The Hon. M. I. JONES [3.27
p.m.] (Inaugural speech): I speak to the debate on the Address-in-Reply and I
will discuss the Governor's Speech during my inaugural speech. Firstly, Madam
President, I somewhat belatedly congratulate you on your appointment to the
position of President of the Legislative Council. Land, and particularly access
to land, is deeply rooted in the Australian psyche. Patrick White, in his book Voss,
wrote about the Europeans coming to Australia, and being huddled together in
coastal settlements. The settlers then set out to conquer the land. Patrick
White then concluded that the spirit of the land actually conquers the
Europeans. I will return to that issue shortly.
I was born in the north of England in 1946 and I am a
true baby boomer, being born and raised during rationing. However, to compensate
for bomb sites and shortages I was born to a loving family who have always
underpinned my strengths. I attended State schools and enjoyed early academic
success, but during my teens I sought the rewards of business and left school to
enter my family's business. Rugby and white-water canoeing played a big part in
my younger life. I played grade rugby for 13 years, playing in many countries.
If my voice is at times nasal it is due to my nose having been broken more than
once. In 1968 I went to Africa, visiting Gabon, Angola, Mozambique and South
Africa. This was a particularly volatile era. Terrorists, deep apartheid and the
Congo emergency were fresh in all our minds. These were exciting and dangerous
times. I married during this period and, when our first son was born, I returned
to the United Kingdom. In 1974 my young family and I moved to Australia. In 1977
my wife gave birth to twins. Sadly, we have divorced but we remain on good
terms.
I trust absolutely in God. I also believe that to date
capitalism is the only enduring economic system devised by man. I attend evening
classes to study philosophy and I intend to continue with my studies. My first
taste of political involvement was in 1984 when I joined the Liberal Party. I
quickly rose to the position of branch president, which was not particularly
difficult. I allowed my membership to lapse following disillusionment with that
party. Having witnessed how the political system works, my appetite was whetted
to want to be able to effect change through our Constitution, which has been an
inspiration to me. The Outdoor Recreation Party was formed 3½ years ago to
fight on a political basis for the rights of 93 per cent of the public who visit
remote area national parks on horseback, by motor vehicle, mountain bike or
motorcycle, and, furthermore, to fight for proper management policies and
adequate funding of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Our goals are to restore fairness to who can access
public lands and how, but not based upon age, physical fitness or amounts of
disposable time; to better control the plague of feral animals; to better
control noxious weeds which infest our natural estate; to engender trust between
the public who wish to visit national parks and the authorities who are the
custodians; and, similarly, to engender trust between the authorities and the
public. Once achieved, as in the past, it is absolutely crucial to reinstate
programs of co-operation and to ease the financial burden of maintenance of our
natural estates, as expenditure by governments will never again be sufficient.
Further, our goals are to gain acceptance that there is
nothing illicit in the public having rights to seek recreation in their national
parks; to engender a love of our parks in our children based upon their spending
time, preferably camping, in the parks; to make the elderly welcome in their
parks; to reinstate the old slogan of the National Parks and Wildlife Service,
now buried, of "Parks for the people"; to have our parks in pristine
condition through caring for them; to reach a point where the Outdoor Recreation
Party is no longer required to fight for access to public land as this right is
accepted by all in society. We consider access to public lands for all
Australians to be a fundamental right. Similarly we consider access for
fishermen - or fishers, to use the neutral gender - to traditional places of
fishing, to be a fundamental right.
The maintaining of the bicentennial horse trail in its
original location we consider to be of great importance. Access to all public
land for families, the elderly, the disabled is of paramount importance. Why
should these groups be excluded from their own land? To restore our children,
our disabled and our elderly to the vast areas denied them as wilderness is our
noble goal. Without our children learning at a young age to identify with remote
area parks, the future public funding of our large natural estate is doomed.
Many city dwellers think that our remote area parks are
simply an extension of the Blue Mountains, as this is frequently the only
experience they have of national parks. Wilderness areas are now
so large, imagine how many city dwellers would ever have had their Blue
Mountains experience if they had to leave their car at St Marys and walk! Snow
skiers and their communities in New South Wales have to fund a disproportionate
share of the national parks budget with virtually no say in the management of
the snow fields. We are developing plans to improve skiing opportunities for all
concerned.
We recognise that in accommodating the public, problems
of behaviour, littering, erosion and environmental etiquette have to be
addressed. We have therefore consulted a number of bodies in an effort to deal
with such problems. Furthermore, in an atmosphere of co-operation and goodwill
the Outdoor Recreation Party can organise both manpower and horsepower to
greatly assist with the turning around of neglect, which is slowly but surely
going to wreak irreparable damage on our natural estate.
The Outdoor Recreation Party has developed strategies
to deal with such problems effectively. We consider our strategies to be of far
greater value to New South Wales than simply locking up everywhere. Very soon we
will have more national parks then policemen! Adequate and appropriate funding
for the care of these parks may be beyond the means of any government unless
action is taken soon. One million hectares is now locked away from all but the
very fit or those who have ample time to spend penetrating wilderness regions.
The extreme Greens are demanding a further million hectares. Small areas are
often very small or locked up in many wilderness areas without the so-called
consultation process being conducted. I refer here to the use of natural
reserves and State recreation areas, neither of which bear any resemblance to
their titles.
The system of distributing information from the
National Parks and Wildlife Service head office is a severe problem for even
those living in Sydney. For people living in remote areas whose lives are
frequently devastated by decisions made in Hurstville, they have little way of
examining the draft plans of management, especially regarding wilderness, which
are put on display at head office or in some regional office, or indeed of
knowing such plans exist at all. I want the Parliament and general public also
to clearly understand that in the remote area national parks survival for small
native marsupials, in fact all wildlife, is an hour-by-hour life and death
matter. The native bush is not a Walt Disney film set.
In locking up such areas you effectively lock in feral
predators - foxes, cats and wild dogs, et cetera. Against their skills native
animals, especially the smaller varieties of marsupials, bandicoots and so on,
have no defences. When travelling at night along remote tracks in national parks
the eyes of predatory feral animals are everywhere to be seen. Every fox and
wild dog lives on a diet of Australian animals and birds. In 10, at most 20,
years time, species eradication in New South Wales parks will be a serious
problem. If we do not change direction quickly we will end up exactly where we
are headed. When our children ask where have all the native animals gone, what
possible reason can justify the neglect of this issue?
Over the next eight years I will monitor the
eradication programs of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to try to keep
its focus on this most important project - probably the most important challenge
it faces. In the past the Outdoor Recreation Party has criticised the National
Parks and Wildlife Service and has been very critical of former Minister Allan.
Now is not the time to seek any form of redress; now is the time for getting
things right. I call upon the Government to increase funding to the National
Parks and Wildlife Service by a further $80,000 over four years. Government
funding of a whole platform of extreme green organisations can be scrapped to
assist in the adequate funding of the service.
The Outdoor Recreation Party is prepared to help
implement plans for the eradication of feral animals in all national parks, in
association with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Our party will assist
in the implementation of private user groups to adopt tracks in the national
parks to ease the maintenance budget of the service. Working bees will be set up
to rid our natural estate of noxious weeds, lantana, blackberries, et cetera. To
create an estate that is worthy of our children's children's children we cannot
neglect it; we have to nurture it and we have to love it. To preserve our native
fauna we have similarly to try to protect them from those they are defenceless
against. We have once again to nurture and love them.
Locking up national parks is neglect. The wilderness
areas if simply neglected will be the derelict lands of the future. It is
unrealistic for us to call for the abolition of the Wilderness Act at this time;
however, its modification and review is most necessary. In the Barrington Tops
area the Hunter Regional 4WD Council has, for over 10 years, run a series of key
access systems in association with State Forests. This program provides access
to sensitive areas for the public in the four-wheel-drive vehicles. A real
person, as opposed to a proprietary limited company, a club or any alternative
entity, pays a $200 deposit and takes full personal responsibility
for the care of the area he is accessing. All assets are on the line. He or she
can then lead a limited group through the area. When the trip is completed the
key is returned and the deposit is refunded.
The key access system has worked splendidly all this
time. Pristine sensitive areas have been maintained in perfect condition without
problems. This is a perfect practical example of self-regulation, and there are
many other examples. The process of establishing the wilderness under the Act
must be reviewed, as I consider this process in the past to be at times
corrupted. Can the Parliament believe that so much remote area land has been
locked away from the public, who, by necessity, have to visit by noted vehicles,
by a bureaucracy that has no appropriate research proving such vehicles do
damage?
My life-long love of going bush was rekindled because
my children reached the age of wanting to go camping. The Great Dividing Range
of New South Wales is a recreationalist's paradise. For many years we enjoyed
the freedom to visit many beautiful places. Visiting the remote areas over a
prolonged period has awakened my sense to the mystic, spiritual qualities of the
land. I beg your indulgence while I briefly share with you some reflections
regarding my feelings towards the bush. Les Murray wrote:
In a letter written in 1943 Carl Jung wrote:
In his book Edge of the Sacred David Tacey wrote:
In a metaphysical sense my experiences have clearly
proven to me that the land does conquer in a benevolent manner the spirit of
those who participate in its bounty. Over time the land dictates all. We live in
the grace the land affords us, and can only wonder at its power and majesty. I
trust that my time here will see the expansion of the public land management
debate. For many years now I have watched the debate decline into a narrow,
one-sided, sad, deteriorating debacle. The National Parks and Wildlife Service
has become an impregnable fortress of the bastions of a monoculture.
For years now I have been searching for the real
benefits to Australians of having land declared as world heritage. I have
consulted with former Prime Ministers, extreme greens and all sorts of
supposedly knowledgeable people, but nobody can give me a reason that stands up
to simple commonsense of the real benefits that exist. Looking past the
hyperbole and propaganda, assigning sovereignty of vast areas of land to
foreigners so that they can in turn grant us the right to look after it is
nonsense. The World Heritage Emperor has no new clothes.
A personal disgust of mine is littering. In my 25 years
in Australia, littering has improved considerably, although it is still a
problem. As a start I call for the reintroduction of a nominal deposit on
plastic soft drink bottles, refundable by the retailer, similar to the practice
in South Australia. Another issue that greatly concerns many members of my party
and motorcyclists in New South Wales is the installation of wire rope fencing
along highways. Often the erection of such fencing is contrary to the
manufacturer' s guidelines. We consider these installations, too close to
roadways, to be extremely dangerous, with the likelihood of the decapitation of
motorcyclists who accidentally brush against such barriers.
Not only does the Roads And Traffic Authority
incorrectly install such barriers, but the National Parks and Wildlife Service
has commenced installations in the most dangerous of locations. For example, on
the road from Thredbo travelling south over Dead Horse Gap towards Tom Groggins
the dirt road is winding, often covered in snow, and with an adverse camber. A
motorcyclist getting into difficulties on such a road would be extremely lucky
to survive the safety fencing. Conventional crash barriers are more suitable. We
seek to have wire rope fencing removed, modified or at least safely installed.
I have anecdotal evidence that in Europe both petrol
and diesel is considerably cleaner than in Australia.
I demand that the better products be made available to Australians. Furthermore,
now that unleaded fuel has been available in Australia for some time a limited
inquiry should be held into its actual, not simply perceived, benefits over half
lead petrol and if the so-called half lead fuel can have the lead content
further reduced. We seek to have cats registered and controlled. Although pets
give great comfort to many in our community, cats are natural killers of
wildlife and must be strictly controlled.
In the forest areas, particularly in the southern part
of New South Wales, logging was all but outlawed. The Outdoor Recreation Party
does not have a formal position on the timber industry. The Government promised
the people increased tourism. To prevent the collapse of their communities
people invested in tourism, so the Government moved to turn the national parks
into wilderness areas and prevented all but the very physically fit bushwalkers,
with lots of time on their hands and generally little in their pockets, from
visiting the forest areas. Furthermore, where communities can promote fishing
marine national parks are threatened, access by vehicles to beaches to cover the
distances involved is prevented and there are low waterline boundaries to either
national parks or wilderness areas.
Wonboyn in the State's far south is a perfect example.
The old bogey of "We are here from the Government to help you" has
never been more threatening than in New South Wales in 1999. Ecotourism is being
promoted by a group of non-commercial people who resent people being in their
own parks. I always look at what people or groups do, not what they say. When
looking at the extreme greens, to date their antisocial behaviour will condemn
any commercial initiative of the National Parks and Wildlife Service unless, of
course, it is simply putting up the entry price to the snowfields. I intend to
introduce ideas to reform the relationship between the snowfields and the people
of New South Wales.
In both Ku-ring-gai and Guy Fawkes national parks the
National Parks and Wildlife Service is trying to both humiliate and intimidate
horse riders by insisting that horses wear contraptions resembling nappies and
rubber boots. This is simply a ruse to deter all horse riding in these areas
today and on all public land areas tomorrow. The rubber boots can cause a horse
to develop a club foot and become lame. If the rules come to pass we will
endeavour to extend such intimidation and humiliation to our equestrian Olympian
guests next year. Needless to say the Outdoor Recreation Party will oppose this
dreadful slight on our people.
Many people oppose the goals of the Outdoor Recreation
Party. I believe them to be in the best interests of conservation and the people
of New South Wales. I therefore put out a challenge to debate them with anyone,
anywhere, any time, given reasonable notice, on television, radio or simply live
debate. The story of the Outdoor Recreation Party is a simple story of a group
of people disadvantaged by an uncaring Minister and the department placing their
collective objectives before the needs of the people it is meant to serve.
Fortunately the Constitution in March 1999 enabled small groups to stand for
Parliament with an outside chance of being elected.
More than 200 candidates stood for approximately 80
parties. The preferential voting system enabled six members to be elected with
less than a quota of primary votes. The preferential system also enabled
multiple members to be elected from the major parties. For example the Attorney
General, the Hon. Jeff Shaw, being at the head of Labor's ticket, received 1.3
million votes and was elected first on the upper House Labor ticket. By
comparison, the second candidate on the Labor ticket received only 1,137 votes.
I mean no disrespect to the Attorney General or anyone else, I am simply using
that as an example of the system at work.
Great criticism was made of the tablecloth election.
All sorts of commentators stated, "What a travesty of democracy it
was!" and "It must not happen again!" Why? It was not a travesty
of democracy. On the contrary, it was a brilliant example of democracy at work,
for members of the public who are sufficiently disillusioned by the progress of
their lobbyists are empowered by the Constitution to try for a seat in this
Council. Hope for the little man, the battler, seeking redress within the
system, not outside of it, is hardly a bad thing. The Outdoor Recreation Party
is clearly a primary beneficiary of the current system.
Secondly, the tablecloth itself was successful. The
informal votes for the Legislative Council were 274,594 out of 3,832,356, or 7
per cent. Seven per cent is hardly a rebuke; it is quite low. In 1974 the
informal vote for the Senate was 20 per cent, which is a rebuke. So the irate
commentators must have another agenda or they do not know what they are talking
about. The public, with their accurate completion of the tablecloth ballot
paper, to the objective mind have clearly endorsed the March election. The
figures quoted are provided by the Electoral Office. So why have many
commentators jumped upon the reformers bandwagon? I suggest the answer lies in
the Government seeking seamless and
unaccountable authority. The Opposition similarly can do without the irritation
of a large crossbench when it inevitably returns to office.
Approximately 35 per cent of the voters did not vote
for a major party and therein lies the true nature of the Government's call for
a reform. The major parties are clearly the losers of the tablecloth election.
They do not like the results so a smokescreen of cliches and platitudes will be
trundled out to obscure the true nature of their objection. I warn the major
parties: Emasculating smaller parties, taking away those rights available to the
little man, once realised and appreciated by the New South Wales electorates and
properly heralded, will irreparably damage the would-be reformers.
The suggestion that high registration fees be
introduced will also be damaging. Especially for smaller parties unable to meet
their objectives through non-political means, the fee, if too high, will also be
unfair, especially when compared with the electoral funding bonanza enjoyed by
larger parties. At a stroke the proposers of reforms involving high fees will be
doing to the political system what the lawyers have done to the legal system,
which is to make it the domain of the wealthy. I warn that the public resentment
of such changes, when eventually understood, will be considerable and will have
to be borne by the Premier and government of the day.
If the results of restrictions on party voting
thresholds, as have been proposed, are adopted, One Nation will probably hold
the balance of power. The Greens and the Democrats may get a look in - hardly an
improvement to the status quo! Which leads to why the upper House requires
reform. I believe the product which the two-House system delivers to the people
of New South Wales to be excellent. I believe we are, on the whole, governed
well. If the process is tinkered with it stands to reason the product will be
changed. Statistics certainly do not point to the upper House being a problem.
In the recent history of the Legislative Council the number of times legislation
was rejected or not passed in a form acceptable to the government of the day
amounted to 10 times during the Greiner Government, legislation was only
rejected twice during the term of the Fahey Government and since 1995 during the
term of the Carr Government only four pieces of legislation have been rejected.
Therefore, the reality of this House always denying the
government of the day the ability to govern does not stand up. But the
Legislative Council can act when appropriate. No other upper House in Australia
has three built-in constitutional mechanisms which can resolve disputes between
the Houses. They are: first, conference between the managers, Government,
Opposition, et cetera; second, joint sittings; and, third, the option of a
referendum. If the election of members, with a very small primary vote, whilst
major party members are elected with an even smaller primary vote, is so
unpalatable, let an external academic based reform committee be formed of
appropriate people and let the Parliament work through the process in its own
time.
There is no crushing urgency; there are four years
until the next election. Let logic, commonsense and wisdom rule the day, not
false perception, redress or undue haste. The Legislative Council is not broken,
so if people insist on fixing it, please allow time to properly assess the
fixing, not simply jumping with a sledgehammer for no good reason.
I wish to thank my colleagues in the Outdoor Recreation
Party for their tireless hours, endless encouragement, energy and creativity. I
thank also the members and supporters who gave of themselves to assist in
creating this opportunity for me to be their advocate in this place. I thank my
family for their acceptance of their often absent father. I love them very much.
Irrespective of what my colleagues in this place have perceived to be my
position on issues, I trust I have clearly advised the Legislative Council of my
agenda. I have always been prepared to become involved with issues that concern
me. I trust this Parliament will in time be a witness to my preparedness to work
and be involved in issues that define this House. I will conclude by stating my
gratitude to my constituents for granting me the opportunity to represent them
in this House. I promise to work tirelessly to restore sanity to the issue of
public access to public land. I also pledge humbly to the people of New South
Wales to devote myself to their wellbeing.