NATIVE VEGETATION (APPLICATION OF ACT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 April 2011.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:15): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this bill, which, I think it is fair to say, has had more scrutiny than was perhaps necessary. I will not go into a lot of that detail. I understand that the mover of the bill will provide some of those remarks in his summing up. This bill, from my understanding, contains clauses which are identical to some which were contained in a previous bill in 2007 or 2008, which sought to clarify the application of the Native Vegetation Act 1991. The Liberal Party had no opposition to those provisions at that time.

This particular bill deals with section 4 of the Native Vegetation Act, which outlines where the act applies, which, in general, is to the whole state, with exemptions which are outlined in various hundreds located within the metropolitan area. One area which is currently explicitly included in the metropolitan area and, therefore, outside the scope of this act, is 'east of the Hills Face Zone'. So, the effect of that is that the act is applied inconsistently in this area.

Honourable members may well be aware that there has been longstanding concern within the conservation sector for the threatened grey box woodlands, which is a tree species which fails to be protected under significant tree legislation—which is the metropolitan alternative to native vegetation protection—because its girth size will never reach the threshold to have it protected. This bill targets suburbs within the City of Mitcham, so that Belair, Bellevue Heights, Blackwood, Coromandel Valley, Craigburn Farm, Eden Hills, Glenalta and Hawthorndene will be included and, therefore, species such as grey box will be protected in these suburbs.

I personally sought to gain the views of the City of Mitcham, which is something that my party asked me to do. It was really to clarify what their position was because they had written to the leader in this place in his role as the then shadow minister for the environment and stated that they held concerns about the protection of the grey box species. I asked them to confirm that that was the case and we have now had confirmation from council that they do indeed support that. So, that is positive.

With those remarks, I indicate support for the bill and look forward to greater protection for important native vegetation species within those particular areas. I note that, particularly in the metropolitan area, there is very, very little remnant native vegetation. I think there is some contained within the Enfield cemetery and obviously some within these areas. When we have eminent people like Professor David Paton warning us about declining bird species in the Adelaide Hills, I think it is of paramount importance that we protect what we have left for future generations.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:19): As outlined by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, this amendment bill introduces amendments to clarify the application of the act to specific suburbs in the City of Mitcham. The council has seen these amendments before. Amongst others, they were included in the Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2008, which was introduced by the previous very excellent minister for environment and conservation in the spring session of 2008.

The government's amendment bill intended to increase flexibility in the delivery of significant environmental benefit offsets for vegetation clearance, add new expertise to the new Native Vegetation Council, improve administration of the legislation and provide better integration with the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. As we all know, debate on the government's bill was suspended during the committee stage in the Legislative Council and subsequently lapsed, which I think probably prompted the Hon. Mr Parnell to bring forward his bill.

However, I am pleased to take this opportunity to tell the house that the Minister for Environment and Conservation endorsed making amendments to the 2008 bill and undertook targeted consultation with key agencies and peak bodies. The outcome of that was, I am advised, that the Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced into the House of Assembly this morning by the Minister for Environment and Conservation.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: What a coincidence!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government is working to a wonderful timetable, as always. The new bill includes amendments to address the application of the act to specific suburbs in the City of Mitcham in exactly the same way as the 2008 government bill and the private member's bill do. Other amendments in the government's bill include making evidentiary changes to take into account technological advances, which will enable increased effectiveness for all parties in court proceedings; extending the time limit within which action may be taken to require minor illegal clearance to be made good from 12 months to two years; and providing for a third-party to be able to provide a significant environmental benefit offset for clearance that is undertaken by another person.

It would be preferable, in the government's view, that amendments to the native vegetation legislation be dealt with in one process and not in a piecemeal way. For this reason and this reason alone the government members in the Legislative Council will be opposing the bill before us currently this afternoon.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:21): In summing up I would like to thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her contribution and the Hon. Ian Hunter for his contribution. I also acknowledge the forbearance of my colleagues in the Legislative Council, because I have on a number of occasions expressed a desire to bring this bill to a vote. As the Hon. Michelle Lensink alluded, one of the difficulties we had was that the original consultation with Mitcham council was so long ago that they forgot how much they liked this.

Members might have received correspondence expressing a level of outrage (maybe it is not too strong a word) that they had not been consulted. When they were reminded that this was no different to something that they had been consulted on in 2007, they liked it then and they like it still now. I have a letter from the Mayor of Mitcham council who has written to me. I am grateful for that. He states that this bill:

...would again take up the focus of a consistent approach to the management of native vegetation in the Hills Face Zone and areas east of the Hills Face Zone as originally intended and include parts of the hills suburbs of Blackwood, Eden Hills, Bellevue Heights, Belair, Hawthorndene, Glenalta and Craigburn Farm.

The Mayor sets out some of the important vegetation associations, which I will not name or give them their Latin names, but it certainly includes Eucalyptus microcarpa, the grey box woodlands.

We have the local council acknowledging that this bill is important to clarify and ensure consistency in the application of the act. As I point out to members, it was always intended that the act cover these areas. Most people already accept that it does cover these areas but, by virtue of some poor legislative drafting many years ago, there is a level of ambiguity that we are now fixing up.

I acknowledge, as the Hon. Ian Hunter said, that minister Caica has today introduced a broad ranging suite of amendments to the Native Vegetation Act, which includes the exact provisions in this bill. I thank the minister for personally coming and explaining the situation. I should say that I do not hold the current minister at all responsible for the many years that have gone by since this measure was first accepted by both houses of parliament, but for various reasons it has not yet found its way into the statute books.

Whilst I appreciate the technical position that the Hon. Ian Hunter has taken, that the government would prefer to deal with these matters in its own time in its own bill, I still do propose that we vote on this bill now. I fully expect that, when it reaches lower house, it may well sit there for some little while until the government's bill is finally passed.

Of course, the advantage of that approach is that if the government's bill falls over for some reason—and the government's bill has a lot more things in it, including some things that are controversial—we will still have the ability to put on the statute book a simple clarification that not one person in either house of parliament has spoken against in all the time that it has been on the Notice Paper. I look forward to us voting in favour of this bill and its proceeding very rapidly through the committee stage, there being no amendments. I urge all honourable members to give it their full support.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.