FILMING APPROVAL BILL
Page: 9308
Second Reading
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD
(Minister for Primary Industries) [5.21 p.m.]: I move:
That
this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the
second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave
granted.
The Filming Approval Bill 2004 has been
introduced to allow filming within the national park estate and
marine parks, subject to the imposition of strict environmental
conditions.
The national park estate conserves a unique
diversity of outstanding landscapes in New South Wales, from the red
desert, to rainforests, alpine mountains and vast tracts of
wilderness. It is this very diversity of magnificent locations that
is a key factor in attracting both the Australian and the
international film industry to New South Wales.
Our national
parks have already served as successful locations for many
Australian and international films, such as Mission Impossible 2,
Lantana, Rabbit Proof Fence and The Mask 2. A number of
these films have won awards. Similarly, successful Australian TV
series such as Fireflies and Home and Away have been
filmed, in part, in our national parks.
The NSW film and
television industry provides around 50,000 jobs and is worth some $4
billion a year to the State's economy. This Government strongly
supports the industry and is keen to see it develop and flourish in
this State.
The Government is of the opinion that filming is
an appropriate activity within our national park estate. It
frequently provides an opportunity to promote national parks, and to
increase public appreciation and understanding of the natural and
cultural values of our national parks. It is an activity that also
helps to promote national parks to both local and international
visitors.
For example, who can forget the inspiring and
romantic images of the Snowy Mountains seen in The Man from Snowy
River? The House would also be familiar with The Lord of the
Rings films, which showcased New Zealand's magnificent national
parks and natural landscapes with such remarkable effect. These
areas are now being widely promoted to people who want to visit the
stunning areas where the film was made.
The need for this
legislation arises from the recent making of a film known as
Stealth.
The Department of Environment and
Conservation recently granted consent for the filming of Stealth
in a part of the Blue Mountains National Park, which also
happens to be in a declared wilderness area.
The decision
was challenged in the Land and Environment Court by the local
conservation group, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society. While
the Court did not make any adverse finding about the environmental
impact of the proposed filming, it nevertheless set aside the
Department's consent on the basis that commercial feature filming
was inconsistent with the objects of the National Parks and Wildlife
Act and the management principles of the Wilderness
Act.
Specifically, Justice Lloyd said that:
I do not think that a production of a commercial feature film is appropriate public recreation in the context of the objects of the National Parks and Wildlife Act or the purpose of reserving land as a national park. Such an activity has nothing to do with these objects or that purpose.
There is sufficient case law to
suggest that, in these circumstances, such activities would be
unlawful in a national park.
In this instance, the activity
in question is the making of a commercial feature film.
In
ruling on the Stealth case, the Land and Environment Court
has specifically drawn attention to doubts concerning the power to
approve the making of any commercial feature film in any national
park or reserve, whether or not the land in question is in a
declared wilderness area. I stress that the Court’s
observations were not limited to Stealth—they were made
with respect to any commercial feature film.
The Court
has also drawn attention to doubts concerning the power to approve
the making of any film in a wilderness area, at least in the
following circumstances:
(a) where the filming is being
undertaken commercially (that is, for sale, hire or profit);
and
(b) where the filming requires exclusive use of the
area in question.
The Government is committed to eliminating these doubts.
As
the law now stands, it is entirely possible that magnificent
Australian feature films such as The Man From Snowy River,
Lantana and Rabbit Proof Fence could not be filmed
in a national park in New South Wales.
It is even possible
that the making of a nature documentary or a tourist promotional
video in a wilderness area, at least in those cases where exclusive
occupation was necessary to film, would also be unlawful.
These
are unacceptable restrictions and ambiguities on the making of films
in New South Wales. They undermine the Australian film industry’s
ability to film in our magnificent Australian bushland
settings.
The Bill will remedy this problem by putting beyond
doubt the power of the Minister for the Environment, or a delegate,
to authorise the making of a film in the national park estate. A
similar power will be conferred on the Minister for the Environment
and the Minister for Primary Industries or their delegates to permit
the making of a film in a marine park.
This power will apply
within the national park estate or a marine park whether or not
filming is for commercial purposes and will include the power to
authorise exclusive access to and use of a specified area for a
defined period of time.
To ensure that the precious values
of wilderness areas are protected, filming will be restricted in
these areas. Wilderness includes large natural areas that remain
substantially unchanged by modern human activity. They are the most
intact and undisturbed expanses of our remaining natural landscapes
and their special values are managed to ensure they’re
disturbed as little as possible.
The Minister for the
Environment will have the power to approve commercial filming in
declared wilderness areas, but only where the film is for
scientific, research or educational purposes or for the promotion of
tourism, and where the activity is consistent with the wilderness
values of that particular area.
Of course, filming will only be permitted within the
national park estate or marine parks subject to strict environmental
conditions.
Indeed, I would like to reiterate here that the
Land and Environment Court did not make any adverse finding
regarding the environmental impact of the filming of Stealth
within the Blue Mountains National Park. In fact the Department of
Environment and Conservation's thorough environmental assessment
concluded that any impacts could be mitigated through the imposition
of conditions.
This Bill has been carefully drafted to enable
filming to take place within the national park estate and marine
parks in certain circumstances whilst ensuring that environmental
protection is paramount.
Let me outline the steps that will
ensure that outcome:
Firstly, the Bill ensures that the Minister
or delegate will have the power to impose appropriate conditions when
issuing filming approvals. This may include conditions to:
•
provide that the filming is conducted in a manner which minimises or
indeed eliminates adverse impacts upon the natural or cultural values
of an area;
• require existing means of access to be used
where feasible;
• restrict the area in which filming is
conducted; and
• restrict the period during which filming
is conducted.
Filming proposals will be subject to an
environmental impact assessment under Part 5 of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This means that the Minister
will require the preparation of a Review of Environmental Factors or,
if needed, an Environmental Impact Statement.
Finally, if
filming is proposed in Aboriginal co-managed national parks, such as
in Mutawintji National Park in western New South Wales, the
concurrence of the Board of Management for those lands must be
obtained prior to granting any approval. This will ensure that the
views of the Aboriginal owners are respected when filming occurs in
these areas and that Aboriginal sites are protected.
These
statutory safeguards are further strengthened by the Department of
Environment and Conservation’s Filming and Photography Policy,
which ensures that filming activities do not compromise the unique
natural and cultural values that our national park estate protects.
That Policy will of course be reviewed and amended, following passage
of this legislation.
This Government remains committed to
creating and managing one of the world’s very best systems of
protected areas.
Since coming to office in 1995, the
Government has established around 345 new national parks and
reserves, adding up to around two million hectares of land. In total,
our national parks system now conserves 7.4 per cent of the total
land area in NSW. The Government has also more than tripled the area
of declared wilderness in New South Wales. Approximately one quarter
of the State’s protected area network is wilderness.
The
Bill will allow films to be made in the national park estate and
marine parks whist ensuring that the environment that we have worked
so hard to protect will receive maximum protection.
In
particular, to ensure that the special values of wilderness areas are
protected, filming will only be allowed in these areas for
scientific, research, educational purposes or for the promotion of
tourism and will be subject anyway to very strict environmental
safeguards.
This is a necessary and sensible Bill, which
takes a positive step for New South Wales. It will enhance the
protection and public appreciation of our national park estate and
will encourage tourism to these beautiful places, whilst also
enhancing the State's international reputation as a film-making
centre, attracting investment and creating jobs in the local film
industry.
Can I finally say that I welcome feedback on the
provisions in the Bill. I have already met with representatives of
the Blue Mountains Conservation Society about the legislation and I
expect to receive a submission from it in the near future.
The
Government, as always, will be prepared to consider amendments that
will improve the legislation.
I commend the Bill to the
House.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.23 p.m.]: The object of the
bill is to allow commercial filming to take place in national parks.
All honourable members are aware of the circumstances which led the
Government to present this bill. The bill relates to the production
of the movie Stealth which was to take place last month in a
wilderness area near Mount Hay. The approval was subject to an appeal
by the Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc. before the Land and
Environment Court. The court ruled that filming should not proceed in
the wilderness area. The court found in favour of the conservation
society on 29 April on the grounds that the court did not believe
that production of a feature film qualified as "an appropriate
public recreation" under the objects of the National Parks and
Wildlife Act or principles of management for a national park; that
the approval contravened section 153A of the National Parks and
Wildlife Act which states that the Minister or the director-general
shall not grant a lease, licence or franchise in a wilderness area;
the approval was contrary to the National Parks and Wildlife Service
guidelines for commercial filming and photography; the unlawfulness
of approval and consent for commercial filming under section 9 of the
Wilderness Act 1987; and the fact that declared wilderness areas are
sacrosanct.
Immediately following the judgment, the Premier,
Bob Carr, announced that an appeal would be lodged in the Supreme
Court. He also stated that if the appeal was not successful, the
Government would legislate to ensure that filming could go ahead. As
events transpired, the producers of the film decided against
continuing with an appeal, given the expense and delay that that
process entails, and proceeded to make the film without any further
impediments. Nevertheless, this bill seems to have been designed to
ensure that the Premier is not embarrassed by the performance of the
Government in relation to this matter. The Attorney introduced this
bill in the other place and pointed out that the New South Wales film
and television industry is worth $4 billion a year and provides
approximately 50,000 jobs. He stated that the Government supports the
film industry. The Opposition supports the film industry as well.
Mr
Ian Cohen: So do the Greens.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I
appreciate Mr Ian Cohen making that clear. The issue is whether it is
appropriate to film in national parks. All sides agree that it is not
appropriate to film in wilderness areas which the court properly
declared to be sacrosanct. I commend to members of the House the
excellent speech made in the other place by the shadow Minister for
the Environment, the honourable member for The Hills, in which he
outlined in considerable detail the circumstances leading up to the
proposal for filming. He outlined at length the characteristics of
the area in which filming was to take place and the process
undertaken by the film-makers in seeking to obtain appropriate
approvals for filming. An environmental study was undertaken which,
from all accounts, was a detailed and proper environmental
study.
The honourable member for The Hills also set out the
conditions under which filming was approved. Some of the conditions,
which were highly specific to a wilderness area, were that access to
the swamp area, which was the setting for the film, was confined to
an access route that was identified by the Department of Environment
and Conservation instead of the route proposed in the review of
environmental factors, and the applicant had to contribute to the
cost of stabilising the additional access track. The conditions went
so far as to stipulate the details of shoes and clothing that were to
be worn by people working in the area while filming took place, the
timing for rehearsals, and costs.
As we know, the Blue
Mountains Conservation Society successfully appealed to the Land and
Environment Court, which found that filming should not proceed. The
response by the Premier was apoplectic. On 30 April he spoke on 2BL
radio in support of the location of the filming, and called it "an
authentic location". I commend to honourable members the
contribution of the shadow Minister in the other place because when
one reads about the detail of the site and the lead-up to it, it is
quite ludicrous for the Premier to have claimed on radio that the
location was authentic and that it provided a North Korean landscape.
That was nonsensical.
Clearly, alternative sites were
available and a number had been identified by the Colong Foundation
for Wilderness prior to filming. When one reviews what happened one
would wonder how we have reached this rather dramatic situation.
There were some disturbing elements in what was intended to be done
in the wilderness area, including the building of a platform, and the
landing of a helicopter to bring in equipment. Also some worrying
detailed activities were involved, including the intention to
simulate explosions of bullets hitting rocks and so on. It is fair to
say that there was to be some considerable disturbance to the area.
The Filming Approval Bill allows the Minister to grant filming
approval in a national park or marine park, but specifically
precludes filming in wilderness areas such as Mount Hay, except for
educational, scientific, research or tourism purposes.
Filming
will not require development consent but filming proposals will still
be subject to part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act. The Minister will require a review of environmental factors or
an environmental impact statement to be prepared. There is some
controversy about whether film-makers will want to go through those
processes. In order to prepare a proper review of environmental
factors or an environmental impact statement, the proponents will
have to expend considerably on experts providing those studies. In
that context it is of some concern to hear that an adviser to the
Minister for the Environment did not consider that that would be an
issue for film-makers, and apparently suggested that a half-page
document would suffice.
I certainly do not accept that that is
appropriate in relation to a review of environmental factors or an
environmental impact statement for those sorts of activities. The
film and television industry is worth $4 billion a year to the New
South Wales economy. There is, I suppose, a genuine concern that the
Stealth decision could discourage overseas movie makers from
coming here. Currently the Prime Minister is on a very important trip
to the United States of America, where I am sure he will be able to
assure Mr Arnold Schwarzenegger that the film industry is alive and
well in New South Wales and Australia.
The Attorney General
claims that the legislation is necessary because the court decision
could make filming unlawful in a national park. However, in our view
the bill simply restates existing law. Commercial filming was never
permitted in wilderness areas, and that will still not be allowed
under the bill. The Land and Environment Court did not find that
filming in a national park was unlawful, only that filming in a
wilderness area was unlawful. One would have to wonder whether there
is really any need to proceed with this bill, to cause angst. Most
honourable members would have received a flood of emails from rightly
concerned people who wonder what the Government is on about and why
it has to proceed this way. The only real answer to that seems to be
that it is designed to ensure that the Premier's pride is not
impacted by not doing what he said he was going to do.
This
bill was introduced merely to satisfy a silly comment by the Premier
when he first heard about this decision. In closing, I note that the
proposed Act provides for a review after five years. One would hope
that if no use is made of the Act in the intervening period it may be
reviewed even earlier. However, I suspect it will just sit on the
statute books and we will not see much more about it. I understand
quite a number of amendments are proposed to be moved in Committee.
In the circumstances, the Opposition will not oppose the bill.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [5.36 p.m.]: In considering the Filming
Approval Bill I specifically take up the comments of the Minister in
his second reading speech in the other place, and comments contained
in the speech that has been incorporated in Hansard in this
place. In particular the Minister asserted:
The New South
Wales film and television industry provides around 50,000 jobs and is
worth some $4 billion a year to the State's economy. Therefore, the
Government strongly supports the industry and is keen to see it
develop and flourish in this State.
I am concerned that the
situation is somewhat different from that described by the Minister,
and I will outline why. I note also that the state of the film
industry in its international context and its importance to Australia
generally has been a theme of contributions during debate. Feature
film production in New South Wales is a critically important industry
to which members of this Chamber should pay close attention. It is an
industry that shapes and defines our community's sense of identity;
it is an industry that sustains thousands of jobs and businesses; it
is an industry that brings tourists to our shores; but it is also an
industry in an atmosphere of intense competition from other parts of
the nation and the world that can easily be jeopardised by government
mismanagement.
The bill, which has been rushed through
Parliament, follows hurriedly on the heels of exactly that:
government mismanagement. The feature film industry in Australia has
enormous benefits for our society, benefits that are economic and
cultural. Economically, the film industry is a significant provider
of employment across a range of skills and occupations. The last
figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics relating
to the film industry were published in 2000. They revealed that at
the end of June that year there were nearly 2,000 businesses in the
film and video production industry that employed just over 15,000
people. As well as those involved directly in feature film
production, such as actors, cinematographers, sound technicians,
costume designers, editors and so on, there are also ancillary
workers such as accountants, lawyers, caterers, transportation
providers and so forth.
Every feature film production
green-lighted in New South Wales, or attracted here from overseas,
provides work for hundreds of local people. Just today, the Japanese
production company Toho Productions Inc. is shooting footage around
Sydney Harbour for inclusion in director Ryuhei Kitamura's latest
instalment in the series of Godzilla movies. The two days of
production in Sydney will employ about 70 Australians as part of the
crew.
In addition to creating jobs for people within the film
industry, motion picture production has a positive economic benefit
for related industries, notably, tourism. In New Zealand recently the
phenomenal success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy has
clearly demonstrated the capacity for movies to attract international
tourists. The scale of this success, however, should not lead us to
think that only major blockbusters can have an impact. Earlier this
year Western Australia's culture and arts Minister, Sheila McHale,
commented on how even a modest international success, the Australian
film Japanese Story, helped to promote her State as a unique
destination for foreign tourists. While the economic contribution of
the feature film industry in Australia is more quantifiable, its
cultural contribution to our sense of national identity is,
nonetheless, of enormous significance. Last year, Deborah Parsons and
Glenda Hambly, members of the Victorian film and television industry
working party, made the following comments in the Herald
Sun:
What we and our children watch on the big and little
screen is our culture. Film and television is an industry of national
importance. It brings all Australians together, from the bush, from
the city, from diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds. When our
films are watched internationally, they act as our cultural
ambassador.
Feature films are a central part of the culture
sphere on which our society negotiates its evolving sense of self.
Movies are an important medium through which we engage with our
prevailing national myths. We revise our understanding of our history
and establish an understanding of what it means to be Australian. The
vital role of film in the cultural life of our nation was recognised
by the Gorton Federal Government when it laid the groundwork for the
revival of the Australian film industry in the 1970s through the
establishment of the Australian Film Commission [AFC] and the
Australian Film, Television and Radio School. The presence of a
healthy local feature film industry is critically important, and
attracting productions to Australia from overseas is a crucial
element in the continued survival of such a local industry.
The
presence of foreign productions provides additional employment and
experience for members of the Australian industry, without which many
would be forced either to leave the industry or to pursue a career
outside Australia. It is important that these projects continue to be
encouraged to come to Australia. Several times in the past year the
Treasurer has acknowledged to this House the value of the film
industry to New South Wales. On 30 April last year he told the House
that the industry was "becoming an increasingly important sector
of the New South Wales economy". On 1 July he commented on "the
strength of the State's film and digital media industries". On 4
September he proudly declared our State to be "the national
centre of the film industry in Australia".
On each of
those occasions and on others the Minister, who I note is in the
Chamber, highlighted the importance to our film industry of foreign
productions by repeatedly mentioning the various The Matrix and
Star Wars films. As recently as March this year he was telling
us, "The strength of the New South Wales film and digital media
industries was highlighted last year by the filming of the The
Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions in Sydney.
Sadly, there is somewhat of a disparity between what the Minister has
told this House and the true state of film production in New South
Wales. In November last year the Australian Film Commission published
its annual report entitled "National Survey of Feature Film and
TV Drama Production 2002/03", which contains figures about the
level of feature film production in Australia that are of
concern.
The figures relating to New South Wales, however, are
perhaps best described as alarming. They show that in 2002-03, while
we were being told about the strength of the industry in our State,
film production in New South Wales was fast approaching a crisis.
According to the AFC annual report, in the financial year 2002-03
national feature film production activity dropped for the first time
in eight years. Total feature film expenditure across the country
dropped by 32 per cent, from $342 million to $232 million. Almost all
this dramatic decline occurred in New South Wales. In this State
feature film production slumped by 60 per cent, that is, almost twice
the national figure. This appalling statistic is all the more
staggering when it is compared to other States. In the same period,
Victoria experienced a drop of just 16 per cent, in South Australia
the value of production fell by only 19 per cent and, in sharp
contrast, feature film production in both Queensland and Western
Australia rose significantly.
In Queensland, feature film
expenditure increased by over 80 per cent and in Western Australia
spending almost doubled. Clearly, the position in New South Wales is
something we need to look at because it could be said to be letting
down the national team. That is all the more apparent when one looks
at the assessment in the report of that vital source of revenue and
employment—foreign film production. In 2002-03 the value of
foreign feature film productions in Australia fell only slightly—from
$185 million to $169 million. That is an overall decline of about 8.5
per cent. As with the statistic for overall feature production, this
national decline is attributable almost entirely to an inability by
New South Wales to attract feature film-makers from overseas.
Expenditure by foreign productions in New South Wales fell
from $122 million in 2001-02 to just $21 million in 2002-03, that is,
an 82 per cent reduction in spending from external sources. To some
degree that downturn reflects the increasingly competitive global
market in which Australia now finds itself when trying to attract
feature film productions. In addition to using locations and
facilities in Canada, Ireland and New Zealand, productions are
increasingly finding new alternatives in Eastern Europe. The filming
of Cold Mountain in Romania and Van Helsing in the
Czech Republic are just two high-profile examples. Furthermore,
Hollywood is making concerted efforts to lure productions back to
California and the industry will only find further support in this
endeavour from Governor Schwarzenegger. However, the decline in
foreign film expenditure in New South Wales last year cannot be
explained solely by the emergence of rival sites of production
overseas.
The result in New South Wales did not have a greater
impact on national figures because of the contrasting success in
attracting foreign productions enjoyed by Queensland. In 2002-03 our
neighbours to the north managed to attract two large budget foreign
features—Peter Pan and The Great Raid. In
securing those projects foreign spending in that State increased by
an impressive 360 per cent. The experience in Queensland demonstrates
that Australia can still manage to attract major film productions
projects from overseas, but the Carr Government needs to do more to
secure this expenditure for New South Wales rather than allowing it
all to be lured to Queensland or to other States. Almost nine times
as much flowed into Queensland from overseas last year as a result of
film production as came into New South Wales. The Government needs to
explain why our State is suddenly so uncompetitive.
On 4
September last year the Treasurer used the 2001-02 AFC annual report
to proudly declare to this House, "New South Wales is the
national centre of the film industry in Australia." Just two
months later, the AFC's 2002-03 annual report dramatically
demonstrated that that claim no longer holds true. Two years ago our
State enjoyed 53 per cent of total film production in Australia, with
expenditure in New South Wales reaching $353 million. Last year,
spending fell to just $141 million and our share of activity dropped
to just 38 per cent. That means that, far from being the national
centre of the film industry in Australia, New South Wales is now
placed third behind Queensland and Victoria. These concerning
statistics from the Australian Film Commission clearly demonstrate
that something is amiss in the way in which the New South Wales
Government is engaging with the feature film industry.
The
Carr Government's mishandling of the Stealth situation appears
to be only one example of its failure to provide an atmosphere in
this State that is conducive to motion picture production. If the New
South Wales Government is to succeed in attracting significant film
projects from overseas it must provide the industry with clarity,
consistency and security. The actions of the Government with regard
to the filming of Stealth demonstrate its failure to do
that—and that failure is now jeopardising future film
production in New South Wales. The director of Stealth, Rob
Cohen, acknowledged in the media last month that the debacle
surrounding his project's access to Mount Hay would result in
Australia's standing in Hollywood needing "a little PR
repairing". He told the Sydney Morning Herald:
I'll
do my part to explain what happened and what the result was, but the
film commissions and so on will have to do their part to undo a bad
impression.
The Carr Government is responsible for creating
that "bad impression" and tarnishing Australia's reputation
in Hollywood just when it is becoming harder to secure business from
California. The National Parks and Wildlife Service suggested the
Mount Hay location to the Stealth film-makers and the
Government said they could use that location. On the day that the
Land and Environment Court decided to stop filming in the Grose
Valley wilderness area proceeding, the Premier blasted the court's
decision as placing "our film industry's international
reputation at risk".
The bill that the Carr Government
hurriedly introduced following this bungle only validates the court's
decision. The provisions in the bill allow for the Minister to grant
approval for feature film production in a national park or marine
park, with the explicit exception of any wilderness area. In other
words, under the provisions of this bill the filming of Stealth
at Mount Hay would not have been allowed. This makes it abundantly
clear that the Land and Environment Court is not to blame for risking
our reputation. The standing of New South Wales as a world-class
location for film production was jeopardised by the Carr Government
when it mismanaged the negotiations over Stealth and
incorrectly granted permission to film at Mount Hay. It is the Carr
Government that must take that responsibility.
Sadly, rather
than acknowledging its mistake, the Government has attempted to
obscure its culpability by blaming Justice Lloyd and by presenting
this bill as a solution. Consequently we are faced with a bill that
has the twin effects of reinforcing existing legislation and
presenting further obstacles to film production in the State. Under
the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the Wilderness Act 1987
commercial filming was never permitted in wilderness areas. That
situation will not change following the passage of this bill. What
will change is the burden placed on film-makers to prepare a review
of environmental factors or an environmental impact statement in
order to proceed with filming in non-wilderness area sections of
national or marine parks—activity that, contrary to comments
made by the Minister for the Environment in the other place, was
never deemed unlawful by Justice Lloyd's ruling. Catherine McDonnell
from Fox Studios Australia has expressed concern about the
significant time delays involved in the preparation of such documents
that, as the honourable member for The Hills and the Hon. Greg Pearce
said, can be up to two centimetres thick.
Rather than being
necessary and well considered, this bill is a rushed piece of
legislation. It has more to do with the Government saving face and
creating the impression of taking decisive action than taking the
steps required to secure a sustainable and robust film industry in
New South Wales. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the bill
but nor does it consider it to be the most appropriate response to
the situation. The feature film industry in this State is in dire
trouble. Production in New South Wales will only go backwards and we
have lost ground dramatically to Queensland and our international
rivals. The alarming situation in which we find ourselves is a result
of the Carr Government's incompetence, and this bill does little to
provide the clarity and security necessary to rectify the shocking
exodus of film production expenditure from our State in the past
year.
Mr IAN COHEN [5.53 p.m.]: I oppose the Filming Approval
Bill. I am pleased that the Treasurer, who knows the history of the
Carr Government's evolution, is in the Chamber and I hope that the
Premier will lend at least one ear to the information that I will
offer in this debate.
The Hon. Michael Egan: I always listen to
you.
Mr IAN COHEN: I appreciate that; I really do.
The
Hon. Michael Egan: Unlike other people, you're not a hypocrite.
You might be wrong but you're not a hypocrite.
Mr IAN
COHEN: I appreciate the Treasurer's interjection. Mistakes can be
made in this or in any other House of Parliament but we do not like
hypocrisy. We do not like members who say one thing and then say
exactly the opposite a little while later. It is just not on. What
would the Treasurer do with such people given the opportunity?
The
Hon. Michael Egan: I'd throw them out of the Parliament.
Mr
IAN COHEN: The Treasurer would throw such members out of the
Parliament. I thank the Treasurer for his support on that position of
principle espoused so clearly at the commencement of this
debate.
The Hon. Michael Egan: Who did you have in the
mind—not the same member I had in mind, I assure you?
Mr
IAN COHEN: Indeed.
The Hon. Michael Egan: I hope
you didn't have me in mind.
Mr IAN COHEN: No, not at
all. The Treasurer is consistent—I am not quite sure at what,
but he is consistent. History will record him as being so. I will
begin my contribution by quoting a committed conservationist and
great advocate of wilderness, who once said:
Will we as a
nation continue to destroy, piece by piece, the great natural areas
of this country? Will we continue to be unmoved by the fact that many
of the nation's plants and animals are threatened with oblivion? Or
do we resolve that the very fibre of this continent should be treated
with greater respect, that our much-diminished wilderness should be
protected, and that our country should earn a reputation for
excellence in its approach to conservation?
He continued:
The
matter of wilderness protection strikes at the heart of this
conundrum because wilderness is the total and absolute embodiment of
the Australian environment. Still in a largely natural state it
offers no concession, no compromises. Unlike many of our fine
national parks with their bitumen roads, camping grounds, amenities,
walking tracks, recreational facilities and the like, wilderness
stands as a stark reminder of what once was. It reminds us of the
ancient life of this continent.
If we lose our feel for this
grand old continent in its natural condition, then we lose something
of our character as a people. The case for conservation is founded
therefore on patriotism. Our commitment to protecting our wilderness
is a measure of our maturity as a nation and pride in our identity …
But more than this we shall bring a commitment to protecting
wilderness wherever and whenever possible. Without such a commitment,
legislation of any kind is of limited value. A government hostile to
wilderness conservation could live with this legislation. What is
important is the will behind this power, where such powers are
enacted. This is the sharpest distinction that can be drawn between
the Government and the coalition: we believe, and we will act. We
will build for New South Wales the finest record on conservation to
be found anywhere in Australia. The achievements of New South Wales
in nature conservation will draw the praise of the world.
That
committed conservationist and great advocate of wilderness went on to
taunt critics of his environmental zeal and to challenge those
opponents to put up or shut up. He continued:
Would they dare
to dilute laws to protect wilderness areas? Would they retain the
powers that have been carefully inserted in legislation, such as the
right of third parties to appear before the Land and Environment
Court and argue that a government policy is infringing wilderness
protection?
That committed conservationist is Bob Carr. He made
those comments in speaking to the 1987 wilderness legislation. He was
certainly on song that day during the second reading debate on the
Wilderness Bill in the other place.
The Hon. John
Hatzistergos: Seventeen years ago.
Mr IAN COHEN:
Exactly. Since then we have witnessed the Faustian drama of our
Premier changing from being a pre-eminent conservationist who
strutted the world stage when the time was right, extolled the
virtues of wilderness, passed legislation successfully through
Parliament and verbally whipped anyone who dared to oppose him.
That
is the same Bob Carr that took that famous step that day and drew a
line in the sand for wilderness across which no destructive force
would cross. His arguments were compelling and the key to them all
was that wilderness is different to everything else. It is something
that we cannot afford to lose because it cannot be replaced. How do
you lose wilderness? As Bob Carr said, it happens piece by piece.
Piece by piece we dilute the laws that protect wilderness areas to
suit whatever purpose we may find interesting at the time or to
benefit the subject of our loving gazes at the time. And piece by
piece the delicate web that holds wilderness together starts to
unravel. How does this happen in wilderness? Surely wilderness has
been around for a while? After all, it represents "the very
fibre of this continent", as Bob Carr said. Surely wilderness is
pretty robust? Is that material, Mr Treasurer, for tossing a member
out of the House?
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda
Fazio): Order! Mr Ian Cohen should address his comments in this
debate to all members in the Chamber and not to individual members.
Mr IAN COHEN: I was keen to see whether the Treasurer
would stand by his previous comments that were so robustly enunciated
earlier in the debate. I thought that, given that degree of
enthusiasm, I would receive a follow-up comment on the matter.
Wilderness is robust, but only against what it evolved to resist.
Human beings have proven adept at dominating the natural environment.
There are no plants and animals that are not vulnerable to a basic
human desire to control the environment and change it to suit. It is
certainly vulnerable to four-wheel drives, to other heavy vehicles,
to large groups of people tramping through it, to the construction of
platforms on top of it and to equipment and machinery of any kind
being hauled through it. Wilderness developed at a time when we were
not here—not many of us anyway. Wilderness certainly did not
develop while the film industry was about either or, luckily, while
the Daily Telegraph scribe of cynical superficiality, David
Penberthy, was advocating its commercial uses.
The Hon.
Michael Egan: Are you attacking my friend David?
Mr IAN
COHEN: If the Treasurer read the article today in the Daily
Telegraph by David Penberthy he may think that "cynical"
and "superficial" may well be appropriate tags for the
person who passes himself off as a Daily Telegraph journalist.
The Government should be ashamed of its handling of the Stealth
filming approval and the subsequent events.
The Hon.
Michael Egan: So you are attacking my friend?
Mr IAN
COHEN: I am stating a point of view that is supported by many
people who have any sense of ability to be able to discern while they
are reading a newspaper, yes.
The Hon. Michael Egan: I
am not challenging that, I am simply saying he is a friend of mine. I
was just ascertaining whether you were attacking him.
Mr
IAN COHEN: I suppose you could say I was making a negative
comment on his ability as a journalist.
The Hon. Michael
Egan: I cannot say I agree with you. He is not a bad
journalist.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the
interjection of the Treasurer and say that one can judge the quality
of a person by their friends.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I
would be careful saying that if I were you.
Mr IAN COHEN:
There were others who would say, and I tend to adhere to it, that
one can also judge the quality of a person by their enemies. On 26
April Columbia pictures and AFG Talons Productions Pty Ltd received
approval to film the final scenes for a military adventure movie,
Stealth, in the Grose Wilderness across a fragile montane
heath and the rock outcrops of Butterbox Point and on an upland swamp
below it. The Department of Environment and Conservation had advised
Talons as early as 14 November 2003 that the film would be legally
permissible.
I have walked very carefully along Butterbox
Point on the ridge because the area has been seriously damaged by
fire. It is truly a fragile montane heath and is in a state of repair
after the past fires. It truly is a magnificent area. It is a shame
that the very layout of the filming sequence was designed so that the
mountains of the Grose Valley were excluded because it was meant to
look like North Korea in the film. Yes, it had been burned, and, yes,
it was montane heath and it had a suitable backdrop, but they cut out
anything that defined the wonderful rugged sandstone outcrops of the
Blue Mountains.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: So much for
promoting Australia.
Mr IAN COHEN: One could hardly
call it promoting Australia, and certainly the scene of an actor
running through a swamp, chased by Korean soldiers, is hardly the
type of image—
The Hon. Rick Colless: Would it do
more or less damage than the fire itself?
Mr IAN COHEN: The
Hon. Rick Colless raised that issue.
The Hon. Rick Colless:
The fire would have done more damage, wouldn't it?
Mr
IAN COHEN: I acknowledge that the fire would have done an
incredible amount of damage. The hanging swamp in a damp environment
like that was unaffected by the fire. To think that two wrongs make a
right somehow is a bit of twisted logic when we are talking about
conservation. The relative issue is that this environment is
struggling to repair and recover from fires, and the environment does
not need to have the further impact of—
The Hon. Rick
Colless: Two blokes.
Mr IAN COHEN: More than two
blokes: it was about a person being pursued by Korean soldiers, with
a significant amount of infrastructure including platforms, and a lot
of auxiliary actors, support artists, make-up artists, photographers
and such like. Let us denigrate the activities, and later I will come
to the sorts of damage the same company did in sensitive areas of
coastal vegetation with another stage of the filming. As events
unfolded, it would appear that the memorandum of 2003-18
"Facilitation of Film-making in New South Wales", a
directive from the Premier's office, ultimately led to the granting
of a licence for filming a war-scenario movie in a wilderness area.
The scene for the film involved a jet fighter pilot—actor
Jessica Biel—escaping from the North Koreans after destroying a
jet fighter with a mind of its own that was out to destroy the
world.
If that can be seen to be in keeping with wilderness
values, it is an interesting interpretation of the Carr Government. I
have heard of media spin before but that is certainly taking it to
extremes, but after all this is Hollywood. This is the movie world.
The scene did not require a World Heritage Wilderness setting where
the filming was later proven to be illegal, yet repeated offers of
assistance by environmentalists regarding less controversial
alternative film locations went unheeded by the film company. The
Blue Mountains Conservation Society started legal action in the Land
and Environment Court on Tuesday 27 April 2004. Fortunately, the
court was willing to expedite the hearings so that the matter could
be dealt with before filming started.
As it turned out, that was the day police moved in to
remove protestors on the Mount Hay Road leading to the filming site.
Nine people were arrested who were a part of a series of blockades
of cars and tripods. The nine include Dr Mick Dark, son of writer
Eleanor Dark and Dr Eric Dark, who was recently awarded a medal by
Premier Bob Carr for the donation of his parents' home Varuna to be
a writers' centre in Katoomba; Jenny Kee, the acclaimed dress
designer; and Hugh Paterson, owner of the bush regeneration company,
Good Bush. Six other protesters were arrested that day on the road
leading to the wilderness area for standing on Mount Hay Road to
prevent the Stealth film crew from accessing the Butterbox
Point site in the Grose Wilderness Area before the court case could
be heard against the granting of the special licence allowing
filming on that sensitive wilderness site.
At this point I
acknowledge the vital role many compassionate and committed people
have played to uphold the value of wilderness. It was certainly an
honour to be part of that group of people. I especially thank Robyn
Mosman for her wonderful work with the Blue Mountains Conservation
Society, who worked tirelessly and passionately to support the
cause. I also thank Jenny Rich, who did a great deal of work, and
Emily Coleing, who was arrested that day, as was Keith Andrew,
Nicola Bowskill, Hugh Paterson, Nick Hill, Dave Simmons, Heidi
Chappelow, Marie Le Breton and Shanu Antoniacomi.
Those are
just a few of the passionate and committed people; there are too
many of them to mention. They were on the site with little more than
their ideals. They had nothing to gain. They are passionate about
the Blue Mountains environment, and Mount Hay and Butterbox Point
are areas of stunning beauty. It was great to just sit and talk with
those people—young and old, because a fantastic cross-section
of the community attended—experience their passion for the
area and see them doing what they could to retain it. I referred
earlier in my speech to a statement made by Bob Carr. These areas
are an embodiment of the Australian environment. These people were
living the dream and belief that had been espoused by Bob Carr many
years ago. The film company moved in that afternoon to construct the
platforms and the flying fox for the Sydercam. Filming was to start
on the Saturday. Justice Lloyd of the Land and Environment Court
handed down his decision on Thursday morning 29 April. He said:
In
my opinion, the governing consideration in the present case is this:
declared wilderness areas are sacrosanct.
He found that the
filming authority approved by Simon Smith, Deputy Director-General
of the Department of Environment and Conservation, was invalid. He
said:
The proposed activity contravenes section 9 of the
Wilderness Act [the management principles]. It is unlawful, and the
approval and consent are also unlawful.
That should have been
the end of the matter. Stealth had to find another site. They
had been told over and over again, since December last year, that
there were alternatives locations outside the wilderness area. In
the court, the company responsible for the production of Stealth
insisted that the film site at Mount Hay in the Grose Wilderness was
"crucial" to their decision to shoot the film in New South
Wales. Within days of the court ruling the director of Stealth
found another site on council and private land in the Blue
Mountains, at Mount Blackheath. As the director, Rob Cohen, told the
Sydney Morning Herald, as reported on 6 May 2004, referring
to the need to move to a new location, "We've actually made a
better film." It was that simple because there were that many
suitable areas. People who know the Blue Mountains intimately had
been putting forward a significant number of alternative and
suitable areas.
That brings me to the point: Whose fault is
it if we are seen to be having some problems in attracting
film-makers to New South Wales? I would suggest that the Premier and
the Labor Government have to shoulder a great deal of the
responsibility because of the way they have gone about dealing with
this issue. Film companies want to come to a community that will
give them a degree of support and co-operation. The conservationists
offered that. But who was it who put out on the airwaves that it was
the other way around? It was our Premier. A lot of damage has been
done by the media beat-up. As members who have spoken in this debate
have clearly indicated, we are at this stage dealing with a bill
that will not allow Stealth to be filmed on that site in the
Blue Mountains. So we are back to where we started!
This is
classic Carr Government spin—bringing us back to the same
point after a huge degree of agitation and, unfortunately, after a
great deal of stress was endured by many fine and upstanding people
in the Blue Mountains community who strongly disagreed with Bob Carr
and their local member, Mr Bob Debus, on this matter. Bob Carr
conducted a media conference on Thursday afternoon, the day of the
court judgment. He said he was challenging the court's decision and
would rush special legislation through Parliament if the court
decision failed to ensure certainty for future filming in New South
Wales national parks. Bob Carr said on ABC radio station 702 the
next morning he believed the court was wrong, and added that:
…
the message would go around the world, if these producers now can't
shoot these scenes here, that there are real difficulties about
doing things in Australia.
Much has been made, particularly through the limited
talents of cynically opportunistic reporters at populist newspapers,
of the giant dragonfly in this issue. Even today's Daily
Telegraph carries a drawing of Richard Neville flying a giant
dragonfly. Instead of the media being focussed on the hypocrisy of a
Premier seeking to dilute the laws that protect wilderness areas—the
very laws that he fought so hard to introduce—the giant
dragonfly was belittled as some obscure and laughable justification
for refusing the Stealth film crew access to the Grose
Wilderness. A hundred and fifty people would have been walking in
and around the swamp area where the giant dragonfly lives had the
filming gone ahead. I repeat, 150 people, not 2 soldiers chasing a
woman through a swamp.
The Hon. Jon Jenkins: On
boardwalks.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by
that great professional on wilderness matters. They would not have
been on boardwalks. They would have been moving over a limited area
of ground—over a very sensitive area that harboured an
endangered species.
The Hon. Jon Jenkins: The boardwalks are
just there for looks!
Mr IAN COHEN: Rather than a meaningful
message being left for posterity by members who come into this
House, we have heard a communication reflecting a person who licks
postage stamps. The member comes to this House by default to fill
the shoes of someone who artfully dodged the democratic
process.
The Hon. Jon Jenkins: Point of order. The member's
comments are well and truly outside acceptable comment made in a
second reading speech. He is engaging in personal abuse and
vilification, and if the member wishes to pursue that course he
should do so by way of substantive motion or some other form of the
House.
Mr IAN COHEN: I accept that.
The Hon. Michael
Egan: What? I wanted to hear what it was all about.
Mr IAN
COHEN: I was referring to the honourable member's level of
communication being equivalent to that of licking a postage
stamp.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order!
I ask Mr Ian Cohen to confine his remarks to the subject of the
bill.
Mr IAN COHEN: As I have said, 150 people would have
been walking in and around the swamp area where the giant dragonfly
lives had the filming gone ahead. An acknowledged expert in this
field of science, Professor John Truman, of the School of Botany and
Zoology at the Australian National University, said he believed no
matter how careful the film crew may have been, damage would have
occurred to the dragonfly's habitat in the swamp. I spoke to
Professor Truman, and I asked him questions about this issue because
I was keen to know whether more information could be found. I was
aware that National Parks and Wildlife Service personnel were
concerned to have actors avoid the central area of the swamp.
However, in the opinion of Professor Truman, the central area of the
swamp is awash at certain times, the dragonfly larvae are washed
from the central area, and the problem areas become the areas around
the edge of the swamp—which is where the actors were directed
to go, supposedly to protect this endangered species. As well, this
species is proven to be a very poor flyer, and therefore it is
localised at that swamp. So this type of activity could have wiped
out a significant proportion of an endangered species. I ask
honourable members to think about this.
The Hon. Greg
Pearce: National Parks and Wildlife Service officers had concerns
too!
Mr IAN COHEN: National Parks and Wildlife Service
officers, as I understand from another opinion that I have been
given, were misinformed about the sensitivity of the site, and they
thought they were resolving the problem by having the actors move
round the edge of the swamp. However, in actual fact, the edges of
the swamp, according to the opinion of Professor Truman, was the
part of the site where most of the dragonfly activity took
place.
The edges are where most of the dragonflies exist, and
it is exactly where the actors would have run. For the benefit of
the honourable member who interjected earlier, the actors would not
run on wooden platforms they would run through a natural swamp. As
the Hon. Greg Pearce said, in the first instance they would have to
get into the swamp to build it. According to what the Premier said
in his speech on the wilderness bill, one would have thought it
would be one wilderness area in the whole scheme of national park
protection in which an endangered species would receive complete
protection. Earlier I quoted from Bob Carr's impassioned plea not to
destroy the great natural areas of this country piece by piece. But
when one dilutes this legislation that is exactly what one starts to
do. In the meantime the producers and the Government had withdrawn
from any court challenge. Instead the Government turned its
attention to its special legislation. The Government has introduced
special legislation a number of times to override legitimate Land
and Environment Court decisions and the aspirations of the
community. It has to be challenged. Why do we have courts at
all?
The Hon. Michael Egan: Parliament is the highest court.
Mr
IAN COHEN: The Treasurer says that Parliament is the highest forum
in the land. If that is so, why have courts? Why have Parliament?
Why not rule by Executive?
The Hon. Michael Egan: You can't
rule by Executive.
Mr IAN COHEN: That is what he wants.
Logically, he would if he could.
The Hon. Michael Egan: I
would quite happily rule on my own.
Mr IAN COHEN: Exactly! Therefore there are certain
controls over th Treasurer's excesses, one of which is the courts.
Just three working days after the Premier's announcement the draft
bill was released. It was prepared under instructions of the Cabinet
Office and it bears all the hallmarks of a rushed legal sledgehammer
that provides the absolute legal certainty the Government wanted to
provide for the film industry. Unfortunately, the bill was without
long-held protections offered by the national parks and wilderness
laws. But I am willing to acknowledge that the Government made one
important concession. The bill would allow filming in wilderness
areas for a small range of purposes only: educational, research,
scientific and tourism. I thank the Government for turfing the
stealth bomber film out of the wilderness, albeit consequential to
the event.
Films such as the war movie Stealth can no
longer be permitted in any New South Wales wilderness area, such as
the Gross Wilderness. This is a good decision, and confirms that the
motivations, actions, sacrifices and the court case by committed
individuals and community groups to protect the Gross Wilderness
were the right decisions. Their efforts were not in vain. But this
is not the end of the matter. The Filming Approval Bill introduced
by the Government claims to protect the environment. Yet the bill,
outside the protection offered by the National Parks and Wildlife
Act, the Wilderness Act and the Marine Parks Act, provides virtually
no environmental protection. Regardless of location the approval
framework placed no limit on environmental damage that could be
caused.
Environment protection for our national parks would
no longer be the primary purpose in the case of filming. New roads
could be constructed, areas cleared, and sites exclusively occupied
for an indeterminate period. Our national parks were to be managed
more like film sets than national parks. There are a number of
offensive clauses in the bill. Clause 4 (6) lists a number of
conditions that the Minister can consider imposing. There are no
mandatory requirements when considering an approval. The Minister
has absolute discretion to grab an approval, regardless of
environmental impacts. Clause 4 (9) overrides all other legislation
to permit an approval to be granted. Clause 6 ensures that no other
approvals under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, Wilderness Act
or Marine Parks Act are needed. It makes one think that the bill was
drawn up with the presumption that the Labor Government will be in
power in perpetuity. One wonders what a Coalition government would
do with this type of legislation. I suppose we will find out one
day.
The Hon. Michael Egan: You don't think the Greens
will ever come to power?
Mr IAN COHEN: Only moral
power. There are no third party appeal rights and there is no
requirement to disclose the results of a decision. The Government
even forgot to put in a penalty system to ensure that a fine could
be issued if a film company did not follow the consent conditions.
The legislation was written as if it were a green light for any
potential film-maker who wanted to use a New South Wales national
park. The Carr Government boasts that it is film friendly. This is
the "Come Film In Our National Parks Because We Do Not Care
About The Environmental Impact Bill". Better environmental
protection is provided for filming in a council bushland park. The
Minister for the Environment continued to deny these problems and
said that it was nonsense that the right to enforce the approvals
granted under the bill was removed and that the bill "strengthens
the tough environment standards already in place."
The
Minister for the Environment referred to the requirement that still
existed to undertake an environmental assessment. We all know how
useful independent and accurate environmental impact statements
[EIS] can be. Certainly there is a benefit in going through the
process, but if the Government is determined to approve an
application we all know that an EIS will do little to stop it.
National parks and wilderness laws, some of which Bob Carr was
responsible for, provide important checks on the impact of
activities in national parks. These laws say to tread carefully, the
environment comes first, and high impact development and activities
are categorically ruled out. The Filming Approval Bill takes
film-making in national parks outside of these laws. There is one
rule for film-makers and one for the rest of the community. This is
an alarming precedent and should be stopped.
We are already seeing a trend. Recently we saw it when the Carr
Government passed special legislation to automatically approve the
cloud seeding experiment in Kosciusko National Park without any form
of public environmental assessment for our most sensitive national
park. The Greens are on the record as supporting filming in national
parks, but only when the impacts are no more than they would be if
anyone else were using the park. A private tour company that applied
to lead a short commercial day walk to Butterbox Point near Mount
Hay where the filming of Stealth was to take place was told
by the Department of Environment and Conservation that the area was
too sensitive to run the tour. The principal of that company joined
the protest at Govetts Leap on the day before the film company tried
to move out to the site. The Government is not being fair.
Bob
Debus, the Minister for the Environment and the local member for the
Blue Mountains, hysterically attacked conservationists and others in
the local press, including Keith Muir, Director of the Colong
Foundation, for raising real concerns about the draft legislation.
Keith was the driving force behind the listing of the great Blue
Mountains as world heritage. Recently he was awarded an Order of
Australia medal for his efforts. He also labelled as complete
rubbish the concerns made in the other place by Clover Moore. I say
that Bob Debus' claims are complete rubbish. He has deliberately
confused, exaggerated and misled the public into believing that the
Filming Approval Bill is good for the environment. I am pleased to
say that the Government now realises that the bill was wrong: it was
an overreaction and bad for the environment. I am informed that it
is now willing to accept amendments that will remedy the problems
raised by the environment groups.
I foreshadow a series of
amendments that I will move in Committee that I believe the
Government will support to improve the worst aspects of the Filming
Approval Bill. I will seek to tighten the definition of "filming
activity" to prevent filming equipment and personnel unrelated
to filming from entering a national park. The current language of
the bill is too discretionary, for example in the granting of
conditions. It is essential that criteria be established in the bill
that stipulate what the Minister must have regard to when
determining an application to film, for example, heritage values,
cultural significance, management plans and feasible alternatives to
wilderness areas. The bill needs to clarify what is meant by
education, and scientific and research purposes based on the
definitions provided by the Minister for the Environment in his
reply to the second reading debate in the other place. It is vital
that the bill is strengthened to ensure that the Minister is
satisfied about the criteria before determining whether or not to
issue a filming approval.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr
Ian Cohen.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Kayee
Griffin) left the chair at 6.32 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30p.m.]