House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Subordinate Legislation (Proposals to Vary Regulations) Amendment Bill SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (PROPOSALS TO VARY REGULATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:52): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:52): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I have been in this place a long time (it is my 23^rd year), and for a long time I have been puzzled and concerned that, with the regulation that is put forward by the government of the day, it is either all or nothing; you have to disallow. There is no mechanism whereby you can really do much else. People say that there is a Legislative Review Committee, and that is true, but that does not deal with the issue in the way that this bill does. Instead of the guillotine, the sudden play-off—reject or accept—this bill allows a short period of time during which either house can indicate to the minister, the government and the executive that they would like to offer some suggestions, some possible changes, to that regulation, and then, within a limited period of time (the sitting days are specified here), the minister would then come back and say that the government is going with the original regulation or that it will take on board the comments and suggestions of either house. I think that is a more rational way of going about things. I will give the example of the current matter of significant trees controls. A member in another place has moved to disallow that regulation. The regulations are in force, so people are operating under them, and we have a motion to disallow. In the meantime, a lot of work has gone into trying to modify those regulations to improve them so that what were seen as errors can be corrected, and I will give one brief example. I spoke to the public servant who recommended this, and they said that the tree provisions in the metropolitan area should be the same as in the country in terms of clearing vegetation. To me that is ludicrous. If you are on a farm on the West Coast, you will need more than a 20-metre break around your house for Mallee. As a result of that public servant's recommendation, the same logic has been applied to the metropolitan area regarding those regulations. If you take this to its extreme, you would get rid of all vegetation in the metropolitan area bar about five or 10 per cent in areas which could have a bushfire. There were some other inappropriate provisions in those regulations. One of the provisions was that you were not allowed cut down any eucalypt. That is ridiculous also, because there are 800 varieties of eucalypt—to which does the provision refer? You can have a Tasmanian blue gum close to your front door which is inappropriate and needs to be removed. However, what happened with those regulations—we do not get to see them before they are put in place—was that another error was made. Willow myrtle (agonis flexuosa) was protected which, in Victoria, is regarded as a weed. It is a white flower native with a rough bark. It was put in and given absolute protection, and no-one seems to know why. If either house had been able to look at it, people could have commented and said, 'Why have you applied the same bushfire protection provision on the West Coast to the people of Burnside'? It does not make sense. Likewise, why say that no eucalypt can be removed when some eucalypts may need to be removed—and likewise with Willow myrtle. As I said, it is regarded in many states as a weed and here, for some reason that no-one can explain, it is protected. Richard Dennis, one of the most senior people in parliamentary counsel, is not responsible for what is in the bill in terms of the intent of the bill, but I have relied very much on his guidance in terms of what is formulated here. As I say, he is not responsible and not to be found guilty because of what is in this bill. However, based on his input, I have been able to get this bill drawn up. I think it is a progressive measure to avoid the sudden death play-off in terms of regulations. So I commend this bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.