Riverina Red Gums

Debate on the Government’s National Park Estate (River Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 (No 2) came with the type of emotion and rhetoric from all sides that would be expected from such a divisive matter.

The Bill was not expected on the day, at least not by others than the Government who were in the know. Changing the Standing Orders to bring on such an important Bill at short notice and to push it through within the session is just plain wrong – it reeks of “clever” politics, setting aside the expectation of reasonable notice, usually five days.

Concerns of local effected residents are understandable; after all, life as they know it is going to change and all the assurances in the world that they will be looked after will be viewed with absolute scepticism.

The fact may be disputed by the Government, but the reality is that this Bill was brought on, perhaps not as an outright deal, but if not, at least as an appeasement to the Greens as the Government seeks to shore up support for preferences in March next year; no actual discussion of preferences maybe, but a “nod and a wink” wouldn’t surprise me.  No slur on the Greens; their views on this matter have long been known and they have worked hard for the result.

Having said that I do support the intention of the legislation, which will create an extremely significant National Park protecting a wide range of species within this important ecological system. Inclusion of a greater legislated role for traditional owners in the management of this land was also very significant.

Local industries have been provided with compensation but it remains to be seen if this is enough. Claims that this Park will generate tourism dollars are in my view quite weak and eco-tourism in itself is unlikely to substantially offset losses from industries that have relied on harvesting timber from the River Red Gum forests. Of course, the truth of this will be only known with hindsight. Because of this it will be important for the Government, and the next, to carefully watch the impact on these communities and take action as needed to ensure that these communities can adapt and hopefully prosper.

The debate was extensive and credit to Frank Sartor who I think argued his point well. Properly done, this decision could in the long-term provide benefits for those local communities and ensure the best conditions for the sustainability of the River Red Gum Forests. In short, I don’t like how it was done, possibly not why it was done, but I think the decision is correct.