Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Development Act DEVELOPMENT ACT The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK Legislative Council The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:57): I move: That the regulations under the Development Act 1993 concerning Schedule 8—Referrals and Concurrences, made on 18 April 2013 and laid on the table of this council on 30 April 2013, be disallowed. I will be very brief. These regulations relate to the Native Vegetation Act and they state that substantially intact native vegetation is to be referenced for referral to the Native Vegetation Council. Specifically, it adds to schedule 8 item 26, which states: 26—Native vegetation If the relevant Development Plan contains a map showing an area of substantially intact native vegetation, development within, or within 20 metres of, the area shown on the map, other than development in a River Murray Protection Area under the River Murray Act 2003. So, that effectively means that any development within 20 metres of high-value native vegetation must be referred to the Native Vegetation Council, which will then have power of direction. I have been advised that the formal advice of DPTI, DEWNR and the LGA is that they agree; however, we do not have any further details, which is why I have put this motion to, effectively, stop the clock, because I will be formally asking the minister for the environment for further information in relation to it. Members can read in the Hansard of the House of Assembly a litany of examples of complaints about the operation of the Native Vegetation Act, and I think there are a number of ways in which it could be improved. I think, however, it has a tendency to be extremely conservative to the point that the council makes decisions at times which are counterintuitive. The member for Heysen is the person who spotted this particular regulation and will certainly be interested in further information. Her electorate covers substantial parts of the Adelaide Hills Council where this is particularly relevant. I think one of her concerns is that, if anybody owns a property which has any native scrub on it, you will not be able to do anything within that buffer boundary. I have had an example of constituents who have had their own difficulties with the Native Vegetation Act. The entire file would be far too involved to comment on; however, I would like to talk about the issue of fire safety. In their particular case, they had been issued a notice of clearance by the local council to clear a 15 metre firebreak or they were going to face a $5,000 fine. In that particular situation they were prevented from doing so under the act, and they had a lot of arguments with the council about the quality of different patches of their particular property. I might add, they purchased the property because they are lovers of nature and wanted to revegetate it, but had found that in one particular case a consultant had assessed the quality of the vegetation and they certainly felt that she had not got it right. The history of the property that they purchased was that it had been used for grazing and had also been used for growing plants. In their particular case, the consultant declared that 50 per cent of their land was in very good condition, which they disputed, and I think this highlights the fact that there is potentially a problem with the definition of whether the vegetation is of high quality or whether it has been degraded. They also stated in their particular case that, in relation to the fire safety issue, as I said, they were going to have a $5,000 fine for noncompliance. In their letter to the then minister they stated: In the past when I have suggested the use of a mechanical slasher to maintain the cleared area of the property, I was told in no uncertain terms that this was not possible on a property with a heritage agreement. So they had those specific issues. I look forward to receiving further details from the government about the history of the development of this particular regulation, how it came about and what its specific impacts will be. With those brief remarks I commend the motion to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.