HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIVE VEGETATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1014.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:32): I will not delay the house much longer. I have made most of the points that I wanted to make. This is a very important piece of legislation, which will be very welcome in the Mitcham council area and by the council itself, because there has been longstanding concern about the removal of grey box and other native vegetation in that area. I will make another couple of points.

I think the increase in penalty from $500 to $750 in this bill is only a marginal increase. It is not the full range of penalties available for people who illegally remove vegetation. I think the penalties need to be very severe, particularly where people are removing remnant native vegetation from the metropolitan area and, as I indicated earlier today, we have less than 4 per cent remaining.

In relation to the people who are on the Native Vegetation Council, I think it is critical that they are appropriately qualified in areas like botany, ecology, and so on. We also need people who are grounded in common sense and who can, where necessary, ensure that, if there is to be some clearance, there is an appropriate offset, or what the lay person would call a trade-off. I welcome this bill and I commend the minister, and the government, for bringing it in a speedy fashion. I trust that we can swiftly conclude the passage of this bill.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:34): I am happy to express my support for this bill, but I note with interest the contribution made this morning by the member for Stuart and some issues that he wants to address in this bill.

I suppose nothing has been more controversial over many years around rural South Australia than the introduction of the Native Vegetation Act in the 1980s and, indeed, nothing has caused more anger, angst and general crankiness on the island part of my electorate in particular. I well recall a meeting when this was first introduced where the local farming community was ready to hang, draw and quarter the bureaucrats and politicians who turned up on that day, with the exception of my predecessor the Hon. Ted Chapman whom they probably wanted to knight, I think.

We have been fighting this for some years: the nonsensical lack of common-sense approach. I am pleased that, since we have seen Dennis Mutton come in as chair of the Native Vegetation Council, a little bit of sense has started to come back into it. There is a long way to go. This year—and I would not wish this on anybody—if we have any severe fire situation in this state, including around the Adelaide Hills, this whole thing will rear its head again. You only have to see what happened at Wangary a few years ago and on Kangaroo Island last year, which is just about a week away from its 12 month anniversary, those enormous fires through the national parks, the loss of life and what transpired in order to see the stupidity of where we are and the lack of a common-sense, practical approach to native vegetation in the state.

I love the bush and I have lived in the bush all my life. I enjoy living around it, but when people are looking over their shoulder to see whether someone will dob them in or whether inspectors will lob on their doorstep about a tree falling over or getting knocked over, it is just ridiculous and a sad indictment of the times. I am hopeful that the minister will take on board the contributions from members in this place, especially from the rural members on our side and, in particular, the comments of the member for Stuart. You do not hang around this place for about four decades without having a fair idea of how it works and you do not develop the properties that he has developed over the years without having an understanding of the bush.

It is not a contentious bill. It is a step in the right direction. We need to put things into perspective so that planning, development and, accordingly, the Native Vegetation Act will work together in the common and best interests of not only the environment of South Australia but also the people of South Australia.

I support this bill. I wait to see what transpires from the member for Stuart's amendments as they are proposed. I think we can take a step in the right direction. I have had few issues with the Native Vegetation Council since Mr Mutton has been there. It was an enormous assistance to have Dennis put in there. I think he is working on it. I think a few positions on the council need a bit of attention, though.

I note that the local government nominee is the Mayor of Kangaroo Island, and she is doing a good job. She is level-headed, sensible and knows what is what. I urge the minister to take on my comments and those of others. I support the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:39): I also rise to support this bill. I note that one of the most significant amendments will allow for out of region offsets whereby an applicant for a native vegetation clearance permit will be able to provide the required offset allowing a net environmental benefit to be created in a different part of the state. In regard to that, I ask: what will be the monetary cost of the offset? Will it be a factor of 10:1, 5:1 or even 20:1 on whatever bit of Mallee scrub, for example, that may be cleared off?

This is not a contentious bill, but I wonder whether it does go far enough. I certainly take note of the member for Stuart's amendments. Proposed new subsection (2)(b) of his amendment to insert a new clause 14A provides that 'the clearance occurs on pastoral land and is for the purpose of re-establishing land for cropping purpose after a break not exceeding 15 years'. I know that under the current legislation people have actually bought heavy tractors and ploughs to ensure that they keep ahead of the legislation. They have tractors and ploughs going 24 hours a day so that the native vegetation does not grow beyond the prescribed time limit.

I think that this goes against the very thing that people who appreciate the environment want. The amendment allows up to 15 years and then, if that country is required to be put back into a cropping phase, that should be able to be done. It seems ridiculous that people have been out there—and I know that this has happened and it would still be happening—tearing over land every few years because they have to, otherwise they will never be able to clear that land again.

I turn to the construction of vehicular tracks not exceeding 15 metres in width to aid access to particular areas, which forms part of the member for Stuart's amendments, and the construction of firebreaks not exceeding 20 metres in width. In January or February three years ago, there were some big fires in the Ngarkat Conservation Park, and at about the same time there were some other fires around Coomandook, and some of those fires were on my own property. It was very hot—about 45°—and we had many lightning strikes. Plenty was happening locally, not far away, and that was emphasised by the red and orange glow in the night sky over the Ngarkat National Park, which had a tremendous fire in it.

I believe that, if the people on the ground had made the right decisions, we would not have seen some of the disastrous results of that fire coming through to farmland and destroying fences. When these fences are destroyed, does the government come to the party like a normal farming neighbour would? No it does not. The act says that it does not have to. One family in the area are very good farmers. They have a netting fence and then on top of that they have cyclone and then on top of that they have barbed wire, which is over six foot high. It keeps everything out. I can assure members—

An honourable member: Not the fire.

Mr PEDERICK: Not the fire; everything bar the fire. These are good farmers out at Parrakie who grow veldt grass right up to the wire because everything is kept out, including rabbits, kangaroos and emus.

Mr Goldsworthy: It must be a good fence.

Mr PEDERICK: It is a fantastic fence. When I toured the area with the member for MacKillop there was the stench of death from the kangaroos that could not get out—that is how effective the fence is. That is the important point. Usually farmers have only the standard fence in place, 3 foot 6 to 4 foot at the maximum, so all the native animals—whether it be emus or kangaroos—come across to farming land and they certainly can become a nuisance and knock about grazing feed and crops. What I find really disheartening is the fact that, when these events happen, the government does not come to the party and the people adjoining a park have to pay for the fencing.

Some decisions were made on the Sunday morning of the weekend of that fire. They knew the forecast. The knew that the wind was going to be coming at them at around 60 to 90 km/h. It was going to be quite a wind. They knew it was coming and they could have done a burn back. The CFS was present. They had everything happening. The chiefs were near Lameroo somewhere directing it as they do—and the CFS does a great job—but within the whole chain of command scenario there was a big problem about whether they would be prosecuted through an act regarding back-burning. At the end of the day, it did not happen.

However, I am told that, under the relevant legislation, a man or woman on the ground can make that decision. It would have saved a lot of angst. This fire was going to burn this country that they needed to back-burn, anyway. As a consequence, the CFS made a contingency plan (as they do) and they decided that the Mallee highway would be the stand. Considering the weather conditions—45°, plus high winds, 60 to 90 km/h winds—it would just breach a highway and just go to town, let alone the thousands of hectares burnt beforehand, as well as farmhouses, buildings, farm sheds and equipment.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, close to the sunset country. Equipment, houses and sheds could have been lost, but to the credit of the local farmers and the CFS, they did hold it, but not without the loss of many kilometres of fencing and many hectares of farmland. Whether it was the result of paranoia in agencies or whether it was a directive from above, but another side effect was that big bulldozers, ploughs, etc, were sent out. They were blackened areas, nothing was going to burn there again, yet here they were cultivating great firebreaks well after the event. It is no point doing it then: it had all been and gone. There has to be much more common sense.

I am always intrigued when I talk to a member of the CFS or when I hear that they are having a controlled burn that they have over achieved—and sometimes it is a good thing. I think 'over achieving' is the technical term for a very successful burn, in fact, you have probably burnt three-quarters of an area instead of a quarter—

Mr Williams: They did a good one down at Messent.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I was just thinking of that, the Messent fire. I believe they were going to burn about a quarter of it and they burnt about three-quarters of it, so they got one hell of a firebreak. There has certainly been over achieving in the Ngarkat park. People have to realise that these parks are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of hectares, and that naturally, over time, with lightning strikes, etc., they have burnt vigorously. And yes, Ngarkat has had the guts burnt out of it plenty of times.

I think there needs to be far more control about how this native vegetation is managed, because otherwise we will not maintain it. I think there needs to be a partnership with the farmers, decent firebreaks, 20 metre firebreaks around the edge, so that people can access these parks and there needs to be more controlled burns so that sizeable sections can be burnt. If you have decent firebreaks, the dramas of over achieving might not happen either.

This bill does go part of the way, but I certainly support the member for Stuart's amendments. I make another point about native vegetation and highways. The Dukes Highway is one that has been in the media for all the wrong reasons lately. I, along with the Hon. Stephen Wade and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, attended a road safety meeting at Tintinara. Within two days of that there was another fatality on the Dukes Highway, within 10 minutes of where I live. My sympathies go out to that family because it is a very traumatic time; it does not matter who you are. It is just terrible.

That night I had actually asked the transport department people about the value of a human life and whether native vegetation takes precedence. I believe that, in the past, when they built passing lanes of only 900 metres or up to one kilometre long (they are now about double that length), departments took too much notice of native vegetation. Passing lanes were constructed on corners, yet when you got around the corner there was a nice long straight with three lanes of traffic, rather than two, where everyone could see what was going on. It does create issues at times for people who are confused.

The department's answer on the night was that the Native Vegetation Council had a lot of give and take. Well, I am not one to just slash and burn trees, but I think we need to show some common sense. If anyone wants to challenge me and say that there is not very much mallee scrub down there, I advise them to find a helicopter or a Cessna and get up there; I could show them acres and acres, kilometres and kilometres, of mallee scrub.

I think we need to be a bit smarter with our laws. We do not want to pillage our native vegetation, but when it comes to the simple fact of road safety and human life I think a lot more common sense needs to be demonstrated. Under the Mining Act with regard to native vegetation there can be exemptions, but they have to do offsets, and I think we have to be a lot smarter all along the way. With those few words I commend the bill to the house, but I think it needs to go a lot further.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (16:53): The Minister for Environment and Conservation announced in 2007 that new directions for native vegetation management had been initiated that were designed to underpin the state government's strategic plan and its biodiversity target 'to lose no known native species as a result of human impact'. The phrase 'as a result of human impact' demonstrates the government's narrow thinking and lack of understanding of our rural environment, while the target 'to lose no known natives species as result of human impact' is like so many set by this government: it gives a warm, fuzzy feeling but in reality what does it mean, what will it cost to achieve, and who will be impacted by this target?

Landholders have often commented that they are happy to conserve native vegetation; however, if it means a loss of income every year into the future they cannot see why they alone should bear the cost. The vegetation is supposedly being conserved for everyone's benefit. I believe that regional communities will suffer the biggest impacts and costs. Small communities must continue to grow and attract new businesses and development in order to retain essential services such as hospitals, schools and police, particularly now that the government has introduced population-based funding—and, I might add, shared services.

The unbelievable nonsense that sometimes accompanies Native Vegetation Council decisions and comments was nowhere better shown than at a meeting in Port Lincoln which was addressed by a native vegetation officer. Many country cemeteries still contain native vegetation. In the course of the meeting the officer was asked, 'What happens when the cleared part of the cemetery is full and more room is needed?' The officer's serious reply was, 'Use the car parks.' No wonder there is considerable confusion and annoyance within the community regarding approval for native vegetation clearance when such idiotic statements are made and they are supposed to comply with them.

Many people believe that obtaining a development approval includes approval to clear native vegetation only to find out, at a later date, that clearance approval or an exemption is required from the Native Vegetation Council and that there is no guarantee that the proposed clearance will be approved. This can be costly for a developer who has already invested time, money and effort into a project, and it can be devastating for a homeowner to receive a threatening letter asking for clarification of the circumstances of the clearance, or advising that further investigation which may lead to legal action will be undertaken.

The majority of people are unaware that residential and industrial allotments are subject to native vegetation regulations, or, they believe the term 'exemptions' covers house sites. In actual fact, 'exemptions' does not mean a person can go ahead and clear a block or site as they must still consult with the Native Vegetation Council and a significant environmental benefit offset may be required. This highlights the complexity of this legislation, when it has to be viewed with several other acts that affect the decisions and outcomes for what are mostly simple projects.

One aspect concerning native vegetation in this bill, which I hope the minister will take on board and make necessary adjustments to, is that the Native Vegetation Council is not bound to any time frame within which it has to respond. Local government bodies have a restricted time frame for approving development applications; hence, a slow response from the Native Vegetation Council invariably arrives after approval has been given. This not only causes a great deal of angst among all involved but also unnecessary expense and waste of time in dealing with the matter.

The concept that time is money is completely lost on this Labor government, which has never been in business and taken the huge risks and responsibilities of borrowing money and employing people, of having to pay interest and pay people while waiting for government approvals.

The minister's explanation of the bill states that 'local government will be invited to process clearance applications the house sites'. It will be interesting to see how this works out in real life, as I believe many councils are not adequately resourced enough to deal with native vegetation issues. Will any fees cover the administration costs involved?

Problems are further compounded because the Native Vegetation Council has greater powers than local government, and there is no appeal process. I did not find any appeal process mentioned in the bill. Since the topic of native vegetation brings up a great variety of issues, some form of appeal rights, even if limited, would bring a measure of justice to native vegetation matters that does now not exist. One can only hope that the minister's assertion is correct when he states:

The new arrangements include the development and implementation of processes to better integrate native vegetation into the early stages of the planning cycle to ensure that better and early advice is provided to developers.

It would appear that the Native Vegetation Act conflicts with the Emergency Services Act 2005. Here is another area that needs the minister's attention and possibly an amendment so that endorsed bushfire prevention plans are exempt from native vegetation requirements. It is illogical that the act be applied in such a way that preventative action is forbidden only to have a much greater area of native vegetation destroyed by fire.

A weakness in the legislation and in the application of the legislation is a disregard and a lack of acknowledgement for conservation work that has already been undertaken. Revegetation to reclaim degraded areas has been going on for decades on Eyre Peninsula. The work that was done in the 1980s on the reclamation of salt-affected land was some of the best in Australia. Interstate people in the field came across to Eyre Peninsula to see and discuss a wide variety of successful projects in progress there.

I am aware of landholders who have already set aside significant native vegetation reserves, but these stands will not be considered in future development or actions. I suggest that the Native Vegetation Council, in consultation with the applicable local government council, has discretionary powers to acknowledge previous conservation efforts by landholders. The failure to recognise previous land care and environmental initiatives of farmers will compound the increasing negative attitude of the agriculture sector towards native vegetation, potentially undoing the positive achievements that have been made in previous years.

The heavy-handed approach on native vegetation does not appear to comply with the intent of the native vegetation legislation where the Native Vegetation Council was entrusted to achieve a balance between environmental concerns and development. Many decisions have inhibited agricultural and industrial development. The heavy-handed actions on native vegetation do not provide land-owners with an incentive to protect native vegetation. Too many times the problem with native vegetation is not legislation but the application of it. The number of instances when this would come into effect may be minimal; nevertheless, it is an important point that should be considered. As one such landowner commented, 'Native vegetation is preserved for the benefit of the whole population of the state, so I don't see why I should bear the total cost.'

The current native vegetation requirements do not take into account a person who has undertaken prior revegetation works or who has been involved in previous vegetation and biodiversity works. I repeat that native vegetation and biodiversity activities should be recognised and that appeal rights should be established in certain instances where this has not been taken into account. Regrowth exemptions should be allowed, particularly within township areas, for areas that were totally cleared 10 years ago but have regrowth that is now preventing development from taking place.

The minister says a lot about significant environmental benefit offsets, but the process is complicated and confusing for the average person. Currently, an arbitrary basis is applied to quantify significant environmental benefits required from applicants. There appear to be no clear guidelines or criteria as to how the significant environment benefits will be applied to an application under the Native Vegetation Act. Past decisions have often appeared to be inconsistent or discretionary.

There is a general lack of understanding of the significant environmental benefit outcome for clearance that requires a significant environmental benefit offset. Provision should be made for significant prior work to be recognised, with the ability to give an environmental and financial value that can be used and accepted as a significant environmental benefit offset.

The act and the amendments deal with the preservation and/or destruction of native vegetation. That is fine, but the big question is: who determines which flora are involved? The extensive levels of data and the level of reporting required for applications for native vegetation clearance are beyond the skills of many applicants and they have to engage consultants at great cost both to assess the site of clearance and to lodge the applications.

A simpler system needs to be introduced to allow different levels of reporting for different applications across the range of township, settlements and rural areas. No application for residential site development on an allotment of less than perhaps 1,200 square metres could overcome this, which is one of the most misunderstood sections of the current act.

Eyre Peninsula flora are unique in that they share species with both western and eastern Australia, while also having some species that occur only on Eyre Peninsula. I emphasise that we also have a significant majority of the state's national parks, reserves and conservation parks, along with roadside vegetation and vegetation on privately owned land. The biodiversity plan for Eyre Peninsula indicates that 44 per cent of Eyre Peninsula comprises either government owned parks or is under private heritage agreements.

I foresee that Eyre Peninsula residents will once again be called on to pay the cost of repairing the environment in other parts of the state through the significant environmental benefit offsets. Of course, this is of no concern to this government, which has shown its contempt for rural and regional South Australia and sees those living outside Adelaide, particularly those on Eyre Peninsula, as milch cows paying for Labor's profligacy. Labor has no comprehension of the interconnectedness of country and city or that city people depend on the country for their standard of living.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (17:04): I am speaking in support of this amendment to the Native Vegetation Act but with some reservations. I note that the government maintains that the essential purpose of the native vegetation legislation will still be to preserve native vegetation as much as possible. The legislation before the house ensures that there can be offsets when vegetation is to be cleared. In other words, where native vegetation is approved to be cleared, the person doing the clearing can be credited for providing vegetation outside the region where that native vegetation is being cleared.

In other words, it may be more useful, environmentally, for the new vegetation to be some distance away from the land that is to be cleared. It is hard to argue with that, although it is also easy to see how the situation might be abused and where an area of less significance might be enhanced with some native vegetation while a more precious area is cleared.

Secondly, the legislation proposed by the government allows credits, that is, where a landholder has already provided additional native vegetation they can be given a credit which would allow clearing. I can understand the reasoning behind that, in the sense that it may encourage landholders to provide native vegetation in one area so that they can ultimately have those credits and clear another area at their discretion, although that is always going to be subject to approval by the Native Vegetation Council. However, there are problems in this area as well, because if the credits are granted in a less valuable area then we may end up with a lower quality of native vegetation overall, despite the concept of having an offset.

Possibly the most problematic aspect of this legislation is the change to the membership of the Native Vegetation Council. The commonwealth minister for the environment nominee is being replaced by the state minister's representative and there is also the inclusion of someone from the mining sector. I am somewhat concerned that these changes will lead to a greater balance on the Native Vegetation Council itself toward mining and developing; in other words, land clearing interests rather than land preservation interests.

We need to bear in mind that under the Native Vegetation Act there are seven members of the council and one of their important functions is to approve the clearance of native vegetation. So, they have a vital role when it comes to preserving this state's native vegetation. It is not just about the quality of the people who are going to be appointed. The legislation itself will actually tilt the balance towards the interests of those who propose to clear native vegetation.

The government states that it is still valuing biodiversity and wanting to avoid species loss as much as ever. I take the opportunity to point out that it has been failing (in shocking terms) in relation to these aspirations. I am particularly mindful of this because Associate Professor David Paton of the University of Adelaide has proposed what he calls the Woodland Recovery Initiative, which involves the planting of trees on Glenthorne Farm (in my electorate) and through the Adelaide Hills in an effort not only to increase the amount of native vegetation available in the Adelaide Hills but, therefore, to protect the remaining bird species that we have in the region. Of course, the University of Adelaide seeks to sell off land at Glenthorne Farm (perhaps up to 950 housing lots) in order to fund this extraordinarily broad and ambitious vision.

The point that I need to make here is that the government has failed to mitigate species loss, particularly bird species in the Adelaide Hills. Things have become much worse in the last six years and, if it continues at the current rate, we will have more species lost in the next generation. So, something needs to be done about that. In fact, the changes that we see to the Native Vegetation Act proposed by the government today do nothing to help the problem in the Adelaide Hills region.

So, it is with some misgivings and some sadness at the continuing species loss under the reign of this government that I support the legislation. My main concern at the end of the day is the change in the balance of the Native Vegetation Council, which has such an important role to perform.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:11): The Liberal Party has decided to support the bill. I understand that the member for Stuart might have some colourful and interesting amendments—as always—when this matter is debated in committee.

I have some history with the Native Vegetation Act. I was fortunate enough to be minister for the environment for a period, and I brought into the house a bill to change native vegetation laws, but the 2002 election intervened before that matter could be resolved. Contained in that bill was the principle of environmental credits for native vegetation planting, something strongly advocated at the time, if I recall, by the member for MacKillop, now the shadow minister. It has taken the government two attempts and seven years to reach the same conclusion, but it has reached the same conclusion: that there is a benefit to the community to introduce a system of credits. So, seven years of hand-sitting sees us essentially coming to the same conclusion: that the system would be improved by a system of credits.

It is good to see you come in for this significant contribution, Mr Speaker. I raise for the minister's consideration a couple of concerns that I think need to be clarified on the record so that people are clear about the government's intention. One concern in particular is this very simple question: which act takes precedence—the act in relation to bushfire prevention or the Native Vegetation Act? The reason I ask that is that my electorate of Davenport (which is essentially the Mitcham Hills) is one of the highest bushfire risk areas in the world. It has 26,000 people protected by about 12 to 15 fire appliances, and it has only seven exits available to those 26,000 people. Of interest to them is this question: where there is a conflict between the legislation—between native vegetation or bushfire—which piece of legislation will take precedence?

If my memory serves me right, in about 2003-04, I wrote a letter to the then minister seeking the answer to that question on behalf of a resident in Pasadena. The answer I got back was that the native vegetation legislation took precedence. So, I would like to get it on the record so that it is clear. I was a member of the Economic and Finance Committee, as was the member for Stuart, and we had the pleasure of Euan Ferguson coming in from time to time to talk about that very popular measure—the emergency services levy. Mr Ferguson gave evidence to that committee that, as the chief fire officer of the CFS, he had concerns that the Native Vegetation Act restricted the operations of the CFS.

I direct the minister to the relevant Economic and Finance Committee transcripts; he can get them from the members of his party. If that is the case, while this bill is before the house, that matter should be resolved. This bill will not get through the upper house before parliament rises for Christmas. I understand that the upper house is very keen to sit during the optional week but that still will not deal with this bill, so the minister needs to get Euan Ferguson's evidence to the Economic and Finance Committee and clarify what the issues are and resolve them while we have the bill before the house.

The other question I raise is: how does the significant tree legislation impact on this act? I will take you to Mitcham Hills. The member for Fisher made some comments in this debate prior to question time about the impact on Mitcham council and what is known as the Grey Box Community throughout the Eden Hills and Blackwood area generally. A very dedicated group of residents in the Eden Hills district have formed a community interest group to save the grey box because they are concerned about its ultimate demise given the extra development throughout the Mitcham Hills.

I was a bit surprised when the member for Fisher said that this bill brought new protection to the grey box because certain suburbs of the Mitcham Hills area have been added to extra coverage under the Native Vegetation Act. I went to my shadow minister because that had not been brought to my attention, and that is not a criticism of the shadow minister because the shadow minister told me that the officers of the minister in briefing had said that there was no extra coverage.

So, I am not criticising the shadow minister for not bringing it to my attention because his briefing was that there was no extra coverage. I went straight across to the officers concerned and asked the questions about the extra coverage and the officers confirmed to me before question time that there is no extra coverage in the City of Mitcham. If there is no extra coverage, then there is no extra protection for the Grey Box Community, and that is why I was a bit surprised when the member for Fisher raised the issue.

I rang the City of Mitcham because I had had a meeting with the City of Mitcham with representatives of the Grey Box Community specifically to talk about how we could better protect the grey box. The City of Mitcham advised us that one option was to change the regulation in relation to the significant tree legislation where, from memory—and I do not have my notes in front of me—there is a regulation where if a eucalypt is 200 millimetres in diameter, a metre off the ground—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will come to that in a minute because I am sick to death of that excuse.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: I will be interested to hear the answer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will tell you what the answer is. So, that was one option. Another issue that the Mitcham council raised was that it was changing its planning laws so that less of the block can go under building, so the coverage of building on blocks would be less and that means fewer grey box would be destroyed. I would be interested to know how the significant tree legislation applies specifically to the Mitcham Hills community that has been brought into this act.

I rang and asked the council, 'What is the story? Bob Such says there is extra coverage; the officers told my shadow minister and me that there is no extra coverage.' According to the City of Mitcham, there is extra coverage. The City of Mitcham says:

Mitcham Council has been endeavouring to have the suburbs of Blackwood, Eden Hills and Bellevue Heights included as areas to be protected under the Native Vegetation Act to add to those already covered under the Hills Face Zone.

According to the Mitcham council (on 14 October this year), those suburbs are not covered and it is seeking for them to be covered. That is what Bob Such, the member for Fisher, said: that this now provides that coverage. Looking at the bill, it does provide that coverage.

So, with due respect to the officers, we were told first in the initial briefing, which went to the whole party room, and in the briefing that I received five minutes before question time—admittedly, it was just a discussion in the gallery, it was not a formal sit-down brief—that there was no extra coverage. There is extra coverage. I will tell members what that means exactly for the suburbs of Eden Hills, Blackwood and Bellevue Heights, of course, is that our side of the chamber has been denied a briefing prior to this debate, because we have come to the chamber on the understanding that there is no extra coverage—and that is regrettable.

However, given that this is going to go through on the numbers, I will seek a briefing in between the houses and we can deal with any issues in the other place. However, I say of the officers of the native vegetation branch that I have always had a reasonably good relationship with the native vegetation branch because it is an area of great interest to my colleagues. Every time an issue was raised, I had to be briefed, so I became reasonably proficient in understanding the workings of the native vegetation branch, and if ever they want to brief me about my electorate, they certainly know the numbers.

In regard to the issue of the significant tree legislation, the Liberal opposition has always been available to sit down and work through that issue, but you cannot work in a vacuum. The government walks away from a clause in a bill with a number of different issues and does not come to the table and say, 'Well, can we resolve this particular issue?' The opposition would have been quite happy to sit down and work through the issues, as we have offered the government in regard to others. But if you put the issue in with five or six other major issues, ultimately you will see the debate, or the defeat, or the stalling of the bill. That does not stop the government from coming to us and saying, 'Well, look, can we fix up this problem?' The government, of course, has never done that.

The member for Mitchell raised the issue of biodiversity loss, bird loss and species loss. There was a report done by the then federal government—I think minister Hill might have been the federal minister at the time—into the Mount Lofty Ranges and the significant loss of bird life as one of the hot spots in Australia for the loss of life of birds. I think one of the proudest things that I did as environment minister was when I was able to sit down with David Paton and ask him, 'What do we need to do to reinvigorate and protect bird life in South Australia?' and David Paton's advice to me was, 'Find about 1,000 hectares,' I think it was, 'Find a huge slab of land and buy it and revegetate it specifically with vegetation designed for certain bird species.'

As luck would have it, two weeks later Mrs Law from just outside Gawler walked through the door and said that not only did the Law family have a property of that size in its possession, but that Mr Law, in his passing, had wanted the land revegetated specifically for birds. Not only did they donate the land, or make the land available, but they also donated a sum of about $1.2 million over 10 years to have that land revegetated. So, I think that the message is that there is a lot of goodwill in the community, indeed the rural community, toward native vegetation and improvement of native vegetation, if it is managed properly at an administrative level in the department.

All the changes which have slowly been proposed over the years are about trying to refine the rough edges of some of the legislation to make it more user friendly and more practical in its application, particularly in rural communities. The opposition is supporting this legislation, but I do refer the minister to the points which I want clarified at some point. If there is a conflict between the bushfire legislation and the native vegetation, which one has precedent; and I ask the same question in relation to the significant tree legislation, in particular regarding the Mitcham Hills? During the break, I will seek a briefing from the minister's agencies so that I can clearly understand the impact on those suburbs. With those comments, I will support the bill.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:26): I will raise a number of points in relation to this legislation. A couple of the points are based around the relatively significant amendment that this bill makes to the current act; that is, to allow for out of region offsets where an applicant for a native vegetation clearance permit will be able to provide the required offset giving a net environmental benefit to be created in a different part of the state. A number of constituents have met with me in relation to letters they have received from the Native Vegetation Council specifically concerning this issue of the establishment of offsets. It is my opinion, and obviously that of my constituents, that this whole issue around the establishment of offsets is one of complexity and cost.

In letters sent to my constituents from the Native Vegetation Council it states that it is a costly process to engage in the establishment of these environmental offsets. I do not necessarily know why they would stipulate that it is costly, because if a person has a relatively large area of land, for argument sake, 10 hectares, and they are looking to clear a small area of native vegetation, say, 10 trees—obviously not significant trees, perhaps stringy-bark eucalypts or something similar which do not grow to the extent of the big blue gums or red gums—then there does not seem to be any set model. The member for Hammond raised this point in his contribution; that is, the property owner has to plant, say, 50 trees (5:1), 100 trees or 200 trees somewhere else on the property.

One of my constituents unlawfully cut down some native vegetation, was fined and so on. They did not have any issue with paying the fine because they allege that they were given some incorrect information. However, some officers from the department and other associated agencies attended at their property and said, 'Well, you cannot do this, you cannot do that and you cannot do something else; and you have to establish the offset on a particular part of your property.' My constituent did not agree with that. We arranged an on site meeting with the head of that section of the department. I cannot remember the gentleman's name or the actual department, but I have his card at my electorate office.

However, it was a productive meeting because the constituent and his wife went out into the paddock and said, 'This is where we would like to plant the offset, the trees to replace the few we cut down.' The head of the department and the officer from an associated agency agreed to it, saying it was fine and that they could not see any problem. There had to be a management plan put in place to keep down weeds and other grasses so that the trees could become established and would be viable, so there was a maintenance program put in place for the viable establishment of the offset.

However, it comes to a point where the correspondence being received by constituents states that it is costly, and it therefore also gives the impression that it is a relatively complex and complicated process that the landowners have to go through—and it is, because they have to make an application and so on in relation to all these issues. I am guessing (although I may well be wrong) that that acts as a deterrent. The landowners think it is all too hard so they won't look to take down those trees; they are getting told that it is too costly and too complicated, so they will just not bother.

I am not convinced that is the right and correct way to go about administering the affairs of the state. Obviously, there are clear reasons why deterrents have to be put in place—that is, to protect the safety and lives of human beings—but I am not sure that that ideology should be applied to clearance of native vegetation, and I raise that as an issue.

Another one of the points I want to make is why do they say it is costly? I guess it is costly if they have to go and establish it somewhere else, and there is the cost of growing or purchasing the actual vegetation or trees themselves, or whatever it is to be replaced in the offset.

I am working on an issue at the moment where a constituent has bought a normal 800 or 900 square metre residential block in a residential area. There are six eucalypt trees right on the front boundary, and that person applied to the Native Vegetation Council to remove those trees but the application was denied. The constituent has engaged a professionally-qualified arborist who has said (and I have read the report) that the trees are diseased, that they are in a bad state and are potentially unstable in terms of their structures, and who has recommended their removal. They are right on the boundary of the property next to the footpath, and I personally think they pose a risk to the public—either people walking along that footpath or vehicular traffic travelling along the road.

We are working through that particular issue, but it contrasts with another point I want to raise—that is, the inconsistency of decisions of the Native Vegetation Council in assessment of applications to clear native vegetation. This owner of a residential block wants to remove six rather scrawny trees. I have looked at these trees. I have not just taken the word of the constituent on these important issues. I like to go out and view the situation myself. I have called around to the block and had a look at it, and I can tell you that they are pretty straggly and poor specimens of eucalypts.

We have a situation where a resident wants to take out these trees and is more than prepared to plant a patch of native vegetation on that block, that is, up along the rear of the property. He does not really mind how many trees have to go in, whether it is six or 60. That is probably getting a bit carried away, but he does not mind at all replacing those trees somewhere else on this block in relation to the position of his home. He has engineering reports for footings and the like and, if he changes the location of the actual dwelling, it will cost him a significant amount of money.

Compare the following situations: the Native Vegetation Council says that those six diseased, straggly trees cannot be taken down but it has given approval to take down, from memory, about a dozen quite healthy, majestic gum trees in order to put in a roundabout to cater for increased traffic flow through a new residential development that is going into that town. There are some real inconsistencies in the approach to the assessment of applications and in the clearance of native vegetation. Also, there is no real set model—it is all quite subjective—in relation to the ratio for the replacement of the native vegetation that is removed in establishing these offsets. I wonder if the minister, in his contribution, can shed some light on that.

Members, particularly on this side of the house, have broadened the debate in relation to the issues of fire safety and fire risk. I, with a number of my colleagues on this side of the house and also on the government side, represent an area of the state which is, as the member for Davenport aptly stated, one of the highest fire risk regions in the world. We have seen enormously devastating fires in California, and I just hope and pray that we do not ever again experience a similar situation to the 1983 fires and what has been experienced in California in the last couple of weeks.

I commend the government—and it is not often that I do—for the way that it has conducted cold burns in what it refers to as a 'mosaic' manner. A patch is burned in a particular park on SA Water owned land, or whatever the agency may be, and then a patch is burned in another area so that a mosaic effect is created. If a fire comes along, it comes into the area that has been burned. I certainly encourage the government and the agencies, which have responsibility to carry out that work, to continue, enhance and accelerate that work.

We know that we are currently in an extremely high fire danger season. The Adelaide Hills are drying off extremely quickly. You only have to drive around the Hills region to see that farmers have cut paddocks, bailed hay and carted it away. Often, in years of average rainfall, with subsequent rain those paddocks have greened up again and the green feed has continued, but not to the point where they can cut again for hay, as they do in the UK, where they can sometimes cut as often as three times. However, this year, all those hay paddocks have dried off very quickly. This is just an illustration of how significant and severe is the fire risk season that is currently upon us.

To expand on those remarks, I am pleased that the government has made the decision to contract an air-crane style helicopter for this fire season. It had been Liberal Party policy for two or three years to have an air-crane—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The member for Mawson scoffs, but I remind him that two or three years ago I think there was a total of $13 million in the Community Emergency Services Fund, where the emergency services levy is held—and that was surplus. After the budgets for the MFS, SES, CFS and the emergency services agencies had been catered for, there was a surplus of $13.5 million. The Minister for Emergency Services in the other place (Hon. Carmel Zollo) refused that year, and it is only this year that she has agreed to contract an air-crane into South Australia. I am pleased—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I have heard the member for Mawson bang on about this before. You have to remember that we were recovering from a situation where your government bankrupted the state, so I would not spruik too much about your track record of managing the show. I would not be too keen to highlight the deficiencies of past Labor governments.

In relation to the management of public land, every day I come into the city I drive past the Anstey Hill Recreation Park, in the member for Newland's electorate. A very important piece of infrastructure in the park—the Anstey Hill water filtration plant—supplies a fair part of metropolitan Adelaide with filtered water. The noxious weeds and the growth in the park are a disgrace. The artichoke thistles are thick as thick, and the government—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The member for Mawson should not reflect on himself in his interjections.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: How pathetic! You've got to do better than that, mate.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mawson will come to order.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The park is thick with artichoke thistles. They slash a strip for emergency services on one side of the hill if a fire does get into the park. Every summer, it is a hot spot for fire bugs, and there is a fire there pretty well every year. I would have thought that, particularly in view of that vitally important piece of infrastructure—the water filtration plant perched on top of the hill—the government would undertake more work to reduce the fire risk and the noxious weeds in that area under its responsibility. Like other members on this side of the house, I, too, am pleased to support this legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Williams.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT