Native Vegetation (Road Safety and Roadside Fuel Reduction) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 June 2016.)

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:04): This is a bit like groundhog day or, if you like, recurring nightmare day. I rise to speak against this bill, and that will not come as a surprise to anyone. The Native Vegetation (Road Safety and Roadside Fuel Reduction) Amendment Bill 2016 was introduced into the House of Assembly by the member for Morphett on 10 March 2016. Aside from the fact that the member for Morphett unsuccessfully introduced a similar bill in 2015, and aside from the fact that there are no substantial differences between this bill and the one introduced last year (apart from a small alteration in the terminology), the reason I oppose the bill is that it is very much like the member for Morphett himself—superfluous.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Dr McFetridge: You can't help it, can you? You just can't help yourself.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, I mean—

Dr McFetridge: UFU, through and through. You just can't help yourself.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. The house does require members to be heard in silence, but it does require members to be respectful and on task.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Morphett! I would not like you to miss question time today, would I? So, member for Colton—

Dr McFetridge: They didn't want you on the front bench. They wanted me on the front bench, mate. They didn't want you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morphett is warned. The member for Morphett is warned already—that's terrible.

The Hon. P. CAICA: A glass jaw, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyway, I will continue.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, back to the debate.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes. Well, I did—

Mr Bell: He can't help himself.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you don't need to contribute either. He is being disciplined, but it cannot be while you are mouthing off.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I did sit through the previous contribution by the member for Morphett, who said some outrageous things about our Premier, so I mean—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, sit down.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Morphett, we do not need this. We want to debate the bill at hand, and I would like to hear the debate on the bill without interruption. You have already been called to order, member for Morphett. The member for Mount Gambier does not want to join you.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and of course I support the Premier. The question is: does the member for Morphett support his leader—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Colton!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —and does the party support him?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Colton! I am calling you to order as well.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, it is that parachute from Matt Williams that is hovering above the member for Morphett. I guess he will be hoping he wins next weekend for two reasons.

Dr McFetridge: He will win. He'll be there, buddy. He'll be there.

The Hon. P. CAICA: But you might not be.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Anyway, getting back to the bill, under the current provisions, clearance of native vegetation for road safety purposes, fire mitigation purposes, and by councils—lo and behold—is already permitted. There are various ways this can already occur. If a landholder or local government simply wishes to undertake clearance of native vegetation on roadsides, they can use the guidelines developed by the Native Vegetation Council (NVC). This allows for clearance for pest control, establishing property access and maintaining clearance envelopes without the need for approval from the NVC.

The NVC has also recently expanded the delegation provided to the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to allow for greater flexibility in managing roadsides. This will increase DPTI's ability to respond to roadside management issues, and reduce regulatory burden. Of course, there may be occasions when the guidelines do not meet the needs of the local council or the residents. However, you would be aware that in such cases councils can develop their own roadside vegetation management plan which describes how they will undertake the management of their roadside vegetation.

This will come as no surprise to you either, Deputy Speaker. The CFS also feel that this bill is unnecessary because provisions already exist under the Native Vegetation Act and regulations that enable sufficient clearance of native vegetation for bushfire safety. This can be done, either through direct South Australian Country Fire Service approval, or through an area bushfire management plan approved by the State Bushfire Coordination Committee.

If all this fails, and landowners consider that the exemptions listed in the regulations do not allow for an adequate level of clearance in certain circumstances, they are able to lodge an application that is administered by the CFS. I remember that these arrangements were established in 2010 in order to streamline the approval process.

This bill from the member for Morphett further ignores the important fact that the care and management of road corridors in South Australia are vested in the relevant local council. Those road corridors, as have been described on numerous occasions in the past, are a legacy, and we need to make sure that they continue that very important environmental role as well, whilst at the same time ensuring that provisions are in place to make these corridors more compliant in regard to bushfires, and those provisions are already in place.

There are already established processes in place between the CFS and local councils to facilitate the removal of bushfire fuels on adjacent land by agreement or, if need be, by enforcement of section 105 of the Fire and Emergency Services Act. In my view, this reflects a lack of research and failure to consult when developing this bill. Surely, the member for Morphett should have learnt from the past. This is not a bill that is going to be supported, and maybe that is more of a reflection on his lack of political nous that he has brought it back here again. For these reasons, and because this bill is unnecessary, I and this side of the house strongly oppose it.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:10): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and with respect to you I will maintain the decorum of this place. This bill is very similar to former bills because this is a very important issue. Recently, the government, through its Department of Transport, has put in kilometre after kilometre of Armco through the Adelaide Hills and some of the roads there are like 'Armco Alley' and, if this is improving road safety, well so be it.

I was just having a discussion with one of my colleagues who is an active member of the CFS and I said that since the installation of the Armco in and around the Adelaide Hills, near where I serve with Meadows CFS, the accident rate—touch wood—has reduced. I hope that is because of improved driver behaviour. I hope that is because of improved road safety. Certainly, the condition of the roads themselves is somewhat lacking.

The member for Colton in his speech outlined a number of steps that could be gone through for people to apply to clear roadside vegetation, to improve the safety of the roadside verges, and that is all good if you want to go through layer on layer on layer of bureaucracy. That is the frustration. I actually trust South Australians to do the right thing. I actually trust South Australians to get out of their homes and do the right thing to prepare for bushfire season and to improve the safety of the roads around their place, if they possibly can.

This is not about napalming the roads, it is not about getting the D9 out and clearing the road verges. This is about undertaking reasonable, as defined in the Acts Interpretation Act, clearing of the roadside verges, and that is all I am asking for, to relieve the burden of the layer upon layer upon layer of the bureaucratic nightmare. These honest people who live in South Australia want to be able to get on with their lives. I am not surprised that there are some in the government who still cling to their socialist and Marxist roots where the government knows best and you need to go through the bureaucrats to do everything and you need to have a number and you need to be told when you can breathe, never mind how you can act.

This is what is wrong with this government. I trust South Australians. This is a necessary move because the Coroner in his reports has said that roadside vegetation in the past has been a serious issue in people fleeing fires. Leaving early is what people should do, if there is a threat of a serious fire. They should leave early but they do not, they just do not, and until we can instil that message in people, we want to try to be able to at least allow other people, who want to, to improve access along the roads, reduce the fuel loads on the sides of the road by reasonable clearing, and that is something that should be done.

They say that I have not consulted on this, just because I have not tabled letter after letter in this place. I am a life member of the CFS and I am very proud of that. I have had a lot to do with my local governments, not just in the electorate of Morphett but more broadly. I talk to mayors, I talk to councillors when I am out and about, I talk to the CFS members at the coalface about what is required, and they tell me that, yes, this is a sensible thing to do. It is a reasonable thing to do, and that is all I am asking of this government.

Do not, again, knock it on the head because you do not think that South Australians can be trusted, because that is what you are saying. You are saying, 'They can go through all these layers and layers of red tape, they can tick all the boxes, sign it off and pay for the permits if they have to. They can do that, but let's make them do it our way, not in a reasonable way.'

Let's trust South Australians. This is sensible legislation, and I can guarantee that this legislation, in a different form, will come back. It will keep coming back because the last thing that I want is the Coroner having to report on deaths in bushfires and road accidents because of something that could have been ameliorated—perhaps not stopped but reduced somehow, and thus mitigated. That is what it is about. It is not about denuding the roadsides of South Australia: it is about sensible, reasonable action by good people in South Australia, which is all South Australians.

Ayes 16

Noes 19

Majority 3