Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: DEEP CREEK

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:02): I move:

That the 23^rd report of the committee, titled 'Deep Creek Revisited: A Search for Straight Answers', be noted.

This is the second report of the Natural Resources Committee on Deep Creek. The first report was tabled on 19 June 2007. On 22 October, a response to the recommendations in that report was received from the Minister for Environment and Conservation. This response was prepared for the minister's consideration by the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Based on her expectation that the department was providing professional and considered advice, the minister would then have adopted it as a formal response to the committee.

There was sufficient evidence in this response to suggest that DWLBC had chosen to deliberately misunderstand the recommendations of the report in order to discredit and reject the serious issues raised by the committee. To this day, we do not understand why the department charged with biodiversity conservation chose to do this. In order to assure ourselves that our Deep Creek report was factually sound, the committee carefully reviewed the response against our recommendations in light of the evidence.

Immediately, a number of inconsistencies came to light and, in a swift attempt to resolve these, the committee invited officers from the contributing departments to appear before it. What we heard absolutely astonished us. I point out that there is not a single member of the committee who is against forestry in the state or even in the Deep Creek catchment. Nor do we expect that executive government should unquestioningly adopt all our recommendations.

However, we do expect that our recommendations and requests for information (as with any parliamentary committee) will be addressed in a professional and considered manner by the relevant departments and not dismissed as an unimportant inconvenience. What we did with our initial report was to put forward recommendations based on the evidence of experts, concerned landholders and government technical experts together with supporting references—the best evidence available to the committee.

Our recommendations were considered with an eye to protecting the fragile Fleurieu swamps in and around Deep Creek. That should have been the department's job. We did not see our recommendations—including removing a modest number of radiata pine trees currently restricting the flow of water into Deep Creek—as contentious as they are consistent with government policies such as the Department for Environment and Heritage's No Species Lost, Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007-2017.

These swamps are important because Fleurieu Peninsula swamps are now in short supply. They are important for their ecosystems and also the flora and fauna they support, which includes endangered plants and the nationally endangered Mount Lofty Ranges southern emu-wren. As well as the committee's concerns for the swamps downstream of Forestry SA's Foggy Farm Plantation, committee members also hoped to be reassured by the department that future forestry activity would comply with guidelines for environmentally sustainable development and that checks and balances were in place. Unfortunately, members did not come away reassured, with attempts made at every step to bamboozle the committee with false and misleading information. They claimed that they misunderstood the area under review, yet conflicting statements in their responses and their own internal documents clearly showed that they knew exactly the area to which the committee referred.

They claimed that the minister had no power to remove plantations in the subject area when clearly the minister had that power. They claimed that rainfall and not forestry was the major factor contributing to the decline in stream flows while the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation's own internal technical documents show this to be a lie. They even tried to blame the proliferation of dams in the area. There is, and only ever has been, one small dam in the Foggy Farm area.

Responses to some requests for information took more than a year to reach us and then only after constant reminders. Even with the personal assurance of the former chief executive, there remain a number of outstanding responses. I suspect that that information, if ever provided, would only embarrass the department further. It is of grave concern to the committee when we find that the department set up with a specific environmental charter is failing to act on it. I quote from the department's website:

The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) was established...with an objective to improve sustainability through the integration and management of all of the State's natural resources and to achieve improved health and productivity of our biodiversity, water, land and marine resources.

Why have they gone to such lengths to avoid their responsibilities? And Forestry SA states on its website its goal is to manage 'forests for commercial production in line with best practice standards for forestry operations and environmental management.'

Clearly, in this instance, best practice remains an elusive goal. In April 2008, Planning SA advertised for comment on a proposed development plan amendment (DPA) for commercial forestry in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The draft DPA proposed:

For the purpose of protecting water quality, forestry plantations should incorporate a minimum separation distance of:

(a) 50 metres between forestry plantation and Fleurieu swamps identified in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act;

(b) 20 metres between forestry plantation and the top bank of streams above Fleurieu swamps identified in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act;

(c) 2.5 metres between forestry plantation and the centre line of drainage lines above Fleurieu swamps identified in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act.

From all the evidence we have gathered, the setbacks proposed in this DPA are inadequate and little more than a token gesture towards the aim of limiting forestry's impact on the environment. As for the suggested 2.5 metres setback, one local landholder referred to it accurately enough as 'an absolute joke when it is considered that normal forestry plant spacing is generally around 2 metres'.

One final matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the chamber is that of ministerial responsibility. It was with great surprise that I witnessed the chief executive of the department attempt to lay the blame for his department's responses on the minister. The committee does not accept that it is reasonable to expect ministers to have intimate knowledge of every matter that crosses their desk. Ministers rely heavily on expert advice from their departments. It seems that every minister should be alert to the possibility that they may, at times, be misinformed—as happened here.

I wish to thank all those who gave their time and assisted the committee. I also commend the members of the committee—the Hon. Graham Gunn MP, the Hon. Sandra Kanck MLC, the Hon. Stephanie Key MP, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer MLC, and the Hon. Lea Stevens MP—for their contribution, support and cooperation throughout the inquiry. Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the committee for their assistance, and the Presiding Officer, Mr John Rau.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Sandra Kanck.