Ms JANN McFARLANE (10:03 PM) —I rise today to speak on the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, the Australian Heritage Council Bill 2002 and the Australian Heritage Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2002, as they directly impact on local treasures in the electorate of Stirling, such as Trigg Bushland, Star Swamp, the Centaur shipwreck at North Beach and Edlaston-Chellaston Reserve in Carine. These are all listed on the Register of the National Estate to preserve them for future generations. However, their future is now uncertain due to the provisions of these bills.

These bills are the Howard government's attempt to again impose complete ministerial control over whether a place is included on the new national and Commonwealth heritage lists—complete control over heritage issues in this country. It is obvious that the government has not learnt the lessons from the 2000 bills, which were debated in the Senate last year. The crux of the opposition to the 2000 bills was due to the blatant power grab by the minister to become the ultimate decision maker in determining what is heritage listed. I must concede that the government has made attempts to fix some of the other problems of the 2000 bills, and it must be acknowledged for making that attempt. The issues the government has attempted to resolve include those raised by the International Council on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS, and ATSIC in the Senate references committee inquiry. I further acknowledge that these bills protect places with heritage value outside of Australia, which is a welcome development. I want to acknowledge that the government is also taking steps to recognise and protect areas that are culturally and historically significant to our Indigenous people.

So what are the differences between these bills and the 2000 bills? There are some substantive changes, which are outlined in the Bills Digest as follows:

· the Register of the National Estate retains its statutory identity

· the Council may undertake assessments of places for potential listing of its own initiative as opposed to needing a Ministerial direction to do any assessment

· the Council has an enhanced role in advising the Minister

· National and Commonwealth Heritage places outside of Australia are protected, and

· Commonwealth agencies have greater responsibilities in relation to Commonwealth Heritage places they control or are intending to sell or lease.

Currently in Australia, the Register of the National Estate has approximately 13,000 places on it. It was established by the Whitlam Labor government in 1975 and operates through the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the AHCA. How do its powers actually work? Unless a place is protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBCA, the only substantive legal protection a place listed on the Register of the National Estate has is through section 30 of the AHCA. Section 30 of the AHCA imposes the following two duties on the Commonwealth: that any action proposed by the Commonwealth which adversely affects a place in the register should only be taken where the minister or authority proposing the action is satisfied there is `no feasible and prudent alternative', and, if the minister or authority is satisfied no such alternative exists, they must also be satisfied that all measures that can be reasonably taken to minimise the adverse effect will be taken.

On the surface, the current legislation seems a little weak for those who advocate strong protection of heritage listed sites. There are some legal protections offered by the two duties I have just described. Under the legislation, there is no explicit requirement that the minister has to take into account the commission's comments. However, if the minister fails to do so, it could be argued in a court of law that the minister had breached the second duty. In the most extreme case, the court could find that due process had not been followed and it could invalidate any decision to proceed with the action. The important thing to recognise is that, effectively, heritage legislation in this country is toothless or not invasive, depending on your point of view on the issue. The current laws are by no means draconian and would not invite the same reaction of talkback callers as the recent crusade Paul Murray ran on 6PR radio in Perth against local government listing of residences. These bills deal with places that are actually culturally significant.

I will briefly outline the powers of the current laws. The Bills Digest succinctly describes the current status of the legislation in relation to civil or criminal penalties for breaches of the AHCA, as follows:

The only protection, albeit indirect, is that places on the register may be:

So what changes do these bills make? The first real change is that, although the register will remain, the AHCA will be repealed. This effectively removes the section 30 provisions I have spoken about. It removes the indirect protections: the two duties that I have just outlined. The Howard government is trying through this bill to replace the current structure with two separate lists: the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List. The net effect of this move is that the 13,000 places which currently exist on the register will be significantly reduced, leaving the places removed with absolutely no protection at all. Places that are transferred to the new National Heritage List will be covered by the indirect environmental protections I outlined before under the EPBCA.

The second issue that I have concerns about is the downgrading of the present commission to an advisory council which operates solely under the direction of the minister. This is totally unacceptable. My colleague the shadow minister for the environment and member for Wills has moved amendments to this bill to reinstate the functions and powers of the commission and retain its name. Labor does not want the commission turned into a rubber stamp for this minister. Continuing this rubber stamp policy, the minister is also changing the definition of `action' under this bill—maybe it should be described as `inaction'. Both the Australian Conservation Foundation and the International Council on Monuments and Sites have raised concerns about these changes. The deleted references include provisions for funding via grants and the granting of authorisations, including permits and licences.

My colleague the member for Wills moved amendments to this bill to ensure that the deleted items are reinstated and to ensure that such actions include the making of Commonwealth decisions on grants which are excluded under section 524A of the EPBC Act. What this bill attempts to do, through technical means, is to eliminate the means to get grants to preserve the places of national significance. It is a mean and tricky way of cutting funding and redirecting it to projects or places that this government supports.

The important listing process is also severely affected by this bill. It changes fundamentally the concept of who gets to list places of significance. Previously, heritage values of a place have been assessed and determined by the independent Australian Heritage Commission. The process of listing has been considered a technical decision based on technical merit made by an independent body. The government now seeks to remove technical merit from the decision. In effect, it is dumbing down its decisions. Environment groups are not dumb. They see this move for what it really is: the politicisation of heritage protection. No wonder groups like the ACF are angry about this politicisation. It changes the whole philosophy of heritage protection; it rips the soul out of it. Labor are opposing this politicisation of the process and the centralisation of power in the minister's hands, and we have moved amendments to reinstate the independent listing process.

Another concern I have with this bill is the concept of protection of place versus the protection of values. Labor supports protection of a heritage `place and its associated values' rather than just the values. The ACF believes that the legislation should continue to protect places, including their associated values, as opposed to relying on just values. Labor has moved amendments to restore credibility to this bill by reinstating the specification of heritage `place and its associated values'.

I mentioned earlier in this debate the concerns I had about the future of the 13,000 places that are currently covered by the 1975 act. A serious deficiency of this bill is that once it becomes law no places will be listed on either the Commonwealth or national lists. In a Senate estimates committee hearing, the department indicated that approximately six places a year will be added to the list. My question to the minister is: how can we trust you to place the 13,000 places currently on the Register of the National Estate on these two lists? I want the minister to give us a guarantee on the public record that none of the 13,000 places currently on the Register of the National Estate will disappear into the ether. Is the government prepared to give this guarantee?

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in the electorate of Stirling there are some significant sites of environmental and heritage importance. Luckily, there are a number of local volunteer groups that have been set up to ensure that these sites are protected and nurtured for future generations. I am going to briefly outline the activities of these groups to ensure their commitment and work do not go unrecognised. As a member of all of these groups, I would like to publicly reaffirm my commitment to them and to the conservation of the valuable natural assets in the Stirling electorate.

Bushland in the Perth metropolitan area is a scarce commodity. The importance of urban bushland was not recognised by planners and governments until too much of it had been cleared for urban use. That means that the remaining sites need to be carefully protected from any future development. I will look at these sites individually, starting with Trigg Bushland, a site which will be affected by this legislation. Community action saw Trigg Bushland listed on the Register of the National Estate in 1987, and I want to place on notice that, if this government fails to ensure that this bushland is protected under this new legislation, I will personally lead a community campaign against the government to save this national treasure.

To give the House a fair indication of the importance of the area in question, I will read from the brochure circulated by the Friends of Trigg Bushland:

The bushland is managed by the City of Stirling under a management plan. The plan involves an ongoing program which includes the rehabilitation of vegetation, erosion and weed control, upgrading tracks to improve fire management and public access, and maintaining fences and signs. In partnership with the City of Stirling, the Friends of Trigg Bushland Inc. help conserve the natural habitat of the reserve. The role of the group is best summarised by the description in their brochure:

The Friends of Trigg Bushland need to be commended for the thousands of hours of work that they have put into the site over the years. A special mention needs to be made of Robyn Murphy, who was one of the driving forces in setting up the group. Robyn was the president of the group pretty much from its inception, and I was honoured by an invitation to an appreciation dinner held in her honour by the group a few months ago. Robyn has decided to step aside from the committee to let the next generation carry on the good work. Robyn and her husband Harley visited me in Canberra recently. It was great to catch up with them. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Challis Tilbrook, Lisette Nigot and Phyllis Robertson, who contribute enormously to the work of the committee.

Another place in my electorate that is on the Register of the National Estate is Star Swamp. Star Swamp is a complete wetland ecological system containing a wide range of animal and plant life. Large areas of reeds and rushes provide nesting sites for waterfowl. The swamp and surrounding vegetation of tuart woodland and banksia woodland are examples of wetland and forest formations that are becoming very depleted on the Swan plain. The swamp was first registered in 1983.

The Friends of Star Swamp is another local environmental group. They do hundreds of hours of work and conduct open days and walks. I am a member of the Friends of Star Swamp, and I would like to thank Christine Currie, David Pike, Jennifer Rogers and the other members of the committee for their dedication. On the site of the Star Swamp is the Henderson Environmental Centre, which was opened in April 2001. The Henderson Environmental Centre was made possible by a generous donation of $150,000 from Joyce Brushfield, a local North Beach resident. I was pleased that Joyce was able to be at the opening of the centre before she passed away last year. Her legacy will certainly live on through generations to come. I have been working closely with Councillor Bill Stewart to get funding from state and federal governments so that the centre can be open full time. Bill has been working nonstop with the officers from the City of Stirling to make the centre a viable and vibrant ongoing concern. I would like to thank Bill publicly again for his hard work for the North Beach, Trigg and Scarborough community. Changes to the grant system in this bill do not make me feel confident that any funding will be available for the Henderson Environmental Centre.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Jan Bant and the other members of the Friends of Dianella Bushland group. The group has been doing a lot of displays at local shopping centres and the Dianella library to advertise the group and to get families involved in the group's activities—activities such as the fungi walk. Phyllis Robertson, whom I have mentioned already in this debate, takes great photos which are a real asset to their displays. I attended the group's meeting in June and really enjoyed the lively debate by members. Although this bill does not directly affect the Dianella bushland, the site is of great environmental significance and needs to be preserved.

In closing, I want to make this statement to the minister and this government: your environmental credentials are in tatters due to your refusal to ratify the Kyoto agreement. Why don't you do something positive for a change and not harp on about the pork-barrelling you engaged in in regional Australia as a basis for your environmental credentials? Do some things now: accept the Labor amendments to these bills if you are serious about environmental heritage and heed the Labor Party's call to ratify Kyoto. Without the Labor amendments, I will oppose this bill.