At
3pm on Thursday 19 November 2020 the NSW
Legislative Council
considered the second
reading of
Local Land Sevices Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill
2020.
Thirty-seven
members of the Legislative Council attended the Chamber for the
passage of this bill, although not all participated in the debate.
The
debate on the bill itself went for 5 hours and 24 minutes before the
bells rang for a vote.
Here
are excerpts drawn
from the Hansard
record of
this
debate:
The
Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Liberal
Party):
With the endorsement of the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces,
I make this statement now in this second reading speech: There will
be no ministerial direction requiring any local council to zone core
koala habitat as an environmental zone—period. The Local Land
Services Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020 will help to ensure that
primary production is regulated consistently and fairly right across
New South Wales, making it easier for the agriculture and forestry
sectors to invest in the future. Government action now is essential
to reduce regulatory burden and simplify the interaction between
areas requiring additional environmental protection on rural land.
A
slow undermining of farmers' rights and the Local Land Services Act,
which is such a critical reform for farmers and this Government, will
not be allowed to happen on our watch. The last time I introduced a
bill into this House I stood in defence of a farmer's right to farm
and their right to go about their business without being subject to
on-farm invasions. I was proud to introduce the toughest raft of
penalties anywhere in the country for this highly dangerous and
disgusting trespass activity to which farmers were being subjected. I
said then that I would be back with further reforms. This bill is one
piece of the puzzle. It is a significant next step forward for
farmers today by unscrambling some of the issues about how we
regulate on-farm activities.
Ms
CATE FAEHRMANN (The
Greens Party):
Up and down the mid North Coast and the North
Coast hundreds of thousands of hectares of private native forestry
plans have been approved within which there is a lot of core koala
habitat. The timber industry has been consulted on the bill and loves
it because, lo and behold, if core koala habitat is not already
mapped it ends up for grabs…..
In
his second reading speech the agriculture Minister said that the bill
amending the Local Land Services Act has come about after years of
consultation with farmers. Basically he said that the bill will make
farmers very happy and that the key people with whom he consulted
were the NSW Farmers Association and the timber industry. I will talk
briefly about what the new koala SEPP was going to do. After speaking
with the environment Minister, the planning Minister and various
people in this place about what on earth this bill was about, we were
assured that it is okay because it tightens the definition of "koala
habitat". That it is what we had been after for some time
because it puts in 123 feed trees and that it is a great step because
more koala habitat will be protected and expanded. But a new
definition of "core koala habitat" is useless if it cannot
be applied to where it is needed most. The bill expressly prohibits
that. Every time we heard something else about the bill, you could
almost hear the committee members who sat on the koala inquiry
asking, "What? They have done what?"
After
the year we have had, after the bushfires, after the inquiry finding
that koalas will become extinct in New South Wales before 2050
without urgent Government intervention to prevent ongoing loss and
fragmentation of koala habitat, the National Party has the gall to
try to get away with this absolutely disgraceful bill. Perhaps that
is fair enough, given The National Party's strong track record of
being anti-environment. I would welcome any National Party member
coming forward to explain how this bill is not an anti-environment
bill. In fact, we heard a lot of that in the lower House and not a
single member of the Liberals spoke in favour of this incredible
compromise that the National Party came up with. To hear the
agriculture Minister say in his second reading speech that he worked
collaboratively with the Premier's office and with the planning
Minister's office makes one wonder what the hell was going on with
this legislation. After all of the fanfare and all of the promises,
they booted out the environment Minister Matt Kean for having the
gall to talk about doubling koala numbers. For goodness sake! They
boot him out and say, "We will take over, there's nothing to see
here. Go away, let's do this bill…..
During
debate in this place on the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party
bill—which tried to do something similar but went a little
further—on the day that the Minister's bill was second read in the
other place, the Hon. Ben Franklin quoted the Hon. Mark Banasiak. He
basically said that Sydney-based greenies should keep their noses out
of any affairs in the bush. Pretty much everybody cares about koalas.
Maybe a few people in The Nationals call them and think of them as
"tree rats", but pretty much everybody I speak to right
across New South Wales cares. In fact, people call my office and
every office from across the country and, indeed, the world. More
than 10,000 emails were sent on a single day, crashing the server. I
do not think I have seen more emails on an issue. It is koalas, for
goodness sake; we are talking about koalas. It is not a city-based
greenie issue; this is an Australian issue. This is our national icon
and the most loved animal not just in Australia but also the world.
It wins so many contests and surveys as the most loved animal…..
Reverend
the Hon. FRED NILE (Christian
Democrats Party):
Like other members of this House I have a great love and attraction
for our koalas. I will do all that I can to ensure—as we are doing
in this legislation—that we protect particularly those major areas
of habitat in Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey, Lismore and Port
Stephens.
The
Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (Liberal
Party):
A hundred years ago the New South Wales Government
supported a thriving primary industry in the name of jobs, property
rights, economic growth and revenues to the public purse. The
industry operated across all States and involved the slaughter of
well over 8 million koalas and the export of their furs, mainly to
the United Kingdom. At least 4 million koala pelts were sent to the
USA, and trade only ceased when the American Secretary of Commerce
signed an order prohibiting further imports. How embarrassing. The
koalas were hunted to functional extinction in South Australia.
Well-intentioned conservationists alarmed by the losses relocated
several koalas to Kangaroo Island, which had never before had koalas.
This created a new environmental disaster on the fragile environment
of that island that is still being mitigated today. In Victoria it is
estimated that hunting continued until barely 1,000 koalas were left,
and the Australia Koala Foundation estimates that fewer than 500 were
left alive in New South Wales.
After
that the slaughter moved north to Queensland, where a month-long
event known as "Black August" in 1927 saw more than 800,000
koalas killed. We have made so many mistakes. The koala fur traders
that profited from their pelts are all dead and gone, but the impacts
of what they did are with us today. One day all of us here in this
Chamber will be dead and gone, but the impacts of what we decide
today will last forever. I do not want this Government or this
Parliament to be remembered for a massive policy error, added to the
very long list of errors that we have already been making for more
than a century—particularly when everyone from scientists to
councils to passionate communities are telling us so clearly that
this is not what they want.
It
is safe to say that in my own North Coast region, fragile koala
numbers have declined significantly. We know that the region lost an
estimated 71 per cent of its already endangered koalas during the
Black Summer fires. Our koalas are in so much trouble. The plight of
koalas is really well understood by my community, and indeed by the
whole world, which donated tens of millions of dollars in a stunning
act of generosity to funds established specifically help koalas. My
community is incredibly distressed by this legislation. In all of the
communications sent to me on this issue, I have not had a single
person ask me to vote for this bill—not one. I cannot find a
constituency for this legislation. All I can find is enormous
distress and mistrust. The Minister's second reading speech referring
to a promise by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces not to
proclaim any more environmental lands was a huge shock to me
personally. It was really hard for me to process as a lifelong
Liberal…..
I
admit that this bill brings to the surface many disappointments. Nine
years ago I thought that there was a lot of hope and promise for the
environment. But this has brought me to a tipping point because of
the reframing of policy that began with catchment management
authorities being removed from the Environment portfolio and handed
to the primary industries Minister by former Premier Barry O'Farrell.
Those disappointments have of course had to be endured for the sake
of loyalty. But as members are aware, the shock of what happened to
the portfolio and the incremental stripping away of protections from
Environment and Planning and into a Primary Industry framework have
been very difficult to swallow—particularly since the models that
we have been dismantling were set up by the Liberal Party and The
Nationals during the Greiner years. It is our own good work that we
have been undoing…..
I
have received assurances that the bill is not as bad as it looks and
that it will be amended and improved, but the problem is that I have
to deal with what is on the table before me, and the risk is too high
to rely on those assurances. I have done that in the past and I have
felt foolish for doing so. Mention has been made of the departure of
the bill from the Cabinet decision, which I find shocking. I feel for
my colleagues, including Ministers, who voted for the bill in the
other place, believing incorrectly it had been approved by Cabinet.
Truly, I have not encountered such poor integrity of processes, which
all members have no choice but to trust and rely upon. My faith in
those processes has been shattered. I have friends in Cabinet, and
they are great Liberals with whom I have worked for decades. My
position on the bill today inflicts enormous harm on those
relationships. I cannot say how sad and sorry I am for that.
I
apologise to the Premier, to my party and to our Coalition partners.
I believe they are all good people. The damage that is inflicted by
the bill is not what they wanted or intended, but the flawed
processes means that that is what has been delivered. I believe in my
heart that what I am doing today will assist the Government. The
Premier, the planning Minister and the environment Minister could not
have tried harder to ask me to support the bill. They should not be
blamed for the fallout from today. I hope we can stop yelling at each
other, work like adults for our communities and listen to each other
and create consensus where there is chaos. I do not think that is a
fairytale; I believe it is achievable if we leave ourselves out of
the policy and go with the science and the facts.
I
will make mention of Glen Turner, an inspector who lost his life in a
shocking event. All members have a responsibility to honour him and
to respect the sacrifice that he made. One person's humble career on
the floor of Parliament is insignificant compared with what occurred
in that incident. I acknowledge Glen and I thank him and his family.
I will move an amendment to the bill in the earnest belief that a
more transparent process will assist the bill, the Government and the
community to come together in the great cause of saving our koalas.
There is nothing to fear from an all-party inquiry, and there is much
to be gained from inspiring confidence in the community. I thank the
House for the opportunity to put my thoughts on record. I
move:
That
the question be amended by omitting "be now read a second time"
and inserting instead "be referred to Portfolio Committee No. 7
- Planning and Environment for inquiry and report".
The
Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Labor
Party):
We are so far from that with the bill. We are so far
from that world, which is possible. The bill heads in the opposite
direction. I am concerned that that is the case because of the
culture of the Government: the developers are out in force, the tipsy
developers wandering through the Premier's office, the developers
housed in the pub at Taree are part of the fundraiser and the walking
ATM back on the typewriter. That is the culture of the Government.
Our concern, and the planning Minister's concern, is that that
culture is driving the bill. Secondly, members have been critical
about the maps and how some of the aerial surveillance is regulated.
There are real concerns with how that is working. My concern there is
that the system has not been resourced properly to settle those
questions. Of course, the way to settle questions is with science,
but the science to proof the maps is not there if the money is not
there or to ground-truth what is going on. That is what is falling
over: the decline in the funding for the regulatory agencies. The
loss of skills as people lose hope and leave the regulatory agencies
is killing our ability to be settle those issues through science.
That is bad for everyone. That is bad for anyone who wants to see a
result in the area. The best bit of the Hon. Catherine Cusack's
speech was when she described to koala plans of management as a
little bit complicated—not a truer word could have been spoken. It
is complicated if we are going to regulate it properly.
Finally,
I want to talk about the consequences. Members have been clear that
the situation is very bad for koalas. Koalas will be extinct by 2050
if we do not get it right. We are heading in the wrong direction, but
my concern about the past few years—but more than anything, about
this bill—is that we are heading back to the forest wars. That is
bad for everyone. That is not where members of the Government want to
go because it is drawing the attention of environmental activists
across the State and country who, frankly, were concerned about
climate change and tackling that issue. They are being drawn back to
New South Wales and the natural resource policies of the Government
because of what is going on. The Government is drawing the attention
of those activists and legislators. It is drawing the attention of
this House, the Opposition and the crossbench. The issue is becoming
more and more controversial. It is drawing the attention of the
community, not only in Australia but also around the world, and that
attention is not going to go away.
As
the Hon. Catherine Cusack said, the bill is dragging us back to a
time before the Greiner years. We had been moving towards consensus
on some of those issues over Labor and Liberal governments, but the
conflict is gearing up because of the approach. It is not just this
bill; it is the other context I talked about. The bill is clearly
drawing the attention. That is bad for farmers, forestry workers,
environmentalists and regional communities. That is the problem if we
gear up that conflict. Those issues rely on trust, faith and an
understanding that we can work together. There is an optimistic path
but the bill is so far from it. That is the Opposition's concern. I
am glad that the Hon. Catherine Cusack mentioned Glen Turner and his
family. He paid the price for one of those conflicts, which is what
happens when we let loose those conflicts across the State. We should
act very carefully and the Opposition will try to do that. The real
fear is that the forest wars that the State has suffered over decades
will really set us all back.
The
Hon. MARK BANASIAK (Shooter,
Fishers and Farmers Party):
The Local Land Services Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020 is a good
example of the National Party's inability to negotiate outcomes for
the bush with the Liberal Party. We sincerely appreciate the effort
of Minister Adam Marshall, despite him being undermined by the
pretend Nationals Deputy Premier John Barilaro in what can be
described as his Winston Churchill moment, appeasing his Liberal
masters.…..
As
I have said already, Minister Adam Marshall has proven, once again,
that he is one of the few sharp tools in the shed of the National
Party in this Parliament. The Hon. Wes Fang is another. We achieved a
lot together with Minister Marshall during debate on the Right to
Farm Bill 2019. We are looking forward to achieve similar outcomes on
this important Local Land Services Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill.
However, that may not happen because the Hon. Catherine Cusack has
gone a bit rogue. Either she will vote against the bill or she will
refer it to a portfolio committee controlled by The Greens or an
inquiry. Either way, The Nationals have been bent over the barrel
unceremoniously. Who is the winner in all of this? It is definitely
not the National Party.
The
Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (The
National Party):
Those people sit in their offices in their ivory
towers pretending that they know what is best for the people who, for
generations, have been looking after the lands which they have held
in trust. They are very conscious of environmental issues, yet their
stewardship and responsibility to their land and the environment is
not recognised. Instead, we have
another set of regulations and a number of maps that have been put
through a local government process that, over time—particularly on
the North Coast—have been taken over by people with a one-eyed view
about what the environment means to them.
That
is the problem. We cannot continue down this pathway of undermining
the paradigm and framework that was carefully put in place in 2016.
The codes under those Acts have embedded the protections so far as
the environment is concerned, as well as biodiversity, land clearing
and private native forestry. It is all there. Let us not pretend that
this system is going to make it any better. It confuses everything
right down the line. Let us go back to the simple processes that the
Coalition Government carefully put in place at that time and enhance
them where we need to through that Local Land Services framework. We
should be doing that and not get caught up in State environment
planning instruments. My view is
that those types of SEPPs should be disallowed by this House of
Parliament, because we are basically giving all those powers for
those planning instruments to local governments, which are
undermining the absolute basis of planning in this State,
particularly in rural lands outside the cities.
The
Hon. MARK PEARSON (Animal
Justice Party):
There are times in my political life when I step back in
amazement at the terrible cruelty so casually inflicted upon the
animals with whom we share this island continent. Reading the
provisions of the Local Land Services (Amendment) Miscellaneous Bill
2020 and understanding its implications for koalas in particular is
one of those occasions. Combined with the recent changes to the State
Environment Planning Policy No. 44 (Koala Habitat Protection)—the
koala SEPP— the effect of the bill has a diabolical impact on the
survival of koalas in New South Wales. This is neither histrionics
nor an overstatement. My concern is shared by every reputable
conservation and environmental organisation in this country and the
world. The ink is barely dry on the report of this House after its
12-month inquiry into New South Wales koala populations, which found
that koala numbers were down to 15,000 to 20,000 and that koalas were
at risk of extinction by 2050.
The
bill will bring forward that estimated date of extinction. The bill
and the revised SEPP make an absolute mockery of the Government's
very recent promises to prevent the extinction of koalas on their
watch. Senior Ministers such as the planning Minister, Rob Stokes,
and the environment Minister, Matt Kean, have made very public
statements about increasing protections for koalas. As recently as 21
September, Minister Stokes stated that, "The fact is you can't
save the koala and remove koala habitat at the same time.” Minister
Kean told The Sydney Morning Herald on 26 July:
I
don't want to see the koala extinct by 2050, I want to see their
population doubled by 2050 … Koalas are the most iconic example of
our mismanagement of the environment and we've got to say 'enough is
enough'.
That
is not the Opposition, The Greens or the Animal Justice Party stating
that. That is Minister Kean saying that he will ask the Chief
Scientist to assemble an expert panel to develop a 30-year plan.
Yet,
instead of a properly considered plan made by the environmental
experts, there is this hastily put together bill, which completely
abrogates any responsibility that the Government owes to the
protection of koalas. The only thing missing to finish off koalas is
to issue free chainsaws to every landholder and tell them to go for
it.
The
Hon. MARK LATHAM (Pauline
Hanson’s One Nation:
The green ideology on this is all about control….
You
are not interested so much in the koalas as the trees. If the wombat
or the echidna could climb trees, they would have a SEPP as well.
They are the forgotten marsupials. Menzies had his forgotten people;
I have the forgotten marsupials in this debate and I want them to be
considered just as much. This is ableist discrimination. The Greens
discriminate against them because they are disabled in the sense that
they cannot climb a tree. It is ableism, as they term it in their
mad, politically correct world of language. Let us get back to the
basics of the parameters I have outlined in the speech. The history
does not reflect well on Federal and State Government, but the
Minister is doing the right thing. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers
Party has magnificent amendments that One Nation supports. Hopefully
that package will go through and we will forget the nonsense going
off to The Greens committee.
Mr
JUSTIN FIELD (Independent):
If this legislation passes it will represent a total capitulation by
the majority of the Liberal Party to the tantrums of Deputy Premier
John Barilaro and The Nationals. Far from being a koala hero that
stared down John Barilaro, if the bill becomes law the Premier will
have buckled in the face of that tantrum by a political party that
has absolutely no credibility when it comes to natural resource
management in this State—never mind our shared natural environment.
We have seen the papers. We have seen the tantrum, the showdown, the
stare‑down, the peace deal and the breakdown of the peace deal.
Now we are somehow expected to believe tantrummer-in-chief Deputy
Premier John Barilaro has stepped in to save the day. We have had
pushback today from the Hon. Catherine Cusack. About an hour ago the
next phase started when Channel 7 reporter Alex Hart tweeted:
It's
understood Nats have called an urgent partyroom meeting for 630pm,
with their land rights (koala) bill about to be voted down in Upper
House given Lib Cusack is opposed. When asked what this means, one
Nat Minister replied "war".
That
is the maturity that we are dealing with here. None of that makes
sense based on the bill in front of us. Either the bill goes
significantly further than the deal apparently struck and represented
in the media by planning Minister Rob Stokes, acting Nationals leader
Paul Toole and agriculture Minister Adam Marshall, or the spin around
the deal did not reflect the actual agreement or the Cabinet
decision. If a new peace deal has been negotiated by the Deputy
Premier and the subject of yesterday'sThe Sydney Morning Herald
story, then where are the amendments from the Government to implement
it?
Where
we are with this piece of legislation has become farcical. The
reality is that the legislation will strip away significant
protections for koalas and koala habitat. I will address something
that has not been covered much today and that is the impact the bill
will have on areas like wetlands and other critically important
habitat on private land. It will do what The Nationals have always
said they want to do; I am not surprised by this move. They do not
want anyone other than their Minister and his legislation overseeing
what happens on private land because they come at the debate from the
perspective that rural landholders should have the right to manage
their land as they see fit. I can understand how someone would arrive
at that conclusion, but the consequences of that position are now
apparent to us.
Mr
DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (The
Greens Party):
Why is it happening? Because the Coalition is in some kind of
meltdown and its internal ructions mean that it is introducing this
legislation not because it thinks it is good policy, or fairly
balances the environment and forestry and agricultural practices, but
because there is a small group of National Party MPs—and some of
their supporters in the Liberal Party—who are committed to
sacrificing environmental and social values for short-term political
gains, regardless of the damage it does to the environment, and even
regardless of the damage it does to their own party and the
Coalition.
The
idea that development consent conditions differ between council areas
seems to be one of the primary justifications for removing them when
it comes to private native forestry practices. Because council A
might impose a set of conditions on private native forestry
operations and council B might impose a different set of conditions,
the response in the bill is to abolish them entirely. The argument
presented is that that is inefficient and creates red tape or green
tape. Why does that happen in practice? Councils create land planning
rules and put conditions on private native forestry operations based
on the environmental and social issues that they are addressing in
their local areas. It is a fact that councils can be responsive to
the local area on that granular level, which makes it appropriate for
different conditions to apply in different parts of the State.
The
Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Labor
Party):
When the legislation we are now debating surfaced it was quite clear
to a number of observers, including the Opposition, that The
Nationals had essentially won their tussle with the Liberals, who had
essentially capitulated in terms of protecting koala populations and
what was in this bill. I will not canvass the details. Different
members of this House—including my deputy, the Hon. Penny
Sharpe—have done so eloquently. I will not repeat those arguments,
but it is clear that the legislation is a complete sellout. We have
also seen it transpire that, as people have examined the legislation
more carefully, at least a big part of the Government or a large
proportion of the Liberal Party has identified or believes the
legislation that we are debating is not the legislation approved by
the Coalition Cabinet. It contains elements that go well beyond what
was understood to be agreed.
This
is the fundamental basis upon which the Hon. Catherine Cusack rests
her position and her proposed course of action. If that is in fact
what has happened, there has been a breakdown in decision-making at
the most senior levels in the Government. One wonders where the
version or quality control is. Small wonder do we learn late this
afternoon—probably a few minutes ago—that apparently the National
Party is having a partyroom meeting to discuss this very problem. One
wonders whether the koala crisis will engulf the Government once
more. Is the National Party about to announce pulling out of the
Government again? Time will tell. But it is quite clear that this
legislation is fatally flawed, should be dispatched or sent to an
inquiry. We will be supporting one or other of those courses of
action.
The
House divided a little after 8:38 pm and voted by 19 votes to 18
to amend the question being put to the House from the bill “be
now be read a second time” to "be referred to
Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment for inquiry and
report".
This
in effect means that the bill cannot come back before the Legislative
Council until sometime in 2021.
It
also means that there is a possibility that the Berejiklian
Government will abandon this particular bill and begin writing its
amendments to existing legislation all over again.
Later
on the night of 19 November NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian
and Deputy-Premier John Barilaro issued a joint
media release which stated:
Today
the Legislative Council resolved to send the Local Land Services
(Miscellaneous) Bill 2020 to Parliamentary Committee 7 – Planning
and Environment.
Our
farmers deserve certainty and they do not deserve to be held to
ransom by a Greens-controlled inquiry.
The
Premier and the Deputy Premier have agreed the NSW Government will
revert to operations under the former SEPP 44 by the end of the month
and in the new year we will develop a policy to protect koalas and
the interests of farmers.
Shortly
thereafter the Premier issued this in another media
release:
Media
statement from Premier Gladys Berejiklian.
Following
her decision today to move a non-government amendment to a government
bill, I have made the decision to immediately remove Ms Catherine
Cusack as a Parliamentary Secretary.
On
the morning of Friday 20 November 2020 concerned people around
Australia responded on social media with the hashtag
I
Stand With Catherine Cusack.
Note:
Those 18 MLCs who were not at all interested is supporting anything
but their own political interests and who refused to support Ms.
Cusack’s amendment were:
Lou
Amato (Liberal)
Ben
Franklin (Nationals)
Matthew
Mason-Cox (Nationals)
Mark
Banasiak (Shooter, Fishers and Farmers)
Trevor
Khan (Nationals)
Sarah
Mitchell (Nationals)
Robert
Borsak (Shooter, Fishers and Farmers)
Mark
Latham (Pauline Hanson’s One Nation)
Fred
Nile (Christian Democrats)
Wes
Fang (Nationals)
Natasha
Maclaren-Jones (Liberal)
Rod
Roberts (Pauline Hanson’s One Nation)
Scott
Farlow (Liberal)
Shayne
Mallard (Liberal)
Bronnie
Taylor (Nationals)
Sam
Farraway (Nationals)
Taylor
Martin (Liberal)
Damien
Tudehope (Liberal)
