Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources and Management Board

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:01): l seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for the Environment questions about the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: On 27 August 2015 cattle owned by an 80-year-old farmer, Mr Nicola Pipicella, were rounded up and moved from one paddock to a laneway by NRM compliance officers on Mr Pipicella's farm at 1054 Gawler/One Tree Hill Road, Uleybury. I have been advised that the cattle required to be moved to get them away from herbicide that the NRM officers were using to control wild artichokes which were growing on Mr Pipicella's property.

On 28 August 2015 seven of these cattle died. These cattle were pregnant at the time, and both Mr Pipicella and his vet believe that the cattle died from exhaustion and stress due to NRM officers spending many hours rounding them up. Mr Pipicella claims to have also suffered damage to fencing on his property as a result of the cattle movement. My question to the minister is: will the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board pay Mr Pipicella compensation for his lost stock and property damage?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:02): I thank the honourable member for this very important question. It allows me an opportunity to put on the record some information about this problematic event. The short answer in terms of compensation is no, but let me give some more details.

I am advised that a property located at Uleybury between Gawler and One Tree Hill has been the subject of a longstanding issue relating to the lack of control of artichoke thistle, a declared plant under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. I am informed that complaints to regional staff in the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources have been received from neighbouring properties, the City of Playford, and local members of parliament regarding the control of artichoke thistle on the property. I am told that the first incident report was raised in August 2009.

I am advised that for a number of years DEWNR regional staff have attempted to work with the property owner. Following negotiations with the property owner a formal action plan under section 183 of the NRM act was issued and approved on 11 June 2013. However, in spite of these efforts the requirements of the action plan remained outstanding. On 17 August 2015 the property owner was formally served, with seven days' notice that DEWNR staff would enter the property to undertake weed control works under section 183(9) of the NRM act.

On 26 August 2015 the property owner was again contacted by DEWNR staff to inform him that staff and a contractor would enter the property to undertake weed control. I understand that the property owner was asked to remove livestock from the relevant sections of the property. I am informed that a contractor engaged by DEWNR staff entered the property on 27 August 2015 to begin the spraying efforts, which were completed on 29 August.

I am also advised that since the spraying occurred a number of cows and calves were found dead on the property. I am advised that vets from Roseworthy veterinary school, acting on behalf of PIRSA Rural Chemicals, collected samples from four of the deceased animals to determine the cause of death. Samples of the feed and water were also taken for analysis. I am informed that expert interpretation of results of the pathology analysis indicates that neither the herbicide nor artichoke thistle contributed to the death of the cows but that the most likely cause of death was the result of kidney failure thought to be due to the ingestion of plants containing oxalates. This toxin is found in plant species such as soursob and the goosefoot family.

I am also advised that since that time the landholder has been offered assistance by way of services of a specialist contractor (at no cost to him) to work beside the landholder to improve his spray application techniques. Since the action plan expired on 1 October 2016, observations by staff from the adjoining roadside indicated that little or no control had been undertaken and that further action would be required. On 10 November 2016, DEWNR staff undertook a thorough on-site assessment of the property. The assessment established that there remained extensive areas of well-established, uncontrolled wild artichokes across much of the property.

A protection order under section 193 of the NRM act was issued requiring the landholder to engage an expert to develop a plan for the eradication of wild artichoke from the property as far as can reasonably be expected. This plan was required to be provided to NRM staff before 31 March 2017. I am advised that as of 10 April 2017, the landholder had not provided a plan of action to NRM staff. In line with procedures under the act, the DEWNR investigations and compliance unit subsequently sent a formal request for the landholder to attend an interview relating to the alleged breach of section 193 of the act.

I am advised that on 18 May 2017, the landholder agreed to participate in a formal interview with a representative from the DEWNR compliance unit. I am advised that this meeting took place at the landholder's property on 29 May 2017. I can also advise the chamber and the honourable member that the next steps in dealing with this matter are currently to be determined. Clearly, there have been complaints about the landholder's attempts to control artichoke thistle from a range of sources, including neighbours and members of parliament. DEWNR has tried to work proactively with the landholder to get the appropriate level of control. To date, that hasn't been forthcoming. We will continue our efforts to make sure the landholder has the capacity and the ability and the desire to do what responsible landholders are supposed to do.