Mr HARTSUYKER (6:07 PM) —I would like to bring to the attention of the members of the House in this grievance debate some developments with regard to the regional forest agreement process in relation to the New South Wales government. The New South Wales government must honour its commitments in the north-east New South Wales Regional Forest Agreement to check basic forest data sets. The New South Wales government must consult landholders who may be affected by the move to transfer crown land into reserves and national parks.

Some 154 graziers are likely to be affected by the latest round of land transfers, which will lead to a loss of valuable land currently used for forestry and grazing. Constituents within my electorate have raised concerns over the process New South Wales agencies are following to transfer land. They are especially concerned about the accuracy of the data used to target areas for transfer, and want the New South Wales agencies to `ground truth', or validate, the existence of conservation values before taking any further action. Some of these graziers could be denied access to areas which they have held under permit or licences for decades. In some cases, the permits go back to the beginning of the last century. The process must ensure that the New South Wales government bases its decisions on sound scientific data, backed by field inspections, given the potential impact on these people and dependent rural communities.

Some are saying that the Commonwealth is driving the state to use this data to proceed quickly. The Commonwealth-New South Wales government bilateral agreement on the national action plan provides for the New South Wales government to complete the regional vegetation management plans as soon as possible. However, the Commonwealth has not imposed specific deadlines. The management plans must take into account the most accurate information available before decisions affecting the livelihood of people are made. I am concerned that the livelihoods of many of my constituents may be being adversely affected by decisions made on the basis of potentially flawed data provided by the New South Wales government. There are two main streams of assessment: one aimed at ensuring the environmental and heritage obligations of governments are met, and one aimed at ensuring that the social and economic objectives of forest use are achieved. This is an important balance—and not one that is currently being achieved in the case of New South Wales.

It is a widely held view that the authorities in New South Wales charged with the responsibility for assessing the areas in relation to RFAs have dropped the ball. It has been reported to me that there has been a brief audit of one layer—that being the GIS layer over four map sheets in New South Wales. This audit revealed four separate instances where those conducting the assessments had incorrectly interpreted areas of aerial maps. The number of errors is quite staggering. I have been informed that the errors range from approximately 200 errors in the interpretation of the aerial photograph in the case of the Tenterfield map sheet to approximately 330 errors detected in the interpretation of the Coaldale map sheet.

It is standard audit practice that, when a sample reveals inconsistencies, further work is carried out. Given the quantum of errors discovered, many of my constituents are of the view that much more work is required. The cause of these errors would seem to come from where the data from the interpretation of aerial photographs is entered wrongly into a computer system for evaluation. The breakdown of the errors has been: missing line work from maps, missing codes, incorrect codes, conflicting codes, duplicated codes and incorrect labelling of codes.

I believe the New South Wales authorities should be taking a long, hard look at these errors. It has been suggested by some, and put to me, that staff assessing, reading and interpreting the maps are not sufficiently experienced. The interpretation of these maps is critical in the RFA process in New South Wales, given that the only method used is aerial interpretation. Unfortunately, the New South Wales government has not seen fit to go out and conduct on-the-ground work to establish the situation in these areas and the great bulk of the data remains unaudited. There has been talk of one property owner whose rock quarry was identified on the vegetation mapping as old-growth forest.

I would just like to draw to the attention of the House an extract from the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council report completed in September 2001. On page 15 of the report it states:

It is of great concern to many of my constituents that decisions are being made on matters affecting people's livelihood when the data forming the basis for these decisions is in serious doubt. From a federal perspective, the RFA process exists under the understanding that the Commonwealth has the responsibility for improving the economic and social welfare of all Australians. In this context, the Commonwealth has obligations relating to efficient resource use and management, industry policy, employment and regional growth and development. The Commonwealth has clear policy objectives for the development of the forest and forest product industries in Australia. These objectives acknowledge the important contribution that this industry sector makes to the economic and social welfare of the country, particularly in regional areas like the North Coast of New South Wales, where my electorate of Cowper is situated. In making decisions on forest use matters, governments must take into account all potential implications of the decision, including the broader implications of the community's economic and social wellbeing. Economic and social assessments, therefore, form an integral part of the full range of assessments that should be undertaken as the basis for negotiating a regional forest agreement.

As a result of the Labor government in New South Wales assessing certain areas by interpretations off aerial maps, we are seeing areas becoming protected areas, where any groundwork clearly reveals that such an assessment is wrong. Perhaps if some Labor ministers in New South Wales got out from behind their desks and went out into the field they would see that decisions need to be based on accurate data in order to have the desired effect of environmental protection. These actions are damaging industry and commerce in fragile regional economies.

The need to take account of all economic uses of forests is firmly established in the National Forest Policy Statement, which establishes as a national goal the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood products industries. Efficient industries based on maximising value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources will provide the basis for an expansion in wood products manufacturing which will in turn provide national and regional economic benefits.

The RFA approach recognises that Commonwealth and state governments have a range of obligations and interests in relation to the protection of forest values and the sustainable use and development of forest resources. Regional forest agreements are designed to streamline and coordinate the various decision-making processes necessary to meet governments' obligations and interests in relation to forest use. A central objective is to reduce uncertainty and improve decision making. It is indeed a difficult problem. The problem is that if the data which forms the foundation stone for the RFA process is flawed then the resultant economic, social and environmental outcomes will be suboptimal.

I have discussed these matters with concerned farming people from outside my electorate. I recently met with Bronwyn Petrie who operates a family farm near Tenterfield with her husband Bill. Their property is a family owned enterprise which has been in the family for several generations, and over that time the family has been pursuing sustainable farming techniques. They have been involved in beef production and the harvesting of timber. This family has done an excellent job in managing their land and it is rich in biodiversity.

Their property has been mapped under the native vegetation plans as old-growth forest despite having been actively farmed by the family for, I am told, around 100 years. The management techniques this family have employed have been so successful, and their custodianship of this land so effective, that their land has been considered environmentally significant. Interestingly, this land, which has been classified as old-growth forest, includes grasslands. Such a classification shows how fundamentally flawed the data is. Now the Petries will have to suffer the dead hand of the bureaucracy and seek approval to cut down a tree or to gather firewood. I am told that without first applying to a state government bureaucrat they will no longer be able to control and thin regrowth timber, an activity which has been part of their farm management techniques for decades.

In his press release of 23 May 2002 the federal Minister for Forestry and Conservation stated that the NSW government should base its decisions on sound data backed up by field inspections, given the potential impact of their decisions on the community. I agree with the minister and, based on the information conveyed to me, the data appears far from sound. I call on the New South Wales state government and their bureaucrats to get out of their offices and into the forests to validate the data and ensure that the interests of the environment and the community are protected. (Time expired)