Native Vegetation

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:18): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation about native vegetation.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: For the last 30 years in South Australia, native vegetation has been protected by law, with a regime of permits and offsets designed to stop the extensive broadacre clearance that dominated the last century and a half in this state. Under the Native Vegetation Act, if you want to clear native vegetation, you must apply to the Native Vegetation Council and follow their directions. However, there is an emerging trend for unsuccessful applicants to go crying to the minister for special exemptions that are outside the Native Vegetation Council assessment process.

The most recent example of this is the case of the Shahin family's Peregrine Corporation, who convinced the minister recently to gazette special regulations allowing them to clear large areas of native vegetation, comprising mostly intact Mallee box grassy woodland and other scattered trees, for the purpose of a motor-racing drag strip at Tailem Bend.

When assessed by the Native Vegetation Council, it was determined that the vegetation in question, especially around 10 hectares in the northern part of the property, are the best of what remains of a 700 hectare property and should be protected. The council noted that most of this property and surrounding properties had already been cleared, and that this was the best of what remained.

In fact, the Native Vegetation Council determined that allowing the clearance of this intact native vegetation would seriously be at variance with the principles of clearance of native vegetation, as set out in the Native Vegetation Act. The Native Vegetation Council quite properly rejected the application, but did approve the removal of over 100 scattered trees. According to the minister's regulations, the Native Vegetation Council has been bypassed in the process, and all that developers now need to do is convince Jim Hallion, the State Coordinator-General, of the need for clearance and they will be exempted from the need to gain any other approvals. Under the minister's regulations, the Native Vegetation Council will not even be consulted. My questions are:

1. Does the minister have confidence in his Native Vegetation Council?

2. If he does have confidence in their ability to fulfil their statutory functions, why does he undermine them?

3. What will he do when other disaffected applicants for native vegetation clearance come knocking on his door asking for the same special treatment with special laws passed for their benefit?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:21): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. In South Australia the authorised clearance of native vegetation is, in certain circumstances, required to be offset by the establishment of a significant environmental benefit. Under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 and the Native Vegetation Regulations 2003 significant environmental benefits, intended to compensate for the loss of vegetation from approved clearance activities, are achieved by managing and enhancing native vegetation elsewhere with the intent of providing a net environmental gain over and above the impact of the clearance.

So, given that environmental benefits operate in a similar manner to offsets as required under the commonwealth's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, I am advised, and other jurisdictions in Australia, the government has developed the Native Vegetation (Credit for Environmental Benefits) Regulations 2015, which set out a process for accrediting third party providers, establishing the information to be kept on a register to establish a process to account for the use of credit for approved clearance activities and establish associated fees. I am advised that the regulations came into operation in December 2015.

DEWNR is developing currently a significant environmental benefit policy to support the regulations and reforms to significant environmental benefits aimed at providing greater clarity, rigor and options available to clearance applicants. These reforms also create a new market for the environmental conservation, and this will enable individuals or entities to work directly with companies with a clearing native vegetation order to provide the required significant environmental benefit. It is anticipated that the new significant environmental benefit options and metrics will be produced this year.

In relation to Native Vegetation Council determinations—and I think we all understand that we want to ensure their sustainable use of native vegetation where we can and protect it also—we have taken various steps to ensure the ongoing preservation of what remains of our native vegetation. The act provides for the clearance of native vegetation only in certain circumstances, and permitted clearances are listed in the native vegetation regulations.

Since 1997 there have been significant amendments to the regulations, resulting in their current form. I must say that I admit here that the current form is somewhat complicated to administer. We are undertaking reform of the native vegetation policies and procedures to simplify them, and we have a regulation review strategy in place to develop more effective regulations. The aims of the review are to reduce regulatory burden for landholders and establish a stronger focus on the value of native vegetation, ensuring biodiversity and conservation priorities. I think we have all reached that in terms of accepting the act in this house and the other place in recent times.

In relation to the honourable member's specific questions about a development, I think near Murray Bridge, I will have to take those questions on notice and bring back some advice for him on what stage that is up to.