THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION AMENDMENT (BIODIVERSITY BANKING) BILL

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [9.46 p.m.]: As previous speakers have said the object of the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill is to establish a biodiversity banking and offset scheme which contains a number of key elements. I have serious reservations about the bill in its current form. I refer to the very valid concerns raised by the New South Wales Farmers Association on the impediments the bill will place on rural landholders. Following the second reading speech an enormous number of amendments, 62 in all, were drafted in response to valid concerns about the bill's original content. Despite those amendments, little has been achieved to alleviate the concerns of the farming community.

My office has been inundated with correspondence from urban development organisations in relation to the bill, and while I support biobanking in principle, most representations I received were opposed to the bill in its original form due to the unnecessary restrictions and imposts placed on urban development in New South Wales. The State offices of the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the New South Wales Urban Taskforce, expressed concern over the original bill. I found it very encouraging that the Government redrafted the bill in response to those concerns. I also find it very encouraging that the Minister has taken the opportunity to be present in the House to listen to the contributions tonight. That is a positive step.

However, I point out the opposition to the bill expressed by the New South Wales Farmers Association on behalf of rural landholders. The association believes that further amendments to the bill are needed to allow landholders to purchase credits as a means of meeting offset requirements in property vegetation plans [PVPs] or landscape plans under the Native Vegetation Act 2003. The association states that the current bill allows biobanking credits to be created on rural land, but does not allow those credits to be used on rural land to meet requirements of the Native Vegetation Act. The Government, in turn, has stated that current legislation provides an equivalent mechanism through offsets provided in PVPs, but it is apparent those mechanisms are not equivalent, as any offsets available in PVPs are required to be found on the same property.

In many cases, the required offset ratios are such that it is impossible for farmers to find sufficient offsets on their own property. As property developers are free to use their credits at will, farmers are not, which places them at a significant disadvantage. Farmers can purchase offsets from another landholder, but they cannot be used for rural land purposes. Biobanking credits can be used to meet development approval requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 but cannot be used to meet requirements under the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

The association sought informal legal advice that revealed that there is currently no legal impediment to amending the bill and the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 to enable biobanking to be used as a tool under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, in the same way that the bill proposes to make biobanking available under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. I therefore agree with the association's advice to the Government to delete proposed new section 127ZD (a), which states:

… any clearing of native vegetation that must not be carried out except in accordance with a development consent granted in accordance with the Native Vegetation Act 2003 or a property vegetation plan under that Act …

The association also recommends the insertion of a clause in the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 environmental outcomes assessment methodology, stating that biodiversity offsets required within a PVP can be met by retiring a biobanking credit. The insertion of a subclause into clause 26 of the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 will also remove impediments, to the effect that biodiversity credits are deemed to improve biodiversity outcomes for the purposes of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

There is significant merit in the association's argument for further amendment of the bill. It appears that there is no technical impediment to this as the biodiversity banking methodology applies the same assessment criteria for biodiversity impacts as the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005. Biobanking would also play a valuable role within the framework of landscape plans by providing a robust legal mechanism for economic transfers within the plan area. Landscape planning will require an enabling amendment to the Native Vegetation Regulation, and this should be written to accommodate the biobanking option.

Urban development is an issue that receives most publicity and attention from government in metropolitan areas, while development in rural areas barely rates a mention. The rate of development in the urban areas of outer Sydney is obviously higher, and the Government and local councils face significant challenges in meeting the demands of a rapidly growing population. I agree that environmental interests constitute a significant part of these challenges, and I support the consideration of our native flora and fauna in any development. However, it is vital that these concerns are addressed in a manner that would not add unnecessary imposts for rural landholders.

That is not to say that urban development is stagnant in country electorates. In the electorate of Tamworth, for example, housing estates are growing at a rapid rate. In the Gunnedah shire this year the local council has approved 34 individual lots for development. Discussions are currently under way regarding a possible 330-lot subdivision in Gunnedah and a further 200 individual lots are being reviewed at an existing subdivision. In the Tamworth area the progress with housing developments is even more pronounced. A number of housing developments, valued at almost $10 million, are currently awaiting approval by Tamworth Regional Council, including the $1 million Forest Hills subdivision and the $630,000 Greenacres Estate. A $30 million retirement village is also planned for a rural area in the Hills Plain district. Many of these developments will be subject to the provisions of this bill.

It is clear that housing development in my electorate is increasing to cope with the growing population. Over the past three years I have developed a database of constituents and I send letters to people when they enrol to vote in my electorate. When I was elected in 2003 I signed between 50 and 70 such letters a month. But over the course of 2006 I have been signing anywhere from 350 to 400 letters per month. Many of them are sent to married couples who have relocated to the area. The property development industry was rightly concerned that the bill's original content eroded housing affordability. However, many industry players pledged their support for the bill after the Minister amended the legislation. It is a positive step that the Government moved to address these concerns as many people who relocate from the city to the country probably do so because of greater housing affordability. The Government should now move to alleviate the remaining concerns of rural landholders.

As a member who represents a country electorate and as a resident of a rural village, I cannot support the bill in its current form. I am very much in support of the principle of biobanking but further amendments, as detailed by the New South Wales Farmers Association, should be implemented so that landholders are not disadvantaged by property developers. According to the Federal Treasurer, in times of drought-induced rural recession farmers need assistance in order to remain viable. This bill could create further impediments to their ongoing viability. The legislation is not consistent and we need equity between developers and farmers. From my perspective, the legislation focuses clearly on metropolitan areas and favours the property development industry at the expense of rural landholders. Farmers must be able to purchase biobanking offsets for the purpose of rural farming activities. I urge the Government to consult further with the New South Wales Farmers Association and rural landholders so that we can resolve the issues that have been raised.

I recognise the contribution made to this debate by the honourable member for Pittwater, who has obviously researched this issue thoroughly. He suggested a possible way forward that would involve a mandatory audit of threatened species and government land assets and a bank of equal value. He gave the very good example from Warriewood, where the council has resumed 27 hectares of sensitive land. I think that is a very good step and a strong example of how cities can protect valuable land. However, the issues are very different in the country. Therefore, I cannot support the bill in its current form.

Proof, NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard.