House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Parliamentary Committees Environment, Resources and Development Committee: Biodiversity Environment, Resources and Development Committee: Biodiversity The Hon. T.R. KENYON House of Assembly Newland The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:02): I move: That the 78^th report of the committee, on biodiversity, be noted. The intrinsic value of biological diversity is well recognised, as is the historical demise caused by large-scale land clearance and urbanisation. The committee found that biodiversity in South Australia is in decline. This is despite valiant efforts from all tiers of government, industry and, increasingly, private landholders and the citizens of the state. The inquiry focused on the policy and regulatory framework, but the committee considered anything that supports biodiversity values and abates species extinction. Three key messages are contained in the report: the current legislative framework needs to change and a three-phase approach to address this is recommended; habitat loss and fragmentation must be addressed; and the community is key to the new strategy and approach. Biodiversity outcomes are not the focus of the acts that govern the environment and the human activities that most influence biodiversity. We know the limits of legislation but we need a strong signal that biodiversity is an overarching value. The main change to the legislation should be the instigation of a comprehensive approach. The acts have emerged as history has dictated and are piecemeal with regard to biodiversity. This has produced both gaps and overlapping of responsibilities. There is a lack of cohesion and consistency, particularly regarding enforcement and compliance provisions. This seems relatively easy to fix by making amendments to current acts—the low-hanging fruit. Mostly, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and the Native Vegetation Act 1991 would be the subject of these improvements. This would be the first of a three-phase approach to reforming the legislative framework. The second phase would be to make amendments to improve integration between acts and improved support for landholders and community participation. The third phase addresses the statutory fragmentation of biodiversity considerations. Consideration of different aspects of biodiversity under different pieces of legislation results in a lack of cohesion and consistency, duplication and inefficiency. What is needed is a landscape approach, and the third phase would implement a system whereby all resources and management would be managed by one piece of legislation with protection of biodiversity and sustainable development at its core. Such a change will require policy development and drive. Habitat loss: the report discusses the threat that pest plants and animals pose to biodiversity as well as the need for changes to approach so that adaption caused by climate change is possible. The committee wants to see a review of current vegetation clearing regulations to better protect native vegetation, together with more targeted revegetation strategies to help improve the ecosystem resilience within the formal reserve network. The state needs mapping and benchmarks for biodiversity indicators to allow the measurement of losses and gains: for example, state scale modelling to identify climate refugia both on private and public lands for species of conservation concern. Such information can be used to underpin the design of and land acquisition into the formal reserve network, access development applications and inform other decisions. Community engagement will become increasingly important for biodiversity conservation, especially given the growing role of volunteers to support works on public land as well as the voluntary conservation efforts of private landholders. The expanding role of volunteers reinforces that biodiversity conservation is everybody's business. There were several cost-cutting themes identified in submissions to the inquiry. There was broad recognition of the strong cultural and historic significance of elements of biodiversity to Aboriginal people and that this is often poorly understood outside those communities. Continuing to identify ways for Aboriginal people to contribute to land and water management in South Australia remains a priority. As a result of this inquiry, the committee has made many recommendations and looks forward to their consideration by the government. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those people who contributed to the inquiry. I thank all those who took the time and made the effort to prepare submissions for the committee and to speak to the committee. I especially extend my thanks to the members of the committee: Mr Eddie Hughes, the member for Giles; the Hon. Michelle Lensink, a member of the upper house; the member for Goyder; the Hon. Tung Ngo, a member from the upper house; and the Hon. Mark Parnell from the upper house. I also thank the consortium led by Dr Mark Siebentritt, who provided expert advice, and Mr Phil Frensham, the secretary of the committee. I commend this report to the house. Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Goyder Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:06): I will speak very briefly to support the motion from the Chair and commend him on the way in which he chairs the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. It is not a term used very often but it is, indeed, collegiate and welcomes those who might have a difference of opinion but who are given an opportunity to put their views, and I am grateful for that. This report was primarily driven by the Hon. Michelle Lensink. As a long-term former shadow minister for the environment, she was very keen on the committee to undertake this investigation. The Chair and the government members were supportive of that. I think all of us would have liked the report to have been submitted some time ago, but there were circumstances around that, and the consultants who were engaged by the committee were very generous in continuing to return and do some work on that even though it was probably beyond the scope of their original contract with the committee. It was a good learning experience for me, too. I enjoyed the representations made by those who made them, and we had an opportunity to have several visits to look at particular sites. To me, it is an example of where the committee structure of the parliament can work exceptionally well where there is a focus on the outcome and where it drives an opportunity for policy and legislative review that must come later on. I commend the report to the parliament and look forward to some of the recommendations being adopted in the future stages. The Hon. T.R. KENYON House of Assembly Newland The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:08): I add my thanks to those of the member for Goyder to the consultancy. He rightly points out that they made an extra effort to assist us with the conclusion of the report. It was remiss of me not to include them but I now do so and once again commend the report to the house. Motion carried.