAL SERVICE PLAN
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of any progress regarding the developmental of a clinical service plan for Bathurst Base Hospital in the Greater Western Area Health Service that extends beyond 2010? Given the Minister for Health and the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Health have failed to provide any evidence of consultation with local clinicians and medical professionals in the development of those plans, will the Minister offer Bathurst residents his guarantee that the plans are currently being developed, or is it a fact that assertions from the Parliamentary Secretary that such planning is underway are false?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the question to the Minister for Health.
22938 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
MINE SAFETY
The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources. Will the Minister update the House on government initiatives to improve mine safety in New South Wales, as outlined at his recent opening of the New South Wales Minerals Council Occupational Health and Safety Conference?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the member for his question and his continued interest in the health and safety of this State's mineworkers. There is nothing as important as the wellbeing of our mineworkers. This Government's target is zero fatalities and serious bodily injuries, and it is working with industry to improve health and safety. Make no mistake, New South Wales compares very favourably with other States and countries when it comes to overall safety performance, especially considering the number of underground coalmines and the level of natural risk that occurs in the industry. However, there is more work to be done and we need to remain extremely diligent in these matters.
At the start of this month, I had the pleasure of opening the New South Wales Minerals Council Occupational Health and Safety Conference, the benchmark industry event for occupational health and safety in the country. It attracted more than 450 mining health and safety experts and government regulators. They were there to discuss communicating safety, focusing on how the industry communicates health and safety messages, from the coalface to the boardroom. The Government has done a lot of work in this area in the pursuit of a safe mining industry. This includes a recent audit program carried out to ensure that health and safety management systems in the new coalmining occupational health and safety legislation have been implemented by the industry.
This massive and comprehensive task, covering 290 mine sites over 12 months, included a desktop and a field audit and identified how well the systems have been implemented at each mine. Workers at all levels were spoken with during the field audits. This is only one of a number of actions taken by the Government to drive occupational health and safety improvements within the industry. So far this financial year, almost 1,600 site assessments have been carried out by mine safety inspectors from NSW Industry and Investment. This extensive program demonstrates the commitment the Government has to working with the industry to achieve the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries.
Eighteen months ago the CEO Culture Change Summit voiced the need for a vision for occupational health and safety culture in the New South Wales mining industry in the future. This is happening now. The New South Wales Mine Safety Advisory Council [MSAC], a partnership between industry, unions and government that advises me on mine safety matters, has begun the very significant culture change project, which will work to build a better and more mature culture in the industry. Nine mine sites in New South Wales will be directly involved in this project and will have the opportunity to help create the New South Wales mining industry of the future. We need a more realistic view on occupational health and safety systems and practices and what actually happens in a mine if we are to become a world leader in occupational health and safety. The continuous process of building a more mature culture is an essential part of the industry's health and safety journey.
CONCORD FORESHORE TRAIL
Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. On 20 April 1985 former Premier Bob Carr unveiled a plaque marking the establishment of the Concord Foreshore Trail that reads:
This trail has been made possible by access agreements between Dame Eadith Walker Convalescent Hospital, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Thomas Walker Convalescent Hospital, and Concord Municipal Council.
Is it correct that the Department of Planning, in conjunction with the Department of Health, is now proposing to deny public access around the foreshores of the former Thomas Walker Hospital and the present Concord hospital? Have the Walking Volunteers, who have collaborated for five years with local, State and Federal authorities to develop walking maps and brochures of the harbour foreshores and the coast, now withdrawn in protest at the department's removal of access to this very significant foreshore trail? Will the Government seek to have members of the public arrested when they assert their right of access to the trail on 30 May 2010?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Will you be there?
Ms Sylvia Hale: Of course I will.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22939
The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Rivendell Adolescent Unit, based at the Thomas Walker Hospital, provides a mental health service and a school for children and young people with mental health problems. Many of the children recovering from mental health issues are very vulnerable due to their past experiences. I am advised that the foreshore access on the Concord hospital campus is provided in accordance with the 2004 master plan, which was approved by City of Canada Bay Council. The Sydney South West Area Health Service encourages healthy living activities such as walking and provides a route through the Kokoda track and the main Concord hospital grounds to enable people to continue their foreshore walk. Our first priority is to that group of vulnerable young patients. I understand the Minister for Health has asked the area health service to meet with NSW Health and the Department of Planning to clarify this issue in a way that recognises the principle of foreshore access but ensures the privacy and dignity of patients.
KIAMA POLICE STATION
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning, representing the Minister for Police. Given that Shellharbour police station will soon be reopened, does the Government have any plans to close Kiama police station? If so, when will the Government consult with the community regarding such a decision?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will refer the member's question to the Minister for Police and obtain a suitable answer.
PLANNING INITIATIVES
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands. Will the Minister inform the House about the planning initiatives to help drive increased jobs and investment in regional New South Wales?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for the question and his continued interest in this matter. The New South Wales Government is committed to attracting investment, creating jobs and reducing greenhouse emissions to mitigate the impacts of climate change, particularly in regional New South Wales. Consistent with this, last month I announced a package of reforms to streamline the planning and delivery of biofuel manufacturing facilities. Proposals for biofuel manufacturing facilities with a production capacity of over 50 megalitres per year or more will now be classified as critical infrastructure, delivering increased legal certainty for investors and paving the way for increased jobs and investment in regional New South Wales. Critical infrastructure fees for biofuel projects will also be waived. These critical infrastructure changes are part of a series of planning changes designed to ensure New South Wales benefits from the need to create additional biofuel capacity over the next 15 months.
These measures include adopting a three-month assessment period for biofuel projects under the State's major projects assessment system; appointment of a biofuel project delivery manager within the Department of Planning to assist proponents through the planning assessment process; and preparing planning guidelines to further assist proponents with detailed information on planning issues specific to biofuels. These measures, part of the Government's 10-year biofuel strategy, boost the potential for significant investment in regional areas where feedstocks necessary for biofuel production are grown.
Regional New South Wales is well placed to benefit from new biofuel manufacturing facilities that produce fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel by processing raw materials such as waste starch, sugarcane, maize, canola and waste cooking oil. These new provisions will ensure that those wanting to invest in biofuel production in New South Wales will benefit from an efficient passage through the State's planning system. Biofuels projects assessed by the Department of Planning will, of course, continue to be subject to a rigorous assessment process. This includes a minimum 30-day public exhibition period and the requirement for proponents to actively address concerns raised in public submissions.
The New South Wales Government is committed to providing New South Wales with a cleaner, greener fuel option. To do that we need a reliable and ongoing supply of biofuel such as ethanol. In 2007 this Government introduced the Biofuels Act, which helps create a more sustainable biofuel industry in New South Wales by mandating the use of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. The minimum biofuel ratio in fuel has gradually increased since this time, with all regular-grade petrol in New South Wales needing to be 10 per cent ethanol by 1 July 2011. That increased 2011 ethanol mandate will create the need for at least one and preferably
22940 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
two new ethanol plants, and New South Wales needs to ensure that its planning system is well placed to assess these projects in a timely manner. I look forward to seeing new proposals launched for biofuel projects in New South Wales so that we can embrace more renewable and sustainable methods of fuel production.
CREDIT RATING AGENCIES
Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the former vice-president of the United States investment agency Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Lawrence G. McDonald, claimed that his organisation could "call up S and P until eventually we got the ratings we wanted"? That is of course a reference to the rating agency Standard and Poor's. Do these comments undermine the credibility of Standard and Poor's, and hence devalue the ratings used by the New South Wales Government to attract borrowings? Has the Treasurer explored alternative ways in which the State has its credit rating assessed to avoid the accusation that it is using discredited agencies?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: It is vital when we talk about the credit rating of this State that we are very clear about the importance of our triple-A credit rating. Indeed, the triple-A credit rating was improved just before last year's budget when we gave the credit rating agencies embargoed copies of the budget. I guess the question being asked is whether, because the rating agencies got wrong the collateralised debt products in the United States, that can be used as a way to damage the State's credit rating. If members look at what is happening around the world, particularly in Europe—in Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece—they will begin to understand the importance of sovereign credit or, in our case, the subregional credit rating. It sends a message to the world about how our economy stands.
There is no doubt that the New South Wales economy is doing very well. There is no doubt that the Australian economy is doing the best of all the developed countries post the global financial crisis. There is no doubt about that. The member is taking the testimony of someone from Lehman Brothers, which is hardly a credible source and hardly a shining light of probity or responsibility, and attempting to question the way that New South Wales does its credit rating. For the interest of members, we do not rely only on Standard and Poor's credit rating for New South Wales. We also engage Moody's, another rating agency. Both of them agree on the credit rating of this State, which is the highest subregional rating. It is critical that people understand that the triple-A credit rating demonstrates to businesses thinking of investing that New South Wales has a strong economy and a Government—
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Eric, you're waffling.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Catherine, you should not say anything because your shadow Treasurer said that retaining the triple-A credit rating was a true test of how the New South Wales economy was going and how we were governing. Those words are very similar to the ones used by the shadow Treasurer. He put the triple-A rating up as a big test and we achieved the big tick. We got the triple-A credit rating back for this State. Contrast that with what is happening in Queensland.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Do you understand the question?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I do understand it. Queensland lost its triple-A credit rating. The best way of ensuring and proving the creditworthiness of this State is by using the major credit rating agencies. It is very important that we continue to do so. This is yet another attempt by Dr John Kaye to try to damage this State and talk it down—as he does at every opportunity. If he is not on a jihad against electricity reform, he is on a jihad against the rating agencies. Using the rating agencies remains the best way of asserting the creditworthiness of a subregion or a sovereign country. That is the best way of assessing it. This is precisely the measure used by the major financial agencies around the world in relation to sovereign debt and sovereign risk.
NEWCASTLE COURT FACILITIES
The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Did the Attorney General see the reported statement of the Newcastle Law Society President, Gary Fox, in the Newcastle Herald recently in which he said that Federal Court facilities in Newcastle were outdated and cramped but were only marginally better than the disgraceful State Court complex in Newcastle? Did the Attorney General also see the statement in April that the District Court complex has become home to rats and pigeons, and has had to endure a fly infestation, an antiquated air-conditioning system that works only
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22941
intermittently and the stench of a dead rat, which caused Justice Coolahan to refuse to work in his chamber for a day? Does the Attorney General intend to do anything to rectify the disgraceful state of the Newcastle State Court complex, which is beginning to impact on the administration of justice in Newcastle?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Newcastle is a critical regional centre. The Government is committed to the safety and comfort of judges, the court staff and community members who use the courthouse. In 2008-09 we completed a new accessibility ramp to the Supreme Court building and a new toilet facility for people with a disability, at a cost of $200,000; a digital recording module upgrade for the site as part of a lifecycle replacement program, at a cost of $50,000; and repairs to the air-conditioning, at a cost of $100,000. In January we installed state-of-the-art audiovisual equipment in District Court 1, at a cost of $190,000. This provided not only videoconferencing capacity but also electronic evidence playback integration with remote witness facilities in the complex, witness testimony recording and sound reinforcement and recording facilities.
I acknowledge that the current Newcastle courthouse has issues. I ask members to remember that the Government has already announced, and it has prepared, a business case to replace the current facilities with a new building. The Government has been in discussions with the Commonwealth and with other stakeholders about a proposal to develop a justice precinct in Newcastle. Unfortunately, at the moment the Commonwealth has been unable to secure funding for a Federal Court building as part of its budget, which was announced last week. However, the Commonwealth has announced that it has not abandoned the concept of a justice precinct.
More importantly, a new State courthouse can still go ahead without Commonwealth involvement. Obviously the budget has yet to be finalised and further details will be provided. In the meantime, my department is making every effort to address the problems with the courthouse air-conditioning and it is working to find a long-term solution to these problems, one of which is to replace the existing system. I can assure the public that the courthouse is in full operation and, as demonstrated by our recent investment, the Government is determined to ensure that the existing the facilities are upgraded regularly and that they are well maintained.
If members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.
Questions without notice concluded.
DEFERRED ANSWER
The following answer to a question without notice was received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:
F3 CLOSURE
On 21 April 2010 the Hon. Michael Gallacher asked the Minister for the Central Coast a question without notice regarding the F3 closure. The Minister for the Central Coast provided the following response:
I expressed my significant concern with the way the incident was handled and for the delays that local residents had to endure, to my colleagues including The Hon. David Campbell MP, Minister for Transport.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bills reported:
Relationships Register Bill 2010 Carers (Recognition) Bill 2010
MUDGEE TO BYLONG ROAD
Personal Explanation
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. Yesterday and today the Sydney Morning Herald ran two articles written by journalist Anne Davies, who is supposed to be the investigations editor. For the benefit of the new members of this House, I wish to refer to the history of this incident and to the articles written by Anne Davies and Kate McClymont.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: This is a personal explanation, not a history lesson, Eddie.
22942 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: That is fine. Anne Davies and Kate McClymont said in those articles that in 2001 I sued the Sydney Morning Herald for defamation—an issue that took five years to resolve. I won my court case against the Sydney Morning Herald.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: How much?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: It cost all parties about $3 million for a court case that took five years to resolve. It related to a matter of principle—that journalists should assess their facts and rely only on factual evidence before defaming anyone. Those journalists embarked on a vendetta. I will go through these articles and try to inform the House of the truth of this matter. Yesterday's article in the Sydney Morning Herald states:
The Roads and Traffic Authority which allocates state road funding, said Mid-Western Council had applied for funding to seal 1.5 kilometres of Wollar Road and the application was still being assessed.
Mr Obeid told the Herald he had passed on a letter from the council to the Minister for Roads—then David Campbell—because he was concerned at how dangerous the road was between Bylong and Mudgee.
I am then quoted as stating:
I go along that road often and with the increasing traffic someone is bound to get killed. It will only take a car and a truck to come over a hill and collide and it will be the end of the car.
There is much confusion about that article. Council is looking for funding for Wollar Road—a connection between Bylong and Mudgee. Anyone who knows the area would know that it is a goat track. No-one in his or her right mind would take a car over that road, and even the best of four-wheel drive vehicles would not make it across that road to Mudgee. It involves a trip of over 95 kilometres. No-one in his or her right mind—the locals or anyone else driving through that area—would travel along that road. The letter that I wrote in support of the council involved an area 10 kilometres before Kandos. Carwell Creek has a one-lane bridge.
The Howard Federal Government spent millions of dollars improving Bylong Valley Way, which has become a main thoroughfare between the Hunter, Rylstone and Mudgee. That bridge is located about 65 kilometres from the gate of my family's farm. I have been accused of a conflict of interest when the area that is being referred to involves a stretch of road 10 kilometres leading into Kandos. After travelling through Kandos you have to travel another seven kilometres to Rylstone and then another 48 kilometres to Bylong where my family farm is located. An article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled "Labor MP linked to funding deal for tar road past family farm". My family farm is located on Bylong Valley Way; it is not located on Wollar Road. No-one goes through Wollar.
Yesterday Minister David Campbell made it quite clear that I had never approached him or anyone else seeking funding for Wollar Road. Council said to me that it needed funding for that road. Unbeknown to council, the main road budget provides funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis for important roads in our communities. The mayor and his council are working hard to obtain services and benefits for their community. Good on them! I will support them every day of the week. I am supporting a council that wants services. Funding for road repairs is available in the main road budget and any council can ask for dollar-for-dollar funding for the maintenance of these roads.
Council was trying to hurry up repairs to Wollar Road so that it could be a main thoroughfare from the Hunter to Mudgee. Council was keen to improve the economy of Mudgee by tarring and sealing that road, which would have made it easier for anyone travelling from Denman to Mudgee—a beautiful township. Council wanted to improve the Mudgee economy. I have been placed in the middle of this debacle. I made no representations to council because I asked it to write to me. What are the famous tapes to which the Sydney Morning Herald suddenly has access? Council members said that they should be lobbying me to seek funds for the sealing of Wollar Road. However, they did not write to me. I did not lobby on their behalf because they did not write to me. If they had I would have passed on that information to the main roads department and said, "You have a budget; see what you can do for these people."
This vindictive and malicious gossip is not based on fact. I have no interest in Wollar Road. The access to my family farm is a 90-kilometre journey through Rylstone, Lue and Mudgee on a beautiful and safe road. The editor of the article to which I referred earlier mentioned a bridge that I said should be upgraded, as there might be a death in the not too distant future. I will table a letter dated 6 February 2009—it was written quite some time ago—that was sent to me by council. I will also table the letter I wrote to Minister Michael Daley back in March 2009. Council clearly states in that letter that the bridge should be upgraded to a two-lane bridge,
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22943
as a coalmine and a cement factory at Kandos use it. Because I travel across the bridge, suddenly there is a conflict of interest because I dared to represent council, which sought my help. Having said all that, I seek leave to table the documents for the benefit of the House.
Leave granted.
Documents tabled.
The council says that over a thousand cars cross that bridge every day. It is not for my family. My family might go across that bridge twice a year on their way to Rylstone. As I said, this is for the community. Suddenly, as a member of Parliament, if I am not able to represent issues that concern the community, what in the hell am I being paid for? What am I here for? According to Anne Davies and the Sydney Morning Herald, we are not entitled to do that. I refer now to the next part of the article, which states;
In 1998, Walcha Council agreed to tar the road past Moona Plains station, a large property owned by Locaway, a family trust company controlled by Mr Obeid's wife and son Damian. According to the council, it was done with the injection of a state special funding grant of about $700,000.
That famous investigative journalist fails to report that in August 1997 one of the most pristine areas in our State, the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, was opened. Just past Moona Plains is the entry to that pristine area. It was closed by Neville Wran many years ago and when Pam Allan was the Minister for the Environment she opened it to the public.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You can't help good luck, Eddie. You should move near to me; I'll get my roads fixed.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I will move next to you, Dunc! The Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, which has a riverside rest area that has been improved by Walcha Council and the Department of Environment, was opened on 11 August 1997. Who wrote to the Government seeking special funding for tarring that road? None other than the member for Tamworth, Tony Windsor, because it was in his electorate. He got the money— over $700,000. All of a sudden the Sydney Morning Herald, which has a vendetta, wants me to claim it. I would love to claim that I did it. I think I would have got a few extra votes for the Government. But I did not.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: No, you wouldn't want to take it from Tony.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: No, I would not want to take it from Tony. I can guarantee that.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You got the votes for your man.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I have no problem with being criticised. I have no problem with being assessed, as is every other member of parliament, on the duties I perform. My family has a farm on a well-tarred road that was fixed by the Federal Government a number of years ago. We bought that farm in November 2007. All of a sudden I have the discourtesy of representing a council. That council should not have come to me. It should have gone to its local member, George Souris.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Russell Turner.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: No, I think it is the Upper Hunter.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You would know, Eddie.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: No, they are in the Upper Hunter area. In Kandos, wherever I went to have a beer or buy something they were really concerned about this Carwell Creek Bridge. If members crossed it, they would understand what I was talking about.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Did they know who you were?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Yes, they did know me. A number of them approached me. Subsequently, the council wrote to me and I had the privilege of supporting them. That bridge is before Kandos. There goes the story of Anne Davies, who has just come back from the United States. After the loss of their court action, Anne Davies and her husband went to the United States to get away from it all. I actually felt sorry for her in the witness box.
22944 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You're a shocker.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: No, I am not. I am just telling the truth. Today we follow up with the headline "Two council approaches to Obeid." Wow! The council approached me twice over an issue about which it is very concerned.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: With respect, we want to debate the mining bill.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Learn, Trevor; one day you might have to defend the same thing. The second day I am accused of the council approaching me twice.
Dr John Kaye: We're on to day two?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: It is a regurgitation of yesterday's article. The newspaper failed to mention that the council, which came and asked for $900,000 for that bridge in 2009, the following year found $350,000 and was asking the Government for only $550,000. The council came back for a second bite saying, "Now we've got some money. We don't want $900,000 from you. We only want $550,000." Good luck to them. I totally support them because it is in the public interest that members of Parliament represent any organisation, any council or any member with an issue that needs to be resolved or to seek better services. That is our job. All of a sudden now I have to be told by the Sydney Morning Herald that this is wrong and I should not take calls from any organisation, especially when I might have a conflict of interest. I have 26 grandchildren. I have over 40 in my immediate family. In my wife's family there are probably 500 relatives. In my family on my father's side there are probably 100 relatives. I could have houses everywhere in New South Wales and I would be forbidden to make representations? I come down Victoria Road every day—
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Can you fix that bridge for us, Eddie?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: —so can I be in favour of that bridge we are doing, or not? I go to Port Macquarie a number of times year. I own a unit, for your information.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: And a lot of land, Eddie.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: When you seek to be the candidate—
Dr John Kaye: Where did you buy the unit? When did you buy the unit?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Go and look at my pecuniary interests. Dr John Kaye and Anne Davies are well behind the pump.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member must address his remarks through the Chair.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: She refers to the fact that I owned a house in Concord. That was sold ages ago.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: So you are homeless?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: No.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Where do you live, Eddie?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Enough of the fun. We want to return to the debate on the mining bill. The Sydney Morning Herald suggests that because I own a unit in Port Macquarie I cannot make any representations on any issues about the Pacific Highway. Gone is my power to be able to get the Pacific Highway fixed up right to Brisbane! It is a joke that we have to contend with this type of journalism. I do not mind when I am being attacked, or any other member of Parliament, with facts, but they at least should spend some time putting their story together and not quote a bridge 65 kilometres away as a conflict of interest for me when it is two towns away. It is not on the way to Mudgee. They referred to it as being on the way to Mudgee. You do not go through Kandos to go to Mudgee.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You can.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22945
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: No, you do not. It is the long way around.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Coming from Lithgow you can.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Before Rylstone there is a turn-off to Lue that goes there. That is the shortest route. If you come from Lithgow you do not have to go through Kandos; you go straight along the highway. This is all about a journalist that never bothered to get the facts and never bothered to research it properly. I know from where she is being fed. She is being fed this information, which was looked at a number of months ago.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Who in the Left Wing is it?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: By you? By some outed staffers who were not happy with their lot when they were sacked. She was handed this and who takes over doing the work? The Greens, who have never looked at the issues and have never tried to do their research, just look at what the herald says and come in here and ask questions. I conclude my personal explanation by saying that the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics Committee defined issues that could constitute a conflict for members of Parliament. In my view, they did a very good job at that time. None other than Barry O'Farrell was a member of the committee that decided the matter.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What are you talking about?
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I am talking about conflict of interest. If my family owns a farm and I make representations about a bridge that is 65 kilometres away from that property, there is a conflict of interest relating to my family? Suddenly I have to provide a response to a conflict of interest. I do not know what the conflict of interest is. The report stated that the term "personal interest" is extremely broad—too broad to widen an effective and standardised disclosure by members. That was unanimously accepted by a parliamentary committee that included members such as Barry O'Farrell and the member for Myall Lakes, John Turner.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Was anyone from the Labor Party a member of the committee?
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Labor has a majority on the committee.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I do not know about that. I have not read the entire report, but I would be happy to do so.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: It was a unanimous decision.
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: It was a unanimous decision. My family could number 300 or 400 people. How could they be asked to disclose their pecuniary interests simply because I serve the community? My service to the community will continue. If the Mudgee council or any other council in the State calls me, I will serve them and I will do my best to obtain for them the services or the funding they require. I make no apologies for that. That is what my job has been for 18 years, and I will continue to do that.
MINING AND PETROLEUM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (LAND ACCESS) BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.21 p.m.]: Prior to the interruption of the debate for question time, I said that the bill should be defeated and I was discussing some of the comments made by The Nationals representative and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Duncan Gay, and by the Shooters Party representative, Mr Robert Brown, in the context of concerns about the impact that the mining industry is having on farming communities. As we know, those members will not vote against the bill. Mr Brown said that this legislation is a matter of balance. That is another deceptive statement from the Shooters Party's member of Parliament. He is working hard to present himself as the farmer's friend while he delivers his vote to the mining industry and the New South Wales Government. If Mr Brown wants an example of legislation that is not balanced, I draw his attention to the bill before the House. It overturns existing legislation that at least provided some rights to farmers. One could describe that as balance, but I believe that the current legislation is weighted in favour of the mining industry. Nevertheless, at the moment as the legislation stands, it provides some recourse for farmers.
22946 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The bill before the House that we are debating stacks the cards very clearly in favour of the mining industry. The best way to answer Mr Robert Brown's accusation—that the Greens call for retention of the current legislation is not balanced—is by revisiting the decision of the mining warden in relation to the Caroona case. It is most informative because it reveals how the whole case played out. In April 2006, the Minister for Mineral Resources granted an exploration licence to Coal Mines Australia Pty Limited, which was acting for BHP Billiton, to explore for coal at Caroona. The exploration area included land comprising four landholdings. Agreement was not reached in relation to access arrangements because the landholders did not want a mining company entering their property and drilling exploratory shafts.
Subsequently an arbiter became involved. The landholders took the case to the Mining Wardens Court under section 155 of the Mining Act to seek a review of the arbiter's decision. The decision of the Mining Wardens Court is very informative. It confirmed that notice of intention to seek an access agreement must be given to mortgagees and to other holders of registered interests in the land. The mining warden found that, except in very limited circumstances, there was no power to refuse an access arrangement. That is how the balance was struck between mining interests and the farming interests. I contend that the balance was weighted in legislation in favour of the mining industry because at the end of the day the farmers cannot refuse access. There are a few avenues for them to explore or actions for them to take, but the mining warden stated, based on the legislation, that there was no power to refuse an access arrangement. In those circumstances, how can Mr Brown argue that that is not balanced? Following the decision by the Mining Wardens Court, an appeal by BHP Billiton was heard in the Supreme Court, and again the court's decision was in favour of the farmers. There is no doubt that the legislation before the House effectively walks all over the Liverpool Plains community. It is to the great shame of the Government that it has introduced it. There are no ifs or buts about that.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I am proud of it.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection. That is not surprising, considering his track record. However, I find it disturbing that, following my comment regarding the legislation walking all over the Liverpool Plains community, the Minister boasts about the legislation. The legislation is a shameful and cynical attempt by the Labor Government to retrospectively take away property rights of Caroona farmers that were upheld in both the Mining Wardens Court and the Supreme Court. Both decisions enabled farmers to consult with mining companies about access arrangements to their properties for the purpose of exploration and to determine the conduct and actions of mining companies while they were on the farmers' land. That is the essence of debate on the bill.
It is undemocratic for the Government to side with the mining industry and overturn the legal rights of Caroona farmers that twice had their position upheld by the courts. If this bill is passed, that will make it easier for mining companies to access land for mining exploration by limiting the number of landholders with whom the mining companies negotiate when it comes to obtaining access. A number of groups have expressed concern about this legislation. Concern extends far beyond the Greens and the Caroona farmers. The Bar Association stated in the opening paragraph of a media release:
The Bar Association has condemned cynical moves by the New South Wales Government to retrospectively extinguish important property rights of farmers, which were recently upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Bar Association goes on to state:
Retrospective legislation such as this unilaterally extinguishes individual rights without providing any right of appeal …
The impartial administration of justice is an essential feature of our democracy, and yet the government is happy to overturn valid legal rights won in the courts.
Those comments were made by the senior vice-president of the Bar Association, Mr Bernie Coles, QC. He went on to state:
Appeal rights exist to allow parties to protect their interests in the court system. It is fundamentally undemocratic for the government to retrospectively intervene and take sides in private litigation.
The legislation before the House shows that a powerful interest group that does not like a court decision and has friends in the government of the day can simply have the government of the day change the law. That is deeply undemocratic. The way in which legal rights have been overturned is very troubling.
As members know, the Government tried to push the bill through both Houses of Parliament on a single day last April. Fortunately that attempt failed because the farmers, who deserve great credit, mobilised at
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22947
very short notice—in fact, within 24 hours. Lobbying went on in Parliament to ensure that the pressure was kept on members to at least do the right thing and adjourn the debate so that they could have more time to give consideration to the legislation. So the delay was important. It has provided more time to analyse the impact of the bill. However, considering the number of proposed amendments to the bill, I think more time is needed, but we know that will not happen. The rush is on.
After closer review of the bill, the Greens are even more concerned that it will pull the rug out from farmers and landholders and erode the current system, which goes some way to offer a balanced degree of certainty to landholders, particularly farmers, and the mining industry when it comes to exploration. One cannot help but feel that the bill is trying to do much more than overturn the Supreme Court decision, and that is a major worry for the Greens. The Greens are concerned that, under the guise of reducing red tape, the Government and the New South Wales Minerals Council are using this opportunity to put in place further gains for the mining industry. Following our meetings with farmers groups, the Greens believe that this bill should be defeated—I will say that again throughout this debate—and preferably sent to a committee to review the impact on the agriculture and mining industries and to help ensure that farming communities are not disadvantaged by the proposed legislation.
That would be the responsible course of action here if we had a government that was willing to weigh the interests of the competing groups. Since the original case that the Caroona farmers took to the Mining Wardens division of the Land and Environment Court, they have suffered enormous cost; much of that has been emotional. I am not ruling out the financial cost, which is obviously massive, but the strain on farmers who are uncertain about the future of the land and their farming prospects must be enormous. The process for handling access arrangements was already stacked against farmers. The system was weighted, and the mining companies have abused the system time and time again with their repeated failure to follow the rules. That is why this matter ended up in the courts in the first place and we have this legislation before us now.
Let us make no mistake about it, the mining companies were not following the rules. Remember: These mining companies are loaded. BHP Billiton does not make millions of dollars in profits; it makes billions of dollars in profits. It could easily have put in more resources to ensure that its paperwork was right, but it has not been willing to do so. It wants to change the law. I acknowledge the considerable support from the Farmers Fighting Fund to assist this court case to go ahead. That support is incredibly important, although it looks like the decision might be overturned by this legislation. It was certainly an important step in the outstanding work being done to protect the fertile land on the Liverpool Plains. In this case the farmers were simply seeking nothing more than to ensure that both sides were equally accountable in the access agreement process. We should be working to achieve that with this bill.
Obviously the New South Wales Minerals Council has followed the Supreme Court case closely. When the court decision came down in favour of the farmers the council went into overdrive. It is worth analysing some of the comments of the chief executive officer of the Minerals Council. If one wants to see a case of someone overplaying one's hand, one has to say it was—and she likes to use her title so I will use it—the New South Wales Minerals Council Chief Executive Officer, Dr Nikki Williams. I shall put on record some of her comments that illustrate how the mining industry's peak organisation operates, the scare tactics it uses and how it relies on intimidating the Government about economic dark days if it does not get its way. What did she come up with? She said:
What we will see is a complicated, convoluted bureaucratic nightmare that will make it impossible to do business in NSW.
No qualifications there! She then said that the effects of this decision will:
… set off a chain reaction reaching far beyond the mining industry. No one will be immune.
She then said:
Red tape will wrap itself around every bank, building society, water supplier, gas network supplier, electricity distributor and telecommunications provider.
She also said:
Exploration, which is the essential pipeline to mining projects, will effectively cease. That means the industry's growth will be stunted with all that implies for declining State revenues.
Some of those comments are similar to what Minister Macdonald, said, and I will come to that later. Those comments are extreme. They were made simply to put pressure on the Government to ensure that the industry
22948 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
got its way. As we know, the industry did not want BHP Billiton to appeal the court decision because it was widely known that it would not be successful. The industry wanted legislation. And who delivered? The man himself—the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Mr Ian Macdonald, has delivered. Dr Williams also made a comment directed at the Government and the Opposition. She said:
They need to take action now to avert this job destroying, wealth destroying minefield.
If that is not a call to arms, to which the Government responded, one must ask: What is it? Clearly, all that spin is not to be believed. I think it is bit embarrassing for Dr Williams because she overplayed her hand. But analysing how the New South Wales Minerals Council operates is a story for another day. As we know, this bill will not remove the barriers that were placed on mining companies; it will remove the right of landholders to a fair and reasonable process to protect their property rights and their land, water and environmental resources. There are some opportunities to do that, but they are minimal and they can be overturned by this legislation.
Never has the conflict of interest inherent in the minerals resources department been more clear. The Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, a self-avowed ferocious advocate of the mining industry—he said he was proud of this bill—is in charge of overseeing fairness and justice in the access arrangements process for landholders. Protecting prime agricultural land should be the Government's priority, but in recent years many mining representatives have become too close to Ministers who play a key role in approving mines and managing the industry, to the detriment of protecting agricultural land. It is deeply out of balance, and we are seeing it again tonight with this legislation. Amongst all the information I have received about this bill is an email—I think it was sent to all members of the House—from a farmer in the Gunnedah region, Mr Graham Brown. He was involved in the work to develop a code of conduct for mining exploration under the Mining Act 1992. He has expressed considerable fears about how this legislation will play out. His email stated in part:
[The bill would] set the farmers of this state back 38 yrs to pre 1972, where before that time, assessment and code of conduct policing didn't exist and the farmer was left to fight it out in the courts to get reasonableness of conditions.
He urged members to recognise the importance of the existing code of conduct for exploration and mining that allows farmers to negotiate and resolve disputes over access conditions, to uphold property and environmental protections, warning that if this bill is passed, farmers will have to revert to litigation to resolve any issues with exploration and mining arrangements. As we know, the New South Wales Minerals Council worked hard to spin the idea that the Supreme Court decision favouring the Caroona farmers would result in a "complicated, convoluted bureaucratic nightmare, making it impossible to do business in New South Wales". I ask the Minister, in reply, to answer this question: Does the Minister agree that if we do not pass this legislation it will make it impossible to do business in New South Wales? Does he agree with Dr Williams?
The reality is that this bill is unwarranted, ill considered and an attempt to overturn the court decision, and this has been the cause of complications and uncertainty, and convoluted negotiations by the Government with The Nationals, the Minerals Council and all other interested parties this week. The Government has foreshadowed a range of amendments to the bill, and that in itself shows that there are real problems with it, even for the mining industry, quite apart from how the position with regard to access agreements will play out. BHP Billiton, hand in hand with the New South Wales Minerals Council, beat a path to the door of the Minister after Justice Schmidt of the Supreme Court ruled against them.
Let us remember that in 2006 BHP Billiton paid the Government $125 million for its Caroona exploration licence before China Shenhua came on the scene—an amount of money that at that stage was well above any amount that had ever been paid for an exploration licence, and more than 10 times the asking fee. A casual observer would be forgiven for concluding that the $125 million that BHP gifted to the Government for the opportunity to explore for coal was now reaping rewards for that company. Using legislation to overturn a Supreme Court decision underlines the priority this Government gives to mining interests above communities, food security, water and the natural environment.
The Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Ian Macdonald, has effectively upset due legal process. He has also saved BHP Billiton a mint in both time and money by circumventing the need for an appeal. BHP Billiton has until 1 July to take this matter to the Court of Appeal. As I said earlier, the word is that BHP has not considered doing so because it is widely recognised that it would not win. In his second reading speech Minister Macdonald said that the land access bill "will restore certainty for landholders and exploration title holders over land access arrangements". The only sector that will be left with certainty with the bill in its current form is the mining industry. The Minister also said that the bill will address an issue that left unresolved has the potential to impact significantly on the State's economy.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22949
One would have to say he is echoing the words of his good friend Dr Nikki Williams. There is often an exchange of staff between the Minister's office and the mining industry; I note that they too readily use similar phrases. Having said what the Minister said, the chief executive officer of the New South Wales Minerals Council said "all that implies for declining State revenues". They were banging on, excessively exaggerating the impact on the State's economy. We know that the bill will impact heavily on landholders and farmers. Why is the Minister only interested in the mining industry and not farmers? That is certainly how this legislation will play out. There is no balance or fairness in the bill as it is structured at the moment. In essence, to sum up, this bill takes from landholders and gives to the mining industry.
The bill puts pressure back on the Caroona farmers to continue their long battle. I congratulate the farmers of Caroona and the Liverpool Plains on their enormous capacity to keep this issue alive. I acknowledge that for them it is not only about looking after their own land; it also about looking after farming land that is among the richest in the world. Their 618-day blockade showed their commitment. To maintain such action to ensure that BHP Billiton could not get on to some of the local land to explore is not an easy ask in anybody's book. Understandably they ended the blockade when the Supreme Court decision was handed down that upheld the right of farmers and all landholders to be contacted about access arrangements when a mining company is interested in exploring on their land. That was a major win, and with this bill this House is now overturning what was achieved by that win.
I and other members have congratulated the Caroona community on its historic victory—a victory for people power overcoming the might of a big mining company. And one does not get much bigger than BHP Billiton, which accumulates a six-monthly profit of about $10 billion. It was an incredibly significant win in the Supreme Court, and it is with great disappointment that I now watch the Government dismantle it. The Greens recognise that the Liverpool Plains are too valuable to mine. We cannot say that often enough, because it is very difficult to get that message across to the Government.
The Greens are very proud to support the farmers' campaign. I had the opportunity to visit the blockade on a number of occasions along with my Federal colleagues, Senator Bob Brown and Senator Scott Ludlam. The successful blockade symbolises the strength of the commitment of local farmers to protect their land. Farmers realised very early that BHP Billiton had broken the law, which is why that case was brought, in failing to notify landholders and mortgagees of its desire to enter properties for exploration purposes. The Caroona coal exploration area is located about 50 kilometres south east of Gunnedah and 30 kilometres north west of Quirindi. The area covered by the exploration licence is about 350 square kilometres.
In 2009, almost one year ago, the Greens introduced legislation to quarantine land such as that on the Liverpool Plains from being damaged from mining activities. As we know, that bill was defeated by one vote. At the time the Government made a clear commitment to undertake a detailed scientific assessment of the potential impact of any mining on local water resources, and to make the results available to the public. I do not think that commitment was given, because the Greens introduced that bill. There was not a great surge of support for it from the Government but as we know about 300 farmers from the Caroona area, Gloucester and the upper Hunter came to Sydney by bus to give their support. Some were present in the gallery during the debate. I give great credit to the Caroona community because when the Government was put under pressure, it gave a commitment. However, that commitment has not been honoured, and I ask the Minister in his reply to this debate to provide us with a progress report of that work.
Instead of undertaking this important work we now know the Government has been busily negotiating with BHP Billiton and the New South Wales Minerals Council to overturn the Supreme Court decision. The Nationals representative, Mr Duncan Gay, repeated tonight that The Nationals will introduce legislation on this issue to give protection to prime agricultural land and those water resources. I understood from our meetings and the commitments that were given that that would be in place before the end of the year. We are now well into May and still we have not seen the legislation. I frequently receive phone calls and emails on the matter and I direct them to Mr Gay's office because the Greens cannot advise when that legislation will be introduced. I urge The Nationals to do that legislation as quickly as possible.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is our concern to get it here as quickly as possible.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection because we know that as the months pass the chances of any private member's legislation getting through will become less and less likely. There is a real urgency. I want to comment on the Mining Warden's Court judgement because there were some important aspects of it that are most relevant to this debate. I refer to the case that is central to the legislation that we are
22950 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
dealing with tonight. The applicants who took the case against Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd, known as CMAL, which is acting for BHP Billiton, were Margaret and Les Alcorn, Thomas Bailey, Geoff and Sharon Brown, and Tony Clift. Some of the court's findings are most relevant. The court found:
The Mining Act 1992 has obviously deliberately taken away from landholders the right to object to an exploration licence. Not only is that obvious from comparing prior legislation, but also by observing Schedule 1 of the Mining Act 1992. That clearly gives landholders the right to lodge objections to applications for assessment leases and mining leases, but that schedule makes no mention of similar rights in respect of exploration licence applications. And furthermore, CMAL submitted S29 Mining Act 1992 in giving permission to prospect under an exploration licence, gives unqualified permission under the section.
I wanted to put that on the record because not only is it one of the findings of the Mining Warden's Court but also it clearly shows how the current system gives such great benefits to the mining industry. They really do not have a difficult job if they just abide by the rules.
I mentioned that two of the applicants were Geoff and Sharon Brown. I have had the opportunity to meet them, and they tell a very moving story. They explained they purchased the land particularly to access the underground water because they are in the process of becoming organic farmers. As many members will know, to qualify as an organic farmer takes quite a long time; you have to do a great deal of work to be certified as an organic farmer. They spoke about the real connection to the land that they feel and their responsibility to protect that land and the resources that go with it. They explained the access agreement and the difficulties they have faced particularly in relation to their livelihood. I found their comments about the drilling process very troubling, particularly their worry about how their land could become contaminated. The Mining Warden's Court judgement handed down on 21 May at Gunnedah states at paragraph 62:
Mr Brown, both when on site and in giving evidence, is concerned about contamination by overflow in heavy rainfall…he is concerned about rainwater flowing across the top of the drilled hole and taking with it the contaminated water left in the drill hole.
Paragraph 64 states:
The principle concern of Mr Brown is that he and his wife are endeavouring to have their farm certified as an organic farm. Exhibit 46, is a document headed "NASSA Organic Standard". It is a 120 page document which sets the current standard required to be adopted by a producer before becoming certified as an organic producer. At paragraph 10 of his affidavit he indicates they are aiming to achieve organic certification within a period of approximately five to eight years.
That is a huge undertaking. What a commitment to their land. Achieving organic status obviously embodies a real knowledge of the land. When the drilling rig comes onto their land they see toxic sludge being brought up and dumped on their soil in a flood-prone area.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: What is toxic about it?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It brings up a whole range of minerals, Minister, that have been locked into the rocks over millions of years. They are then suddenly exposed to air and a number of chemical reactions result. I am not saying it is not natural, because they are elements—
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: You said it was toxic.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is toxic, Minister.
Mr Ian Cohen: Can the Minister guarantee that it is not toxic?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I thank my colleague for his comment.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Farmers have been doing that in that valley for hundreds of years—
Mr Ian Cohen: The Minister knows nothing about it.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will cease interjecting.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection. Trying to equate farmers taking water out of aquifers with the deep drilling undertaken by the mining company brings him no credit whatsoever. The judgements states at paragraph 75:
An issue then arose as to the necessity to drill upon the Browns' land when there is no intention of mining that land. Many questions were put to Mr David—
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22951
Mr David is a mining company witness.
—to which he replied that it was necessary to determine the geology and hydrogeology of the region and explained at some length the information that may be gained from the drilling. He was questioned about the relevance of that information gained on the alluvium flats when mining will only take place on the ridges. Among other answers, he replied at one point of time: it's something that needs to be determined…to allow later on, if somebody wants to model the potential impacts of a mine development, you need that data to be able to adequately carry out your responsibilities.
I found that really alarming because throughout this debate there is a great deal of suspicion that what the mining company is proposing, not just with the Caroona proposal but with so many of these mine proposals, is not the full story. That evidence certainly gives a hint that what is being proposed at Liverpool Plains is not the full story.
We also had the opportunity to meet a Mr and Mrs Alcorn, whose farming practice is quite different from the ordinary. They have a cattle stud where artificial insemination of many of their animals takes place. Again, their story about how they felt about their treatment by the mining company was very moving. They felt that their business, their farm, did not matter to the mining company. They were Margaret Alcorn's words. There was also an issue with the length of the process. They have been living this uncertainty for over four years. People should not be put through such an ordeal just so that a mining company can get its way.
Right now we have a major problem. The bill that is before us is appalling. It will pass, however, because the Government has the numbers; unfortunately The Nationals and the Shooters Party have decided they will support the Government. There is a clear case for voting against this proposed legislation, and voting it down will not cause economic difficulties in this State or hardship for the industry. All it will do is require mining companies to abide by the laws, and that probably means paying a few more people to ensure that they get their paperwork right and telling all landholders what is going on. At the end of the day, however—this is quite clear—mining companies will be able to go ahead with exploration, come hell or high water. That is how it works here—that is how it will play out—and that is what is wrong with this bill. The question that members who are about to vote for this legislation should be asking themselves is: Why can we not stick with the current legislation? The current legislation, which does the job with no economic hardship to anybody, should be retained.
The Hon TREVOR KHAN [5.59 p.m.]: I will refer later to some of the comments that were made earlier by Ms Lee Rhiannon. However, I wish now to make a few preliminary comments. Essentially, this legislation arose as a result of a recent decision relating to the cases of Brown and Anor v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd and Alcorn and Anor v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd. That decision arose following a decision of the Mining Wardens Court that was delivered at Gunnedah, and that in turn related to the actions of BHP on the Liverpool Plains. That is all agreed. I will come back to the interpretation of the legislation. However, we have to put this matter into context.
Whilst we can continue to emphasise, as Ms Lee Rhiannon did, the issue of Caroona—a matter of considerable importance to all members, including those of us who live in the area—we have to take into account the fact that the Mining Act applies throughout the State. As the Mining Act applies throughout the State, we must consider the impact of this legislation on the whole of the State. We cannot simply continue to talk about Caroona, as important as it is, because the Mining Act applies to electorates other than Tamworth and the Upper Hunter. Let me go back a bit. Essentially, the problem that arises relates to the definition of "landholder" in a schedule to the Mining Act.
When that schedule was amended in 1999 the Minister and members in the other place referred to "decades of custom and practice." The definition of "landholder" was included in legislation introduced in 1999 by Minister Eddie Obeid. It is amazing that earlier the Hon. Eddie Obeid held up debate on this legislation by making a personal explanation. It would have been nice if he had given as much thought and attention to the 1999 legislation as he did to his personal explanation. Let us examine the debate that occurred in the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council in 1999 and to the remarkable brevity of what was discussed at that time.
Mr John Turner, the shadow Minister who at the time dealt with this matter in the other place, made specific reference to the fact that the legislation was being rushed through the House without consultation with all relevant stakeholders. He was referring not only to farmers in New South Wales but also to the New South Wales Minerals Council. In 1999 it was not clear from the contribution of the Hon. Eddie Obeid why the legislation was being rushed through the Parliament, and no explanation was given as to what motivated the
22952 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
legislation at that time. No clear explanation was given as to why the definition was expanded in the way in which it was expanded. However, it was expanded. The term "landholder" was expanded in paragraph (g) of the legislation as follows:
(g) a person identified in any register or record kept by the Registrar-General as a person having an interest in the land ...
I have a problem with that part of the definition. The Minister gave no explanation as to why he and his department did not go to the relevant stakeholders and say, "This is what we have done." After the passage of this legislation in 1999 no-one did anything. Apparently custom and practice did not change. Apparently the former Minister did not go to stakeholders and say, "You will have to issue notices to all the relevant parties." This State Government failed to properly administer its own Act—a fundamental lacuna that remains unexplained to this day. A basic country solicitor such as me, upon reading the definition of "landholder", would fully understand its meaning and to what it applies.
It is frightening that it took a justice of the Supreme Court to read the cases of Brown and Alcorn, to state—in a relatively short judgement—"It is pretty obvious what it means", and then to make a decision in relation to those cases. The dictionary definition of "landholder" in paragraph (g) of the legislation is no blinding technical legal interpretation. Essentially, it refers to everyone and to everything that appears on the title. It refers to mortgagees and to easements left, right and centre. If somebody with an interest appears on the title, that person is included. The legislation that was introduced in 1999 is not that complicated. We have not yet been given an explanation as to why this problem arose and why it took a decision of the Supreme Court to resolve it. That concludes my preliminary remarks.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: What about the lawyers who work for the mining companies? Don't they read bills?
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: It appears as though they do not. Having been confronted with the legislation in its current form, the Minister, after relatively short notice, introduced the current bill. We were confronted, at short notice, with a complex bill that sallied forth into our hands and that will be rushed through the House. Ms Lee Rhiannon is quite right: those who knew that the bill was being introduced rallied to the cause and were listened to not only by the Greens—Ms Lee Rhiannon and Mr Ian Cohen—but also by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition and, in particular, the Hon Duncan Gay. I appropriately observe other members on the crossbenches, including Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, both of whom made it quite plain that they would agree to adjourning debate on this legislation. As a result, the Minister quickly backtracked at 100 miles an hour. Having achieved that successful outcome—
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I am flexible.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Having achieved that successful outcome with this flexible Minister, members and other stakeholders had an opportunity to look in some detail at this complex piece of legislation. Amongst those stakeholders was the NSW Farmers Association, which looked at this complex piece of legislation and engaged in a process of thoughtful negotiation with a number of parties. In light of the comments made earlier by Mr Ian Cohen, it is worthwhile noting that the NSW Farmers Association and other stakeholders proposed a number of amendments to this legislation—amendments that have been carefully crafted by the Hon. Duncan Gay.
Earlier Ms Lee Rhiannon spoke about the bill that was introduced by the Minister. However, she spent less time talking about the detailed amendments that have been prepared by the Opposition to meet the concerns articulated by the NSW Farmers Association. The debate this evening is really about those detailed amendments. It is notable that the NSW Farmers Association said that it reviewed and totally supports the amendments. Stripping away all the politics—I recognise that we can all engage in games—the NSW Farmers Association approached this matter in a mature and sensible way.
I ask the Greens to approach the amendments in a similar mature light and to consider them as we intended. If The Nationals amendments are supported by this House, they will provide protections against retrospectivity and other issues that have been of particular concern. They are sensible, thoughtful and considered amendments that remove the significant shortcomings in the bill as presented by the Minister.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [6.10 p.m.]: I support the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010. I do so with some sadness as the misinformation campaign continues for
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22953
the residents of Quirindi, Gunnedah and Werris Creek. The plains are not to be mined, although I am not sure about the massive feedlot on the hill—which, interestingly, is part of the map. Some people claim that the outcome of a recent Supreme Court case on access to land for mining and petroleum exploration was a win for landholders. It is difficult to see how the uncertainty created by the decision could be a win for anyone. The decision is a new interpretation of a part of the Act that has not been applied by landholders or prospectors in the past.
Past practice has been for the exploration title holder and the person on the land, whether they own or lease the land, to agree to access arrangements or to have an arrangement arbitrated. The Supreme Court decision suggests this longstanding practice is no longer sufficient to meet the requirements of the Mining Act. This suggests that any party with a registered interest in the land must be party to a proposed access arrangement. Registered interests in the land are wide and varied and can include finance providers, such as mortgagees, or anyone holding an easement over the land, such as Country Energy. They can also include anyone with a right of way, such as a neighbour, or anyone holding a covenant over part or all of the land.
Those with these interests in the land do not appear to have shown much interest in access arrangements in the past. Certainly, it is not a common experience that mortgagees or easement holders have demanded that they be parties to access arrangements. However, the Supreme Court decision now means that in some cases a farmer could be just one of many people with an interest in the land. The implication of the court decision is that all these holders of an interest in the land must now be party to just one access arrangement. Until now, the person on the land and the exploration company generally negotiated access arrangements. They set out when and how the exploration title holder could come onto the land. They were clear about what they would do if there was a difference of opinion between the landholder and the exploration title holder.
This was achieved by including a dispute resolution mechanism in the terms of the access arrangement. Often they made agreements on compensation to be paid to the landholder, although compensation could also be agreed separately. Importantly, access arrangements made in this way were designed to give landholders a say in what could happen on their properties. In effect, as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision, landholders now do not have that say. Potentially, they are one voice amongst several. Making just one access arrangement with all those with an interest in the land could well have unwanted outcomes for landholders. Each party with a registered interest can have an equal say in what happens on the owner's land. Each party also has an equal right to negotiate, to ask for information and to delay or deny access.
As well, each party has the right to object to any of the terms of the access arrangement. These circumstances could lead to increased rates of participation in arbitration when a third party makes the access determination. They could lead also to increased appeals to the Land and Environment Court, with all the stresses associated with delays and litigation costs. There is another, quite different, outcome that could be undesirable for landholders when there are multiple participants in an access arrangement. Landholders will not be able to choose to keep their arrangements confidential if they wish. The terms will be available to any other party with an interest in the land and may include details such as financial compensation for access. Having to disclose such matters may not be in a landholder's best interest.
In practice, all these issues mean that the recent Supreme Court decision will diminish the right of most landowners to determine what happens on their properties. This will occur despite the other registered interests having shown very little interest in such matters in the past. The bill will remove the uncertainties that the decision has created. It restores balance so that the primary relationship once again is between the person who owns or occupies a property and the exploration company. It will provide clarity and certainty to landholders, to those with an interest in the land and to exploration title holders. Having attended the first meeting of the Caroona Coal Action Group—as I said before, I actually paid to join the group but never received any information—I have a lot of recognition of and empathy for some persons concerned about that issue. I have no tolerance for the misinformation campaign run by others with political agendas—some in this House, but many outside. It is sad that that has occurred. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr IAN COHEN [6.15 p.m.]: I add to the contribution of my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon to debate on the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010. After listening to the Hon. Christine Robertson, I am interested to hear more substance about the misinformation in this House. The opposition to this piece of legislation and the support for the Liverpool Plains farmers has been consistent. I am not aware of any misinformation. I am happy to hear more about it. Somehow this House misses the point in many ways when dealing with the people of New South Wales generally. This type of situation has happened before in this House. I have abhorred the retrospective legislation that the Government has arrogantly pushed
22954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
through this House from time to time. Yesterday I listened to the landowners involved in the litigation in the New South Wales Supreme Court. Jeff and Sharon Brown, and Les and Margaret Alcorn had an important story to tell. They told me about their battle with BHP regarding an access agreement and their desire to protect not just their land but also the aquifers that support the fertile soil of the Liverpool Plains.
I have attended demonstrations and spoken to a number of people involved but I acknowledge that Lee Rhiannon has made the running in this portfolio, dealing with many of the details and putting on record the clear injustices that will be perpetrated by this legislation. There is no doubt that we are dealing with some of the world's richest farming land. The efforts of the farming community to protect that land by blockade are to be commended. We hear so much about this approach in other countries, particularly in places such as China, where the Government overruns farms and pushes people off their land. Our Minister obviously takes his cues from that type of political idiom and is prepared to do the same sort of thing to farmers in this particular environment. It is a heavy-handed, bullying tactic and, from my perspective, shows that the House is inclined towards the mining industry and is not prepared to acknowledge the importance of agriculture in our State—or dare I say organic agriculture, the agriculture of the future.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes spoke at length about the many products from the area and production tonnages. How important will this be in a world that is rapidly becoming overpopulated and even more polluted? When the Liverpool Plains farmers came to Sydney they showed us the packets of vegetables and suchlike imported from China that are available in our supermarkets. Do we get a guarantee of the same high-quality food from those sources? Further, we have the absurd situation of supermarkets selling food that has travelled halfway round the world when we can produce the same food on some of the best-quality agricultural land in this State. Do we have any guarantee that those imports are not highly polluted? I doubt it, but that does not seem to concern the Minister and the Government as they weasel their way along— accompanied by a complicit Opposition, I am saddened to say—supporting the mining industry in this State. This is a short-term one-off extraction that is worth a huge amount of money as opposed to sustainable industry.
I am accustomed to many members of the major parties knocking organic farmers and saying, "Oh, you're just a bunch of hippies in northern New South Wales", but these are very serious organic produce farmers. Organic farming is the future of farming in this State. Organic farmers should be supported and defended to the last man. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and The Nationals in particular are serious about protecting the agricultural sector of the State, they should vote against the bill. What is at stake here is sustainable agriculture of the highest order and quality. It is a valuable export industry that will last for generations, but The Nationals are turning their backs on that.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Right on.
Mr IAN COHEN: That is the way I see it.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Nonsense.
Mr IAN COHEN: It is not nonsense because tonight we have an opportunity to vote the bill down, plain and simple. The Opposition should vote the legislation down at the second reading stage and make a clear statement that agriculturalists and agricultural practices are supported. The Minister smugly ridicules any statement about organic certification being under threat as a result of exploration, upwelling, drilling and the detritus that comes out of mining exploration shafts. If the Minister showed any interest, I would ask him for a guarantee. The Minister has his own agenda and he is not listening. It does not matter what is said around the fringes. The Minister's mind is made up in the greatest totalitarian style. I will deal with that in more detail shortly.
I am serious about this debate. No consideration has been shown for the population of New South Wales. Organic agriculture is a vital industry. I ask the Minister: Will he absolutely guarantee that no lead is coming out of the mining exploration shafts, no arsenic and no methane gas? Will he guarantee that the properties will not be inundated by cadmium that comes out of the exploration shafts? Everything including coal tar and more will be coming out of those mining exploration shafts. I am sure that if I did more investigation I would find that significant heavy metals are coming out of drilling shafts. What will that do to organic agriculture? It will wipe it out completely.
The Minister thinks this is all pretty funny. He is walking around the Chamber and visiting his compatriots on the Opposition side of the House, who will support the legislation. He is treating it as all a bit of
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22955
a joke. But the fact of the matter is that when drilling takes place, the assurance is always given that the water is clean. It may look clean when it first comes out of the aquifers, but further down it comes out black and stinking. It is in the interests of the mining industry to keep that quiet.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: And it goes into the aquifers.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection. When mining companies are drilling, they do not close off the aquifer properly. I challenge the Minister to deny that. My question is: Is there a proper sealing of life-giving clean-water aquifers when exploration drilling takes place? I bet my bottom dollar that there is not. The Minister's attitude is that it does not really matter because it cannot be seen. We will find out how much it matters when organic agriculturalists lose the organic status of their properties, which they have worked over a very long period to establish.
I know that because in northern New South Wales where I live many organic farmers spend years developing their land in an environmentally positive manner to bring it to the stage at which it achieves organic certification standard. At that point they obtain premium prices for their produce. That applies to organic farmers anywhere, including the Liverpool Plains. Organic farmers obtain premium prices for their products. It is an A-grade export product and it delivers produce to a niche market in New South Wales. The organic status provides a huge boost to profits and hence to the economy of the State.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: It is value adding.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection.
The Hon. Christine Robertson: Is that part of the legislation?
Mr IAN COHEN: It is very much concerned with the legislation. I acknowledge the interjection and the questioning of the relevance of agriculture. Clearly farming interests losing out to mining interests is very much a consequence of the legislation. It has always been a sad state of affairs when special legislation is passed by the New South Wales Parliament. It has always had retrospective application and it has never shown any respect for the reasons given by the judiciary in making decisions. Individuals and groups spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in litigating the application of law, yet the Government simply bulldozes any form of victory. Gone are the days when government respected the separation of powers. Gone are the days when government respected the rights of citizens to go to the courts to seek redress of the excesses of Parliament. This legislation is a classic case of the excesses of the parliamentary system.
Geoff Smith, who is a director of the Environmental Defenders Office, has provided me with an article entitled "Abiding by the Umpire's Decision—Special Legislation and the Planning System in New South Wales and Australia", which reviews a number of instances in which special legislation has been used by the Government to either destroy legal proceedings before a hearing takes place, or retrospectively nullify the effects of a court's ruling. The Port Kembla Development (Special Provisions) Act 1997 and the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Special Provisions) Bill 2008 are two examples. I had to sit through those debates in this House and become thoroughly disgusted, and I am disgusted again tonight. The concept of requiring mining exploration licence holders to sign access agreements with the primary landholder only is problematic. The Government will suggest that that has been the accepted understanding of access agreements. Certainly for the extractive industry, that understanding may be prevalent. However, that does not make it right, either legally or ethically.
Our use of land and the interests identified in land are diversifying. We are identifying and creating a range of rights that are inherent in one single piece of land: rights such as those relating to carbon that is retained in soil or sequestered in trees, new forms of restrictive and positive covenants relating to the ecosystem payments, rights to new natural resources such as solar and wind, and complex financial products and mortgages. Land and rights to all the physical and ecological elements of land are becoming increasingly complex. We need an approach to access agreements that moves forward with increasing diversity and rights associated with land. This bill simply does not achieve that.
The bill sets us back significantly, which is a sad state of affairs. In addition to the health impacts, the impact on agriculture, and the attacks on organic agriculture in the State and on a diligent farming sector, I believe this legislation is an attack on democracy. This type of legislation cuts very deep. I take the matter
22956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
seriously. We are all parliamentarians and we should be mindful of accepting our responsibility of representing the people of this State. Edward Zehr is a columnist who in the past has discussed in general terms our political system. He states:
I wouldn't call it fascism exactly, but a political system nominally controlled by an irresponsible, dumbed down electorate who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical, controlled mass media that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment can hardly be described as democracy either.
The legislation before the House tonight is an example of the political system he describes. I stand with the small group of members in this House, which includes the Greens, who oppose this legislation.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.28 p.m.]: I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the House, so the comments I make on the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010 will be brief. I begin by complimenting the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, on the manner in which he has guided this legislation. He has virtually walked a tightrope to bring forward a suite of amendments that are supported by the New South Wales Farmers Association. I hope that other members of the House, including Government members, will support the amendments. Members of The Nationals are not against mining and we are certainly great supporters of agriculture.
Mr Ian Cohen: You can't have it both ways sometimes, Rick.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I listened in silence to Mr Ian Cohen, and he should not interrupt me. Mining and agriculture are the two main wealth-creating industries on this earth. It is important to keep in mind that we need both those industries for our modern society to survive. There is not one item in the Chamber—be it the metal in the water jugs or the leather on the benches—that does not have its genesis in, or is not sourced from, either mining or agriculture. All members should think about that. We must support both of those wealth-creating industries. It is important that we ensure that mining and agriculture each respect the specific needs of the other industry. That is the tightrope that the Hon. Duncan Gay has been walking over the past couple of weeks.
I know the Liverpool Plains well. I worked on the Liverpool Plains for years as a soil conservationist and as a consulting agronomist. When I was a consulting agronomist many of my clients were biological farmer approved and organic farmer approved, and the work I was doing supported that industry. So I take umbrage at the comments of Mr Ian Cohen that we do not pay attention to the needs of organic farmers. The Liverpool Plains is an area of deep self-mulching soils with abundant water underneath. The problem is that the coal sits underneath the water. The connectivity of the aquifers that exist in pockets is difficult to determine, as is the potential for damage by mining activity. As my colleague the Hon. Trevor Khan pointed out, the problem seems to be the 1999 amendment that replaced the term "owner and occupier" with a vague definition of "landholder".
The Supreme Court finding determined that the access arrangement that BHP had come to with the landholders was invalid because the term "landholder" included mortgagee and other institutions and persons with minor interests in the land—if they were on the register they were included—but they were not advised of the access agreements. If we vote down this bill, the problem will impact on all other mining areas in New South Wales, including limestone mines, for example. Limestone is used for agricultural fertiliser in organic farming. When I was a consulting agronomist I always recommended that organic farmers put lime on agricultural soils, and many people on the Liverpool Plains have been doing that for many years now. If this legislation is passed it will impact on limestone quarries or mines for agricultural fertiliser.
We need to ensure that the potential impact on the Caroona people is minimised and that we do not carry that impact through to all other mining areas in New South Wales. The bill also further complicates the definition of "landholder" by further defining those other persons and institutions that may have an interest in the land as "secondary landholders". The problem could have been overcome by simply amending the bill to revert to the term "owner and occupier". I am not a lawyer by trade; I am an agronomist by trade but I believe that that would have largely overcome the problem. There has already been much discussion about the various technical aspects of the bill, and I do not want to go into that.
This whole process could easily have been avoided if there had been a better definition of what mining can and cannot be done on prime agricultural land. As I have said in this House before, determining the definition of "prime agricultural land" is the nub of the problem. I would agree that the Liverpool Plains is prime agricultural land and Robertson is prime agricultural land. But that is my impression; it is not a scientifically validated definition. In this whole process we need a better definition of "prime agricultural land". The Hon.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22957
Duncan Gay has been working on that for the Access to Mining on Agricultural Land Bill that he is developing. I hope that that bill is brought before this House as soon as possible as it would certainly ease this problem from arising in the future.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane) left the chair at 6.34 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.15 p.m.]: Debate on the Mining Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010 seems to be about agriculture versus mining but I hope it will be more about agriculture and mining. Members have received submissions from the key farmers involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court: Geoff and Sharon Brown and Les and Margaret Alcorn from Caroona. Members of the crossbench have met with them also and they have presented their case and explained the sensitivity of the Liverpool Plains and the effect that not only mining but also exploration will have on this sensitive area, particularly with the aquifer providing an underground supply of water. They also showed that even drilling during exploration could cause some contamination of the land and certainly will affect what the Browns are producing on their organic farm. This is a very sensitive issue.
The Supreme Court upheld some of the legal issues about the approvals for mine exploration and was asked to consider the validity of the access arrangements between the landowners Geoff and Sharon Brown and Les and Margaret Alcorn. The decision favoured their application and held that the access arrangement was invalid because the Mining Act required the company to have an access arrangement in place with each of the landholders of the property, including mortgagees—that is, the banks. The banks were not a party to the access arrangement and therefore the arrangements were determined by the Supreme Court to be invalid. Apparently mining companies thought it was not necessary to go beyond getting approval from the landowners, the farmers who owned the land, and did not need to go to the banks, utilities and other bodies with easement rights. This bill makes it clear that the approval of those bodies must be obtained.
The unexpected result of that court decision has dramatically affected all other exploration licences and has raised a question about the validity of the hundreds of access arrangements for those licences. The Government believes, and it seems to be correct, that the Supreme Court decision made those other access arrangements invalid, and that has caused great concern in the mining industry because mining companies no longer have any certainty over explorations that they are already carrying out, or that they plan to carry out. I understand that there are more than 1,170 exploration licence titles, some of which do not have mortgages with a bank; they are owned outright by the landowner.
In response to concerns expressed by the mining industry the Government has introduced this bill, and if it is not amended, it will amend the definition of "landholder" whereby an exploration company need only make an access arrangement with the person who has exclusive possession of a property or a right to exclusive possession. The bill also retains a requirement for exploration companies to negotiate access arrangements with secondary landholders, such as easement holders or mortgagees. It also retains the right for secondary landowners to claim compensation if their interests are adversely affected during exploration. Finally, it provides an exploration with the flexibility to make more than one access arrangement when there is more than one landholder for a property.
The bill has been strongly criticised but it is relatively simple in it present form. However, the New South Wales Farmers Association and landowners in the Liverpool Plains area, and I assume in other parts of the State, are unhappy with it. As a result, negotiations have been carried out with The Nationals and the New South Wales Farmers Association to try to prepare amendments to satisfy all stakeholders. The Greens, the Shooters Party and the Government have foreshadowed amendments to be considered in Committee. I am concerned that if the amendments are rushed through, they will have implications that were not fully apparent at the time they were moved. I urge the Government to be on the ball with these amendments to obviate the necessity to introduce further amending legislation in the future. In some ways it would be better to have more time to consider the amendments so that we are quite sure of their impact.
I agree that the Government had no option but to introduce the bill to validate mining exploration licences. That is the main purpose of the bill. Some people have suggested that the Supreme Court's decision was a decision for or against mining. That is not the case at all. It was simply dealing with the technical issue of whether the banks should also have been involved in the process and been party to the access arrangement, and they were not. That was the only issue considered by the court. The bill is not for or against mining. If it is defeated, it will not stop mining in New South Wales, and if it is passed, it will not simply be a bill in favour of mining. It solves the problem of validating existing mining exploration permits that have been granted.
22958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
There is no doubt that there is genuine concern about mining in the Liverpool Plains area, but as the Minister has explained previously there is no intention to mine the farming area of the Liverpool Plains. The areas that would be mined, depending on the results of exploration, are in what are called the ridges surrounding the Liverpool Plains. However, as pointed out by the Brown and Alcorn families, even the exploration drilling could affect the aquifer. It may be affected if mines are established in the ridge areas because the water is 50 to 60 metres below the surface but the exploration drills will go to a depth of 500 metres. In other words they will pass right through the aquifer to where the coal is. The question is what effect this will have on the aquifer if the drills go through it. Certainly the more serious issue would be what effect a mine would have on the aquifer.
That is why I raised questions yesterday about the inquiry into the impact on the aquifer in the Liverpool Plains area and those in other parts of the State and suggested that the inquiry should proceed urgently. Mr Peters will conduct the inquiry. Obviously he commands great respect, having been a former president of the NSW Farmers Association, and I assume he has the respect of The Nationals as well. Many people have said to me the inquiry is moving in slow motion and have raised questions about whether the additional funding is sufficient for the inquiry.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I do not know that Mr Peters has ever been a member of the National Party.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No, I did not say he was a member of The Nationals. I suggest that it is likely that you would have more sympathy for him than for some other person, merely because of your association with him.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am not sure of the context. I will reserve my judgement.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: If you are expressing reservations about him—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, I was not sure of the context—
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile should not respond to the disorderly interjections of the Hon. Duncan Gay.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It is important for the inquiry to be established urgently, and there should be no question of there being sufficient funds to conduct the inquiry. One could argue that exploration and mining should not take place before that inquiry conducts its investigation and makes recommendations. That would seem to be the more logical way to deal with the issue. However, we seem to have opened the gate and let the horse bolt before the inquiry has reported. The report will be very important.
Many people have sent me submissions about this issue in the past, as I am sure they have to other members. I received one from people in the thoroughbred industry who are happy about the announcement from the Government about a mine not going ahead in the Hunter Valley. I received a letter from the Australian Thoroughbred Breeders in the Hunter Valley, which is very concerned about the effect of mining in that area on another billion-dollar industry. That is where the Government has to weigh up the interests of the various industries—the agriculture industry and the thoroughbred breeding industry—against the income it will receive by way of royalties from the mining industry. It is a delicate balancing act. Obviously the Government receives income from royalties and that money is used to pay for hospitals, nurses, education, teachers and so on. It is a dilemma the Government faces: it must have income to meet its huge State budget.
Over a number of years the Federal Government has reduced the capacity of State governments to raise income through taxation. The Rudd Government wants to take back one-third of this State's GST revenue and to allocate it to hospitals, and that will impact on our State budget. Stopping mining in New South Wales is not a practical outcome. However, these issues must be addressed only after proper research has been done. Other industries that operate in our State, in particular, the agricultural industry, must not be damaged in the process. I received a submission from the Northern Tablelands branch of the Christian Democratic Party, which expressed concern at the impact of mining on the Liverpool Plains, the Caroona Basin, prime agricultural land, underground aquifers, water supplies attached to the Murray-Darling Basin, and the rights of landholders and agriculturalists in this area.
The Northern Tablelands branch of the Christian Democratic Party asked me not to support the bill in its current form, and to consider the proposed amendments, and that is what I will be doing. I have received a
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22959
number of other submissions and I received a visit from Sue Cudmore from that area. I received submissions from Trixie Whitmore and others who are deeply concerned about mining in the Liverpool Plains. I have also received a great deal of correspondence from the National Farmers Federation. On 4 May the National Farmers Federation wrote to me and gave me the background to the court case and the decision in the Supreme Court. It said that the court case had been facilitated through the financial support of the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund. Without that support I am sure that the case would not have proceeded.
I believe that the farmers had to contribute their own funds and that their involvement in this court case and previous legal cases took them away from their farms and prevented them from earning an income. Farmers who attend court are not able to earn an income; rather, they spend money with the resultant reduction to their income. The New South Wales Farmers Association wrote to me, expressed concern about this bill, and said that it should be amended. It said:
In the attempt to simplify the exploration process for the mining and gas sector, the drafted amendments would result in the removal of the existing legal rights of landholders. This is through:
1. The removal of the ability of landholders to protect their land by including conditions of the Exploration Licence as enforceable provisions within an access arrangement;
2. Narrowing the definition of landholder; and
3. The creation of multiple confidential Access Agreements.
The New South Wales Farmers Association urged me not to support the bill in its current form. Another letter that I received from the New South Wales Farmers Association contained some suggested amendments. On 11 May I received another statement entitled, "Mining Bill impacts farmers' property rights." I received also an open letter that was sent to all members of Parliament that referred to the proposed amendments to this bill. A letter dated 19 May from the New South Wales Farmers Association states:
The NSW Farmers Association ... has reviewed the amendments from the NSW Nationals and supports these amendments in total.
Attached to this letter is a copy of the Amendments ... for your information.
I have those amendments before me. In the past my policy has been to support the New South Wales Farmers Association as a guide as to how I should vote on issues affecting the farming community in New South Wales. I have received a number of letters from various companies involved with mining, and I think all members received an open letter to members in the New South Wales Legislative Council that states:
The NSW Minerals Council urges all members of the NSW Legislative Council to support important legislation before the Upper House to simplify arrangements for land access for minerals exploration in NSW.
The document lists the Minerals Council's reasons for so doing and states:
Much has been made of the supposed "retrospectivity". This Bill validates current access arrangements between landholders in possession of the land and the explorer.
This Bill does not mean that access can be gained to land without valid access arrangements with all relevant landholders.
The Minerals Council does not challenge the need to seek the approval of all relevant landholders. I received a detailed letter from BHP-Billiton that repeats the same arguments. I also received letters from Northparkes Mines, Bemax Resources Ltd, Whitehaven Coal and PlatSearch NL. Each submission repeats the same arguments. Whitehaven Coal stated:
Importantly, the Bill:
• Does not diminish the rights of farmers. Where farmers are in possession of their land they will be a necessary party to a land access arrangement.
• Does not diminish property values. Mining exploration does not alter land or underground aquifers.
• Does not remove environmental requirements. Exploration activity will still be subject to environmental regulation. If a mining project is proposed, mining companies will still be required to undertake detailed environmental assessments and will be required to meet environmental standards including for water, noise dust and land rehabilitation.
• Does not remove the rights of "secondary landholders" The Bill makes it clear that secondary landholders will still be entitled to any "compensable loss".
22960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Those are the views of various mining companies on the other side of the equation. This Parliament will have to weigh up and balance agriculture verses mining or agriculture and mining. I hope that the proposed amendments achieve the right formula.
Dr JOHN KAYE [8.38 p.m.]: I echo the words expressed in debate on the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010 by my colleagues Ms Lee Rhiannon and Mr Ian Cohen. There is not a lot that I can add. However, it is important to place on record my personal profound opposition to this legislation. This is yet another piece of legislation that seeks to take away the rights of communities and landowners in favour of the mining industry—something that has occurred in New South Wales time and again. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile just said, when we attempt to create a balance between farming and food production and miners and minerals production, farmers and food production lose out. In the long run, no doubt we will see bumper stickers that state, "I eat and I vote." As we increasingly undermine our capacity to produce food in this State, and we become dependent on imported food, we will become vulnerable to international food prices.
Without question, it is essential that we protect from mining our precious highly productive food lands. Yet we often have the strange and sometimes paradoxical situation whereby parties so committed to property rights suddenly say, "Hang on, property rights are well and good until it involves mining activity". Suddenly property rights are subsidiary to the rights of the mining corporations. It comes down to size and money. It comes down to those corporations with large amounts of money that buy power in this State and run roughshod over the relatively small farmers.
This legislation is bad for three key reasons. First, it is deeply unfair to those farmers who, in many instances, inherited their land from their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents before it was known that they had the misfortune of owning land on top of valuable mineral resources. To their misfortune, suddenly a multinational mining corporation develops a healthy interest in what lies underneath—sometimes up to half a kilometre beneath—their agricultural land. The second reason is the danger posed to the capacity for farmers to raise money against their land. At present if a miner moves onto and prospects on land over which a bank holds a mortgage and the matter goes to court, the judgement can force the miner to make the bank aware of that. Any bank contemplating loaning money to a landowner—who may unfortunately find themselves with mineral resources underneath their land—will not under any circumstances know with certainty whether prospecting will occur on that land. This bill increases that uncertainty. Banks, if nothing else, do not like uncertainty. This bill will make it harder for farmers to use their land to raise money.
The third reason the legislation is bad is that prospecting can compromise the aquifers and undermine the future of food production. Why does the Government feel comfortable about sacrificing our future food production for a fistful of dollars from multinational mining corporations? This legislation puts the rights of the minerals industry ahead of those of the local community and landowners, and ahead of water security and the long-term food security of this State. The legislation should not pass this House. If members voted not as a result of the pressure placed on them by the minerals industry but according to what they believe is in the best interests of the future of New South Wales and is fairest for farmers and landowners, they would vote against this legislation. That is exactly what I intend to do, and it is exactly what the Greens will do.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [8.43 p.m.], in reply: Vote against it, Mr Kaye. It will demonstrate once again that the Greens have no policy on mining other than to try to close it down wherever they can. Of course, rest assured that in future I will probably see Dr John Kaye riding to work on a bike, which is fair enough—except that the bike is the product of mining. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. The purpose of the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill 2010 is to restore certainty for landholders and exploration title holders over land access arrangements. It will ensure that a landholder can make access arrangements with an exploration licence holder and decide on compensation.
With multiple landholders, each will be able to negotiate separate access arrangements should they wish to do so. The bill will ensure that all landholders, whether they own or occupy the land or have some other registered interest, remain eligible for compensation. The bill allows also for existing access arrangements to be considered valid if their creation would have complied with the proposed amendments. It is essential to give this certainty to the industry and to stakeholders. Earlier we heard criticisms from the Law Society of New South Wales and others at the haste with which the Government has acted to restore certainty. It was absolutely
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22961
essential for us to act quickly. We had to signal the Government's intentions to industry and to landholders. The mining industry in this State already faces sovereign risk issues and this Government does not want to add to them.
Further, many hundreds—potentially thousands—of landholders across the State who have access arrangements in place could no longer be certain where they stood. I make no apologies for this Government acting quickly. During consultations over the past few weeks some have people suggested that the implications of the Supreme Court decision have been exaggerated. Let me give one example of the increased cost complexity and delay that the decision has created. Prior to the decision, Northparkes Mine had negotiated 180 access arrangements and identified 220 landholders with whom arrangements needed to be made. After the court decision, as many as 700 individual parcels of land were identified, each with a certificate of title or title deed against which interests could be registered. This means that as many as 700 title searches are needed to identify landholders with whom an access arrangement may have to be made.
A farmer may have numerous individual parcels of land that make up this landholding. He or she could possibly have different mortgages against the different blocks of land based on how and when they were acquired. From this single simple example we can see the additional bureaucracy that will be created if we do not address this situation sensibly. The Leader of The Nationals and the Hon. Trevor Khan commented on the history of the definition of "landholder" in the Mining Act. I shall clarify some of the issues they raised. The 1992 Act included definitions of "owner" and "occupier" for the purpose of making access arrangements. The Mining Amendment Act 1999 abolished those definitions and replaced them with the term "landholder". From the second reading speech on that legislation it is clear that the intent of this change was to remove the distinction between Crown landholders and private landholders. The amendment also recognised native title holders as landholders for the first time.
The current bill does not affect those changes. The explanation in the second reading speech of the new definition of "landholder" in 1999 makes no mention of mortgagees or easement holders. It was an unintended consequence that the definition of "landholder" could be interpreted broadly enough to include mortgagees and easement holders for the purpose of agreeing access arrangements. The understanding of "landholder" that was applied in practice is based on decades of custom and practice, and seemingly was accepted by everyone. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the definition of "landholder" is now clarified. Another issue I shall address is the relationship between mining and water. The Hon. Robert Brown said that the community is concerned about this issue. I assure members that the mining industry is just as interested in the interaction of mining activities and water as anybody else.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: And you are?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Absolutely I am.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Right, so contribute to the funding of the water study.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will get on to that in a minute; stop being anxious. Go back to being nice and calm. Water is hugely important to mining operations. Mining operations need to access water to operate. Probably more importantly, they need to avoid interfering with water tables and having mines inundated with water. In other words, they have to identify the aquifers and avoid them, in effect. The President of the NSW Farmers Federation is in the public gallery. He would support me about mining access to water in this State. In fact, as he well knows, water consumption for productive purposes in this State is 6,000 gigalitres per annum. Of that 6,000 gigalitres, mining uses 62 gigalitres. Let us be very careful about water and water issues. That is the entitlement that mining has. In other words, water is recycled in mining activity. For example, the mine at Orange uses very little water. Its water consumption is approximately three gigalitres per annum because most of the water is recycled. People who make accusations should be very careful. Whereas 6,000 gigalitres of water is allocated to agriculture in this State, 62 gigalitres—or a little more than 0.01 per cent—is used by mining.
Dr John Kaye: That is totally silly. It depends on where it is.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You are a fool and you are known to be a fool.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order!
22962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He is known as a fool, so he should just sit back and relax.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. I ask the Minister not to respond to disorderly interjections.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Engineering studies that are undertaken in preparation for mining activity are extensive. However, it is important to recognise that exploration activity is a low-impact activity and that rarely is there a significant interaction between it and the water table. Ms Lee Rhiannon and Mr Ian Cohen both suggested that drilling activity brings toxic sludge to the surface. I have not seen the evidence they have of that. However, industry practice is that wells are designed, cast and then backfilled to avoid any aquifer damage. All rock cuttings are captured and disposed of at an approved site. Independent hydrologists have examined drilling processes and determined that they are not a threat.
Ms Lee Rhiannon suggested that the balance of the bill is in favour of the mining industry. I am not sure how she came to that conclusion. The bill aims to confirm continuation of standard practice, which everyone understood to be consistent with the legislation prior to the Supreme Court's decision. Her comments seem to ignore that our mineral resources belong to all the people of New South Wales. We need practical arrangements in place to access land and conduct exploration for mineral resources. The fundamental point is that the State assigns mineral resources to the people of New South Wales. The practical situation is that governments are not in the business of exploration and mining. In some limited circumstances in the past, governments might have been engaged in mining, but generally speaking private enterprise explores and develops mineral resources.
Mineral resources are owned by the people of New South Wales by law. Therefore, practical ways must be found for the State to access resources through various exploration arrangements. We cannot hand over the management of resources to individual landholders. It is not fair to the other people in this State to put major obstacles in the way of exploration activity. A balance must be struck. Justice Schmidt's judgement implies that all classes of landholders associated with the subject land would be required to sign up to a single access arrangement. I cite the judgement because a major point made by Ms Lee Rhiannon during her speech was that the consequences of the court's decision have been exaggerated by the mining companies. I cite the key part of Justice Schmidt's entire judgement, which states:
The legislature envisaged that an access arrangement— which would have been based on the 1999 legislation—
would emerge from a process which involved the licence holder and all landholders … The Act does not provide for a second separate access arrangement to be made with the mortgagees.
That is it. That is the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court. What the mining companies and people associated with the mining industry are saying is that if the court's definition is adopted as guidelines that must be followed by the industry, there has to be one agreement involving all parties with an interest in the land. I will repeat the judgement because some people have not grasped its effect. It states:
The legislature envisaged that an access arrangement would emerge from a process which involved the licence holder [the exploration company] and all landholders …
I do not know how much clearer a justice could be in redefining the arrangements. In other words, the exploration licence holder and all landholders with an interest in the land that is the subject of the licence must be involved in the access arrangements in relation to a property. I have listened to the Greens during the debate and I have listened to lots of other people and stakeholders. I am prepared to accept significant amendments that have been proposed by the Opposition and others. However, the fundamental issue is that the implication of the Supreme Court ruling is that all landholders associated with a piece of land that is the subject of exploration must be involved in the access arrangements. That is why I acted immediately. I did not wait for mining companies to tell me that the decision would create chaos in the industry.
As soon as my staff told me that that decision had been made and that it would have an impact on licensing and exploration, I immediately set to work. I did not need anyone to tell me what to do. The moment I was phoned by my staff to inform me that that was the problem, I knew that it represented a significant risk to the sovereignty of the State and its exploration activities. If we were to follow the effect of Justice Schmidt's
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22963
decision, it would have a significant impact upon how people go about their business, specifically exploration. Leave all other businesses aside: we are talking exploration. When I heard of the Supreme Court's decision, I knew immediately that it had to be addressed. I did not need the Minerals Council to tell me. I know enough about these issues to know what the impact of it would be.
Ms Lee Rhiannon: You're a bit sensitive, Macca.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am making that point very clearly because Ms Lee Rhiannon made so many stupid, outrageous and over-the-top statements in her campaign for election to the Senate in an attempt to garner a few votes in the Liverpool Plains and other areas across the State. I will send a copy of my speech to Senator Bob Brown to let him know what he can expect when Ms Lee Rhiannon descends on Canberra. By the way, I will be very happy to purchase a one-way ticket for her. Ms Lee Rhiannon suggested that she was advocating for landholders. I make it very clear that landholders do not want banks involved in negotiating access agreements. I was lucky enough to have a meeting with a large number of banks and the Australian Bankers Association.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: A luncheon?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The member is a disgrace, a joke and irrelevant. Some of the banks are quite keen to obtain that authority. I suggested at the meeting that throughout the drought from 2002 to the present, unfortunately, in some areas the banks had performed really well and had looked after farmers' interests all the way through in contrast to what happened from 1993 to 1995, when many farmers were foreclosed on immediately.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is because we brought in farm debt mediation.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should let me get to that. That was such an important and relevant problem at the time that farm debt mediation was introduced to try to stop it from recurring. The Australian film industry captured the ethos of the situation in the great movie The Bank. It was indicated to me—not by all banks; some were pretty good—that mortgagee banks who perceived a farmer to be a risk were eager to obtain the power to access whatever amount might have been payable as compensation for exploration. I could elucidate other suggestions the banks discussed that are associated with reining in the ability of landholders to work through their financial affairs. Farmers want to have a say—the banks certainly do—about what occurs on their properties. This legislation will allow that right and it will not be diluted by banks, utilities or anyone else. Senator Lee Rhiannon simply does not understand farmers or the purpose of this bill.
Some of the debate has centred on issues related to the Caroona exploration licence area. Eighty access arrangements in this licence area were agreed by landholders on an entirely voluntary basis; only 12 landholders opted to go to arbitration. That demonstrates in this area alone—forget the rest; that is the figure—that the negotiating processes in the Act as they have been understood in the past generally work. Further, Senator Rhiannon and others have talked about threats to the Liverpool Plains and its rich agricultural land. I wholeheartedly agree that this land is extremely valuable for agriculture. Production of 180,000 tonnes of wheat per annum is pretty good. New South Wales produces about 10.5 million to 11 million tonnes, and it is 1.6 per cent to 1.8 per cent of State production. That is a very good return for that area. There are also other crops, some of which have higher percentages in terms of State production. There is no question that it is a good area for production. That is why I am pleased that there is absolutely no threat from mining to the plains. As I have said many times before—and it seems to need repeating time and time again—mining on the plains is excluded. BHP Billiton has agreed to surrender the part of the licence that covers the plains.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Mining is not excluded.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is. They have excluded mining under the plains.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is more correct.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Whatever way the Hon. Duncan Gay wants it. There are no plans to longwall mine under the plains. The mining companies have willingly accepted that and they will not pursue that activity. When the bill was introduced it became clear that there was some misunderstanding about aspects of it. I committed to a period of consultation to help address those misunderstandings. I thank all stakeholders
22964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
who took part in the consultation, including the NSW Farmers Association and the thoroughbred breeders association. This cleared up a lot of misunderstandings about the bill. I am also pleased that the amendments that are proposed to the bill are, on the whole, in keeping with the original intent of the bill and supported by stakeholders.
The Government will be moving amendments in Committee to clarify some aspects of the bill. Other parties will also propose amendments, as outlined earlier. The Government amendments address three issues that I will explain in more detail in Committee. First, the Government will propose amendments to prescribe a process to identify mortgagees in possession. This is because mortgagees in possession are not readily identified by simple title searches. Secondly, amendments will be proposed that mean that titleholders will pay the legal costs of landholders seeking advice on access arrangements. These costs will be capped and will need to be paid only if the landholder requests this. New South Wales will be the only State in Australia that has such a condition in place. Some have suggested that this is a pro-mining bill. I want to dispel that myth. New South Wales has the most rigorous protections for landholders compared with any other jurisdiction, and is proposing to strengthen them with amendments such as these and some amendments from the Opposition and the Shooters Party that I will accept.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What do you mean you'll accept them? It's the Committee that accepts them.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I can accept them and then the Committee will agree to them. What is wrong with that? The member is getting too precious. In contrast, in Queensland the explorer is required only to give the landholder five business days notice before entering a property to conduct exploration. There is no requirement for the explorer to pay any of their legal costs in getting advice. Indeed, no access arrangement is required at all.
Ms Lee Rhiannon: Is that what you'd like?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I am not saying that. I supported the previous system, which was strong and provided for landholders. We are light years ahead of that, and these amendments will take us a bit further away from Queensland, which is our competitor particularly in terms of a number of important commodities. The third Government amendment will extend the period in which a new arrangement can be negotiated if a landholder changes and objects to the existing arrangement. Further, my department, in consultation with other government agencies, has developed a draft code of practice for New South Wales companies undertaking exploration on private lands.
To ensure adequate consultation, I have appointed Mal Peters to conduct a key stakeholder review in relation to the code and to advise me regarding any modifications that may be required. The Hon. Robert Brown, in his contribution, raised the need to look at these areas more rigorously. Mr Mal Peters, the former president of the NSW Farmers Association, will conduct that review. The Nationals are also proposing an amendment that will provide for templates for standard access arrangements to be developed.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: He's the one who ticked off on all your sackings from the department.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, he did not. This will be done in consultation with the Minerals Council and the NSW Farmers Association. The Government will support this amendment and will also refer consultation with key stakeholders on the development of the templates, which Mr Mal Peters will lead in his review. My expectation is that this process will address some of the concerns raised by the Hon. Robert Brown about exploration processes and getting the balance right. Essentially, it will deal with a code of conduct and other related issues.
The significance of the mining industry to New South Wales means that we must have consistency and certainty for landholders and exploration title holders. The bill delivers that consistency and certainty for landholders, exploration licence holders and the community. It must be remembered that we are talking about citizen-owned assets. We need to have a rational system that protects the needs of the farming community and associated communities, as well as the companies seeking to access, on behalf of the general community, those assets that are held by the community—that is, mineral resources under the surface of the lands of this State. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22965
Ayes, 27
Mr Ajaka Mr Macdonald Mr Smith Mr Brown Mr Mason-Cox Mr Veitch Mr Catanzariti Mr Moselmane Ms Voltz Mr Clarke Reverend Nile Mr West Mr Colless Mr Obeid Ms Westwood Ms Ficarra Ms Parker Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Gay Mr Primrose Tellers Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Mr Donnelly Mr Khan Ms Sharpe Mr Harwin
Noes, 5
Mr Cohen Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Rhiannon Tellers Ms Hale Dr Kaye
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.18 p.m.] by leave: I move The Nationals amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:
No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], line 3. Omit "orally or".
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], lines 21–24. Omit all words on those lines.
The effect of The Nationals amendment No. 1 is that only written access agreements are to be allowed between miners and landholders. NSW Farmers Association policy—the chairman, Charles Armstrong, is here tonight— is that written-only agreements be pursued between landholders and miners. Amendment No. 2 seeks to omit all words on page 4, lines 21 to 24. This will remove the provision that stated, under the heading "Matters for which access arrangements to provide":
(j) such other matters not otherwise required by or under this Act or the conditions of the prospecting title as the parties to the arrangement may agree to include in the arrangement.
We will seek to insert instead the words contained in The Nationals amendment No. 3.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [9.20 p.m.]: The Government supports The Nationals amendments Nos 1 and 2. Amendment No. 1 means that an access arrangement could not be agreed to orally. Currently the Act and the bill provide that an access arrangement can be agreed to orally or in writing. In some cases access arrangements are so simple that landholders are happy to agree to them orally rather than get tied down in paperwork. For instance, they may agree to surveyors walking over their land. However, it is likely that many access arrangements are agreed in writing. It is sensible for both titleholders and landholders to have written arrangements in place in the majority of cases. However, there may be existing oral arrangements that have been agreed in good faith. In keeping with the intent of the bill to avoid renegotiating existing arrangements it is important that this provision is not applied retrospectively. I understand that The Nationals amendment No. 11 will address this and ensure that this applies only to future arrangements.
22966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Amendment No. 2 removes a provision that aims to prevent wholesale duplication of exploration conditions and access arrangements. The aim of this provision is to prevent inclusion of matters in access arrangements that are not relevant to accessing the land and have no impact on it. Exploration licence conditions are regulated by government and it does not make sense to duplicate all of them in an access arrangement. However, the drafting of the provision of the bill has caused stakeholders confusion and, accordingly, we will be supporting The Nationals' amendments.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.22 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendments. We believe these arrangements should be in writing.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.22 p.m.]: Not that the numbers count, but the Shooters Party also supports these amendments. They are very sensible amendments.
Question—That Opposition amendments Nos. 1 and 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.23 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 3.
No. 3 Page 4. Insert after line 24:
[5] Section 141 (1A)
Insert after section 141 (1):
(1A) The Director-General may, with the concurrence of the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council, publish templates for use for standard access arrangements. The use of any such template is not mandatory.
The effect of this amendment, which is repeated in amendment No. 15, is to ensure that any future access arrangements will be done on a template drawn up by the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council as directed by the director general. The Minerals Council had concerns that simple prospecting tasks were done via oral agreement, as the Minister said a moment ago. These tasks could be completed in a number of hours, for example, handheld coring, taking of surface samples or mapping. They stated that to always require a written access arrangement for such prospecting operations, which may take less than a day and involve no impact on the land, would place an unnecessary administrative burden on both landholders and titleholders. The amendment puts in a template, which simplifies the situation. Given that it is hard to find one with both logos on it currently the suggestion was made that the director general be the person who develops it. Certainly both miners and farmers felt it should be done only with the concurrence of both parties. It is there to be helpful. I also note that the Greens have foreshadowed an amendment to this. The thoroughbred association indicated, and I think it made a fair point, that the template should not be limited just to these immediate matters. I would like the Minister to address this in his reply. The association pointed out not just on its behalf but on behalf of others such as apiarists, orchardists or whatever that while most of them would be covered by the NSW Farmers Association some may not. We think the amendment foreshadowed by Ms Lee Rhiannon may well be too prescriptive and in the wrong area but certainly the philosophy behind it is not to be ignored. Perhaps the Minister will address that in his reply.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.27 p.m.]: I circulated amendment No. 1 on sheet C2010-032B on behalf of the Greens, but rather than change the wording I will move an amendment to The Nationals amendment. I move:
That Nationals amendment No. 3 be amended by inserting after "arrangements" the words "being templates that provide best practice prospecting, environmental protection and rehabilitation procedures, including procedures limiting any negative environmental impacts to land or water resources resulting from exploration activities".
The initiative for developing templates for access agreements between landholders and mining exploration companies is obviously supported by the Greens, but we need a proviso here and it is important. The Act should spell out that these templates provide for best practice by the mining industry when it comes to being accountable to landholders for their activities. I was interested in the comment made by Mr Gay who, if I understood correctly, was indicating support for having these sorts of protections in place but said that it could not be done here. If that is the position of The Nationals, we need an explanation in the Committee stage as to
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22967
why that is the case. The drawing up of the templates seems to me to be the logical point at which to include these provisos to ensure best practice. The Greens amendment seeks to achieve that aim by giving consideration to limiting or minimising any environmental harm that could be caused through exploration activities. We already know that landholders seek to protect their properties from harm—it goes with the territory and that is how the majority of landholders operate.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: I will hold you to that in due course, Lee. That is a tremendous concession by the Greens.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is unfortunate that, in the middle of trying to work through these amendments, Mr Khan refers to old misconceptions about farmers that he and his Nationals colleagues try to project about the Greens, which is so off the mark. Clearly, farmers try to stop the introduction of weeds, the contamination of water resources—about which we have been given many examples—and any damage to roads. All those things go hand in hand with looking after a property. Clearly, farmers also seek an assurance that any disruption or damage to their land during exploration prospecting should undergo best practice rehabilitation, which is fair enough.
That should form part of this package and the best time to include it is in the drawing up of these templates. Members of The Nationals will leave themselves exposed if they are not willing to include that in their amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments and I ask The Nationals to expand on this issue. If they do not intend to support the Greens amendment I would like them to explain why that protection should be included.
The Hon ROBERT BROWN [9.31 p.m.]: The Shooters Party does not support Ms Lee Rhiannon's amendment. The original amendment, which was moved by the Hon. Duncan Gay, was based on the legal suggestions of the NSW Farmers Association. Given that the Minister enunciated earlier the way in which these templates and standard documents should be formulated, that is a better description to be included in this legislation. Ms Rhiannon attempted to include in the legislation a descriptor of these issues, but she is neither a farmer nor a miner. I believe that the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council should thrash out these issues. The Shooters Party does not support Ms Rhiannon's amendment to The Nationals amendment.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [9.32 p.m.]: The Government supports The Nationals amendment No. 3, which would allow the Director General of the Department of Industry and Investment to publish templates for standard access arrangements. That would occur only after consultation with the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council. That might relieve titleholders and landholders of some of the groundwork involved in negotiating access arrangements. However, it is important to continue to be able to tailor these arrangements to individual properties. The Government supports that amendment.
The Government does not support the Greens amendment, which suggests having standard templates for access arrangements. It is an alternative to the amendment proposed by The Nationals and specifies that the template will deal with best practice prospecting procedures that limit any negative environmental impacts on land and water resources. That is an unnecessary amendment. The amendment proposed by The Nationals covers all aspects of an access arrangement and does not limit the possible contents in any way.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.33 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic supports The Nationals amendment and does not support the Greens amendment. I wonder whether the Greens amendment is practical and whether such a template could include all those categories. I would rather leave it to the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council to work together to determine what should be included in the template.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [9.34 p.m.]: It is notable that earlier Ms Rhiannon made a concession— perhaps for the first time in this place—that the farming community looks after its land and that farmers are the best people to identify how to do so. The appropriate representative of that farming community is the NSW Farmers Association. The Greens have made that concession and we have reached a point where we recognise that the NSW Farmers Association is the appropriate body to represent farmers.
It seems appropriate that that body will, quite properly, represent farmers' interests and ensure that appropriate standards are put in place. The best way to achieve an outcome in these template agreements is to
22968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
involve the proper stakeholders. The purpose of The Nationals amendment is to allow for appropriate standards to be included in the template, which is what will be done. That is why The Nationals moved its amendment. The words that the Greens amendment seeks to insert are surplusage in achieving such an outcome.
Question—That the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon of Opposition amendment No. 3 be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4
Mr Cohen Ms Hale Tellers, Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon
Noes, 25
Mr Ajaka Mr Macdonald Mr Smith Mr Brown Mr Mason-Cox Mr Veitch Mr Catanzariti Mr Moselmane Ms Voltz Mr Clarke Reverend Dr Moyes Mr West Mr Colless Reverend Nile Ms Westwood Ms Ficarra Ms Parker Miss Gardiner Mr Primrose Tellers, Mr Gay Ms Robertson Mr Donnelly Mr Khan Ms Sharpe Mr Harwin
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon of Opposition amendment No. 3 negatived.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 3 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Opposition amendment No. 3 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.44 p.m.]: Opposition amendment No. 4 is the same as Government amendment No. 1 save for a small change, to which the NSW Farmers Association agrees. Accordingly, I will not move amendment No. 4 and will support Government amendment No. 1.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [9.44 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert after line 24:
[5] Section 141 (2A)
Insert after section 141 (2):
(2A) An access arrangement must (if the landholder so requests) specify that the holder of the prospecting title is required to pay the reasonable legal costs of the landholder in obtaining initial advice about the making of the arrangement. Those costs are not to exceed the maximum amount set by the Director-General, with the concurrence of the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council, by order published in the Gazette.
This amendment provides that landholders are reimbursed for the costs of seeking legal advice about making an access arrangement. This amendment is in similar terms to that of Opposition amendment No. 4, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to move. The amendment is consistent with the idea that the prospecting titleholder bears costs related to exploration activity. The Government's amendment varies from that
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22969
of the Opposition by making it clear that titleholders must pay these costs only if landholders request them to. It is probable that in some instances landholders do not seek advice and will incur no costs. Hence, it would be inappropriate that costs be paid. Similar to the Opposition's amendment, the Government's proposal places constraints on those costs so that they are kept in check. It is essential that for New South Wales to remain competitive in attracting investment for exploration, costs must not exceed a maximum amount set by the director general. I remind members that no other jurisdiction requires anything like this of mining companies in Australia. Again, this demonstrates how vigorous and rigorous are the protections for landholders in New South Wales.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.46 p.m.]: The Opposition agrees with this amendment. It is based on our amendment but has the small change in the first line, "(if the landholder so requests)". Our amendment No. 4 states:
(2A) An access arrangement must specify that the holder of the prospecting title is required to pay the reasonable legal costs of the landholder in obtaining initial advice about the making of the arrangement. Those costs are not to exceed the maximum amount set by the Director-General, with the concurrence of the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council, by order published in the Gazette.
The amendment ensures that the mining company covers legal costs for farmers obtaining initial legal advice on the proposed access arrangement. The cost would not have been incurred otherwise. As stated, these costs are not to exceed the amount set by the director general. This is a fair amendment and a huge step forward for the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.47 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support this amendment. It is important that the landholder obtains legal advice. This amendment will assist landholders to get that advice knowing that those with the prospecting title will meet their costs. We now have had two amendments that contain the words "with the concurrence of the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council". How is that intended to work? Will each body select two or three people who then will meet and follow these matters through? Such matters could not be decided in one minute and it would be difficult if both bodies had separate meetings. Has that procedure been worked out?
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Is this in relation to the templates?
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes. This is the second amendment that states "with the concurrence of the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council". Will there be a physical meeting with two or three representatives from each body who will work on these issues?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [9.48 p.m.]: It is envisaged that the process will involve sitting down and working it out with the director general to reach agreement. I see members of the NSW Farmers Association in the gallery nodding furiously in agreement. The process would involve the parties coming to a conclusion. The director general would be present. I believe we can reach agreement on this issue quite well.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.49 p.m.]: The Shooters Party also supports the amendment. When this amendment is added to the commitment already given by the Minister that work will be done, and done quickly, by parties who know what they are talking about when formulating a template, that tips the balance more evenly in favour of the farmers. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile stated, it gives farmers the opportunity to obtain advice without necessarily having to worry very much about how much it will cost. In my second reading speech I cited at least one example of farmers not knowing their rights. They had no clue, and the results were not good for them. The Shooters Party supports this very good amendment.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.50 p.m.]: The Greens are concerned about the amendment. Members should realise that the key aspect is limiting the legal costs that mining exploration companies pay to landholders. Let us be mindful of what we are doing here.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: It is just putting in a cap.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Whatever it is called, it will limit how much mining companies will have to pay.
22970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Or how much money is earned.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: No. It will limit how much mining companies have to pay to landholders. The Nationals are supposed to be the party representing landholders' interests, or so Mr Duncan Gay keeps telling us.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am not representing lawyers.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Mr Gay needs to concentrate on the debate. Clearly landholders could be exposed to spiralling costs beyond the maximum imposed by the director general. There is only so much money that landholders will receive, but that does not mean it will cover the costs to which they may be exposed. Mining companies could tie up landholders in extensive and expensive legal cases that far exceed the cap-based receipts.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: No. The Greens are wrong.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: That has to be agreed to by the farmers.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: This does not relate to court cases.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is an initial advice.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Mr Gay needs to state for the record—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Well, give me a go and I will.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Duncan Gay should stop being rude. He knows that when legislation is being considered during the Committee stage, that is when members are able to explore it and discuss the issues—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: —instead of being rude.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am very happy to do that.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Then let us move to that position. I think the Opposition can understand our concerns.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Much of the time, law simply appears that will apply to small farmers and family businesses that specialise in certain fields who want to preserve best practice standards in the operations that are carried out on their property. If mining prospectors want to impose costs, they should bear those costs, but at the moment the system leads to a cap being imposed, but nothing exists that will stop the costs spiralling out of control. If the cap is put in place, what will stop the costs increasing beyond the capped amount that the mining companies have to pay? All that the caps are doing is limiting the mining companies.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [9.52 p.m.]: Plainly there is a disconnect or a failure of minds to meet. The amendment is designed to deal with the initial phases of a proposed access arrangement. One could safely say that very occasionally in legal practice one may encounter a landholder who had been confronted with the prospect of an access arrangement being put in place. At present, to gain advice on what the Mining Act allows and initial advice on the implications of the proposal, the landholder meets that cost.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: That is right.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: The amendment is not something that has been dreamt up by the Opposition alone. It has been formulated after considerable consultation with the New South Wales Farmers Association. The amendment is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that a landholder is able to consult a solicitor and obtain advice on the implications of the proposed access agreement. The amendment does not deal with the circumstance in which the access arrangement is not met, which results in a landholder heading towards the Mining Wardens Court where huge costs may be incurred. Court costs are dealt with under the appropriate
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22971
provisions that deal with the Mining Wardens Court and the Land and Environment Court, but this amendment deals with the initial phase of a big exploration company knocking on the door and proposing an access arrangement.
As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition points out, the cap will be set from time to time through consultation between various parties. The New South Wales Farmers Association will be involved in that process. If it turns out that the initial cap figure is wrong, no doubt there will be a reconvening of the group of stakeholders and the matter will be reconsidered. The cap will be increased if that is necessary. But what is also a matter of concern to me, as a member of a profession that has been known to do this from time to time, is turning issues involving access arrangements into yet another opportunity for lawyers to make money. If the arrangement is open-ended and creates the potential for a lawyer to lob in a bill, the end result will be a sudden explosion of costs for no particular reason except that the lawyer thinks a miner can bear those costs. That is unfair to everyone.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is like an insurance claim.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Absolutely, and we have seen that time and time again. If there is not a cap of some sort imposed, regrettably some members of the legal profession will turn it into an absolute feast.
The Hon. Christine Robertson: Not you, though, Trevor.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: No, not me. That certainly was the case, and perhaps that is why I am a member of the Legislative Council.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [9.56 p.m.]: That was very well said by the Hon. Trevor Khan "QC"! This amendment must be considered in context. A template access agreement will be negotiated between the New South Wales Farmers Association and the New South Wales Mineral Council, subject to the director general, in essence, approving that process. That means that most of the initial work will be done. The cap is a device to keep control. Based on NorthParkes, which has 220 titles, if there are $500, the cost will be approximately $11,000 just for the initial agreement. But the template is in place, so we have something to work off and people should not need much extra advice.
Question—That Government amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 1 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.59 p.m.]: I seek leave to move The Nationals amendment Nos 5 and 6 in globo.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.59 p.m.]: I have no objection, provided that the questions are put seriatim. I support one, but not the other.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.59 p.m.], by leave: I move:
No. 5 Page 4. Insert after line 24:
[5] Section 141 (4)
Omit the subsection. Insert instead:
(4) If the holder of a prospecting title contravenes an access arrangement, a landholder of the land concerned may deny the holder access to the land until:
(a) the holder ceases the contravention, or
(b) the contravention is remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of, or in the manner directed by, an arbitrator appointed by the Director-General.
The Director-General is to make such an appointment within 48 hours after being requested to do so by the landholder and the arbitrator is to deal with the matter within 5 business days of the appointment. If the arbitrator does not deal with the matter within that time, the landholder may deny the holder of the prospecting title access to the land until such time as the matter is determined by the arbitrator.
No. 6 Page 4, schedule 1 [5], line 28. Omit "(either orally or in writing and either". Insert instead "in writing (either".
22972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Effectively, amendment No. 5 gives landholders the right to deny a miner access to the land if authorised to do so by an arbitrator appointed by the director general. Amendment No. 6 is fairly self-explanatory.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.00 p.m.]: The Government supports both the amendments moved by The Nationals. Amendment No. 5 applies to a situation where a landholder denies access to the property on the basis that a condition of the access arrangement has been breached. Landholders are able to deny access until the contravention ceases. The proposed amendment means that the director general is able to appoint an arbitrator to oversee that the contravention is remedied to the arbitrator's reasonable satisfaction. Access would be able to resume at that point. This provides a way of involving an independent party in resolving whether access for exploration can resume after dealing with a breach. The Government is not opposed to having this option in place. It does not diminish the landholder's right to deny access but it provides an alternative way of resolving the issue. The Government also supports amendment No. 6, which makes it clear that future access arrangements must be written and not oral.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.01 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the two amendments. Like the previous amendments, these will strengthen the bill by strengthening the rights of the landholders—the farmers. I am sure they will be pleased with these amendments.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.01 p.m.]: The Shooters Party supports The Nationals amendments Nos 5 and 6. Amendment No. 5 does not deal with a breach of the exploration licence or the environmental conditions under the exploration licence, although there is another amendment that will enable the attachment of conditions, subject to agreement, to access agreements. Perhaps the other amendment will take care of this problem. One farmer was concerned that in an environmental accident, such as drilling resulting in the land being inundated by flood overrun, remedial works or cessation would be required quickly. He commented that he did not believe there were sufficient compliance officers available to act in such emergencies. Perhaps in considering and agreeing to the amendments, the Minister might also take on board the comment that compliance issues under the exploration licence need to be addressed rapidly in certain cases.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.03 p.m.]: In debating these amendments, we need to remember the current arrangements where exploration activity must stop immediately if a breach occurs. Given what I have heard from The Nationals and the Government, these amendments will weaken the current regime and work against the interests and rights of landholders. A landholder should be able to deny access to a mining company if they feel that the terms of their access agreement have been breached until such time as an arbitrator can deal with the matter. The landholder should not have to wait until such time as an arbitrator authorises denying access if that delay poses an unacceptable risk of environmental damage to their land or water. For example, if water has been contaminated, the landholder should be able to immediately deny access to the exploration company to avoid the risk of further contamination occurring. The key point is that it is going backwards.
The Hon. Robert Brown: No, it's not.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Members are saying that it is not going backwards, but let us consider the amendment. The Minister tried to present the situation as it is now.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You've got the wrong amendment.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I have sheet C2010-011I.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No, you should have C2010-011K.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I apologise. I was working off the wrong sheet. I think my mistake is understandable. We are now up to C2010-011K and I was working off C2010-011I. I have now been given the right amendment.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's the only change.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Otherwise what I was working off is the same?
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [10.06 p.m.]: To clarify the position, section 141 (4) of the existing Act states:
If the holder of a prospecting title contravenes an access arrangement, a landholder of the land concerned may deny the holder access to the land until:
Those are precisely the same words as in the amendment. Section 141 (4) continues:
(a) the holder ceases the contravention or
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22973
Those are precisely the same words as in the amendment. It continues:
(b) the contravention is remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the holder
Those are the same words. The amendment is designed to include what essentially could be described as an alternative dispute resolution procedure. For instance, rather than the explorer heading off to the Supreme Court, at huge cost to all parties, the amendment provides for the appointment of an arbitrator. Hopefully, it provides a cost-efficient means of dealing with a dispute between the parties. That is the only change. There have been so many permutations of the various amendments that Ms Lee Rhiannon's misunderstanding of the matter is entirely understandable. I think we are all a bit tired and confused at times.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.07 p.m.]: I seek clarification. Because I have only just become aware of this, I simply ask the question: Does the arbitrator have to come into the process or does the landholder have the right to simply say that a breach has occurred and access ceases? That is my understanding of the current situation.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.08 p.m.]: I understand what Ms Lee Rhiannon is saying. In those circumstances currently it would lead to a court process to resolve the dispute. The amendment moved by The Nationals provides for a non-court process for the resolution of the problem, whatever it is, through arbitration. It is an alternative to having everyone in court and spending heaps of money. The amendment provides a low-cost way of solving the dispute, if the parties agree. If they do not agree, they can take the dispute to court.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.08 p.m.]: To clarify again, when the breach occurs the landholder can deny access at that point and it does not have to kick into the process. The process is there if they choose to use it.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.09 p.m.]: Yes. What would happen is that if the dispute is not resolved one of the parties—probably the mining company, the exploration company—would then go to the Supreme Court for resolution. If it wins the case, there would be lots of costs. All the amendment does is provide—what the farmers put forward is reasonable—for an arbitrated settlement instead of ending up in the Supreme Court. The parties can go to arbitration to settle the dispute.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.10 p.m.]: But first they can say no.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.10 p.m.]: Yes, totally.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.10 p.m.]: By way of clarification, the amendment states:
(4) If the holder of a prospecting title contravenes an access arrangement, a landholder of the land concerned may deny the holder access to the land until:
(a) the holder ceases the contravention, or
It is very clear.
Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 5 and 6 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Opposition amendments Nos 5 and 6 agreed to.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.12 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:
No. 2 Page 5, schedule 1. Insert after line 2:
[6] Section 142A
Insert after section 142:
142A Notice to mortgagees of making of access arrangements
(1) Within 14 days after an access arrangement is agreed between a landholder and the holder of a prospecting title, the holder is to serve notice of the making of the arrangement on each person (other than that landholder) who is identified in any register or record kept by the Registrar-General as a person having an interest as mortgagee in the land concerned.
22974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
(2) Notice is not required to be served on a mortgagee under this section:
(a) if the mortgagee has been given a copy of the written notice referred to in section 142 to the landholder of the intention to obtain the access arrangement, or
(b) if the landholder with whom the access arrangement was made is not the mortgagor.
(3) If notice is required to be served on a mortgagee under this section, the access arrangement does not come into force until the end of the period of 14 days after the notice is served, unless the holder of the prospecting title has reasonable cause to believe that the mortgagee is not a mortgagee in possession of the land concerned.
(4) The requirement imposed by this section on the holder of a prospecting title is taken to be a condition of the prospecting title.
(5) This section applies only to access arrangements made after the commencement of this section.
Note.
If the person is a mortgagee in possession of the land, an access arrangement with that person is also required under section 140 before prospecting operations may be carried out on the land.
This amendment relates to identifying mortgagees in possession. The Bankers Association and a number of leading banks advised me that it is not straightforward to identify whether a mortgagee is in possession. They cannot, for example, be identified through a simple title search. Mortgagees in possession are considered primary landholders in the bill and are required to be a party to an access arrangement. Therefore, I am proposing amendments that will mean all mortgagees are notified within 14 days of an access arrangement being agreed with any mortgagor of a property. This would not be required if the mortgagee already has a copy of a written notice of the intent to obtain an access arrangement.
This process will allow the mortgagee to advise the prospecting titleholder if they are, in fact, in possession of a property and therefore should be party to an access arrangement. It will also allow mortgagees to record that an access arrangement is in place for the property. This means that if they take possession of a property at a later date they will be aware that an access arrangement exists. It will not give the mortgagee a right to be involved in the negotiation of an access arrangement or be party to it unless they are in possession. Exploration can commence once the earlier of the 14 days since notification of the mortgagee has elapsed or the prospecting titleholder has reason to believe the mortgagee is not in possession.
Requiring all prospecting titleholders to apply this process consistently will reduce the risk that mortgagees in possession are inadvertently overlooked when landholders are identified for the purpose of negotiating an access agreement. The onus remains, as it always has been, on the prospecting titleholder to identify all landholders who should be party to an access arrangement. Also raised with me was the possibility that parties to a farm debt mediation process should be included and I made it clear that the Government was not prepared to go that far.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.13 p.m.]: The Opposition supports Government amendment No. 2 and concurs with the concluding comments of the Minister concerning farm debt mediation. It is an appropriate time to remind members that a few weeks ago the Government tried to shove this bill through the House without proper examination. Now the Government not only is agreeing to amendments moved by The Nationals but it has had to move its own amendments. That is certainly verification that the legislation required community observation and improvement. Having said that, the Opposition supports this important amendment. It is important that the banking industry backs this State, and I am sure that a lot of miners, explorers, subcontractors and certainly farmers rely on having a good relationship with the banks. The bankers are happy, and I hope that they will continue to be supportive of farmers.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.14 p.m.]: The Shooters Party supports Government amendment No. 2. I do not want to speak out of turn, but the Shooters Party was aware that bankers had been knocking on the Minister's door because as I arrived for an appointment with the Minister I recognised the Bankers Association representative leaving his office, with a lot of suits in tow. I must admit I was a bit alarmed because I wondered what the banks were doing there, but I did not ask and I was not told.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I meet all stakeholders.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I realise that the Minister must do that. The amendment provides for the proper involvement and notification of security holders and mortgagees under certain circumstances. Earlier
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22975
I may have said the Shooters Party was not in favour of too many people being classified as landholders—and certainly not banks—but this is perhaps an exception. The amendment does the right thing by ensuring that everybody who should be informed—not who believes they should be informed—is informed. We support the amendment.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.16 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports Government amendment No. 2. Following the Supreme Court case to which I referred earlier, the responsibility will now be on the holder of a prospecting title—that is, the mining company has the obligation to serve notice on the people who are on the register or in the record kept by the Registrar-General as a person having an interest as mortgagee in the land concerned. This amendment will tidy it up and show clearly where the responsibility lies.
Question—That Government amendment No. 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 2 agreed to.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): The Nationals amendment No. 7 and Shooters Party amendment No. 1 are in conflict. If The Nationals amendment No. 7 is agreed to, the Shooters Party amendment No. 1 cannot be moved.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.17 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 7:
No. 7 Page 5, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 157. Omit "or" from line 18 and omit all words on lines 19–21.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.18 p.m.]: The Nationals amendment No. 7 proposes to remove the option of parties applying to the Land and Environment Court to vary an arrangement. The provision in the bill for varying access arrangements provides more flexibility than the existing Act. Access arrangements could be varied in a number of ways, including by agreement by an arbitrator or application to the Land and Environment Court. In some cases it would be appropriate to apply to the court to vary an arrangement—for example, when the Land and Environment Court originally determined an arrangement. Shooters Party amendment No. 1 would limit application to the Land and Environment Court to those instances in which a court or an arbitrator determined the arrangement. Its amendment addresses concerns that a party may go direct to the Land and Environment Court without trying simpler, lower-cost options when they are appropriate. The Government will support the Shooters Party amendment. On this basis, the Government does not support The Nationals amendment No. 7.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.19 p.m.]: We do not support The Nationals amendment No. 7 because we think our amendment is better.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 7 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
Opposition amendment No. 7 negatived.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.20 p.m.]: I move Shooters Party amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 5, Schedule 1 [7], line 20. After “Court” insert "if the arrangement was determined by a court or an arbitrator".
This amendment relates to the process for variation of access agreements. Before I proceed with my explanation of the amendment I will do a Tony Abbott and be brutally honest. I will read a memo from TressCox Lawyers to the NSW Farmers Association in which they discuss my amendment. They said, "The proposed amendment does not appear to be a meaningful amendment. The amendment proposed by the Opposition is far more satisfactory." I am sorry, but I disagree with that opinion. The NSW Farmers Association was originally concerned, correctly, that the provisions of the variations of access arrangements would have allowed any party to apply to the Land and Environment Court to vary any existing arrangement. This, of course, may circumvent the use of feasible lower-cost options in some cases—we have just considered an amendment that sought to do that—such as direct negotiation and arbitration, to the disadvantage of landholders. My amendment discourages making applications direct to the court if direct negotiation or arbitration would suffice. However, it provides that direct application to the court may take place in some cases where the arrangement was originally determined by the court.
22976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.23 p.m.]: The provisions in the bill give greater flexibility and more options for resolving disputes than does the existing Act. I appreciate that this greater flexibility may mean that in some cases a party applies direct to the Land and Environment Court for a determination. This might be appropriate, for example, if the Land and Environment Court had determined the arrangement. However, in some circumstances other options might be feasible, such as direct negotiation or arbitration. I understand that the intent of Shooters Party amendment No. 1 is to encourage parties to an access arrangement to use simpler approaches to vary an arrangement when these are appropriate. This is a sensible approach but it does not remove the right of any party to apply further up the system if they so desire.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.24 p.m.]: We still do not believe Shooters Party amendment No. 1 is as good as The Nationals amendment No. 7, but we have to accept that we do not have the numbers. It is slightly worse than our amendment but not alarmingly so. The fact is if you do not have the numbers there is nothing you can do about it, and we do not have the numbers.
Question—That Shooters Party amendment No.1 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Shooters Party amendment No.1 agreed to.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Shooters Party amendment No. 2 and The Nationals amendment No. 8 are the same.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.25 p.m.]: These two amendments are the same and on this occasion we agree that, while the Shooters Party amendment is not better than ours, it is at least as good as ours. Therefore, I will not move The Nationals amendments Nos 8 and 9.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.25 p.m.], by leave: I move Shooters Party amendments Nos 2 and 3 in globo:
No. 2 Page 6, Schedule 1 [7], line 8. Omit “7 days”. Insert instead “28 days”.
No.3 Page 6, Schedule 1 [7], lines 27–36. Omit all words on those lines.
Amendment No.2 relates to the impact of a change in landholder on access agreements; that is, there is a new landholder. The bill as drafted allows new landholders to be party to an existing access arrangement to avoid the need to renegotiate an access arrangement. The bill allows a new landholder seven days to object to the arrangement after being given a copy of it. Stakeholders believe this is inadequate time for the landholder to have the opportunity to properly consider and seek advice on the arrangement. The proposed amendment extends the period in which the landholder can object from seven days to 28 days. Shooters Party amendment No. 3 includes a provision that would mean access arrangements would continue in the case where land becomes subject to a different prospecting title and the person holding the new title could be the same or a different person. Stakeholders consider that this means their access arrangements can be transferred to exploration companies other than the one with which the arrangement was originally agreed and they consider they should have the opportunity to object. This provision would apply in extremely rare circumstances, for example, where a title itself is replaced. The proposed amendment deletes the provision since the scenario it attempts to address rarely occurs and it is causing confusion.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.27 p.m.]: The Government supports Shooters Party amendments Nos 2 and 3 for the reasons outlined by the Hon. Robert Brown.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.28 p.m.]: We support Shooters Party amendments Nos 2 and 3 as we had developed similar amendments. The time period in the bill of seven days is frankly not enough. Through consultation, we have been able to extend it to 28 days. I have to acknowledge that in that consultation a group of people, not the least of which was the thoroughbred association, believed 90 days was a more appropriate term. It is 90 days under just terms legislation when problems are identified and, whilst this was part of the deeming, the sensible suggestion from the NSW Farmers Association was to extend it. Seven days was not enough. We have agreed to a term of 28 days. A number of
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22977
people, including the thoroughbred association and others, strongly lobbied us to extend to 90 days the period within which parties can negotiate an arrangement. That matter will need to be watched. I suggest that this period of 28 days will need close scrutiny and, if it does not work, it should be extended to 90 days.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.30 p.m.]: I will take a good look at this matter and instruct the director general to examine how this provision will operate in practice.
Question—That Shooters Party amendments Nos 2 and 3 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Shooters Party amendments Nos 2 and 3 agreed to.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.30 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 3:
No. 3 Page 6, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 158 (5) (c), line 17. Omit "28 days". Insert instead "60 days".
This amendment proposes to extend the period for negotiating a new arrangement when a new landholder objects to an existing arrangement. The existing arrangement would remain in place for 60 days rather than the 28 days proposed in the bill. In many cases access arrangement are simple documents and can be quickly agreed to. However, sometimes they may take longer to negotiate, depending on the availability of the parties and particular issues on which either party might want to seek advice before finalising an arrangement. Sixty days is a more reasonable period to allow for reaching an arrangement. Extending that period will prevent exploration from coming to a halt prematurely while a new arrangement is being finalised.
The Hon DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.31 p.m.]: It is not proposed in this instance to allow parties 90 days within which to reach an arrangement. However, in an earlier amendment the Minister proposed to allow parties 90 days within which to reach such an arrangement. I indicated then that the Opposition would not support a 90-day provision. The Minister negotiated with other parties and with Opposition members, and we subsequently reached a 60-day compromise. Frankly, in these circumstances a period of 28 days would have been better. Given that a compromise has been reached, the Opposition will not oppose the amendment.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.32 p.m.]: The Greens are concerned about Government amendment No 3. Under the current law a landowner access agreement ceases to be in force immediately once the land that it covers changes ownership. That is the situation at present, which is how it should be. I am disappointed that The Nationals have not referred to that important provision as it relates to new landholders who have not made any agreements to allow exploration on their land. Clearly, we should start with a clean slate. Landholders are buying the land, not some deal relating to the mining of their land. Under this amendment a mining company would be able to continue exploration under an existing access agreement, which will be extended to 60 days.
Mr Duncan Gay referred earlier to some of the changes that occurred in the period in which these amendments were negotiated outside this place. He referred to that as a compromise. In no way is it a compromise. These companies will be able to go ahead with their exploration for 60 days, which is not a compromise. Members of The Nationals are rolling over for the mining industry and the New South Wales Government; they are not showing leadership on this issue. I believe they should retain the present regime. Clearly it would be wrong to extend the period to 60 days. The Government is including a provision that will favour the mining industry. In the original bill that the Minister tried to rush through this Parliament the period provided was 28 days. The Government is amending its own bill to extend that period from 28 days to 60 days.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Wasn't it 90 days?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Originally it was 90 days but the Government is now proposing to extend the period to 60 days. That is the period within which exploration can continue after a new landholder has objected to an access agreement. I state clearly that this is not for the benefit of landholders. In many cases they would object to exploration and to an access agreement being in place. However, they cannot do anything about it, as it will be in force for 60 days. The Greens assert that the current arrangement, which is preferable, gives certainty to landholders, which is what we should be doing. Some people might say it is reasonable to provide a 28-day
22978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
period within which to strike a new agreement. I understand that that is what some people have asked for, but extending it to 60 days is going too far. In a 60-day period a great deal of damage could be done. The Minister is proposing to extend that period for the benefit of the mining industry. This amendment will ensure that the mining industry comes out on top.
Question—That Government amendment No. 3 be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 25
Mr Ajaka Mr Macdonald Mr Smith Mr Brown Mr Mason-Cox Mr Veitch Mr Catanzariti Mr Moselmane Ms Voltz Mr Clarke Reverend Dr Moyes Mr West Mr Colless Reverend Nile Ms Westwood Ms Fazio Ms Parker Ms Ficarra Mr Primrose Tellers, Mr Gay Ms Robertson Mr Donnelly Mr Khan Ms Sharpe Mr Harwin
Noes, 4
Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Cohen Ms Hale
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 3 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.43 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 10:
No. 10 Page 7, schedule 1 [13], line 26. Omit "A land". Insert instead "Subject to subclause (4), an".
This amendment is consequential on The Nationals amendment No. 9.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.43 p.m.]: As the Government will not support The Nationals amendment No. 12, we will not support The Nationals amendment No. 10, which is in effect a machinery amendment that relates to The Nationals amendment No. 12.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, it relates to amendment No. 9.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, it relates to amendment No. 12. The Nationals amendment No. 10 relates to cross-referencing other provisions. As I have made clear, the Government will not support The Nationals amendment No. 12. The Nationals amendment No. 10 makes no sense without The Nationals amendment No. 12. Therefore the Government opposes The Nationals amendment No. 10. I indicate that whilst we oppose The Nationals amendments Nos 10 and 12, we will support an amendment that deals with one aspect of the Caroona licence area, and that is Shooters Party amendment No. 4.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.45 p.m.]: We oppose the amendment for similar reasons. As we have an amendment that effectively opposes The Nationals amendment No. 12, and The Nationals amendment No. 10 is a machinery amendment that supports The Nationals amendment No. 12, we oppose The Nationals amendment No. 10.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.45 p.m.]: Needless to say, we will divide on this amendment no matter what. We still believe that the Minister's interpretation on this—and coincidentally, interestingly, the Shooters Party's interpretation—is wrong.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22979
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 10 be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 17
Mr Ajaka Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Clarke Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Cohen Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon Ms Cusack Dr Kaye Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mr Khan Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Mason-Cox Mr Harwin
Noes, 20
Mr Brown Reverend Nile Mr Smith Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Ms Fazio Mr Primrose Mr West Mr Kelly Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Macdonald Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Moselmane Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz
Pairs
Mr Lynn Mr Della Bosca Mr Pearce Mr Hatzistergos
Question resolved in the negative.
Opposition amendment No. 10 negatived.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.53 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 11:
Page 8, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 5:
(3) Any amendment made by the amending Act that requires the agreement for an access arrangement to be in writing does not affect the operation of any access arrangement, in force immediately before the commencement of that amendment, that was agreed to orally.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [10.54 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 11 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Opposition amendment No. 11 agreed to.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! The Committee has before it conflicting amendments proposed by the Hon. Robert Brown and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Both amendments omit the same words.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.55 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 12:
Page 8, schedule 1 [13], lines 8–16. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(4) This subclause applies only in respect of the Caroona exploration licence (EL6505). A landholder who is (on the commencement of the amending Act) a party to an access arrangement determined by an arbitrator or a court before that commencement may apply to the Land and Environment Court for the determination of an access arrangement in accordance with Division 2 of Part 8 of this Act, as amended by the amending Act, in place of the existing arrangement (but only if the existing access arrangement was not, but for subclause (1), a valid arrangement).
22980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
(5) An application cannot be made under subclause (4) later than 14 days after notice is served on the landholder by the holder of the prospecting title of the landholder's right to make the application.
(6) Subclause (4) does not prevent an access arrangement being agreed to or determined by an arbitrator in accordance with Division 2 of Part 8 of this Act, as amended by the amending Act.
This amendment is absolutely crucial to retain the Supreme Court decision in Alcorn and Brown v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd. The purpose of this amendment is, first, to ensure that the rights of the parties of the Supreme Court proceedings are unaffected by the retrospective validation provision of the bill; and second, to make special provision for parties to access arrangements in the Caroona EL6505 region. The Nationals amendment will ensure that if those arrangements were determined without full compliance with the Act as it stood, landholders will have the right to have those arrangements determined afresh by the Land and Environment Court. This is an important amendment. Whilst I do not have a problem with the Shooters Party amendment, it removes the guts from those affected by Caroona. In total there are 14 people, probably nine of whom would be affected. I request the Hon. Robert Brown to withdraw his amendment because the key part on which we agree protects the Brown and Alcorn families, but their case also reflected on other people in that community.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.58 p.m.]: I move Shooters Party amendment No. 4:
Page 8, schedule 1 [13], lines 8–16. Omit all words on those lines.
I have sympathy for what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to achieve.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I withdrew my amendment; you can withdraw yours.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: No way. The first part of the Opposition amendment and the Shooters Party amendment are identical as they remove that part of the bill that was retrospective. Whilst I have some sympathy for the parties that were not part of the court agreement, I cannot agree with the assertion of the Hon. Duncan Gay that these people have any special standing. That does not mean I do not think they deserve any special standing, but my amendment seeks to remove the retrospectivity aspect and nothing else. My amendment seeks only to address two groups of people—that is, those that were a party to a Supreme Court action and all the 8,000 others—not a separate group of 14 and also another group. Because my amendment simply seeks to overturn the retrospectivity aspect, I do not see how we can fool around with this to create three groups rather than two. I stand by the Shooters Party amendment and do not support the amendment moved by The Nationals.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [11.00 p.m.]: If the Hon. Robert Brown is saying that his amendment removes the retrospectivity issue, it does not. This bill necessarily involves a significant element of retrospectivity. At the present time the effect of Alcorn and Brown v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd is to render either void or avoidable access arrangements across the State. This agreement retrospectively fixes that problem. We cannot say that we avoid retrospectivity, because that is the nature of this thing. But if you look at the Caroona issue, which is what our amendment seeks to do, the reality is that Messrs Alcorn and Brown were not stand-alone individuals. Messrs Alcorn and Brown were in many ways representative litigants of the larger group who were in dispute in the Caroona area.
The amendment by The Nationals does not seek to say that every person in the Caroona exploration area now has the right to go back and be treated as void. It deals essentially with those 14 people who took their exception to the arrangements to the Mining Warden's Court. That group of people had, I would suggest, a reasonable expectation that the Supreme Court proceeding would impact not just on Messrs Alcorn and Brown, but all those who were dissatisfied with what was going on. There is a legitimate and very reasonable expectation on their part, and a legitimate and reasonable expectation, that this Parliament will protect from the retrospective effect of this Act those unhappy and disputing litigants. They should be separated out and have the remedy that The Nationals amendment proposes. With the greatest of respect, the Shooters Party amendment would have far more serious retrospective effect than should be allowed by this legislation.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.02 p.m.]: The Hon. Trevor Khan is a lawyer; I am not.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It does not mean you are right.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: No. I have said that I have sympathy for the parties but there are far more people than those people involved in this particular exploration licence that have approached the Shooters
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22981
Party and begged us not to support the Government's bill, because they all felt they had a legitimate stoush with some mining company or other. We are talking about the access agreement here. The access agreement was struck down, not the whole exploration licence, in relation to those two parties and BHP.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: But they were representative parties.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Not a real class action.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.03 p.m.]: The Minister by interjection says this is not a class action.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Why don't you let me say what I want to say first?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You said it. It is an action that was supported by the National Farmers' Federation with the Fighting Fund. If that does not deem that there is widespread support beyond the two people concerned then I do not know what does. The Nationals have been discreet in the number of people that we wish to excise from the ramifications of this amendment. Messrs Alcorn and Brown are the prime people because their matter is still before the court, but their matter reflects the aspirations of the other people who did not voluntarily settle an agreement within the Caroona exploration licence. That is why The Nationals have included those people. My colleague has indicated a total number of 14, but we think that it comes back to nine.
It is not a huge ask, and it is not as if we are settling it on everyone across the State. The Nationals are being very discreet. The key ask is for the Alcorn and Brown families who are still before the court, but who have won. An appeal is still possible although several people have indicated that BHP is unlikely to appeal because the Minister has been generous in his interpretation in this bill, and certain members may well be helping the Minister in this. The Nationals have listened to the arguments that have been debated this evening and we hope those members can see their way clear to support us in this. It is not going to break the State. It is an important thing for those nine extra people, and whilst those people were not in the court case their situation is reflected by the case taken by the Alcorn and Brown families.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.06 p.m.]: The Hon. Duncan Gay has referred to advice from the National Farmers' Federation. Throughout the whole debate the Shooters Party has been in consultation with the NSW Farmers Association. In one of the first meetings held with that association I expressed our interpretation —not coincidentally the Government's interpretation—that this particular clause in the bill was retrospective. The mining people of the NSW Farmers Association were in attendance at that meeting, including Ms Fiona Simpson, and the NSW Farmers Association told me back then that it was deeply concerned about the retrospectivity aspect in relation to Messrs Alcorn and Brown but not beyond that. I note that currently the association has changed its mind. Perhaps it was my reticence in not being as tapped into their wishes as the Hon. Duncan Gay, but as far as I was concerned they supported my contention all along that this was simply about the applicants and participants in that court case on one side and everybody else on the other side, and that is the basis upon which we proceeded.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.08 p.m.]: While listening to the debate, which is certainly becoming quite complicated, I remembered that in some of the advice received from the NSW Farmers Association there had been other comments about the need to change this part of the legislation. I would like to move the following amendment to schedule 1 [13], on page 8 of the Government's original bill:
Page 8, schedule 1 [13], lines 8–16. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(a) If, before the commencement of the amending Act, an access arrangement determined by an arbitrator, or by a court following a review of a determination made by an arbitrator, was set aside by a court, any party to the access arrangement may apply to the Land and Environment Court.
(b) If any land access arrangement or land is subject to EL 6505, which is invalid, any party to the invalid access arrangement may apply to the Land and Environment Court for the determination of an access arrangement in accordance with the division 2 of part 8 of this Act, as amended by the amending Act.
This subclause does not prevent an access arrangement being agreed to or determined by an arbitrator in accordance with that Division as so amended.
As I said, advice for this amendment came from the New South Wales Farmers Association.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I do not think it did.
22982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I stand corrected. That was the advice I received, but I am happy to stand corrected: events have moved quickly. Certainly advice had come from farmers who are very closely associated with this case. The amendment is intended to provide greater certainty to the arrangements when individual cases involving access come into play. The amendment can provide greater clarity at a point when we really need to ensure that we as legislators are being as exact as is possible to prevent uncertainty causing greater hardship at a later stage. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.11 p.m.]: The amendment is either exactly the same as or is very similar to the amendment I moved. At one stage I was informed that the amendment was developed by the Government. I have seen the amendment among my emails. When I asked the Government about this amendment, the Government indicated that it was not a government amendment. Farmers representatives—not the New South Wales Farmers Association representatives—indicated to me and Ms Lee Rhiannon that this amendment may well facilitate resolving a situation when the Shooters Party and the Government disagree with the approach the Opposition is adopting. The amendment may provide a conduit for the adoption of a fresh approach. My understanding is that the Committee will consider Ms Lee Rhiannon's amendment first.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: No. If you are happy with the Shooters Party amendment, that is the base line.
Ms Lee Rhiannon: Let the Chair decide.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): The Shooters Party's amendment will be considered first. If that is agreed and the words are omitted, the Hon. Duncan Gay will need to move an amendment to insert the words he wishes to have inserted. His amendment sought to omit words, the same words as the Shooters Party's amendment sought to omit, and insert other words.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If I support the Shooters Party amendment, I will be able to move my amendment?
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I will be generous and allow you to do it.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will be surprised if I can do that, but I will be very happy if that is the case. If my amendment is not agreed to, the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon can be moved. As I hope I have indicated, I am supportive of Ms Lee Rhiannon's amendment. If my amendment is not agreed to, I will certainly support the amendment moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.15 p.m.]: The Government opposes The Nationals amendment No. 12 and the Greens amendment, but will support the Shooters Party amendment. I will outline the Government's approach to each amendment in detail. The Nationals amendment No. 12, if agreed to, would create a special set of rules for one particular exploration licence area, EL6505. It would mean that landholders in that area, whose existing arrangements had been determined by an arbitrator or the Land and Environment Court, could apply directly to the Land and Environment Court for a determination relating to access arrangements under the amended provisions of the legislation. That is unnecessary.
As for all other existing access arrangements, there are provisions in the bill to validate existing arrangements if they are consistent with the provisions in the Act. The provisions in the bill also allow landholders to seek variations to existing arrangements, if they wish. If they are unhappy with their arrangement, they are free to seek to change it. They can do that directly with the prospecting title holder by seeking arbitration or by having the matter determined by the Land and Environment Court. The amendment does not add any value to avenues that are already available to landholders. It also singles out landholders in one exploration licence area for different treatment on an arbitrary basis. That is profoundly bad practice in law.
The plain fact of the matter is that the Government is trying to maintain a uniform approach right across the State instead of having a number of titleholders in a particular exploration licence area with access agreements of one form or another having separate standing or an arrangement under the law. That is profoundly bad practice. Significant advice I have received is that it is totally unacceptable. As I have pointed out, if landholders wish to seek variation of their agreement, they are free to do so and they know how to do so.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22983
The amendments would also remove the provision that could expedite the process of determining new arrangements in cases in which they have been set aside by a court. That is what the Government proposed in the original amending bill. However, following considerable discussions with various stakeholders, the Government will be supporting the Shooters Party amendment. Shooters Party amendment No. 4 proposes to remove a provision that offers the option of an expedited process for parties whose access arrangement had previously been set aside by a court.
For example, the expedited process could be applied in relation to two arrangements set aside by the Supreme Court in the Caroona case. The intent of the provision is to save all parties time and money by not requiring them to repeat some of the steps they had already taken when they need to negotiate a new arrangement. That was the Government's original intent. They will be able to apply directly to the Land and Environment Court for a determination.
I appreciate that there are a number of sensitivities involved in the issue and indeed in the Alcorn v Brown case. While I believe that the provision that the Government put forward initially is sensible, the Government will not object to removing it and consequently will vote with the Shooters Party in relation to the amendment. The Greens amendment is a hybrid of The Nationals amendment. The Greens are moving a combination of the original bill and The Nationals amendment. The Government cannot specify or support specifying a single licence area for different treatment. The Government opposes the Greens amendment on the same basis on which The Nationals amendment is opposed.
I make it very clear that the Government believes it is not an appropriate practice to delve into a particular exploration licence area and set aside in legislation certain access agreements with landholders and the exploration company. Legislation is comprehensively generic and covers the entire State. It does not narrow its focus to particular licence areas. On principle, we fundamentally disagree with The Nationals amendment. I understand why they have moved it. I will not comment on their motivation. Suffice to say, it is extremely bad practice and should not be agreed to.
The Hon. Trevor Khan: So are retrospective laws.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Opposition has agreed to the legislation by voting with the Government on the second reading. Throughout this process the Opposition has supported a scenario whereby the current 8,000 or so access agreements are validated so that the State and every party to those agreements does not have to potentially reprocess their access agreements. The Government has been very clear. We believe it is bad practice to delve into one exploration licence on the basis that it will free up the exploration licences of a few people. It would be profoundly bad practice to treat them differently from everyone else in the State. The Greens amendment follows that line of thinking. The Government will oppose the amendments moved by The Nationals and the Greens and support the amendment moved by the Shooters Party.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.21 p.m.]: The Minister, in agreeing to the Hon. Robert Brown's amendment, has agreed to remove the key part of the retrospectivity that he put in his bill. This was the key that locked Brown and Alcorn, the subject of court proceedings, into the bill. The Minister has agreed to remove that from the bill. Because of the procedure we are following, as indicated by Madam Chair, the Opposition will support the Hon. Robert Brown's separation of Brown and Alcorn from this bill. Given that the Minister is also about to exclude the others, I believe he should have supported us and included them all.
The Opposition does not agree with the Minister's theory that by separating this exploration licence, which, in part, is still subject to court proceedings, we are not operating in a discrete area. We believe we are. We are not setting a precedent across the State and creating three classes, as the Hon. Robert Brown said. We are putting them into two sections: one, the section of people who did not agree to the access agreements under the exploration licence that is still before the court and, two, the section of people who are affected by exploration licences that are not subject to the Supreme Court decision. That is the rationale for our amendment. We are appreciative of the Shooters Party amendment because it deals with the key retrospective part, that is, the matter of the two parties who won their case. The Minister was going to legislate against them. Surprisingly, here tonight, the Minister will support the Hon. Robert Brown's amendment against his legislation. If members are looking for inconsistency, look at the Government, not the Opposition.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.23 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Shooters Party amendment, which removes those words that relate to retrospectivity in the Government's bill
22984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
on lines 8 to 16. This means that the there is no change to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brown and Alcorn. The legislation will uphold that decision. The Brown and Alcorn families, who won the Supreme Court matter, put in a great deal of time and their own funds to fight the case. It was not only funded from the National Farmers' Federation Fighting Fund. I believe they should receive correct and just treatment now.
Question—That Shooters Party amendment No. 4 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Shooters Party amendment No. 4 agreed to.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 12 be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 18
Mr Ajaka Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Mr Cohen Mr Khan Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Mr Gallacher Reverend Dr Moyes Tellers, Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Colless Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Harwin
Noes, 19
Mr Brown Mr Obeid Mr Veitch Mr Catanzariti Mr Primrose Mr West Ms Fazio Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Kelly Ms Robertson Mr Macdonald Mr Roozendaal Tellers, Mr Moselmane Ms Sharpe Mr Donnelly Reverend Nile Mr Smith Ms Voltz
Pairs
Ms Cusack Mr Della Bosca Mr Lynn Mr Hatzistergos
Question resolved in the negative.
Opposition amendment No. 12 negatived.
Question—That the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
Amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon negatived.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.32 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 13, 14 and 15 in globo:
No. 13 Page 11, schedule 3 [3], line 8. Omit "orally or".
No. 14 Page 11, schedule 3 [4], lines 24–27. Omit all words on those lines.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22985
No. 15 Page 11. Insert after line 27:
[5] Section 69D (1A)
Insert after section 69D (1):
(1A) The Director-General may, with the concurrence of the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council, publish templates for use for standard access arrangements. The use of any such template is not mandatory.
I note that one of the amendments is the same as a Shooters Party amendment. The Hon. Robert Brown may wish our amendment to take precedence.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.34 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.34 p.m.]: I move:
That Opposition amendment No. 15 be amended by inserting after "arrangements" the words—
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: You don't have to do that. Your second amendment covers that.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I understood that I still have to move the amendment.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Just move your amendment No. 2.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am moving an amendment to the Opposition's amendment, as I did last time. It is exactly what I did before, and the Minister did not object the first time.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's correct.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I move:
That Opposition amendment No. 15 be amended by inserting after "arrangements" the words:
"being templates that provide best practice prospecting, environmental protection and rehabilitation procedures, including procedures limiting any negative environmental impacts to land or water resources resulting from exploration activities".
Obviously, this is a mirror of what we discussed previously. I am aware that I did not gain support for the previous amendment, but I reiterate that it is within the leave of the bill to make these changes. The amendment gives strength to the template before us. We know from practice that these provisions need to be set out in legislation, otherwise they get lost sight of so readily. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.36 p.m.]: The Government opposes the Greens amendment and supports the three Opposition amendments.
Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 13 and 14 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Opposition amendments Nos 13 and 14 agreed to.
Question—That the amendment of Opposition amendment No. 15 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.
Amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon of Opposition amendment No. 15 negatived.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 15 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Opposition amendment No. 15 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.37 p.m.]: Opposition amendment No. 16 is a consequential amendment. As the Government's amendment is superior, I do not move amendment No. 16 as circulated in my name.
22986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.37 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 4:
No. 4 Page 11, schedule 1. Insert after line 27:
[5] Section 69D (2A)
Insert after section 69D (2):
(2A) An access arrangement must (if the landholder so requests) specify that the holder of the prospecting title is required to pay the reasonable legal costs of the landholder in obtaining initial advice about the making of the arrangement. Those costs are not to exceed the maximum amount set by the Director-General, with the concurrence of the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council, by order published in the Gazette.
Question—That Government amendment No. 4 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 4 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.37 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 17 and 18 in globo:
No. 17 Page 11. Insert after line 27:
[5] Section 69D (4)
Omit the subsection. Insert instead:
(4) If the holder of a prospecting title contravenes an access arrangement, a landholder of the land concerned may deny the holder access to the land until:
(a) the holder ceases the contravention, or
(b) the contravention is remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of, or in the manner directed by, an arbitrator appointed by the Director-General.
The Director-General is to make such an appointment within 48 hours after being requested to do so by the landholder and the arbitrator is to deal with the matter within 5 business days of the appointment. If the arbitrator does not deal with the matter within that time, the landholder may deny the holder of the prospecting title access to the land until such time as the matter is determined by the arbitrator.
No. 18 Page 11, schedule 3 [5], line 31. Omit "(either orally or in writing and either". Insert instead "in writing (either".
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.38 p.m.]: The Government supports these amendments.
Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 17 and 18 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Opposition amendments Nos 17 and 18 agreed to.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.38 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 5:
No. 5 Page 12, schedule 3. Insert after line 7:
[6] Section 69EA
Insert after section 69E:
69EA Notice to mortgagees of access arrangements
(1) Within 14 days after an access arrangement is agreed between a landholder and the holder of a prospecting title, the holder is to serve notice of the making of the arrangement on each person (other than that landholder) who is identified in any register or record kept by the Registrar-General as a person having an interest as mortgagee in the land concerned.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22987
(2) Notice is not required to be served on a mortgagee under this section:
(a) if the mortgagee has been given a copy of the written notice referred to in section 69E to the landholder of the intention to obtain the access arrangement, or
(b) if the landholder with whom the access arrangement was made is not the mortgagor.
(3) If notice is required to be served on a mortgagee under this section, the access arrangement does not come into force until the end of the period of 14 days after the notice is served, unless the holder of the prospecting title has reasonable cause to believe that the mortgagee is not a mortgagee in possession of the land concerned.
(4) The requirement imposed by this section on the holder of a prospecting title is taken to be a condition of the prospecting title.
(5) This section applies only to access arrangements made after the commencement of this section.
Note. If the person is a mortgagee in possession of the land, an access arrangement with that person is also required under section 69C before prospecting operations may be carried out on the land.
We are simply replicating what we have done in the previous three hours.
Question—That Government amendment No. 5 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 5 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.39 p.m.]: I will not move Opposition amendment No. 19 as circulated.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.39 p.m.], by leave: I move Shooters Party amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7 in globo:
No. 5 Page 12, schedule 3 [7], line 25. After "Court" insert "if the arrangement was determined by a court or an arbitrator".
No. 6 Page 13, schedule 3 [7], line 12. Omit "7 days". Insert instead "28 days".
No. 7 Page 13, schedule 3 [7], lines 32–41. Omit all words on those lines.
These amendments mirror exactly Shooters Party amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3, which were resolved in the affirmative by the House earlier.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.40 p.m.]: I do not move Nationals amendments Nos 20 and 21, as the wording is exactly the same as that of the Shooters Party amendments, which I deem to be just as good as ours.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.40 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments.
Question—That Shooters Party amendments Nos 5 to 7 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Shooters Party amendments Nos 5 to 7 agreed to.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.41 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 6:
No. 6 Page 13, schedule 3 [7], proposed section 69U (5) (c), line 22. Omit "28 days". Insert instead "60 days".
Question—That Government amendment No. 6 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 6 agreed to.
22988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.41 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 22:
No. 22 Page 15, schedule 3 [12]. Insert after line 19:
(3) Any amendment made by the amending Act that requires the agreement for an access arrangement to be in writing does not affect the operation of any access arrangement, in force immediately before the commencement of that amendment, that was agreed to orally.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 22 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Opposition amendment No. 22 agreed to.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.43 p.m.]: I move Shooters Party amendment No. 8:
No. 8 Page 15, schedule 3 [12], lines 22–30. Omit all words on those lines.
This amendment is almost identical to Shooters Party amendment No. 4 regarding the removal of the clause that set aside the Alcorn and Brown v BHP clause. I do not need to repeat my reasons for the amendment.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.43 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment. I wish to clarify the situation with regard to this amendment. Similar to the last Shooters Party amendment, this amendment will leave a provision in the legislation whereby if anything happens in the petroleum area the matter will go straight through to the court. This amendment reverts to the full process and does not allow an expedited process.
Question—That Shooters Party amendment No. 8 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Shooters Party amendment No. 8 agreed to.
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources, Minister for Major Events, and Minister for the Central Coast [11.44 p.m.]: I thank all members who have participated in this debate. We have debated this in a very efficient, caring and careful way.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments.
Adoption of Report
Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:
That the report be now adopted.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendments.
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
NATIONAL PARK ESTATE (RIVERINA RED GUM RESERVATIONS) BILL 2010 (NO. 2)
Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.
Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.
Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:
That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22989
Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Second readings set down as orders of the day for a later hour.
UNFLUED GAS HEATERS
Production of Documents: Return to Order
The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 12 May 2010, documents relating to unflued gas heaters received this day from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.
Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege
The Clerk tabled a return identifying those of the documents that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. The Clerk advised that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.
The Clerk informed the House that the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Training have advised that they have identified documents that they have not been able to produce within the relevant time period, but which will be provided as soon as possible.
APPROPRIATION (BUDGET VARIATIONS) BILL 2010
Second Reading
The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.48 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2010 is a key part of the annual budget process.
It is not always possible to seek Parliament's authority in advance for unforeseen and urgent expenditure, and provisions have been established for such situations. These include the Treasurer's Advance and section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.
In the annual Appropriation Act, an advance is appropriated to the Treasurer to cater for unforeseen and urgent expenditures that could not be forecast at Budget time. This bill includes details of expenditure from the Treasurer's Advance, ensuring that there is a transparent and accountable process to Parliament.
Under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the Treasurer, with the approval of the Governor, has determined that amounts will be paid from the consolidated fund for exigencies of Government, in anticipation of appropriation by Parliament. This bill provides details of those payments.
This bill also seeks approval by the Parliament for the payment of additional appropriations in 2009-10 in which no provision was made in the annual Appropriation Act. This includes an additional contribution to the Pooled Fund Superannuation Scheme, funding for the Metropolitan Transport Plan and a Principal Priority Building Program Loan to the Department of Education.
The additional contribution of $510 million to the Pooled Fund Superannuation Scheme will be funded from the proceeds of the lotteries sale. This will ensure the impact of the sale is Budget neutral on a risk-adjusted basis.
Additional funding for the Metropolitan Transport Plan reflects the Government's commitment to the plan and the provision of upfront funding will assist in locking in delivery.
The provision of a loan from the Crown to the Department of Education and Training to fund various minor capital works reflects the execution of a Mini Budget decision. Previously it was intended that funding be provided as an offset to credit balances in school bank accounts.
The practice of seeking approval for supplementary funding to cover expenditure not provided for in the annual Appropriation Act has now become an important part of the annual budget process.
This is a process that has been endorsed by the Auditor-General as well as the Legislative Council's General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 in its report on appropriation processes.
22990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The bill has three key features:
1. Firstly, it provides an account to Parliament on how the 2009-10 Treasurer's Advance has been applied towards recurrent and capital expenditure, and details of the allocation of the 2008-09 Advance not previously reported to Parliament;
2. Secondly, it seeks appropriations to cover expenditure approved by the Governor under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983; and
3. Finally, it seeks appropriation for payments which are intended to be made in the current financial year where no provision was made in the annual Appropriation Bill.
Schedule 1 of the bill covers appropriations for 2009-10, and schedule 2 covers payments made in 2008-09. The payments for 2008-09 have already been brought to account in agency audited financial statements and have no impact on the published Budget result for that year.
The Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2010, in respect of the 2009-10 financial year seeks:
• appropriations of $347.162 million in adjustment of the Advance to the Treasurer;
• $79.720 million for recurrent services approved by the Governor under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983; and
• additional appropriation of $695 million.
Schedule 1 of the bill has a full account of how the Treasurer's Advance has been applied this year.
The allocation of the Treasurer's Advance in 2009-10 highlights the commitment of the Government to ensuring appropriate services for the community, and includes:
• $30.2 million for stamp duty associated with the Barangaroo development;
• $29.2 million funding for Stage 3A of the Nepean Hospital Redevelopment project and Blacktown Clinical Simulation facility;
• $22.2 million for drought assistance programs;
• $18.8 million funding to purchase a waste treatment site from WSN Environmental Solutions;
• $17.4 million funding for Digital Education Revolution National Partnership;
• $13 million in additional funding requirements related to Commonwealth elective surgery targets;
• $10.2 million for Yellow Rock Priority Sewerage Program;
• $9.6 million funding for sporting and recreation grants.
• $918,000 for the Keep Them Safe initiative for child protection
• $5.3 million for life support equipment related to swine flu
• $3 million for emergency Drought Works for Lake Cargelligo
• $750,000 for the Anzac War Memorial Trust
• $801,000 for the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme
• $1.24 million for an Autism Early Outcomes Unit
• $1.19 million for fire fighting equipment
• $2 million for the Wayside Chapel
In 2009-10, two approvals for $79.72 million were made under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. These were:
• $71 million to support the First Home Owner Grant scheme;
• $8.72 million for coal compensation payments.
The bill also seeks appropriations for payments made during the 2008-09 financial year approved by the Governor under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, and reporting the payments made under the Treasurer's Advance.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22991
Schedule 2 of the bill details the funding made in 2008-09. Highlights include:
• Additional funding for the First Home Owner Grant scheme;
• Government obligations under private bus contracts;
• Additional insurance and claims costs for the Police Death and Disability Scheme; and
• Higher school based employee costs.
Each of the payments made in 2008-09 has been included in the audited financial statements of the relevant agencies for that year.
The practice of introducing further Appropriation Bills has enhanced accountability for the expenditure of public moneys from the Consolidated Fund.
It is further evidence of the Government's commitment to transparent and full financial reporting to the Parliament and the community.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [11.50 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in respect to the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2010. As members would be aware, the object of this bill is to set out the recurrent services and capital works and services for which the Advance to the Treasurer's appropriation was expended in the 2009-10 and 2008-09 financial years and to make the necessary adjustments to the appropriation for each of those years. The bill also appropriates the following amounts from the Consolidated Fund for recurrent services that were required by the exigencies of government in accordance with section 22 (1) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983: in relation to 2009-10, $79,720,000 and in 2008-09 $136,400,000. The bill also appropriates an additional $695 million from the Consolidated Fund for certain, as opposed to uncertain, recurrent services and capital works and for services for the 2009-10 year.
I note the import of this bill is essentially that the Government has overspent yet again. The total for 2008-09 and 2009-10 is $1,480,770,000. The Government has simply overspent its budget to that extraordinary amount in that period and the fact that departments want that level of additional funding beyond original budget amounts—and that must be noted—indicates the ongoing financial mismanagement in respect of these matters by each of the respective Ministers. The lack of financial discipline in that regard is particularly worrying as it is a recurring trend. Last year members may recall that the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2009 showed the Government spent beyond the budget in the vicinity of $1.4 billion, and this year it is $1.48 billion.
That overspend continues the pattern identified by the Government's own inquiry. The New South Wales Audit of Assets and Expenditure Report, known as the Stokes and Vertigan report, of 2006 showed that expense growth exceeded revenue growth over the past 10 years by 1 per cent. This trend has not been remedied by the Government and obviously continues in relation to the current financial years covered by this bill.
I note that the Treasurer's Advance is meant to be used for unforeseen and urgent expenditure but the Government appears to believe it is indeed playing Monopoly with taxpayers' funds. One cannot help but picture the Treasurer pretending he is the banker while he moves pieces around the board. Occasionally he lands on Community Chest and picks up a card and finds out that he has to pay, or perhaps it is the taxpayers who have to pay, extra rates or additional property fees.
From time to time as the Treasurer moves around the board he lands on Chance, the question mark. The Hon. Michael Veitch, Parliamentary Secretary, would be very familiar with that space on the Monopoly board. The problem with this budget, like all of the budgets handed down by this Treasurer, is that we keep landing on the Chance space—the question mark. What will it cost taxpayers of New South Wales? I am glad the Treasurer has entered the Chamber to join this most important debate because the Chance card keeps turning over. As members know from their experience with Monopoly, if you continue to land on Chance, sooner or later you will turn over the Go Directly to Gaol card. That is what has happened in relation to this budget and this appropriation bill; we have drawn the Go Directly to Gaol card. Unfortunately, however, there is no Get Out of Gaol card for economic incompetence. The taxpayers of New South Wales just have to wear it. Sadly this bill is another example of lack of financial discipline in relation to matters that this Treasurer has perpetuated in his time on the job. He is one of a long line of Treasurers in this Government with this culture. Time and time again money pours out and the Monopoly game continues. The Treasurer says, "It is not real money; it is not my money; it is someone else's money so that is okay." I know the Treasurer is enjoying this speech. He has his banker's cap on and is ready to roll. I await his response with great interest.
22992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
I remind members that the Treasurer's Advance—and it is not to Mayfair, Pall Mall or Trafalgar Square—is for unforeseen and urgent funding. In 2009-10 the specific items in Treasury were a grant of $2,160,000 for an advertising campaign for changes to the First Home Owners grant and additional funding of $70 million for the First Home Owners Grant Scheme.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: You don't support home owners, is that what you are saying?
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: No. Is it a new change? It is probably unforeseen and urgent because once changes are made to government policy they need to be implemented and money needs to be paid. Another relates to the Department of Premier and Cabinet: A review of the financial position of NSW Fire Brigades $300,000 and fit-out costs for Elizabeth Street accommodation $300,000. I am not sure if those costs are unforeseen and urgent. Maybe the Treasurer will further elucidate in his response. The Department of Health has additional funding requirements related to Commonwealth elective surgery targets in the amount of $13 million. For the Department of Education and Training, funding for Digital Education Revolution national partnership, $17.5 million; redundancy costs $7.9 million; repayment of a specific purpose payment incorrectly paid by the Commonwealth; and the list goes on. I will not bore the Chamber with this long list, suffice it to say that it is extremely long. Naturally some of the expenditures will have a real stimulatory effect—the Treasurer might be aghast that I would suggest such—and the New South Wales economy could benefit no doubt from some of that stimulatory effect.
There is funding for Hunter Development Corporation grants for infrastructure of $3,878,000. I am sure that will be well received. There is additional spending on health, for example, funding for stage 3A of the Nepean Hospital redevelopment project and the Blacktown clinical simulation facility amounting to $29,190,00—again funds going to very worthy causes. I note there is funding for some key frontline services. For example, funding of $1,196,000 for additional fire fighting services will also be well received by those services that are always struggling to meet their funding requirements. The Hon. John Aquilina said in his agreement in principle speech:
The additional contribution of $510 million to the Pooled Fund Superannuation Scheme will be funded from the proceeds of the Lotteries sale. This will ensure that the impact of the sale is budget neutral on a risk-adjusted basis.
Will the Treasurer in his reply explain what "budget neutral on a risk-adjusted basis" means, particularly given that the Lottery sale brought in significantly more than $510 million, as he would be aware? It is a basic tenet of financial accountability that one does not use the funds from a capital sale to pay recurrent funding that has actually been expended over time. My concern is that a capital sale is being used in that regard, and that, I submit to the House, is not an appropriate use. The Opposition would prefer to see that sort of money put aside for other more becoming purposes.
It is certainly not the mandate of the Opposition to block funding bills. In that regard naturally the Opposition will not oppose this bill. I also note that the Treasurer hopes that the unexpected increase in revenue flows will once again be his "Get out of jail free" card when his budget is delivered next month. The unexpected revenue flows of many billions of dollars over the past 15 years has got this Government out of jail a number of times. We certainly expect from the budget again a complete lack of fiscal discipline, a continuation of the Stokes and Vertigan excess increase of expenses above revenue, and a bottom line that no doubt will again disappoint the taxpayers of New South Wales.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [12.01 a.m.]: I concur with the comments of the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox about this spendthrift Government, its inability to manage budgets and to plan for the future, and its amazing ability to send New South Wales further into debt. Is it any wonder? We have a Treasurer who demonstrates complete disregard and disrespect for this Chamber. He also has no respect for the democratic process. During a division earlier this evening he said that a dictatorship would be a really good thing.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: If the Hon. Melinda Pavey wants to make personal slurs against me, she well knows the standing orders with regard to doing so by way of substantive motion. I do not see what relevance this could possibly have to the bill before the House. I understand that it is close to the witching hour. Perhaps the honourable member has gone off with the pixies and has decided she wants to have a go. There is an appropriate time and place for that, and this is neither.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Are you being sexist?
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I simply observed that midnight is known as the witching hour.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22993
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: What are you saying, Eric?
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: We are all getting tired. The honourable member should get on with something serious and save the personal smears for another day.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member well knows that if she wants to make reflections or imputations about another member she must do so by way of substantive motion.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I was not impugning or making slurs about the Treasurer. I was simply repeating a conversation he had in this Chamber about wishing he lived in a dictatorship.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is trifling with my ruling. If the member does so again I will place her on a call to order.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I look forward to hearing the Treasurer's contribution about the Emergency Services portfolio. I note the considerable advances requested for that portfolio. That is no doubt due to the Minister for Emergency Service's lack of experience in managing a major portfolio involving a budget of almost $1 billion. I refer in particular to the New South Wales Fire Brigades and note with concern a $300,000 advance requested by the Department of Premier and Cabinet to undertake an investigation into the brigades' finances. I look forward to obtaining the report of the investigation through a freedom of information request or a call for papers. I would like to know why such an independent report was deemed necessary.
I also note the $2.3 million Government contribution to the New South Wales Fire Brigades' deficit. During the budget estimates hearings last year we heard that the brigade had overspent its budget by about $10 million. We are now dealing with another advance of $2.3 million. I have heard concerns expressed within the brigade that it could be in a much worse financial situation because of workers compensation claims and budget blowouts. That is of great concern to the men and women of the brigade and I would like more information from the Treasurer about it. It is interesting to note that the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which is conducting an inquiry into the New South Wales Fire Brigades, has received an $850,000 budget advance. I am sure that that is necessary for it to undertake the many inquiries on its books.
There is one advance that I am sure all members support; that is, a $1 million advance to assist the people of Samoa following the tsunami. I understand that staff from New South Wales Fire Brigades have been to Samoa to help that island nation to move forward following that tragic event. Minister Whan also offered a great deal of help to the people of Haiti following what he referred to as their tsunami. It was an earthquake, but he did correct his mistake. Interestingly, the Rural Fire Service has received an additional $1.19 million for firefighting equipment. I would like more information about that.
I also acknowledge a $2 million advance for the Surf Lifesaving Club Development Program. Why does such a program require an emergency budget advance? Why was that money not included in the normal budget process? The Government drip feeds Surf Life Saving New South Wales and the organisation is not sure what is happening from one day to the next or what Minister it must smile at to get money. The Government should not drag the funding chain. It should not provide funding to the organisation on an ad hoc basis given that tens of thousands of volunteers keep our beaches and communities safe. This legislation is another pea and thimble trick by this Government. It cannot manage the budget and its Ministers cannot manage their portfolios. The people of New South Wales are being asked to cough up an extra $1.48 billion to cover this dreadful display of fiscal mismanagement.
Dr JOHN KAYE [12.08 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Greens on the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2010. I note that the bill contains three key areas: the Treasurer's Advance; Public Finance and Audit Act approved expenditure; and additional appropriations, which involve adjustments to budget expenditures for the periods 2008-09 and 2009-10. These adjustments deal with unforeseen and unbudgeted events that arise during the year. The Greens support this mechanism to provide governments with flexibility to adjust their budgets. Not wishing to quote a former Secretary of Defense of the United States, but unforeseen unforeseeables and "unknown unknowns" can arise.
The Greens disagree with the Opposition's analysis of this legislation. The raw figures for 2009-10 indicate an advance of about $1.2 billion, which is about 3.3 per cent of the budget. That sounds high, but $510 million of that relates to the proceeds of the sale of NSW Lotteries. The Greens are on the record as having opposed the legislation introduced to enable that sale. However, having been sold, the proceeds of the sale are to
22994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
be allocated to the unfunded superannuation liability. This State has roughly $30 billion worth of unfunded superannuation liabilities. I point out to the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox that that is not recurrent expenditure—it does not happen again and again. It is one-off expenditure because of a failure to predict prior to 1992 that the pyramid age structure of the public sector would contract.
This meant that the defined benefit schemes were no longer sustainable on the basis of wages collected from existing workers. That is a liability. It exists no more or no less than a capital outlay exists, and we are stuck with that. Sooner or later we have to pay. If the Government ends up with $510 million in its pocket, it is not unreasonable to put that into reducing the size of the unfunded liability. When you take the $510 million out of the $1.12 billion, it comes down to about 1.2 per cent of total budget in variation.
I do not think that falls into the category of profligate spending. It is not unreasonable to expect that there would be about a 1 per cent variation over the year. Our concern is not so much with the total amount or any individual item. Almost every item of expenditure within these budget variations is sensible; they are appropriate expenditures for the State to be engaged in. It would be inappropriate to oppose any of them; they all work towards improving the welfare of the State and should be supported.
However, a couple of issues concern us. They are issues along the lines of why are these in budget variations and why were they not in the original budget? Why were they not foreseeable? For example, how is it grants of $24.5 million by the Premier for Communities New South Wales for ethnic communities were not foreseen, given that Ethnic Communities Council grants have been given out in this State, to my knowledge, for at least the last six years? There is nothing unforeseeable about the community grants that have been given out. That should have been foreseen within the budget.
Likewise, the $29.2 million for stage 3A of the Nepean Hospital redevelopment project and the Blacktown clinical simulation facility; to our knowledge they were not items that suddenly came up. They ought to have been predictable. Similarly, $4.7 million for the Department of Industry and Investment through the Minister for Primary Industries for additional medical research funds; it needs to be explained how it was that suddenly there was a need for almost $5 million additional medical research. Not that we are opposed to spending that money; the question mark over the process is why were these specific items not in the original budget when they were entirely foreseeable?
Another interesting item I would like the Treasurer to explain to us is the $100 million in the further appropriations for the Metropolitan Transport Plan. What exactly was that expenditure for? Is that money to pay compensation on the cancelled metro scheme or where is that $100 million directed? The last item is almost half a million dollars for the energy reform process within the Department of Water and Energy. Was that part of the former Minister's trip to New York? What exactly was that half a million dollars for?
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: That would only be petty cash for him.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I imagine so. The Greens do not oppose this bill. Not only can we not oppose it—it is not constitutional for this House to oppose this legislation as it is a money bill—but it is also important that governments have that flexibility. It is important that as events arise—and a number of them were pointed out by other members—the Government has the flexibility to fund additional items. The only thing we are concerned about is that there are items here that ought to have been foreseeable and should have been part of the budget, and would have shown up as part of the budget deficit or in the budget bottom line, as it were. We are not complaining about the size of the deficit or the position of the budget bottom line, but there is a need for complete budget honesty and it would be inappropriate to hide items of expenditure in the budget variations bills when they ought to have been in the budget itself.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [12.14 a.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill 2010. The purpose of the bill is to appropriate additional amounts from the Consolidated Fund for recurrent and capital purposes for 2008-09 and 2009-10. As members know, each year Parliament makes an advance available to the Treasurer to meet unforeseen expenditures in the annual Appropriation Bill. The key word is unforeseen. This bill gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the payments as the details do not appear in the original budget. This practice has been endorsed by the Auditor-General as well as by the committee that I chair, the Legislative Council's General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, in its report on appropriation processes.
In addition to the Treasurer's Advance, the bill has been compiled to satisfy the statutory provisions of section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. The Treasurer may, with the approval of the Governor,
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22995
determine that amounts shall be paid for contingencies of government from the Consolidated Fund, in anticipation of appropriations by Parliament. The bill also seeks approval from Parliament for additional appropriation to provide payments which are intended to be made this financial year, in respect of which provision was not made in the annual Appropriation Bill.
In particular, the bill sets out the recurrent services and capital works for which the advance to the Treasurer was appropriated in the 2009-2010 and 2008-2009 years and makes the necessary adjustments to the appropriation for each of those years. It will also appropriate the following amounts from the Consolidated Fund for recurrent services required by the exigencies of government in accordance with section 22 (1) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983: first, in relation to the 2009-10 year, $79,720,000 and, second, in relation to the 2008-09 year, $136,400,000, and to appropriate an additional amount of $695 million from the Consolidated Fund for certain recurrent services and capital works for the 2009-2010 year.
Many of these items were unforeseen but very important, as has been mentioned by other members, such as the Surf Life Saving Club Development Program of $2 million—I am sure no members would object to that—to support the Australian Commonwealth Games Association with $500,000, funding for the Child Wellbeing Unit as part of the Keep Them Safe initiative of $476,000, and funding for the pensioner rebate scheme of $619,000. The one that is particularly important from my point of view is funding to the Anzac War Memorial Trust for security, maintenance and curator services of $750,000. That is a sample of some of the items included in this bill.
Another important one is for the Independent Commission Against Corruption of $850,000 and for the Electoral Commission, as it prepares for the 2011 State general election, of $1,500,000. Of course, a larger amount than that will be included in this bill for the total office of the commission of $6,300,000, and there will be more than that in the election year. Just mentioning that, the Greens have been issuing statements saying that I am campaigning on controversial matters to help my re-election in 2011. The Greens do not seem to realise that I was elected in 2007 until 2015. I am not a candidate in 2011. It shows that the Greens are not very alert as to who is coming and who is going. There is a grant to the Wayside Chapel of $2 million. I am curious as to what that grant was for. I will not go through the other ones I selected. They just give an idea of the importance of the items in this bill, which I support.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Treasurer, and Special Minister of State) [12.19 a.m.], in reply: I thank all those who contributed to the debate on the Appropriations (Budget Variations) Bill 2010. I must admit I find it quite extraordinary that the finance spokesperson for the Greens lectured the Opposition about simple and basic budget understanding and reporting matters. It is important that I, for the benefit of the Opposition in particular, present some facts about reporting on budget variations. Governments from both sides have for many years sought additional appropriations from Parliament as part of the annual budget process. This is not new. The Treasurer's Advance has long existed in budget papers and is accounted for in terms of the amounts allocated every year. Unfortunately, the issue was raised in the other House by the shadow Treasurer, who believes there is some kind of secret conspiracy in having legislatively backed, transparent reporting of government expenditure. This reporting is not a process exclusive to this State. Contingency budgets are common in government budgets right around the nation. I encourage members to explore the budget papers from previous years and other jurisdictions to see this.
In New South Wales this financial year was no different. I draw members' attention to pages 17 and 18 of the 2009-10 Budget Paper No. 5, headed "Appropriations", which clearly outlines the amounts budgeted for recurrent and capital spending under the Treasurer's Advance. This is a point that the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox may want to take up with the shadow Treasurer. To suggest that these amounts are in excess of the budget is either ignorant or deliberately misleading as the figures appear in the budget. They are part of the budget. The Treasurer's Advance is in the budget. It is part of the budget papers. Members might be interested to know that it was the New South Wales Labor Government that introduced the Appropriations (Budget Variations) Bill for the first time in 1997 to publicly account for how the allocated funding was spent. That is right: this legislation enables greater transparency and accountability. Prior to the Labor Government introducing this transparent reporting mechanism, I understand that previous governments disclosed further appropriations within the pages of the annual budget papers under section 22 of the Public Finance and Audit Act. For the benefit of members, because I know they are all interested, I will give a couple of examples.
In the 1993-94 budget papers, under the Fahey Government, an additional appropriation shown on page 37 refers to $14 million for "debt servicing costs". On page 31 it shows $115 million for "other service-wide activities". I think it is safe to say that the process now is a lot clearer, a lot more transparent and a lot more
22996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
accountable. Items and their costs are individually reported in this bill in black and white for all to see. That is not the only thing the shadow Treasurer is wrong about. Yesterday he stated that appropriations sought by the Government would have increased the projected deficit in the 2009-10 half-yearly report to $2 billion. That is what he said in the other House. I cannot allow this to go unanswered. The member has unfortunately demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of budget reporting by adding together all the figures reported in the bill and sticking them on top of the projected budget result. It is embarrassingly wrong.
The $510 million in Lotteries proceeds will be provided to the superannuation fund trustees to invest in growth assets. This provides a better long-term return than leaving the funds in the bank or retiring debt. These funds are being invested, not used for current operating expenses. I reiterate that for the benefit of members in this House: these funds are being invested not used for current operating expenses. Unfortunately, the shadow Treasurer in the other place and indeed the Opposition in this House wrongly think this transfer to superannuation is a recurrent expense. The shadow Treasurer said in the other place yesterday that selling capital assets and putting the proceeds into current needs or operating budgets is against basic good management practice. I believe very similar words were mentioned in this House by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox.
Let us be very clear. It is in essence a balance sheet transaction. The $510 million in proceeds is not somehow used to prop up our budget or applied towards capital expenditures. The transfer of funds from the Lotteries transaction to the State Super fund is akin to transferring from one bank account to another. It was done on the very considered advice of Treasury and it is a sensible financial management decision. Funding superannuation liabilities means we will be $75 million better off at the end of 10 years and $620 million better off over the next 20 years by taking this decision. That is because we expect a high return of about an extra 2 per cent a year by taking this path and putting the proceeds of the billon-dollar transaction to their best use. This is another example of strong economic management by this Government.
It is painfully obvious to me and to other people who understand how the budget papers work that the shadow Treasurer does not understand simple accrual accounting. I am surprised that the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox has repeated the same mistakes made by the shadow Treasurer in the other place because I know the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox is a far more on-the-ball member who usually does not make those sorts of mistakes. Let me be clear about what the shadow Treasurer said in the other place: he was simply wrong. It is pretty obvious that all he has done is add up the numbers on his calculator and decided to call them a blowout.
The Appropriations (Budget Variations) Bill includes $500 million worth of proceeds from the Lotteries transaction. That is a transaction that actually improves the balance sheet and is now being put straight into the State Super fund, reducing the liability and strengthening the budget result into the future. It is the right decision for the State and the right decision for the taxpayers. To go further with what the shadow Treasurer said in the other place, he also included amounts from the Treasurer's Advance—Opposition members in here did that as well—which are reported in the budget annually and incorporated in the budget numbers accordingly. When he adds up his numbers like that he is double dipping.
There was an insight from one of the Opposition speakers earlier because he decided to demonstrate his economic prowess by referring to the game of Monopoly. I can understand why he might want to refer to Monopoly because it is quite obvious that the shadow Treasurer and indeed the Opposition in this place have derived all their economic knowledge from Monopoly. Unfortunately, in real life you cannot double dip. You cannot sneak a few bucks out of the bank when no-one is looking like you do in Monopoly. You cannot throw doubles and get another turn. When it comes to reporting a budget and appropriations you have to be clear and transparent, but most of all, just like in Monopoly, you have to know the rules. You have to know the rules of how the budget works. It is painfully and embarrassingly obvious that that is something the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer simply do not know.
I like the reference to Monopoly. It is a good reference for the Opposition to use. That is the depth of Opposition members' knowledge because it is clear that is how they are going to fund their election promises going forward. They are going to throw the dice, pick a number and announce it. What we saw in the other place from the shadow Treasurer is a clear demonstration of a lack of understanding of budget reporting. This highlights the danger that the Opposition presents to the people of New South Wales. If Opposition members cannot read the simple figures of the budget and they cannot add up the appropriations amounts and come up with a real number, how can they ever possibly be contemplated for anything other than what they are now—an Opposition, whose members sit on the other side of the House?
This bill is further evidence of the Government's commitment to transparent and full financial reporting to the Parliament and the community. It is an important bill. But, fortuitously, this bill has also highlighted the
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22997
incompetence of the Opposition. I can understand that the shadow Treasurer, with his extensive alleged merchant banking experience, thinks nothing of double dipping when adding numbers together. I can understand that the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox refers to the Monopoly rules to get his advice on economic management. This is precisely why we have the Appropriations (Budget Variations) Bill—to be transparent, clear and honest. That is clearly something the Opposition cannot grasp. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
NATIONAL PARK ESTATE (RIVERINA RED GUM RESERVATIONS) BILL 2010 (NO. 2)
Second Reading
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.31 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Park Estate (Riverina Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 (No 2) delivers the most significant forest conservation decision in many years, over the river red gum forests of the Riverina. It will result in the largest single reservation since the Brigalow decision in 2005. This is a big conservation outcome, one for which our grandchildren will thank us. Since 1995 a series of forest assessments and agreements has been undertaken in line with the National Forest Policy that has sought to resolve longstanding debates over the social, economic, environmental and cultural values of the State's native forests. Starting in Eden, then followed by southern New South Wales, the upper and lower north-east, and in 2005 in the Brigalow and Nandewar, forest assessments have resulted in a world-class network of conservation reserves protecting the outstanding biodiversity and cultural values of these forests, while also ensuring a sustainable and viable timber industry that can have confidence in its long-term future. The missing piece in the forest puzzle has been the Riverina red gum forests, but not for any longer.
These iconic forests are dominated by a single species, the river red gum, which is in fact the most widespread eucalypt in Australia. However, only along the major river systems of the Riverina does this species form the majestic and extensive forests that are the subject of this bill. Much of the Riverina is dominated by the river channels, floodplains, swamps and lakes of the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Edwards and Wakool rivers, and it is these landforms and the historic patterns of regular extensive flooding that have led to the development of the unique wetland forest ecosystems that the river red gum forests represent. Straddling the Murray, the largest river red gum forests in the world have developed in the Barmah-Millewa and Koondrook-Perricoota-Gunbower forests of Victoria and New South Wales. Elsewhere along the Murrumbidgee and Lachlan, and lower down the Murray, the forests are less extensive, forming a string of forests along the rivers surrounded by grasslands and shrub lands.
The river red gum forests represent a critical environmental resource in the Riverina. They are thought to be the key drivers of ecosystem processes in the floodplain, maintaining the diversity and resilience of the river floodplain ecosystem upon which everything else relies. They provide a breeding habitat for many colonial and migratory wetland bird species, and are listed as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. The forests also provide critical habitat resources for a range of inland forest fauna species, and support at least 60 terrestrial animals, 40 plant species and several ecological communities listed as threatened under New South Wales and Commonwealth legislation.
22998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Of course, they also represent an economic resource for the region and beyond. They have for at least 10,000 years been of value to the indigenous communities of the Riverina, providing essential resources that contributed to the Riverina being one of the most heavily occupied regions of Australia at the time of European arrival. Since the settlement of Europeans in the region in the mid nineteenth century, the forests have been utilised for timber production. This long history of forestry has played an important role in the economic development of the region, and although today the forest industry forms only a small part of the regional economy—less than 1 per cent—it remains a significant component in several small towns, such as Mathoura, Barham and Darlington Point. Around 270 people are directly employed by businesses with Crown timber allocations, and the industry makes a direct contribution of around $23 million to the region. There is also a significant industry based on private land harvesting in the Riverina.
However, the river red gum forests and the range of values that I have just outlined are under threat from a decline in flooding and water availability. These threats are such that the very future of the forests is in question. In order to ensure that the forests are best able to cope with the changes that are underway and to give the communities of the region the best possible opportunity of a sustainable future, in July last year the Government asked the Natural Resources Commission to undertake a regional forest assessment and to make recommendations on the use and management of the public land in the Riverina. In December the Natural Resources Commission submitted its assessment and recommendations to the Government. Its findings lay out very clearly the challenges faced by the forests and the communities reliant upon them. The report stated:
The river red gum forests and the industries and social systems they support are in decline due to river regulation, over-allocation of water and drought. This decline is predicted to worsen under climate change.
The Natural Resources Commission made a set of findings and recommendations to attempt to address this decline and meet the needs of the environment and the communities of the Riverina. This bill represents the core of the Government's response to the report and recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission. The Government endorses and will implement nearly all of the recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission. The bill will deliver on several of the key recommendations, including the establishment of new national parks and regional parks, including for the entirety of the Millewa forest. It will also commence the process of establishing indigenous protected areas for the Werai and Taroo forests. In addition, the bill will ensure that a fair and effective structural adjustment package for the industry, its workers and the communities of the region can be implemented. It will provide for harvesting to continue within the Koondrook-Perricoota and Campbells Island State forests under existing environmental controls until an integrated forestry operations approval is developed by December this year.
One of the key recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission was to undertake collaborative water reform to deliver increased environmental water flows to sustain the essential floodplain ecosystem processes of river red gum forests. Indeed, the report made it clear that reduced river flows and altered flooding regimes were primary drivers of the decline in the condition and health of the forests. For more than a decade the New South Wales Government has led efforts to secure water for the environment through planning mechanisms, water purchase, and water-efficient infrastructure. Water sharing plans under the Water Management Act have led the way in setting aside water for the environment through statutory mechanisms. This includes an annual environmental water allocation of 100,000 megalitres to the Barmah-Millewa Forest, provided equally from the water entitlements of New South Wales and Victoria.
Environmental water recovery through the purchase of irrigator's licences is a significant element of the New South Wales Government's commitment to rehabilitation and protection of stressed rivers and iconic wetlands. The $101 million New South Wales RiverBank program was the first program dedicated to the purchase of environmental water entitlements in Australia and remains the largest dedicated fund for environmental water purchase at the State level. In the southern Murray-Darling Basin, the Living Murray Initiative is returning up to 500,000 megalitres to improve the environmental health of six iconic sites, including the Millewa Forest, the Koondrook-Perricoota Forests, the New South Wales portion of the Chowilla Floodplain, and the Murray River Channel.
Environmental works and measures are an important mechanism for maximising the benefits of any environmental flows. Part of the Living Murray Initiative, the Environmental Works and Measures Program, is a package of structural and operational measures targeted primarily at the six iconic sites. Commencing in 2003, the $276 million program includes works to enhance the capacity to deliver water within the Koondrook-Perricoota and Millewa Forests and to fishways within the Murray River. The Government supports the recommendation of the Natural Resources Commission to increase water entitlements to the river red gum
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22999
forests. However, the quantum and timing of water recovery will be driven by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which is being prepared by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, as well as by prioritisation of water purchase by the Commonwealth environmental water holder. These are not matters for this bill.
The cornerstone of this bill is the creation of more than 100,000 hectares of new protected areas, including 65,922 hectares of national park, 15,259 hectares of regional park and 20,684 hectares of land that will, when the Aboriginal community is ready, become an indigenous protected area. Included from 1 July 2010 within the new national and regional parks are the entirety of the Millewa and Barooga forests along the Murray, which will be incorporated into the new Murray Valley National Park and Murray Valley Regional Park; the forests of the Murrumbidgee below Narrandera, including the former Yanga National Park, which will be incorporated in the new Murrumbidgee Valley National Park and Murrumbidgee Regional Park; and a string of forests along the Lachlan, which will become the new Lachlan Valley National Park and Lachlan Valley Regional Park.
In addition, a new Euston Regional Park and Kemendok National Park will be created on the Lower Murray River. These new national and regional parks will form a magnificent network of conservation reserves for the river red gum forests, and will complement the recently gazetted reserves across the Murray River in Victoria. Part 2 of the bill provides for the land transfers necessary to establish the new reserves from 1 July 2010. The Government will ensure that the new reserves are properly managed, and it will set aside a total of $23.52 million for park management over the next three years. This includes $11.83 million of capital expenditure for reserve establishment, and another $9.69 million for recurrent management funding. Another $2 million will support Aboriginal communities, such as the Yorta Yorta of the central Murray, to become directly involved in the management of the new reserves and for the development of indigenous protected areas for Werai and Taroo.
The Riverina red gum forests already provide many benefits to local communities through the number of visitors that come to experience them, to camp and fish, and to ski and paddle on the rivers. The creation of new national and regional parks will not change this, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service has already been out promoting the new reserves at the Melbourne Caravan and Camping Show. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has significant experience in developing new tourism markets and the Government believes that the creation of these world-class parks will increase their profile and lead to a stronger, more diverse and higher-value tourism industry, which will benefit all the Riverina. The Government is treating seriously the recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission about adaptive management and thinning.
An amount of $3.532 million will be set aside to implement adaptive management and a broadscale trial of ecological thinning within the new national and regional parks and in cooperation with other land managers on other tenures. The planning of the trial has already commenced and it will be done in close cooperation with the Victorian Government, which will undertake similar work in its river red gum forests. The Government understands that within parts of the Riverina, State forests are an important source of firewood for the heating of homes. Many towns, including Deniliquin, are not connected to gas, and Forests NSW has managed a permitting process to allow individuals to go to certain State forests and collect firewood from off the ground. The Government does not wish to see people who have relied on this arrangement disadvantaged, so it has included a specific provision in the bill to ensure that this can continue inside some national and regional parks under new arrangements managed by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.
The bill will permit firewood to be collected by individuals or not-for-profit organisations that have been issued with annual licences by the department. Firewood can only be collected from off the ground in zones within regional and national parks that have been determined by the department. Zones and permits will be determined so as to minimise the impacts of collection on the forest ecosystems. Firewood collection for use outside parks will not be permitted outside the Riverina. This measure is intended only for locals of the Riverina, and provisions will be put in place to ensure it is not provided to people living outside the region. In addition, this measure will not permit anyone to cut down any trees for any reason. Wood will only be able to be cut if it is on the ground. The department will ensure that sufficient supplies are available and may use wood obtained from ecological thinning or planned hazard reduction activities that will be considered under soon to be developed reserve fire management plans.
The inclusion of national parks in these firewood provisions is in direct response to the removal of the Millewa transitional arrangements. The Government considers this only as a stopgap measure and will look to cease this arrangement for the national parks as soon as possible. The interim arrangements provide an opportunity to determine alternative timber and heating fuel sources. Part 2 of the bill also provides for the
23000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Werai and Taroo groups of forests, which have been recommended by the Natural Resources Commission for establishment as indigenous protected areas, which are lands managed by indigenous communities for the conservation of flora, fauna and cultural sites in line with international guidelines, and are recognised as forming part of the national reserve system. The Government is strongly supportive of these lands being handed to an appropriate Aboriginal organisation that has the interest and capacity to manage the lands for their conservation value, such that they can form part of the national reserve system.
The Commonwealth Government runs the indigenous protected area program and it is not within the power of the New South Wales Government to create an indigenous protected area. Despite this, the New South Wales Government intends to continue to work cooperatively with the Commonwealth so that the lands will be able to be managed under this program. The bill vests the Werai and Taroo groups of forests in the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act, under part 11 of that Act, from 1 July 2010. Following negotiations with the Aboriginal community, they will be vested in an appropriate Aboriginal organisation for conservation management when such an arrangement is possible. The bill makes it clear that these lands can be divested for purposes that go beyond the objects of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. This will allow Aboriginal communities to engage in ecologically sustainable commercial activities that will help to support the land's contribution to the national reserve system, hopefully, as an indigenous protected area.
Part 2 of the bill also provides for the revocation of some State forests and for them to be vested in the Crown as Crown land. These forests were recommended by the Natural Resources Commission to be managed for conservation as private covenanted land or public conservation reserve. The Government considers that these lands should be managed for conservation; however, their preferred tenure is yet to be determined. The bill provides for their vesting as Crown land and identifies their preferred use as nature conservation, with their final management and tenure to be resolved under established Crown Lands Act processes. The Government is intent on providing the river red gum timber industry and its workers with a fair and equitable structural adjustment package. This has been a critical component for all forest assessments, and the Government has been discussing this with the timber industry to ensure that it gets it right.
The bill amends the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Act 1995 to allow payments to be made from the Environmental Trust Fund to offset payments made from the Consolidated Fund for the implementation of forestry structural adjustment programs in the Riverina. Some payments will also be made directly from Forests NSW. The Government has developed the Riverina red gum structural adjustment package based upon what was applied in the Brigalow, but with some differences, the most important of which is that the mills and other operators will be paid business exit assistance broadly based on paying out the equivalent of two years worth of their sustainable yield, which will be lost due to the creation of the new national and regional parks and other reserves.
The Natural Resources Commission has demonstrated that the sustainable yield of sawlogs in the Riverina red gum is well below the level of allocation to mills and other operators in recent years. The over-allocation has impacted the forests and benefited the mill owners and operators in the short term. Therefore, sustainable yields rather than historic allocations will form the basis for payments. The Government has determined the future sustainable yield based on the Natural Resources Commission assessment, its supplementary report, and an analysis by Forests NSW. On this basis, the sustainable yield of high-quality quota sawlog from the Crown supply is 1,996 cubic metres per annum in the Murrumbidgee, 12,725 cubic metres per annum in the central Murray, and 1,100 cubic metres per annum in the lower Murray. These sustainable yields will then be impacted by the loss of State forest to create new national and regional parks and other reserves.
In the Murrumbidgee all State forests will be revoked so that no timber supply will be available. In the central Murray timber will continue to be available from Koondrook-Perricoota and Campbell's Island State forests, providing a sustainable yield of high quality sawlog of 4,413 cubic metres per annum. Were these volumes to be distributed amongst all businesses, there would not be sufficient wood available for them to be viable. Inevitably, some will close and effectively sell their remaining allocation back into the pool for use by those businesses that choose to remain. Following advice on the financial position of the mills and close discussions with them and the Forest Products Association, the Government will now be allocating up to $25 million for business exit assistance to support the timber mills and smaller timber operators with a Crown allocation. This process has started, and the Darlington Point Sawmill on the Murrumbidgee has begun shutting down and the first exit payments have been made. The bill will help ensure that the former State forests along the Murrumbidgee that were logged for the Darlington Point mill will form part of the Murrumbidgee Valley National Park, 11,299 hectares, and the Murrumbidgee Valley Regional Park, 1,197 hectares.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23001
The New South Wales Forest Products Association has raised concerns with the Government that the process of amalgamation of residue allocations carried out at the instigation of Forests NSW in 2008 has led to some disadvantage to those who have purchased the allocations of others. The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment has asked the river red gum steering committee to meet with the Forest Products Association and work through this issue. All workers who lose their jobs as a result of the changes to Crown allocations and yields and the full or partial closure of mills with Crown allocations will be eligible for special worker assistance on top of their statutory payments from their employer. These payments have been set at $81,360 per worker, plus up to $10,000 for retraining.
In addition, the Government will provide up to $5 million for industry development assistance in the Riverina. Any businesses with proposals for industry development either within or outside the timber industry will be eligible to apply for these funds. This allocation will also be available to businesses that can demonstrate they meet the criteria as being dependent on timber businesses with a Crown allocation that have closed as a result of this decision. The river red gum steering committee will advise the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment on the expenditure of these funds. The Government has increased the total funding package for structural adjustment, including business exit assistance, worker assistance and industry structural adjustment, including dependent businesses, to $51.5 million.
The Government is mindful of the implications of its decision and remains committed to the future of towns and communities of the Riverina that will be affected by these necessary changes to the river red gum industry. In order to further assist these communities, the Government has set aside $12 million for a Regional Employment and Community Development Fund. This fund will seek to support and assist new and alternative business and development opportunities that will be of broad benefit to the community. The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment will be advised by a committee consisting of local representatives including local government and Regional Development Australia on the expenditure for this fund.
The Government has also listened to requests for greater accountability in the expenditure of funding allocated in the river red gum package, and has extended the reporting provisions in the former bill to cover all expenditure. In addition, at the end of five years there will be an independent assessment of the outcomes achieved in the river red gum forests since the decision. At present the Forestry and National Parks Estate Act requires that a forest agreement be signed before an integrated forestry operations approval is prepared. The Government considers that the comprehensive nature of the assessment by the Natural Resources Commission, along with the detailed and credible response of the Government as provided for in this bill, means that there is no need for a formal forest agreement.
The bill provides for the development of an integrated forestry operations approval in the remaining production forests, in line with the Forestry and National Parks Estate Act. This will bring logging standards up to those that apply elsewhere in New South Wales. The Government will expedite the development of the integrated forestry operations approval to ensure it will be ready by the end of this calendar year. This, along with new 10-year wood supply agreements, will provide industry with the certainty it is seeking, but in return will establish a strong and clear regulatory arrangement. This bill will secure the future for these magnificent forests. It also provides an opportunity for a fresh start for communities of the Riverina. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [12.53 a.m.]: Today is surely one of the blackest days in the history of the Riverina. Where today is the champion of the forest industry, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources? Why is he not in this House participating in debate on this bill, which is a massive knife in the back of the timber industry in the Riverina? Where is Eric Roozendaal, the State's Treasurer, who loves to stand in this Chamber in question time lecturing us on the economy and jobs, and the so-called green shoots of recovery? Where is Minister Robertson, a member of this House, the champion of Unions NSW, who likes to lecture us about jobs and the workers, and the importance of standing up for people who do not have a voice? Where is the Hon. Tony Kelly, the Minister for Lands, who hails from Wellington and who likes to lecture us about Country Labor and its commitment, and how that party listens to and consults with people?
Where is Premier Keneally, who has made this decision? She is tucked up, warm, at home in bed, while we in this place debate a bill and try to understand its provisions in relation to firewood and its implications for people who are unable to go into the forests and collect their firewood and who are literally at risk of freezing to death in winter. The Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, can humph and sigh as much as she likes, but this is a major issue. I attended four of the consultations in the Riverina, and I stood there while elderly
23002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
people and unemployed people asked the commissioner, Dr John Williams, how they will be able to heat themselves in winter. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks this is a trivial issue or some sort of a joke, I assure her it is not.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Who said it is? You're treating it like it is a trivial issue.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The Parliamentary Secretary was groaning when I spoke about the difficulties this bill brings.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I just explained it to you. Clearly you were not listening.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The Parliamentary Secretary says she just explained it to me. I had not even seen the bill until 12.25 a.m. today. This a new bill that has just been introduced, and I have not—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Haven't you been paying attention to what has been going on downstairs for the past six hours?
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Do you mean have I been in the Legislative Assembly? I am a member of the Legislative Council. I will come to that in a moment. No, I have not been sitting in the Legislative Assembly today; I have been sitting in the Legislative Council. The Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware of the lack of courtesy and the indecency reflected in the haste with which this bill has been introduced.
Earlier today Premier Kristina Keneally and Minister Frank Sartor held a media conference with the New South Wales Greens to announce that a deal has been done on the red gum legislation. As I have previously advised the House, the New South Wales Liberal Party and The Nationals are opposed to the establishment of a national park in the Riverina. Obviously we have not been privy to the Government's negotiations with the crossbench members and certainly I was not invited to the Premier's media conference today. Resorting to the Australian Associated Press report of the press conference—
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: We have not been involved in any crossbench meetings.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile confuses me. There had been earlier indications by the Shooters Party that crossbench members were in some discussions with the Government. However, I withdraw that assertion if it is incorrect. We have to operate on media reports at the moment. The Australian Associated Press media report of today's press conference, entitled "NSW Labor and Greens deny red gum deal", reads:
SYDNEY, May 19 … A NSW Labor-Greens deal to protect 100,000 hectares of river red gum forests in the state's south was never about securing election preferences, the two parties say.
Premier Kristina Keneally announced on Wednesday that proposed legislation to protect the ancient trees in the Riverina had been altered and now had the backing of the New South Wales Greens.
The agreement will protect 66,000 hectares as national parkland, more than 15,000 hectares as regional parks and more than 20,000 hectares as indigenous protected areas.
The government first announced the proposal in March but said logging would continue until 2015 in the Millewa group of forests, which comprises about 18,000 hectares of the areas targeted for protection.
It passed through the lower house—
That is an error in the report; the bill that was introduced by Minister Sartor never passed through the lower House—
but had been stalled in the upper house where the Government does not have a majority vote.
On Wednesday, Ms Keneally announced the bill had been amended also to end logging in the Millewa from July 1.
She sidestepped a question that the deal was done to secure preferences from the Greens in the upcoming March 2011 State election.
"This is about doing the right thing for what is a nationally and internationally significant forest," she told reporters in Sydney.
"It's about protecting threatened species, it's about protecting ecosystems." Greens upper house MP Ian Cohen, who joined Ms Keneally at Wednesday's announcement, also denied the amended bill was about preferences. "At no time has the word 'preferences' come up—it has been clearly about the issues, " Mr Cohen told reporters.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23003
Just a week before the Government's March announcement, however, Mr Cohen warned that the Government would be denied his party's preferences unless it did right by the river red gum forests.
"This Government will desperately need Greens preferences at this election, " Mr Cohen told journalists.
"The river red gums are pivotal as far as I'm concerned."
"Labor will come begging … but if they don't deliver on these forests in a sustainable way they can go to hell."
NSW Environment Minister Frank Sartor said at Wednesday's announcement that the government had added $17 million to its original pledge of $80 million for the affected local community, bringing it to $97 million.
One mill has already shut down and others will follow, putting about 170 people out of work, Mr Sartor said.
"The industry formed the view that quite a number of them wanted to exit the industry and we've negotiated an outcome," he said.
That media conference was held at 1.00 p.m. The original legislation then was withdrawn in the Legislative Assembly by the Government and a new bill was introduced. That bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council and no doubt the Government wants it to fly through this House tonight. It is now 1.00 a.m. Also not invited to the Premier's press conference were representatives from the timber industry or the RAMROC councils representing the Riverina communities that are so profoundly impacted by this decision. Last week RAMROC mayors and general managers travelled to Sydney to make representations to the Government about the effect this legislation will have on their communities. I am aware that they made numerous requests to Premier Keneally. This large group was willing to stay for much of last week cooling their heels and waiting on the convenience of our esteemed Premier. This morning I received the following email:
Dear Mayors and General Managers,
I spoke to an official from the Premier's office yesterday afternoon and have been verbally advised that the Premier is not prepared to receive a RAMROC delegation in this matter.
The Premier has indicated via her officials that the Assistance Package issues are currently under review by Ministers Sartor and Macdonald, in conjunction with Treasury officials, as part of the ongoing process.
I explained at some length to the official the reasons why our councils and communities have asked the Premier to involve herself in this critical issue for the region, as well as the need for the Premier herself to confer with directly with Ministers and Treasury, in order to reach an acceptable outcome for the redgum industry and for the impacted towns and communities.
The Chairman had also spoken personally to the Premiers Office last week to follow up his letter, and I understand that the request has also been supported by Tony Catanzariti MLC and other State Members.
But unfortunately we have not been successful.
Kind regards Ray Stubbs Executive Officer RAMROC Councils
How rude! How shameful that our Premier will make such an announcement at a press conference and show such disregard and discourtesy to all the mayors and general managers who had come from the Riverina begging 20 minutes of her time. She could not even be bothered to see them. No wonder that no Minister with responsibility for this issue is in this House to face the truth about this legislation and its difficulties. The Labor Party has truly reached an absolutely shameful stage in its evolution. Not one member of Country Labor is in the House. I understand why they would be so ashamed.
The Hon. Rick Colless: They're not game to show their faces.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: They are not game.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: I have.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The Hon. Greg Donnelly is in Country Labor, is that right?
The Hon. Rick Colless: He lives at Hornsby.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The member from Hornsby.
23004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: I look after the Clarence and Port Stephens.
The Hon. Rick Colless: That doesn't make you a member of Country Labor.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The member in describing his responsibilities has made my point for me exactly.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Where is Catanzariti?
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: They are hiding in their offices. They are ashamed of themselves and of their party, and rightly so. On the basis that this bill is beneath all of the Ministers I have indicated, as the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, the genesis of this bill was in the Natural Resources Commission, which conducted an assessment and made recommendations regarding the Riverina red gums in the Riverina bioregion. Key members of the commission's scientific panel included Dr John Williams, Professor Peter Kanowski and Dr Matthew Colloff. The panel made findings that the red gum forests are experiencing major stress due to drought and water regulation—in other words, the loss of the flooding regime. The panel also made findings about forestry yields, which are being hotly disputed by the industry.
As I indicated, I visited the community for the four forums that Dr Williams held on 27 and 28 January. I would be very happy never to have such an experience again. I was almost unable to believe the level of distress and anxiety those communities were experiencing. The suffering that will be inflicted on these people by taking away the backbone of their economy and their primary means of nutting out a living is truly heartbreaking to say the least. Mathoura is a very proud timber town. I do not know whether it is in the current bill, but in the first bill introduced by the Minister part of Mathoura was erroneously gazetted as part of the national park—such is the Government's lack of understanding of the area. I hope that has been rectified in the current bill.
When I visited Mathoura, John Williams introduced himself and his report to the meeting. An Aboriginal woman gave the traditional Welcome to Country, which, quite rightly of course, was received respectfully by the meeting. Following that welcome, a third-generation timber cutter, Chris Crump, addressed the meeting and, in particular, the Natural Resources Commission. Mr Crump's words summarised many of the community's feelings. I do not have the exact words he said, but from memory Mr Crump said that on behalf of his community that he certainly respected the traditional Welcome to Country from the Aboriginal community, but he also wanted to extend a welcome to Mathoura. He wanted to acknowledge the very strong historical connections the people of Mathoura have had for over 150 years with that community, many families being third, fourth and fifth generation.
Mr Crump wanted to acknowledge the engineers and their forefathers who came and created entire communities from nothing out of the forests. The club in which we met was filled with names of young men from Mathoura who fought for Australia in the wars and he wanted to acknowledge their contribution not only to the local area, but to our country as a whole. He particularly wanted to acknowledge the strong heritage connections that the people of Mathoura feel, their great affection and respect for the river red gum, and their great knowledge and understanding of how to manage them. He wanted also to convey particularly to the Natural Resources Commission and through it to the Government the community's love of the forest and the desire that that love be acknowledged and respected.
This bill completely disregards these people and their future. I have not had the opportunity to read the revised legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary suggests that because the debate has been proceeding in the Legislative Assembly while we have been conducting our business today that somehow I should be across it.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Don't your shadows send you some information?
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: What information are you suggesting they send?
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Proof of the gauge.
The Hon. Rick Colless: They didn't finish till about 9 o'clock.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I might add that up until a short time ago I had been of the understanding from the Government that we would be debating the National Parks and Wildlife Service bill, which in fact was the Government's position up until the dinner break because it did not even know what time this bill would be received from the Legislative Assembly.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23005
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: And your people haven't told you what has been going on since 10 o'clock either?
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: You should liaise with your Whip about that.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Please do not criticise me for not having it all in front of me.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Are you going to repeal the bill if you are elected?
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I am trying not to be distracted by the Government and its tactics. I did hear part of a speech that was delivered by Verity Firth, the member for Balmain, who was positively glowing and bubbling with excitement at the passage of this legislation. She described it as a very proud moment for her and her party, and that may well be the case in Balmain where we know that the member for Balmain is under tremendous stress from the Greens. It was quite obvious to me tonight from listening to both the speech of the member for Balmain and the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, who stumbled over the names of these towns and communities, that the Government has no idea of the suffering and pain it is inflicting. Those people are angry because—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Are you going to repeal the bill if you get elected? A deathly silence, when there is all this outrage?
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Madam Deputy President, it is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to think that heckling me is somehow smart or clever but the issues before the House tonight—I notice that Country Labor has arrived.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I do not think it is an unreasonable question.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I will come to that matter in a moment, but I will come to it in my own good time. It is quite obvious from the job losses and the profound heritage impacts this bill will have on those communities that the Government has not been listening. I know that local irrigators have also made representations to the Government but they have not had their case heard. Their anxiety—and I acknowledge the work of Louise Burge in this regard—relates to the amounts of water recommended by the Natural Resources Commission to be released in environmental flows that are clearly well and truly above what is required in the forests that the Government is proposing to turn into national parks.
The irrigators want the Government to understand that this water has to go somewhere and that it will have major impacts on neighbouring properties. It is incumbent on the Minister to ensure that all surrounding properties impacted by these regimes are consulted on how this flooding will be undertaken. Because we cannot replicate the natural flooding regimes that have been lost, the natural flooding regimes that used to ensure the thinning of forests and the establishment of open healthy forests have gone. In trying to mimic those natural flooding regimes it is incumbent upon the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water to consult widely and respect the knowledge of the local community. Based on what occurred at Yanga, where clearly the expertise of the local community has been shunned, the Government is going to need a lot of help in this. I am sure the provisions relating to firewood would have been very welcome at Yanga, where dead, dying and doomed trees lie all over the place and present a fire hazard. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has shown incredible inflexibility in relation to that matter, and this is one of the key fears held by those communities affected by the second river red gum bill.
I express my dismay at this bill on behalf of the Liberals-Nationals Coalition. I acknowledge the work of my colleague Mr John Williams, the member for Murray-Darling, who has fought this legislation tooth and nail and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with his community. John is very dismayed by what has occurred. He has sought to represent both the interests of timber industry and the interests of the community, and while those two groups work together it is clear that their vision for the future is very different. The Government should recognise that the community needs support in the form of a realistic regional development package. Approximately $12 million is to be delivered to the community, which is a pittance in comparison with the economic resource that is being taken away. An awful amount of work still needs to be done to ensure the viability and future of all those local businesses.
This is a shameful day for New South Wales and the Riverina. Just because some people live far away from Macquarie Street does not mean that their rights and needs, and those of their families, should be any less
23006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
respected than others. Today those people feel as if they have been shot to bits. Mental health counsellors will be on hand to work in the region but it saddens me that the Government does not acknowledge this aspect of its decision. It also saddens me that many of us who have been working with these community members hold serious fears for their state of mind. I hope that the community will pull together behind those people as they endeavour to find their way forward to see some future in a very bleak decision at the end of a very long fight.
The community members I met up with in January believed that this whole thing was a forgone conclusion and that their attendance at the meetings was a waste of time. They had almost given up on lobbying the Government. The comments being made at that time were of utter disgust and of the need for them to come together as one would come together in a situation of war and siege to try and draw strength from each other. I do not exaggerate the degree of distress and fear in those communities.
The Government thinks it is smart by asking whether the Opposition will reverse this decision if it wins office. The Opposition knows that this decision is irreversible. The Opposition also knows that to make a cheap promise that it will reverse this decision if elected, then to introduce legislation that is unable to be passed and blame the former Government and the Greens when we know today that such legislation would be doomed, would be one of the cruellest and most irresponsible wrongs that could be inflicted on a community that has already had far too much inflicted upon it. It would be much easier to tell a lie to those people but the Opposition takes the view, having witnessed what those people are going through, that to tell more lies is not the approach to be taken and clearly it would be the worst thing that could be imposed on them.
People are interested in the Opposition's position because they want to know if they should borrow more money to try and keep their businesses afloat, if they should stay in that community, or if they should make a decision about which school their kids should attend next year. The lives of these people have been turned upside down and they need to make life-changing decisions. That is why it is important for the Opposition to tell the truth and say: No, a Liberal-National government will not reverse this decision, because the New South Wales Labor Government has entrenched it in legislation. The Government will have spent $97 million putting the timber industry out of action. The Government knows, as well as Opposition members, that this decision is irreversible. So the Parliamentary Secretary should not smirk at me and ask if the Opposition will reverse this decision if it wins office when she knows full well that the consequences of the Government's actions are irreversible. The Opposition will not tell lies to the community.
I express my sorrow for the local community. As I have said, this is a black day. I express my anxiety about the management of the red gums. I do not believe that the national park model will allow for those trees to be managed properly. It is beyond question that some very serious work will need to be done at an operational level to reduce the fire hazard in those parks, let alone ensure that the thinning of the forests is addressed. I cannot see how that can possibly be addressed under the current legislation. I am convinced that this is a terrible mistake not only for the local community but also for the future of the river red gums.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [1.20 a.m.]: Conscious of the fact that it is now 1.20 a.m. I want to make some comments about this very significant issue. Because of the difficulties in this new bill I anticipated that tonight the debate would be of the same proportion as the earlier debate of the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access) Bill. I felt there were entrenched differing viewpoints and that I had met those entrenched views. I held discussions with people from the National Parks Association, the forestry workers of the area and some of the mill owners. I spoke with clergy and people concerned with unemployment issues. I spoke to some members of local councils from the Riverina and to people such as Mr and Mrs Chris Crump, the timber workers to whom a previous speaker referred. I spoke with assistants who work for the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), Frank Sartor, and the Premier. I also spoke to Neville Atkinson, who is the chairperson of the Yorta Yorta nation.
In one of those real quirks of fate, my parents owned property on the south side of the same area of the Murray River. I frequently spent many delightful occasions, such as weekends, holidays and so on, in an area that was just outside Echuca along the Murray River and in the red gum forest area. As certain members know well, I was interested in taking rootstock and seeds of river gums. I planted them all round the dam on my property because of my love for that type of timber. Red gum timber is beautiful to work with. I was very interested to see what was going to happen. I discovered in Neville Atkinson a direct descendant of one of my closest friends from Cummeragunja, where as a young person I spent many happy times and where people from the Yorta Yorta nation had a close affinity with birds, animals and the red gum forest.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23007
Unfortunately, this bill literally came into the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council at the last moment. I expected that a very long debate would ensue. However, at this point I do not think a long debate will be necessary. I congratulate a number of organisations and people, including some of those I have mentioned by name, together with staff in political departments who have been working towards consensus on this issue. Although not everybody will be happy with the outcome, some real progress has been made.
Probably there has never been a more compelling case for conservation of a forest area than that for the river red gum forests of south-western New South Wales. Over the years they have been extremely heavily cleared, intensively cultivated and greatly despoiled, not only because of the actions of those who cut timber but also because of the devastating drought. The landscape along our iconic Murray River has been more than 80 per cent cleared of native vegetation. There never has been a more compelling case for forest conservation than in the river red gum forests of south-western New South Wales. They are the last remaining refuges in one of the most heavily cleared and intensively cultivated landscapes in Australia. The landscape along the Murray River has been more than 80 per cent cleared of native vegetation. The Riverina bioregion in New South Wales has less than 2 per cent of its land area in reserves.
As I mentioned, the river red gum trees are severely threatened by water stress that is mostly due to the over-allocation of irrigation water and the interruption of natural flooding regimes. River red gums need floods to propagate, to grow strong and to remain capable of overcoming drought stress. With so many of them showing stress by dropping timber and so many of them dying, the species has reached a very important stage in its future. Many river red gum forests are recognised as internationally significant wetlands. They provide habitat for approximately 69 threatened species. They include the New South Wales portion of the two largest red gum forests that remain in the world—the Millewa, which adjoins Barmah in Victoria, and the Koondrook-Perricoota, which adjoins Gunbower in Victoria.
However, these iconic wetlands currently are being logged and patch clear-felled at a dramatically unsustainable rate. For the information of members who do not understand the difference between logged and patch clear-felled, which is an important difference, I asked the timber cutters to explain their procedures to me. Naturally, they indicated their concerns with over-felling of the area, with its enormous environmental impacts on other parts of the community. The New South Wales Government admits that the forests have been cut at least twice as fast as they can regrow. The logging that is occurring does not have valid legal approval under Federal environmental laws.
The logging produces mostly firewood and railway sleepers. I am desperately saddened that such beautiful fine timber, which can be made into lovely furniture, is burnt or stuck under rail lines. We should have only concrete railway sleepers. Victorian timber cutters basically have decimated the entire area south of the Murray River because they are have cut timber for railway sleepers—and are still doing so—that eventually are destroyed by termites. The timber is so tough that it blunts the termites attack. The timber is very resistant, which is why timber is sourced from river red gum forests. In my younger days when I lived in rural Victoria I would take a trailer and load it with old red gum railway sleepers that the Victorian Railways in those days just did not want and left lying along the banks of railway culverts, et cetera. I would use a Canadian wood splitter to make woodchips. In the area in which I lived the only form of heating for our hot water, the house and the laundry was from a wood-fire stove. The large red gum chips would provide us with brilliant heat.
In latter years I have wondered why on earth we put fine timber under rail lines and burnt it for charcoal, among other wasteful practices. Logging has produced firewood and railway sleepers, which I must admit are sold in Victoria. More than 85 per cent of river red gum ends up in what might be described as bottom-of-the-barrel low-value products. The logging does not even pay its own way. I was surprised to learn during discussions with mill owners that the logging of native forests in New South Wales runs at a loss and must be subsidised by revenue from other areas. River red gum wetlands are the traditional country of a number of indigenous nations. I had the good fortune to speak with some representatives of those nations, particularly the Yorta Yorta people, the Wamba Wamba people, the Mutti Mutti people, the Wadi Wadi people, the Barapa Barapa people and the Wiradjuri people. The traditional owners have never ceded the rights to their land or country to those who clear their forests.
We all remember that in November 2009 the then Premier, Nathan Rees, committed in Parliament to the full and immediate protection of the Millewa forest as a national park, along with protection of other small areas along the upper Murray, Murrumbidgee and Lachlan rivers. I remember that he said it was one of his proudest achievements. In December 2009 the final report of the Natural Resources Commission fully vindicated his decision by recommending the immediate protection of Millewa as part of a world class,
23008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
cross-border Barmah-Millewa national park. I understand that the national parks decision announced by the Government—I received a copy of the Government's press release in just the last few minutes—indicates that the decision fully implements the findings of the Natural Resources Commission, which comprises very distinguished people from the environmental, forestry and scientific communities.
That decision protects approximately 107,000 hectares in new reserves immediately, with almost 20,000 hectares earmarked for later transfer to traditional owners in protected indigenous areas. It fully protects the Millewa forest immediately. The Millewa forest and the Barmah National Park in Victoria form the largest red gum forest that remains in the world. It is a living Murray icon—an internationally significant wetland and the heart of the whole Murray floodplain. Millewa contains known habitat for 13 threatened species and three endangered ecological communities. This area has been recognised as the most drought resistant and important environmental refuge in the region. The Natural Resources Commission's modelling shows that this area most readily can have environmental water delivered and has the best chance of surviving in a water-scarce future.
Millewa forest is in better ecological condition than are many other red gum forests growing in the Riverina and along the Murrumbidgee and Murray rivers because the forests have been saved from destructive patch clear-felling. Tree fellers told me that, out of their concern for the long-term future of the area, they did not clear-fell all the areas they could have.
I learnt later that much of this was prevented from happening by the National Parks Association, which kept up a running legal battle with mill owners and tree fellers. The decision also protects vital areas along the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers, building a corridor that runs from Kosciuszko to the Coorong. When I chaired a parliamentary select committee inquiry into the Snowy Hydro we heard evidence about the river flows of the Murrumbidgee and the Murray. I listened carefully as the scientists explained the importance of water released from the upper reaches down the Murrumbidgee and Murray rivers in order to sustain the ecological forests in the south-west of the State.
I commend the Government for the important social outcomes arising from this bill. I met with various individuals and representative groups, including concerned citizens, staff working in the employment industry, clergy concerned about the future of members of their congregation, and those concerned with land rights, reconciliation and self-determination for indigenous people. The previous speaker spoke about the sadness that will be felt by people in the area who do not agree with this decision. I believe there are some good outcomes from this bill. The Government's announcement that it would develop a joint management agreement with the Yorta Yorta traditional owners over the Millewa forest gave the indigenous people a tremendous boost.
Their people will have operative care, control and management of their own country. It will give them opportunities, which they have dreamed about, to share their culture and provide rewarding jobs for young indigenous people. It is an important step forward to bring the Yorta Yorta into management control of the full 70,000 hectares of the cross-border Barmah-Millewa forests. For the first time in the history of New South Wales the State Government will commit a transfer of a State forest directly to indigenous freehold for management as indigenous protected areas. More than 20,000 hectares, from Werai and Taroo, will be handed back to the traditional owners. It is a dramatic step in social justice for indigenous people in the Riverina area.
The Parliamentary Secretary said in her speech that the Government will invest in the Riverina region a total of $97 million, which includes an increase of $17 million for timber industry restructuring and community development. I congratulate the Government on that investment. Some of the people I spoke with, including the mill owners and the tree fellers, were adamant that they had no future. The businesses they were running were not profitable and they depended upon subsidised services to keep operating. This restructure package of $17 million to the timber industry will help them survive a difficult future, a future that would have been much more difficult if nothing had happened. The timber industry, as explained to me by the mill owners and the timber cutters, had been in decline for a long time. Some mills closed in recent years and at least half the mills would have closed in the near future because they were not sustainable. This package will assist the industry in the future. Without it, there would be no financial support for these changes. This decision turns an economically negative situation into a positive one.
The managers of the tourist industry in the area told me that there was a possibility for alternative enterprises. The diversifying of the regional economy will attract new tourists and more jobs. That information came from the people who are running the local tourist industry, not from the Government. When Victoria announced the River Red Gum National Park last year 55 jobs were lost. I am happy to say that since that time
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23009
66 full-time jobs have been created. I hope that also occurs on our side of the river. It is an acceptable result from an extremely complex and difficult situation. As late as a week ago, it seemed there would be no harmonious consensus on this issue, no win-win situation. This bill is the best possible outcome.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [1.35 a.m.]: I have a carefully prepared and polite speech that I should read. I am sure my colleague would like me to read it rather than say what I want to say tonight.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Speak the truth.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Yes. My contribution to this debate will be brief. However, I want to correct the record before I begin. Our colleague from Family First, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, rabbited on about his knowledge of the area, having grown up there. I will state some interesting facts. The Millewa forest, as it currently stands, is not the traditional ground of the Yorta Yorta or any of the other six or seven clans that the honourable member mentioned. The Millewa Forest is the traditional land of the Bangarang people. I met with a representative of the Bangarang people, who has the same surname, Atkins, as the Yorta Yorta representative across the creek. I met with Mr Kevin Atkins, the younger brother of Sandy Atkins, who is the tribal elder for the area. They have a different view as to whether the Government should hand over their land to the Yorta Yorta. The Hon. Catherine Cusack said, quite rightly, that she was disgusted that the Premier did not have enough time to meet with these people. I point out that her boss, Barry O'Farrell, did not have time to meet with groups down there either because of his busy schedule. Let us get some balance in this debate.
The Shooters Party has always been against the spiteful declaration made last December by the member for Toongabbie, just before he was thrown out the door, which has unnecessarily locked up another 107,000 hectares of land in national parks. The Shooters Party cannot support this bill in any form. For the past couple of years the Shooters Party has been involved in the fight on both sides of the border. We were heavily involved in the Victorian Indigenous Aquaculture Committee [VIAC] declarations on the Victorian side of the border. We were sorry to lose that battle. I guess we have lost this one too. I should congratulate Mr Ian Cohen on his win, but I cannot bring myself to do it.
My colleague from Family First, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, said that he had spoken to tourist operators in the region. Mr Chris Crump, who addressed a crossbench briefing, brought his daughter with him. His daughter is involved in the tourist information bureau in the area. She did not look too pleased about the proposal. In fact, she was crying. Her father, who would make two of me plus the Hon. Ian West, was almost crying as well. A member of this House has said that Mr Crump is just a wealthy landowner. I do not know what he owns; I have never asked him. I know he is sixth or seventh generation in the logging industry. He also brought with him a young indigenous man about 42 years old. I cannot remember his name, because I was so cranky at the time. This young man will not be pleased about this bill. He said to us, "What am I going to do? They will give me some money and retrain me. All I have ever done all my life is cut timber. That is all I know and that is all I want to do. I don't want to leave my traditional area down here." He will probably be one of the lucky ones with the $10,000 per person retraining scheme. They take the axes out of their hands and give them dunny brushes.
I have my view on this business about whether it is good science and whether it will be good for the environment. The Hon. Catherine Cusack read from the AAP press release announcing what was said by Ms Keneally—lock shoulder in step with Mr Cohen. We cannot get away from it. There are admissions there. This is about Greens preferences, and the few Government members sill in the House at this time should be ashamed of themselves. How can they pretend to stand up for working families? One hundred and seventy of them? Two hundred? One hundred and thirty-six?
The Hon. Rick Colless: Three hundred and thirty-six.
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Whatever it is. Government members should be ashamed of themselves, particularly those who I know have had long fights for workers rights throughout their history. It is disgusting. I am sorry, I got off the subject. I went down to the southern Riverina on a number of occasions and I spoke to RAMROC and I spoke to the Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance. I went into the bush on a couple of occasions and spoke to a couple of the smaller millers who do not use the Australian group selection method because it suits their particular style. I talked to foresters. I have had the technicians explain to me why and how the Australian group selection works. We have heard all sorts of garbage about a parrot that will not fly across the clearings. The Bangarang people laughed at that. I will not repeat what they said, but they laughed at it.
23010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
We have all the assertions that logging must stop to protect the forests. I wonder how much the Government will spend down there on environmental thinning. That will be interesting to see. Given what has happened on the other side of the border and the forests that I looked at down there, I reckon the Victorians will be in trouble. It is a disgrace and a disaster. Yanga station—what a failure! Yet the Government continues to bow to pressure from the Greens and the green non-government organisations. In this case they have got it terribly wrong. The Natural Resources Commission got its work wrong. It took me two goes to get the Government to admit that there was a correcting document. It was not called a second report; it was called a supplementary advice. On that basis, the Forest Products Association and I were able to talk the Government into improving the pay-out, the 30 pieces of silver, for the poor buggers who will lose their jobs.
The Government is being magnanimous and giving them an extra $17 million when they need $27 million. Ten million lousy dollars! The Government pours $90 million a year into the coffers of these so-called green groups; yet the loss of jobs for the families of the southern Riverina forests—the 172 or 233 families; it does not matter how many—is on the Government's head. Do members know how these people see themselves in this whole affair? First, they feel powerless. Then they describe themselves—I think I have said this before—as feeling like "road kill on the way to the State election". They are not dumb or silly; they know what it is all about. They know their country, and they know how well they have looked after it for generations. The Government is failing that community by pushing ahead with this national park declaration. It could have done this differently. Do not tell me it could not have done this differently. Government members say, "Oh, we can't have Ramsar classification because there's no structure there to do it." Well, if there is no structure, make a structure to do it!
During the crossbench briefing, one of the pastors from the area—I cannot recall his name—came up with Mr Crump. I recall he had a little bit of an ideological stoush with Mr Cohen about things. But those people will have to carry their communities and try to help them deal with a sense of loss—one could almost call it a group sense of loss. A couple of hundred families will have to carry those communities. Another thing is that many of these families have houses and mortgages. The house might be worth $100,000 and their mortgage might be $80,000. When those towns are cleaned out because there are no jobs, does the Government think they will be able to sell their houses? No! The Government needs to think about such things before it caves in to the Greens. It must think about the consequences for its people—the people the Government is supposed to be protecting. It will not be a field of dreams down there. I hate to say such things to any community. Why is it always the Shooters Party that tells country people they have been conned? People write nasty things about the Shooters Party because we are the bearers of bad news. Well, these people have been conned.
One need only look around this State, at Coolah Tops and the towns that have lost logging, canneries and other industries. They all seem to be west of the stone curtain. It is time the Labor Party, and particularly Country Labor, started doing its job and stood up for its people in the community. I pay homage to the members of The Nationals who have fought this fight. Indeed, I have probably caused a couple of them a bit of grief because I have been going after their leader, Barry O'Farrell, and it has reflected on them. Primarily, John Williams and Katrina Hodgkinson have been fighting the fight down there on their own. I say to members of The Nationals: You are the third largest political party in this State; it is time you started pulling a few strings and putting pressure on the Liberal Party. We look across at Western Australia, where the National Party stood up to the Liberal Party and said, "If you don't agree to hypothecating 25 per cent of mining"—
The Hon. Rick Colless: Did you listen to what the Hon. Catherine Cusack said tonight?
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Yes, I heard what she said. "We can't do it. We couldn't overturn it." I have heard it all before. Then we have the workers champion, Mr Bob Carr. I wonder what some of the old Laborites will say to Mr Carr when they see the way he stuck his 10¢ worth in this. What will they say to Mr Carr about workers? I think the current term is "working families". Mr Carr is hardly a true believer who should be advocating for this sort of garbage. He is hardly the light on the hill. My colleague in the Shooters Party and I feel as though we have let these people down. We tried to do the best we could but, as someone kept saying today, "When you haven't got the numbers, you haven't got the numbers." I simply ask that when all members of this House go home tonight they think not about tomorrow or what they have to do tomorrow but about what the poor buggers in the southern Riverina will do. This is now a reality. No more jousting, no more talking, no more lies. It will be done tonight, and we will not be able to stop it. I am disgusted.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [1.48 a.m.]: Before I start on the issue, I suggest that the Hon. Robert Brown read some of the speeches I have put on the record in this place about the red gum industry, the Brigalow industry and the forestry industry generally. If he did, he would find that we have supported the position of these
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23011
people. It is also significant that the Hon. Catherine Cusack, in her wonderful contribution tonight, understand where we come from on this issue. I would like to think that some of the work done by members such as the member for Murray-Darling and the member for Burrinjuck has contributed significantly to the stand that the Coalition now takes on this issue. I compliment the shadow Minister for Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability on the work she has put into this issue.
It is with a great deal of despair that I speak tonight against the National Park Estate (Riverina Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 (No. 2). As the Hon. Catherine Cusack said in her contribution, it is a black day for the people of the Riverina. I have been into those Riverina red gum forests on many occasions and I can say that the Government has got this absolutely wrong. The politics of this bill should be explored first. The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Frank Sartor, has tried to deny that there has been a deal with the Greens in order to shore up preferences at the 2011 State election. The Hon. Catherine Cusack looked at some of the media reports that reflect that deal between the Government and the Greens. On 23 February Mr Ian Cohen said:
This government will desperately need Greens preferences at this election. My position is, only if they deserve it and have earned it. The river red gums are pivotal as far as I'm concerned. We won't be giving over preferences automatically at this election. Labor will come begging … but if they don't deliver on these forests in a sustainable way they can go to hell.
It is pretty clear that a deal was done between the Greens and the Government. I see Mr Ian Cohen smirking— he has got the prize. It is a pity about the people of the Riverina who have lost their jobs tonight and will not have anything to do on 1 July this year.
The situation gets dirtier and dirtier. We have heard from many sources that on a recent trip to the Riverina the Minister spoke to an assembled group of timber workers and said words to the effect, "This is about raw politics. We need the Greens preferences in the upcoming election and we will change all these forests into national parks." So it is not so much about what is best for the forests but what is best for the Labor Party's chances of re-election next year. That is what this issue is about, and Government members should be hanging their heads in shame for resorting to such dirty politics. All this was confirmed by Frank Sartor in his speech in another place when he quoted from the Natural Resources Commission report as follows:
The river red gum forests and the industries and social systems they support are in decline due to river regulation, over-allocation of water and drought. This decline is predicted to worsen under climate change.
He confirmed the findings of the Natural Resources Commission that logging and forestry activity was not a key process in the decline of the river red gum forests. Nowhere in the commission's report does it say that forestry operations and logging are a cause of the decline in the red gum forests. The Natural Resources Commission says that the decline is due to river regulation, over-allocation of water and drought. There was no suggestion that logging needs to cease.
The Government's relationship with the Greens continues to be confusing. On 4 June 2009, during debate on what was then the Greens bill on the Caroona issue, the Mining Amendment (Safeguarding Agricultural Land and Water) Bill, the Hon. Ian Macdonald—who is one of the few people in the Labor Party who has had the guts to stand up in caucus and support the forestry industry, but who did not have enough power because it was all about Greens preferences rather than good forest management—said:
I do not know what would happen to the Riverina if the Greens policies were enacted. The Greens policies are clear-cut, and I think the Greens are probably proud of them. And what would New South Wales receive in exchange? If Greens policies were enacted, we would receive a loss of jobs, broken communities and wasted export opportunities.
And ain't that the truth. Of course, the environmentalists have convinced Frank Sartor that some of the larger trees are over 300 years old. Yet let us consider the history of the Millewa Forest. In A History of the Millewa Group of River Red Gum Forests, commissioned by Forests NSW in 1997, history consultant Peter Donovan quoted a former forester, Neville Davies, who was describing the forest management plan in operation during the 1950s. He said:
All other trees above 6ft. g.b.h. not required for future crop were either felled or ringbarked in logging operations.
According to Peter Donovan, the intent of the management plan was to remove all trees older than the massive regeneration that occurred after the 1870 flood. That flood still holds the record as the biggest ever recorded on the Murray. Cost cutting resulted in the plan being modified so that what were considered useless veteran trees
23012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
were simply ringbarked to kill them. In 1959 contractors were engaged to ringbark all commercially useless timber. Those trees were left standing and those that have escaped fire and tempest can still be seen throughout the forest. Obviously, the word "environment" was not in wide circulation at that time.
This evidence surely means that the Minister is absolutely wrong when he claims that trees remaining in the forests of greater than 100 centimetres diameter at breast height are 300 years old. It is nonsense. In fact, there are very few trees in the forest that could be more than 140 years old. That is a legacy of the policy that either removed or killed them half a century ago. The acknowledged authority on river red gums, Barry Dexter, cautions that using the size of a river red gum as an indicator of age is extremely unreliable, as growth rate will be determined by a combination of many factors, including water availability. What this means is that New South Wales is being given a national park of which the dominant feature is a collection of trees that have grown only since the first harvesting of the forest began.
These forests are not the ancient forests many people imagine them to be. They are almost all regrowth. For many years it was government policy to fell or kill all trees that existed before the 1870 flood. But some of the early explorers and settlers found not forests in this area but mostly grassy plains and reedy swamps along the river. The trees were further back on the floodplain. In 1838 Charles Sturt came along the Murray as far as the Edward River. For those members who do not know the area—and I suspect many on the other side of the House do not—that is where Picnic Point is, which is now a very popular holiday spot in the middle of the forest. When Sturt arrived there in 1838 he was forced to cross the Murray and find his way around what he called "a vast marsh". That area today is the Moira and Barmah forests.
In 1841 a squatter by the name of Edward Curr climbed a solitary old red gum on the bank of the Murray near the bottom of Barmah Lake. He saw a sea of reeds "as far in fact as the eye could reach", and that also was in what is now the Barmah Forest. So it has not always been a forest. I have seen early photographs of those areas on the banks of the lower Murray River and there were very few trees when those photographs were taken. The current crop of large trees germinated after the 1870 flood, and river red gums, like many other tree species, germinate in events following conditions that are suitable for their germination.
That is usually related to an abundance of water and the right temperature conditions to stimulate germination. The 1870 flood is still regarded as the largest flood in the Murray since European settlement of the area. When this germination event occurs seedlings grow literally like hair on a cat's back, as the saying goes. It is a well-known forest management fact that trees will only grow to a certain basal stem area per hectare. That means that for millions of small seedlings the total area of seedlings bases may exceed the optimal and maximum basal stem area per hectare while the seedlings are still very small. The only way to allow those trees to grow is to reduce that basal stem area by thinning. As the young trees grow they again approach the maximum basal stem area and their growth will slow and eventually stop, and that condition is well known in forestry circles as lock up.
To achieve an actively growing forest on a continual basis it needs to be continually managed to maintain the optimal basal stem area, which can be achieved through proper management techniques. These red gum forests are highly sensitive to fire; the Bangarang people used fire in those areas to thin out those forests. They managed them as an open woodland rather than as a dense forest as they are now. Turning these areas into national parks will encourage fire, as it has in all other national parks. What happened in 2003 in the Kosciuszko National Park? I remember a gentleman who gave evidence to a bushfire inquiry in 2001 who said "When Kosciuzko burns"—not if it burns, but when it burns—"they won't stop it until it gets to Canberra" and that is exactly what happened a couple of years later. The National Resources Commission [NRC] report identifies that these areas must be actively managed, not merely locked up and forgotten. One of its key findings is:
All river red gum forest ecosystems in the Riverina will need to be intensively and actively managed through the inevitable transitions of a drying climate. Active interventions such as ecological thinning and water-delivery infrastructure will be necessary in all forests, whether managed primarily for conservation or timber production.
That in itself does not rule out these forests being used for timber production on a continuing basis. The NRC social and economic impact assessment identified that 336 jobs were reliant on timber from State forests and the industry contributes annually $86 million annually in output, $39 million in value-added product and $21 million in household income, a loss in regional income of $146 million each year. The Government package of $97 million as a one-off restructure is hardly a worthy compensation for the loss of $146 million annually. What will happen to communities such as Barham on the Murray?
To offer workers $81,000 in compensation is an insult to the workers and working families from Barham that members opposite so arrogantly stand up here and say they represent. I refer to people such as Glen
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23013
Gray, a master craftsman making world-class, high-quality furniture from river red gum. Glen will close his business by Christmas 2010. What will Glen do? What are the many young people working in the industry going to do? I acknowledge that the Hon. Tony Catanzariti is in the Chamber. I hope he will make a contribution to this debate because he should stand up for the people of the Riverina, being a resident there, whose jobs will be lost by closing down the timber industry in the Riverina. I look forward to his contribution in this debate.
The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Does he want to get re-elected?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I wonder whether he wants to get re-elected, because if he does he should stand up and vote against this bill tonight. The locals have told me that they are concerned that the young people in all those towns will take the $81,000 and move to Queensland or Western Australia and get a job in the mines. Young people will leave those towns in droves if there is no work for them. We will be left with towns dying a slow but sure death after their young people leave. What will happen to the forests? Forests are solar-powered factories producing the world's finest and most environmentally friendly building material but they will wind down into moribund fire hazards. This is indeed a black day for the Riverina. This is a black day for the Murray Valley, the Murrumbidgee Valley and the Lachlan Valley. I am absolutely opposed to this bill.
Mr IAN COHEN [2.06 a.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I speak to the National Park Estate (Riverina Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 (No 2), which the Greens support. I congratulate the Government on this important conservation outcome. I acknowledge the nations that form the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations [MLDRIN] alliance for sharing their country with me. On 1 March I visited the Millewa State Forest and met with elders from Yorta Yorta nation. I greatly appreciated my time on country, and I acknowledge both Neville Atkinson and Jade Miller of the Yorta Yorta National Aboriginal Corporation and the Yorta Yorta elders for showing me country and sharing their knowledge of country with me. I believe I stand here representing in some small way those Aboriginal organisations, their dreams and requests. I wish the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile were awake—
The Hon. Robert Brown: You were sleeping earlier yourself, mate.
Mr IAN COHEN: I am not knocking him. I understand it is now a late hour, but I ask in particular for Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to listen at this moment. I certainly do not make criticism at this late hour. It is important because I spoke with those Aboriginal representatives in a significant meeting at which environmental representatives attended. The Aboriginal people invited me down to their nation. We sat at a large table in their building which housed their organisation.
The Hon. Robert Brown: In Victoria?
Mr IAN COHEN: No, in their New South Wales headquarters. I say with all sincerity, I asked them, "What is the situation on the Millewa? What do you actually want?" I did not dictate. I did not go with some greenie agenda. I went there to ask them what they wanted. They said to me clearly and unequivocally—and I say this with honesty—they wanted a cessation of the logging of the Millewa immediately. They need that for their people, their future and their self-determination—and that is critical. I say that for those people.
The Hon. Robert Brown: The Bangarang disagree.
Mr IAN COHEN: I make a point of not setting one nation against another, or one people against another, but I think the Hon. Robert Brown has some misinformation. I am sure there will be differences in opinion, but a vast number of those people got together and met. I was honoured to meet with those wonderful people. They talked to me about their concerns and how they miss out so much on the shakedown in the economic situation in that society traditionally and how it has been. I said to them that I was not going to stand in the way of some sort of agreement over dying in a ditch on the Millewa personally if it was not what those people wanted. I say in this Chamber that they made it clear to me. It is their decision. I came back to the Government and I lobbied hard—I make no bones about it—but I was representing what the elders told me for the benefit of their people, children and future generations. They said they wanted to live on their land and have productive enterprise for the future.
Whatever happens in this House and whatever is said in this debate, I will never resile from that. I believe that I am representing those people in this debate and I feel very strongly about it. Members will remember the debate about Broken Head, the successful indigenous land use agreement and the passing on of
23014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
land to Aboriginal people. As a result of that, young Aboriginal people in my area are working on country. That is the same thing that I am attempting to do in support of the people of the Riverina. If members disagree with that they should understand that I am not saying this from a greenie perspective.
Many issues have arisen over time about Aboriginal ownership, and conservation in this House and outside it. Clearly, I am reflecting what those people asked of me. I believe that, beyond that, this bill is an important advance in conservation in New South Wales. It is a conservation outcome of which both the Premier and the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment should be proud. It has been achieved as a result of courage in the face of great internal and external pressure. The majority of members of the Labor Government, under the leadership of Premier Keneally and after the hard work done by the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, the Hon. Frank Sartor, have recognised the public's strong support for conserving our environmental heritage, and I believe they should be applauded for that.
This legislation has presented difficulties for all parties, but the Government, and particularly those members who have shown leadership on this issue—specifically the Premier—should be applauded and supported. I will not be mean-spirited about this and I will make my position very clear: I accept that the Government has done a fantastic and brave job. It has delivered an outcome that future generations will look back on with great pride and admiration. Personally I have found Minister Sartor to be hardworking, hands on and unafraid of ideas. It is extremely important that he is unafraid of ideas if they are presented up-front and logically. There was no clouding of the issue as a result of people taking ideological, propaganda-fuelled positions—although we have witnessed that in this place tonight.
Minister Sartor was completely open and charged the scientists with assessing the resource availability figures. This bill will provide for the creation of more than 100,000 hectares of national and regional parks and indigenous protected areas. It will finally add one of the key missing pieces to the conservation puzzle in New South Wales. It will provide communities in the Riverina with a generous adjustment package of more than $95 million to ensure that they can transition to new business opportunities and capitalise on the economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits of national parks. It will allow those communities to share this iconic and precious ecosystem with the rest of New South Wales in perpetuity. This version of the bill removes the five-year logging transition period for the 18,185 hectares of Millewa State Forest.
The Hon. Robert Brown: How many preferences did that cost?
Mr IAN COHEN: None.
The Hon. Robert Brown: You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr IAN COHEN: I did not discuss preferences.
The Hon. Robert Brown: Frank did.
Mr IAN COHEN: I did not; I discussed issues. I have always been here to debate the issues. It is far more important to me to achieve a win for these magnificent forests than it is to score political points. That has been my consistent conservation objective for decades. I am interested in saving forests and I think it is reasonable to say that my record in that regard is consistent. Many members have vilified me since the late 1970s, but I have been consistent and I will continue to be: I am here to save forests; that is what I believe in.
The area subject to continued logging under clause 10 of the previous version of the bill will no longer be subject to logging. The economic justification for having a transition area in the Millewa State Forest no longer exists. As such, the crown in the jewel—the Millewa State Forest—will be protected from 1 July 2010. As I said, this is a response to the interests of the Yorta Yorta nation. The second key difference between this version of the bill and the previous version of the bill is that the sections flagged for establishment of indigenous protected areas will not be logged in the period between the passing of this bill and vesting of land with an appropriate Aboriginal land holding corporation. Again, that is a response to a direct request from Aboriginal representatives. In addition to these changes, the structural adjustment package has been increased from $80 million to $97 million.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Where is the $97 million mentioned in the bill?
Mr IAN COHEN: I have a prepared speech, so I will have to provide the member with that information later. The member is nitpicking and being small minded. In his agreement in principle speech in the
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23015
other place the Minister also committed to a joint management agreement with the Yorta Yorta traditional owners about the Millewa State Forest. I am proud to have been part of that self-determination by those Aboriginal people, whom I am very proud to call friends.
While not directly identified in the bill, a number of recommendations made by the Natural Resources Commission [NRC] also form part of the Riverina red gum package. The Natural Resources Commission made a number of recommendations about the delivery of water, the building of water delivery infrastructure, the establishment of ecological connectivity across wildlife corridors, the implementation of ecological engineering and adaptive management strategies. Taken collectively, the reservation of State forest areas as national and regional parks and indigenous protected areas will put in place a management regime that ensures the continued ecological viability and health of the Riverina red gums.
This is an important debate for me on a personal level as a committed conservationist. My stance on this legislation is a continuation of my involvement in campaigns before I entered this place. They include the rainforest campaigns of the late 1970s and early 1980s that resulted in an historic decision by the Wran Government and the old growth forest campaigns that occurred in the north of New South Wales when the Carr Government was in power. Again, I was proud and pleased to participate in those campaigns. I was also involved in the Brigalow campaign after I became a member of this House. In addition, I have been involved in the ongoing efforts to save iconic areas in the south-east forests. I have a long history of participating in forestry campaigns on the ground and in this Parliament and I am proud to have worked with people who share my ideals. I am also proud that people are still working to save the forests of New South Wales.
This is an important debate from the perspective of recording the history of the fight to protect Riverina red gums and it is a reflection on the sometimes unfortunate politics that emerge in such debates. I do this not to score political points but simply to highlight how hard conservationists in New South Wales have fought to have this State honour its obligations to conserve our biological diversity. International agreement after international agreement, page after page of legislation, and policy statement upon policy statement branded in our legal texts have not always transformed our collective psyche into one synchronised with the limitations of our environment.
Instead, we remain haunted by the ghosts of our colonial past. We have a history of English colonial masters fighting and toiling with a harsh and unforgiving Australian environment to pry meagre yields from selfish hands. The taming of the Australian landscape by early colonial powers fuelled frontier narratives that place the Australian environment as an oppositional force from which perceived victory created a perceived entitlement. Once the soils, the rivers, the forests and the oceans yielded to the colonial hands European communities felt that such natural systems should yield the same way, every time—a type of mechanisation of nature. This is the historical and psychological foundation of natural resource management in this country that unfortunately still pervades many discourses on the Australian environment and our interactions with it.
I wanted to start with this perspective on natural resource management and the legacy of colonial history because the confrontation over river red gums has played out in multiple guises in the State of New South Wales many times before and will be played out many times over. I have been involved in a number of such confrontations over conservation and preservation of the New South Wales environment. The same forces lock horns like bulls in a ring with predictable regularity. There are those who believe in what one could describe as the mechanisation of nature, whereby a natural resource is managed to deliver a consistent or increasing yield. Extracting ecosystem goods is primary, and sustaining the natural system that produces natural resource goods is secondary. The other view gives the maintenance and sustainability of the ecosystem primacy. Products derived from natural resource infrastructure are guided by the capacity of the natural resource to regenerate. Obviously, between these two polarities are the shades of grey in natural resource and environmental management.
If we strip away all the political and ideological baggage the contents of this bill really are fundamentally about natural resource and environmental management. Within the political system parties represent the diversity of ideals within our society in relation to managing the environment and its resources. However, it would be difficult to separate the cultural assumptions, knowledge and identity that envelopes divergent understandings of resource and environmental management. I think we need to be mindful of the cultural assumptions underpinning our different relationships to the environment. We need to acknowledge them and be cognisant of their presence in deliberations, but we should not exploit them in the way some members of Parliament have over the last six months since the release of the Natural Resources Commission report.
23016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
In 1996 all State governments signed on to the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity at the Council of Australian Governments. The agreement is a key component to Australia complying with its international obligations under the Convention for Biological Diversity. Together with the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Australian governments of all persuasions have sought to establish a framework that secures our natural resources and environment heritage. Nowhere do we have principles, essential to humanity's survival, imbued with such bravado and judicious resolution. Yet we appear unable to learn from our habitual pattern of resource destruction or "reflecting our hardwired susceptibility to making irrational judgements", as Ken Henry recently put it.
We have a collective obligation to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes that underpins our economic, cultural, social and environmental prosperity. No political entity has argued or would dare argue against the need to secure our environment and natural resources for present and future generations. While political regimes may act with contempt for the principles of conserving and preserving biological diversity, no party has stepped onto the world stage and argued against the cornerstone tenets of protecting biological diversity. One of the key tools to securing our environmental heritage for the present and into the future is a comprehensive, representative and adequate system of ecologically viable protected areas.
There are people in this House who are opposed to national parks. Some in the House may be opposed to national parks based upon their personal experience of national park management. In their opposition, many forget that they are actually arguing that we should not conserve our common environmental heritage and that we should not make provisions for the protection of unique ecosystems. Such a rejection of a comprehensive, representative and adequate network of ecosystems is both morally and logically bankrupt. The reverence and enthusiasm with which some people attack national parks and other protected areas becomes a de facto reaction of securing unique and scarce ecosystems for future generations. Instead of questioning management regimes and seeking to improve land management across the national estate, a minority in the community call for an outright rejection of national parks as part of some broad-scale cultural war. Rejecting our need to achieve a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of functioning and healthy ecosystems challenges every dimension of logic.
I challenge members of this House to argue persuasively that the use of protected areas is not a satisfactory way to secure our environmental heritage in perpetuity, that securing land with a form of tenure that protects land from the impulsive short-term imperatives of the day is not a sensible approach. Members may well argue that particular uses already achieve environmental management outcomes. We must ask the question how long before that land changes hands and we have ever-increasingly destructive land uses occupying highly significant conservation lands? What I am trying to get at is that the objection to national parks is based not necessarily on opposition to the concept of protected areas but more on the management and governance regime used to manage land under national park tenure.
The Hon. Robert Brown: Hear! Hear! You are spot on there. You are so right.
Mr IAN COHEN: That does not mean I agree with it; I am just acknowledging what people might see. In New South Wales the Carr Government made a significant contribution to building our network of protected areas and national parks. The Carr Government appreciated the acute and unwavering public support for conservation outcomes. The achievements of the Carr Government reflected this. Late last year I put to the then Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Minister Robertson, that the Liberal Greiner Government made a larger contribution to the national estate between 1988 and 1992 than the Iemma and Rees Labor governments combined. While the argument that Liberal governments are superior conservation managers may be seen to be fatally flawed, it does highlight that the Iemma-Rees regime did not continue to or build on Carr's legacy.
As highlighted in the State of the Environment Report 2009, only 1.8 per cent of the Riverina bioregion is represented in reserves. It is the area where the most significant river red gums forests are present, yet it has the second-lowest level of representation in national parks in all of New South Wales. Representation of 1.8 per cent is not comprehensive, adequate or representative. To maintain the status quo of reserve representation is a rejection of the State's obligations to the Federal Government and future generations.
For the last 20 years Forests NSW and the Forestry Commission of New South Wales have overseen the logging of Riverina red gum forests far beyond the capacity of the river red gum ecosystem. Environmental groups, conservation-minded individuals and communities across New South Wales have strongly advocated for the protection of the Riverina red gums for a number of years. They fear that the neglectful and unaccountable
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23017
stewardship of Forests NSW is jeopardising the very livelihoods in the river red gum forests. Over the last five years environmental groups have consistently highlighted that Forests NSW has logged Riverina river red gums without the appropriate environmental planning approvals.
In September 2007 the National Parks Association of NSW commenced legal proceedings in the Land and Environment Court challenging the legality of logging in New South Wales State forests along the Murray River. The National Parks Association and many others argued that the failure of Forests NSW to conduct an environmental impact statement under the Environment Planning and Assessment Act meant logging in the area was illegal. The Government's refusal to carry out a regional conservation assessment in the Riverina compounded this failure. The parties to these proceedings came to a negotiated settlement whereby Minister Macdonald was forced to acknowledge that Forests NSW did not have the appropriate authorisations and agreed to an Environmental Protection Act part 5 environmental impact statement. In many ways the negotiated settlement was an acknowledgement that Forests NSW and the Minister were acting beyond the boundaries of the law at both State and Federal levels.
Despite Minister Ian Macdonald's negotiated settlement with the National Parks Association, the gloves were well and truly off over red gums. Minister Macdonald's ideological campaign against the Carr Government's conservation program will go down in history as the single largest betrayal of Labor's environmental protection legacy. Former Labor staffers have described Minister Macdonald's representations on the river red gum issue in Cabinet as bordering on hysterical. His absolute preoccupation with logging the river red gums beyond ecological limits has become a vicious admixture of chest-beating megalomania and a burning desire to attack his former left-wing compatriots. In May 2009 Minister Macdonald whipped up the parrots or the jobs story after the Federal Department of Environment and Water sent a letter to Forests NSW indicating it would be intervening in logging under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and issuing a stop-work order.
Minister Macdonald seized this as a chance to lampoon the idea that upwards of 1,000 jobs would be lost just to protect a single parrot. What the Minister forgot before he went blustering around the press gallery about job losses was that the Forests NSW part 3A application form showed that there were 355 jobs associated with harvesting timber on Crown lands in south-west New South Wales. How did the number of direct and indirect jobs associated with the timber industry in the Riverina miraculously jump from 355 to more than 1,000? While Minister Macdonald thought he had waged a pretty successful campaign against the intervention of the Hon. Peter Garrett in the Riverina red gums, it became harder for the New South Wales Government to ignore the fact that logging of the river red gums beyond sustainable limits was simply illegal.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile interjected earlier to ask where the $97 million was in the bill. The allocation of funds from the Government is not legislated in the forests decisions; only the funds needed for industry restructuring from the environmental trust are set down in the statute. In this case item [5] of schedule 10 specifies the allocation of $45,813,000. The remaining funds were committed in the agreement in principle speech in the other place. The freedom of information material provided to my office in relation to the investigations of the Federal Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts showed that Garrett was clearly justified in threatening the issuing of a stop-work order. The department commissioned a third party to investigate Forests NSW compliance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and that assessment found significant concerns about the concurrent use of Australian group selection with single tree selection in the river red gum region. It found that Forests NSW operations were not sustainable in terms of maintaining the essential ecological character of the forests. The Federal department commissioned a report and peer review of that report showed real concern over logging by Forests NSW of the Riverina red gums.
On 12 August 2009 the Rees Government referred an investigation of red gum forests within the Riverina bioregion to the Natural Resources Commission. The referral to the Natural Resources Commission was borne out of Cabinet frustration at Minister Macdonald's continued campaign of misinformation on Forests NSW management of key river red gum State forests. The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water had the satellite surveillance evidence on the Riverina red gums clearly demonstrating overharvesting resulting from the use by Forests NSW of Australian group selection, also known as patch clearfelling, and directly contradicted what Minister Macdonald was telling Cabinet. The Natural Resources Commission was appointed to circumvent the roadblocks laid by Minister Macdonald and to deliver an assessment from an ecosystem management perspective.
However, Minister Macdonald had a few roadblocks of his own set up to reject the science and reduce transparency and accountability. On 3 September 2009 I asked Minister Macdonald why he had refused to allow
23018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water officers into Millewa State forest to do basic licensing checks associated with the licence that the department provides to Forests NSW under section 120 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Minister explained the situation as one of confusion and misunderstanding. The Minister stated:
Yesterday there was confusion in relation to licences issued for inspection, contrary to an agreement that we had with another department.
Minister Macdonald talked about confusion. As much as we all wanted to believe that Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water staff had been blocked from entering Millewa State forest due to a silly misunderstanding, I had serious suspicions that this was not the case. I immediately made a freedom of information application to get to the bottom of this so-called confusion. The ministerial briefing I accessed painted a very different picture to that which Minister Macdonald conveyed to the House. In a ministerial briefing note from Industry and Investment NSW provided to Minister Ian Macdonald on 2 September 2009, the director of the strategy policy and communication division recommended that the Minister block Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water officers from inspecting the river red gums. In making the argument to lock the department out of the Millewa State forest, the director stated:
Any data collected from such a process would be subjective, have limited legitimacy or validity for use in any government process. Forests NSW would have access to this information to question or query the results however the information collected would become by default a pseudo scientific position for which DECCW would base any position on post assessment, especially in preparation of Cabinet advice.
The ministerial brief further stated:
DECCW has for some time dictated the need to protect red gum forests in National Parks and it is now evident that this position is based on non-existent information.
According to the ministerial brief, the locking out of Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water staff was based on a simmering ideological bigotry channelled through bickering departmental fiefdoms. In hindsight, with the research of the Natural Resources Commission report, the evidence of the Federal Department of Environment and Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water's satellite surveillance evidence at hand, the director's advice appears to be nothing more than abject extremism. It is an ideological hijacking of a government agency that is charged with managing millions of hectares of land in this State. Taking a leaf from Minister Robertson's book, it is the equivalent of putting Tony Abbott and his posse of climate denialists in charge of designing Australia's policy response to climate change.
Upon the release of the Natural Resources Commission report the Minister had to shift up a gear. The Minister had to start arguing against the science and research of the State's peak natural resource management authority. What we have witnessed from the Minister is an aberration of reality. On 24 February 2010 I asked the Minister whether he still supported his assertion that Forests NSW management of Riverina river red gums achieved the "highest international environmental order" in light of the initial Natural Resources Commission finding that Forests NSW had logged the river red gums in the Riverina region at least 50 per cent beyond sustainable levels. Minister Macdonald's response was to challenge the findings of the Natural Resources Commission report and state that the Natural Resources Commission supported the use of Australian group selection as implemented by Forests NSW in the river red gum forests as a sustainable practice. The important point to note here is not whether the Natural Resources Commission supports AGS as an appropriate silviculture technique. I acknowledge that the commission does support Australian group selection as an appropriate silviculture technique. The question is whether the manner and application of Australian group selection by Forests NSW in river red gum State forests is sustainable. On page 26 of the Natural Resources Commission's summary report we have the answer to that question, as clear as day:
Forest NSW's implementation of silvicultural practices (including Australian Group Selection) in the river red gum forests needs modification if it is to maintain the ecological character of the forests and protect matters of national environmental significance.
Put more bluntly, the current implementation of Australian group selection by Forests NSW is destroying the forests. Minister Macdonald has done his very best to snuff out this single piece of damning evidence. The Natural Resources Commission undeniably states that in order to protect the very ecological character of river red gums, the use by Forests NSW of Australian group selection must be modified because the current application of Australian group selection by Forests NSW is not sustainable. Instead of accepting responsibility and acknowledging a key finding of the Natural Resources Commission report, Minister Macdonald rolled out Natural Resources Commission quotes on Australian group selection separate from the Forests NSW use of the silviculture technique.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23019
The Minister simply did not have the bravery or integrity to clearly acknowledge the Natural Resources Commission finding. Indeed, he attempted to mislead this House. It is interesting to note that in the previous bill the logging of the Millewa State forest during the five-year transition period was proposed to be subject to the Millewa Transition Forestry Code that prohibited the use of Australian group selection. The then Premier sought to put an end to the lazy option and the campaign by Ian Macdonald to secure the Forests NSW bottom line at all political, moral and legal costs. The report of the Natural Resources Commission was the first step. The central finding of the Natural Resources Commission report is that the river red gum forests are in decline due to river regulation, over-allocation of water and drought. Importantly, the profound impact of reduced environmental flows, over-allocation of water for consumptive users and drought has altered the vital signs of Riverina red gum forests.
The resilience of the Riverina red gums as an ecosystem has taken, and continues to take, a battering. Without key inputs such as water driving ecological processes in the forests, the forest systems will irrevocably change in an attempt to adapt to new ecological realities. In the words of the Natural Resources Commission, "River regulation, over allocation of water, drought and projected climate change are so profoundly changing the forests that the current forms of management and forestry harvesting are unsustainable." To the general public, who have time and again expressed strong community support for the conservation objectives embedded in our legislation and our national commitments, this statement is crystal clear. Things have changed in the Riverina. There is less water, more extreme climate change impacts and drought. Carrying on logging as if nothing has changed will irreversibly damage the forests—if we have not already done so.
To adopt a business-as-usual approach to forest harvesting under these conditions is like expecting a factory to work without any oil to lubricate machinery. In the industrial context, the business manager would not jeopardise core machinery and production components just to achieve a certain output of products. They would simply go broke. Yet the Opposition, in arguing for the continued logging of Riverina red gums at current levels, is going against this basic logic. If we were to transpose the philosophy of the Opposition on natural resource management into an industrial context, the party for big business would transform into the party for failed business.
While I am on the topic of the Opposition, it is good to reflect on some of the statements made by the member for Murray-Darling, who has been quoted by other members in the House as being at the forefront of an appropriate campaign on the issue. John Williams clearly articulated the position of the Opposition on ABC Riverina in March this year. In describing the Greens campaign to have Riverina red gums adequately represented in our national park estate system and ensure future generations can experience these forests, the member stated:
The greater population hasn't seen the way the Greens do business. They are a pretty evil bunch in the way they operate. They just use bullying tactics, standover methods and basically walked into situations and taken over people's lives … They are absolutely obsessive. It's the type of obsession that has planes flying into buildings in New York.
The Hon. Robert Brown: What a brilliant assessment! That is quite correct.
Mr IAN COHEN: You may well think that is a brilliant assessment. I think that is a disgusting, prejudiced attack, way out of the ambit of the current debate. I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Robert Brown that he regards that as reasonable. I tend to see that as rotten, gutter, low-level politics which misses the point. We are debating environmental issues, right and wrong, vice and versa, on both sides. Is it any wonder that there is violence in the forests and all sorts of reactions when people who are purporting to be conservationists use this sort of commentary on ABC radio—I was rung up later to comment on it. It is a despicable, bullying act by the member for Murray-Darling, a political leader, to stir up hatred in local communities and have a go at the other side, regardless of who is right or wrong.
The Hon. Robert Brown: You don't accept it, but he's just reflecting his community's views.
Mr IAN COHEN: I won't even bother acknowledging that interjection; I do not think it is worth it. The announcer, flabbergasted by the comments of the member of The Nationals, sought further clarification from the member for Murray-Darling as to whether the member was comparing Greens advocacy on protection of river red gums to the flying of commercial jets into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, killing 2,726 people. He said:
They have marched into that forest and taken over. You have people that have contracts in that forest that they have been working that for years. They've locked their equipment up and they've done exactly the type of terrorism that you see played out on the world scene.
Heaven help us if that sort of person gets into a position of real power in New South Wales. One can interpret that as Greens deals or preferences. What utter rubbish! In this context we are dealing with people who are not
23020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
fit to govern. I am amazed and truly perplexed that the Opposition believes that protecting the Riverina red gums through a combination of developing new water delivery infrastructure, national park tenure, limited ecological thinnings, firewood collection and Aboriginal nation management is a form of terrorism. What an astounding proposition! I am surprised that this form of environmental management can be considered the equivalent of the violent murder of civilians.
The Opposition will also allege that the job losses associated with this bill are tantamount to economic terrorism yet conveniently ignore the findings of the Natural Resources Commission on the forestry industry that river red gum forests on public land make a contribution to the regional economy of less than 1 per cent. Certainly some people will be affected by the reservations but these businesses are getting substantial compensation packages. We should also reflect on the Opposition's policy on water management and how it relates to the flow of water through the Riverina region. Would the Opposition, particularly The Nationals, support significantly reduced allocations to irrigation corporations and water users on the Murrumbidgee River to support forestry operations in the Riverina region? Does the Opposition support delivering 1,200 gigalitres to the Riverina red gums? If yes, where will this water come from and who will pay for it?
Similar to what we saw on a bill we debated earlier tonight, the Opposition appears to lack clarity on policy. It wants to have a bet both ways when hard decisions need to be made. From my understanding of what the Opposition has been saying, its approach to natural resource management is to advocate for the continued logging of Riverina red gum State forests way beyond sustainable levels without delivering any additional water or investing in water delivery infrastructure. Let us be honest: if The Nationals had to make a decision between protecting water users and the forestry operations of the Riverina, I think they would side with the water users. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
As I have already noted, the associated structural change that accompanies the protection of the Riverina red gums is supported by an adjustment package of more than $97 million. In a comparison of buy-out costs and reserve areas from New South Wales regional assessments, it is clear that the structural adjustment package provided to the region and its forestry workers is significant. The structural adjustment cost per hectare of the Brigalow Belt South reservations was $106. For the eastern seaboard reservations the per hectare structural adjustment cost was $117. For the Riverina red gum package the immediate reservation of 88,543 hectares supported by $38 million in direct support for forestry industry restructuring equates to a per hectare structural adjustment cost of more than $429. The cost effectiveness of the proposed reservation program is enhanced if the entire Millewa State Forest is reserved immediately. Per hectare structural adjustment costs of immediately reserving 107,210 hectares is approximately $355. I think it is pretty obvious.
Comparatively, the structural adjustment package provided to the affected regions through the Environmental Trust is a generous package. The generosity of the package is further highlighted when we consider that the Natural Resources Commission clearly found that timber harvesting rates would, at a bare minimum, need to be halved to achieve a degree of sustainability. On page 30 of its summary report the Natural Resources Commission states:
Forest growth rates have been in long term decline but quotas have not been revised down. The sustainable wood yields are simply not there to sustain the current scale of the sawmill industry, and have not been there for some decades.
For two decades Forests NSW has logged the Riverina red gum forests substantially beyond sustainable yield limits. It has extracted a resource beyond its natural capacity and added to its own bottom-line profits derived from harvesting beyond ecosystem limits. Allowing this to happen is a disgrace. The capacity for viable environmental governance under Minister Macdonald is non-existent. State forests across New South Wales should be managed for the public good. This goes beyond environmental issues and strikes more at the heart of incompetent land and resource management.
It demonstrates a stewardship of our State forests so utterly derelict in protecting our collective common interest in sustainable management. Under the rule of Minister Macdonald we have seen an undeniable abandonment of the objectives of the Forestry Act 1916. The very phrases "preserve and improve" and "conserve and utilise" have become so distorted and diluted that they are rendered meaningless. We are now at a stage where we need to make significant environmental restitutions to compensate for the actions of Forests NSW. On that note, I am glad that we are at a point this morning where the hard work, campaigning and research of environmental groups, the scientifically based recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission and the regulatory surveillance of Forests NSW by government departments have resulted in the protection of the Riverina red gums. This hard work and empirically based evidence has helped give the Government the necessary impetus and justification for establishing river red gum national parks.
I acknowledge and thank a number of people who have made this bill possible: Carmel Flint and Andrew Cox from the National Parks Association who are in the gallery tonight; the elders of the Yorta Yorta
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23021
Nation, and Neville Atkinson and Jade Miller of the Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation; the Wilderness Society; Steven Ross from the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, another Aboriginal organisation; Georgina Woods, Jacquie Kelly, Paul Winn and Bev Smiles; on-the-ground activists Sooty, Marg, Scotty, Barrie, Tim, Lisa, and Tony; lawyers Tim Robertson, Bruce Woolf, Ken Averre, Sue Higginson and James Johnson; and Jonathan La Nauze from Friends of the Earth, Melbourne.
I thank all those people who dealt with these issues with no more investment than their ideals. They worked hard, night and day, for years on end. In many circumstances they took great risks and, in other circumstances, they lent their considerable intellectual effort to these campaigns so that we could arrive at an historic point in time where we could help to save a significant ecosystem. I thank all those activists, all those professionals, Premier Kristina Keneally and the Minister for the Environment, Mr Frank Sartor, for bravely stepping up and accepting the scientific argument, and for moving forward with a significant and historic environmental decision, of which I am proud to be a part.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [2.52 a.m.]: The record will show that the time is now 2.52 a.m. I strongly oppose the National Park Estate (Riverina Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 (No 2). The time is important as it reflects the way in which this Government deals with difficult issues in this place. It introduces a bill late at night in order to restrict debate and to avoid any media scrutiny. This disgraceful treatment of the livelihood of the Riverina communities is compounded by the behind-the-scenes dealings between New South Wales Labor and the Greens over March 2011 preferences. Today they congratulated one another at a press conference. Today the bill was withdrawn and amended to meet the Greens demands so that they could have the deal that they both so desperately wanted.
Make no mistake—these facts are obvious despite the protestations today of both parties at an earlier press conference. This is the dirty Labor deal with the Greens. It was revealing as I watched the beneficiaries of this dirty deal in the other place, in particular, the member for Drummoyne, the member for Coogee, the member for Balmain and the member for Marrickville, trumpeting the benefits of this bill. Self-interest is alive and well in the Australian Labor Party. Indeed, the same could be said for the Greens. I draw the attention of members to a statement referred to earlier by Mr Ian Cohen of the Greens:
If the Government does not deliver on Riverina red gums it can go to hell.
Instead, today the Australian Labor Party and the Greens told the Riverina communities that are affected by this bill that they can go to hell. This bill will lock up thousands of hectares of productive forest. The proposals in this bill, along with the many national parks that have been introduced by Labor over the past 15 years, have locked up millions of hectares in parks without proper forestry management. Earlier the Hon. Rick Colless referred to the 2003 wildfires that tore through Kosciuszko National Park and into Canberra. They could not be stopped. I was in Canberra that day and I witnessed a scene from Armageddon. That sort of risk of wildfire will grow over time in the Riverina red gums national park. These facts are indisputable, and only time will bear me out.
The economic impacts are clear—1,300 jobs in businesses throughout that region in local towns, and small businesses, obviously sawmilling businesses and all those other businesses that rely directly or indirectly on them, will be affected by this decision. Earlier this year I visited Deniliquin where I met with a number of local people to discuss the Government's impending decision to introduce this bill. It was galling to see the impact on those communities, and the outrage was palpable. The communities in those areas have already been struggling through difficult times because of the drought and the withdrawal of services by the Government.
It was interesting to note today's comments of the Hon. John Robertson in his spirited defence of cleaners in this State. We no longer have any spirited defence of timber communities in this State. We also heard the Treasurer's spirited defence of jobs that have been generated in this State as a result of economic growth. In communities such as Deniliquin this Government is taking away jobs. The Riverina will struggle for many years to deal with the devastating impact of this legislation. This bill is all about Labor logging Green preferences. It could be said that clear felling of Greens preferences will be happening in 2011. This bill is incontrovertible evidence that this Government does not govern for the whole of this State—it governs only for itself.
In this case the bill is 30 pieces of silver to secure Green preferences in the city seats of Drummoyne, Coogee, Balmain and Marrickville. It is a definitive act of political bastardry from this Labor Government.
23022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Members will recall that the genesis of this bill was an act of political desperation from cornered Premier Nathan Rees on the eve of his political execution. On 3 December 2009 Premier Nathan Rees said in announcing his decision to establish the park:
Political inconvenience is the difficult option; political convenience is the easiest possible resort. We are all tempted towards the soft choices and the lazy options.
A soft choice and a lazy option indeed—made on the basis of an interim report and the draft recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission received by the then Premier on that very day—very soft, very lazy and very wrong. Since that time this bill has morphed into the stillborn lovechild of the Labor Party and the Greens—once again, born of an act of political desperation from a cornered New South Wales Labor Party craving Green preferences on the eve of its political execution. We all hope that this date will be 26 March 2011—a date on which New South Wales will rejoice as the yoke of this corrupt Government will finally be lifted. Then, and only then, can we hope to right this terrible wrong.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.58 a.m.]: Like other members, I met with representatives from the Riverina red gum area—timber workers, sawmill workers, Aboriginal representatives and clergymen who were pleading for job security to protect jobs and sawmills and to protect towns in that area. The Minister was concerned about any mental health impacts that this bill might have on individuals in the Riverina area, who might feel hopeless about their future and the fact that their towns might die. I was in the House when the debate on the National Park Estate (Riverina Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 was about to begin. I took the bill out of the rack on the table of the House and I noticed, to my surprise, that paragraph (c) set out an object of the bill as follows:
to enable forestry operations to continue on land in the Riverina area remaining as State forest (including in part of the Millewa State forest on a transitional basis until the land is transferred to the national park estate on 1 July 2015) …
I thought, "Oh, great! The Government has reversed the announcement. It has gone back to its earlier commitment to give the five-year breathing space to the communities of the Riverina area." As we were discussing this with the Hon. Robert Brown, we thought, "That is odd." Then the Clerk checked and said, "No, that is not the bill we are debating tonight. We are debating the National Park Estate (Riverina Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 (No 2). The original bill clearly referred to a postponement until 1 July 2015, but the bill we are now debating repeats over and over again that the dedication of State forests will be revoked on 1 July 2010, and that the reserves will be transferred to the national park estate on 1 July 2010. This means the Government is literally giving the people of the Riverina who are affected by this bill four or five weeks notice: the axe will fall on 1 July 2010. It is a tragedy.
Mr Ian Cohen said he was upset about some of the criticisms of the Greens. They are not criticisms of the Aboriginal people; they are criticisms of the green ideologues, the Greens who are fanatical on this issue. I believe Dr John Williams was making a comparison with other fanatics around the world. We will now see the towns in the Riverina area die. Members have spoken about decentralisation and about the need to build up our country centres and provide jobs in those country centres. By following the Greens' policy the Labor Government, in spite of its profession of supporting workers and working families, is going in the opposite direction.
I am not critical of the Government's plan to enable the transfer to Aboriginal ownership and conservation of certain other State forest lands in the Riverina area. I said to the Aboriginal representatives, "Would you be happy for that to happen, where you could then support your own self-management and your own economic plans for jobs by your running a timber mill?" The Aboriginal representatives said, "Yes, we would love to do that. We don't want to be just looking after the land as rangers; we want to become economically independent." But I gather, given the way this bill is drafted, that they will not be allowed to use the red gum forests for their own economic development; they will simply have to look at them and rely on handouts. Even though the Greens have boasted that $96 million will be provided in the structural adjustment package, as it is called, the people of the Riverina do not want handouts; they want jobs. They want to maintain their occupations and their lifestyle. I therefore find it very difficult to support the bill.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.04 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. This bill delivers one of the most important conservation outcomes in recent years by dealing with the missing piece in the New South Wales forest decisions. It provides New South Wales with a network of conservation reserves across the river red gum forests of the Riverina,
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23023
while also delivering a fair structural adjustment package for the timber industry, its workers and the community. Those parts of the timber industry that continue to operate after this decision will have the certainty that has been lacking up until now. The new bill will improve the financial support to the industry, its workers and the community, and will also make for a much improved conservation outcome.
The Government will ensure that these new reserves are managed, as the community would hope, through the provision of significant funds for establishment, recurrent management, Aboriginal involvement, and adaptive management and ecological thinning. Their status as conservation reserves will assist in attracting additional quantities of environmental water. The Government will be directly confronting the challenges detailed by the Natural Resources Commission in managing these new reserves.
The report of the Natural Resources Commission identified a significant decline in the yields of timber available from the river red gum forests as a result of the lack of water. Regardless of the decision to create new national and regional parks, the timber industry is facing a significant reduction in size. This means that mills will close and people will lose their jobs. The Government does not hide from that; it takes this issue very seriously. The Government is delivering a significant structural adjustment package to assist the industry and its workers. The passage of this bill will give those workers some certainty about the options available to them and the funds they might receive.
Since the receipt of the report from the Natural Resources Commission, and even since the introduction of the earlier bill on 22 April, the Government has been in discussions with the timber industry, including the Forest Products Association and individual mill owners. The Government has also been in discussions with representatives of the impacted communities. And, of course, the Government has been listening. During this debate some members suggested that the Government has not spoken to anyone and has not listened or visited the Riverina communities. That is, of course, false. Minister Sartor met with local government in January this year when he visited the region, and again when several Riverina mares visited Sydney. It is absurd and incorrect to assert that the issues local government has raised with the Minister have not been considered by the Government in making its decision. I inform the House that the Government's funding package now includes, amongst other assistance, $12 million for community development and employment initiatives.
As a result of these ongoing discussions the Government has today tabled this new bill. The bill removes the previously proposed transitional arrangement in the Millewa State Forest, and that is accompanied by the Government's commitment to increase the industry structural adjustment package by $17 million. I again place on record that criticisms were made during the debate that the Government had not provided this information to the Opposition. That assertion is simply incorrect. These changes mean that the impacted mills and timber operators will now receive up to $25 million in business exit assistance, and workers will now receive up to $21.5 million. In total the Government has increased funding to businesses and workers directly impacted by this decision by $13.5 million.
The other plank of this bill is the delivery of certainty to the timber industry through the establishment of an interim approval for timber harvesting ahead of the finalisation of an integrated forestry operations approval. This, along with the creation of wood supply agreements, will ensure that those mills and operators who choose to stay in the industry will have security around the volume they will be able to take and the conditions under which harvesting will occur. The Coalition has indicated its strong opposition to this bill. There has been much outrage tonight. Yet, when the Coalition was asked the basic question whether the Coalition would attempt to repeal this bill if it is elected next year, its hollow and revealing answer was no. So much for the outrage.
Should the bill fail to pass, there will be no winners. There will be no new reserves, there will be no funds for improved management, there will be no funds for the industry, and there will be no approval for harvesting operations. The timber industry is likely to grind to a halt, and workers will be laid off with no access to worker assistance. Should harvesting continue, the Commonwealth would likely look again at its threat to intervene and stop work altogether. The Government's bill provides significantly improved outcomes for conservation, the industry and the region. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
23024 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
Ayes, 21
Mr Catanzariti Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Veitch Mr Cohen Mr Obeid Mr West Ms Griffin Mr Primrose Ms Westwood Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon Dr Kaye Mr Robertson Mr Kelly Ms Robertson Tellers, Mr Macdonald Mr Roozendaal Mr Donnelly Mr Moselmane Ms Sharpe Ms Voltz
Noes, 16
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Mr Pearce Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Smith Mr Clarke Mr Mason-Cox Ms Cusack Reverend Nile Tellers, Ms Ficarra Ms Parker Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Harwin
Pairs
Mr Della Bosca Mr Lynn Mr Hatzistergos Mr Gallacher
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.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands) [3.15 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
PILLIGA STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE UNIT
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.15 p.m.]: Last Friday I was fortunate to represent the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon. Steve Whan MP, to officially open the new State Emergency Service [SES] unit headquarters at Pilliga, a village in my duty electorate of Barwon. Pilliga is on Kamilaroi land and Mr Noel Haines delivered the Welcome to Country and talked of rescue work he had been involved in over many decades. Pilliga is one of those western plains towns where floods can cause emergency situations for many weeks. It was delightful to spend time with committed people working for their own community. Pilliga is a special place for me. In 1986 I worked in the village for several months with a group of wonderful women who taught me much about life and who are the reason I have continued to work for the people of Country New South Wales.
I had a little adventure getting there. I stopped for coffee in Narrabri at the cake shop, which serves one of the best cups of coffee in the north-west. I put my papers on the table to check through the notes and the lady
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23025
serving me asked, "Are you going to Pilliga? They forgot their cake. Can you take it?" I arrived in Pilliga with a giant cake decorated with orange stripes and an SES label. The SES people of Pilliga are very skilled and knowledgeable about rescue in their local area. Along with their own special knowledge, training and resources they now have one of the best managed and most respected units within the region. Several officers from other units throughout the region also came to celebrate the day. I was encouraged to see that Pilliga has 25 active volunteers. The total population of Pilliga is 200, who are predominantly local Aboriginal residents. More than half of the volunteers are female.
SES volunteers in the Namoi region have a long and proud history of supporting and working for their community at fires or other incidents such as storms, floods or accidents. A wonderful aspect of our SES as a community resource is that teams travel to emergencies in other areas of the State when needed. Pilliga unit members have actively participated in out-of-area assistance, such as in the land search and flood activities in the Oxley region in June 2009. Pilliga SES unit has spent almost 500 hours assisting its community during floods in the past 12 months. The $135,000 new unit headquarters now boast a multipurpose combined operations and training room, controller's office, and upgraded kitchen and bathroom facilities.
I was pleased to present the New South Wales Government's support of $50,000 by way of subsidy to assist with the upgrade of the Pilliga SES unit. This is a great investment in the safety of residents of Pilliga, its surrounding areas and also its volunteers. Earlier this year the Pilliga district was affected by flooding, with access cut, roads damaged and rural properties isolated. The new unit headquarters will much improve the capacity of volunteers to undergo training and manage responses to community need.
As members are aware, experienced and committed volunteers are the backbone of the State Emergency Service. Their wisdom, experience and strength in numbers cannot be replaced. Their mentoring and support of new volunteers is a powerful way to share experience, skill and knowledge during training and active emergency response. The sacrifices these volunteers make in their personal time and energy, as well as the important accommodation for their services by employers, are essential to make the State Emergency Service function. While I was there I met Cheryl Barnes—an important State Emergency Service volunteer whom I had worked with in 1986—a proud grandmother whose family were heavily involved in the State Emergency Service, right down to her daughter, a State Emergency Service volunteer who mowed the lawns, snakes and all. She told me how the other women I had worked with at that time were going with their jobs and Betty, who hosted the special program we ran, was teaching elsewhere in the State. I was incredibly proud to be a part of that group.
I pay tribute to the volunteers of the Pilliga State Emergency Service unit and the unit controller, Ian Ridley. In particular, four volunteers were presented awards for long service: Elaine Hall, Warwick Hall, Penelope Miguel and John Miguel. Mr Ridley organised a wonderful hunk of rock to put the plaque on, and it was very exciting. The Pilliga primary school sang the national anthem and shared the lunch with us. It was a bit hard to get them to go back to school—I am not sure that they got them all back. Local State Emergency Service controller Tony Battam, Namoi State Emergency Service region controller Kath Cain, and State Emergency Service Commissioner Murray Kear were all present for the important opening and awards presentation.
Narrabri Shire Council, through Mayor Robyn Faber, also deserves recognition for their significant financial and in-kind investments, as does the Federal Government for its funding contribution. I congratulate the community of the Pilliga region for supporting and forming such an exciting and functional State Emergency Service unit to serve both the local area and the State as a whole.
TILLEGRA DAM
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.20 a.m.]: An important announcement was made yesterday—given it is now 3.21 a.m.—by the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals regarding Tillegra Dam. I have spoken before about this project, which involves the construction of a 450 billion-litre dam in the upper Williams Valley, north of Dungog. The dam was announced just as the Milton Orkopoulos scandal was breaking in the Hunter region, quite clearly as a diversion to the political scandals of the New South Wales Labor Government. Since then numerous reports have been released that have shown time and again that this dam is not needed, and members of the Hunter community have not been convinced. For example, an independent analysis of the Tillegra Dam project by the Institute for Sustainable Futures found that there is a one in a million chance of current water supplies in the Hunter being low enough to justify building the dam.
It was not that long ago that even Hunter Water said we do not need the dam. Hunter Water said, in its 2003 Integrated Water Resource Plan, "A new water source will not be required within the next 30 years," and
23026 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
that Tillegra would be far less cost effective than many demand management and water conservation initiatives. When the Tillegra Dam project was announced during the 2007 election campaign the promise from the Government was that it was fully funded and fully costed. But it was revealed in a memo dated 28 September 2006 to Minister David Campbell that the cost of Tillegra Dam has not been "robustly" quantified. The dam construction is now hitting residents in the Hunter region with a 31 per cent cost increase for household water bills by 2013, costing each house an extra $221 a year.
In fact, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's determination for water prices in the Hunter will see massive hikes in the cost of water, sewerage and stormwater charges, brought about by Labor's failure to save for future infrastructure needs. Because of the inadequacy of the pensioner water rebates the tribunal estimates that the typical Hunter Water pensioner will face a rise in their water and sewerage charges of 56 per cent by 2013. Late last year the Treasurer answered a question without notice regarding the cost of the dam—which has gone from $344 million to $477 million, and construction has not even started yet—in which the Treasurer claimed that the existing Hunter dam capacity can fall to as low as 30 per cent during droughts. Tell that to residents living in Port Stephens, where Grahamstown Dam provides the region's water supplies. Even during times of drought in recent years, which have adversely affected so many areas of the State, ratepayers in the Hunter region did not have water restrictions put on them.
The Government has stopped using the claim that the Central Coast will need the proposed 450-billion-litre dam, which was one of its initial reasons, not only because of the bad publicity surrounding the fact that Hunter ratepayers would be paying for it but also because the Central Coast has received Federal funding for the pipeline between Mardi and Mangrove Creek dams supplying Wyong and Gosford. There has been much criticism of the project's environmental assessment report, which scientific and planning experts say significantly underestimates the dam's impact on the environment. Dr Peter Coombes, who is a member of the National Water Commission and who analysed the project in the 1980s, says:
Tillegra Dam will completely change the operation of the river system below it. By storing a lot of water, which will take a long time to impound, then releasing it into the river system when they need it further downstream, will fundamentally change the system regime. It will no longer be a healthy operating system.
Time and again we are seeing evidence of why Tillegra is not needed and the impacts that it will have on the region that far outweigh any benefits—if there are any benefits. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition announced that the Coalition will oppose the dam. We are calling on Premier Keneally to scrap this project. Tillegra Dam was never a water security plan; it was a Labor diversion dam. The project was not even included in the State Plan. It was an ill-thought-out and poorly planned project which will cost Hunter residents thousands of dollars on top of already rising electricity costs, motor vehicle registration costs and property tax costs. Construction of Tillegra will mean the loss of farmland and the loss of jobs.
It is simply not fair to expect Hunter residents to be paying more and more for utilities when they are not getting anything in return but a scandalous State Labor Government. Taxpayers cannot afford another $500 million failure such as the Rozelle metro project, which also was pursued for political reasons. I welcome this policy announcement. I know the residents of Maitland who have raised their concerns about Tillegra and increased water prices to pay for the dam also will welcome this announcement. The Government must listen to Hunter residents and stop this project.
RON STILLMAN AWARDS
Dr JOHN KAYE [3.25 a.m.]: On Tuesday 8 May I had the singular honour of presenting the first Ron Stillman Award to nine first year electrical engineering and telecommunications students at the University of New South Wales. The awards were created by a bequest in the will of the late engineer, author, academic, lawyer and my very good friend, Ron Stillman, who died two and a half year ago. Ron was a larger-than-life East Londoner who, having arrived in Australia as a young man, made a substantial and lasting contribution to the electricity industry in a way that enriched all who dealt with him. He exemplified everything good, decent, exciting and innovative about the engineering profession.
To many Ron was a great friend, a dedicated mentor and a role model. He was certainly all of these to me. Ron was always entertaining, bringing to every conversation an unexpected twist and an overriding sense of fairness and justice. Ron's most remarkable feature was his lifelong role as a teacher—first of himself, then of young engineers and then, even after his death, of the young recipients of the awards he established at each of the universities with which he had a connection, the University of New South Wales, the University of Western Sydney and the University of Queensland.
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23027
Ron arrived in Melbourne in 1951 as a young immigrant from England after a stint in the Middle East. His only qualification was an electrical trades certificate. Thirty-four years later he was a highly respected chief engineer of Northern Rivers County Council and a leader in the field of electricity distribution engineering. Along that lifelong intellectual journey Ron taught himself the art and theory of engineering, acquiring the depth and breadth of knowledge needed to successfully run a modern utility. Ron acquired a detailed facility with statistics, reliability theory, material science, computer engineering, high-voltage engineering, management and even community relations. He did so with a singular zeal for knowledge and its application.
Having discovered universities much later than had most of his colleagues, Ron earned research degrees in high-voltage engineering at the University of Queensland. Dr Stillman, as he became, had an expansive mind that regarded engineering undertakings as much more than software and hardware. He understood that the purpose of a public enterprise was to serve the public. Inevitably that led him to examine questions of liability and the interface between engineering and law. His restless intellect took him off to a complete a law degree and even a stint working as a volunteer in a legal aid centre in Richmond. Ron was not content to just become an excellent engineer and lawyer; his intellectual journey took him into history, politics, and literature. I know that to be true because another one of Ron's remarkable attributes was his generosity, not just material but also intellectual. Every one of Ron's friends, including his brother in England, received regular letters that were part greeting, part book review, part political polemic and, in my case, quite often a treatise on his most recently acquired mathematical skills.
I cherish my copies of these letters as the remarkable, entertaining and enlightened writings of a generous and open-hearted man. Ron's politics were deeply progressive and, like the man, based on generosity. A lifelong supporter of public enterprise, he shared my abhorrence of privatisation. Ron was also a great mentor of young engineers. When I arrived at the University of New South Wales fresh from graduate school and a highly theoretical postdoctoral scholar, Ron took me under his wing. A guided one-day tour of the Northern Rivers County Council's medium voltage network, control room, switching yards, home-built data logging computer and works yards in 1986 taught me more about distribution engineering than any books or article ever could. I was not alone. Dozens of engineers and managers who now run distribution networks around the State were guided in the early part of their careers by Ron Stillman. The standard of excellence, the focus on service, the open-minded approach to new skills and innovation that characterised Ron's career live on in the work of these successful professionals.
There is another group who will experience a leg-up from Ron. In perpetuity, young engineers at the University of Western Sydney, the University of New South Wales and the University of Queensland will be the recipients of Ron's special generosity. All of us who have experienced Ron will always feel his hand on our shoulders. Ron is missed by his widow, Margaret Mackisack, his friends and by all who knew him. His humour, generosity, warm-heartedness and inventiveness will live on in his bequest to young engineering students, his many innovations in the field of distribution engineering, his book and other writings, and the enduring spirit of public service.
ORCHARD HILLS WASTE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [3.30 a.m.]: I want to inform the House of issues brought to my attention by the Liberal candidate for Mulgoa and Penrith City Councillor, Tanya Davies, and the Liberal candidate for Riverstone and Hawkesbury councillor, Kevin Connolly. Councillor Tanya Davies and the residents of Mulgoa in western Sydney have grave concerns about the threat to their quality of life as a result of the operations of the proposed Orchard Hills Waste and Resource Management Facility. The proponent, Dellara Pty Ltd, has submitted the proposal directly to the Department of Planning under Labor's part 3A legislation and has bypassed Penrith City Council, thus removing from the local community its grassroots democratic rights. Dellara has issued a CD to residents within one kilometre of the site to inform them of the proposal. However, the majority of residents who would be impacted by a minimum of 316 truck movements a day past their backyard fall just outside this one-kilometre notification range.
Community outrage, anxiety and fears are growing each day as more residents find out about this proposal. The nearest residences are only 500 metres from the northern site boundary. The proposal seeks to resume clay and shale extraction from the quarry and to accept, recycle and then dump solid construction and demolition waste and commercial and industrial waste. This major change in activity at the site will generate noise, traffic and pollution. Also alarming is the ecological impact of the proposal, as Blaxland Creek runs very close to the north-west boundary. There are serious concerns about asbestos on the site, which has been illegally
23028 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
dumped and buried in a bund wall on site. Penrith City Council correctly wants the quarry to be filled with validated soil from road construction, pool extractions and footpath excavation to progressively fill the hole, then knock down the walls and return the site to its rural heritage.
On 17 May 2010 the Labor Government announced that the Riverstone and Alex Avenue precincts will have 15,000 new homes. Councillor Kevin Connolly and the community are concerned that this ill-conceived decision, which was based on no community consultation, fails to provide the necessary infrastructure to cope with such a significant increase in development. There is no north-west rail line to support this massive population increase. After Labor's shambolic on-again, off-again promise to deliver the north-west rail line, anything that this Labor Government says about the North West Growth Sector is questionable. The Richmond rail line duplication has been shortened, trains on the Richmond line are already overcrowded, and the M2 and Windsor Road are already heavily congested. This decision by the Labor Government is yet another demonstration of incompetence and neglect. Labor has failed to deliver the key piece of infrastructure needed to support the North West Growth Centre—that is, a north-west rail line.
Last week State Labor, instead of reducing taxes on housing, introduced yet another tax on housing— the property transfer tax. The New South Wales Property Council Residential Developer Magazine reported in February that the largest infrastructure charges per housing lot in Sydney were around $55,000. Does Labor really expect any builder to complete work in the north-west when both this tax and the lack of infrastructure to get construction workers there is near impossible? On behalf of councillors Tanya Davies and Kevin Connolly and their communities, I call on the Labor Government to reject the Orchard Hills waste proposal at Penrith and provide better and clearer time frames and commitments to the necessary infrastructure needed for Riverstone.
PRISONER REHABILITATION
Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.35 p.m.]: We all know the old saying that justice must be seen to be done. It would better, however, to know that justice was actually being done. Yet one has only to look at the New South Wales prison system to see how far this State is falling short of that goal. A few statistics are relevant: There was a fall in the level of property crime in Australia in the 10 years to 2008. In that same period the rate of imprisonment rose faster than the increase in population. There is little evidence, however, that the rise in the rate of imprisonment played a significant role in the fall in property crime. In the 20 years to 2008 the New South Wales prison population boomed from fewer than 4,000 to more than 10,000. And with more than 10,000 people held in 57 jails across the State, at a yearly cost of $75,000 per prisoner, New South Wales is spending more than $1 billion annually on its prison system. Yet there is no strong evidence that keeping more people in jail results in proportionately less crime in the community.
So it is a fair question to ask: How effective is our prison system? Are we using our jails as a recycling bin for the socially disadvantaged, the drug dependent, and the mentally ill—the people who are simply not acceptable to society? We are witnessing steadily increasing rates of imprisonment of indigenous people, women and people on remand. Aboriginal people, people with mental health issues, those with drug and alcohol problems and those from predominantly lower socioeconomic backgrounds are over-represented in the State's jails. Many of these people have poor literacy, poor coping skills and limited social support, and have difficulties negotiating services to meet their needs when they are released. As many commentators have noted, jail is the best training ground for crime. It is, therefore, only rational that we should do all we can to avoid sending young and impressionable people there.
But each year more people in New South Wales return to jail than enter it for the first time. The State has one of the highest recidivism rates—if not the highest—in Australia. In the 20 years to 2008 the proportion of inmates serving a second or subsequent term has grown from 52 per cent to 69 per cent. Yet almost all prisoners return to the community one day. Equipping prisoners for that return is a far more rational approach than not providing services and simply hoping prisoners will not re-offend. The Attorney General, when he was Minister for Corrective Services, claimed that the State's various programs were working. Other more perceptive observers disagree. Professor David Brown of the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales has argued that the Department of Corrective Services has not done enough to help offenders reintegrate into the community. In his view, "The department needs to try to reduce recidivism levels through better programs and more targeted post-release assistance."
According to a recent major American study, providing vocational education and primary or secondary level education to prisoners and cognitive behavioural therapy are particularly effective. Such programs cost money, but various studies have shown that reducing the rates of recidivism would result in an overall saving of
19 May 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23029
public funds and a saving to the community generally. Given that two-thirds of all inmates of New South Wales prisons serve a sentence of less than six months, it is vital that they be able to continue to access such programs, as well as accommodation and drug and alcohol services upon release. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research December 2009 issues paper on the effects of reducing re-imprisonment suggests that a 10 per cent decrease in the number of New South Wales prisoners returning to jail would result in savings to the State of more than $28 million each year. As the paper suggests, putting more effort and resources into rehabilitation is both possible and preferable.
The entire community would reap enormous benefits if prisoners had ready access to literacy, vocational and health services while in jail, and drug treatment, jobs and housing assistance when released. It is all the more shameful therefore that the Government earlier this month rejected the recommendations of the first review of the State's juvenile justice system in 17 years. Between 2003-04 and 2007-08 there was a 43 per cent increase in the average daily number of young people in custody, even though the level of juvenile crime over that time remained static. The review proposed that rather than spend $350 million on building and running new detention centres needed to house the increasing numbers of young people being detained, the money would be more usefully diverted to social programs to address the underlying causes of crime. As the report noted:
While get-tough approaches may be politically attractive, evidence indicates they are not effective.
We are now entering the second decade of the twenty-first century, but the Government approaches the prison system with the mentality of the nineteenth century. Is it not time to look forward rather than back?
INTERNATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [3.40 a.m.]: Tonight I note that Tuesday 25 May is International Missing Children's Day, originating in the United States following the disappearance of a six-year-old boy from a New York City street corner on 25 May 1979. International Missing Children's Day 2010 appeals to members of the public to "help bring them home". Fortunately, in many cases missing children are ultimately reunited with loved ones and International Missing Children's Day remembers those children who have "found their way home". However, on 25 May we pause to remember also those children who do not make it home, children who have been victims of crime or misadventure, and the families and loved ones they leave behind. International Missing Children's Day is also about hope. We use the day as an opportunity to promote a message of hope and solidarity to those in our communities suffering immeasurable pain in facing each day knowing that their child is missing—constantly worrying about their welfare and desperately waiting for news.
The theme for International Missing Children's Day 2010 is parental child abduction. No country is immune to family-based child abduction—a complex and tragic situation that can have harmful physical and emotional effects on the children abducted and can destroy the lives of their loved ones and family members. Every family's circumstances are unique, and, sadly, legal resolutions and custody arrangements imposed by courts very rarely satisfy all parties. It is estimated that two to three children are abducted into and out of Australia every week, although not all are reported through official channels for a variety of reasons. Many more children are transported throughout the country in breach of court orders. There is an assumption that if a child is with someone they trust, they are not in real danger and should not be considered missing. The Australian Federal Police's National Missing Persons Coordination Centre warns that this can be a fatal assumption.
It is understandable that rash decisions are made in anger or grief, with rules and laws broken out of desperation. Many parents take extreme measures in order to be with their children, with little thought to the consequences. In almost all cases these actions are motivated purely by love, but sometimes by anger or revenge, and always resulting in continued suffering for everyone involved. According to the Salvation Army Family Tracing Service, 35,000 people are reported missing in Australia each year—one every 15 minutes. More than half of those reported missing are children and young people. In Australia two young people under the age of 18 are reported missing every hour. Thankfully, the majority are located safe and well. Some, especially teenagers and young adults, disappear intentionally, citing emotional and relationship problems, drug and alcohol abuse and, for a large percentage, mental health issues.
Regardless of the circumstances, if a loved one disappears—particularly when that loved one is especially vulnerable, as young children are—families struggle to find ways of coping. Having a missing family member produces the same feelings of grief, sadness, shock and sense of loss as a death, yet these feelings are compounded by a great sense of uncertainty and fear. Counsellors and professionals trained to work with families of missing persons describe this particular type of trauma as "ambiguous loss", acknowledging that the
23030 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 19 May 2010
feelings of such an unresolved loss can be confusing and unclear. According to the Australian Federal Police's National Missing Persons Coordination Centre, more than 95 per cent of missing persons reported in Australia are located within a short period of time. However, there are currently some 1,600 people deemed to be long-term missing persons—that is, missing for more than 12 months.
The Australian Federal Police [AFP] work with the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children to implement cohesive campaigns through Australia's participation in the Global Missing Children's Network. Comprised of a system of websites feeding into a central multilingual database, the Global Missing Children's Network exchanges information and photographs of missing children in a combined effort to increase awareness and improve the likelihood of identification of missing children travelling internationally. In March this year the AFP's National Missing Perons Coordination Centre launched its first poster featuring age-enhanced images of long-term missing Australians. This was the result of a 2009 initiative whereby the AFP funded the United States of America National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children to assist Australia in providing training for our police jurisdictions in age-progression imaging techniques in order to be better equipped to appeal for public assistance with locating the missing and help bring them home.
It is a sad reality that children cannot always be protected from every threat, danger or risk they face. However, children can be taught safety-conscious strategies and encouraged to develop skills in recognising and responding to unsafe situations, and seek assistance accordingly. The message from the 2010 International Missing Children's Day campaign is that nations, organisations and individuals are asked to continue to do their best to protect children and strengthen efforts in helping to bring them home. I extend my thoughts and sympathy to all those who are seeking news on a missing loved one. I commend the efforts of the AFP's National Missing Persons Coordination Centre, the Global Missing Children's Network and countless other organisations that work to promote awareness of missing children and continue the public appeal to help bring them home.
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 3.45 a.m. on Thursday 20 May 2010 until 11.00 a.m. on the same day.
______