BUSHFIRE PREVENTION

Mr KENYON (Newland) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Environment and Conservation. What work is the government doing to reduce fuel loads on public land to help protect against bushfires?

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) (14:32): I thank the honourable member for Newland for his question. I know that he takes an active interest in this issue, given the proximity of national parks to his electorate.

The government takes its responsibilities to help protect South Australians who live in bushfire prone areas very seriously. Even before the most recent tragedies in the Victorian bushfires, which, sadly, have reminded us about how terrible the consequences can be for communities of a fire event, our government has taken significant steps to reduce fuel load in fire prone areas since 2002, and has committed time and resources to ensure that the prescribed burning program grows in both size and effectiveness.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I hear the interjection from those opposite, 'Not enough', and I will address that a little later. In 2003 this government committed $10 million over four years to the Department for Environment and Heritage to develop and increase its fire management capabilities. We have steadily increased the numbers and area of prescribed burning over those years. Then again, earlier this year, we announced that an extra $4.5 million would be dedicated to the DEH to enable them to increase fire suppression activity, including the prescribed burns that they undertake.

The first prescribed burns for 2009-10 recently took place in the Murraylands and in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The government plans to conduct up to 98 prescribed burns, covering more than 16,500 hectares this spring and autumn, and almost half this area will be in the Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges, where we aim to conduct 28 prescribed burns, covering more than 800 hectares.

As the events of this week show, we are to some extent at the mercy of the weather. Of course, we cannot burn when it is raining or when vegetation is too wet or when there is a risky day in terms of hot, dry weather; so, we have to make the most of limited opportunities that we have. That is why we have recently established a collaborative approach, announced by the Premier two weeks ago, between the Country Fire Service, SA Water, the Department for Environment and Heritage and Forestry SA to work together on bushfire suppression activities.

The joint agency agreement enables the government to take full advantage of the times that we can undertake prescribed burns by enabling us to do multiple burns, night burns, weekend burns and burns in larger areas. But there is no magic bullet. We cannot predict burns occurring or taking hold, no matter how much public land burning we engage in. Individual property owners need to prepare.

I am also sorry to say—and this goes directly to the interjection earlier—that this interest in prescribed burning was not shared by those opposite when they last had the opportunity to do something about it. Between 1999—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It actually happens to be true and, if you would like the figures, I have them here for you. Between 1999 and 2002, when I think the member for Davenport was the minister for environment and heritage, prescribed burning was minimal and, in fact, there was no specific budget for on-ground work associated with fire protection. I am advised that, between 1999 and 2002, prescribed burning was only conducted in two areas—Marble Hill and Cobbler Creek—in the Mount Lofty Ranges. In complete contrast, this government has continued to build its fire management capabilities since being elected through increased funds, agency collaboration and legislative change.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That's right. Absolute nonsense, they cry, but faced with the material about this, they simply wither. I will take members through the figures. The total fire management budget allocated to the DEH fire management program in 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 was $0.278 million, $0.474 million and $0.738 million respectively. This was their total contribution. Of course, the majority of this funding was for salaries and wages for dedicated fire staff. A small amount was allocated to regions for on-ground works associated with pre-season prevention activities, and this work included: slashing of firebreaks, access tracks, purchase of firefighting equipment and training. Just to repeat: between 1999 and 2002, prescribed burning was minimal.

Even though they bleat about it, they did nothing about it when they had the opportunity. No specific budget for this work. I am advised that, in relation to the two prescribed burns that were undertaken, the estimated costs associated with this burning would have been $9,000 and $10,000 annually. This is the level of commitment of those opposite who are always bleating about fire. I get more letters from those opposite about fire and what we may or may not be doing about it than I do anything else, yet when they last had the opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to this issue, they failed the test.

The other thing they are fond of bleating about is native vegetation and the barriers that that causes to people doing the right thing. Of course, the truth is that most of the vegetation that is lying around is not native at all and there are no restrictions on clearing that, yet people continue to refuse to take responsibility. We have now taken that excuse out of the equation. We have changed the regulations—20 metres around any building is capable of being cleared. That is the commitment that has been given. It is a very simple rule. It is now over to the landowners to take that responsibility. We will continue to work with them to ensure that their homes are safe, but it is a matter of individual responsibility.