NATIVE VEGETATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 November 2008. Page 1030.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:03): I will limit my comments on this bill, given that I will be moving some amendments. We will have more time to talk to our colleagues at that time. There are two important issues with respect to the amendments to this bill: the first is a clearing issue and the second is a bushfire prevention issue. I flag that I have amendments concerning bushfire prevention that will be on file shortly.

It is important that the parliament represent a broad cross-section of views. As a farmer, I am all too aware of the issues that arise from the clearing of native vegetation, particularly in the past when too much native vegetation was cleared in a lot of areas. We are seeing problems with certain aspects of farming in those areas as a result of over-clearing. I am well aware of the balance and the importance of protecting native vegetation.

If people talk to farmers, they will find that they are not out there wanting to be bulldozer-happy, knocking down trees, scrub and native vegetation—unlike some of the messages that some environmentalists like to portray about farmers.

In fact, farmers have a love of the land and passion for the land and the environment. We understand the importance of native vegetation. Indeed, on my own property, where we have some scrub, I was pleased to enter into an agreement with the state government to protect part of the area as part of a sensible trade-off situation in order to do other activities on other parts of the farm. I love to see the wedge-tailed eagles, the rosellas, the yellow-tipped black cockatoos and all the other bird life that is seen as a result of having native vegetation, and I understand the importance of biodiversity.

However, I want to touch on the clearing issue. On the subject of clearing I want to commend the government for its commonsense changes in relation to offset clearing. As I see it, this bill formalises a change in policy; in fact, it is a significant change in policy from several years ago, when I would not have seen this government in opposition putting an amendment like this forward or supporting one, indeed, when the Liberals were in government. The point is that this bill does formalise a change in policy—a good change, in my opinion—that enables a landholder to clear vegetation of comparatively minimal conservation value on his or her land and allows them to plant or support vegetation in another area that makes a far greater contribution to biodiversity and conservation.

Clearly, where there is some native vegetation that is not of significant value and other things can be done with the land, it makes sense sometimes to say, 'We will not put a couple of hundred mallee trees in this corner of the place to offset it but, rather, we will plant more important native vegetation in another area, probably fairly well removed from that particular point of clearance,' so that we can make a better contribution to biodiversity and conservation. How could it be otherwise? How could we let a species die or be highly endangered in one place when, by clearing some land and forcing people to plant a comparatively safe region back to certain species on their own land, we can create better opportunities for the state by having a more commonsense approach?

What we had prior to this policy change was a triumph of form over substance. It is a sensible move by the government in this case. I observe that landholders can pay into a fund rather than planting trees and, in a briefing, it was put to the Family First party that it was less likely to occur, as landholders can often get better use of their money by planting trees than paying into a fund. I can accept that a fund is a useful mechanism, but there can be scenarios where money is misappropriated or it sits in a fund and is never used. I flag to the government that I will be concerned to see how that fund develops and is spent in the years ahead. Special purpose funds should always be used promptly, transparently and for their intended purpose.

I also want to comment on bushfire prevention. As a former emergency services minister I know all too well how dangerous bushfires can be to life and conservation. In my latter years as a minister I saw what happened at Tulka, near Port Lincoln, soon after fire had threatened lives and property. It was only the fact that Tulka residents who were still on their properties were able to get into the sea that saved them from serious injury or even losing their lives.

I then inspected areas of native vegetation. Quite of lot of it was owned by the Crown one way or another. In particular, SA Water owned a lot of land there which was used as a catchment area for water resources for Port Lincoln. It was clearly evident to me then that there were insufficient firebreaks, and that led to mass destruction and threat to life, property and biodiversity. Where there were buffers or firebreaks they were too narrow and not maintained.

I thought things would have progressed positively as a result of the inquiries after that, but we saw again when the Wangary fires started (three years ago or thereabouts) just what impact massive areas of native vegetation without proper firebreaks, clearance and maintenance had to fuel and increase the intensity of the fire situation, and the tragedies that resulted partly through that situation.

Only in recent weeks we have seen Port Lincoln again being threatened in an area not that far from the Tulka fires. Again, we heard the mayor and others saying that insufficient firebreaks and so on were part of the problem. We also heard criticism from government agencies that private landowners were at fault because they did not have adequate firebreaks or that they had not maintained firebreaks, or that they had not applied to the Native Vegetation Council to cold burn or, indeed, clear some of the vegetation on their property to prevent fire, which I thought was a bit of a cheap attack on the private sector.

If you look at the Native Vegetation Act and the lack of transparency between that act and bushfire prevention, the role of the CFS and the state-run Bushfire Prevention Committee and the council's involvement, it is pretty much a cumbersome process. In fact, in my own area, I am not aware that we have a proper management plan. Certainly, if we do have one, I have not had anyone come to me to say that they have concerns about any scrub on their property with respect to not having cold burns or adequate firebreaks, etc. Most farmers and landholders would think that there is no way known that you would be able to clear any land for firebreaks and the like. So, I wanted to defend private owners to that extent, and I now turn to the amendments to this act.

I believe that there needs to be changes to the composition of the Native Vegetation Council. The law as it presently stands gives the CFS absolute say during a bushfire, and that is appropriate. In fact, I moved amendments to that extent when I was minister so that it was absolutely clear that once there was a fire situation there would be no argument between National Parks and Wildlife and CFS officers, etc. about the use of bulldozers, cold burning, and so on.

It was clear that there had to be a proper legislative framework in place to ensure that it was clear who was in charge, so I moved an amendment, which was passed. Clearly, when there is a bushfire, the CFS is involved. However, there is an anomaly or problem in relation to the composition of the board of the Native Vegetation Council, because there is no-one with fire expertise on the board. There is a requirement that there be a representative of the South Australian Firemen's Federation on the board, but it is not stipulated that that person must have expertise in bushfire prevention and management.

In preparing for a bushfire, the CFS has to comply with a plan prepared by the Native Vegetation Council. With due respect to current and past members of the Native Vegetation Council, I do not believe that there is any specific expertise in bushfire prevention within that council. In relation to this issue, the government says that there is a bushfire subcommittee, but that is not a standing representation on bushfire prevention. The Native Vegetation Council does not have the legal teeth, the voting capacity and the opportunity it would have if there was someone on the council with bushfire prevention expertise.

My amendment will not remove any of the existing members but will add a new member, who will be either the Chief Fire Officer of the CFS or a nominee of the Chief Fire Officer. I am looking forward to talking to my colleagues about this, particularly the shadow minister for emergency services (Hon. Stephen Wade), and I will be asking for his support. I think it makes sense for this person to be a member of the Native Vegetation Council, and it is timely that this bill is before the parliament at this time.

Bushfires are not just a risk to humans and property but also to the environment. It is true that bushfires are often natural occurrences (or were always pretty much natural occurrences prior to European settlement), although our indigenous people, in their land management preparation, knew how important it was to cold burn, clear and protect the land. Sadly, we do not have enough retained knowledge about that practice, and the greater population density that we now see means that there is a greater likelihood of a bushfire, not to mention the sad situation where bushfires are started by arsonists.

With these comments, I indicate that Family First will support the second reading but will reserve its position in relation to the third reading until we see how the bill goes through committee, particularly with respect to the amendments that we intend to move.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.