Mr DEAN (Windermere ) - I wish to make a brief comment in relation to this matter. I think it is very good that very clearly the Government, I think, has listened to what has been happening out there. I think the proposed amendments that will be introduced during the Committee stage will satisfy most of us, but it has been, and will be, a very significant backflip.

I think this is one of the occasions when the people of Lauderdale and all who feel very strongly about their environment - and there are a lot of us - can be thankful that some of the members of this House who support the Government very strongly have a direct involvement in that area. I think they can be very thankful for that. I cannot help but think that if that was not the case, our fight - the fight of the independent - would have been much more difficult. However, I commend the members.

Mr Harriss - We would have knocked them over.

Mr DEAN - We would have done - and that was going to be my next comment. It was very clear that the 10 independents on this occasion were going to stand up and this bill would have never seen the light of day. It would not have been able to get through this process.

During the briefing, I made it fairly clear that I could not understand why the Government had not sought a legal opinion on this matter, and that there had not been a position from senior counsel in relation to the boundaries of the conservation area. Then I was told that the Solicitor-General had in fact looked at it and that he had produced a report, but when I asked for that report during the briefing session we were told that report would not be available to us. When that situation occurs, you immediately think there must be something else in that report that we should not see.

Mr Parkinson - Well, you shouldn't.

Mr DEAN - That is the only conclusion I could come to.

Mr Parkinson - The longer you remain in this House, you will come to realise that is common, ordinary practice. Honourable members have the ability to obtain their own legal opinions if they so wish and that can be facilitated, but you will never get a legal opinion out of the Government that has been provided for the Government - of any government.

Mr Aird - Ever.

Mr DEAN - Leader, I would have thought that there would be times when it would be reasonable in the circumstances to provide such a report. But if that is the position of the Government, that is the position of the Government. I was going to go on to say that we are all in possession of a legal document by a senior counsel, Duncan Kerr, and that very clearly was going to support me.

Mr Parkinson - It contains a lot of political bias, by the way.

Mr DEAN - I do not care if there is or not, but that was a legal opinion that I had and I was prepared to place a lot of my argument on that document, because it was the only document I had. It was from a reputable, credible senior counsel, so why wouldn't I?

We were told that without the mudflats - the conservation area taking in the whole area down to low-water mark - there would have been no conservation area. It just would not have existed. That was a position I could never accept and was not prepared to accept, that there would not have been a conservation area . The environmentally sensitive area is in fact the mudflats. That is the important area of Ralphs Bay. A comment was made to me last night by a member of this Chamber that, if that had not been the case, if we were only talking about that little sliver of ground - I think lot 23 - then the conservation value of an asphalted car park in the fish and chip shop up the road would have probably more of a conservation value, because at least there are birds coming in there and foraging and so on. So the sliver of ground at Ralphs Bay that was identified as the conservation area was of little value.

I do not think there is any real doubt that up until the time that the Walker Corporation became involved, the Government would have accepted that the boundary of the conservation area did include down to the low-water mark. I think that is also made clear in the map that was produced by DPIWE back in 2005, which very clearly identified the conservation area down to and including the low-water mark. It is a large area of Ralphs Bay which is now included in and has been extended in the proposed amendments that we will discuss during the Committee stage.

It is very interesting that on that map it was clearly marked 'conservation area'; it read, in fact, 'Ralphs Bay Conservation Area, GHV31', which was a clear indication of where the conservation area was meant to be. I think one can conclude that a map produced by DPIWE, from that department, as it was then, would have been prepared on sound information and supported by the necessary documentation. It is not a plan or a map that they would have produced by plucking it out of midair, as it were; they would have had reference to a lot of the information and the data surrounding this area to produce and provide a map of that consequence.
There is no doubt, in my view, that this was being done solely to facilitate the Walker Corporation's development proposal and there is no other reasonable conclusion that I can draw from it.

There is no doubt it is a beautiful area. To rezone this bay and change the conservation area would be to take this magical area - the bay - away from the people forever, and that is what the current bill in its current state would have done. It would have removed an icon - forever - an icon that the people would never have gotten back.

So to support the bill as it currently is now would be akin to me in actual fact supporting a criminal act and that is something I could not condone and could not do, I feel so very strongly about it. In my opinion, nobody has the right to destroy a conservation area, a bird sanctuary, fish sanctuary or animal sanctuary, for the purpose of facilitating a housing development. When this process does continue, and at the appropriate time, I will be one of the first to put a submission to the RPDC.

Mr Parkinson - I'm sure it'll be an expert submission.

Mr DEAN - It certainly will be. It will be well-founded, well-researched and with the right advice.
The issue that we are confronting here is very similar to another issue on a much smaller scale - although it probably is not, I guess, when one looks at the value of it - and that is the argument that has been put in relation to the Gorge at Launceston, with which I am very familiar. The argument put there was that nobody has the right to destroy, forever, areas that belong to the people, destroy the ambience of a locality or destroy an icon by the building of houses. There are many other very suitable areas for housing developments to take place in.
During the committee stage I will be looking at those amendments. Those amendments do now in fact identify a huge area of Ralphs Bay and I applaud the Government for looking at that and for bringing in those amendments. So I thank the Government for that, but as this bill now is, and as we are debating it, I will not be able to support it.