NATIVE VEGETATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

(Continued from 14 November 2013.)

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I just want to make some general comments. This bill I think has had quite a long gestation. As I understand it, the government was reluctant to pursue this because it was concerned that the intent might get changed and might result in something that is not best practice when it comes to managing native vegetation. I think as a state and as a community we have come a long way since the days when anything that stood was chopped down and anything that moved was shot. There is a bit of that that still goes on, but I think we have moved a long way from those early days.

This bill provides for some flexibility in regard to managing native vegetation and it also provides additional offset arrangements, and I think that is important, because, as we know, agriculture has changed. We have centre pivots and all sorts of fancy forms of irrigation and so on that require some changes in respect of native vegetation.

I think it is important that members focus on the history of clearance of vegetation in South Australia, and I believe that anyone looking at it objectively would have to say that our record is not all that good. Prior to the 1980s there were federal taxation incentives to clear land; indeed, I understand that prior to the 1980s it was a requirement of soldier settlers and others that they had to clear most, if not all, of the vegetation on the land they were allocated.

In the 1980s the commonwealth taxation incentives were removed, and in South Australia in 1985 we had the introduction of the Native Vegetation Act, which offered financial assistance to landowners prepared to protect remnant native vegetation. Then, in 1991, the Native Vegetation Act was amended to protect native vegetation and put an end to broadscale clearing in South Australia.

I have a lot of relatives who are farmers, graziers and horticulturists, and I have to say that there has been a significant change in attitude from (as I mentioned at the start) the 'chop it down, shoot it' mentality. There are still some things we have to shoot, but I think the younger generation, if you like, and the wiser of the older generation of farmers now appreciate the value of protecting and keeping remnant vegetation. We do not have that much left in South Australia, in the context of woodland type areas.

I will just give some figures on clearing in South Australia. Between 1970 and 1990, in the South-West—that is Eyre and Yorke Peninsula—the rate of clearance of the blocks (as they are referred to) was more than 10,000 hectares a year; in the Eastern Ranges, the Flinders and Murray-Darling area, the rate of clearing was between 10,000 to 100,000 hectares per year; in the western area, the Great Victorian Desert and the Nullabor, the rate of clearance was more than 10,000 per year; and in the South-East, which includes the Mount Lofty block, Kangaroo Island and the Naracoorte coastal plain, the rate of clearance was more than 10,000 hectares per year. The type of vegetation that was primarily cleared was what is described as woodland.

So what we have today is only about 15 per cent of native vegetation remaining in the Mount Lofty Ranges, and much of that has been degraded—and is still degraded—as a result of weed infestation. So it is 15 per cent that is often in a degraded state; anything but pristine. In the South-East about 13 per cent of native vegetation remains, and in the metropolitan area it is less than 4 per cent.

Since European settlers arrived in South Australia at least 23 mammals, two birds and 26 plants have become extinct. That is not a very good record. Today in South Australia about one-quarter, or over 1,000 species, of all terrestrial plants and vertebrate animals are considered to be threatened; as well, 63 per cent of the state's mammals and 22 per cent of the state's vascular plants (plants that have the ability to move sap) are formally listed as threatened at a state level. There are other species and communities that are declining at rapid rates but do not yet meet state or national criteria for being listed as threatened.

So it is important that we protect native vegetation. In fact, the Victorian country newspaper the Weekly Times often showcases properties where enlightened farmers have either protected remnant native vegetation or planted some replacement native vegetation and have seen the benefits in regard to the profitability of their farming enterprise. I will not go into all the reasons for that, such as windbreaks and so on, but, as I say, there are a lot of farmers now who are amongst the best practice managers of the natural environment.

We often hear people say that you need a balance. The trouble with the concept of a balance is that it often means that the natural environment misses out. The natural environment will never be 'saved'—we sometimes hear that term—because it will always be under threat from some people who have little or no regard for the natural environment. I remind members that the words 'ecology' and 'economics' both come from the same Greek origin 'oikos', which means housekeeping. The two are intertwined and should be seen as two sides of the one coin.

What we have in this amendment bill, as I say, was a long time coming. There were some members in another place who sought to weaken this legislation, but I commend not only the government but the Liberal opposition for holding firm, because I do not believe we can afford to allow the undermining of the protection of what little remnant vegetation there is. So, I commend the minister in another place (the Hon. Ian Hunter) and the Liberal members in the upper house for adopting a progressive attitude which will enable some adjustment in relation to native vegetation to accommodate changes in agricultural practice but still retain the essential areas so that we can ensure that native plants and animals can survive and remain in this state.

I think we have an incredible obligation to do that, so I commend this bill. I think it has sensible recommendations and changes, and I believe it goes a long way to ensuring that we can retain remnant vegetation but still allow agriculture and horticulture to prosper in this state. We need to eat, we need to farm, but we also need to protect the natural estate. So, I support the amendments and I commend both the government and the opposition for being progressive in their support for this measure.

Ms CHAPMAN: I indicate that the opposition welcomes the return of this bill with the amendments as identified. The Hon. Michelle Lensink, member of another place, has given considered and consistent advice to our side of politics on this matter, and I thank her particularly for her efforts in negotiating the resolution of this matter in another place. We are willing, of course, to accept what has occurred.

It is fair to say that, in addition to amendments that the Liberal Party presented, most of which appear to have been either accepted in a modified form or negotiated through, this type of legislation, unsurprisingly to most members, attracts amendments from all sorts of people in the other place. Whenever, it seems, the Native Vegetation Act is opened, there is a plethora of people rushing to put in amendments, so it did attract a fair bit of attention, which only added to the task of members in another place in navigating through some resolution.

I would like to comment on one aspect on which we are very keen, which has been accepted by the minister and, therefore, ultimately the other place at our request, which was to seek some absolute clarity on the inconsistency between the Native Vegetation Act and the Fire and Emergency Services Act and, in this instance, to ensure that, when in conflict, the Fire and Emergency Services Act is to prevail.

This simply means that, whilst the parliament reaffirms, in maintaining the legislation for native vegetation protection, that we consider this to be a very high priority, we do, however, consider that the safety of human life must take precedence. This has been recognised in the amendments, and we are pleased that that has been achieved.

The second area we were unsuccessful in related to providing exemptions to native vegetation rules on pastoralists being allowed to have extra watering points for their stock. The issue of not bringing pastoral lands into consideration has been under the act if they had not been subject to cropping for up to 15 years and that rural councils are to undertake the construction of firebreaks and tracks and conduct cold burns and reduce fuel loads outside of the fire season with the authority of the CFS chief. In this area, we understand that the amended bill comes back with an acceptance that guidelines will be developed for cold burns, and we appreciate that.

There is also the issue of establishing conditions under which credit for environment benefits and third-party offsets may be approved. Obviously, in the development of the transferability of these credits, it was under consideration in this bill. To enable organisations such as Nature Foundation SA to obtain funding for conservation parks, it was considered necessary to have amendments so that funding could be provided. One example is a mining company that may need some land that would need to be cleared for the purposes of their venture. This would enable there to be some negotiation of what the arrangements are going to be for the mutual benefit of all parties, if I could summarise it as broadly as that.

The position, as I understand it, is that after negotiations the amendments have morphed, I suppose, into some resolution. There is a provision for our side of politics to have their rules in this regard determined by regulation rather than in the act, but that was conceded.

In the fourth area, which was to provide that there be some representation from the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy on the Native Vegetation Council, the compromise reached, as I understand it, is that there be representation from the development, planning or mining person, not an extra member on the board.

There was also provision in respect of authorised officers taking reasonable steps in informing landholders about actions that they would take on their property. That was accepted, and we thank the government for that. As to the others, it appears that they largely failed, although there was one amendment of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

There are a number of other areas that are left unresolved. This legislation has not addressed, in my view, questions such as the management of roadside vegetation; the accessibility to gravel for use in road building, in roadside strips. It has not dealt with accessibility for people who have adjacent property, where they need access for the general undertaking of works on their property, or bushfire management and the like. These are things that just never seem to get fixed when we are dealing with them. We have had reports on them. We have had inquiries. We have had select committees. In fact, I think I remember the now Attorney-General as the chair of a committee—probably the Natural Resources Committee; I cannot remember specifically which one at the time—and as chair he looked into this question of gravel pits and the access to councils to take up the gravel from roadsides.

Obviously, once they have secured access to that for road building and the like that could be restored for native vegetation growth and they could move to another spot. This is logical, it is sensible and it is cost effective. Councils are not having to pay to get gravel from areas that are not under native vegetation along road strips and, of course, there is a much bigger cost saving to the ratepayer. So, these are the sorts of issues which I am very disappointed continue to be unresolved. In any event, it has had some considered attention in the other place and I am pleased with what they have dealt with.

I will conclude by saying that just today the Natural Resources Committee tabled its bushfire preparedness of properties in bushfire risk areas report, and if we have the opportunity in this parliament in the next few days to consider that I propose to speak on it. But, relevant to this bill, I make the point that the consideration by this committee included taking evidence from the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources in looking at what the prescribed burn program was for April of this year.

I have not yet seen what their program has achieved for what we call the autumn prescribed burning period. I am still waiting on that material from the department and a briefing on it. I will be very interested to see that because, in fact, this committee goes on to put a number of recommendations as to what the obligations should be of private landowners when they acquire property, during the period which they own it and what responsibilities they would have. That includes the responsible management of vegetation that is on it, not just for bushfire preparedness but obviously to deal with pest management.

The member for Fisher has already outlined, consistent with an alarming report from the Environment Protection Authority this year just recently tabled in the parliament, two areas in which we are seriously failing our environment in South Australia. One is the management of pests, that is invasive pests, whether they are on legs and breathe or whether they are plants and germs and worms and everything else. The second is—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Rats and bats and everything else. I could speak all day on that, but I will not, you will be pleased to know. What I will say is that the second area is the loss of species in our natural environment, which we need to protect. We on this side of the house recognise the importance of native vegetation, but we also recognise how dangerous and perilous the situation can be for people and for the protection of property if it is not properly and responsibly managed, and it is only us who can take responsibility, whether that is as a private owner or as a government responsible for the property under its jurisdiction. With those few words, I welcome the return of the bill to the house and look forward to its passage and implementation.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: On behalf of the government and minister, I thank all members for their contributions and I thank those members of the upper house for their negotiations and eventual resolution. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion carried.