Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (13:11): I speak in debate on the Biodiversity Conservation and Local Land Services Legislation Amendment (Broombush and Blue Mallee Coppicing) Bill 2025, introduced by the member for Cootamundra. I acknowledge the work that she has done on the bill. I listened to her passionate contribution on Ben Fordham's show this morning. I have not been in this place for long and we have not had many interactions. It was the most vocal and passionate I have heard her. It shows that there is a genuine issue and there are genuine concerns for landholders around West Wyalong—the Government acknowledges that—and I commend the member for Cootamundra for her efforts in representing and advocating for them. It stands in stark contrast to the contribution of the member for Bathurst.

We heard the usual One-Trick Tooley, with his confected outrage and his attempt to pit the city against the regions, when there is no division. It is cynical politics. We have seen it time and again from the member for Bathurst. He attacked the member for Parramatta. I understand that she is a third-generation dairy farmer, so she is aware of issues that agricultural communities face. As usual, the member for Bathurst carried on with confected outrage. In stark contrast, the member for Cootamundra raised serious issues and has sought to find a way to solve them through her bill. The Government recognises the concerns and is taking steps to address them, but the bill is not the way to do that. The intent behind the bill cannot be supported by the Government.

Instead, we encourage landowners to use the proper pathways and existing laws, both through Local Land Services and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water [DCCEEW]. I understand that the bureaucracy and going through the process can sometimes be frustrating, but those departments are there to help landowners and provide long‑term certainty for the industry. That is an important point. In effect, the bill offers a short-term fix. It does not address the underlying issue. The bill contains no clear reporting oversight or safeguards. It risks pushing the problem further down the line. We need to sort the issue out, and we need to do it soon. That means working through the approvals process that is already underway.

Essentially, the bill seeks to allow landowners to coppice broombush and blue mallee within a specific ecological community, being the mallee and mallee-broombush dominated woodland and shrubland in the South Western Slopes bioregion. That community has been listed as a critically endangered ecological community for about 15 years. As a result, any clearing activity needs approval. It is important to note that in 2017 the then Coalition Government mapped the area and required approval through the Native Vegetation Panel. That process was never completed, which is why we now have the problem that we do. We are left with a regulatory issue that should have been resolved years ago when the Coalition was in government and mapped the area. This Government is fixing the previous Government's problems, as it is in a number of other areas. The Government is doing that by working with landholders, reviewing mapping, clarifying approvals and finding a pathway forward. Rather than ignoring the problem, like those opposite did, we are engaging directly with local communities to find real, lasting solutions.

The Government is not standing still. It is working closely with landholders and local representatives to find practical solutions. Some of those include helping landowners apply for approval through the Native Vegetation Panel, offering map reviews for affected properties, requesting a review by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee and, importantly, conducting ground-truthing with Local Land Services and DCCEEW. I do not want to come across as being too critical of bureaucrats, but they are sometimes sitting in their nice, air‑conditioned offices looking at Google Maps or Nearmap and using the latest technology to effectively draw lines on a map with very little real-world context for those decisions and the land they are mapping. That is why ground‑truthing is important.

There was an example in my electorate several years ago when Liverpool council sought to redraw the flood maps for South Creek. They did so using lidar and all the greatest new technology. When the maps came out, landowners along the corridor were up in arms and furious, and rightly so. They asked council to undertake ground-truthing, to come to the area and have a look for themselves. One particular gentleman from Rossmore had about 20 per cent of his land deemed flood impacted. He was not seeking to get that removed for development purposes or to increase the value of his land; he was simply doing so because the mapping was wrong. He explained to the council that it was not the back corner but the front corner that floods, and it is probably closer to 25 per cent. That is a perfect example of where ground-truthing works.

Through a bit of fate, we got to do some ground-truthing when there was a series of floods in the early 2020s. Many landowners took video and photos to show where flooding was and was not occurring. There was a positive outcome in that the maps were never approved. Effectively, council went back to the drawing board, had a look at the photos and consulted with landowners to ensure that there was a more accurate representation of where the flood-affected areas were. I am sure that ground-truthing will provide similar outcomes here. Landowners will work in good faith with the department to determine which areas are genuine native ecosystems and which have been used to undertake this kind of activity for, in some cases, generations. We urge landowners to engage with this process. If that happens, this matter can hopefully be resolved within six months and we can provide certainty and a sustainable long-term path forward. A short-term legislative fix like the one before us would only delay the process.

In closing, I understand the issue has caused frustration and concern. As I said at the outset, I heard those concerns and recognise the impact they have had on families, including some that have been farming for generations. It has been the subject of strong advocacy, community meetings and media tension. I acknowledge the efforts of the member for Cootamundra in standing up for her community. But, despite the bluster from the member for Bathurst, it is clear that we share the same goal. We want to help West Wyalong landholders get back to business and continue their important work. The way to do that is by working through the proper approval processes, ensuring the industry's future and protecting our environment for the next generation. It is about getting the balance right. I encourage all involved to keep working with the Government to reach that outcome.