Bills

Native Vegetation (Road Verges) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 July 2015.)

Ms COOK (Fisher) (15:50): I rise today to oppose the Native Vegetation (Road Verges) Amendment Bill moved by the member for Morphett. The government is committed to ensuring adequate fuel load reduction along our country roads, but this is not the way to do it. The opposition has irresponsibly put forward a bill that will allow landowners, or, in fact, even just chainsaw owners, to come along to decide what is the best way to deal with fuel load issues without restrictions

I am standing by the current arrangements in place to deal with road verges to both meet safety needs but also to meet our commitment to preserving our native vegetation. For the reasons I will outline it is not only this side of the chamber that opposes the bill but also the Country Fire Service, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

Across the fire and emergency services and native vegetation acts there already exist provisions to allow for tree removal. The Fire and Emergency Services Act already imposes an obligation on local councils as landholders to take reasonable steps to prevent or inhibit fire from land that is in their care or control. There are also provisions currently under the Native Vegetation Act and regulations that enable clearance of native vegetation for bushfire safety.

The Native Vegetation Act and associated regulation provides for clearance of native vegetation for fire prevention and control through either a bushfire management plan endorsed by the State Bushfire Coordination Committee under the Fire and Emergency Services Act, or through an application and approval by the SA Country Fire Service. These applications and approvals can and should be done before the fire season.

Works identified with bushfire management plans, once approved by the State Bushfire Coordination Committee, do not need additional clearance approval from the Native Vegetation Council. If people are concerned about the fuel load in native vegetation that is further than 20 metres from buildings, they can apply to the CFS to remove further vegetation as part of their fire management planning via a streamlined application process.

The Native Vegetation Council has delegated its power of authorising native vegetation clearance approval for bushfire hazard management to the CFS chief officer. This power was delegated by the chief officer to eight CFS staff members who were trained by the staff of the DEWNR Native Vegetation Unit. In considering applications, the CFS will refer to the Australian Standard for construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas that recommends distances to manage native vegetation around a building dependent upon the surrounding type of vegetation and slope.

The CFS has authorisation to approve as much clearance as it deems necessary to achieve bushfire prevention. Early preparation for the fire season is important as it is appropriate fire prevention, but these things are already catered for by existing legislation that sensibly allows for both longer-term planning for roadside vegetation management as well as the ability to take action to address more immediate threats.

Current laws allow for landholders and other persons, such as bushcare volunteers, who can also undertake roadside weed control measures of their own accord provided they have written permission from the relevant local council and do so with an appropriate duty of care.

There is an underlying issue with the bill regarding land ownership. The care and management of road is vested in the relevant local council, and it is not the right of an adjacent landholder to manage native vegetation on their land. The bill does not appear to consider this matter.

Allowing any person to embark on clearance with what they see as necessary for bushfire prevention or road safety is fraught with danger. It could result in uncontrolled fires, it could result in wholesale clearance of native vegetation where it is both unnecessary and contrary to our goals of conservation of native vegetation. It would undermine the existing management framework of native vegetation on roadsides, one that has been carefully designed with the input of a number of state agencies, local governments and landholders more generally. For all these reasons, the government and I are opposing this bill in its entirety.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:55): I do not know that I have ever heard a four minute speech sound so long, like an indefinitely timed opposition speaker, for a lead speaker against a bill. The point that I want to make is that this is a very brief bill. I make no reflection on the member for Fisher. I think that she put forward the government's case such as the government's case is and can be put forward, but the government's case is based on a bureaucratic approach to governing that typifies so much of what is wrong with the way that the South Australian government has dealt with the community over the last 13½ years.

There has never been something that could be dealt with simply for which this government has not found a complex, bureaucratic, longwinded, red tape-driven method of applying an approach instead, and this bill is the perfect example. I encourage and will be encouraging any casual reader of the Hansard, who is interested in the way that government and opposition interact in relation to the laws of the state, to consider the government's case as just put by the member for Fisher and then consider the substance of the bill. The substance of the bill is really very simple. It is two clauses, one of which, I remind members, is that:

native vegetation may be cleared without any other restriction under this act if the clearance occurs on a road verge and is reasonably required—

and there are two reasons for which it is reasonably required—

(1) for road safety purposes; or

(2) to reduce the fuel load on the road verge.

Then, there is a definition of road verge:

road verge means the area of land adjacent to a public road bounded by—

(a) the edge of the carriageway of the road; and

(b) —

(i) if the boundary of the property adjacent to the road is not more than 20 metres away from the carriageway of the road that boundary; or

(ii) in any other case—a line running parallel to the edge of the carriageway of the road at a distance of 20 metres.

It is a very clear, simple definition of what our community expectation should be to create safety in both the sense of road safety and in the sense of clearing fuel loads such as to present disaster when there are fires.

I know the member for Fisher represents an area for whom many constituents would have concerns about this, as I do, as both of our electorates are on the boundaries of the city, where the Hills and our CFS units in our townships are equally as important to us as for those who live in what would be more typically be categorised as suburban Adelaide. So I know she has an understanding of some of the points of view that we put forward in relation to this, but I know that I when talk to my CFS captains and CFS volunteers, and when I talk to road users, the people who live along these roads, who have to live through every summer with the prospect of fire coming along, when there is an uncleared build-up of fuel on the road, they ask why it has not been cleared up, and it is because of the monstrous amounts of paperwork that have to be dealt with before dealing with it.

The opposition's view—and it is a view on which the shadow minister for emergency services, the member for Morphett, consulted with the CFS, the SES, the MFS and the Local Government Association—is that we should take a common sense approach which, as I have identified in the two clauses, says that if fuel needs to be cleared to reduce the fuel load on the road verge or if for road safety purposes vegetation needs to be cleared, then that is something that is available to the community. However, the government seeks to complicate, the government seeks to add red tape.

The government does not seem to have any trust in members of the South Australian community. They assume that members of the community, who live in these areas every day having to deal with the issues, are going to be less wise about the management of their affairs than the people who are employed to go through the forms and check that they have gone through the procedures and check they have filled out in triplicate and are sent by the right date and gone through all the authorities. It is something that should actually be in place not only for public safety in terms of bushfires but also for road safety.

Fundamentally and simply, this bill will allow property owners to clean up their road verges without having to deal with all those state government and local government regulations in the circumstances identified very simply in the bill. It will clear confusion. It will apply a little bit of common sense. The bill allows for what is reasonably required. It does not give a defence for removing significant trees; it does not give a defence for desertification of the road verge; it does not give a defence for environmental vandalism; it does not give a defence for the sorts of behaviours that I think the government expresses concern about.

I am disappointed that the government has identified that they will not be supporting the bill and, as I do not think the bill will be voted on this afternoon, I hope that the government will take some time in the weeks and potentially months ahead, while this matter is under further consideration, to change its mind.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: No. I won't.

Mr GARDNER: The minister identifies that—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GARDNER: —he does not think that is likely.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: The advice I got from the CFS—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject and to respond to interjections. The member for Morialta is entitled to be heard in silence. I give the call to the member for Morialta and ask him to remain on task.

Mr GARDNER: In that case, I return to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And not speak for the government.

Mr GARDNER: I return to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, on task.

Mr GARDNER: Yes, I return to the task I was on before I responded to the interjections of the minister.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr GARDNER: The point I would make to all members of the chamber is that, if one is here as a representative of a party that is not supporting this bill, then I urge such a member to reconsider their position and encourage such a member, whatever party they might be a part of, to go to their caucus and rethink this, because it is frankly common sense.

People in outer suburban and Hills areas and those who actually represent areas with CFS brigades having to deal with these sorts of issues, I think would have some comfort. If there are parties that seek to continue opposing what this group in our community needs and what the CFS—and other volunteers, I am sure—would be grateful for, then they can continue to do so, but it is not what the community wants.

Dr McFetridge: And the next coronial inquiry, they won't give evidence.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If I reach for the Speaker's book, which I am bringing now to look at—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —the member for Morialta is on his second warning—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order—and the member for Morphett is on his first warning and I will have no hesitation in adding to the score, none whatsoever. Back on task. Off you go.

Mr GARDNER: The point I was making before again—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GARDNER: —I was so rudely interrupted by the member for Wright was that all members should have a good long hard think about this and, in the time remaining, in the weeks before we may come to a vote on this, everyone has an opportunity to have a road to Damascus style conversion—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: You can too. One day you will too and join the winning team.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister.

Mr GARDNER: —and come to a sensible conclusion that, in fact, the Liberal Party has in fact come to, which is that the member for Morphett has brought forward an entirely sensible proposition to the house—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Why are you on that side, then?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister for Emergency Services is called to order.

Mr GARDNER: —something that will make people's life better, something that will improve public safety. Imagine that! A bill that will actually improve public safety and reduce red tape all at the same time.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: I am distracted, Deputy Speaker, by the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm being provoked. I know how you feel.

Mr GARDNER: I am distracted by the comments of the minister—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm being distracted as well.

Mr GARDNER: I feel I need to restate where I was, which is that members of the government should think long and hard about what they are doing if they choose to vote against this matter. It is something I urge them all to consider.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:03): I will be brief in my contribution. I can assure the opposition that there will be no reconsideration of this matter. There will be no road to Damascus, and the reason there will not be is that, if there was—

Mr Gardner: That's what Paul said before he went to Damascus.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member—

The Hon. P. CAICA: If there was—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Morialta that you are on your second warning. That means you will not be here for the rest of the debate. I am trying to be as fair as I can. I have asked everyone to respect the standing orders. You are not disrespecting the Chair but you are disrespecting the house and wasting the house's time.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm asking the member—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: John, Damascus is in which country?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister! You are warned for the first time. Member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I would also note that I listened to the member for Morialta in absolute silence. If we were on such a road, we would be on the wrong road. In my time as environment minister, I recall having many interactions with a lot of people about roadside verges. Of course, roadside verges are a legacy of the past. They were and remain very important to our ecosystem and biodiversity, but there are already measures in place that allow for verges to be cleared and there is a process in place.

This is taking away what are very sensible regulated processes for managing native vegetation along our roadside verges. The CFS are already on the record as very strong supporters of the current provisions that are in place. Far be it from me to say that I know more than the CFS on these particular matters, but I would defer to their advice in this matter. If they are satisfied and pleased and believe that the processes that are in place are appropriate, that is good enough for me. We should not, as parliamentarians, think we know better than those people who are experts in that particular field.

That also goes for the advice that is provided to the community by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. I saw some very good things in the electorate of Finniss on Kangaroo Island. There were certain verges that had not been burnt for a very long period of time, up to 50 or 60 years, and they undertook cold burns, warm burns and hot burns to see what benefit that had to the biodiversity. There were 60-year-old seed banks that had not been regenerated in that period of time that then gave the opportunity to go away and replant within those and other areas these species that had diminished in numbers.

I guess I am deviating a bit from the point that I am making. The point is this: we have various experts in this field who provide advice to government, and that advice has always been supported by the processes and regulation that we have in place that they in turn—and this includes the CFS—support. Quite frankly, I think we are wasting, without being disrespectful, the time of the house on this matter and I would urge that we go to a vote on it because we are not going to change our mind on this because we know that we are correct in our position that we maintain in this matter.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (16:07): I rise in support of this bill and the amendments put forward by the member for Morphett and note a number of the concerns raised by members, particularly on this side of the house, about the fire dangers from overgrown native vegetation on road verges. We do see a lot of this. Probably now being the middle of winter it is not talked about all that much, but we know that in the bushfire season in the middle of summer the growth on roadsides and its relation to bushfires is incredibly influential and important as far as being fuel for bushfires is concerned.

I note the amendments here that are raised about improving road safety, which is another area and a fact that is dear to my heart, but the amendments to this bill talk about how the native vegetation may be cleared without any other restriction under the act if the clearance occurs on a road verge and is reasonably required for road safety purposes, as I mentioned, and to reduce the fuel load on the road verge, hence the concern surrounding bushfires.

It also talks about how the road verge means the area of land adjacent to a public road bound by the edge of the carriageway of the road, if the boundary of the property adjacent to the road is not more than 20 metres away from the carriageway of the road or the boundary, or in any other case a line running parallel to the edge of the carriageway of the road at a distance of 20 metres. You see in a lot of places—in rural areas, some of the Hills areas in South Australia and even down south where there is heavy bushland—that on the road verge there is a big fuel being built up. If people want to come along and remove this fuel to help prevent bushfires, I think it can only be a very positive thing. The member for Morphett, also the shadow minister in this area, has spoken with the CFS, the SES, the MFS and local government and he has received support from quite a number of people in these areas and they can see real benefits in what he is putting forward.

From a road safety perspective, I think we should perhaps look at things right across the board as far as trees on the side of the road are concerned. The chair of the Motor Accident Commission, Roger Cook, said earlier this year that some of the trees on the side of roads really need to be looked at because they are in high risk zones. I think there is a lot of merit in that. Last year's road toll was exceptionally high and, as it stands today, South Australia's road toll is at 65, which is not tracking where we want it to be. Overgrowth and trees on roadsides in high risk areas are things that I think should be looked at and assessed. I think what the member for Morphett is trying to do through his amendments with regard to road verge shrubage and reducing fuel load is very positive.

Another group that I have worked with very closely is the O'Halloran Hill Recreation Park. There are some wonderful people up there doing some really great work: Don Webster, John Bollinger, Toni Beaty and Peter Haarsma. I have been out there weeding with them, pulling the olive trees out, and it has given me a great insight. They are great people doing some wonderful things. I learn a lot going through the O'Halloran Hill Recreation Park with these guys, and also with Michelle Lensink from the other place, pulling out some of these olive trees. The way these olive trees (which are weeds in fact) grow, the way they sprout, the way their seed is dropped by birds and foxes, it really is very hard to remove them. So, if we can get stuff removed, we really must do all we can to get rid of it, especially when it is fuel for bushfire in the fire danger season.

When I was up at O'Halloran Hill working with these people, it was quite amazing to learn about the way these weeds, as I call them (the olive trees), actually sustain themselves and grow. The volunteers have to do some very specific work to get in and drill into the core, in the lignum tubes around the roots of these olive trees. They have to drill in and drop in poison. These volunteers do an absolutely superb job; they really help the state and save money for the department by doing this work. And they work very closely with the rangers. I know rangers in these recreation parks have had their hours reduced dramatically over recent times, so to have these volunteers is invaluable. As I said, they go around and drill holes in all the lignum tubes, pouring in the poison to kill these trees. They have to be very quick because they only have a matter of seconds after they drill the hole and drop this poison in before the holes close over. The tree can actually protect itself from the poison.

This is the sort of work that is being done out there by people trying to help our environment and our recreation parks. It rolls over to roadside verges as well. We have great people out there wanting to do great work; they can come along and actually help the department, help do the work and help make roadside verges safer by reducing the fuel load for the bushfire season. That, in part, is a big part of the reason why I support the amendments put forward by the member for Morphett. It would be great to get more people helping out and carrying the load, like the great people up at the O'Halloran Hill Recreation Park are doing to reduce the burden on that park.

If you actually look at that park and the scarring and the olive trees that have infested that great reserve up in my local community, in my electorate, and see what these people do to help alleviate the problems we have there, it is outstanding. If we could roll that model over and remove dangerous vegetation along road verges that only enhance bushfires come bushfire season, it could only be beneficial to South Australia.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr McFetridge.