Mr WINDSOR (6:14 PM) —Just to follow up on the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, I am very pleased to hear that the concept of an environmental levy, as was raised by the member for Calare and previously by the parliamentary committee, has been discussed and is being discussed within the walls of this parliamentary building. Obviously, coming from a country electorate, I have been able, as many others in this room would have been, to observe changes in attitude over the last 10 to 15 years in those involved in agriculture. I have been involved in a number of those areas myself.

One of the things that I think is becoming very prominent in the thinking of people in country areas is that they are agreeing with some of the scientific indicators of environmental health or degradation that are being indicated by a number of agencies, both state and federal. But there is an inherent degree of mistrust in some of the agencies, particularly by the farming community, with regard to the expectation that the farming community—the land-holders—will have to wear the cost of change. Obviously, with the cash flows and the world market arrangements as they are, that is becoming increasingly difficult. As a consequence, from time to time there is a sort of boil-up of animosity. I would say that in most cases it is not animosity in relation to the particular issue that is recognised as a problem; it is animosity in relation to the solution to it. I for one ran very strongly, in a fairly conservative country electorate, on the issue of an environmental levy. I am not saying that is the only reason that I was elected—

Ms King —It was charm.

Mr WINDSOR —Yes, charm obviously came into it. I think it indicates that an environmental levy is something that country people would consider being part of. I know I am oversimplifying it, but I made the point during the election campaign that $1 a week from all Australians raises $1 billion a year. If we are ever going to get serious about addressing some of these degradation problems and remedial problems, that is the magnitude of the money that we have to spend. The $100 million for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality is great—we have all made political capital out of that—but it is 10c a week; it is absolutely pathetic in relation to the problems. If we are talking about $30 billion to $60 billion over the next 60 years to remediate some of the Murray-Darling system and other systems, particularly in relation to salinity and other ground water and above-ground issues, that is the sort of money that we have to start generating—$1 billion to $2 billion a year; not a paltry amount.

As the member for Calare indicated, we are short-changing ourselves already in terms of the allocation. I think that says something about the sincerity of governments generally. I am not picking on this one, but I think we tend to talk about the environment from time to time without actually doing something about it. If we live in the city, we just assume that the country people will take care of it because they live there, and if it means that they go broke, who cares; at least the environment is saved. That is a very stupid argument as well because the reverse actually happens. If you have ever spent any time in Africa and watched the progression of the Sahara Desert, it is partly because they cut down the trees to warm themselves and cook food. Economic imperatives will always override environmental imperatives when humans are put under stress. I think that is just a fact of life—a regrettable one maybe, but a fact. I do not think any parliament has actually come to grips with that.

I support the parliamentary secretary and others in this place who are moving towards considering an environmental levy. We did some market research when I was a member of the state parliament in Sydney on the acceptability by urban people of an environmental levy. There was virtually 100 per cent acceptance, with a couple of provisos. They were very important provisos, in relation to country people in particular, including that the levy be transparent, not like the sort of adhockery and politicisation of the Natural Heritage Trust—and not, I hope, like the money for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. It has to be transparent and there may well have to be some regulations tied to the distribution of that money, and that is fair enough; people will accept that. The farming community particularly will accept that if it is explained to them clearly. (Extension of time granted) Country people will accept that if it is explained to them and if there are certain provisos. They may include, in some cases, the fencing off of some streams, the removal of some particularly important pieces of land or saline areas or recharge areas—those sorts of things. People will accept that.

The problem at the moment is that we have this rush of science, and those who are the custodians of the land do not have the capacity to deal with it. That is why I spent some time earlier talking to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry about the property rights argument, the compensation arguments. If we are going to make changes—and I believe we have to—in some of these areas, we have to lead with the dollar. We cannot expect those who are going to suffer significant financial and family related impacts to just move on and move off. Obviously they are going to politicise the arguments; they are going to react as, from time to time, they do now. There is a classic case in the Namoi ground water issue with which I have been involved. All the farming community know there has to be change. It is coping with that impact and the lovely greetings they have from their bank managers that is the problem. It is not the change; it is not the science. That is not the problem; it is the coping that is the problem.

I will move on to a couple of other issues. I would encourage the government to look very closely at the biofuels area. There are a number of real benefits there not only in terms of the environment but also in terms of the relationship that growing fuel on agricultural lands could have. I think the parliamentary secretary is fully aware of that. I have some concerns with the national action plan. I notice that it is a sort of a coarrangement with two departments—the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of the Environment and Heritage. I do not have a problem with that but I hope it does not become a problem.

I also notice that similar issues could arise from the implementation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. I would suggest that the parliamentary secretary cover it in her final comments. Have the government looked at the impacts on various individuals of endangered fauna, flora and a whole range of other things that may have to be removed through some regulatory regime? Have they looked at the property rights compensation issues for those who are going to be impacted on? Has the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, for instance, looked at the regional catchment blueprints under the national action plan and suggested that property rights implications be built into the draft documents? I do not think that has happened but, as I explained earlier, we have a sort of circular argument between the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and the minister for agriculture. God knows where the minister for the environment is on this. We could have a situation in which property rights are to be covered through catchment blueprints but the blueprints have nothing in them about property rights. In the Deputy Prime Minister's language, that could be to the detriment of the flow of money into those particular areas.

I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that we have a very good look at how compensation can be dealt out, as the member for Calare indicated, where there has to be positive environmental change. Instead of seeing the farming community as an enemy to environmental change—and those members of parliament who have gone out there and looked at the way in which a lot of the farming community are embracing some of the changes that need to take place will agree with what I am going to say—let us accept that they are ready to move and have moved quite considerably in the last decade. But it is impossible to make some of the changes that some of our governments require, through political pressure, in a low population country such as ours. It is impossible to do that at the rate that is required for the environment, because their cheque books cannot wear that rate of change. So let us put the issue to the people. A dollar a week raises a billion dollars a year. Let us get away from the 10c that we are prepared to spend now and start to talk real dollars. Involve the total community so that, when there has to be change, it is fully recognised by everybody that everybody makes a contribution to it. Put some regulations on it and put some transparency on it, but let us do it.