<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="4.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Estimates Committee B - Answers to Questions</name>
  <date date="2009-07-03T00:00:00+09:30" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>3</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Estimates Committee B - Answers to Questions</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1" />
  <endPage num="99" />
  <dateModified time="2023-06-16T13:42:49+09:30" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Estimates Replies</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Revegetation</name>
      <text id="20090703124b12cf4f294368a0000061">
        <heading>REVEGETATION</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="546" kind="question">
        <name>In reply to Mr WILLIAMS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2009-07-03">
            <name>REVEGETATION</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <text id="20090703124b12cf4f294368a0000062">In reply to <by role="member" id="546">Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop)</by> (26 June 2009).</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Environment and Conservation</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Early Childhood Development</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2009-07-03">
            <name>REVEGETATION</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <text id="20090703124b12cf4f294368a0000063">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management):</by>  I am advised that there has been no policy change by the Native Vegetation Council to increase the area required for compensation.</text>
        <text id="20090703124b12cf4f294368a0000064">The ratio for the 2008-09 scattered tree clearance was expected to be 10:1 based on figures from previous years. Significant environmental benefit offset requirements are determined using formulas that take into account the context of the trees within the environment, and their habitat significance. However, some landholders chose to set aside larger areas than required with a view to establishing an offset credit against future clearance. This resulted in the higher predicted ratio of 11:1. In fact, the final offset ratio for the year has been determined as 8.6:1 and this reflects further processing of applications after the estimated result was determined.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>