In fact, senior staff from my office briefed the representatives of key peak conservation groups – including the NPA – on all major aspects of the proposed legislation on 12 November 2001, four days before the Bill was even introduced into Parliament, let alone posted on its website.

Indeed, the article makes a series of amazingly tendentious allegations, for instance that the amended legislation:

¨ Removes the "link between the use of a reserve and the purpose of the reserve", and

¨ Fails to "create a hierarchy for the NPW Act objectives and reserve management principles".

These claims involve at best a misunderstanding. Until now, there have been no statutory objectives and thus nothing in the Act that clearly indicates why we have national parks and how they should be managed. The legislation that recently passed through Parliament finally rectifies this significant omission.

In direct contradiction of the claim in the article, a clear hierarchy is now spelt out in black and white in the amended Act. The very first objective in the Act is now the conservation of nature, including the conservation of habitat, ecosystems, ecosystem processes, biological diversity (at the community, species and genetic levels) and landforms of significance (including geological features and processes).

The second objective is the conservation of objects, places or features of cultural value within the landscape, including those of significance to Aboriginal people. The third objective seeks to foster public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of nature and cultural heritage and their conservation.

The final objective ensures that national parks and reserves are managed in accordance with the relevant management principles. These management principles make it crystal-clear that the provision for visitor use and enjoyment in parks must be compatible with the natural and cultural values of the park. It should be stressed that these new management principles are entirely consistent with the reserve categories promoted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

This does not sound like the sort of law that would make a developer jump for joy! To the contrary, the Government has now enshrined in the Act our absolute commitment to the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage values of our reserves as the primary aim of the NPWS.

Further, the Bill was not "rushed through Parliament" as claimed. After being tabled on 16 November 2001, detailed discussions and negotiations were commenced with key stakeholder groups such as the NPA, the Total Environment Centre, the Nature Conservation Council, the Colong Wilderness Foundation for Wilderness, the Local Government and Shires Associations, the NSW Aboriginal Land Council and the chairs of all the Regional Advisory Committees from around the State (among others).

The outcome of these negotiations was fruitful. Around 80 amendments were moved and/or accepted by the Government in the Legislative Council before the Bill was passed — with no Member voting against — on 13 December, over four weeks after the process commenced on 12 November.

Furthermore, much of the Bill was based on the recommendations of the NPWS Visions Committee, which reported more than three years ago. This is hardly rushing things through Parliament!

While the Carr Government has created around 280 new national parks and reserves (and in doing so, protected an additional 1.4 million hectares of high conservation value land for future generations), and increased the budget from $95million in 1995 to $225million this year, there remained an urgent need to modernise the legislation under which those parks are managed.

That is precisely what has now occurred. It is, of course, legitimate for the NPA and other environmental groups to engage in constructive dialogue and criticism of the Government about its environmental legislation. It is quite another thing to publish inaccurate and inflammatory accounts. Such an approach cannot lead to a positive relationship and can only result in spreading confusion and fear among committed environmentalists.