LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday, 12th December, 1991
______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 9.00 a.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Procedures of the House
Mr Moore: I seek the leave of the House to move the following procedural motion.
Leave granted.
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [9.1]: I move:
That, for the purposes of the sitting this day, the Leader of the House be permitted to move motions relating to the procedures of the House with the leave of the honourable member for Ashfield only being required.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MOORE: I seek the consent of the member for Ashfield to move a motion of suspension of sessional and standing orders so as to permit the notice of disallowance under Standing Order 113A standing on the notice paper today in the name of the honourable member for Blacktown being dealt with forthwith and to consider Order No. 7 of General Business.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I put the motion, I caution members that the formula which is being generally adopted is not a very wise one and that in the future the Chair will be very reluctant to entertain such procedures. I place on the record that it is not the seeking of consent from the member for Ashfield that is relevant. The previous motion gives that member, and that member only, the right to grant or refuse leave. The Minister needs to seek leave.
Mr MOORE: As I have foreshadowed, I seek leave to move the motion.
Leave granted.
Motion by Mr Moore agreed to:
That so much of the Order of General Business be suspended as would preclude consideration of:
(1) Notice of motion - (under Standing Order No. 113A) standing in the name of the honourable member for Blacktown.
(2) General Business - Order of the Day (for Bills) No. 7
NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT: DISALLOWANCE OF REGULATION
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [9.5]: I move:
That this House disallows the regulation relating to exemptions from liability for offences under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as set forth in Government Gazette No.138 of 2 October 1991, at pages 8499 to 8501.
Page 6628 The date of 2nd October will go down in the history of New South Wales as a day of environmental infamy. On that Wednesday the Government gazetted a special regulation exempting all public authorities and persons from the endangered and protected fauna provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. In an act reminiscent of the worst days of the Bjelke-Petersen Queensland National Party Government the Greiner Government revealed its true colours on environmental matters. The regulation which sought to override the judgment of Mr Justice Stein in the Chaelundi forest case gave a signal to the development lobby that the Government would not protect endangered species and the State's native fauna: if the last koala or the last long-footed potoroo was in the way of development, the Government would not move to protect this last of the species on the planet.
Australia has the worst record of any nation on earth for endangered and extinct mammals and the Greiner Government is well on the way to ensuring that we maintain that unenviable reputation. However, the regulation gave another signal to the community. That was that Nick Greiner's "new environmentalism" was dead. Always suspected to be a confidence trick, it now has a clear "cancelled" stamped across it. The Premier's confessed concern for balance is a sham. He exposed in his "New Environmentalism - A Conservative Perspective" that "the Liberal and the National Parties while taking some excellent initiatives when in power have, generally, responded in a half-hearted way to the legitimate environmental concerns of middle Australia". The Australian Labor Party, the environment movement and the community know that the Chaelundi regulation was the act of extremists which has been and will continue to be condemned by middle Australia. The public interest in protection of endangered species was dumped to appease the hysterical outpourings of a few National Party Ministers and backbenchers and an out of control Forestry Commission.
The Premier has completely failed to show leadership on this issue and has been openly paraded as the prisoner of the National Party and the forestry industry. For a man who professes an intellectual interest in management he has been shown to be a phoney when it comes to protection of the State's forests. In 1988, without argument, he accepted another hysterical attack by vested interests on environmental protection laws. At that time the then Minister responsible for forests led the charge to water down the requirement for environmental impact statements on forestry operations, subsequent to the Gruerezas case in the Land and Environment Court. When the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats in the upper House combined to block legislation aimed at allowing the Forestry Commission to evade its responsibilities under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act he claimed, in a press release dated 13th December, 1988, "By rejecting the legislation Mr Carr and the Australian Labor Party have now directly threatened the viability of the industry and the towns and cities supported by it".
What happened to the industry as a result of the environmental impact statement laws being kept intact? Absolutely nothing. No jobs have been lost as a result of the Forestry Commission having been forced to follow the law. In environmental circles the New South Wales Forestry Commission is a pariah for on several occasions it has been found to have acted illegally. It has failed to produce environmental impact statements as required. It has been criticised by Mr Justice Hemmings of the Land and Environment Court for undertaking illegal logging in North Washpool, and of course Mr Justice Stein found it had acted in contravention of the wildlife protection laws of the National Parks and Wildlife Act by logging the Chaelundi State Forest. The illegality spreads further. We are advised that in making the regulations the Government breached the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989, of which section 5(1) requires that the Minister for the Environment ensure that a regulatory impact statement be prepared prior to making the regulation. There is only one relevant exemption from this requirement and that is when
Page 6629 the Attorney General certifies in writing that in his or her opinion in the special circumstances of the case the public interest requires that the regulation should be made without complying with the need for an impact statement. No exemption was issued.
Unfortunately a defect in procedure does not invalidate the regulation once the regulation is made. The environmental movement was seeking an injunction against the making of the regulation in the Supreme Court on 2nd October when the Government interrupted the proceedings to produce the hastily printed special Government Gazette No. 138. This evasion of a law, which was intended not to encourage public participation, is a powerful additional reason for Parliament to disallow the regulation. The Chaelundi judgment was a historic and necessary landmark in the protection of the State's wildlife. For too long Government agencies and land clearing projects have gone unchecked in attitude to endangered species. The Australian Labor Party is committed to balanced protection of the magnificent wildlife heritage of New South Wales. This Government, by its recent actions, clearly is not. It broke its promise, given in a written undertaking to the environment movement prior to the March 1988 State election, to enact an endangered species Act. Despite many press releases put out by the Minister for the Environment, including one in the second half of 1990 which said that too many species have become extinct and that it is time to stop the rot, nothing ever came of those statements.
The Government was happy while there was no protection of endangered species and when the Chaelundi judgment was handed down it moved to fast track a regulation that returned the situation to that status quo. The judgment exposes the power of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to license activities that may harm wildlife, including endangered fauna. Such a procedure is similar to pollution licences provided by the State Pollution Control Commission. In general such licences incorporate conditions and this would be envisaged also with the National Parks and Wildlife Service power. However, in some cases, especially cases involving endangered fauna, some activities would of necessity be vetoed because of unavoidable environmental damage. The effect of the Stein judgment is to transfer some power to the National Parks and Wildlife Service and to break down the barriers between resource exploitation departments and conservation bodies. Proper integrated environmental planning requires this and for far too long bodies such as the Forestry Commission have been allowed to go unimpeded. The decision will encourage far better consultation processes.
It should be highlighted that if persons or public authorities have a duty imposed on them by any other Act, or the disturbance or killing of a protected species of fauna is an act of necessity, as with emergency services or bushfire prevention, the criminal provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act in relation to native fauna do not apply. This legal fact has been ignored by spokespersons for the Government. The environment movement has proposed a narrowing of the focus of the power exposed by Mr Justice Stein. The proposal requires that developments which adversely affect endangered animals or are likely to significantly affect the environment of protected animals trigger the attention of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This is achieved by interim amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. A further package of improvements will be contained in the threatened species conservation legislation which the Opposition proposes to allow to lie on the table for about six months to enable widespread consultation by the conservation movement. The Opposition has proposed the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill as an amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Act and to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. That bill will be debated later today if the disallowance is carried. This balanced approach has two thresholds that will catch a minority of proponents of development. It is proposed as part of a three-point package with which the Opposition is engaged: first, disallowance of the regulation; second, enactment of the Endangered
Page 6630 Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill; and, third, enactment of a threatened species conservation Act next year.
The main provisions of the interim protection bill which I outlined in my second reading speech last Thursday are as follows. First, stop work orders will apply as an emergency provision to prevent imminent work damaging fauna. Second, an urgent review of the out of date endangered fauna schedule of the National Parks and Wildlife Act by a scientific committee to update the schedule into the categories of endangered and vulnerable species. This will result in fewer species being listed and will create a scientific advisory group to assist the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Third, when an agency or person wishes to take or kill an endangered or vulnerable species it must apply for a permit licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Fourth, the licence application will be advertised for public comment. Fifth, environmental assessment by a fauna impact statement and public participation is required where an activity is likely to significantly affect the environment of a protected species. The bill will provide also for public authorities and persons whose activities are subject to the scrutiny of provisions three to five to be exempt from the criminal provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is important that we proceed in this way to disallow the regulation relating to Chaelundi and proceed later in the day with the discussion of the bill and the eventual passing of the bill. Any alternative procedure, such as alternative regulations, which may have been contemplated by the Government would only entrench the confrontation process that we have seen brought to absolute perfection by the Chaelundi decision. What we need in this Parliament and in this State at present is a set of parliamentary procedures to protect endangered species.
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [9.15]: The Government opposes the disallowance of the regulation that I made in this regard and does so for a number of reasons. The decision of Mr Justice Stein in the Land and Environment Court, as upheld by the Court of Appeal, deals with provisions in the National Parks and Wildlife Act which were imported into that Act when it was originally framed in 1974, arising out of a very long series of earlier statutes dealing with the protection in particular of birds. Those statutory provisions dated back to the Bird Protection Act of 1881 which had never been addressed by the courts until 1991. We were left with the provisions of an Act 110 years old which had never been interpreted by the courts at all. If one reads the Hansard of the late nineteenth century, as I have, one finds that the regulations were designed to deal with the protection of what, in nineteenth century Australia, might loosely have been called in the language of the day gentlemen's hunting rights. The Act was designed to protect birds such as pheasant, grouse and imported gaming birds. Clearly it was not designed to deal with the present era of scientific knowledge or of community awareness of the need to protect endangered, vulnerable or rare species. It was certainly not designed to deal with the complexities of modern technological life or, in particular, the complexities that my colleague the Minister for Conservation and Land Management deals with in modern-day forestry operations, and that my other ministerial colleagues deal with in a modern-day range of horticultural and agricultural concerns.
The Government is concerned about the protection of rare and endangered species. In this regard I refer specifically to a project undertaken by me and the honourable member for Burrinjuck in which we obtained, for the first time in the history of this State in this sort of area, the formal endorsement of the New South Wales Farmers Association to a document published by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, bearing the logos of both organisations. The publication encourages rural industries of this State to treat sympathetically and to protect the habitat of the rare and endangered superb parrot to ensure that habitat trees are not destroyed in the course of ordinary, routine agricultural land clearing operations. It remains the view of the Government, as advised formally by the Solicitor General in black and white terms, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal, that even those sorts of clearing applications done without malice to the Page 6631 animal - and setting aside the issue of the forests which my colleague the Minister for Conservation and Land Management will deal with - had implications far beyond anything that any of us could have contemplated, even though the decision by Mr Justice Stein was technically precise and legally correct in terms of statutory interpretation arising out of a statute of the nineteenth century. I believe that in this case there has been a good deal of sympathy for and co-operation by landholders for these protection measures but that they would have been trapped by the decision of Mr Justice Stein in the Land and Environment Court.
As I do not wish to deceive any of my friends and colleagues in the National Party or in the Liberal Party, or any member of the Opposition, or anyone in any external organisation, I wish to place on record that I volunteered the regulation that I introduced in early October. It was not forced on me by my colleagues. It was proposed by me as an interim measure pending resolution, as outlined by the Premier, of this highly complex and difficult area of the law. There is no artificial distinction. There is no division. There is no schism within the Government or within the Cabinet on this issue. The decision of His Honour Mr Justice Stein created quite serious, practical difficulties for the Government and for those in industries operating in any area where there might be rare or endangered species or their habitat. The decision taken by the Government in this regard was in no way irresponsible. I wish to make it abundantly clear that the Government opposes this disallowance, because it believes that the regulation introduced by me, and subject to a series of amendments offered by the Government to members opposite and to the conservation movement, can address and is capable of addressing the issues outlined by the Premier between now and effectively the end of the first quarter of next year. I turn now to the merits of endangered species protection. The Premier has released publicly an endangered species discussion paper that outlines a variety of options. This Government, through the National Parks and Wildlife Service, has completed the first endangered species management plans for species such as the plains wanderer and the little tern. This Government has imposed the first interim protection orders under the National Parks and Wildlife Act to protect endangered species habitat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kiama to order.
Mr MOORE: At the risk of causing damage to the electorate of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour I thank the honourable member for his assistance in trying to resolve quite difficult problems that exist on the edge of the Dorrigo escarpment for the rufous scrub bird and where there is an Antarctic beech habitat area. The Government is willing to address those issues in a responsible fashion that does not threaten the existence of the endangered species, but will permit operational activities to continue. The attitude that my colleague the Minister for Conservation and Land Management and I have taken on this matter, with considerable support from the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Monaro, is balanced, and we believe, looking at all the possible options, including the option of the bill moved by the honourable member for Blacktown, that the best thing to do between now and roughly the end of the first quarter of next year is to uphold the regulation. I commend the nihil of the motion.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.25]: The Chaelundi court decision has threatened to close down other forest developments and works, but this illegal regulation to combat that, which was against the spirit of the mother Act, was put in place too hurriedly. The
Page 6632 Court of Appeal confined the effect of the original decision. The conservation movement pressed Independent members for the revocation of this regulation. I said that I would not risk closing down the forest and that I wanted a belt and braces measure under which threatened and endangered species would be protected and industry could still continue to operate. At the Premier's request I met him and discussed the matter. He outlined the Government's strategy, that a sunset clause would be placed in the regulation by 30th April, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act amendments would be made, and the proposed endangered species bill in draft and with discussion paper, would lie on the table. I told the Premier I would think about the matter. Conservationists were solidly against this, because they did not trust the Forestry Commission. They said that incursions had been made in some compartments of the Chaelundi forest. There was a great deal of distrust.
The Opposition had given notice of the introduction of an interim endangered species bill and said it would not revoke the regulation unless this was in place, because the Opposition was also concerned about the industry. Conservationists were concerned about the industry and about being put on the wrong side of this argument, because if the industry closed down the conservationists could be blamed. The Government said that the opinion of the National Parks and Wildlife Service on the Opposition's endangered species bill was that it was flawed and would not work. I undertook a separate round of discussions with the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Conservation and Land Management, the Opposition spokesperson for the environment, the honourable member for Blacktown, and peak conservation groups. Other meetings were held with Independent members and these people. During this period the court found that the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy in another place had acted illegally in refusing to consider forests as national heritage under the Heritage Act. I spoke with one or two sawmillers and I spoke also to Dr Hillsman and the forestry commissioner. My objective was to bring together the two Ministers, the peak conservation groups, the Opposition, the forestry commissioner and the Independents, sit around the table and thrash this matter out, because I see confrontation, mistrust and threats to the industry continuing. Three such meetings have been held, for which all parties deserve credit. We want an end to conservationists up trees. We want an end to this confrontation that often happens during the Christmas period. We want an end, if possible, to the continual court challenges and the uncertainty. I am truly excited about the process that has been put in place.
The conservationists have made concessions on the conditions they were prepared to accept for endangered species. The Government made concessions in this regard and so did the Opposition. The forestry workers should not be sacrificial lambs. Though I have few forestry workers in my electorate, I have represented the forestry industry for many years. These people have a tough life. They are not highly paid. They have their mortgages and rents to pay, and their day-to-day living expenses. Everyone agrees that they need protection. In an effort to solve the problem the Government gazetted this regulation. That caused some concern, because it would not cover other developments. Mr Tim Robertson and others from the conservation side envisaged legal and structural problems. It was suggested that the endangered species bill proposed by the Opposition could be improved as an interim measure until the Government's Endangered Species Bill was drafted. I will support some of the amendments to be moved in Committee. By 4.16 p.m. today we may reach a position where the forestry industry can continue, where a measure of security can be given to endangered and threatened species and where confrontation can be avoided. I wish to emphasise to honourable members who feel that a do nothing option is open or, in other words, that the regulation should be left to stand, that in my opinion this regulation could be challenged successfully in court.
Page 6633
Dr Hillsman has insisted that he will not put his people at risk by breaking the law; he would be obliged to close the forest. That is the danger. If a court challenge was successful, under this regulation the forest could be closed. Under the Heritage Act there could be further challenges and a 40-day stay could be imposed - a long time for the practices of a forest to be interfered with. I have given considerable thought to this matter. If a 40-day stay was imposed we could again be faced with confrontation. I have reached a cast-iron agreement with all parties that I would not revoke this regulation unless I was satisfied that that was the correct course. It is fair enough for everyone to have their own opinions on a complex matter such as this. As I have said, I have considered this matter in great depth and I am satisfied that if this regulation is revoked, provided the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill is passed by this House after being suitably amended, the forest industry will be able to continue; government strategy will be able to put in place early next year after changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by the Government's proposed endangered species bill and we will be able to bring to finality -
Mr West: Pull off the regulation.
Mr HATTON: Pull off the agreement, if you like. I would be happy to use that expression; I do not distrust anyone in this matter. I have hammered out this matter and I have spoken bluntly about it. I hope that by 4.16 p.m. today we will have a new order. I have spoken forcefully about this matter and, by any stretch of the imagination, I have not taken the side of the conservation movement. I have also spoken forcefully about the need to protect jobs. Clearly, feelings are running high. Members on both sides of this House have valid opinions. But I believe we can reach a workable solution for all parties.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [9.33]: I join with the Minister for the Environment in indicating to the House that the Government strongly opposes the disallowance of this regulation. It is obvious that the regulation was put in place after detailed consideration. All honourable members would know that the regulation arose from what is now regarded as a celebrated case in the Land and Environment Court - a case that has been completed and determined for the first time under sections 98 and 99 of the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act, which refer to the words "take or kill". During the process of this exercise no challenge was ever made to the fully prepared and properly determined environmental impact statement - probably one of the best environmental impact statements ever prepared. Why was that environmental impact statement not challenged? Why is the Opposition mounting these obscure challenges?
At the outset we must acknowledge the evidence given to the Land and Environment Court by the conservation movement, in particular, the North-East Forest Alliance. The Land and Environment Court did not refute evidence given concerning the species in that area. That question was not debated by the Government and its legal representatives. The case really concerned what is meant by the words "take or kill" in sections 98 and 99. It has to be acknowledged at this early stage that Justice Stein made a decision and described Chaelundi as a zoo, based on evidence put by only one side. It is a matter of record that the judgment of the Land and Environment Court has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. Any activity that may disturb the habitat of a protected animal could now be illegal. The Solicitor General gave clear advice to the Government that this would have the effect of halting many ordinary operations of government agencies and private individuals. Honourable members must remember that the central question in the case involved the interpretation of sections 98 and 99 of the National Page 6634 Parks and Wildlife Service Act. These provisions make it an offence to "take or kill" any protected fauna. The word "take" is defined in the Act as including "hunt, shoot, poison, net, snare, spear, pursue, capture, disturb, lure or injure". In this context the case revolved around the meaning of the word "disturb".
It should also be noted that, under the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act, fauna is categorised into unprotected, protected and endangered species. Very few species are unprotected. Every species of bird, snake or lizard is protected. In the court the Government argued that sections 98 and 99 were concerned only with the direct and intended consequences of conduct which amounted to the killing or taking of protected or endangered fauna and that indirect interference, such as disruption, was not included. We now know that this was rejected by the court. The court went on to rule that "disturb" included removal or injury. The court said:
That covers conduct which modifies habitat in a significant fashion thus placing the species of fauna under threat by adversely affecting essential behavioural patterns relating to feeding, breeding or nesting. In other words, it includes habitat destruction or degradation which disturbs an endangered or protected species by adverse impact upon it leading either immediately or over time to a reduced population.
Consequent upon that judgment the Solicitor General conveyed clear and unequivocal advice to the Government. He said:
Unless reversed or restricted on appeal the judgment will have an obvious impact upon logging activities throughout the State.
We also know that the appeal did not vary that position. However, it is important to note that the Solicitor General then advised the Government:
The conclusions reached by the Court would apply to any activities which would have the effect of "disturbing" individual protected fauna even if conducted with every care and under the authority of another statute.
The Solicitor General concluded:
This potentially affects every developer and farmer and imposes real problems in relation to bushfire control activities.
I ask the Parliament and the community generally: what is a government to do when it gets clear advice from the chief of the law division - the Solicitor General? That is the position in which this Government was placed. The Government, after considering all the options available to it, realised that there was a clear need for longer term and wide-reaching reforms. I believe the decision has highlighted the fact that this State and every other State lack legislative or administrative mechanisms to balance properly conservation values and development considerations. Because these issues are too important to be considered in a precipitous manner the Government took what I believe to be the right decision and introduced an interim regulation to enable normal activities to continue without being in breach of the law and to allow time in which to develop a longer term response. The interim regulation which we are now debating exempts activities which would have complied with the planning approval system from the endangered and protected species provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act - those areas that have received planning approval. So people cannot go into an area, carte blanche, without approval. The Premier has announced the setting up of a special Cabinet subcommittee to develop a package of measures to ensure, long term, that species protection is properly integrated into land use and resource use assessment. As
Page 6635 honourable members are well aware, conservation groups have drafted their own endangered species legislation, which will be introduced into this House by the honourable member for Blacktown. Presumably that is what the Opposition will seek to substitute for the interim regulation.
Though that bill is well-intentioned, its objectives will not be as workable as the present interim regulation. Its overall approach is misguided. I shall say more about that in a subsequent debate. Endangered species legislation in isolation will not solve the problem. The Commonwealth and other States have arrived at that conclusion already. The legislation that will be discussed at a later time is premised on the belief that the issues highlighted in the Chaelundi decision can be addressed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service issuing licences to authorise the taking or killing of endangered species. That option was considered fully by the Government after the Chaelundi decision, but it was rejected. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, the body authorised to issue such licences, has advised against issuing licences for that purpose. The processing and consideration of licence applications would place a massive administrative burden on the service. No criteria are available to assist in the decision-making process with regard to the use of such licences, and it will take time for those criteria to be developed. The Government has put in place a process that seeks to balance land use and resource use assessments. A sunset clause has been inserted to ensure that the regulation expires on 30th April, 1992 and, as the Minister for the Environment said, a discussion paper on endangered species legislation has been published. That is clear indication of the direction the Government is taking. It is a signal by the Premier that the Government is working through the process of ensuring that the National Resources Management Council will work -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has exhausted his time for speaking.
Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens) [9.43]: It seems to me that we are in the awkward position of having put the cart before the horse. During lengthy negotiations last night it was agreed that this disallowance motion would be debated today on the understanding that if it were carried, the Opposition's bill would be debated. That being so, I wish to assure the people of New South Wales that this side of the Parliament is not seeking to disadvantage -
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Myall Lakes to order. I call the honourable member for Bega to order.
Mr MARTIN: This side of the Parliament is being constructive. Had members on the Government side of the House been involved in the negotiations to which the honourable member for South Coast alluded in his contribution -
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lismore to order.
Mr MARTIN: The Opposition is seeking to introduce measures that will benefit the environment and the timber industry. As the shadow minister I will not be a party to throwing people out of work. I will not be a party to the nonsense being peddled by emotional people. This motion seeks to disallow an interim regulation that was introduced in a hurry and to put better legislation in its place.
Page 6636
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Burrinjuck to order.
Mr MARTIN: Sadly, however, this matter is being approached in the wrong way. I am pleased that the Leader of the House and the Minister have guaranteed that this matter will be addressed in the correct manner. I hope that members on the Government side of the House will accept that guarantee. The interim regulation was introduced in a hurry as a consequence of the ruling of Mr Justice Stein. What happened in the Chaelundi case was a debacle. Many problems associated with it were not addressed. Action has not been taken to ensure that what happened in respect of Chaelundi does not recur. We must ensure that any action taken by this Parliament will benefit the environment and the forestry industry. The Opposition is genuine in its endeavours to improve matters for New South Wales. The regulation was a stopgap measure, and it is time the matter was addressed. One could not guarantee any benefit for the environment if this matter were not debated today.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lismore to order for the second time.
Mr MARTIN: The Opposition is genuine in moving this motion. Lengthy negotiations have taken place, and the Opposition is aware of what it is doing. It is not seeking to grandstand or to pander to sectional interests. The purpose of the exercise is to ensure that the people of New South Wales gain an advantage. As the shadow minister I have a responsibility for the forest industry, and I will always work to ensure that the forest industry is viable, sustainable, and operates on a sound footing. Members on the Government side of the House are living in the past by supporting the retention of the regulation. I agree with the comments of the honourable member for South Coast, although I do not understand why he said that he will vote for some amendments but not others. The matters referred to in the amendments were discussed and general agreement was reached in relation to some of them. I assure honourable members that I will continue to act in the best interests of the forest industry of New South Wales to ensure its long-term future.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon), Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads [9.49]: If ever there has been a hypocritical, nonsensical, stupid proposal put before this House, this is it. It has come from the so-called protectors of the environment and the honourable member for Davidson, the person who says he does not want freeways to the west, having released press statements supporting their establishment. This is the sort of person we are now dealing with in regard to this hypocritically nonsensical and hypocritically stupid proposal. Once again the Labor Party has sold out and welshed on the employees, the workers, of this State. I hope the honourable member for Port Stephens tells his Labor members on the North Coast, "Sorry fellows, you are no longer necessary". He has just put them clean out of business. We have seen the duplicity of Labor and the total lack of responsibility and care for anyone who wants to work. The Independents - the honourable member for Davidson, the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for South Coast, the lot of them - could not give a damn about jobs in the community. They could not give a damn about the fact that we have to produce if this nation is to feed its people. I shall give no quarter in this exercise. On this occasion we will not back away. If the conservation movement or anyone else wants to act in an anarchic way, which it has been Page 6637 doing up and down our coast, we will take them on. I shall have no hesitation in doing exactly what those people have been doing. The so-called conservationist movement in this State has been honouring and promoting complete anarchy and total disregard for the law.
Occasionally Bob Carr has made a correct statement. One of the truest and most correct statements he ever made is that conservationists are like ravenous wolves: you throw them a bone, and they gobble it up and demand another one. That is exactly how they are behaving now. They could not give a damn. This regulation was introduced to allow the Government, the Opposition and anyone who wants to be involved to have time to arrive at a commonsense solution. The regulation has a sunset clause which will come into effect on 30th April, 1992. That would give everyone in this Parliament the opportunity to put their view in creating legislation that will allow the productivity of this State to continue. The reality is that if this regulation is disallowed there will be no guarantees. The Labor spokesman admitted it is wrong, that it has been put the wrong way. He knows full well that he is seeking to disallow a legislative measure that provides protection for the people, the employees, the workers. He admitted that in his statements to this House. He is a fraud. The reality is that the regulation will be disallowed in order to implement a totally irresponsible and totally stupid legislative measure.
Suddenly the honourable member for Blacktown wants to kowtow - I could not put it any other way - to her area of responsibility within the Opposition. Since Mr Justice Stein delivered his decision there has been recognition of the need for change. That is unarguable. However, the change must proceed in a commonsense way, without implementing convoluted, totally indefinable, totally stupid regulations, Acts and so on to do exactly what this regulation will do until 30th April next year. I have never seen anything so silly. There has been a lot of nonsense spoken so far and it will continue from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. today. However, at the finish the Opposition will realise just how crazy and stupid this exercise is. The reality is that it will only hogtie some people. I have no problem with that. It is about time that the people of this State realised that the Labor Party and its Independent colleagues have no respect whatsoever for those who want to produce, to work, and to get this State out of the mess it is in. The disallowance of this regulation will literally allow a claim to be made to a court by any person to stop work that is essential to this State. For example, the St George Basin sewerage and effluent disposal project could go down the drain, and the Government could not continue with that work if someone took out a writ against it. Similarly with the Tuggerah Lakes restoration. That is important work for the future of this State. However, if someone took out a writ, that work would stop. That will happen because of the action of the Labor Party.
Mr Martin: Rubbish.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: You say rubbish, but we will test it. It is not rubbish, and you know it.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The same situation will apply at Lake Illawarra. If the Opposition wants to stop work on those jobs, it has gone about it the right way. You are looking down the barrel of that work being stopped. Water and sewage treatment works around the State could not proceed if this regulation is disallowed.
Page 6638
Mr Martin: On a point of order. The House is debating the disallowance of the regulation, not the bill.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. I do not think the honourable member for Port Stephens understands the terms of the regulation.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The truth has no relevance to him. The regulation would allow the Government to continue the work necessary to provide essential services to this State. If the Opposition succeeds in challenging this regulation, the lot will go out the window. If the legislation is challenged, there will be no legislation and no regulation, and the whole show will stop. It is very simple: the day after this regulation is disallowed, a challenge could be put in place and then there would be no relevant legislation. I have never heard such nonsense and stupidity in my life. It should not be ruled out that there could be a challenge. Such a challenge could stop all work. Water supply works that are necessary to provide people with decent drinking water could go down the drain. I know people who do not accept the environmental movement, who do not believe it can be trusted. I know people who say exactly the same thing about the Forestry Commission. This action shows total distrust. I would not feed the conservation movement. It has proven to be totally untrustworthy. One need only consider the great Alf Williams at Coffs Harbour. What has he done? I make the decisions and he takes everyone to court. That is okay; we will play it both ways. If people want to launch a challenge - and I know people who would want to do so - I have no intention of stopping them. If they want to take this through the mill, I will back them. It will be a return to the days when a weak, miserable Labor Party put jobs, water, sewerage and roads in jeopardy. People in the Wallsend electorate have a major road development in place. That will stop tomorrow if this regulation is disallowed.
Ms Allan: Sit down. You would not know.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: You would not care if the whole State stopped, because that is your agenda. This regulation would maintain State works until 30th April next year. It would be nonsense to disallow it and implement fatuous legislation.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister's time for speaking has expired.
Dr METHERELL (Davidson) [9.59]: I congratulate the Government and the Opposition on this historic compromise that has been opposed by the Leader of the National Party. He knows that the compromise has been made by agreement between the Government, the Opposition, the Independents and peak groups. It is important that the compromise be honoured in the spirit as well as the letter, to avoid confrontation in the forest this summer that would have otherwise occurred, which would have brought forestry to an end. It is vital that the compromise succeed and that all sides approach it in the same spirit as that in which it was reached last night. It is an interim proposal and I congratulate all those who have been party to it.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Oxley to order.
Dr METHERELL: It puts the Government on notice that it must introduce substantive legislation to give effect to this measure.
[Interruption]
Page 6639
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Burrinjuck to order.
Dr METHERELL: I support the comments of the honourable member for South Coast.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [10.1], in reply: Members on both sides of the House have made interesting contributions to the debate. I only hope that in the days after the disallowance of the regulation there will not be a repetition of the types of comments we just heard from the Deputy Premier. Rather, I hope there will be sensible discussion on the bill. There is no doubt that this motion for disallowance has been moved this morning as a result of discussions between the Opposition, the Government, the Independents and the conservation movement. The aim is to ensure that a procedure is in place whereby once the regulation is disallowed we will proceed to carry legislation that will ensure that during the next four to five months the State will have legislative procedures to protect our endangered fauna. That is not the situation at the moment. This poorly drafted disallowance regulation was brought in by the Government in haste. It may have protected some jobs in the forestry and development industries, but it would not have protected any endangered fauna in New South Wales.
The numerous interjections this morning from various members of the National Party might look good in local press releases and in their newspapers next week, but they do not mean anything. No job will be lost in this industry as a result of the motion under debate this morning. The matter was brought on this morning so that those jobs will not be lost. After this debate the fauna protection legislation will be passed. In fact, the ink on the press releases will not be dry before we have that legislation in place and those jobs protected. Some backbench members of the National Party who think they will get a headline next week in their local press are going to be very disappointed. Their local communities will not be fooled. The unions in particular and the sawmillers themselves will be well aware that this process has been designed to protect the industry as well as the endangered fauna. Let us not assume that those hysterical outpourings we have been hearing and are still hearing from the honourable member for Bega, the honourable member for Burrinjuck and others would hold water. We have an extremely tight timetable. This measure will be put in place. It will work. We want to ensure that those jobs are protected.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bega to order for a second time.
Ms ALLAN: We are also interested in protecting the natural habitat of endangered fauna in New South Wales, which to date the National Party in this State has not been interested in protecting. I reinforce the comments that the honourable member for Davidson made when concluding his speech: we are in this position this morning as a result of joint discussions which have taken place between the Government, the Opposition and the Independents. If backbench members of the National Party or the Deputy Leader of the Government are dissatisfied, they should go back to the drawing board and talk to their own leadership about the issue. I strongly commend the motion. I look forward to support from the majority of the honourable members of the House.
Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.
The House divided.
Page 6640
Ayes, 47
Ms Allan Mr Amery Mr Anderson Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Bowman Mr Clough Mr Crittenden Mr Doyle Mr Face Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mrs Grusovin Mr Harrison Mr Hatton Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma Mr Irwin Mr Knight Mr Knowles Mr Langton Mrs Lo Po' Dr Macdonald Mr McManus Mr Markham Mr Martin Dr Metherell Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Moss Mr J. H. Murray Mr Nagle
Mr Newman Ms Nori Mr E. T. Page Mr Price Dr Refshauge Mr Rogan Mr Scully Mr Shedden Mr Sullivan Mr Thompson Mr Whelan Mr Yeadon Mr Ziolkowski Tellers, Mr Davoren Mr Rumble
Noes, 44
Mr Armstrong Mr Baird Mr Blackmore Mr Chappell Mrs Chikarovski Mr Cochran Mrs Cohen Mr Collins Mr Cruickshank Mr Downy Mr Fahey Mr Fraser Mr Glachan Mr Griffiths Mr Hazzard
Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr Longley Ms Machin Mr Merton Mr Moore Mr Morris Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Packard Mr D. L. Page Mr Peacocke Mr Petch Mr Phillips Mr Photios Mr Rixon
Mr Schipp Mr Schultz Mr Small Mr Smiles Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Tink Mr Turner Mr West Mr Windsor Mr Yabsley Mr Zammit Tellers, Mr Beck Mr Hartcher
Pairs
Mr Causley Mr Greiner Mr Jeffery
Mr Beckroge Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [10.15]: I seek leave to move a number of procedural motions to permit an orderly debate on General Business (for Bills) Order of the Day No. 7 for the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill.
Page 6641
Mr Whelan: Leave is granted.
Motion (by leave of the member for Ashfield) by Mr Moore agreed to:
That, for the purposes of the notice of business to be dealt with under Standing Order 175B the amendments circulated by the member for Blacktown be deemed amendments proposed by a Minister, relating to the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill.
Motion (by leave of the member for Ashfield) by Mr Moore agreed to:
That, notwithstanding anything contained in the sessional and standing orders, the adjourned second reading debate on the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill proceed with the following time limits, without extension:
Minister first speaking 15 minutes Member for Port Stephens 15 minutes Minister for Conservation and Land Management 15 minutes All other members, and the mover in reply 10 minutes
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [10.18], by leave: I move:
That any division on putting of the question for the second reading of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill not be held after 12.15 p.m. and be deferred until after 2.05 p.m. this day.
I wish to speak briefly to the motion. A number of the Independent members have a meeting with representatives of Moody's Rating Agency between 12.30 p.m. and approximately 1.50 p.m. today. It is in the interests of the State as a whole that, if a division occurs, it not occur during the time of that meeting, as the Independent members have indicated to me that they would regard their necessity to attend the division as being paramount. It is quite clear in the interests of stable government, and indeed viable government, that the meeting with the representatives of Moody's take place. There is no purpose in this House, for procedural reasons, placing any inhibition on that occurring.
Mr SPEAKER: Before debate proceeds further, could the Minister please restate the position.
Mr MOORE: The proposal, by way of explanation, is that if a division on the second reading of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill is called after 12.15 p.m., the vote on that division shall occur not earlier than 2.5 p.m.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I seek explanation from the point of view of the orderly running of the House. If in fact a division is called and stood over, what will happen between that time and 2.5 p.m.?
Mr MOORE: The House will rise for the luncheon adjournment. I propose to so move after this matter is dealt with. There is a consequential motion dealing with Christmas felicitations and committee reports. I would seek to move that motion after this motion is adopted. I seek leave of the honourable member for Ashfield to amend the motion that I have moved to add the words "in addition, should the vote on the second reading of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill stand postponed until 2.05 p.m., the House shall reconvene at 1 p.m. for the purposes of dealing with committee reports and the special adjournment motion for the summer recess".
Page 6642
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the question, That should a division be taken on the second reading of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill after 12.15 p.m., that division shall be held over to 2.5 p.m. at the earliest and the House reassemble at 1 p.m. for the purpose of Christmas felicitations?
Mr MOORE: To deal with committee reports and the special adjournment motion of the House for the summer recess, which will be the traditional Christmas felicitations motion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could I suggest to the House that the safest procedure might be to withdraw the motion, for me to leave the chair at 12.10 p.m. and return at 1 o'clock for the purpose of taking committee reports, which would be within the sessional orders.
Mr MOORE: If I could respond to your suggestion: the difficulty will be that those managing the business this morning anticipate that the second reading debate will probably continue after half past twelve, when three members will be absent at the meeting that I have outlined; that the division in fact may not be called until very close to 1 p.m.; and that we need the orderly flow of the second reading debate until that stage. I am simply dealing with a contingent period when a number of members will be absent.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Motion (by leave of the member for Ashfield) by Mr Moore agreed to:
That, upon the conclusion of the second reading debate and postponement of any subsequent division on the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill, this House consider Orders of the Day (Committee Reports) and a motion for the special adjournment of the House.
Motion, by leave, by Mr Moore agreed to:
That so much of the sessional and standing orders be suspended as would preclude the next order of the day, being the resumption of debate on General Business Order of the Day for Bills, being the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill 1991.
ENDANGERED FAUNA (INTERIM PROTECTION) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 5th December.
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [10.25]: On behalf of the Government I indicate our opposition to the bill as it is presently before the House. We believe that the bill in its present form is fundamentally flawed. On behalf of the Government I have offered to introduce an alternative regulation to the regulation which was disallowed earlier this morning that we still believe would provide a viable alternative interim method for protection of endangered species between now and, in broad terms, the end of the first quarter in 1992 when the process which the Premier has outlined would have been dealt with. The Government believes that the appropriate way to deal with these matters is not to have at this time the fundamental shift in responsibility that is inherent in this bill between various government departments, including the Forestry
Page 6643 Commission and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Though there is a broad acknowledgment, publicly made by the Premier and a number of my ministerial colleagues, that there was a need for a permanent resolution mechanism to overcome the difficulties of the protection of endangered fauna while at the same time preserving options for balanced responsibility and environmentally sensitive industry activities and development in the State of New South Wales, it is very important that we do not have created the position where we are left with a void with nothing to fill it as a result of the disallowance of the regulation this morning.
At this stage I wish to place on record my undertaking that if the second reading of this bill is defeated - as is the Government's intention to so vote - I have an alternative regulation which I believe is more constitutionally and statutorily valid. The Government believes the bill in its present form is fundamentally flawed. I give an undertaking to the House that if this fundamentally flawed legislation is defeated, an alternative regulatory mechanism will be put in place so that we are not left with a hiatus that would make it necessary to close the forest over the Christmas period. That prospect is a matter of great concern to me and my colleague the Minister for Conservation and Land Management. He will turn his attention to that matter and make some remarks during his address later in this debate. I wish not to canvass the range of detail contained in the bill. I simply wish to put on record at this stage the fact that the Government has made available to the Opposition, to the Independent members and to the conservation groups the written advice of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and of a number of other government departments - but particularly the written advice of the National Parks and Wildlife Service - as to why they believe the bill before the House in its present form - and indeed it will be the bill in its present form that is put to a vote later today - is incapable of working and would be irresponsible.
It is for that reason that the Government will be voting against the second reading of the bill in its present form. It is an important point that I wish to emphasise in this debate. Equally, I wish to emphasise the co-operative nature of the discussions I am having with my ministerial colleagues, and particularly with the Minister for Conservation and Land Management, because it is within his portfolio area of responsibility that the majority of operational functions occur that the Government is addressing. They include not only the legislative issues that are inherent in the question of species preservation and conservation of endangered, threatened and rare species but also, and most importantly, the operational issues that give rise to a number of concerns expressed to the Government by the conservation movement. It is most important that in this regard I indicate that those legislative and operational issues are being addressed co-operatively by me and my ministerial colleagues.
I wish also in this regard to deal, by way of an example of what the Government is doing, with a specific instance that has involved an area of land containing the habitat of a rare and endangered bird that was formerly in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and is at present in the electorate of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. I wish to indicate how Ministers acting co-operatively, through a responsible conservation measure, can achieve an outcome acceptable throughout the community. Some time ago, on the recommendation of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, I was in the position of considering whether an interim protection order should be placed, pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, on some land on the edge of the Dorrigo escarpment fronting the Dorrigo National Park. The area of land involved was an Antarctic Beech forest that contained the habitat Page 6644 of the rufous scrub bird. I consulted with my ministerial colleagues responsible for those areas at that time, and I imposed that interim protection order with the full support of the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads, the Minister for Natural Resources and the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, who were the relevant Ministers at that time. Since that time the National Parks and Wildlife Service has been discussing with the landholders involved the negotiated purchase of those areas of land for addition to the adjacent national park so that the habitat could be protected. I am pleased to indicate to the House, as I have indicated privately to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who has been of great assistance to me in this matter, that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is close to agreement on price, not only for that block of land but with an appropriate arrangement, including some land purchase and a voluntary conservation agreement with the adjacent landholder, who also has part of the patch of habitat of the rufous scrub bird on her property. I expect soon that we will add the relevant areas to the national park and have a conservation agreement. That co-operation demonstrates a way in which habitat can be protected in a fashion acceptable to the local community. The Government does not believe that the bill in its present form before the House is capable of working, is desirable, or provides the answers to the questions that need to be addressed - questions that the Premier has appropriately outlined need to be addressed and on which he has given an undertaking for their resolution by, in broad terms, the end of the first quarter, or thereabouts, next year. It is for those reasons, and for no other reason, that the Government is unable to accept the bill in its present form. The Government gives an undertaking that if the bill, which will be divided upon, is defeated, as the Government hopes will be the case, I have an alternative mechanism on standby to provide what the Government believes is a measure that will enable the species that are in need of protection to be protected between now and the end of the process outlined by the Premier and which will enable responsible forestry operations and other developmental operations to take place over the Christmas recess. In that regard, I wish to put on the record an important undertaking given by my friend and colleague the Minister for Conservation and Land Management. He has made an offer to me, which I have accepted, that there would be a moratorium on logging on the currently unresolved - and unconsidered by Cabinet - wilderness nomination areas between now and the period when the process outlined by the Premier is completed. Nine or 10 of those areas have been listed in a draft of the Government's alternative regulation, which has been provided to members of the Opposition. It is a genuine and honest alternative, an attempt to find a rational and responsible middle ground, and I commend to all honourable members the defeat of the second reading of this bill so as to enable me to put that alternative structure in place and to carry the matter through to the end of the process outlined by the Premier. It is for those reasons that the Government opposes and will vote against the second reading of the bill as it appears at present before the House.
Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens) [10.37]: The Opposition, as the Parliament well knows, introduced the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. I become the second speaker for the Opposition on the bill. The co-operation of all parties to ensure that the bill reached the Parliament is historic. I speak in the context of having been involved in the past half hour in the disallowance of the regulation. I am happy that this bill will take its place. The object of the bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to make further provision for the protection of fauna. That does not cover any of my shadow portfolios, which are Page 6645 agriculture and rural affairs, fisheries, forestry, lands and soil conservation, but I have a deep interest in forestry and a strong commitment to ensure that this State has a viable forest industry, and a commitment to ensure that the longer term will see forestry operations and the environment on a much better footing. It is in that context that I speak today. These amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act will bind the Crown. They will extend the definition of fauna under the Act to include all amphibians. I had a previous career in the Department of Agriculture and in the Division of Fisheries, and I know it is important to extend the definition. The word "take" has been clearly defined. The bill also will enable appeals to the Land and Environment Court against decisions on applications under section 12.
It is an historic day when the Opposition in this Parliament is able, in a way, to govern in the interests of the people of New South Wales and to enable parties to get together to make sure the legislation will work. I thank all parties involved in the negotiations leading to the introduction of this bill, particularly the Forest Products Association and representatives of the conservation movement. It was a welcome sight to see representatives of the Forest Products Association sit down with Jeff Angel and Sue Salmon to discuss the important issues. For far too long the attitude of the Deputy Premier of merely wanting to kick the hell out of people, to attack for the sake of attack, and to blindly follow one line of rhetoric has resulted in massive confrontation. The losers have been the people of New South Wales. In her contribution to the debate on the motion to disallow the regulation, the honourable member for Blacktown made it clear that jobs will not be lost. The Opposition is strongly committed to that notion. Members of this Parliament who think that jobs will be lost as a result of the disallowance are deluding themselves and the small sectional interests they represent.
The bill will not please everyone but this is the first time the problems have been hammered out. The bill represents the first real commitment to consensus, a process welcomed by the community and one which augurs well for the future. The bill will work as an interim measure and will allow time for all concerns to be addressed. Under the circumstances it is more than a fair attempt to reach a short-term solution. The attitude of the Opposition is clear. New South Wales must have a healthy ecological, sustainable forest industry. That industry has a vital role to play in creating jobs and contributing not only to State and regional economies but to the economy of the nation. The replacement of the billions of dollars worth of timber products imported into this country each year must be a priority if the Australian economy is to recover quickly. I point out that 10 per cent of Australia's balance of payments debt is in timber and paper products. A sound timber industry is vital. The environment must be protected not only for this generation but for future generations. No responsible party can fail to address the very real problem of unemployment. The combination of the drought and the economic downturn caused by the corruption of world agricultural markets is causing great concern. It is essential that the bill be passed today so that there will not be a void. The provisions of the bill will counter the fears of all Australians about the future. I thank the Minister for Conservation and Land Management for his commitment to the negotiations. I quote from his letter:
I am aware of the general undertaking given this day by the Minister for the Environment in respect of the debate to occur in this Parliament and the subsequent debate on the interim endangered fauna legislation. I hereby give an undertaking that if the regulation is disallowed and the procedures broadly follow what Mr Moore has outlined, no action will be taken to precipitate forest closure.
I am sure representatives of those employed in the forest industry will also thank the Minister for his comments. We must ensure that the environment is protected and that Page 6646 the conservation movement clearly understands what we are trying to achieve. The reasons for the introduction of the bill were discussed earlier. The bill has been necessary because of previous mistrust between the conservation movement and a whole range of community sectors. The Minister for Conservation and Land Management is much firmer on the ground than those who will criticise the bill. He is a realist. As a result of the negotiations, he has been able to ensure his portfolio will be protected. I remind the House of the statements made by the Deputy Premier earlier today. His bloody-minded actions demonstrated a lack of effort to bring the people of New South Wales together and to ensure that all parties are partially accommodated.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, people on the fringes will be upset by this bill. I make no bones about saying that people in the conservation movement will be upset in some ways because they will have less work to do and their employment may be threatened. On the other hand there may be extremists in the forest industry who have no respect for the long-term future. If we can sort out these problems in the same way as decent ordinary people sort out their problems, we will be able to ensure that the people of New South Wales will be enriched. Sensible people should be able to sit down and work out their problems rather than attacking and fighting each other as has been the case so often in the past. The people of New South Wales have a legitimate right to have this State protected for the benefit of their children. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the bill.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [10.49]: The disallowance of the regulation having been agreed to, it is obvious that a next step is needed. That step can be taken in one of two ways. The first is the legislative course we are following at the moment. The second is a regulatory course. During discussions between the Minister for the Environment, and members of the Opposition, the crossbenches, peak environment groups and myself, that course was offered. It was obvious from the discussions that a regulatory course would not be accepted by those parties, though I must say that in essence a regulatory course would have offered very similar results to what this bill, hopefully as amended, will achieve: that is, to provide protection for endangered fauna and to ensure that the forest industries can continue to function and maintain employment.
Having disallowed the regulation, we have to debate the bill as presented to the Parliament. In doing so I emphasise that whatever may be the outcome of this legislation the Government will proceed with its own course of action which has been clearly outlined by the Premier to bring in by 30th April appropriate measures for the protection of endangered species - not just endangered fauna - and to establish a properly managed natural resources management council so that there is a body that is in a position to undertake the land use and resource use assessment process. I congratulate those who have entered the discussions and come to some degree of common sense. At other stages that was not there. We may end up with a bill that will work. It is certainly my endeavour to protect the forest industries, which is my constituency, and to make sure that they are broadly involved in protecting endangered fauna. Many people who work in the industry are committed to that cause. I have every faith that there will be a greater and continuing commitment to that aim.
Australian Labor Party members claim to be the great defenders of the environment. They continually say: "We are the only ones who can protect the environment. We are the only ones who can work with environmentalists". It is fascinating that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Carr, a former environment Minister, was reported in the Sunday Telegraph of 15th June, 1989, as referring to the Page 6647 environmental groups as ravenous wolves who are never satisfied: as soon as they gobble down one political offering they are back for more. The suggestion that the Australian Labor Party is the only party that can represent conservation issues is the biggest load of rubbish I have heard in my life. We are seeing a genuine endeavour by many people to come together, notwithstanding where Bob Carr thinks he sits on this matter. The whole issue of endangered species protection, resource security and sustainability of the hardwood sawmilling industry is complex. The Labor Party had 12 years in government but all it handed over to us was a piecemeal and fragmented system.
The trend under the Labor Government was towards proliferating legislation to deal with specific issues, with no thought to the unplanned and diverse effects and properly authorised management activities. This Government is endeavouring to rectify that situation. We are looking at the broader picture. We are developing a coherent system which will allow us to make informed resource management decisions which will have full regard to conservation concerns and socioeconomic needs. The Opposition has not only failed to look at the broader picture; it has failed to give adequate consideration to the implications for the stability of the timber industry and its dependent communities. We must not allow our State's future to be compromised by unwisely cast and duplicative environmental protection legislation. This bill, as I have said previously, may be well-intentioned but it is not, in its present form, workable. It is based on the false premise that by allowing the National Parks and Wildlife Service to issue licences it will overcome the problems that were highlighted in the Chaelundi case.
The Opposition proposals fail to recognise that to achieve real protection for endangered species we need co-operation at all levels, particularly at the national level. I am sure it comes as no surprise to all members that animals do not recognise the boundaries of regions, States, wilderness areas and forests. Therefore, we have to have an agreed, totally managed system. At the operational level, it also seems ludicrous for land use decisions to be made in isolation from the planning process. That is what this bill would provide. We say that there must be an integrated system. We do not believe that fauna can be dealt with alone. It is only logical that endangered flora should be considered at the same time. A properly integrated system should provide adequate safeguards without added cost and delay. The Opposition's proposal makes no attempt to achieve this. Requiring applicants to obtain an initial licence will add just another layer to the already complex bureaucratic process.
All operations which may disturb endangered species will require, when this legislation is introduced, two separate approvals - one under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and one under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Provision has not been made for the approval processes to run concurrently. Therefore, there will be a problem with time, which everybody would have to describe as double jeopardy. Nor is it clear whether the additional licence will be required by the commission or by timber licensees and their contractors, or by all of them separately or together. The open-ended nature of the processing fee, for example, in addition to the $200 application fee, is also of concern. It offers no incentive for the departments to process applications efficiently or expeditiously, and that makes it difficult for applicants to calculate costs in advance.
The whole process is so excessively bureaucratic that it has been suggested that it could take up to four months for these licences to come into effect. The applicant has to go through the consultation period with the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, who then notifies the requirements of the fauna impact statement. That could take 28 days. Then a fauna impact statement has to be prepared. This would take a minimum of 14 days, or probably longer, depending on the director's requirements. The Page 6648 director then advertises the application, which would take another seven days. The submission process period is another 28 days. The director then has to consider, determine and publish the reasons for his decision. That could take anywhere from 40 to 60 days. Then there is an appeal period, during which licences do not take effect. This is a further 28 days. So the industry would not be able to work for the 119 days in which the licences cannot be issued.
The bill is unclear as to the scope and the scale of an operation requiring a licence. Is it to be a forest or is it an individual compartment? This would have a significant bearing on the practical feasibility of the licensing process, also having regard to the licensing application fee. There is no need to highlight the gravity of the present economic climate. This bill will only exacerbate it by creating further uncertainty and instability in the timber-dependent communities of this State. The effect of this bill is to make the National Parks and Wildlife Service the determining authority for all forestry operations. This is ludicrous. It is a totally inappropriate role for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Such a move would accord it powers right outside its core responsibilities, making it the arbiter of land-use decisions in isolation from the planning process. That is the problem. There will be no obligation to consider both the economic and the environmental factors. The beneficial social and economic effects of a proposed development or activity must be balanced against any likely harm to fauna. In order to do this there must be a mechanism which can allow the appropriate trade- offs to occur. This bill has the potential to close down the industry. We have heard that the regulatory process was a confrontationist process. We have heard that this bill is a way of keeping the jobs open. The reality is that there could be a major conflict. Because of the regulatory and bureaucratic processes it may not be possible to issue licences.
Honourable members should remember that this industry is worth $2 billion a year to the State. It employs about 16,500 people directly. There are 29 country towns that are more than 50 per cent dependent on the timber industry. In addition, in the absence of any provision for the consideration of economic effects, the probable effect will be to significantly reduce forestry activity in the longer term. The Opposition would have us believe that its bill is not retrospective, yet there are no transitional provisions to allow certain activities to continue after the commencement of the bill. The proposed amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will mean that forestry operations for which an environmental impact statement has not been prepared - and which are in wilderness assessment areas - would have to cease after the bill is enacted. There are no savings provisions to uphold the validity of existing approvals - even where a full environmental impact statement has been undertaken already and exhibited. The requirement that future environmental impact statements explicitly consider fauna issues casts doubt on the standing of current and past environmental impact statements. In future environmental impact statements will consider formal issues and will run concurrently. A process needs to be instituted which will assist forest planning and operations by stabilising and co-ordinating State legislation, not fragmenting it as this bill does.
Though the legislation purports to review schedule 12 and limit it to only the most sensitive species, the criteria used will lead inevitably to the inclusion of wide-ranging native forest species, which will have an unacceptably wide impact on the timber industry. We are not talking about isolated occurrences or threatened species - rather a broader range, including species that are still abundant but are under threat, and those that are thinly scattered over an extensive area. None of the currently recognised endangered fauna have become so endangered as a result of forestry activities. It is well Page 6649 to remember that no species of fauna is known to have become extinct or endangered as a result of forestry activities anywhere in Australia. The suggestion that a three-person scientific committee review schedule 12 within one month is highly questionable. It would be unreasonable to expect such a review to be conducted within that time frame. The scientific sources and public input generally involved would make it impossible to achieve that review within one month. During negotiations with the Opposition, the crossbenchers and the environmental movement in the past few days, the Government has stated that it is prepared to protect endangered fauna. This bill is flawed in many respects and will not achieve the desired results. Therefore, the Government has no alternative but to oppose the amendment. In Committee the Government will move a number of amendments that are essential to the industry, and I urge honourable members to support them.
Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [11.3]: I support the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. I believe the legislation has the appearance of almost treading water. The regulation which was earlier disallowed also had the ingredients for treading water. It is an issue that we will have to come to grips with by formulating legislation which will enable a viable forestry industry to sustain its resources, but will also protect our native fauna and flora. However, I do not know how we are going to achieve the right mix. This issue has been of concern for the past 15 years but of greater concern in the past decade. I note that the bill permits confined forestry operations to continue with perhaps some small impediments that will have ramifications in pockets of the State. I note that the legislation contains a sunset clause to take effect on 1st September and that the regulation had a sunset period from 1st April. It behoves the Government and the Opposition to ensure that when the Parliament resumes next year legislation will be put in place that will achieve a desirable outcome for both sides of this House; that is legislation which is in the best interests of the forest industry and which will satisfy conservation groups.
In speaking to this legislation I wish to bring to the attention of the House my forestry yuletide experience. In December 1987 the former Labor Government announced an extension to the national parks system. At that time I was in my office until 6 o'clock on Christmas Eve trying to contact people to find out what was going on so I could advise those concerned about the establishment of the Yengo National Park and the extension of the Wollemi National Park. My inquiries revealed that the sleeper cutters were unaware of what was happening and a large sawmiller, R. A. Sweetman and Son of Millfield, was no longer able to conduct its timber harvesting activities in the area. At that point I recognised that Yengo National Park had a limited life and also that the sleeper cutters could obtain work elsewhere. However, it was wrong of the Government of the day to have made that announcement on Christmas Eve. I was defeated at the March 1988 elections but in May of that year Mr Sweetman visited me to ask for assistance in obtaining another area to continue his harvesting operations. In the early 1980s I had made approaches on behalf of that gentleman to obtain a licence to harvest in the Mount Royal area. However, he did not proceed to take up that licence. In May 1988 a licence was again applied for to harvest in Mount Royal in conjunction with another timber operator at Muswellbrook. The application for a licence was successful.
The moment the harvesting operations continued, someone professed to have sighted the Hastings River mouse. That sighting had the effect of virtually pulling the shutters down on the sawmillers' harvesting operations in Mount Royal until the matter was investigated. That case was not similar to what happened with Chaelundi but R. A. Sweetman and Son and the Muswellbrook company could not log the area until an examination had been carried out of the fauna existing in the area. To my knowledge Page 6650 that matter is continuing. I spoke to Mr Sweetman about six weeks ago and he said that he still could not operate in the Mount Royal area. He understood that the Forestry Commission had conducted an examination of the fauna in that area and that a report was to be released. He was not acquainted with the report and he did not know when it was to be handed down. I pointed out to him an article that appeared in the bush telegraph, a forestry publication, headed "Conservationists, foresters find a not-so-rare mouse". In part that article reads:
An international team of Earthwatch volunteers and Forestry workers has found that the Hastings River mouse, thought to be the world's rarest and most endangered mammal, is perhaps not so rare as feared.
Expeditions in July last year and in January, February and March this year have trapped for study and later release, a total of 6 of the mice over an area of 6,000 ha centred on Chaelundi and Clouds Creek State Forest.
And, according to expedition leaders, the evidence the team gathered indicates that activities such as logging, grazing and burning may create vegetation conditions favoured by the mouse.
The scientific leaders of the expedition reported that the mouse fared better in forested areas and that forest harvesting was not an impediment to the mouse or its future. As parliamentarians we have a responsibility to the economic development of the State and to ensure that forestry is not managed in the way it was in the 1950s and 1960s - that is, to chop down but not replace trees. We must preserve for the future our native flora and fauna. We cannot exist without forestry operations, but we must preserve as much as possible of our forests and our native flora and fauna for future generations.
Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [11.12]: I salute the closing remarks of the honourable member for Cessnock. We must protect the forestry industry and associated industries of New South Wales. I hope that the honourable member will vote with the Government to oppose this ridiculous piece of legislation. If any legislation has been designed to kill off industry, this is it. This great unknown legislation will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It will impose ill-defined and nonsensical restrictions and guidelines. Industry - forestry, mining and development industries that established water supply systems and constructed dams and roads - must know the ground rules. We do not need other interim legislation about which a scientific body will produce a report one month down the track. Such a suggestion is ludicrous in the extreme. Industry should not be subjected to this nonsense. The Minister for Conservation and Land Management said that although the bill may be well intentioned, it is not workable. I do not believe that it is well intentioned. It betrays an ideological attitude that is patently absurd. I agree with the Minister's assertion that the legislation will be unworkable. This endangered fauna legislation is indicative of the blinkered vision of some members of the Opposition and their motivators from the radical end of the green movement. These anti-development, anti-business, anti-forestry, anti-mining, anti- economic and anti-human people are trying in the name of so-called environment protection to bring down the State and the economy by closing down country towns, which depend on industry.
Human, social, economic, trading and profit-making enterprises of this State are all part of the environment, and the environment - the animals and the trees - depends on those enterprises. Unless human beings - who are part of the animal kingdom - survive economically in a cohesive social structure, no money will be spent on the protection of the environment - animal or vegetable. It is essential that we get things right, but to do so we must work in sympathy with the environment. People from all walks of life make mistakes, including those from the bright green end of the spectrum, who go over the top Page 6651 at every opportunity. We must learn from our mistakes. No one can deny that industry, in the management of resources, is extremely conservative. It knows that it is dealing with finite resources and unless it is constrained and disciplined, those resources will run out. Industry is more protective of its own resources, and therefore of its own environment, than it has ever been. All industries, whether forestry, mining, or any of the development industries, are more conservative, rational and sympathetic to the environment today than was the position in the past.
An infrastructure for rational negotiation must be built up between government, industry and the sensible members of the environmental movement to ensure that the environment, industry, the social structure of country towns, and the national economy are protected. That will not be achieved by this legislation. If the logging industry and the mining and associated industries are closed down, the costs to the community will be horrendous. We will live to regret the provisions of this legislation, should it be passed. The restrictions that the legislation will impose will be the final straw for investment in industry. An economy can survive only for so long on past investments. Unless investments are renewed industries will grind to a halt; they will not be able to compete; they will fall apart; they will die. Industry will not continue to invest in necessary infrastructure if these types of restrictions are imposed. Legislation such as this sends all the wrong signals to industry. Interim legislation has a habit of becoming ongoing legislation. The provisions of this bill are restrictive, anti-business and anti-investment. Industry has been dangling at the end of a long and tenuous cord for too long. It is in need of some security. This legislation is an assault on industry. Businesses are just as likely to pack up and go.
Mr Martin: Where will they go?
Mr CHAPPELL: They will do something else. They will not work in the forest industry or the mining industry. They will invest elsewhere, and we will all be the poorer, including the environment, which this legislation is supposed to protect. The bill provides another unwanted level of review. To those who support such legislation as this, a viable forestry industry means a smaller forestry industry. It never means a larger industry. It certainly is smaller than it was years ago. If this legislation is passed and the new regulations and restrictions are imposed on the industry, do we kid ourselves and think that that is where it will end? No way! The proponents of this legislation will find other ways of imposing further restrictions. So the viable forestry industry, which we glibly talk about today - and which will become smaller, surely, as a result of the provisions of this bill - will be assaulted further and will become smaller yet again. Supporters of the bill are intent on winding down the forestry and associated industries. The proposed legislation in this form is absurd and betrays the high ethics to which I have referred. The bill is anti-development, anti-investment, anti-profit, anti-social and defies description. Paranoia seems to be spreading in the community about the role of the Department of Conservation and Land Management.
The Government, on commencing its new term of office, stated specifically that conservation and land management is all about being responsible for our environment and industries, about getting the right signals to industry and formulating the best package of environment legislation. The community is paranoid that if conservation, land management or some other function is left in the hands of a National Party Minister it is the end of the world, and it must be stopped. This paranoia underpins much of the proposed legislation, which is patently absurd and does not stack up with reality. The Government has earned its credentials in getting the right signals to industry and striking a balance between the demands of the economy and proper environmental protection. Page 6652 The steps that have been taken by the Government, including soil conservation measures and many other programs, are in the direction of ensuring that the mix is right. The proposed legislation goes right over the top by implying that the Government cannot get the formula right. The Government can do that and is prepared to negotiate. The Government has offered signals today about new regulations to replace those irresponsibly thrown out earlier. The Government is determined to give the right message and get the balance right between the needs of industry and the protection of the environment for our social, human and economic future.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [11.22]: I support the bill, contingent upon the amendments that will be moved later in Committee. After negotiations during the last couple of days, after all that huffing and puffing, the dust has settled and two clear courses of action have emerged. One is to proceed with the bill; the alternative is a regulation or an amendment to the existing regulation or to the regulation just disallowed, as proposed by the Minister for the Environment. All Opposition members together with the Independents, a broad range of environmental and conservation groups, and the Forestry Products Association have rejected that course of action, preferring instead to adopt the course of action proposed by the Opposition - that is, the progress of the bill. The fairly simple reasons for that happening are worth mentioning.
The regulation that was disallowed was brought forward as a result of a court decision that the Government was not happy with. Within seven days of that court decision the Government brought forward a regulation to protect, as the Government saw it, the forestry industry. That is all well and good and I think the sentiments behind that are supported by both sides of the House. However, the regulation, as is evident from a report tabled a week ago in this House, was fundamentally flawed in that the Minister did not comply with various sections of the Subordinate Legislation Act. As a consequence, the disallowance motion proceeded through its various stages until today when the regulation was disallowed by this House. To persist with that course of action, to introduce an amendment to that regulation, would be nothing more than a continuation of that laborious, difficult and cumbersome process that will only continue the confrontation that has been a hallmark of relations between the environmental conservation movement and the forestry industry.
The bill provides an opportunity to put in place explicit legislative guidelines, as opposed to regulation, and a set of mechanisms to enable the conservation movement and the forestry industry to work in co-operation rather than confrontation. The alternative proposal of regulation does not allow for the development of any rational co-operative approach to these issues. I should have thought that the consultation that has occurred during the last couple of days would indicate to both Ministers that an opportunity is available for a co-operative approach. The Opposition believes that the regulatory process would not achieve that goal. The Minister for the Environment may be concerned about the approach taken by the Opposition, but as a member of the Regulation Review Committee I know that if a further regulation or an amendment to a regulation were proposed the same problems would arise as with the regulation that has been disallowed. The whole process under the Subordinate Legislation Act would be ignored. On the Minister's own admission during the negotiation process the regulation was drafted by the Minister late in the evening without much consultation but in an attempt to bring something to the negotiating table. The Opposition accepts the spirit in which the Minister did that.
However, the Minister must comply with the law and, in making a new regulation as he proposes, would run a risk of again rendering that regulation void by not Page 6653 going through the processes outlined in schedule 1 of the Subordinate Legislation Act. That is why the Regulation Review Committee reported to Parliament last week and that is why the regulation was disallowed today. The bill, however, presents an alternative formal and accountable process that will significantly reduce conflict. The measure requires, first, surveys of endangered species to be conducted prior to an activity commencing - rather than the catch- up model in place these days; second, licensing by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, acting as the arbiter, thus separating the proponent from the decision to harm endangered species; and, third, the public involvement, making the process accountable and legitimising decision-making. In the learning process I have undergone in the last couple of days of negotiations it has become clear to me that the parties opposed on this issue do not talk to each other, and there is a need to establish an accountable public participation process to allow all sides to have a say.
An umpire is needed. It is not good enough for the Forestry Commission to be the proponent, the consent authority and the controller of the entire process, without allowing external assessment of its proposals. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is the appropriate body to govern that arbitration process, as proposed in the bill. Members have criticised the bill in its present form as being unworkable and fundamentally flawed. I should have thought that those members who spoke in debate, most of whom have taken part in negotiations, would have acknowledged the enormous amount of work done over the past two days by a number of persons to ensure that a set of amendments comes before the Committee to make the bill workable and sensible, and to ensure an opportunity for a proper consultative approach to forestry and park management.
A whole series of events, including alteration of the business of the House, the confusion that occurred earlier this morning, the hurried drafting of proposed regulations and amendments to the bill, and the fevered work during the past couple of days to get to this point, could have been avoided if the Minister, after the court decision in October, had followed correct processes in developing the regulation. Scrape away all the huffing and puffing in recent days about who is right and wrong and who has the high moral ground. If the Minister had instituted the statutory process that is acknowledged by this House as important, and if he had engaged in a proper public consultation process in the preparation of a regulation, the House would not be considering these issues and the problem might not have arisen.
Mr Hartcher: Come on.
Mr KNOWLES: Come on nothing. The Minister's production of a regulation seven days after a court decision was a farce.
Mr Fraser: Labor had 12 years to do something but did nothing.
Mr KNOWLES: The Government has the reins for another few weeks. The Opposition has put a lot of work into the negotiations during the past couple of days. The honourable member for Gosford would have learned something if he had attended those negotiations. During that process we developed a workable package, in contrast to the efforts of the Minister for the Environment and his hamfisted attempt to bring forward a regulation, which is flawed. In fact, Government members unanimously supported presentation of a report to the Parliament that forced the Minister to acknowledge the deficiencies in his own regulation.
Page 6654
Mr Fraser: Name them.
Mr KNOWLES: I will name them if you wish. The Subordinate Legislation Act requires the Minister in the preparation of a regulation to consult and to undertake a cost-benefit analysis. None of that was done. To prepare a regulation in seven days makes a mockery of the process and a mockery of this Parliament. To govern by regulation rather than by legislation is contrary to the principles of why we are here as parliamentarians. Quite simply, the Minister ignored the processes. I simply put it on record that the Regulation Review Committee and members on this side of the House believe that if the Minister had done the right thing in the first place we would not be debating this matter today. I support the bill.
Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan), Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs [11.31]: I rise to speak on this debate from two points: first, as the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs in New South Wales, and second, as the member for Lachlan, my seat being situated in the geographic centre of New South Wales and probably having as many diverse agricultural practices as any other seat in New South Wales. In particular I rise in the interests, hopefully, of a balanced rural economy and a balanced community. I believe there is probably a place for all players in this type of debate. Certainly there is a place for environmental protection. There is a place for people to live, to grow and to expand. There is a place in the community for business. There is a place in the community for us to husband the land, the assets, the air, the water and the sea while we are here. There is an opportunity for each and every one of us to enjoy a certain quality of life and to be left in a certain amount of peace, to fulfil our own aims. There is no place at all for any of those players to usurp the opportunities for people to conduct their lives in a sensible and reasonable fashion. It is for those fundamental reasons that I object to most of the provisions in the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill of 1991. I find it totally objectionable. Paragraph (f) of the objects of the bill reads:
to require an application for a licence under the Act to take or kill endangered fauna to be accompanied by a fauna impact statement and to introduce "user-pays" in relation to the costs of processing such an application.
Paragraph (h) reads:
to empower the Minister and the Director to issue a stop work order against any activity likely to significantly affect the environment of any protected fauna.
At first sight, to the uninitiated and the unexperienced, that object may seem to have merit, but in practical terms it would be totally impossible to achieve the spirit of that object if it were to be accepted by this Chamber. Not one of us, be we farmers, people who do gardening in our own backyards in suburban Sydney, the Hawkesbury, or wherever it might be in the metropolitan area or in the inland of New South Wales, could comply with that objective in respect of a brown snake in a yard at Hornsby or elsewhere. Some two weeks ago magpies nesting in Hospital Road at the back of this Parliament hatched two young, but in order to protect that beautiful old Moreton Bay figtree earlier this year extensive pruning had to take place. Fortunately, the pruning took place before the magpies hatched, but it could well have been the other way around. There has to be a practical, commonsense approach towards looking after the environment, giving proper protection to endangered species and carrying on with the normal, everyday functions of life, including business, and that means agriculture. Unfortunately the Labor Party not only has a lack of understanding of agriculture but also an admitted total disregard for it. Let me put that in perspective. I assure honourable Page 6655 members that I am not just saying that to create an atmosphere. The Leader of the Opposition said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio on 15th November, 1990:
Farmers cannot be described as part of Labor's natural political base in New South Wales.
He is quite right. This legislation quite clearly shows that to be so again. The Leader of the Opposition made an open admission on Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio that Labor does not believe it has a responsibility as far as the agriculture base in this State is concerned. Therefore, Labor's approach has been one of totally ignoring the needs and rights of the farming community. That includes people who live in towns and villages right across New South Wales. On the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition boasts of an interview with a ratings agency and in the same breath he once again says to his party, "Go on, have another shot at the farming community. Disregard the fundamental wealth-creating role that agriculture plays in the State and the national economy". It is significant that even the Federal Labor Government is now starting to realise, as some of the studies would indicate, there will not be a recovery in Australia's economy until such time as the basic income earners, particularly wool and wheat, recover their capacity to generate export income. That is now freely acknowledged by the dry economic rationalists in Canberra.
This legislation seeks to amend two significant pieces of legislation: the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Nowhere in the bill has the Labor Party demonstrated a true and proper recognition of the beneficial social and economic effects of development. Further, the Labor Party has made no effort to tackle the crucial issue of balancing these benefits against any harm to fauna that could result from development initiatives. It is a blinkered or blindfolded approach which does nothing to bring into perspective the broad range of issues associated with the development and maintenance of agriculture. It does not acknowledge the role that agriculture has traditionally played, and I am sure will play in the future, of providing motherhood to the environmental issues and aspects of inland and rural New South Wales. It shows yet again why Labor cannot be trusted to bring balance and courage to government in this State.
I wish to make it patently clear from the outset that the agricultural community in New South Wales has had a close affinity by tradition and practice with the environment and conservation. Primary producers depend on the sustainability of agriculture and its environment. Our Liberal Party-National Party Government is the first government in Australia to establish a special division of sustainable agriculture with a director. It was this Government under Premier Greiner and Deputy Premier Murray that established a division of sustainable agriculture. No Labor Government in Australia has even thought to address that matter. Now Labor is asking us how we went about it. It wants to copy us. The amendments as proposed by Labor to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act require a development application to be accompanied by a fauna impact statement if the development is likely to significantly affect environmentally protected fauna. It sets down matters which must be taken into account in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on the environment. It further requires consent authorities to take into account the effect of developments on fauna environment when considering whether to consent to developments.
I call upon the Labor Party to state clearly how it justifies a significant additional burden of expense and complication at a time when its Federal Labor colleagues, who as of this morning are in total disarray, have presided over the worst collapse in farm incomes in our history. They have presided over a period when the purchasing power Page 6656 of wool and wheat has been at its lowest point since Captain Cook landed on these shores. Is Labor saying that bureaucracy can better understand and decide upon their land use than producers themselves? Is it saying to primary producers, the farmers across this State, "We do not trust you. We will take these affairs out of your hands?" There is no indication from the Australian Labor Party about what will occur once a fauna impact statement or environmental impact assessment is forwarded to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This lack of clarity is another reason for doubting the real sincerity of those opposite in bringing forward the legislation.
Though the bill purports to be an interim measure, it is unclear whether further amendments are intended by means of a new piece of legislation or whether the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Act will be amended on a more permanent basis. New South Wales has 350,000 square kilometres of travelling stock reserves in which there are significant wildlife corridors and wildlife protection areas. The travelling stock reserves are essential for the movement of stock, and traditionally livestock, and fauna have coexisted without there being any need for fauna impact statements and the like. It would be fair to indicate to the Opposition the seriousness of the rural downturn, due principally to the high interest monetary policies of the Hawke Labor Government - or the Labor Government. I am not sure whether it is still Hawke's Government or whether there has been a change at the helm in the past few hours. This legislation is an unfortunate hoax. Many genuine, decent, caring people in the community have been fooled into thinking that the legislation will have some benefit to the environment and protected fauna, when it is simply a political stunt of the worst type. It takes advantage of the innocence and genuineness of people who are trying to do something to ensure a better future for agriculture and people in this State, yet we have to put up with a Labor Opposition which, because of its incompetency, does not understand and would rather make cheap political capital out of a most important issue.
Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [11.42]: I support the bill. I refer honourable members opposite to the comprehensive speech of the honourable member for Moorebank, who detailed the protracted negotiations and discussions between members of the Opposition, the conservation movement and the Forest Products Association. The Opposition is very aware of the need to overcome the knee jerk introduction of the regulation by the Government in a rapid and unthinking reaction to the Chaelundi decision. The Opposition is aware of the need to have an industry in the country - whether it be agriculture or forests - that is economically viable and sustainable over time. This bill will ensure that rural industry can take place while endangered species are protected from the impact of economic activity. I am aware of the difficulties industry faces. Hely Brothers Pty Limited, manufacturers of Bonza and Excel tool handles, are concerned about the forestry regulation. They wrote to me in the following terms:
Hely Brothers Pty Ltd has been in the timber industry since 1884 and has manufactured tool handles for industry, agriculture and domestic use since 1914. We directly employ 35 people at our factory and sawmill and several sawmills in the Hunter Region depend to a large degree on us for their existence.
We are a "value adding" industry utilising the hardwoods of the NSW State Forests and the survival of this Company depends on our continued access to those State Forests.
The company's letter expresses its concern about the impact on it of the disallowance of the forest regulation. It was with that sensitivity to the need of forest products groups to be able to continue their economic activities that the Opposition entered into protracted
Page 6657 discussions and negotiations with the Forest Products Association, environment groups and the Minister, though the Opposition would have preferred to have had a longer discussion with him. The Minister has adopted a different approach today. He admits he has made a rushed decision. The House today has been shuffled about to allow the debate to occur. Members on the Treasury benches should go to the Australian Museum to view the endangered species exhibition. It does not really tear at one's heartstrings to see the extinct preserved animals, but a video program shows the thylacine, the extinct Tasmanian tiger, that existed until the 1930s - within the lifetime of many members of this Parliament - but became extinct in a deliberate campaign of eradication.
Economic activities have had an impact on every area of Australia in its 203 years of European settlement. The soil has been degraded, flora and fauna have been lost, and pesticides and feral animals have had an impact on the environment. It is time that legislation was introduced to protect those species that can be declared, using a scientific approach, to be endangered, while allowing sustainable economic activity to continue. This bill will enable that to occur. My family worked for 30 years in the timber cutting and milling industries, and for the Forestry Commission. I can understand the concerns of people working in those industries, but I have a perspective of the impact the silvicultural practices of the Forestry Commission have had on species that existed within forest habitats. A range of silvicultural practices took place in the Kendall State Forest - the area in which I grew up - which ranged from clear felling to the leaving of seed trees. The forestry practices changed year by year. My father used to bring home feathertailed gliders and many endangered species.
Mr Fraser: He took them out of their habitat.
Mr GAUDRY: There was no habitat left because of the clear felling practices. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour would know that the habitat of those species was taken away. The animals were brought home, and I recall my father saying that the practices were deliberately bad practices. I compliment the Forestry Commission on changing its practices. It was not until the 1970s that an outside individual, Dick Smith, funded the first fauna register in the Kendall State Forest area; it was not the Forestry Commission. Dick Smith is to be congratulated because it was his concern that led to the establishment of the fauna register. The legislation will, in a steady and studied way, examine the impact of various things on a number of endangered species, register them and ensure their protection. I refer to a recent publication of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness Limited. The foundation reviewed the management practices of the Forestry Commission and other government bodies in 26 wilderness areas of the State. It looked at the impact of logging, overburning, the creation of trails, power lines, pollution and the impact of weeds and feral animals. The foundation found that only two of the 26 wilderness areas were managed satisfactorily. If those findings are applied to operations that endanger species, it is clear that there is a need for legislation that will provide adequate protection yet allow economic activity to continue. In its "Wilderness 1991 Red Index" the Colong Foundation said:
Preservation of habitat is the key to saving rare and endangered species, unless they are to be confined to zoos. Wilderness is the only habitat in which a complete range of native species can exist.
Only small amounts of wilderness are left. As one honourable member said earlier in the debate, rare and endangered species cannot be confined within boundaries. There must be some clear-cut method of ensuring their survival. The amendments and the provisions of the bill will do that. This country has reached a stage where native species of fauna and flora are rapidly disappearing. The bill will ensure they are protected. I should like Page 6658 to conclude by quoting from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he introduced the Wilderness Bill in November 1987. These are significant words:
Will we as a nation, on the eve of the 200th year of European settlement, continue to destroy, piece by piece, the great natural areas of this country? Will we continue to be unmoved by the fact that many of this nation's plants and animals are threatened by oblivion? Or do we resolve that the very fibre of this continent should be treated with greater respect, that our much diminished wilderness should be protected, and that our country should earn a reputation for excellence in its approach to conservation?
Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's time for speaking has expired.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [11.52]: I should like to say first that I agree with some of the statements made by the honourable member for Newcastle. I come from Newcastle and I recall that many years ago when Kotara and Kotara South were settled, a firm denuded the entire area of trees. In the 1950s clear felling was a common objective. Vast areas of land were cleared. That does not happen now and has not happened for some time. The Government has taken care of that problem. No one agreed that there should be clear felling either for subdivisions or for forestry purposes. It must be remembered that at the same time as efforts are made to protect flora and fauna, the people of New South Wales must be protected. We must remember that rural and forest industries provide thousands of jobs in New South Wales.
Mr West: More than 16,500.
Mr FRASER: As the Minister has just said, the forest industry in New South Wales provides more than 16,500 jobs. The action taken by a green minority in relation to Chaelundi has cost more than 200 jobs in the Dorrigo area, where people who rely on the timber industry have preserved the environment by logging the area sensibly. Those people are now being told they no longer have the right to work. A large group of people have come into the Dorrigo area and other areas to stir up trouble and promote lawlessness with regard to environmental issues. About a week ago the Sunday Telegraph confirmed that the majority of these people are on the dole and expect the Government to pay them to wander round the countryside and take employment opportunities from people who want to work and earn an income, people who are concerned about the economy of this country. This legislation puts flora and fauna well and truly above man. As I stated in this House earlier this week, in God's order man is superior. Man has a responsibility to the rest of nature. Man must look after the environment and make sure it is sustainable. At the same time man must live. The stage will soon be reached where, because of this legislation, farmers will not be able to farm. In the Dorrigo area, the Bellinger Valley, and right across my electorate people are telling my constituents that rufous scrub birds are endangered. Yet these people admit that rufous scrub birds are not sighted in the areas whose habitat they seek to protect. That is hypocrisy. They use the word "habitat" instead of "habitation" in regard to fauna.
The modification of the habitat of fauna is referred to in the objects and clauses of the bill. These people do not have to prove the presence of fauna; they merely have to claim a particular area is a likely habitat. The Bonville South development was stopped by a group who sent a report to the former Minister for Planning, the Hon. David Hay, about a koala colony. To the people of Sydney that report seemed to be pertinent to the development. The truth was that that koala colony was seven kilometres away. The greenies - the hairy armpit brigade, as the honourable member for Oxley
Page 6659 aptly named them - identify species in a general area, and development in a specific area is then adversely affected. They tell lies. They claimed there was rare and endangered thesium on Look At Me Now Headland which was found nowhere else. In fact thesium is found on every headland around Coffs Harbour. These people misrepresent the truth. The bill provides for the formation of a scientific committee. The committee will comprise one person from the Australian Museum, one person nominated by the Ecological Society of Australia and one scientific officer from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I would not trust that mob as far as I could kick them. Ashley Love from the Grafton office has refused to answer telephone calls and correspondence from the Soil Conservation Service to enable that service to prepare a draft plan of management for Look At Me Now Headland.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service is not interested. It is green. It has no interest in economics. Officers of that service merely want to maintain their own bureaucracy, which is funded by the Government. Under this legislation the people who will run the farming and forest industries in this State are those who are not concerned about economics. No consideration is given to the farmers who are providing exports worth $6 billion to this State. This legislation will ensure that the rufous scrub bird and the brown snake will be given consideration before the farmer, before everyone else. The prices of our commodities will rise. A small minority of people will dictate to productive people of this State what they can and cannot do on the basis of habitat, not habitation. That scares the hell out of me and the people in my electorate. It is unacceptable to us.
The same group of people who protest about Chaelundi cut down saplings to make tripods. Is that protection of the environment? They had bush latrines when they were camped up in that area. The rubbish they left there when they decided to vacate the site was a filthy stinking mess. Is that protection of the environment? Those sorts of practices affect the habitat, but it is all right for the greenies to engage in them. They protested outside my office. When they departed, what was left on the street? They left plastic bags and pieces of white cardboard - not recycled cardboard. They had no regard for the environment and yet they pushed the Labor Party to come up with this legislation, which is totally unacceptable so far as I am concerned. The Government has looked after and will continue to look after endangered species. It will keep an eye on the environment and make sure New South Wales has ecologically and economically sustainable development. As I stated in the House earlier this week, economics must be considered. Taxes are paying for environmental protection. Without those taxes, there would be no chance of protecting the environment.
These people promote anarchy, as I have seen in my electorate only too often of late. They take the attitude that they will abide by any court's decision as long as it is in their favour. If it is not in their favour, they will appeal and contest the decision and promote anarchy within society. They say, "Until there is a decision that is favourable to us we will not let development proceed". They will not allow the people living near the northern beaches of New South Wales to have the basic right of sewerage. That is absolutely pathetic. That attitude is unacceptable. They are a very minor few who take a "not in my backyard" attitude. They traipse around the country interfering with industry and commerce. I wonder when this sort of legislation will reach the stage that I will not be allowed to mow my own lawn because there might be a rare cricket or worm in the lawn that might be hit by the blades and whose habitat I would be endangering.
Mr Beck: All the worms are over there.
Page 6660
Mr FRASER: Yes. The native trees planted at golf courses and other areas attract native life and give it a better chance of survival. Kangaroos are in greater numbers than ever because they are living off the crops of farmers. I do not hear anybody here saying, "Do not cull the kangaroos". It is getting to the stage at which we will be told what to do by a group of people who are unemployed and who have no intention of being employed. The only person allowed into Chaelundi when the protest was on was the postmaster taking in the dole cheques. This legislation is dangerous. It does not take into account economics and the right of people to work to provide money for the Government to deal with this matter in a sensible and balanced manner.
Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's time for speaking has expired.
[Debate interrupted]
CENTENNIAL PARK TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. 2)
Suspension of certain standing and sessional orders agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ENDANGERED FAUNA (INTERIM PROTECTION) BILL
Second Reading.
[Debate resumed]
Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [12.3]: I do not have a prepared speech but I will speak straight from the heart. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour went out of his way to attack the hairy armpit brigade, the unemployed, dole bludgers and so on who become involved in campaigns in defence of the environment. His comments were nothing short of bigotry. If the environment is under attack, I do not care whether I am involved in a campaign which is on side with the hairy armpit brigade, as he calls it, or with people whom I would sometimes describe as trendy North Shore people who like to adopt postures that attract attention to themselves. I have no hesitation in supporting this legislation. It was made necessary because of the knee- jerk reaction by the Minister for the Environment in bringing in an unworkable regulation to preserve the status quo that had existed for many years in New South Wales. The regulation was totally worthless and the House was pleased earlier today to disallow it. In many respects the bill is only interim legislation. The Government claims that it will introduce more detailed legislation by the end of March or some time in April. Provided the Government sticks to its word and brings in legislation which is acceptable to everybody and which gives everybody a fair go, I do not know why there is such paranoia today about the legislation. It is ideal short- term legislation. It compels the Minister and the director to issue a stop-work order against any activity likely to significantly affect the environment or any protected fauna. The objections of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs to this aspect of the bill were unjustified. The Minister and the director should have the power to step in when the habitat and welfare of any endangered species are seriously threatened.
The bill seeks to establish a three-member scientific committee charged with the function of reviewing schedule 11 and producing a revised interim schedule within one month. Some speakers have made the point that one month is an unrealistically short Page 6661 period but I point out that much of the preparatory work is already done. It is a matter of collating it. It is not unrealistic to expect that with good will that could be done in a month. The importance of the welfare of species in this State cannot be overstated. Legislation has been introduced to protect immigrants from racist attacks or inconvenience they might suffer because they are a little different. It is totally appropriate that we introduce legislation to protect the welfare of other species, other creatures that inhabit this planet. Previously it was considered our prerogative as human beings, the species with the power of reason, to treat any other species as we saw fit. As a previous speaker said, that has led to the extinction of many species that inhabited the planet, making the planet a poorer place on which to live. When I was younger I lived in Tasmania for some years. I have seen photographs of the thylacine, the marsupial wolf, the Tasmanian tiger or whatever anyone wants to call it. That creature existed until the beginning of my lifetime. A photograph shows a farmer proudly holding up the last one in the world. He was proudly exhibiting that he had just exterminated the last one of these creatures on the planet.
In my lifetime I have been horrified by the fact that the great elephant herds of the world have been decimated for no better reason than to decorate people's homes with ivory products. Some time ago while on holiday in Singapore I saw various shops whose shelves were stocked full with ivory products. This wanton slaughter of a species of animal that has been on earth for perhaps longer than we have smacks of nothing less than perversion. The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill may be flawed but it is not as flawed as the regulation that was introduced in a knee-jerk reaction by the Minister for the Environment. I do not know of any piece of legislation that has been passed by this House which has been absolutely perfect. In the time I have been a member of this House I cannot remember any piece of legislation that had the total agreement of all honourable members. Obviously some Government supporters are committed to the welfare of the timber industry, and for that I make no criticism of them, and will vote against the bill. With due respect to the timber industry and to the timber workers, the industry does not have a very savoury record when one considers the clear felling that has taken place and the damage to the environment, to fauna habitat and to endangered species that has occurred during the life of this nation.
About two-thirds of Australia's forests have been cleared. It is all very well to say that that practice no longer happens, that we are the good guys. It no longer happens because of the actions of the hairy armpit brigade, some of whose motives might not have been totally honourable, but who have been the pacesetters. I know many of them personally and I know that their motives are honourable and sincere. Because of the actions of these people, whether we like these methods or not, the rip, tear and destroy that we have witnessed in this continent in the past several hundred years has been stopped. There are pacesetters on both sides. There are some people who think that nothing should ever change, which is completely unrealistic. On the other hand, there are people who look for the quick quid. They would rip, tear and destroy and they are not committed to recognition of the fact that resources are finite. They are committed to the maximum profit they can make and how well they can live at the expense of some thing or some person. All things considered, and given the fact that the Government is committed to introducing new legislation next March or April, I support the bill.
Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [12.13]: It is with both pleasure and sadness that I speak to this legislation. It seems as though this has been a week of environmentalism. This bill is a good example of environmentalism gone mad. The honourable member for Blacktown, wearing her zebra socks, would realise that some people in Africa, because of the mere presence of the zebra and its effect on the economy in their country, have Page 6662 no option but to eat it from time to time. The mere presence of man has an impact on the environment. Debate on this bill is a mere extension of the environment protection authority legislation that was debated earlier. I, together with some Government supporters, expressed concern about the implications and particularly the interpretation of some of the clauses of that legislation. The EPA legislation has given birth to similar legislation, that being the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill, which is an extension of the EPA logic. It is dangerous and should be stopped within this House.
It is encouraging, though somewhat disappointing, to note that at last the National Party and some segments of the Liberal Party have contributed to this debate today but did not have the courage to do so in another debate on similar measures. I am pleased also that the Leader of the National Party has decided to come off the fence but I would ask where those members were earlier in the week. It is hypocritical of the Opposition to introduce this legislation. Today I heard the Leader of the Opposition, who is at present in the electorate of The Entrance, being interviewed on radio. He was talking about the jobs that he will create within The Entrance and other places within this State when he becomes Premier. He will be talking about the alleged cuts to hospitals. He will be talking about schools and all these motherhood issues we all believe in but he will not be talking about how he will pay for them. He will not be talking about economic considerations that must be taken into account before any of those things can be achieved.
I was also interested this morning to hear the honourable member for South Coast say that we must formulate legislation to end environmental confrontation and court challenges. However, for the life of me I cannot see how this legislation and the EPA legislation will do anything but encourage confrontation and court challenges. In fact the EPA legislation has written into it the ease of court access for third parties and the finance of any radical group on either side that chooses to challenge in the courts any economic development. The honourable member for South Coast is a man I admire for his stand on many issues. He represents one of the great forestry electorates of this State and I cannot understand how he can say that this bill will end confrontation. Once an economy fails - and members of the Labor Party should be made aware of this as their Federal leader has been instrumental in the failure of Australia's nation - through sheer necessity man will decimate his environment. As I said on a previous occasion, I spent some time in Africa where the people are driven by economic necessity to prey upon some of their natural fauna.
The Australian Labor Party's view on the economy and the environment is hypocritical. However, I am encouraged to some extent by the fact that in the next session of the Parliament I will introduce conservation-minded legislation. Given the scenarios of the past week or so, I am hopeful that the Opposition will support that legislation, which will deal with the western suburbs of Sydney and decentralisation and soil conservation practices. Recently, with regard to the Environment Protection Authority, the honourable member for Manly referred to polarisation within the economic-environment debate. This legislation is an extension of that polarisation. If we are not careful, it will extend into the political arena, so that instead of the traditional Labor versus capital demarcation it will be environmentalism versus economic development. Given the legislation that has passed through this House in the past week, the jobs theme being promoted at the moment by Bob Carr is a joke.
Where do the members of the Opposition and some Independents believe money comes from in this State? It should be brought to their attention that money does not grow on trees. It certainly will not grow on trees if the total lockout mentality prevails. Page 6663 The money that goes into our pay packets comes from agriculture, mining, forestry, manufacturing and small business. They are the basis of the economy, and they pay our wages. We must take a broader look at what is happening. I am disappointed that because of the numbers in this House the Labor Party is prepared to play politics with the economy of the State, particularly when our credit rating is under review. We should not be playing politics with something as important as the environment and the economy. The mechanisms that administer the bill will put a halt to any fast-tracking. It is obvious that members of the Opposition have not been talking to Michael Easson lately. He realises that jobs are necessary to maintain the economy. By definition, the maintenance of the economy will satisfy most environmental sensitivities. It is obvious also that most members of the Opposition have had little to do with the environment, other than the urban environment, the comforts of which have been supplied by the non-urban environment. It is disappointing that the Opposition has not recognised the links between the economy of this State and environmental issues.
Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [12.25]: I support the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. I do so having had the opportunity to read a recent publication entitled Australia's Endangered Species - The Extinction Dilemma by Michael Kennedy. Appendix 1 to the publication details page after page of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and marine fish that are threatened with extinction in Australia. Australia is one of the world's driest nations. It has a fragile environment. I believe that European settlement has neither acknowledged that fact nor tried to preserve the environment. I draw the attention of honourable members to a draft for public comment published some time ago by the Federal Minister for the Environment, entitled "An Australian National Strategy for the Conservation of Species and Habitats Threatened with Extinction". The foreword to that comment stated:
Since 1788, 18 species of Australian mammals have become extinct; this is half of all the mammal species that have become extinct worldwide in recent historical times - the worst record of any country in the world. Forty species of mammals and 28 bird species are classified as endangered.
That is a record that no one in this State should accept or be pleased about. This bill relates to and seeks to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Its basic aims are to provide interim protection for endangered species to provide coverage for all amphibians, and to protect the habitat of fauna that is likely to be adversely affected in its essential behavioural patterns. It will establish a three-member scientific committee to review unprotected, endangered, threatened, vulnerable and rare fauna and marine mammals, as referred to in schedule 2. The bill will require that fauna impact statements be prepared when any development or expansion is likely to have an impact on any environment or when fauna are in danger of extinction. The bill will remove the power to grant exemptions by regulation. I was disappointed by the short-sighted approach of members from the Government side of the House and the Independent member who has contributed to the debate.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Chappell): Order! Too many conversations are being conducted in the Chamber. Side discussion to determine the business of the House should be conducted quietly. Other conversations between members should be conducted outside the Chamber.
Mr SULLIVAN: Clearly a significant pollution problem exists for the Darling River. Though that is not relevant to this legislation, it is symptomatic of our attitude Page 6664 and approach to polluting the environment. A significant proportion of what was a productive economic activity is slowly being ruined because of short-sighted approaches adopted elsewhere that have not been appropriately vetted or assessed before being put into operation. The same problem is evident on the Illawarra coastline. The effects of heavy industry in the Illawarra have damaged the environment significantly. Measures are now being put in place to attempt to repair that damage - but only after it has been done. Reports have been published regularly, in February, March and July, about foreshore poaching of shellfish and other marine crustaceans which have virtually sterilised a large part of the Australian east coast. At this stage there is only silence about that problem. Presumably one day a government official will attempt to awaken those in authority to the problem but by then the damage will have been done. Poaching and other activities affect the coastline and impact on the commercial activities of the fishing industry in the Illawarra. A widespread attitude seems to be "Don't care until it is too late". Honourable members must reject that attitude in debate and support the proposed legislation.
The honourable member for Blacktown, in a speech on 5th December, highlighted the three principles on which she based the proposed legislation. Her first principle, she stated, is that it is irresponsible to create a window of opportunity for the destruction of endangered species. That is one of the factors motivating the interest groups now expressing interest in the proposed legislation. Those groups, though acknowledging that the Premier and the Government eventually will move on it, perceive an opportunity for a period of time to take actions purely for economic advantage, which will have long-term environmental impact. The honourable member for Blacktown further stated in her speech that her second principle is that bodies such as the Forestry Commission are often characterised by a one-eyed approach to timber-getting and should be separated from the decision to harm endangered species. It is inappropriate for any authority sitting as both judge and jury to make an adequate long-term assessment of the effects of particular economic activities. We cannot continue to ignore damage to the environment of the Darling River caused by heavy use of insecticides by the cotton industry. The third principle enunciated by the honourable member for Blacktown is that consultation with affected groups can lead to a balanced and informed decision. One of the premises of democracy, in theory, is that the more people who know what is going on, and the more information that is brought into consideration in the decision-making process, the better a decision will be.
Mr Schultz: Tell that to rent-a-crowd.
Mr SULLIVAN: I do not share the cynicism of the honourable member for Burrinjuck. The proposed legislation provides an interim basis on which we can start to move to protect the environment and avoid the situations that have occurred through ignorance or self-interest in this country during the past 200 years or more. I support the bill.
Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [12.35]: I oppose the bill and express grave concerns about the standards of representation the Australian Labor Party is giving to the working-class people of New South Wales. It is worth quoting George Loveless, a renowned British working-class revolutionary and author. In his book The Victims of Whiggery he says:
Labour is the poor man's property, from which all protection is withheld. Has not the working man as much right to preserve and protect his labour as the rich man has his capital?
Page 6665 It is an indictment on the Labor Party that Government members in this House today are defending the rights of the working-class people of New South Wales and Australia against a continued onslaught from the green movement, which seems intent on destroying everything that is productive in this country. The environment movement unquestionably has controlled the Labor Party. The bill, if passed, will cost jobs. One only has to consider the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr, in his recent announcement with regard to the Jobs First strategy. I quote briefly from an urgent fax message which was sent by the Coalition for Economic Advancement to the Leader of the Opposition on 11th December this year:
The Coalition for Economic Advancement was heartened by the theme of your speech to the ALP conference on December 8, 1991 about creating the climate for job creation and investment. Therefore we find it impossible to reconcile your ‘jobs first strategy'.
Your proposed actions leave us with a clear message that, according to Labor, ‘jobs first' is a cruel joke perpetrated in the clear knowledge that the political debt to the extreme of the environmental movement is greater than your crocodile tears for the unemployed.
How true it is. Whatever happened to the great Labor dream of full employment? I shall give another quote that honourable members may attempt to identify:
We have a great objective - the light on the hill - which we aim to reach by working for the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. If it were not for that, the Labor movement would not be worth fighting for.
Who spoke those words? The Minister for Conservation and Land Management knows because he is an historian. None other than Ben Chifley spoke those words - he would be writhing in his grave if he knew that the bill proposed to deny the working-class people of New South Wales the opportunity to work. The Labor Party is the self-professed guru of working- class representation but it has done a deal with the greenies. The Labor Party should be warned about doing deals with the greenies because they have been known to move the goal- posts. I quote from another well-known person:
My experience of gentlemen's agreements is that, when it comes to the pinch, there are rarely enough bloody gentlemen about.
Who spoke those words? The same person, Ben Chifley. He was aware of the dangers of dealing with such groups because he was a great representative of the working-class people of Australia. I stand in this place representing them because no member on the Opposition benches has the guts to do it. I went through part of the parliamentary records to find out who of the Opposition members were representative of the working-class. I could find only five Opposition members who had ever got their hands dirty in their life. The rest of them are teachers, academics, lawyers and so on, and certainly do not represent the working-class people of Australia. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Kiama, who in his address acknowledged that people - humans - work in forestry industries and we should be concerned about them. The honourable member is a former waterside worker - not that he would know much about work from that experience - but at least he has had something to do with the workers of Australia. The Australian Labor Party is well and truly in the hands of the green movement. For about 20 years primary producers, foresters and miners in the southeastern area of New South Wales have all been subjected to the subversive treatment of unrealistic attacks on their existence by the green movement, which has used lies, distortions of the facts, and actual physical threats to undermine the existence of forest workers and those engaged in the mining industry and primary production in southern New South Wales.
I warn the shadow minister, who apparently cannot stand the pain of my remarks Page 6666 and has left the Chamber, that the working-class people of New South Wales, particularly forest industry workers, are a resilient bunch and they will not give up. I shall give another quote to the people who claim to represent the working-class people of Australia. This quote refers to the resilience of working-class people in Australia. This person says: "It's just a matter of sticking. If we stick, the truth will out in time". Who said those words? None other than Ben Chifley, the great guru of the working-class people of Australia. Members opposite have deserted him and the working-class people of Australia. Make no mistake about it, they will fight back. It is little wonder that the Australian people have become somewhat cynical of politicians when there are people like those on the Opposition benches claiming to be representatives of the working-class people. However, they are not representing them. There is no question that this bill is a sell-out of the Australian work force. If Opposition members are worried about the extinction of species, I suggest that they start to worry about the Australian worker. Already the Federal Labor Government has created a 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent, whatever the percentage is, unemployment list.
I will give another quote about unemployment. It relates to the parliamentary process and the representation of the Australian worker in this place. It is a quote from the same well- known person, Ben Chifley. This is what he said about the parliamentary process and representation at that time: "Logic will be buggered - it's pure bloody politics, that's what it is". That is what we are talking about. Members on the Opposition benches will rue the day they continued to pursue the green legislation before this House. They are stripping the people of New South Wales of their representation and denying them the opportunity to be heard in this Parliament. Members opposite should be condemned for that. I believe that the Australian worker will eventually rise against the Labor Party, as it exists in this country, and its members will deserve the flogging they will get. I believe that within the next 12 to 18 months when the policies of Keating as Prime Minister are revealed - and people realise he is about as representative of the working-class as are the Opposition members of this Parliament - the voters will reject him. Not only will they reject him, but they will reject the Labor Party. We will see a new movement which will represent the working-class people of New South Wales.
Mr J. H. Murray: What will happen to you?
Mr COCHRAN: I will tell you what will happen to you. You will end up out on the street.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Chappell): Order! Remarks will be directed through the Chair, not directly across the table of the Chamber.
Mr COCHRAN: It is difficult for one to control one's emotions, having come from a background where I have had to get my hands dirty and earn a quid. I am speaking on behalf of the working-class because Opposition members are not capable of reacting to the demands and wishes of the working-class. In the not too distant future the words of Ben Chifley will ring clear in the ears of the working-class - as will the words of George Loveless, whom I quoted earlier. I will again quote the words of George Loveless for members opposite. They relate to what this bill is all about. It is about denying the right of people to work:
Labor is the poor man's property, from which all protection is withheld. Has not the working man as much right to preserve and protect his labour as the rich man has his capital?
Page 6667 Do not ever forget that, because the workers in the timber industry in the southeast forests are hoping that sooner or later members opposite will find enough guts to stand up and defend them and their right to work.
Mr SCHULTZ (Burrinjuck) [12.45]: Not surprisingly, I rise to oppose the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. My reasons for doing so are similar to those of my parliamentary colleagues. We on this side of the House foreshadowed that this sort of legislation would come forward when we opposed the Environmental Protection Authority legislation recently before this House. The whole thrust of the legislation before this House today is centred around the ideological direction of the green movement. It amazes me that we are debating endangered species legislation which will create enormous problems, as my parliamentary colleague the member for Monaro has quite rightly pointed out, for the average working person in this State. More importantly, the bill does not address the real problem that is created in this State so far as endangered species are concerned. Today not one member of this House, particularly from the Opposition side, has mentioned that problem. The problem relates not so much to the endangered species, or timber getting, or the industries working in New South Wales forests, but to introduced species - not the introduced species that these people are trying to destroy, that is, the human species - foxes, feral cats and pigs.
In the past 12 to 18 months there has been an enormous explosion in the number of foxes in this State. Foxes are doing more damage to native fauna than is any industry in this State. More birds in this State are killed by foxes than by industry or any other means. Foxes are known as an efficient killing machine so far as birds are concerned. Foxes are not only dramatically impacting on mammals and amphibians. As an example, there was an endangered species released in the southwestern end of the Cataract dam catchment. It was a species called the palma wallaby. It was introduced by a very concerned person who went to a lot of trouble to breed that species of wallaby. He released the wallaby into that area and within one week of it being released, it was wiped out. What wiped it out? It was not humans, it was not the timber industry, but the fox. I sometimes wonder where politicians in this country are going when in the middle of an enormous recession, which is impacting on the jobs of all people in New South Wales, we are debating legislation that will restrict further the jobs to which these people are entitled. In my electorate there is an enormous downturn in the timber industry because of the recessionary action of the whiz kid who made the comment about the recession that we had to have and who will be the future leader of the Australian Labor Party and Prime Minister of this country - God forbid - in the next two weeks.
The whole thrust of what we are talking about today, as I said, has been driven by the irresponsible element of the green movement. They have brainwashed elements of the Labor Party on the Opposition side of the House. This movement is ably assisted by what I and many other people call the rent-a-crowd ferals, who are interested in using violent methods to put the so-called environmental message across to people. My son and daughter-in-law were subjected in the past fortnight to these sorts of people in the AIDEX demonstration at Canberra. They are the type of people that members opposite are supporting. They are the type of people who climb trees and use terrorist type tactics to harm and maim people trying to do their lawful duty. A statement that is made from time to time - I have reservations about it, and wonder whether it is true; it has been made by people on the Opposition's side of politics - is that many in the Labor Party in New South Wales are still living in the 1950s. For goodness sake, move with the times. Look at what is happening right across this State and country today, as distinct from what was happening 10 years ago, with regard to the protection of the environment.
Page 6668
The Government should not have to legislate for people to protect the environment. In the past decade people in rural areas have woken up to the fact that they have done damage to the environment. They are addressing the problems that forest and open country species face, soil acidity, salinity and land degradation. They are planting more trees and encouraging the wildlife to return. I could take honourable members to countless properties in the Burrinjuck electorate where people, out of their own pocket, have bought thousands of trees to plant because they recognise that our forefathers in their ignorance ruined the land from which they made their living. But the sustainable yield the farmers are capable of achieving in an environment in which they can protect endangered species should not be downgraded. People should concentrate on the real issues. As I said earlier, something should be done. Why does the Opposition not introduce some legislation or start a movement to attack the problems created by the species introduced to this country which are creating more problems with the native fauna than any problem the timber industry or any other industry is creating in this State?
The ideology of the Australian Labor Party does not allow it to agree with what is happening because a conservative Government is trying to run the State in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. The Australian Labor Party is intent on bringing the State to its knees economically. That is its general thrust. Opposition members wonder why people cynically say: "Why would we want to vote for the Australian Labor Party? It can't even manage its own resources". Look at what the Australian Labor Party did to its financial resources in the past 12 months. Yet here it is introducing a piece of legislation that will, as the honourable member for Monaro said, stop hard-working men and women in rural communities earning a living. The Minister said that 59 towns in New South Wales dependent on the timber industry will be affected. I am proud to say, as did the honourable member for Monaro, that I come from a working-class background. It is abhorrent that Labor Party members are following the stupid, ideological directions of people in the environment green movement who have so brainwashed and saturated their minds that they have lost all rational thought about the legislation. It can only be described as Coronation Hill revisited.
Many people in the timber industry in the electorate of Burrinjuck have told me there will be such an enormous outcry and backlash against the Australian Labor Party that it will affect its vote. That was indicated at the elections on 25th May this year when I was given votes in towns where the conservatives had never got votes before. Unlike those who represented these people in the past 12 years, they know that members of the coalition parties are fair dinkum about the problems affecting their lives. Opposition members should think about that. They are a disgrace to the working man. Many Opposition members would not know what it was like to do hard work with their hands or to bend their backs. They have put themselves in the same category as many politicians of all political persuasions in the past: they are thinking only of how long they can stay in the system and how much money they can get out of it. They have forgotten about the people of New South Wales.
Mr SMITH (Bega) [12.55]: I oppose the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. Members of the Opposition have been hoodwinked. I have spoken to members of the Opposition and I am sure that the majority of them do not agree with the philosophy put forward by the Labor Party today. It is about time those people had their say in the party room. What they are doing will be to the long-term detriment of New South Wales and Australia. The Labor Party in New South Wales has gone off the tracks. Members have quoted real Labor people in this debate who protected the workers of this State. This issue has become a political game for the Labor Party. It thinks it will win the next election if it continues to represent the green movement. In 1988 the green movement Page 6669 was on the crest of a wave, but the wave has disintegrated. The Australian Labor Party has been left floundering. The people who formed the party - the blue-collar workers - are leaving it in droves. For 25 years prior to being elected in 1988 I lived in a timber town called Bombala in the southeast forest on the Victorian border. It was a nice town full of hard-working people. Nowhere would people have worked harder than the people of Bombala who are engaged in forestry and agricultural pursuits. Bombala was always a Labor town. The people voted Labor at every election, State or Federal. Bombala, Eden, Nimmitabel and other South Coast towns now vote conservative. They have sent a message to the Australian Labor Party, but it is not getting through. The Australian Labor Party has left its roots, as the blue-collar workers are finding out.
This bill is a fraud. It is a grab for more political points, which the Opposition thinks will win it a few more votes and increase its membership in this House. I was disappointed that the regulation was disallowed. One of the reasons given was that it was rushed. It is incredible that this bill should come before the House with such little thought given to its consequences and amazing that the regulation was rejected on the grounds that it was not thought out. The legislation is only an interim measure, as the Leader of the Opposition said. By the time any of the provisions are implemented, the interim period will have expired. There will be so many problems with development applications that the Forestry Commission and probably a lot of agricultural plans and development will be affected. A fast-track system has been devised to overcome any immediate problems. The three-man committee that will look at proposed section 11 has been given 28 days to work out how it will implement the provisions of the bill, and how it will make a practical assessment of endangered species. A period of 28 days is unbelievably impractical. I assume the committee will receive representations and look at forestry, agriculture and mining. I do not know how it will do all that in 28 days.
For many years I have been involved with the southeast forests. More studies have been done of that area than any other area of New South Wales. Those studies take years, not days. The Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will then decide whether the classification of a particular species should be fast-tracked. He will have to decide whether to take the risk and decide that particular species are endangered and whether they are present in particular forests. He will not have the information in front of him to make that decision and the committee will not be able to give it to him. Environmental impact studies are not carried out in relation to many areas. Do environmental impact studies take into account the necessary detail of the fauna? Is a fauna impact statement necessary? Fast-tracking is unworkable. The real thrust of the legislation is the provision for fauna impact studies. Such studies will create more red tape that industry - forestry, agriculture, development or mining - will have to cope with. Who will use that provision? The conservation groups will use it to fight industry in the Land and Environment Court and every other court.
The major objective of the conservation groups is to stop the operation of forestry industries. They claim they have no objection to forestry industries; they merely want them run properly. I have seen evidence of their objective in the southeast forests time after time. As the honourable member for Monaro said a few moments ago, the goal-posts are constantly being moved. Each time one problem is overcome, another is presented. I emphasise to Opposition members that the economy should be taken into account in these matters. Conservation is an important issue but it should be dealt with in the context of the economy. At present Australia has a 10 per cent unemployment rate. Every tenth person one walks past in the street is likely to be unemployed. Probably 20 per cent to 30 per cent of our young people are unemployed. In the coastal areas where much of the forestry work is done, the percentage would probably be much Page 6670 higher. We cannot continue to eliminate industries to preserve the environment. The economy should be as important as the environment of this country, in which we are all entitled to live. The environment and the economy must be balanced. The environment cannot take precedence over everything else. Recently the Leader of the Opposition told the State Labor conference that the aim of the Opposition was jobs, job, jobs. One way he could create more jobs would be to eliminate red tape from the development processes of this State. An alleyway must be cut through the red tape to allow industry to continue to operate in this State.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! The honourable member's time for speaking has expired.
Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [1.5]: I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House on the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. I do so within the general framework of my strong and passionate support for the need for comprehensive endangered species legislation in this State and, indeed, complementary legislation across Australia, which will apply to both habitat and species on private and Crown land. As an environmentalist and as the chairman of the Government's environment committee I have adopted that attitude, as have many other members of the House, not merely for consistency but openly both inside and outside of party and parliamentary forums. I strongly support the need for endangered species legislation. It honours a commitment that was made by the Premier of New South Wales in 1988 because of the need to preserve the biodiversity of the flora and fauna of this State and this country for the present generations and future generations. A significant and comprehensive level of protection for the natural heritage of our State was needed to prevent the further disinheritance of future generations of an environment we have long enjoyed and all too often abused.
I support the concept of endangered species legislation, particularly because of our treatment of the environment since European settlement, which calls many past and present decisions into question. Since European settlement, approximately 119 plant and animal species have become extinct in Australia. That fact has given Australia the unenviable reputation of having one of the highest documented rates of species extinction of any country or continent in the world. Three-quarters of Australia's rainforests have been destroyed. Many small but significant woodlands have been damaged. Necessary and appropriate levels of agricultural development have occurred in New South Wales and Australia. Mining operations have formed a necessary part of the economic growth on which we rely. The impact of those matters on endangered species has been significant. Since European settlement, 18 mammal, three bird and one reptile species have become extinct nationally. It is absolutely critical that the Parliament takes advantage of the opportunity to develop comprehensive legislation which will protect for future generations our birds, our mammals, our wildlife and our flora and fauna in a way that will correct the mistakes of the past.
For that reason, and as an environmentalist, I support strongly and passionately the need to provide comprehensive legislation. Such legislation is long overdue. In that regard I differ from my colleagues on this side of the House who have so far spoken to the bill. For the interest of honourable members, I particularly want to list seven species that would be protected by comprehensive legislation. The powerful owl, the Hastings River mouse, the eastern pigmy possum, the dome headed bat, the yellow footed rock wallaby, the Mallee fowl and the superb parrot are among the wide range of species currently threatened in this State. A total of 386 vertebrate and 294 invertebrate species are threatened. Ninety-seven vascular species have already become extinct and a further Page 6671 3,300 - 17 per cent of the known total of 20,000 - are either rare or threatened. A complete vascular plant inventory is still not in place in Australia. It is estimated that 22,000 non-vascular plants are yet to be described. The situation continues to be critical. Of our plants 518 are either rare or threatened and 14 are already extinct.
The problem cries out for attention. I am delighted today that in the final analysis, given the outcome of negotiations between both sides of this Chamber - and of course forestry and environmental groups - I will be able to support legislation, once amended, that will finally address an important need that was neglected by previous Liberal and Labor governments, when it demanded attention far more urgently. I draw attention particularly to community concern about this matter. As honourable members may be aware, the Premier asked me and the Government's environment committee to undertake a public inquiry into the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974, submissions for which closed on 29th November. It is worth stating that of the many hundreds of submissions that our committee has received, almost all seek the opportunity to strengthen the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Many of them raise the very vexed question that faces the Parliament today: the need to strengthen the inadequate provisions within the current Act that relate to the protection of endangered species and that have precipitated the difficult situation in which we find ourselves today following the Chaelundi decision in the case of Corkhill v. Forestry Commission and the regulation which was introduced on, I think, 2nd October in order to circumvent the decision by Mr Justice Stein.
It has become clear to me as chairman of that public inquiry that the community wants endangered species legislation, and it wants the National Parks and Wildlife Act significantly strengthened. I support that community concern. In conclusion, I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Conservation and Land Management. The honourable member for Gosford, who is in the Chamber, is a member of my committee, as is the honourable member for the Entrance, who will return next year to see the legislation in place. The honourable member for Wakehurst is also a member of the committee. We met with the Premier to strongly support the serious consideration of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill, on which we had had various negotiations and discussions. I place on the record my appreciation of a number of key environmentalists, some of whom are in the gallery today, who participated in developing landmark legislation for which the community will be very grateful.
The honourable member for Wakehurst and I, representing the committee, met with John Corkhill from the North East Forest Alliance; Sue Salmon from the Australian Conservation Foundation; Peter Wright, the liaison officer of the conservation group; Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre; and Ron Knight, the New South Wales forest campaign co- ordinator, who is a member of the Wilderness Society, as I am. We discussed those important issues and we took them directly to the Premier. I was delighted shortly after, on 17th October, to issue a press release which indicated that the Government remained committed to the introduction of endangered species legislation and the establishment of a natural resources management council. I reiterated that the Premier, the Minister for the Environment and I remained committed to the development of endangered species legislation, looking forward to bipartisan support from the Opposition in that regard. In the fullness of time as events unfold, that commitment will be brought to fruition with the amendment of the legislation. Like my Government colleagues, I have reservations about the bill as presented. After the bill is amended we shall support the third reading of it. I congratulate everyone who has been involved in a very tortuous process in developing this landmark legislation for which future Page 6672 generations of Australians will be very grateful, even if some of our colleagues in this House are not.
Mr RIXON (Lismore) [1.14]: I wish to express my grave concerns about the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. I have been disgusted with the obvious lying and confrontationist way in which radical greenies over the years have put their case in the debate about responsible management practices in primary and secondary industries. We have seen a continuation of this lying approach in the second sentence of the second reading speech of the Labor member for Blacktown. She spoke of consultation with the timber industry. I have contacted every major timber group in New South Wales. None of them - zero - have had proper consultation with the honourable member for Blacktown. Unless the timber groups can be named, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that in the best traditions established by the leader of the Australian Labor Party the honourable member for Blacktown is playing with the truth - in plain language, lying. The first two sentences of the second reading speech are in the style of the radical greenie, who cannot put two sentences together without twisting the truth.
The interests of the honest, hard-working timber workers have not been properly considered. The Labor Party continues to desert the real workers. This leads me to my second concern; that is, that even in the hands of the sensible, responsible conservationists this bill will be dangerous and a hindrance to responsible environmental management; but in the hands of the radical, extreme greenies it could have disastrous results. For example, in the hands of the extremists the objects of clause 2(g) and (h) could have results never intended or expected by any responsible conservationist reading the bill. I have seen the exaggerated behaviour, the lying and dishonesty of these extremists too often to believe that these same people would not try to do the same things again. The disrespect these people have for the truth, law and order and good management was clearly seen at the Chaelundi State Forest. An environmental impact statement of more than 300 pages and a report of more than 100 pages were prepared on proposed harvesting operations in compartments 180, 198 and 200 of Chaelundi State Forest. These reports were not challenged by the radicals because they did not have a leg to stand on. The reports clearly showed that a well-managed harvesting operation, specially planned for the area, could be carried out, protecting for eternity the forest environment and the fauna.
The reports supported what surveys and history have taught us. Let me clearly state: no bird or animal has been made extinct because of properly managed forest activities. Not ever. No species has even become endangered. Let me also state that along the east coast forest country are to be found high population densities of fauna bearing no relationship to the past tree-harvesting activities in the forests in which they live. The Bungabbee State Forest, which was logged in the past under less enlightened programs and more recently under more sound management practices, has high populations of species similar to those which were noted at Chaelundi - the owls, the gliders, the mice. They are all there along the eastern fall country in the forestry areas. Despite the environmental impact statement the radical greenies were not satisfied. They illegally dug up the roads, cut down the trees and behaved with complete disregard for acceptable law and order at Chaelundi. Next they sought extreme and unintended uses of a legal technicality in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. They took court action when they felt they could use the heritage law provisions to further their narrow, radical action. They wanted to force the Minister to follow their narrow agenda. These extremists are in the community still. Some of these parasites, who have never produced anything useful in their lives, have been in the gallery today. They will try to use this bill in extreme ways whenever it serves their narrow, selfish purposes, and they will try Page 6673 to force the Minister to follow their narrow thinking. Paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 2 and proposed new section 92E could well be used for this attempted abuse and thuggery. Proposed new section 92E reads:
If the Minister or the Director is of the opinion that any action is likely to significantly affect the environment of any protected fauna, and such action is being or is about to be carried out, the Minister or Director may order that any such action is to cease and that no action, other than such action as may be specified in that order, is to be carried out with respect to the environment within a period of 40 days after the date of that order.
That section taken in a narrow sense could be used to disrupt general agricultural and harvesting operations with disastrous effect. The radicals can be expected to try to force its use in its narrowest, extreme interpretation. Let me illustrate the point by referring to a family of common blue wrens, which made their nest in some shrubs not 25 metres from this Chamber - in the rooftop garden. In the spring of 1990 they built their nest in the shrub directly beneath my office window. Their total territory comprised the rooftop garden. Some of the crazy radicals could have argued that the environment of that protected fauna - and in the bill fauna is defined as any bird - was the rooftop garden. They could argue that no gardening activity should take place as it would significantly affect the environment of that bird family and they would try to force the Minister to issue a stop-work order. That is an illustration of how extremists could interpret the legislation to suit their own twisted means. Such action would appear crazy to any normal, responsible conservationist, but the Chaelundi issue has proved that these extreme radicals are not normal conservationists. If they have access to the provisions of this bill, what chance will normal, sensible farming and forestry management practices have?
The radicals will do everything possible to disrupt normal, sensible procedures. This bill will encourage those extremists in their activities. It does not recognise that the social and economic efforts of human endeavour must be balanced with measures to protect fauna and flora. It places unnecessary economic and regulatory hardship, borders and controls on agriculture and industry. It gives the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Minister for the Environment unnecessary powers of veto over many proposals. Already these crazy greenies are rubbing their hands together with glee over this legislation. They have already begun to tell lies about the Dome Mountain area on the North Coast. These radicals are unconcerned that during periods of drought pine tree plantations on the North Coast do not stand up to the climate in the same way as native trees do. Large numbers of trees in those plantations will die because of drought conditions. Therefore, no forestry plantations to replace naturally grown forests will ever satisfy the needs of the country. For all of those reasons, I definitely do not support this crazy bill.
Mr SMALL (Murray) [1.24]: I strongly oppose the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. I wonder what is the endangered species, whether it is flora and fauna or mankind. Members of Parliament, whether they are Government supporters, Opposition members or Independents, have a responsibility to ensure that this State has a sound, positive and viable economy. In my early schooldays I was never taught anything about the environment. I am pleased to say that children today are being educated on environmental issues. Everyone is conscious of the environment. As a farmer I am extremely conscious of the environment. In my electorate almost 50 per cent of voters earn their living from either rural or timber industries. My electorate has the largest redgum forests in the world - the Millewa State Forest and the Lowbidgee State Forest. Those forests are living proof of sensible management practices. Any changes within the ecosystems of rivers through the construction of water storage and irrigation facilities have been corrected so that the redgums are flooded regularly, as happened prior Page 6674 to any damming of the waters. Past governments and the present Government have shown responsibility in this area.
The dams and bore holes that have been constructed on properties in the Western Division have attracted plague proportions of kangaroos, rabbits and other native wildlife. In times of drought those animals would not have been able to exist without that water. I disagree with the statement that we are destroying the environment. The redgum forests in my electorate exist today through multiskilled management. In the past 70 years the management of the industry has improved enormously. The forests today are in a better state than they were in 70 years ago. That does not mean to say that there has not been mismanagement in the past. However, the forests' sustainable product is a direct result of effective management of the industry. The redgum forest in Victoria was closed down some years ago. Some of the sleepers that V/Line require are supplied by the redgum timber industry in New South Wales. Unfortunately, there is a limit to what the forests can sustain. The Forestry Commission, the sleeper cutters and the sawmillers have agreed that the forests cannot sustain the rate of cut that has occurred in the past, so they are returning to a cut that they know is totally sustainable. Forests have a 40-year cycle where selective timber cutting can occur. The work force of Mathoura, a small country town, would be the endangered species if this legislation were to succeed.
I wish to address the issue of farming. The measures in this legislation could be the forerunner to an environmental impact statement being required for farming enterprises. For instance, farmers may be required to obtain an environmental impact statement to plough their lands prior to planting crops if wombat holes are present. This is a very serious matter. It is most important for Government supporters, members of the Opposition and the Independents to work together and come up with a beneficial result for the people of New South Wales. I am referring to those families who are facing so much hardship today. Because of the present drought conditions, the rural downturn and the demise of small business, many people in this State are going bankrupt. If their areas of production are taken away, they will lose their livelihood. How far should one go to protect endangered species? The eastern part of this State has few kangaroos, wallabies and rabbits, but in the western part of the State they are there in their thousands. It is suggested that in the past three years the kangaroo population of New South Wales has grown to almost nine million. How are we to classify an endangered species? Do we protect areas where there are only a small number of animals? Farmers, foresters and people in various industries are supportive of protecting the environment but how do we protect an endangered species in transport or irrigation areas? It could well be argued that water rats are an endangered species. Would we have to protect water rats who cause damage and erosion by burrowing into irrigation channels? How far do we go? I believe that we should protect our animals and our birds, but there is a limit to what we can do. We must work together constructively.
If these forest industries are closed down, many small towns will not survive. They will not have adequate resources to maintain their services. Huge amounts of taxpayers' money are invested in these industries. I referred earlier to the Millewa forest. If that area is closed to tourism, recreational activities and timber industries will be affected. People will not be able to access or utilise rivers in that area. The Water Resources Commission and the National Parks and Wildlife Service are doing everything they can to maintain water levels of rivers and the habitat for the ibis. These birds are breeding successfully in my electorate. However, they do cause some damage to rice crops. Because of a large number of earthworms which come to the surface of the rice fields the birds come in their thousands and destroy a lot of the crop. My electorate contains a large variety of birds and animals. I am honoured that I am able to look after people who need to be protected from this sort of legislation. I oppose the bill in its Page 6675 present form. The court decision on the Chaelundi forest has had an effect on the people in my electorate. They are scared that they will lose their jobs. I am pleased that the regulation implemented by this Government has overruled that court decision. I hope that this legislation can be amended so that the jobs of people in that area are maintained.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [1.34], in reply: Because of arrangements that were made last night and this morning I intend to speak only briefly in reply. A number of interesting issues were referred to in debate. We heard about the working-class credentials of people on the Labor side of politics; we heard a lot about the Labor Party's antipathy towards workers and farmers; we heard the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the National Party; and we heard also about the Federal Government. We heard about a number of issues which I believe to be extraneous to this debate. We actually heard very little about the bill from a large number of Government speakers. It is obvious, and disappointing, that most members of the National Party who participated in the debate have not read the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill. However, I congratulate honourable members on my side of politics who participated in the debate. I note the contribution of the honourable member for Ermington who made a courageous contribution in light of the deluge of National Party speakers. Almost every National Party member of Parliament who was available decided to participate in this debate.
I do not believe that the National Party, farmers and timber workers have anything to fear from this bill. This bill has brought together a set of measures that will protect endangered fauna within this State and protect the livelihoods of people working in various industries who could be affected when this bill is implemented. For example, it might be necessary for stop- work orders to be issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, or it might be necessary to implement other parts of the bill. Sawmills will not be closed as a result of the implementation of this bill. If the livelihood of a sawmill is in danger of being affected because of the discovery of an endangered species, there is provision in this bill to protect such a sawmill. There will be sufficient fall-back provisions in this bill so the economy of rural New South Wales will not suffer. We heard also from a number of speakers about creatures that might upset the whole economy of rural New South Wales if unscrupulous greenies decide to exploit their existence in some areas. Not one member of the National Party who spoke in this debate seemed to be aware of the fact that the bill will establish a scientific committee to review the schedule of endangered fauna in New South Wales. It will remove from the list some fauna that should not be there, and this could be used as the basis of a future mischievous case against the Government.
Those who spoke with such venom against the bill should read it. This afternoon, in the Committee stage, they will have an opportunity to absorb a little more. I wish to reaffirm the arrangements that have been made about the passage of this legislation. I am disappointed that the Government has not seen fit to support the bill, even at the second reading stage. Over the past three years the Minister for the Environment and the Premier have made a number of comments indicating this Government's support for endangered species. We have had a lot of talk but very little action. Today should have provided an opportunity for the Government, even at the second reading stage, to back up its pious statements over the past few years that it supports this type of legislation. The Government does not support this type of legislation. That will be evident when members of the Government vote at the second reading stage. The only comfort that we as an Opposition can take is that the Government has been willing to negotiate with the Opposition and the Independents. We have negotiated over the past 48 hours and we have reached the stage where the Page 6676 Chaelundi regulation has been disallowed. We have proceeded with the second reading debate on this bill which eventually will be passed through this House and the Legislative Council.
We have entered into those arrangements because of negotiations that took place between the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Conservation and Land Management and the Opposition. It does not matter how many triple-star performances we witness from Government members, in particular members of the National Party; they cannot escape from the fact that their masters have already done the deal on this bill. This bill will pass through this House. Debate on this bill has been a bit like the debate on the Chaelundi forest. We will read a lot about it in the local papers, but it is quite meaningless. Once this bill is passed by this House we will have a successful package of proposals which will put in place, at least for a temporary period, necessary measures that need to be taken to protect endangered fauna in this State. I, like other speakers who have contributed to the debate today, pay tribute to the environment movement for the good work it has done to ensure that this bill was put in the proper form to be debated by this Parliament. I commend the bill.
Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.
Division called for.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! Pursuant to an earlier resolution of the House I set the holding of the division for 2.5 p.m.
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
Report noted.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Seasonal Felicitations
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [1.40]: I move:
That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday, 19th February, 1992:
Notwithstanding the above or anything contained in the Standing or Sessional orders -
(1) That the Speaker, on receipt of written requests by an absolute majority of the Members of the House that the House meet at an earlier time, shall fix by communication addressed to each Member of the House, a day and hour of meeting within 10 days of the receipt of such requests.
(2) That for the purposes of this resolution, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition be deemed to have written on behalf of all their Members.
(3) That the request to summon the House be made directly to the Speaker.
(4) That in the event of the absence of the Speaker, the Clerk shall notify the Chairman of Committees, who will summon the House on behalf of the Speaker, in accordance with this resolution.
Page 6677 I shall deal first with the technical matters in the resolution. The intention of the Government is for Her Majesty the Queen to open the Parliament on Thursday, 20th February, next year. It is expected that in the near future the Government will be able to advise members of the sitting pattern for the first half of next year. The second matter is that subsequent upon a proposal put to the Government by the Independent members and the Opposition, the motion permits the recall of the House in a fashion provided in the standing orders and procedures of the Legislative Council. The permission will be to enable this House to be recalled when it stands adjourned but not prorogued. That is the purpose of the provisory paragraphs of the motion. They are the technicalities of the motion.
This is the first occasion on which it has been my pleasure as the Leader of the House to move the traditional Christmas felicitations on behalf of honourable members and speak to it on behalf of the Premier. The session we will conclude this afternoon has been in many respects an unusual and historic period of change brought about by circumstances and numbers that the Government certainly had no desire to have arisen. However, they arose and in the result the Parliament will, in the view of the Government and certainly in the view of the non-aligned Independent members, prove to be a better parliamentary institution. As I have said on a number of occasions - almost to the stage of now delivering to the Chamber what my friend and colleague the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives would describe as a turgid diatribe - the true beneficiaries of the procedural changes will be members elected two or three elections hence. It is fair to say, and I think it is a credit to those of us who have run the business of the House, including my friend the honourable member for Ashfield, a fellow member of the class of '76, that the Parliament has been in good humour for the past two sitting weeks, without acrimony between members or between parties - I am unable to comment on whether that has occurred within parties - and with none of the brawls that were had regularly in previous years.
The Parliament has functioned well and I intend to continue the process, while ever I perform my present function as Leader of the House, having the Parliament sit civilised hours. We have not had to suffer the excesses of sitting late in the evening and indeed very early in the morning, as some of my predecessors from all parties inflicted upon us. For that reason it is pleasing to say that all the measures that the Government believed it could get through the Parliament with reasonable debate have been dealt with. On this side of the House we are pleased to say that we have demonstrated that we can deliver not only stable but viable Government to the State of New South Wales. A significant number of bills has been passed. I place on record my specific thanks to the honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Murwillumbah for their assistance to me, and to two members of my personal staff, Mr David Harris and Ms Meredith Cox, for the assistance they have given me in running the business of the House. I thank the honourable member for Ashfield, the honourable member for Broken Hill and the honourable member for Lakemba for their assistance in the orderly running of the House. I wish all members a safe, pleasant and comfortable Christmas, and a happy New Year.
I particularly mention Bob Graham who, until yesterday, was a very special member of the Parliament. On behalf of my colleagues I wish Bob a happy and successful New Year and an early and expeditious return to his rightful place on the Government benches of this House. On behalf of the Premier I express our thanks to the staffs of the Parliament: the Clerks, Hansard, Food and Beverages, the Parliamentary Library, Building Services, the Legislative Assembly office, the Parliamentary Attendants and all others throughout the building. We have worked long hours this session but at Page 6678 least the House has risen comparatively early each day. Without the staffs we could not have achieved what we have. I extend to them also the felicitations of the Government for a happy and peaceful festive season. We look forward with confidence to not seeing them until 19th February next year. I commend the motion.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [1.48]: The Opposition supports the special adjournment until 19th February. I note that for the first time the House will be empowered, by an absolute majority of its members, to set an earlier date for its return. The Minister said that the agenda has not been completed, and that Her Majesty will open the Parliament. It would hardly be for me to suggest that a by-election will not be held until after Her Majesty's visit. I am sure it will fit into the timetable, similar to when former Premier Askin announced an election when opening the Opera House in 1965. He did not infringe the protocol. We support the motion to enable the House to return earlier if necessary. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and Madam Deputy-Speaker for your assistance throughout the year. It has not been an easy year, there having been a dramatic change in the Parliament not only with regard to the standing orders but, from a practical sense, with regard to the numbers in this House and your control. I thank you for your assistance.
A whole year has gone, Mr Speaker, in which I have not been removed from the Parliament, so I am eternally grateful for that. I thank the Deputy Speaker and the Acting- Speakers for the way they handled debate. There have been a few occasions when, in my view, unnecessary restrictions have occurred but such matters can be resolved. I thank the Clerk of the Parliament and his staff - Ronda Miller, who is in the Chamber at the present moment, Les Gonye, Mark Swinson and the Serjeant-at-Arms, Merv Sheather - for their great work. When the Government Leader in the House and I make arrangements to expedite business it does not always make their task easy. To Russell Grove and his staff I give many thanks. I thank Hansard, Bob Davey and Eric Sinclair, for assisting members to make many good speeches. I am sure that new members - quite a few of whom have made their speeches since the last Christmas felicitations - have learned of the worthy experience of Hansard and the benefit we have in having such a professional Hansard reporting service.
I thank also staff of the Library, the Acting-Librarian, Richard Baker, Greg Tillotson, David Clune and others who have worked so hard. I thank them on behalf of the Labor Opposition. I also thank Ray Lynch, Johnny O'Keefe and all the attendants who have complied very much with the requests of members, and who have provided the necessary security and message delivery services within the Parliament. I thank the attendants within the Chamber itself who have enabled the continuous smooth running of the House. Likewise I give thanks to David Draper and his staff in the dining room. They have worked exceptionally hard throughout the year providing services and meals at all hours of the day and night. I thank Jose, Kevin Connolly, Santiago, the terrible twins - they will never forgive me for saying that - Noelene, June and Joe; thank you. And I thank all those members of the staff who have treated guests and visitors with great professional skill. It is to their credit, and, in particular, to David. His leadership in the dining room has become quite a valuable asset and an income-raiser for the Parliament. To the security officers of the Parliament I give many thanks, including the police security on the sixth floor. I thank the Government Leader in the House, his assistants and Whips for what they have achieved throughout the year with the smooth running of the House.
I turn now to the Opposition Leader. The year of 1991 has been one in which he has starred. In the months prior to March 1991 no one had ever thought that Bob Carr could ever nearly become the Premier of New South Wales. He gave every critic a shock. Only cynics would suggest those events were an accident. Notwithstanding Page 6679 what the Minister for the Environment did in November 1990 with electoral ticks and crosses, we came within an ace of winning the election. I congratulate Bob Carr and his staff, in particular Bruce Walker, all of whom worked assiduously throughout the year on behalf of the Labor Opposition. I thank them for it. I thank also the president of the caucus, Mr Mills, and the secretary of the caucus, Tony Aquilina, as well as the Opposition Whip, Bill Beckroge, the honourable member for Broken Hill, and the Deputy Whip, the honourable member for Lakemba. My profound thanks for tolerating me throughout the year and working with us on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, which we represent in this Parliament. I also thank the shadow ministers for providing me, the Labor Party and my parliamentary colleagues with such invaluable support throughout the year. I take this opportunity to thank my electorate secretary, Lyn Cuneo, and Sue Vasey for the great work they have done. One day I will tidy my office as I have been promising to do for some considerable time. That might be a suitable Christmas present for my electorate secretary.
The Minister concluded by saying he wished Bob Graham a speedy return. I hope that the person who in the judge's view was the person properly elected, namely, Grant McBride, assumes his proper place. It will be his first time as a member of Parliament. Grant McBride will be a candidate. The people of The Entrance will decide who will be the winner at the next by-election when you, Mr Speaker, get time to determine that date. The Labor Party is very fortunate to have some one of such quality and local impact as Grant McBride. I am very confident - as I was about winning the court case - that Grant McBride will be a great member of Parliament. I do not wish to have Mr Graham return to the Parliament as a member of Parliament but I would not mind seeing him here because I had a $200 bet with him that the judge would uphold the decision in The Entrance disputed election case. I have some financial arrangements also with the honourable member for Baulkham Hills and I hope to see him very soon. Now that the Leader of the National Party is present, I must say that all the National Party members have paid their debts and I applaud them for it, as similarly the honourable member for Lane Cove has. On behalf of the Opposition, the Leader, and my parliamentary colleagues I wish you all a very happy Christmas. I hope everyone enjoys continued good health. As to our parliamentary colleague, Mr Causley, who I understand has had a bad run of luck with health, I hope that he and his family have a very nice Christmas and that he returns quickly to good health.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon), Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads [1.56]: On behalf of members of the National Party I join the Leader and shadow leader of the House in wishing all those who are involved with the operations of this Parliament a very happy Christmas. My particular thanks go to all those who have served us within the Parliament; to the staff of the Parliament, the attendants - those who help us get around this place and make it work, for without them the mess that we get ourselves into would be twice as bad. I recognise the attendants who help us so often, the members of the dining-room staff and the courtesies we receive from all those people - Jose, Kevin Down - those who make a meal so much more pleasant by their service and the attention they give and which perhaps most of us do not deserve. I thank all those in Hansard and the Library who, over the years, have provided assistance to us in what goes on in this place but by the same token make sure the rules of the Parliament are very strictly observed.
In particular I would like to recognise with thanks the cleaning staff on the various floors who every day come in and clean up those offices upstairs. On occasion we have a party and sometimes the rooms are left fairly grubby. Those girls do a mighty job for us. Security is something that we in this place take for granted but should not. There are those who protect us, the attendants and security staff on level 6. I thank them for being part of the operations of Parliament. In particular I would like to thank the Page 6680 Premier and his staff, in particular Janet Mahon and everyone else who works for him, for the courtesies they have extended to all members of the Government on many occasions. I offer seasonal wishes to both the Premier and Kathryn, who has worked assiduously for us for the last eight years or so. Together they brought the conservative parties into government, a great achievement in our difficult times. Keeping together a group of people with many and varied views is indeed an important part of the operations of government. I thank members of Cabinet, all of whom have made enormous contributions through the Parliament, and their staff who willingly and ably deliver to all members of Parliament the services vital to the smooth running of the Parliament.
I wish a very happy Christmas to all my colleagues in the National Party, who for many years have worked so hard in many different areas of the political scene. During the last election campaign members of the National Party worked together in a manner that I am sure many thought would not be possible. I commend them for the assistance they gave to one another and their efforts during and in the period leading up to the campaign. Following the election the number of National Party members of Parliament was virtually unchanged. I thank my personal staff - Bryce, Anne, Di and Sara. They have been with me for a long while. I thank also my electorate office staff. As my colleagues would know, if Ministers are able to get to their electorate offices in the bush once every couple of months, they are doing pretty well. The workload of electorate staffs is enormous. I thank the electorate staffs of all National Party members in rural electorates. During expressions of Christmas felicitations wives, husbands and families are often forgotten. Country members especially do not see their wives or husbands or families very often. I commend these families for the work that they do on behalf of National Party members during times of considerable stress. In the past few months a number of new members of Parliament have taken their positions in this Chamber. I extend to them Christmas felicitations. This is a difficult time during which to learn the ropes. To you, Mr Speaker, to your staff and the various staffs of the Parliament, on behalf of the National Party I extend Christmas greetings and wish you all a happy and prosperous new year.
Mr SPEAKER: I should like to add my personal felicitations to all members of Parliament and their families. I wish them a merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year. I should like to place on record my thanks to the staffs of Parliament House for the excellent job they do - a matter that has been referred to by all members who have contributed to the debate. Often the dedication of the staffs of Parliament House is not appreciated, but I believe the level of dedication of many of them is far beyond what most people realise. It was not until I had the honour and privilege to occupy the position of Speaker that I realised the level of dedication of many of those staff members.
The Deputy Premier referred to security of Parliament House. I should like to wish Mr Alan Beverstock well in his new and challenging position of Manager of Parliamentary Security Services. That position was created in recognition of the fact that the security of Parliament House is a specialist task, and, rather than be a section of a department, the security should be a department in its own right. To the Clerks and procedural officers I particularly offer my sincere thanks and best wishes. We work well together as a team. I am proud of the achievements of the procedural officers in the past few years and of their efforts in meeting the challenge of the changing sessional arrangements, which have extended our intellectual capacities by having to keep up to date with what is happening.
At times my personal staff have to put up with a lot. I offer them my special thanks. They are a dedicated team who work well to support me in my capacity as an ordinary member of Parliament and in my position as Speaker, when I am attending to the weighty matters of State I am required to deal with. To my staff, from Barbara Page 6681 Mork, who has been with me for longer than she might care to say, to Mr Ashley Wood, who is my most recent member of staff, I say merry Christmas and a happy new year. To all those who have any association with Parliament I hope Christmas brings with it a sense of hope, renewal and good fortune. Australia is going through difficult times. It would be nice to think that we have virtually reached the bottom of the trough and that from now things will only improve.
Motion agreed to.
ENDANGERED FAUNA (INTERIM PROTECTION) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Pursuant to the resolution of the House I now commit the second reading of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill to the division that was held over from an earlier hour.
Ayes, 45
Ms Allan Mr Amery Mr Anderson Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Bowman Mr Clough Mr Crittenden Mr Doyle Mr Face Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mrs Grusovin Mr Harrison Mr Hatton Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma Mr Irwin Mr Knight Mr Knowles Mrs Lo Po' Dr Macdonald Mr McManus Mr Markham Mr Martin Dr Metherell Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Moss Mr J. H. Murray Mr Nagle Mr Newman
Ms Nori Mr Price Dr Refshauge Mr Rogan Mr Scully Mr Shedden Mr Sullivan Mr Thompson Mr Whelan Mr Yeadon Mr Ziolkowski
Tellers, Mr Davoren Mr Rumble
Noes, 44
Mr Armstrong Mr Baird Mr Blackmore Mr Chappell Mrs Chikarovski Mr Cochran Mrs Cohen Mr Collins Mr Cruickshank Mr Downy Mr Fahey Mr Fraser Mr Glachan Mr Griffiths Mr Hazzard
Mr Jeffery Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr Longley Ms Machin Mr Merton Mr Moore Mr Morris Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Packard Mr D. L. Page Mr Peacocke Mr Petch Mr Phillips Mr Photios
Mr Rixon Mr Schipp Mr Schultz Mr Small Mr Smiles Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Tink Mr West Mr Windsor Mr Yabsley Mr Zammit Tellers, Mr Beck Mr Hartcher
Page 6682
Pairs
Mr Causley Mr Greiner Mr Turner
Mr Beckroge Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill committed, progress reported and leave granted to sit again.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC SECTOR APPRENTICESHIPS
Mr CARR: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Do the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics unemployment figures for New South Wales show an increase in youth unemployment from 24 per cent to 27 per cent? Why then have a number of departments and authorities including the State Rail Authority reduced their apprenticeship intakes for next year? Will the Premier reverse these decisions or stand by last night's comments that there is absolutely nothing more the Premier can do to cushion New South Wales from the recession?
Mr GREINER: The Leader of the Opposition obviously was not paying attention when the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment and I released the only State program anywhere in Australia that is designed to deal specifically with the problem of youth unemployment, a problem which the Canberra mates of the Leader of the Opposition failed to address at all in the November economic statement. The reality of the ABS unemployment figures is that they show, as has been consistently the case, that New South Wales and Queensland are far outperforming the rest of Australia. Indeed, the House will note that New South Wales and Queensland are together at 9.9 per cent and 10 per cent and that the rest of Australia, all the other Labor States, are at 11 per cent or higher. That is a dramatic difference which constitutes tens of thousands of jobs, on a proportional basis, between New South Wales and the rest of Australia.
The program which the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment and I announced last week is in fact designed specifically to deal with a whole range of issues to do with youth unemployment. One of the things I have done in particular is to make it perfectly clear to all the Ministers and authorities that there will not be any reduction in apprenticeship effort or in training effort in 1991 - and that is and will be the case. The truth is that the program altogether provides opportunities for about 7,000 additional school-leavers in terms of their employment opportunity and work experience opportunity. In terms of what the WorkCover organisation has done, it provides a significant incentive for employers to take on people of whatever age who have been long-term unemployed. The fact is that Page 6683 this Government alone of all the State governments around Australia - and the others are all Labor Governments - has done something specific about youth unemployment. Second, the New South Wales economy continues to outperform the rest of Australia, continues to outperform the Labor States, and will continue to do so because of the policies put in place by the Government.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY HOUSING PROGRAM
Mrs GRUSOVIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Housing. Is future Federal funding of the local government and community housing program in jeopardy because the Minister's department has failed to expend more than $16 million of Federal money allocated to that community housing program? Has the Ombudsman extended his investigation into the department's administration of that program? How many officers of the Minister's department will be investigated? What has the Minister's department done with the interest on the $16.5 million?
Mr SCHIPP: Another carry-over of the shambles of the former Labor Government that ran this State before March 1988 is reflected absolutely in the local government community housing scheme. Brian Howe knows it and officers of the Commonwealth know it. The former Labor Government approved schemes in principle with no technical assessment.
[Interruption]
Mr SCHIPP: Keep reading the Daily Planet, where you are getting all your concocted stories.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Heffron to order.
Mr SCHIPP: Negotiations have been ongoing about the whole program. The Government inherited a number of projects that had received no technical assessment. Costings, when assessed, could not be achieved within the approved limits.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wallsend to order. I call the honourable member for Heffron to order for the second time.
Mr SCHIPP: Brian Howe's officers know full well what went on in this scheme. He knows it is under control because we have submitted completely new guidelines so that the program will be assessed in a correct managerial manner. All the funds are committed to the program. Many schemes have been approved. The honourable member for Heffron keeps pulling pages out of the failed Daily Planet but cannot understand the figures. The honourable member is flogging a dead horse and has nothing to go on because the former Labor Government had the greatest shambles in operation in the Department of Housing. The whole program is under control. The moneys are committed. Mr Howe has endorsed the way the Department of Housing is handling that matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the next question I wish to issue a word of warning. The question by the honourable member for Heffron ran great risk of being Page 6684 ruled out of order as it was really multiple questions. There has been a tendency for questions to creep in length and include multiple questions. I warn honourable members that when the House resumes next year the Chair will look severely at questions that are not within the forms of the House.
CITY WEST URBAN RENEWAL
Mr MERTON: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Has the Premier been advised whether the Government's City West urban renewal project will assist employment generation, particularly in the building industry? If so, how many jobs will be created and will the public have an opportunity to comment on the City West plan?
Mr GREINER: Earlier today the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy and I released draft Sydney regional environmental plan No. 26 for City West. This plan is a major step to achieve three of the Government's principal policy objectives: urban consolidation, job creation, and waterfront access to Sydney Harbour for the people of New South Wales. In March 1991 the former Minister for Planning decided that a draft regional environmental plan would be prepared to implement the planning aspects of the City West urban strategy as the area involved issues of government policy and matters of State and regional significance. The draft REP will provide the most timely and effective mechanism to implement the City West urban strategy and plan for this large area, which is currently covered by a number of separate planning instruments or, in the case of the waterways, not subject to any planning instrument at all.
The REP study which has been prepared covers the City West region as a whole. It supports the appropriate urban strategy and provides justification for the planning principles involved in the REP issued today. A precinct planning study has been prepared for the Ultimo- Pyrmont peninsula containing detailed assessment of the area and supporting the precinct planning principles which will guide the development. The draft plan establishes a regional framework of planning principles for the whole of City West to provide the basis for consistent and cohesive redevelopment over a long period of time. It is accompanied by an urban development plan which consists of development controls and guidelines which will guide the design and construction of new development in Ultimo-Pyrmont. Coming to the particular point of the question with respect to its impact in terms of jobs and population, it is expected that construction opportunities involve about 10,000 jobs and that the overall work force of the City West area, when it is completed -
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr GREINER: The overall work force of the City West area -
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment and the Minister for Transport.
Mr GREINER: - will represent about 54,000 workers. It will also involve, in terms of urban consolidation, a residential population of between 15,000 and 17,000 Page 6685 people. The planning principles will involve a range of recreational opportunities including the significant provision of about 15 square metres of open space per resident, a very high use of public transport - about 65 per cent - by a light rail service connecting Ultimo-Pyrmont to the Sydney system, the extension of ferry services to Pyrmont and the extension of bus services to the area. Overall there will be public access to about four kilometres of the harbour foreshore and escarpments in the Ultimo-Pyrmont area alone. There will be about 2.9 million square metres of developable floor space. It is important to note that the consent authority which will enable the creation of these jobs and these residential opportunities - the consent authority for the Ultimo-Pyrmont precinct - will be the Minister for Planning.
The Minister will determine major development, development on Government- owned sites and on sites contributing to the affordable housing program and there are some 700 units of affordable housing planned for the area. All other development approval will be delegated. I would like to say to the House that the Government appreciates the co-operation of the Lord Mayor of Sydney, Frank Sartor, in the discussions dealing with the question of how the planning process is to work. The Government proposes by February next year to set up the City West Land Trust to co-ordinate the private and public sector agencies which will provide infrastructure, and to manage surplus government land holdings. A business plan has been prepared on these issues. This is an example of good co-operation between Federal, State and local governments. Mr Howe, when he is not being diverted on other matters, which seem to be entertaining the Labor Party in Canberra, has agreed that the City West program is an appropriate program to include within the Better Cities program and we look forward to his confirming that and actually providing some money which will help the Government accelerate the process.
Mrs Grusovin: Ask Joe. He has got the money.
Mr GREINER: Ask Joe who has got the money? Imagine the hide of someone like the honourable member for Heffron. They have got a party where Senator Loosley from New South Wales has mortgaged lock, stock and barrel the whole of radio station 2HD. I am grateful to the honourable member for making the interjection. Do you know that Mr Stephen Loosley, when he was General Secretary of the Labor Party in New South Wales, took all the assets of 2HD -
Mr J. H. Murray: On a point of order. I ask that you direct the Premier to answer the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If members would stop interjecting, Ministers would not have to respond to interjections. The Premier may make a brief reference to the interjection.
Mr GREINER: As I was saying in brief response to the honourable member for Heffron, what Mr Loosley did was he mortgaged the furniture, mortgaged the fax machine, mortgaged the automobiles - he mortgaged every single thing he could find in 2HD Newcastle - so that he could buy the building, which has gone down by almost more than half in value, and at the same time he was able to afford to pay himself a $100,000 golden handshake - to give him a luxury car for his retirement driving - all out of the assets of the Australian Labor Party.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order.
Page 6686
Mr GREINER: All out of the assets of the Australian Labor Party and all ultimately at the expense of the jobs of the people who work for 2HD in Newcastle. I thank the honourable member for her interjection. Back at City West -
Ms Nori: How much public housing? What has happened to public housing?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Port Jackson to order.
Mr GREINER: Public housing? I thank the honourable member for Port Jackson for her interjection. It is unusual for her to take an interest in something happening in the House. The honourable member asked about public housing. I told her - if she was listening, which she does not tend to do - that there are 700 affordable housing units for the Ultimo-Pyrmont area.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Jackson to order for the second time.
Mr GREINER: There will also be, if the honourable member cares to read the documentation - we will make sure she gets it - provision for public housing in the area. There will be a mix of housing, as is appropriate for an area like this. It is not intended to make it an enclave for the rich. It is not intended to make it an enclave for the poor or for anybody else. It is intended to be a totally new neighbourhood, a totally new city development which will cover a range of residential accommodation. As I was saying before I was interrupted, Mr Howe, when he was focusing on this matter did undertake - and I am sure he will ultimately honour his undertaking - to provide assistance from the Better Cities program in order to make sure that it can be facilitated as fast as possible. Finally, could I say that the private sector, particularly CSR and Lend Lease, have also been co-operating with the Government in the development of this area. I thank the honourable member for his question and say that both in terms of job creation, of urban consolidation and of public access to the waterways of Sydney, this is a first- class development. It has been entirely appropriately planned to occur over a long period of time and in this decade, and in subsequent decades, it will be an absolute benchmark of how new urban areas should be developed.
HARNESS RACING INDUSTRY DRUG TESTING
Mr RIXON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order.
Mr RIXON: Is the Minister aware of the spate of positive swabs being detected in the harness racing industry in this State? If so, what action is being taken to overcome this problem?
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order for the second time.
Page 6687
Mr SOURIS: I thank the honourable member for Lismore for his question. I also thank him for the marvellous job he is doing as chairman of my ministerial committee on sport. No doubt the honourable member for Lismore is referring to the reported detection of the drug Heptimanol in a number of swabs taken from standard bred horses which have performed at Sydney harness racing meetings in recent times. I am informed that swabs taken from 15 horses under the care of four separate trainers have proved positive to this drug. It is interesting to note that three of the trainers involved are based or were formerly based in Victoria. Action has already been taken against one trainer, who has been disqualified for 12 months. He has since lodged an appeal against his disqualification with the Harness Racing Appeals Tribunal. Inquiries are currently being conducted into the remaining matters.
The screening process for Heptimanol was perfected by the Australian Jockey Club laboratory early last month. When several swabs were found to be positive to this particular drug, the chairman of stewards of the New South Wales Harness Racing Authority immediately ordered a number of frozen swabs taken from previous winners to be retrieved and tested. Several of these swabs also proved positive to Heptimanol. The Harness Racing Authority of New South Wales is the first controlling authority of any form of racing in Australia to adopt a policy of freezing swabs to enable testing for new forms of drugs. The authority is also the first organisation to test frozen swabs. The authority has been working in close co-operation on this important issue with analysts at the Australian Jockey Club laboratory, which leads the field in Australia in the detection of drugs in racing animals. The Harness Racing Authority's work in trying to eradicate drugs from the sport continues on other fronts.
The authority is working closely with the University of Sydney on joint research into the use of the bicarbonate of soda mixture known as milkshakes. This research has resulted in the authority developing a screening process which will be used nationally. Shortly I will approve changing the rules of harness racing to ban from 1st January, 1992, the use of milkshakes in harness racing horses. The Harness Racing Authority is committed to drug-free racing and must be complimented on its actions. The overwhelming majority of participants in the harness racing industry would not contemplate the use of drugs for their horses. Unfortunately, the industry's reputation is brought into question by the few who do. The New South Wales Government is fully supportive of the action taken not only by the Harness Racing Authority but also by the Australian Jockey Club and the Greyhound Racing Control Board in their endeavours to promote drug-free racing. Since taking office this Government has approved financial assistance of almost $1.3 million for the provision of new drug testing equipment at the Australian Jockey Club laboratory. Financial assistance was also made available to enable the Harness Racing Authority to conduct its research into the use of milkshakes. The Government is determined to do all it can to eradicate the use of drugs in racing.
SECONDHAND LOCOMOTIVES PURCHASE
Mr LANGTON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport. Did the State Rail Authority board meeting yesterday defer a decision on the locomotive tender? Is the board meeting again today to make a decision which the Minister will be asked to ratify also today? Has the impending by-election provoked the Minister's extraordinary haste?
Mr BAIRD: The answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Kogarah is, no. He has got it wrong, wrong, wrong. It is true that the board met yesterday. No final decision has been made. Honourable members will remember the Page 6688 story that the honourable member for Kogarah was peddling that the Government was bringing in secondhand diesel locomotives from overseas. The honourable member peddled the story all over the radio waves. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition got into the act and told everyone how outrageous and disgraceful it was. It was simply a tender, and it was rejected.
Mr Carr: We have caught you out.
Mr BAIRD: We have caught out the Leader of the Opposition as a gross liar.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection.
Mr BAIRD: He uses the big lie technique. He runs with it. He knew that the story was untrue. He claimed it was absolutely true, though he knew that was not the case. No final decision has been made either by the board or by the Government. When a decision is made I shall release the result publicly.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Broken Hill to order.
LOCUST PLAGUE
Mr CHAPPELL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Has the Minister been informed of the likelihood of further locust hatchings in northern New South Wales following recent rain? If so, in what ways would a second wave of the current locust plague affect the State's agricultural industries, particularly cereal and irrigated crops?
Mr ARMSTRONG: The honourable member for Northern Tablelands has asked a very timely question. The only thing that would travel faster than a rumour at a Federal Labor caucus meeting today would be a grasshopper on the wing. Honourable members will recall that on 19th September I alerted them to the destructive capacity of a locust plague. I have just received advice from New South Wales Department of Agriculture that the steady rain that is falling in the Narrabri-Gunnedah-Tamworth area will produce further hatchings of plague locusts in these districts over the next few days. There have also been reports of swarm activity in Boggabilla and Tibooburra in New South Wales and areas in the southwest of Queensland.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order.
Mr ARMSTRONG: The rain will provide an increase in pasture growth and ensure the survival of plague locusts through their next generation over the next two months.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order.
Page 6689
Mr ARMSTRONG: It is also highly likely that young locusts will band together after this substantial weather change.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. As I have said on many occasions, if members wish to converse, they can much better do so outside the Chamber.
Mr ARMSTRONG: Locusts can travel more than 500 kilometres in a 24-hour period. At times they have been tracked by pilots flying in the jetstream more than 10,000 metres above sea level. They eat their own body weight in food in 24 hours. Locust bands can reach densities of several thousand per square metre. The average adult swarm covers 200 hectares, takes three to five days to develop, and may eat tens of tonnes of plant material each day.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Illawarra and the honourable member for Londonderry to order.
Mr ARMSTRONG: In 1984 during the last major locust plague economic analysis assessed losses at $5.1 million. Estimated losses of $103 million would have occurred if no control campaign had been undertaken. I can inform the House that so far this year the Australian Plague Locust Commission has spent more than $800,000 in controlling the most recent outbreak. As a result of this very good campaign, put together by the Australian Plague Locust Commission, the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and local rural lands protection boards, damage has been minimised. During September, October and November this year the commission, the department and rural lands protection boards aerially sprayed 203 swarm targets. A total of 1,200 properties reported outbreaks, including properties at Merriwa, Moree, Warialda, Scone, Coonabarabran, Dubbo, Molong, Mudgee and Forbes. When the second wave of locusts breaks out, the remaining green cereal crops, irrigated crops and pastures could be seriously damaged by locusts. There is also a danger that newly sown cotton may be affected. Aerial spraying will be carried out only in environmentally safe areas infested with dense swarms. It is important that I point out that only non-persistent sprays are used.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order for the second time.
Mr ARMSTRONG: It is essential that landholders promptly report any hatchings. Failure to act promptly may have the effect of establishing breeding patterns and could create major problems throughout the summer and beyond. It is essential to maintain surveillance and early detection and that we continue to have a major control impact on this potential disaster where pastures are still very light across the State despite the good rains of the past 24 hours.
BAR COUNCIL APPLICATION OF Ms WENTWORTH
Mr HATTON: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Did a meeting of the New South Wales Bar Council recently discuss an application from Ms Wentworth that it drop its opposition to her admission to the bar? Did the Bar Page 6690 Council decide to continue opposition to her admission out of concern for financial consequences to the bar of possible defamation action rather than the public interest? Will the Attorney General inquire and furnish me and the Parliament with a full report?
Mr COLLINS: I am aware of this issue coming before the Bar Council in recent weeks. As honourable members would know, the Bar Council is not a government instrumentality and does not come under my control or direction. It is entirely appropriate for the Bar Council to consider the matters that it has considered in relation to Ms Wentworth's application for admission. I shall make inquiries as to the outcome of those discussions and advise the honourable member in due course.
COURT-ANNEXED CIVIL ARBITRATIONS
Mr BLACKMORE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Has the system of court-annexed civil arbitration been introduced to the Local Court in Sydney? If so, what benefits will this new system provide for parties to civil cases?
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Stephens to order.
Mr GRIFFITHS: The success of court-annexed civil arbitration should not go unmarked. The new system is widely known as the Philadelphia system of arbitration because it is based on a system which was developed in that city and which still operates quite successfully there. The system involves a number of arbitrators sitting in court premises to hear civil cases referred to them by the court. The major advantage of the Philadelphia system over the referral of actions for hearing in arbitrators' offices is the flexibility it lends to the listing process. More actions can be listed and disposed of because arbitrators can take cases from one another; and while parties are negotiating settlement in some actions, other actions are able to be heard. The system brings to the court most of the options that would come with having the same number of additional judges or magistrates available. Philadelphia arbitration commenced in the Local Court on 6th August. An average of three arbitrators sit each day in specially modified premises, and actions are being referred from the Downing Centre and from Balmain, North Sydney and Waverley. A total of 36 defended civil cases are now being listed before these arbitrators every week. The Philadelphia scheme has been operating in the Local Court for only a short time, but it seems it will prove to be every bit as successful as the similar scheme operating in the District Court. Philadelphia arbitration commenced in the District Court on 1st April, 1990. The system is used to hear personal injury actions, which constitute most of the court's workload.
After a quiet start, the system was expanded to the point where five arbitrators now sit each day in specially designed rooms in court premises. These arbitrators have heard and determined 1,750 actions, and a further 1,450 cases listed before them settled without need of a hearing. A substantial amount of judge time could have been required to achieve the same result if the scheme had not been available. The parties in cases which have been arbitrated have a right to a complete rehearing if they disagree with the arbitrator's decision. The rehearing rate is an important criterion when assessing the worth of the arbitration system. If the rate of rehearing is too high, the quality of arbitrators' decisions would be a concern and we might be merely forcing litigants into an additional, costly step before their cases are finally decided. In the Sydney District Page 6691 Court, the rate of applications for rehearing under the Philadelphia system is about 12 per cent of the total actions disposed of, including settlements.
Less than half of the rehearing applications filed are actually proceeded with, so that the rate of actual rehearings is about 5 per cent of all cases disposed of by arbitrators. A diversion system which disposes finally of 95 per cent of all the cases referred to it can be justly claimed as a major success, particularly as the Sydney figures are better than those generally achieved in the United States of America. Court-annexed arbitration is a co-operative exercise involving the courts, the Government and the legal profession. Barristers and solicitors are paid for sitting as arbitrators, but at a rate well below the party-and-party rate set by the Legal Fees and Costs Board. Lawyers who volunteer to participate in the arbitration scheme are making an important contribution to the reduction in case backlogs and therefore to the general community. I am pleased to pay tribute to the arbitrators and to everyone else involved in this impressive example of what co-operation can achieve.
LONG BAY ASSESSMENT PRISON INMATE ASSAULT
Mr DOYLE: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister received advice that on 26th May the superintendent of the Long Bay Assessment Prison kicked an inmate in the head as he lay on the floor of the segregation unit? Will the Minister order an immediate investigation into this allegation and direct that Superintendent Dries stand down from the ICAC task force while the investigation is in progress?
Mr GRIFFITHS: I am aware of an alleged incident and I have ordered an investigation. That investigation is currently under way.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY BOARD
Mr PHOTIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Environment. Did the Minister indicate during the debate on the Protection of the Environment Administration Bill, which established the Environment Protection Authority, that he hoped that the board of the new organisation would be in place early next week to take over from the board of the State Pollution Control Commission? Will the Minister inform the House if that has occurred and, if so, who the new members of the board of the Environment Protection Authority are?
Mr MOORE: I thank the honourable member for Ermington and other honourable members, including the honourable member for Monaro, for their considerable assistance in the passage of the legislation. I advise the House that His Excellency has assented to the bill and early this afternoon presided over a meeting of the Executive Council to appoint the board of the Environment Protection Authority. I am pleased to advise the House that what I believe is a balanced and communally acceptable board - acceptable right across the political and interest spectrum - has been appointed. The representatives selected from the panel of names are Mr John Kemiry, a senior executive of the Goodman Fielder Wattie group and Ms Meredith Hellicar, the executive director of the Coal Association of New South Wales. The representatives selected from the panel of names submitted by the Nature Conservation Council are Ms Penny Figgis, who was also nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Mr Peter Maslen, who is currently a board member of the Waste Management Authority, on submission from the Nature Conservation Council, and who has considerable professional experience in waste minimisation.
Page 6692
The board member appointed to represent rural and regional environmental issues is Councillor Stephen Ward from the shire of Cootamundra, who is the president of the Shires Association. Because of his knowledge of environmental policy issues Professor John Niland has been appointed as the chairperson for a period of five years. The legal academic appointed is Professor Patricia Ryan from the Graduate School of Business Studies at Macquarie University. Professor Ryan is well known as an author of works on environmental law and brings a considerable depth of knowledge of that subject to the board. Finally, I am pleased to advise that the person who has been appointed for his expertise in environmental science is a person well known to many members of this House. He has an international reputation in that field. It is a great pity that he was not elected president of the Labor Party in Hobart. The Hon. Barry Jones, a member of the Federal Parliament, will serve the board and this State with distinction.
COAL COMPENSATION PAYMENTS
Mr FACE: I direct a question without notice to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Did the Government indicate that it would appropriate a further $250 million over five years for coal compensation payments, or $50 million a year? Why did the Government provide only $25 million this year, which just covers interest payments? What is the Government doing to address claimants' concerns over the delays in paying their claims?
Mr GREINER: Even on the last sitting day before Christmas, that question almost takes the hypocrisy prize. First of all, the rabble opposite pinched people's property rights. Clearly, openly and deliberately they seized people's property rights. Neville Wran said: "What a great idea! It doesn't matter; it is a good populist thing to do. It doesn't matter whether it is the Catholic church or the Anglican church, whether they are charities, whether they are little people or big people. We will just take their rights away because we in the Australian Labor Party don't give a damn about property rights". When it was elected, this Government, consistent with what it said from day one, reinstated those rights. If the honourable member had read the Budget Papers, and the Budget Papers are now four months old, it might have got to his brain -
[Interruption]
Mr GREINER: The Government clearly and openly said in the Budget four months ago, five months ago, whenever it was - in fact I think we said it in July - that it was reducing the amount available because the honourable member's mates have sent us a recession. The Government has less money than it would like to have. Our revenues are not as strong as they would be if Paul Keating had not done such a monumentally good job of screwing up the Australian economy. As a result, revenue has been weak and the Government has deferred some of that expenditure.
ADULT AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr TINK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment. Is the Minister aware of a recently released Senate committee report on funding of adult and community education? Does the Minister intend to adopt the recommendations of the report?
Mr FAHEY: I am aware of the Senate report on adult and community education in Australia. I can inform the House that almost all of the recommendations that came out of that report have been implemented by initiatives taken by the New South Wales Page 6693 Government. The report was from the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. That committee found that a number of changes would be needed to enhance the work of the adult and community education sector. The evening college system is not generally recognised by most people and is almost a forgotten area. However, it caters for approximately 300,000 pupils in this State. The initiatives that have been taken by the Government include the introduction of legislation that was passed by Parliament last year. That bill became the Board of Adult and Community Education Act 1990. The Government also established a new board and allocated an additional $1 million to the adult and community education sector which operates very cost effectively. The additional funding was a welcome boost to its budget.
The Government has also established a liaison committee between TAFECOM and the adult and community education sector so that there is harmony, co-operation, co-ordination, no overlapping, and no competition to try to provide the same courses and services for the same community. The additional $1 million has boosted the income of this sector by 25 per cent. As a result of a total boost in income of $4.8 million, those dealing in this State with adult and community education know under proper guidelines what they will receive each year, what they can do and what they can plan for. Most of the income of the adult and community education sector comes from a user-pays system for the courses it operates, usually at night. The Senate standing committee report revealed that New South Wales is leading the rest of Australia. It identified the needs of the sector. The report revealed also that New South Wales has already done what is needed. That is another example of the Government responding to community needs by recognising the service this sector gives to training and education. The Government has boosted employment and taken initiatives such as introducing the legislation to which I referred. It has delivered a valuable community service to small communities in the most cost- effective way. Once again, that simply shows that the New South Wales Government leads Australia.
TOKYO FINANCIAL SEMINAR COSTS
Mr J. H. MURRAY: I address my question to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Is it the case that the Premier's friend Peter Charlton organised the Tokyo "financial seminar" to promote Sydney, which the Premier addressed last month? Was the seminar to be privately funded and did organisers charge private sector speakers up to $40,000 to address the seminar? Why then has the Department of State Development been approached to pay a number of costs associated with its organisation?
Mr GREINER: The answer to the first two parts of the question to the best of my knowledge is yes, although I am not familiar with the amounts of money that private companies paid . The answer to the last part of the question is that no expenses associated with the part that Mr Charlton organised will be paid for by the Government. The Department of State Development organised some events of its own quite properly and very successfully. Those are matters to be paid for quite properly by the department.
COUNTRY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
Mr SMITH: I direct my question to the Minister for Health Services Management. Is there currently a shortage of doctors in many rural areas of New South Page 6694 Wales? What action is the Government taking to encourage more doctors to practise in country areas?
Mr PHILLIPS: The honourable member for Bega is a member of my advisory committee on health. I place a great deal of reliance on the advice he gives me regarding the problems of rural health in New South Wales. The shortage of doctors has been a problem in rural New South Wales for some time and this Government has continued to address that problem. One of the reasons for the shortage is that young doctors coming out of the system feel that they lack the confidence to handle the variety of work required of them as a lone general practitioner in a country town. To address that problem, this week I had the pleasure of announcing an initiative of this Government to encourage doctors to practise in rural areas through the establishment of a rural practice training unit for medical practitioners aimed at encouraging more doctors to practise in country areas. The Government will spend $300,000 a year on the unit, which will commence operation at Tamworth Base Hospital in January. When it is running at full capacity up to 16 doctors will be training at any one time and about four will qualify each year. The course, which will take three to four years, involves working as a registrar at Tamworth hospital. Training will include accident and emergencies, orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics, paediatrics, geriatrics, and anaesthetic intensive care.
General practice in a country town provides a high level of job satisfaction and community contact. This course will help to provide the skills to manage a variety of challenges that occur. The unit will provide links and support to rural practices, especially for education purposes and for upgrading of clinical skills. It will also undertake research into the specific needs of rural practice, especially for smaller country centres. The rural training unit has the strong support of the board of Tamworth Base Hospital and the New England Region Health Service and it has been established as part of the Government's rural health strategy developed to improve rural health services in New South Wales. When the doctors have completed their training they will be qualified to work in rural hospitals, establish their own rural practices or carry out locum work. Since 1988-89 this Government has increased health funding to rural New South Wales by $170 million, an increase in real terms - over inflation - of just over 7 per cent.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr PHILLIPS: This Government is making significant improvements to country health in New South Wales by continuing its commitment to resolve country health issues. We have a proud record in that area and we will continue to do whatever we can to ensure that the health of rural residents continues to improve.
ELECTRICITY COMMISSION CONSULTANCIES
Mr ROGAN: My question is directed to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Given the Premier's guidelines on consultants, why did the Electricity Commission spend $1.661 million between July 1989 and June 1991 for advice on the sale of Elcom's colliery companies? Given the Government's three attempts to sell the coalmines, has this money been wasted?
Page 6695
Mr GREINER: I do not know; I will find out.
PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADING
Ms MACHIN: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. What improvements have been made to the Pacific Highway since last Christmas holidays? How will these assist motorists in the coming holidays?
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: I thank the honourable member for Port Macquarie for her question. The improvements to the Pacific Highway will substantially benefit the people who travel to and holiday on the very beautiful spots along the North Coast of New South Wales and those travelling between spots in the area. Northbound motorists leaving the F3 Newcastle- Sydney Freeway at the Freemans Waterhole exit now have a very clear option when they are travelling to Brisbane and further north on the Queensland coast. The Roads and Traffic Authority has erected a sign, which is being unveiled today and which is located before the Cessnock turn-off, showing that the distance to Brisbane is the same along the Pacific or New England highways. The new green and white sign clearly states that the distance to Brisbane is 840 kilometres by both highways. This will reinforce the point that the New England Highway can be an enjoyable option to the Pacific Highway. From a tourism point of view, encouraging motorists to take the New England Highway when they are travelling through to Brisbane will help to expose them to many attractions of the inland regions of the State. Many motorists coming off the Sydney to Newcastle Freeway would be unaware that the distance to Brisbane is the same over both routes. The unveiling of the sign today will make clear the choices available to motorists. Another advantage of the New England Highway is that it carries about half the traffic of the Pacific Highway. A recent NRMA report has stated that the New England Highway provided better overall road alignment, overtaking opportunities and road conditions. However, if motorists decide to travel north along one route and south on the other they will be able to see at first hand the many improvements made to the Pacific Highway this year.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Ashfield wishes to hold a caucus meeting he should do so outside.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The State Government is spending more than $170 million on the Pacific Highway over the three-year period to 1991-93. Major roadworks along the Pacific Highway include upgrading of all black spots, provision of overtaking lanes in an additional 50 areas and the construction of bypasses around five towns. Divided carriageways are being provided where they will make maximum impact on the road toll. This year has seen the completion of the $4.4 million Swan Creek deviation north of Grafton, which has provided a four-lane divided road replacing the old twisting two-lane road. As well, four kilometres of major rehabilitation works has been completed near Taree, which includes 1.5 kilometres of dual carriageway costing $7.3 million. Stage one of the Herons Creek deviation north of Taree, costing $17.5 million, is providing major benefits and stage two is expected to be opened next year. The $11.4 million Tweed Heads bypass is well under way. It will have major benefits to the local community and holiday makers late next year when it is opened.
Page 6696
I find it rather strange that the honourable member for Drummoyne is in the House listening to this answer. It is a wonder that he did not ask a question on the matter. He made it very public in the newspapers of the Tweed area during the week that he would ask questions about sewage in the area. He did not get around to it. He should not make such public statements until he has asked the questions in the House. This year a further 10 overtaking lanes have been constructed on the Pacific Highway, which should improve travelling times and reduce driver impatience. I wish New South Wales motorists safe travelling, no matter what roads they use in the State during the holiday season. It has been the aim of the Government to provide New South Wales with first-class roads. The safety messages being sent to motorists during the holiday season should help to further reduce the road toll.
WYONG SHIRE VALUATIONS
Mr WEST: Yesterday the honourable member for Wyong asked me a question in respect of Valuer-General valuations. I am now able to provide the honourable member with a detailed answer. Each year the Valuer-General issues some 600,000 notices of valuation. In order to ensure that his records are up to date, in particular with regard to records of addresses, councils' records held prior to the issue of notices of valuations are checked. In the case of Wyong, the Valuer-General requested from the council a computer tape containing the names and addresses of property-owners in order to update his records. Evidently the tape was faulty and this resulted in an incorrect update of some of the Valuer-General's records. Therefore, some owners did not receive a notice of valuation. I am advised that the honourable member for Wyong has supplied the Valuer-General with a list of 408 owners who did not receive a valuation notice. This represents less than 1 per cent of the 45,000 properties in Wyong. The Valuer-General, upon checking his records against the list, would issue the valuations to the owners. Owners will have the right to object to the valuations if they so desire. With regard to the latter part of the question, the honourable member for Wyong ought to know that high valuations of properties are not the cause of people being forced from their homes. The rate in the dollar determined by local government is the cause of long-term pensioner landowners' difficulties. Councils have the facility to provide pensioner rebates and to initiate differential rating. Pensioner rates, therefore, are a matter of council policy.
______
PETITIONS
Balmain Hospital
Petition praying that the Balmain Hospital remain as a district hospital service providing casualty, medical and surgical beds, received from Ms Nori.
St Joseph's Hospital
Petitions praying that the Minister for Health Services Management intervene to save St Joseph's Hospital from closure and that the necessary funding and support staff be provided to allow it to continue to operate as a public hospital, received from Mr Rogan and Mr Ziolkowski.
Lidcombe Hospital
Petitions praying that the House reject any proposals to close down or cut back services or staffing at Lidcombe Hospital but instead support an increase in services and Page 6697 staffing at the hospital, received from Mr Neilly, Mr Rogan, Mr Shedden and Mr Ziolkowski.
Health Services
Petition praying that funding cuts to health services and hospitals cease and that funding be provided to ensure that waiting lists for hospitals and operations are eliminated, received from Mr Gaudry.
F6 Freeway Cycle-Pedestrian Bridge
Petition praying that the House provide urgent funding for the construction of a cycle- pedestrian bridge over the F6 Freeway between the Wollongong College of Technical and Further Education and the University of Wollongong, received from Mr Markham.
Water Rate Payments at Post Offices
Petition praying that for the convenience of customers, particularly the elderly and those without private transport, the Minister for Housing reappraise the facilities available for the payment of water rates to include post offices, received from Mr Rumble.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Printing of Reports
Motion by Mr Moore agreed to:
That the following reports be printed:
Report of the Murrumbidgee County Council for the year ended 30th June, 1991.
Report of the Darling Harbour Authority for the year ended 30th June, 1991.
Report of the Albury-Wodonga (New South Wales) Corporation for the year ended 30th June, 1991.
Report of the Liquor Administration Board for the year ended 30th June, 1991.
Report of the Racecourse Development Committee for the year ended 30th June, 1991.
Report to Parliament under section 31 of the Ombudsman Act 1974 concerning the failure of the former Department of Family and Community Services to issue instructions to superintendents and staff on the requirements of the Children (Detention Centres) Act and its regulations, in terms of minor and serious misbehaviour and in particular instructions on dealing with assaults on detainees by detainees, dated 2nd December, 1991.
Special report to Parliament under section 31 of the Ombudsman Act 1974 concerning public interest in releasing the Ombudsman's Report on the failure by officers of the then Department of Family and Community Services to respond appropriately to allegations of assault of a detainee in a detention centre, dated 2nd December, 1991. Special report to Parliament pursuant to section 31 of the Ombudsman Act concerning information sought in Questions on Notice by Mr Hatton, dated 6th December, 1991.
Page 6698 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Questions Upon Notice Unanswered
Mr SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with sessional orders I report to the House that there are unanswered questions No. 623 and No. 624 standing in the name of the Minister for the Environment representing the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy.
Mr MOORE: I advise that the answer to the questions has been lodged with the Clerk.
BILLS RETURNED
The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:
Constitution (Fixed Term Parliaments) Special Provisions Bill Film and Video Tape Classification (Amendment) Bill Marine (Boating Safety-Alcohol and Drugs) Bill Petroleum (Onshore) Bill Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Further Amendment Bill Rivers and Foreshores Improvement (Amendment) Bill Russian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill Stamp Duties (Amendment) Bill
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendments:
Local Government (Building Applications) Amendment Bill
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT (CONTRIBUTIONS PLANS) AMENDMENT BILL
Mr Speaker reported the receipt of a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Legislative Assembly's amendment.
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PROCESS AND FUNDING OF THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM
Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr Speaker -
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the resolution in the Legislative Assembly's Message of 10 December 1991 referring certain matters for investigation and report to the Joint Select Committee on the Process and Funding of the Electoral System.
Legislative Council M. F. Willis 12 December 1991 President
Page 6699 COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr Speaker -
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that, having had under consideration the Legislative Assembly's Message of 10 December 1991 concerning the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That, under section 64(1)(e) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, this House refers to the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption for investigation and report, the following matters.
(i) a review of the adequacy of the existing pecuniary interest provisions applying to Members of Parliament;
(ii) a review of the adequacy of existing pecuniary interest provisions applying to senior executives;
(iii) an examination of the need for and suggestions as to the content of a code of ethics for Members of Parliament. This might take into account the provisions already applying to Ministers and suggestions as to how these provisions might be streamlined and incorporated into a more general code which would apply to all Members of Parliament.
Legislative Council M. F. Willis 12 December 1991 President
ENDANGERED FAUNA (INTERIM PROTECTION) BILL
In Committee
Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.
Clause 2
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.17]: I move:
Page 2, clause 2. After paragraph (j), insert:
(k) to require consideration to be given to economic as well as environmental issues raised in submissions regarding applications for general licences under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
This amendment is designed to ensure that the Act will reflect the fact that the protection of endangered species is also bound up with economic growth and development. As the legislation stands, it fails to provide for a mechanism to balance or trade off the economic values of employment and growth with conservation and environmental values. It establishes the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service as the arbiter of development applications, but it does not provide sensible criteria to allow the director to decide in favour of economic development in any given situation. In short, it establishes a regime totally slanted to the preservation of species. The Government, Page 6700 through its negotiations on this issue and in the second reading debate, has indicated that it does not deny the importance of the conservation of species. It believes that without this amendment the bill goes too far. The provisions of the bill are tantamount to saying that the preservation of species has an absolute and inviolate status, irrespective of the countervailing arguments, values and features. The Government's amendment attempts to redress that imbalance. The amendment recognises the relevance of both economic and environmental issues contained in the objects of the bill. Clearly the words are reflective of the principles that were enshrined earlier this week in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The trade-off requirements must be recognised and balanced. I urge honourable members to support the amendment.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.20]: Essentially this amendment seeks to compel the director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to consider economic matters before issuing a licence. Already the director is required to do just that, if any person submits to him that he should. Otherwise, the director is not the preferred person who should collect economic information about these matters. Submissions are made to the director by other government departments, such as those responsible to the Minister for Conservation and Land Management. When an economic submission is made to the director he is required to consider it.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.21]: Though I acknowledge the relevance of the matters referred to by the honourable member for Blacktown, the bill as it is worded at present provides clearly that the director must take economic considerations into account. This amendment will clarify in the minds of the broader constituency the Government's intentions in this regard. Acceptance of the amendment will bring the parties much closer together. Therefore, the Government insists on its amendment.
Dr METHERELL (Davidson) [3.22]: The important issue at stake is not that of balance, in relation to which we all agree. In fact, the director of the service is required by the existing statute to consider all submissions - economic, environment, social or whatever - that are placed before him. This amendment is unnecessary. The difficulty this amendment would introduce, if it were accepted, is that the director would be asked to collect information he is not able to obtain. It is not a matter for the director of the service to collect economic information; it is for other proponents of development to do so. They will collect the information and put forward submissions. The director is required to take all submissions into account. This amendment seeks to place a requirement upon the director to collect information in relation to which task he does not have the staff. The amendment ignores social considerations and raises problems with, for example, the Aboriginal community, who will say, "What about the Aboriginal sites or Aboriginal relics? Why only economic or environmental matters?" A difficulty arises in relation to what the director is equipped and staffed to do. The present arrangements are satisfactory. The submissions of all proponents are assessed by the director, as is required of him. The amendment seeks to add, in one sense, a redundancy, and, in another sense, a complexity that is not needed.
Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.
The Committee divided.
Page 6701 Ayes, 45
Mr Armstrong Mr Baird Mr Blackmore Mr Chappell Mrs Chikarovski Mr Cochran Mrs Cohen Mr Collins Mr Cruickshank Mr Downy Mr Fahey Mr Fraser Mr Glachan Mr Griffiths Mr Hazzard Mr Jeffery
Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr Longley Mr Merton Mr Moore Mr Morris Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Packard Mr D. L. Page Mr Peacocke Mr Petch Mr Phillips Mr Photios Mr Rixon Mr Rozzoli Mr Schipp
Mr Schultz Mr Small Mr Smiles Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Tink Mr Turner Mr West Mr Windsor Mr Yabsley Mr Zammit
Tellers, Mr Beck Mr Hartcher
Noes, 48
Ms Allan Mr Amery Mr Anderson Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Bowman Mr Clough Mr Crittenden Mr Doyle Mr Face Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mrs Grusovin Mr Harrison Mr Hatton Mr Hunter Mr Iemma
Mr Irwin Mr Knight Mr Knowles Mr Langton Mrs Lo Po' Dr Macdonald Mr McManus Mr Markham Mr Martin Dr Metherell Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Moss Mr J. H. Murray Mr Nagle Mr Newman Ms Nori
Mr E. T. Page Mr Price Dr Refshauge Mr Rogan Mr Rumble Mr Scully Mr Shedden Mr Sullivan Mr Thompson Mr Whelan Mr Yeadon Mr Ziolkowski
Tellers, Mr Beckroge Mr Davoren
Pairs
Mr Causley Mr Greiner
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.30]: I move:
Page 3, clause 7. Omit "1 September 1992" wherever occurring, insert instead "1 December 1992".
Page 6702
The amendment seeks to extend the life of the bill to 1st December, 1992. The purpose of the amendment is to give the community more time to consider what shape a permanent endangered species bill should take. A permanent bill will not only protect fauna but also flora. This morning long debate ensued about the need to protect endangered fauna in New South Wales, but during that debate flora were not mentioned. Invertebrate fauna such as butterflies are not protected. Many members are anxious to protect butterflies. In the course of earlier discussion, government officers indicated the Government's willingness to consider comprehensive endangered species legislation dealing with both flora and fauna including invertebrate fauna. Another reason for giving the bill one year to work is to test the scheme which it sets up. During the next 12 months there will be sufficient time to test the effectiveness of the scheme to be set up under the bill.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.33]: I understand that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Blacktown does not accord with what she has just said. The amendment seeks to extend the term of criminal liability, affects the repeal provisions of the bill and does not extend the life of the bill, as she suggested.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.34]: I move:
Page 3, clause 7. Omit clause 7, insert instead:
Repeal
7. The amendments made by this Act are repealed at the beginning of 1 May 1992. The repeal has the effect of restoring the amended Acts as they were immediately before the amendments took effect.
In respect of the argument that has just been put by the honourable member for Blacktown, the amendment in effect will provide a sunset clause in the legislation. Originally the Government had imposed a sunset clause of 30th April, 1992. That was the time the Premier clearly indicated the Government would be coming back with its own package of legislation to provide for endangered species as well as a formal structure relating to a national resources management council. The bill provides a sunset clause of 1st September, 1992. The Government believes, in order to keep the original program on target, that the sunset clause in the bill should be brought back to 1st May, 1992.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.35]: The Opposition opposes the amendment. The purpose of the sunset provision is to enable a proper endangered species law to be enacted after community consultation and scientific advice. The Government will not be able to do that by 1st May, 1992. I am sure the Minister is acting with blameless intent in trying to bring the sunset provision forward by seven months, but the Government will not be able to achieve effective consultation with the general community and the scientific community if it brings that clause forward to 1st May, 1992. In consultations yesterday Government officials confirmed that and acceded to our amendment extending the life of the bill to 1st December, 1992.
Amendment negatived.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Page 6703
New clause 8
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.37]: I move:
Page 3. After clause 7, insert:
Savings provision
8. The amendments made by this Act to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 do not affect:
(a) any development consent granted before the commencement of this Act or any development carried out in accordance with such a consent; or (b) any activity to which Part 5 of that Act applies (or any approval for the carrying out of any such activity) if the provisions of that Part were complied with for that activity before the commencement of this Act.
The amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act proposed in the bill will not affect existing development consents or approvals. The amendment will ensure that those amendments are not retrospective and that existing user rights are protected.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause agreed to.
Schedule 1
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [3.38]: I move:
Page 5, Schedule 1(2)(f). From the proposed definition of "take", omit "the habitat of the fauna which is likely to adversely affect its essential behavioural patterns", insert instead "the critical habitat, namely, the whole or any part of the habitat which is essential for the survival of that species of fauna".
The amendment is moved because of the technical concerns of the National Parks and Wildlife Service about the need for precision of definition of critical habitat or the habitat that needs to be considered in the operation of the bill. I commend the amendment.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.39]: The Opposition opposes the amendment. In our discussions yesterday government officials satisfied us that the concept of critical habitat was important in relation to protected species but has no scientific relevance in relation to endangered species. If a species is endangered, most if not all of its habitat would be critical. Critical habitat is a very ambiguous expression which is not otherwise defined in the Act. Defining habitat modification by reference to an adverse effect upon essential behavioural patterns of a species is a much clearer and more definite description of the effect which action must achieve before it amounts to a taking of a species. The bill's definition of "take" follows the definition applied by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in administering the United States Endangered Species Act, which has applied successfully for almost 20 years in the United States. The Land and Environment Court and the Queensland Supreme Court in the Ghost Bat case - Mount Etna - followed the United States law and held that a disturbance of fauna is habitat modification which is likely to adversely affect essential behavioural patterns.
Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [3.41]: It is essential to look more broadly at the difference between critical habitat and habitat modification. Changes in activity can have an impact on animal behaviour patterns and cause animals to move from their usual habitat. I oppose the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Page 6704
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.42]: I move:
Page 6, Schedule 1(3). Omit proposed section 92A(3)(b).
This proposed section will remove marine mammals from a special category which the bill continued in the original National Parks and Wildlife Act. Marine mammals will now be dealt with in the same way as all other vertebrate fauna. If they are not endangered, they will be listed in schedule 12. If not, they will become a protected species. Both the conservation movement and government officers recognise that the existing protection given to all marine mammals is too wide and that some marine mammals that are not threatened or endangered do not need special protection as an endangered species.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.43]: I move:
Page 7, Schedule 1(3). From proposed section 92A(8)(d), omit "subsection (3)(e)", insert instead "subsection (3)(d)".
This is consequential upon amendment No. 3.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.44]: I move:
Page 7, Schedule 1(3). In proposed section 92A (9), after "On", insert "approval by resolution of each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the House after".
The bill contains a clause that offends against a fundamental canon of constitutional practice. It would permit a committee, that is, a committee external of this Parliament, to amend an Act of Parliament. The committee will not be appointed by the Parliament. The committee will not even be accountable to or appointed by a Minister of the Crown. No elected representative will have any control over this process. The Regulation Review Committee complained in its report about Henry VIII clauses that allowed the amendment of Acts of Parliament other than by another Act of Parliament. This is worse than a conventional Henry VIII clause. The contentious amendments will be critical to the conservation, economic growth and development of this State. The schedule should require at least the approval of the Parliament, if not that of a formal Act. That is all that this amendment provides for.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [3.45]: The Opposition opposes the proposed amendment dealing with changes to the schedule 12 notice, unless both Houses of Parliament approve it. This amendment would delay the new schedule 12 by several months if Parliament were prorogued, and if it does not sit there will be no schedule 12 and the exemption for all developers will be indefinitely extended. The revision of the schedule must be taken out of the political arena, and revised only after scientific opinion is sought. The amendment will delay the listing of species and expose industry to the present schedule, which will mean many more licence applications than under the revised schedule.
Amendment negatived.
Page 6705
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.46]: I move:
Page 7, Schedule 1(3). After proposed section 92A (9), insert:
(10) The Committee is required to consider any submissions received in response to the invitation to the public under subsection (8)(b) for the purpose of deciding whether to recommend any amendment of the revised (interim) Schedule 12.
This provision will require the scientific committee to consider public submissions in deciding whether to recommend that any species of fauna be deleted or added to schedule 12. This is a machinery amendment to empower the scientific committee to do what was implied in the bill. The environment movement and Government officers, as well as the timber industry, consider that this is an acceptable requirement that will allow public participation in the deliberations of the scientific committee, as well as expeditious removal or addition of a species to the list in the event of significant changes in the population of species. For example, it is not uncommon for some populations of species to crash during extended drought. For some time thereafter such populations are vulnerable and require protection until they recover.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.47]: I move:
Page 8, Schedule 1(3). At the end of proposed section 92B(3), insert "The Director may, before dealing with the application, require the applicant to pay an amount not exceeding one-half of the estimated processing fee".
The director may require licence applicants to pay up to half the processing fee in advance. This provision was inserted at the request of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, with the concurrence of the environmental movement. It reflects the situation with freedom of information Acts in New South Wales and the Commonwealth.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.48]: I move:
Page 9, Schedule 1(3). From proposed section 92B(5), omit "published daily and".
No newspaper is published daily in New South Wales. This amendment will retain the requirement to advertise licence applications in statewide newspapers.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.48]: I move:
Page 9, Schedule 1(3). At the end of proposed section 92B(5), insert "The foregoing provisions of this subsection do not apply to an application if an environmental impact statement or a fauna impact statement has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to the relevant development or activity."
This particular amendment refers to avoiding the duplication of process. This amendment is particularly designed to partially repair another absurdity in the bill that I referred to during the second reading stage. At a time when governments all around Australia are trying to simplify, streamline and rationalise the approval processes, what do we find in this bill? It is the institutionalisation of new approval processes, with the duplication of Page 6706 procedures under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This is obviously the Labor Party's new view of microeconomic reform. It is also misguided protection of environmental values to think that by proliferating such processes one can achieve better protection. The better way is to scrutinise the planning process seriously and to make sure that it properly recognises conservation values. The import of this amendment is that someone who has already done an environmental impact statement should not have to go through the duplication process set out in section 92B(5). Environmental impact statements are put on display and publicly considered. There is obviously no need for this duplicate process to occur.
Dr METHERELL (Davidson) [3.49]: There may be a misunderstanding on the part of the Minister of the amendment that has been drafted for him. In fact, clause 92D(4) of the bill will prevent duplication of an environmental impact statement and fauna impact statement. This amendment as it is unfortunately drafted at the moment will destroy the right of third party objectors to appeal against decisions to issue licences. It will subvert the need for outside adjudication, which is, of course, central to the whole process established in the legislation. It is simply unnecessary and will destroy clauses 92B and 92D, which provide the protections that the Minister is alluding to. Some environmental impact studies do not contain an adequate study of endangered fauna and are not required to consider fauna to the extent and with the rigour that clause 92D requires for fauna impact statements. For example, the Chaelundi environmental impact study failed to survey the most endangered species expected to be present in the three compartments the subject of the court action. Hence, the inappropriateness of this amendment.
Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [3.50]: The Opposition formally opposes the amendment.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.50]: From what the honourable member for Davidson has just said, he seems to believe that every environmental impact statement that has ever been undertaken in the past and still has standing must be revisited. It is felt that because a flora impact statement had not been done as it was not part of the hierarchy at the time, the environmental impact statement would not have current standing. If that is the import of what the honourable member is saying, it is extremely dangerous. Those who have standing should continue to have standing in the future. The Government is considering flora impact statements becoming part of environmental impact statements, but to go back and revisit is extremely dangerous.
Amendment negatived.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.51]: I move:
Page 9, Schedule 1(3). From proposed section 92B(6)(d), omit "section 92A(3)(e)", insert instead "section 92A(3)(d)".
This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 3.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.51]: I move:
Pages 9 and 10, Schedule 1(3). Omit proposed section 92B(11) and (12), insert instead:
Page 6707 (11) Despite anything to the contrary in this section, the Director may grant the application even though a fauna impact statement did not accompany the application and subsections (5) and (6) have not been complied with, but only if the things authorised by the licence are essential for the carrying out of:
(a) development in accordance with a development consent within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; or
(b) an activity, whether by a determining authority or pursuant to an approval of a determining authority, within the meaning of part 5 of that Act if the determining authority has complied with that Part.
Any such development consent or approval must have been granted before the commencement of this section or during the period of 3 months after that commencement or, in the case of an activity by a determining authority, the activity must have been commenced before the end of that period.
(12) A licence issued pursuant to subsection (11) is to be a temporary licence which ceases to have effect after the period of 120 days after its issue.
(13) Within 14 days after the issue of a licence to which this section applies, the Director is required to publish in the Gazette notice of the decision to issue the licence.
(14) The Director is required to make available for public inspection the Director's reasons for issuing a licence to which this section applies. A person is entitled to a copy of those reasons on payment of such reasonable fee as the Director determines.
This amendment will create a temporary licence. The director may issue it for all existing development and for all development where approvals or consents have been issued up to three months after the commencement of the Act. A temporary licence will not be subject to appeal by an objector, but appeal rights will be preserved for licence applicants where the licence is refused. If the director issues a temporary licence, it will last for a period of four months. In effect, these amendments will extend existing or future development for seven months from the date of commencement of the bill without requiring the developers to undergo the public consultation and scrutiny processes set out in proposed sections 92B, 92C and 92D of the bill. This is the major compromise made by the environment movement to preserve existing activities and likely future activities, particularly in the forestry industry. It will make unnecessary the foreshadowed Government amendment to extend the exemption period of three months from the publication of the revised schedule 12. It is expected that the director of the service will issue temporary licences to the Forestry Commission shortly after the Act commences. The director is not required to prepare environmental impact statements or otherwise comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act when issuing a temporary licence.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.52]: I move:
Page 11, Schedule 1(3). From proposed section 92C(5), omit "60 days", insert instead "40 days".
If the director fails to grant the licence within 40 days, it will be deemed to be refused under this amendment. The amendment, which will shorten the period before which an unsuccessful applicant can lodge an appeal, is acceptable to the environment movement. It will place pressure on the National Parks and Wildlife Service to deal expeditiously with licence applications.
Amendment agreed to.
Page 6708 Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.53]: I move:
Page 15, Schedule 1(8). Omit proposed subsection (5) of section 98, insert instead:
(5) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to things which are essential for the carrying out of:
(a) development in accordance with a development consent within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; or
(b) an activity, whether by a determining authority or pursuant to an approval of a determining authority, within the meaning of Part 5 of that Act if the determining authority has complied with that Part.
Mr West: Amendments 7 and 8 were consequential on an earlier amendment that was defeated, so they have been deleted. The member cannot move the amendment.
Ms ALLAN: This is merely a drafting amendment, which will slightly extend the protection given to public authorities that themselves carry out an activity rather than approving someone else to do so. Public authorities in that position, such as the Forestry Commission when it does its own logging, will be given the same protection from proposed section 98 as other public authorities and private developers. That protection is another fundamental compromise the environment movement has made to restrict significantly the operation of proposed section 98, which will prohibit the taking or killing of protected - not endangered - species without a licence. Once the bill is enacted, no person falling within the categories listed in this amendment will be required to obtain a licence in order to take or kill protected - that is, not endangered - species.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.55]: I move:
Page 15, Schedule 1(9)(c). In proposed subsection (6) of section 99, omit "Until publication of the revised (interim) Schedule 12", insert instead "Until three months after the revised (interim) Schedule 12 replaces the existing Schedule 12".
This bill proposes a cumbersome process of approval, as I have already indicated in Committee and also at the second reading stage. There must be an adequate period within which those who are affected throughout this State can achieve compliance without causing an unnecessary shutdown of activities. That formed the basis of the discussions that the Minister for the Environment and I had with members of the Opposition, the crossbenchers and the peak environment groups over the past two or three days to make sure that we could get this essential legislation up but at the same time make sure that industry had some continuation. We believe that this amendment at this point is, therefore, essential. On the day that the new schedule of endangered species takes effect - that is, one month from now - hundreds, and probably thousands, of activities throughout this State will then require a licence from the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
It is inconceivable that the preparation of applications, the consideration of the director and the issue of licences, even under the temporary arrangements that are envisaged, could be processed overnight. That raises the spectre of thousands of people being placed in a position of breaching the law or having to stop their ongoing activities
Page 6709 while this process is completed. Neither of those actions is desirable, and we do not want that to happen. Such an outcome is against all the precedents of good lawmaking and will have, at the very least, undesirable economic effects at a time when the recession honourable members have heard about today is wreaking havoc on the State's rural communities. The amendment provides, therefore, a sensible period within which the provisions of the new Act, the revised schedule and their implications can be widely disseminated. Those who are affected will be able to make applications for licences. It will also provide a period within which the National Parks and Wildlife Service can deal with what will inevitably be a landslide of such applications.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [3.57]: The Opposition disagrees with the Minister's view of this amendment and opposes it. There is no need for the amendment. The Minister is trying to undermine the scheme, which basically provides for the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to issue a temporary licence during the period of three months after the bill is enacted so as to give a reasonable period for compliance to be achieved. The Opposition believes that the issuing of licences will not be an overnight procedure. The extended period would give time. The Opposition opposes the amendment.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [3.58]: Under the Australian Labor Party amendment it will be possible to apply for a licence for a area, rather than the National Parks and Wildlife Service looking up the species as soon as the Act becomes law. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will be able to move on that straightaway. Honourable members should remember that the list of endangered species will be smaller and not larger. I hope that if a new endangered species is added to the list, there would be an early notification rather than a later one.
Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 45
Mr Armstrong Mr Baird Mr Blackmore Mr Chappell Mrs Chikarovski Mr Cochran Mrs Cohen Mr Collins Mr Cruickshank Mr Downy Mr Fahey Mr Fraser Mr Glachan Mr Griffiths Mr Hazzard Mr Jeffery
Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr Longley Mr Merton Mr Moore Mr Morris Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Packard Mr D. L. Page Mr Peacocke Mr Petch Mr Phillips Mr Photios Mr Rixon Mr Rozzoli Mr Schipp
Mr Schultz Mr Small Mr Smiles Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Tink Mr Turner Mr West Mr Windsor Mr Yabsley Mr Zammit
Tellers, Mr Beck Mr Hartcher
Page 6710 Noes, 48
Ms Allan Mr Amery Mr Anderson Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Bowman Mr Clough Mr Crittenden Mr Doyle Mr Face Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mrs Grusovin Mr Harrison Mr Hatton Mr Hunter Mr Iemma
Mr Irwin Mr Knight Mr Knowles Mr Langton Mrs Lo Po' Dr Macdonald Mr McManus Mr Markham Mr Martin Dr Metherell Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Moss Mr J. H. Murray Mr Nagle Mr Newman Ms Nori
Mr E. T. Page Mr Price Dr Refshauge Mr Rogan Mr Rumble Mr Scully Mr Shedden Mr Sullivan Mr Thompson Mr Whelan Mr Yeadon Mr Ziolkowski
Tellers, Mr Beckroge Mr Davoren
Pairs
Mr Causley Mr Greiner
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [4.5] I move:
Pages 15 and 16, Schedule 1(9)(c). Omit from proposed subsection (6) of section 99 after "subsection (1) does not apply", insert instead the following:
in relation to things which are essential for the carrying out of:
(a) development in accordance with a development consent within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; or
(b) an activity, whether by a determining authority or pursuant to an approval of a determining authority, within the meaning of Part 5 of that Act if the determining authority has complied with that Part.
This amendment makes the same amendment as amendment No. 11 in relation to section 99, which prohibits the taking or killing of endangered species. The bill provides a period of grace where section 99 does not operate until the scientific committee has published the new revised and much more limited schedule of endangered species. This amendment will extend the protection given to public authorities when they conduct development activities themselves rather than simply giving approvals to others to do so. In other words, as with the amendment to section 98, this amendment will extend the immunity that the bill will confer upon developers and resource agencies from compliance with the licence requirements. Hence it is yet another effort to make the legislation far more palatable to the forestry industry.
Page 6711
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [4.6]: I wish to briefly place on record the appreciation of many in the forest industry for this amendment. It goes partially towards allowing the legislation to work. If the bill did not have this provision, it would be totally unworkable. The negotiations of the past three nights have at least achieved this much. It is a pity there was not more acceptance of some of the other provisions, but this amendment at least goes part of the way.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [4.7]: I move:
Page 16, Schedule 1(9)(c). After proposed subsection (6) of section 99, insert:
(7) For the purposes of this section, a general licence is taken to have been issued under section 120 in relation to acts which are reasonably connected with the carrying out of:
(a) development in accordance with a development consent within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; or
(b) an activity, whether by a determining authority or pursuant to an approval of a determining authority, within the meaning of Part 5 of that Act,
if an environmental impact statement or fauna impact statement has been prepared pursuant to that Act in relation to the development or activity.
This amendment is moved to try to repair what I have described on a number of occasions as the absurdity that has occurred in this bill. That has been partially addressed by the previous amendment. I refer to the duplication of process where someone who has already done an environmental impact statement should have to go through the process set out in clause 93(2)(5). This amendment goes further and proposes that there should not be a duplication of consents where such consents or approvals have already been validly obtained after considering an environmental impact statement or fauna impact statement addressing the concerns of endangered species as provided for in the bill. Again it is not appropriate in a misguided attempt to ensure that for the protection of fauna there is a proliferation and duplication of bureaucratic processes, the only effect of which would be to increase cost and delay and to cause concern to the public service without adding anything significant to environmental protection. Such duplication also permits conflicting conditions to be imposed by separate consent authorities. It is important to note that the amendment is specifically limited to those cases where an environmental impact statement or fauna impact statement has been prepared in conformity with the bill. In those circumstances approvals or consents granted will already have provided for explicit consideration of endangered species.
Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [4.8]: The Opposition opposes the amendment. It is a repetition of the regulation which Parliament disallowed this morning. It completely undermines the scheme of the bill and should be rejected. It is strongly opposed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which said in its paper on the bill:
The EPA Act is not remotely equipped to properly provide for endangered species protection or management.
[Interruption]
The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
Page 6712 Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 45
Mr Armstrong Mr Baird Mr Blackmore Mr Chappell Mrs Chikarovski Mr Cochran Mrs Cohen Mr Collins Mr Cruickshank Mr Downy Mr Fahey Mr Fraser Mr Glachan Mr Griffiths Mr Hazzard Mr Jeffery
Dr Kernohan Mr Kerr Mr Longley Ms Machin Mr Moore Mr Morris Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Packard Mr D. L. Page Mr Peacocke Mr Petch Mr Phillips Mr Photios Mr Rixon Mr Rozzoli Mr Schipp
Mr Schultz Mr Small Mr Smiles Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Tink Mr Turner Mr West Mr Windsor Mr Yabsley Mr Zammit
Tellers, Mr Beck Mr Hartcher Noes, 48
Ms Allan Mr Amery Mr Anderson Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Bowman Mr Clough Mr Crittenden Mr Doyle Mr Face Mr Gaudry Mr Gibson Mrs Grusovin Mr Harrison Mr Hatton Mr Hunter Mr Iemma
Mr Irwin Mr Knight Mr Knowles Mr Langton Mrs Lo Po' Dr Macdonald Mr McManus Mr Markham Mr Martin Dr Metherell Mr Mills Ms Moore Mr Moss Mr J. H. Murray Mr Nagle Mr Newman Ms Nori
Mr E. T. Page Mr Price Dr Refshauge Mr Rogan Mr Rumble Mr Scully Mr Shedden Mr Sullivan Mr Thompson Mr Whelan Mr Yeadon Mr Ziolkowski
Tellers, Mr Beckroge Mr Davoren
Pairs
Mr Causley Mr Greiner
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! The question now is, That the schedule as read stand part of the bill. I call the honourable member for Blacktown.
Page 6713
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford), Government Whip [4.16]: I move:
That the question be now put.
Resolved in the affirmative.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! Pursuant to the resolution of the House adopted earlier this day, I now propose to put the question, That amendments Nos 14 to 19 as circulated by the honourable member for Blacktown be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedules as amended agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed though remaining stages.
House adjourned at 4.17 p.m., until Wednesday, 19th February, 1992, at 2.15 p.m.