HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIVE VEGETATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1083.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:36): Before lunch, I mentioned that when the member for Davenport was minister way back in, I think, 2001 he brought to the parliament a bill to amend the Native Vegetation Act. I talked about how one of the major clauses in this bill indeed reflects what was in the member for Davenport's bill. I want to speak at least briefly about this because, as I have said, I had the good fortune to be involved in extensive negotiations with the then officers of the department and my colleagues in the then government on significant changes to the Native Vegetation Act.

One of the things that I have personally championed is not just conserving native vegetation in this state but, indeed, increasing the amount of native vegetation and increasing the footprint of native vegetation extensively in the state, particularly in the settled areas where most of the reduction in native vegetation and most of the loss of our biodiversity has occurred. I particularly champion that cause.

One of the key methods by which we can champion that cause is by offering people credits for replanting native vegetation or credits for other work which enhances existing stands of native vegetation or which continues to protect them, things as simple as fencing and getting rid of rabbits and foxes, but particularly replanting.

The reason that I championed this at the time was because I had many constituents who, at the time, were seeking permission to remove the odd red gum, Eucalyptus camaldulensis. This was for the development of vineyards in many of the areas in my electorate, not least in the Coonawarra. They were being obliged to provide offsets. But there were a number of constituents who had a fantastic record and history of planting native vegetation, not only planting native vegetation but planting blocks of native vegetation, and doing it correctly, by making sure that they had the right provenances of seed before they started the exercise and creating blocks on their farms.

The dilemma that they faced was that, when they went before the Native Vegetation Council to seek permission to remove, in some cases, only two or three—or maybe half a dozen—established red gums to allow them to develop a vineyard, there was no credit given to their application for the pre-existing work that those landholders had done.

The message that that sent to landholders across South Australia—and this message is still out there—was that, if you are of a mind to replant native vegetation on your farm for any reason, and you think that there may be a requirement for you at some time in the future to apply to remove some native vegetation, whether it be to establish a vineyard, convert an existing irrigation operation or establish an irrigation operation which would use, say, a centre pivot (where you would need a cleared area without trees, obviously), you would be unwise to go out and plant native vegetation before making your application to remove one or two (or a handful) trees for some future development on your property.

That is the message that is out there. Farmers talk and they have a deep suspicion of the administration of the Native Vegetation Act in this state, and it is common knowledge in South Australia that, if you were of the mind to plant some native vegetation on your farm, as I have on my farm, but if you thought you might need to apply to remove native vegetation in the future, you would wait until that time because the administration of the Native Vegetation Act—and it is the fault of the act, not the administration—does not allow you to carry credit forward, and that is one of the major changes we wanted to make to the act.

We also wanted those credits to be tradable so that, if one person established some native vegetation, they may be able to realise the value of that by selling their credit to another farmer. Even if I wanted to plant some native vegetation on my farm, I might be able to do that and offset the cost of doing that in the knowledge that, if one of my neighbours (or somebody else in the area, not necessarily an immediate neighbour) wanted to apply to remove a small number of trees and had to provide an offset, I may well be able to sell the credit that I had established.

The thought behind this was that we would put value on people re-establishing native vegetation in the farming areas across the state. As a practising farmer, it is my belief that the productivity of my farm will increase if I can re-establish at least 10 per cent of the total area of my farm to trees. Before I came into this place when I was farming full-time, I had a plan to do that. Some of it was in the form of commercial forestry; some of it was in the form of re-establishing native vegetation.

I think there is an opportunity here in South Australia with proper extension work done by both the Department for Environment and Heritage and the department for primary industries to encourage farmers across the state to re-establish large areas of native vegetation. We can do that in a strategic manner, but we will not do it unless we can show to those farmers that there is a value, a dollar benefit, to their doing that as well as an environmental benefit. There is a cost involved in re-establishing native vegetation and sometimes people are obliged to find offsets. So, that is what was behind large sections of the bill that was proposed in the early part of this century.

The government, in bringing this bill before the house, has picked up in a very small way those ideas. The portion of this bill which will allow out of region offsets is not about, I believe, picking up the idea of enhancing native vegetation across South Australia; unfortunately, the cynic in me says that it is about helping the mining industry. It is about allowing mining companies to apply to clear native vegetation in the north and far north of the state where it would be ridiculous to oblige them to provide an offset because, in many cases, there is plenty of the type of vegetation that they are clearing, and the net benefit of requiring them to provide an offset in that area would be minuscule.

However, giving them the opportunity to provide the offset in a different part of the state where there would be good environmental outcomes by increasing the amount of native vegetation planting, I think is a good idea. I think it is a great idea and I commend the government, but I think the government should look further at the issue that I have just raised and have a good think about the points that I have made, because it is my belief that we will only achieve the right thing by the environment in this state—and this is where I get back to my earlier point of what are we trying to achieve by this legislation—by ensuring that we get a significant increase in the footprint of native vegetation, particularly in the settled areas of South Australia. To my mind, there is a simple way of achieving that, and I have very briefly described it.

Since I was on my feet before the lunch break and before question time, the government has tabled the State of Our Environment report of the EPA into the environment of South Australia. I want to highlight a couple of matters in that report. Earlier, I was talking about the relationship between native vegetation and fauna—the whole gamut of biodiversity. There are a couple of points under 'Threatened Species' which I wish to make. I think this matter came up in question time when I asked the minister about the threatened species and the decline in biodiversity. He tried to qualify the report by saying that there has been an increase in the number of species listed, etc., but, in reality, the report states:

Recovery efforts have increased significantly across the state but remain less than are required to minimise the potential for species loss.

I think that is the nub. At this stage, despite the increase in the efforts being put in, they are still falling short of what is required to halt species loss in South Australia.

As mentioned earlier, a number of clauses in the bill serve to align this bill more closely with the NRM Act. I want to make a couple of comments about the administration of the NRM Act in South Australia. Recently, I have received many complaints from my constituents and from some outside my immediate area, as the shadow minister for the environment, about the lack of action by our NRM boards in administering their functions, particularly with regard to feral animals. Lo and behold! In the section 'Introduced Species', the report refers to the 'abundance of rabbits increasing'. It states that that is due to the lowering of the effectiveness of, principally, calicivirus. That is probably what has been causing it.

I think that, because of the early and dramatic success of calicivirus when it first got into the environment, this has allowed our NRM boards right across the state not to fulfil their function in that area; it is the same with invasive weeds. Therefore, I think there are some problems with the way the intent of the NRM Act is being administered by boards across the state. All is not well within that area.

The State of Our Environment report is quite damning about where we are going in South Australia. I would argue that we are not unique in South Australia; but it is quite damning. It was obvious to me before I picked it up, if not to everybody else. As the minister again pointed out in question time today it was obvious to me yesterday that I was able to comment that the report was about to be released and that its contents were obvious: that we are not doing enough, that we are way behind the eight ball. I remind the house of the comments I made earlier about what Dr Hugh Possingham said recently on a visit to Adelaide.

With regard to the comments I have just been making, particularly increasing the amount of native vegetation in our landscape, we have to understand that just under 20 per cent of the surface area of the state, excluding the pastoral lands, is utilised by humans for living (towns and urban areas) and farming. It is about only 20 per cent; I think the number is a bit under. That is the 20 per cent of the state upon which we have had the greatest impact, and I think it is the area of the state upon which we really need to concentrate to ensure that we can avoid further biodiversity loss.

I want to again mention a matter that the member for Davenport also raised with regard to clause 5 in the bill. The briefing that I had basically said that this clause more clearly defines and delineates the area in the Mitcham Hills where there is an issue with grey box. It is interesting that the information that the member for Davenport got from the Mitcham council seems to be at odds with the assurance that he and I were given that the new definition does not expand that area and I have a concern about what is going on there—about who is right and who is wrong, in fact, with regard to that.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: We're both wrong? So, the council is wrong and the officers are wrong.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: They're both right.

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister may explain. He says they are both right. I find it hard to believe that they could both be right when they are saying different things, but the minister may well explain that. The bill is relatively uncontroversial. It is almost what I would refer to as a 'rats and mice' matter. It tidies up a number of things.

I do not have any concerns. I certainly support the out-of-region offsets, as I said a few moments ago. My colleague the member for Stuart has tabled some amendments that he is proposing for the consideration of the house. The member for Stuart was unavailable for me to talk to about his amendments last week and, therefore, the Liberal Party has not at this stage formed an official opinion on his amendments, so we are going to reserve our rights on those amendments in the upper house.

The member will speak to them shortly. I will be just as interested as everybody else in that part of the debate, and we will obviously consider that in our party room before this matter is debated in the other place. Having said that, I indicate that the opposition is quite happy to support the bill. We believe that the measures in the bill are sensible.

We wish it speed through the parliamentary process and for the implementation of those measures but lament the fact that the Native Vegetation Act is still in need of severe amendment—certainly I believe so and I think the Liberal Party believes so, as was demonstrated some years ago when we were in government—so that we can actually get onside the people who have the potential to have the greatest impact on native vegetation in this state and get them helping with the function of increasing the amount of native vegetation in our landscape.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (16:53): I thank all members for their contributions during the debate and their support for the bill. I indicate that, as I have said before, the amendments sought by the bill are relatively minor but support the new directions that we are seeking to take in relation to native vegetation management that were announced by the government in 2007.

Just to remind members, the new directions aim to improve the overall relationship between native vegetation management, NRM management and development and make sure that they are properly integrated. As members have acknowledged, there have already been improvements to the way in which we are managing native vegetation as part of this reform. These have included:

a new Native Vegetation Council, which now focuses on strategic issues, while an expertise-based Native Vegetation Assessment Panel makes decisions on applications to clear native vegetation;

the appointment of Dennis Mutton as chair of the Native Vegetation Council in September 2007 to help improve the links between the NRM, given his complementary role as presiding member of the NRM Council; and

commencement of work in response to the planning review, which will deliver an approved approach to native vegetation through better up-front strategic planning with reference to mapping that identifies the extent and value of native vegetation.

As part of the reform process, the Native Vegetation Regulations will also be reviewed with a view to redrafting where this improves the ease with which they can be understood. With this in mind, I am sure that many of the issues raised by members have been addressed or are being addressed. Nevertheless, I invite members to forward specific details of cases—perhaps outside this chamber—so that we can consider them.

The bill before the house today follows on from consultation with a range of groups with an interest in how native vegetation is managed. Those consulted include: regional NRM boards, the Conservation Council of South Australia, the Local Government Association, the Native Vegetation Council, the NRM Council, the Pastoral Board, the Regional Communities Consultative Council, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, the South Australian Wine Industry Association, the SA Farmers' Federation and the SA Tourism Commission.

The member for Stuart has indicated his intention to seek some further amendments to the Native Vegetation Act dealing with the clearance of native vegetation associated with bushfire safety and clearance of native vegetation on pastoral lease lands. I indicate that the government will not be supporting those amendments, and perhaps I can just clarify. I think that the member for Stuart has earlier moved these amendments in his own bill. The proposed amendments seek to remove 'burning' as a definition of clearance and to remove the planned approach to clearance of native vegetation associated with achieving bushfire safety.

By including 'burning' as 'clearance', the Native Vegetation Act and the regulations provide a planned framework for the establishment of fire protection works on a region or property whilst balancing the needs of fire protection and biodiversity conservation. Exclusion of 'burning' from the definition of 'clearance', as proposed by the member for Stuart, would allow the potential for the deliberate use of fires as a means of achieving broadscale clearance. Furthermore, I believe that the member for Stuart's proposed amendments have the potential to lead to a piecemeal versus a planned approach to regional fire protection. The clearance of native vegetation, including clearance through burning, is controlled by the Native Vegetation Act and regulations.

In response to a question asked by the member for Davenport, the Native Vegetation Act takes precedence over the Fire and Emergency Services Act, but subject to several exemptions provided by the Native Vegetation Regulations to provide for necessary fire safety measures to protect life and property. The regulations currently allow for the clearance of native vegetation without the need to seek approval for a range of fire risk management works. These include clearing around houses and associated buildings, the establishment of fuel breaks, clearance for access tracks, fuel reduction burning (including cool burns) and other works involved in the clearance of native vegetation in accordance with endorsed district bushfire prevention plans.

These provisions permit actions to protect life and property while ensuring that unnecessary clearance of native vegetation is avoided. Furthermore, in the event of fire, an officer of the South Australian CFS, or other member of the SA CFS, may take any action that appears to be necessary to protect life, health or safety of any person or animal, or protecting property. With respect to the emphasis on a planned approach to bushfire safety measures, the member for Stuart has stressed the need for quick and local decision making in relation to fire safety. I do not disagree with that need, just the approach the member for Stuart is proposing.

I say, again: the bushfire safety measures should be adequately planned, but decisions should be expedited. To facilitate this, the Native Vegetation Council has established a fire subcommittee, with membership from the CFS, local government and the Native Vegetation Council with delegation to deal with all fire issues. That committee endeavours to deal with matters quickly, and, in many cases, will reach decisions out of session. However, in response to a recommendation of the Deputy Coroner arising out of the inquiry into the 2005 Eyre Peninsula bushfires, a bushfire code of practice is being developed relating to the management of native vegetation as it affects bushfire prevention.

As part of that code of practice, it is intended that most of the decision making regarding clearance of native vegetation for fire safety would be dealt with at a local level with a minimum of administrative process by regional CFS officers. I am sure that the member for Stuart will recognise that this approach is entirely consistent with the aim of his proposed amendments. Accordingly, the government will not support the member for Stuart's amendments relating to fire management.

The member for Stuart also raised some issues relating to the management of pastoral lease lands. I understand that his proposed amendments provide unrestricted clearance associated with grazing stock, constructing a dam or providing water points for stock on pastoral land, noting that the Native Vegetation Act defines 'pastoral land' as land subject to the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. The issue relates to proposals to expand grazing into previously ungrazed areas. In the case of the pastoral lands, areas remote from water are effectively not grazed by domestic stock and, as a result, these areas are important refuges for those native species that usually disappear from a grazed landscape. I understand that it is now practical to use 'poly pipe' relatively easily and cheaply to extend watering points into previously unwatered and therefore ungrazed country.

Such grazing is deemed clearance under the Native Vegetation Act and requires approval. The Native Vegetation Council has delegated responsibility for decision making on clearance by grazing to the Pastoral Board. The current regulations provide an exemption to clearing by grazing provided that the grazing regime is consistent with the previous 10 years and the species of stock is unchanged.

Clearance by grazing the pastoral lands is an important instrument in ensuring conservation of biodiversity in the pastoral lands and, accordingly, the government will not support the member for Stuart's amendments relating to this area. The member for Stuart also proposes unrestricted clearance associated with re-establishing pastoral land for cropping purposes within 15 years. I am advised that no cropping is allowed on pastoral lands without the specific approval of the Pastoral Board, and in this context the intent of this amendment is unclear.

The member for Stuart's amendments would also allow for the clearance of native vegetation within local council areas with a surface area of 10,000 square metres when full. This is a very large dam—20 times the size of the current maximum size exempted by the native vegetation regulations. Provisions exist for the regulations to exempt dams up to 500 square metres when full in regions of the state approved by the Native Vegetation Council. I am advised that the Native Vegetation Council has yet to receive a formal proposal for identifying a region of the state where a larger dam site should be exempt. Accordingly, the government will not support the member for Stuart's amendments relating to dams.

I now turn to some of the issues relating specifically to bill raised by members during the debate. Firstly, I would like to clarify the intent of the bill in relation to the application of the act to parts of the City of Mitcham. Until amended in 2002, I am advised that the act applied to the whole of the City of Mitcham. The 2002 amendment redefined the coverage of the act to exclude the substantially built-up area of the City of Mitcham to the west of the hills face zone. However, there is some concern in the Mitchell Hills community that the way this is described in the legislation could leave some doubt as to actual area covered by the act. The act refers to the legislation applying to the 'east' of the hills face zone. Doubt may have occurred because there are a number of latitudinal reference points where the eastern boundary of the hills face zone has no unique reference point.

This relates to the question from the member for Davenport about Blackwood, Eden Hills and Bellevue Heights being covered by the Native Vegetation Act. The bill clarifies that the Native Vegetation Act does apply to those particular areas and clarifies the protection accorded to the grey box and other native vegetation. In answer to the question from the member for MacKillop about how can both be right, there is a difference of opinion about whether the current legislation does in fact cover these areas, depending on your view as to its interpretation.

I think the department's view is that it is not necessary, that it is already is covered. The council's view is that it is concerned about that and it is worried about the doubt, and it takes a different view. One holds the view that it does protect this area and the other holds the view that it does not. This legislation is there to avoid doubt. I think what is common ground is that it should protect these areas, and so that is why we are legislating.

The member for Davenport has asked: how does the significant tree legislation impact on the Native Vegetation Act? I am happy to organise a briefing for the member for Davenport (as he suggested) while the bill is between houses. The member for Hammond has asked how an offset is determined. A significant environmental benefit offset may be achieved by on-ground action or by a payment into the native vegetation fund. That money must be used by the Native Vegetation Council to achieve a significant environmental benefit offset.

The level of offset is determined by the Native Vegetation Council in accordance with established policies and may range from 1:1—for native vegetation that may be disturbed, say, for the installation of a pipeline which recovers very quickly—to 10:1 depending on the significance of the native vegetation to be cleared, and that is a matter determined by policy through that process.

As the member for Napier indicated, the Native Vegetation Council is reviewing its current policy with the aim of providing a greater level of consistency and confidence that a significant environmental benefit outcome will be achieved. Guidelines for determining significant environmental benefit offsets in relation to clearance for mining operations, or clearance of scattered trees, have been developed by the Native Vegetation Council following a consultation process prescribed under section 25 of the act. These guidelines are published on the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation website and are also available in hard copy upon request.

The member for Flinders also raised the issue of crediting past conservation works undertaken by a landholder as part of a significant environmental benefit offset and I can advise that, for some time, the Native Vegetation Council, as a matter of policy, supported this concept. As you will see, the bill provides for more formal recognition to credit conservation works over and above required offsets.

In summary, the state government has put in place a number of initiatives aimed at protecting our biodiversity. These include the no species loss target, marine parks and climate change legislation and better integrated NRM planning. In this context, this bill is just a further part of the comprehensive approach that we are taking to secure a prosperous and environmentally sustainable future.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 3 after line 6—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) Section 3(1), definition of clearance, (d)—delete paragraph.

This is a very simple amendment to delete paragraph (d). It is put forward following a great deal of discussion with none other than the director of the Country Fire Service, who clearly indicated—as the minister would know—that this was an impediment to proper fire control and hazard reduction.

It is a very simple proposition and I say to the minister that I actually know what I am talking about. There are a lot of things that I do not know and, if the minister does not agree, he and his colleagues are going to have to accept the responsibility. You have been warned and it will come back to bite you harder than anything you have ever experienced, because if burning native vegetation cleared it there would be none left in South Australia. There is no native vegetation, Mallee or eucalypt, that has not been burnt. None would be there. You can go and have a look and I have had some experience of this in a previous life. It is a very simple amendment and it is in the interests of the people of South Australia, so that people can sensibly hazard reduce.

I do not know if the minister has ever been in a situation where he has had to attempt to control a very large Mallee fire. I do not know whether he or his advisers have ever been in that position. Every time that I drive home to my farm, I drive past a monument to a person who was burnt—and it is a pretty chilling experience—and other people who nearly lost their lives. We all know what happened on Kangaroo Island. The member for Schubert and myself went down and looked first-hand at what happened at Wanilla. The next member for Flinders will be able to explain chapter and verse better than me; he lost a shearing shed in that fire, so he will know first-hand what happens.

This house has the opportunity to take some sensible measures. We know what has happened around Australia and we know what happens to ministers when they continue to back bureaucracy at the expense of common sense. We know what is happening in New South Wales and in Tasmania, where they are falling over about one a month. Ministers are falling over about one a month. So, you can vote me out and, as usual, the bureaucracy will win, but I put it on the record clearly and precisely so that everyone is aware and everyone knows that you have had a chance to do something about it.

You can accept what I have had to say, you can accept the concerns put forward by the director of the Country Fire Service, and others, or you can accept other advice. It is in your hands. You have the numbers. I believe I have right on my side. I have given the warnings to this house and all those concerned.

I have seen first-hand the danger of what happens. I know what is going to happen. There are huge areas of native vegetation that is going to go up; we know that. The average farmer does not want that to happen. It is a great inconvenience and a great cost. Here is the chance. So, I say to you: just consider the implications of what has happened and the reasons that have been put forward. They have been put forward in the interests of protecting the people of South Australia, not in the interests of clearing native vegetation. They are put forward as a hazard reduction fire containment and control measure: nothing else.

Finally, for many years a lot of us used to burn areas of native vegetation so that we would not get burnt out. We are now not allowed to do that. If you were alongside 10,000 hectares of native vegetation or more, as some are, you would appreciate that. When you have these thunderstorms going through in the middle of the night and you see smoke, and nothing has been done, it is a pretty chilling experience.

It will not be your family, minister, who is going to be out there, but for some of us it will be our families and our neighbours who will have to try to deal with this. We feel very strongly on this. I say to you, to this house and to those around you that, when it happens, and if some of these sensible provisions that we have spoken about are not put into effect, then it is all on the public record and someone will be held responsible.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The first thing to say about the member for Stuart's warnings is that they have been taken seriously. The member for Stuart has promoted these amendments before. This issue has been the topic of debate before and there has been a response to it. Mr Ferguson, who appeared before one of the parliamentary committees expressing his concern about the way in which native vegetation legislation was being administered and the terms of it, was heard, as was the member for Stuart, and there was a response. The response includes the matters that I referred to earlier.

Mr Ferguson then gave evidence to a further, subsequent, later committee of the parliament and said that he was satisfied with the changes that had been put in place. The warnings have been made, they have been heard, responses have been made and the head of the CFS has told us that he is satisfied with those responses.

We oppose this amendment for a number of reasons, not least because it actually does not achieve what it intends to achieve. Simply by seeking to remove 'burning' from the definition of 'clearance' would not save other consequences of burning from becoming clearance for the purposes of the act. It would not be effective to achieve the result of your being able to burn and have the effect of destroying and removing native vegetation, or substantially damaging native vegetation, it would still bring it within the terms of the Native Vegetation Act, so it would be ineffective.

The second problem that we have with it is that, assuming that it is effective to achieve the end that the member for Stuart seeks—that is, that burning is not touched by the Native Vegetation Act—that would actually mean that burning would be carried out in an unplanned way whereas, at the moment, it is being planned through the CFS at the local level. That is precisely the way it ought to happen; not in a bureaucratic way, but using local knowledge in a way that the member for Stuart urges upon us, not willy-nilly. If one suggests that things need to happen urgently in a dangerous situation, that is already catered for. Actions can be taken quickly where life and limb are in peril.

Mr VENNING: I support the member for Stuart, as I have always done in every previous incidence in this place. It is not the first time that we have raised incidences like these. As the member for Stuart has said, I am a country person, as is the member for Hammond. It is all very well for us to sit in judgment of people in this place. I just ask: can you be there at the fire front when the fire is racing down the hill towards homes, putting lives at stake? We cannot do enough, because sometimes we just cannot control these fires. The only way we can control them is to find a clearance where we can burn back against the fire. I have had experience in that. I have lit many fires, and it has usually been burning back against clearances, roads, etc.

When you go to a fire today, you cannot do that so much, because there are wild oats and other things two metres high on the break. If you light that, it will go straight across the break and across the other side, and then you can be sued because you lit the fire. So, we have to be very careful nowadays when we light a fire to provide a break in order to put a fire out.

I will give you one instance of that happening. A fire was heading down towards the town of Georgetown some years ago. Nothing could stop the fire. There was a gentleman up there who was an untrained vet, a Mr Frank Landers. He lived in Gladstone, and he was an expert. He was a fire control officer. He said, 'Come on, Ivan, we've got a job to do.' We went down the hill to a track between the fire and the town—a track across the front of the hill, across the face of the fire. It was bare enough, so we took two small fire units with us. I had a firelighter in my hand and he had one. We stood about 200 metres apart. He said, 'When I drop my hand, you light and run the other way.'

This fire was roaring and, sure as eggs, we lit about 400 or 500 metres of fire right across the side of the hill. I thought that it would go back down the hill towards the town, but it did not. The man was an expert. The fire went back towards the oncoming fire, because it was creating its own draught, and it went the other way. The two units that we had with us just mopped up behind us and the fire was put out. Two people and two small farm units put the fire out.

That is an indication of the expertise of fire control officers who have good local knowledge. You have to have a clearance that you can light a fire against so that you do not create more problems than you are trying to solve. I am happy to name that person, because I think he has now passed on. I will never forget that. The honourable member said that we went over and had a look at the Wangary fires. You can see where they eventually put the fire out: it was against a road that had been cleared.

There was another bad fire south of Redhill last year. I went down to inspect it. When you see the roadside down there (these are back roads) with two metre high growth right up against the road—in fact, in the middle of the road, because it is only a track—how are you supposed to put out a fire? You are not legally allowed to go in and slash the side of the road, because of the native vegetation there. So, it is a nonsense.

People need to give a little more thought to what is being said here because, do not forget that the shadow minister, the member for MacKillop, lost family friends in a fire. I am pleased that he is not here to hear this. People need to understand and remember what happened. We need to get out our history books, read about what happened on that day and who lost their lives.

I was five years old when we lost everything, except for the house that we lived in, to a fire. When a fire is really going, there is little you can do to stop it. You cannot throw water on it because it creates its own galeforce winds. When you see a fire at full pelt, the fire has really started 200 or 300 metres in front of the fire. The only way to do it is to put another fire out there against a break and that way you can control them, and we have some very good experts out there. We need to be able to help the CFS in relation to matters like this, not put these crazy impediments in their way.

I like native vegetation. My wife and I have planted lots of it along our creek lines, and I invite members to come and have a look if they do not believe me; I am happy to show you. However, on critical roads, particularly north-south roads across the fire lines where we know there is a hazard, particularly train lines and main roads, you need to be able to control the fire hazard. We will lose lives this summer. I was told only yesterday how bad it is in the Adelaide Hills this year. We will have some disasters because we live in the driest state in the driest country in the world. We and California have arguably the worst fires in the world and we lose loved ones.

In this instance, I back the member for Stuart absolutely. This is not sensation: this is purely common sense to give the local people the capacity to provide clearances where they see that it can save lives. We are not taking out all the undergrowth. We want to be able to go in there with a slasher, and I have done it before, I am guilty under the old rules. I still slash wherever possible and that can be dangerous, too, at this time of year. You do not do that because you can light a fire very easily. Yes, I bowl over the occasional native tree, although only little ones that have just come up because you have to get them too, and I have also cold burned. I did not do it this year—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: No more admissions. As your attorney, I would advise you to make no more admissions.

Mr VENNING: It does not matter because my record is very good. People see it. I ring up the local fire authority and say, 'I am going to do a bit of cold burning tonight.' He said, 'Do it after six and when I see the smoke up, nobody will be concerned,' and they never were. I have a pretty good fire going some nights, but you can have a nice, easy summer knowing that on the northern side of our home, if a fire approaches, you have about a 200-metre break where at least nothing is growing between the trees. The trees are still there and they are natives. My wife is a native nut; she is into everything native in the garden, but between them there is no growth and sometimes the only way to get rid of that growth is to burn it. If you do it early enough, it will not burn all of it. If it takes out 75 per cent, it will get rid of the flammable material. I support the member for Stuart.

I pay tribute to the member for Stuart. We will miss him when he is not here. Who will take up the challenge when he is not here? I will forever remember what a strong campaign he has taken for these people, and that is probably the reason why after all these years he is still here. So, I urge all members to consider the representation that the member for Stuart has given his people and the issues he takes on, because he sticks his neck out whether or not people love him for it, and that is why he is still here. We will certainly miss him. I support the member for Stuart's amendment.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I am disappointed with the minister's answer. He wants to dispute what I say but you cannot dispute what is right for the people of South Australia—that is, you cannot dispute. The minister can talk about the local CFS but people who are going to have to do the hazard reductions are the landholders, just remember that. Most of the people in the local CFS have never had any experience in burning off. It is harder to get volunteers—fewer people want to do this work.

The average farmer still burns stubble and grass, and they have had some experience. Prior to these laws coming into this place, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon at the right time of year when it was cold, you would walk along with a box of matches or with a firelighter along the edge of the scrub against the wind and let it burn back 50 metres, and that way you protect yourself. They have done that all their lives but they cannot do that now.

But as sure as we are in this building, all our scrub is going to go up and, as I said earlier, although the minister never responded to it, if you have a lightning strike—and there have already been fires—it will go up. What happens? Go to Kangaroo Island—it cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, but that is okay because the bureaucrats have got their own way. You go to Wanilla—millions of dollars spent and lives lost. You will see it happen again because it is going to happen but, if you let the local landholders use a bit of common sense, you will not have that problem.

You can win today, but you ought to be aware that the winds of change are blowing. Common sense will apply in Western Australia. You read the country newspapers over there, where these mad people in the department were attacking farmers. That is why you got those five people—and they are after them now—who decided who would be in government. See what happens now when they put a finger on a farmer. I know what will happen, because I know some of them. Read Western Australian country newspapers, which I am pleased to get each week.

I have stated my case; I know what the facts are. I know I am right—it is not often I say that. Mark my words, when a fire starts and someone is injured and those people are being prevented, someone is going to wear it. You have had inquiries and reports, but at the end of the day, you do not want to see the fires contained and controlled. The other week I was watching on the television what is happening in California—it is absolutely appalling.

Why not take a few sensible amendments which are designed to help? I bet I get the same sort of answer. I say to you: I wish it was you and your colleagues who are going to be out there trying to do something about it. As I said in my second reading speech, I saw what happened at Wilmington and the work those people did, and I have seen the others around the state. I know what has happened, and we all know what is going to happen.

When you fly over Eyre Peninsula and places like that and when you fly over the North, have a look out of the window and you will see the huge banks of scrub through Pinkawillinie Conservation Reserve; they will all go up again because nothing has been done. I rest my case. We have not finished with this. You are going to have to fight this out in the other house, let me tell you, and fight it out we will.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 14 passed.

New clause 14A.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 6, after line 17—

After clause 14 insert:

14A—Amendment of section 27—Clearance of native vegetation

(1) Section 27(1)—after paragraph (b) insert:

(c) native vegetation may, subject to subsection (5)(c), be cleared without any other restriction under this act if the clearance falls within the ambit of subsection (4a).

(2) Section 27—after subsection (4) insert:

(4a) The clearance of native vegetation falls within the ambit of this subsection if—

(a) the clearance occurs on pastoral land and is for the purposes of grazing stock, constructing a dam or providing watering points for stock; or

(b) the clearance occurs on pastoral land and is for the purpose of re-establishing land for cropping purposes after a break not exceeding 15 years; or

(c) the clearance—

(i) occurs on land situated within the area of a rural council; and

(ii) is undertaken—

(A) by the rural council in whose area the clearance occurs; or

(B) in accordance with the written approval granted by the rural council in whose area the clearance occurs for the purposes of this paragraph; and

(iii) is reasonably required for fire control purposes and involves—

(A) the construction of fire breaks not exceeding 20 metres in width: or

(B) the construction of vehicular tracks not exceeding 15 metres in width to enable or aid access to particular areas; or

(C) the clearance of vegetation within an area not exceeding 100 hectares through the process commonly known as a cold burn; or

(D) the reduction of the fuel load on land,

and, in the case of the clearance of a kind contemplated by subparagraph (iii)(C) or (D), occurs between 1 March and 31 October in any year; or

(d) the clearance occurs on land situated within the area of a local council and is for the purpose of constructing a dam the water surface area of which does not exceed 10,000 square metres.

(3) Section 27(5)—after paragraph (b) insert:

(c) under subsection (1)(c) unless the minister has given his or her consent to the clearance.

(4) Section 27—after subsection (6) insert:

(7) In this section—

fire control purposes—these are purposes associated with preventing or controlling the spread of fires or potential fires;

rural council has the same meaning as the Foreign Emergency Services Act 2005.

Contrary to what the minister said, this amendment is designed to allow people some sensible latitude in a number of areas. The first is in relation to pastoral lands. What the minister said about extending grazing is not correct. The fact is that pastoralists have a limit on the number of stock that they can graze on their lease. It has always been the purpose. This amendment allows people, if they want to, to put in extra watering points so that the stock do not have to walk as far and are not walking long distances cutting up the community.

If you know anything about the grazing industry—if you had any idea at all—you would realise that this is a conservation measure. Stock will walk a considerable distance to water. Instead of having in the corner four troughs all at the one point you can spread them out.

That was not the case until the government reinterpreted the regulations. The bureaucrats got their way. The previous government would never have agreed to it, and it will not happen in the future. It is going to change, and it is an absolute nonsense of the highest order to say that this is going to be damaging.

Let's go to the next point in relation to dams. The department has itself to blame; it has got the dam in. On Kangaroo Island the NRM parliamentary committee went to look at the site where that particular person wanted to put his dam and then, when he was given permission (after Mr Mutton intervened), those inspectors—those people who do not tell the truth—were going out there to harass him again.

I am looking forward to going to Kangaroo Island, and I will endeavour to visit and we will call that person in and ask him to give evidence. I want to know what role Craig Whisson had to play. I refer the minister to the comments about him by former speaker Lewis, because I know how he treated Helen Mahar out there at Coorabie. You can throw bouquets, but bouquets can be thrown back very easily.

In relation to these proposals, firebreaks and access tracks are absolutely essential. I say to the minister if he would like to do back-burning on a five-metre firebreak, I wish him well because he would probably have no one else to go in with him. I ask his advisers whether they have ever been asked to back-burn in the scrub. You cannot turn around. You cannot turn the truck around if the wind changes and gets you.

So I say, what you are doing is endangering the lives of people. I can give you an example of one night where they had to let go about 5,000 acres because the fire was burning in it and the only way they could do it was because there was a road alongside. The person lighting it has to follow trucks. You have to follow up close but you have to have some distance because the heat is too intense. If you are too close to where it is burning, the heat is too intense.

So the prime objective is to protect the people trying to contain the fire. That is the prime objective of anyone involved, and you need experienced people but you have to give them the tools of the trade. I am someone—and I think the only person probably left in this house—who has lit up a thousand acres of scrub in one go and not had a problem. I know exactly what I am talking about. There have been two or three generations of my family involved in agricultural development, and I actually know what I am talking about.

I know this from bitter experience. You have to be prepared. You have to understand what the wind is going to do. You have to light it at the right time of the afternoon when the wind is stabilised. You have to light it as quickly as possible so that you can get it under control quickly, but you have to have a decent break. You have to be able to move around it. If you put a firebreak in, you have to be able to get in there quick and people have to be able to get out.

I say to the minister that that is the purpose of these amendments that I have moved. They are purely in the interests of protecting firefighters and protecting the public. If the local council does not know what is right—they are elected people unlike the Native Vegetation Council who are appointed—and if they make a mistake, they will be removed.

This chamber has responsibility among other things to apply common sense and to make sure that the people of the state are protected, that the people of this state are not endangered by bureaucratic insensitivity, and those who are going to oppose this and are going to stop it are going to have to wear it. The minister is going to have another fight elsewhere over this matter and he has not put forward any alternative to what I have had to say. I put it to him that he is the minister and I expect him to have a better grasp of the situation than his predecessor. I pay the minister that compliment, because I tried to talk to his predecessor and, in my time in this place, I found it one of the most challenging enterprises I have encountered, and that is the nicest way I can put it.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It was a challenging enterprise. I feel strongly about these issues because I am concerned. I have seen it first-hand. I have been around for a few years. I know what will happen. I do not want to see that tremendous dislocation to the community—the cost, the danger—when we can take some sensible steps to prevent it and make it a little easier. At the end of the day, I will have a very clear conscience. I have a very clear conscience about what I am doing, but I intend to pursue this matter across the airwaves of this state, make no mistake about it. I intend on Friday to tell the people of the Upper North exactly what is happening and what can happen and give them a chance. We will make sure that the people of Frome understand clearly that the right to protect them is being denied. We will put it across the airwaves of the local TV, make no mistake about that. My colleagues will not forget, because the winds of political change are blowing.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am trying to avoid the provocation of the member for Stuart, which really amounts to suggesting that we have turned our backs on the health and safety of people in the country by simply not agreeing with his propositions. I must say that that is a pretty offensive suggestion. He can warn all he likes, but it does not change the fact that we have taken seriously the bushfire threat in relation to the way in which the Native Vegetation Act operates to make it more difficult or more complex than it should otherwise be to deal with that bushfire threat.

We have listened carefully to those matters and we have responded to them. No amount of fulminating by the member for Stuart about the fact that we will be blamed for any bushfire and that it will be sheeted at our feet will alter those basic facts. It is simply wrong to say that we do not have these matters firmly in the forefront of our mind. I might just add for those members paying any attention that this debate is happening on the very day when we are being criticised by the shadow minister for the environment for an increase in the number of rare and endangered species and threats to our native flora and fauna over the last five years, and much was made of that.

There is an important connection between protecting native vegetation, the habitat for these native plants and wildlife and the relative health of those various species. It is quite bizarre to come in here and be criticised by the member for Stuart for trying to adopt a balanced approach in relation to native vegetation, but also, in the same chamber on the same day, being criticised by the shadow minister for the environment for apparently not taking steps to protect native plants and wildlife which use the very same native vegetation for their habitat. So, there is a massive inconsistency all within the space of one day, but we have come to understand and expect that.

Really, the amendments of the member for Stuart come down to the fact that they are all relatively sensible ideas that can occur at the moment under the existing legislation; it is just that it must happen in a planned way. All these things can be achieved. You can have firebreaks of the distance sought by the member for Stuart, and you can have farm dams of the size sought by the member for Stuart. All these things can be achieved. You can also have separate watering points, as suggested by the member for Stuart. In fact, there may be cases where it is desirable to have a separate watering point if that will reduce the burden on the particular area in question, but it will also bring in stock to an area which potentially has not been grazed before and that will affect the native vegetation in that area.

From a balanced assessment, one may reach the conclusion that that is a sensible thing to do but, nevertheless, it needs a planned approach. What you are suggesting by these amendments is that all these things can occur as of right by a decision of the landholder without any further reference to any body which will attempt to scrutinise that decision. Consequently, we will not know what effect this is having on native vegetation. We simply will not have that information because it will not fall within the scope of actions which are required to be authorised.

All we are suggesting is for a planned approach to occur. It ought to be the subject of local planning. We are trying to make that as simple as possible. There should be no barrier to people taking the steps necessary to protect their property and their families' safety. One can go no further than the chief of the CFS. He was asked whether the changes to the Native Vegetation Act were satisfactory and whether they addressed the concerns he had told the parliamentary committee about earlier, and he said that they had. I rely upon the head of the CFS and his assessment of these matters. It is unfortunate that the member for Stuart is seeking to introduce these matters in a political way and seeking to make them the subject of the debate in the by-election, but I am more than happy to debate him anywhere at any time on these issues.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It is interesting that the minister discussed the need to ensure that native vegetation was available for various species, because the Aboriginal communities, for that very purpose, used to fire very large sections of the country to force regeneration so that the native animals could have fresh grazing. That was a part of their lifestyle. It does not hurt native vegetation to cold burn it. I can tell you, as I pointed out earlier, there would be no native vegetation left in South Australia if burning destroyed it because it has all been burnt in the past.

The unfortunate thing is that large sections will burn again because, over the past 15 years or so, hazard reduction programs have not been put in place. People used to burn it prior to that. It is now going up with bigger areas, with more intensity, unfortunately, so it will happen. I have stated my case. I have done it with a clear conscience. The minister can get cross with me. I am used to ministers getting cross with me. I have had ministers on both sides of politics get cross with me on many occasions and I will wear that. I must have done something right, I have come back here 12 times.

They have got very cross with me and jumped up and down, but that is okay. All I have tried to do is to apply some common sense and have fewer bureaucracies so that people perform these sensible preventative measures without hindrance or without being harassed. At the end of the day, my only concern is the protection of the public of South Australia against the ravages of wildfires and bushfires. If I have upset people, that is not my intention: my intention is to use some common sense. I will continue to fight these issues as long as I am in this place and I look forward to my colleagues doing something about them.

Mr WILLIAMS: I think the minister's advice overlooks exactly what happens on pastoral leases. My colleague the member for Stuart did make the point that the amount of livestock that a pastoralist can run on their lease is determined by the lease and it is monitored. What we have in a lot of the pastoral area is the invasion by woody weeds into grazing areas, and that has occurred principally from overgrazing. Overgrazing occurs because a pastoralist is forced to hold his livestock on a particular section of the lease and not enable them to cover the whole of the lease.

The landscape of Australia and the native species growing here are used to being grazed. Part of their life cycle is being grazed, and that is why sheep and cattle are successfully grazed, raised, grown and fattened to produce meat and fibre in that landscape, but what the member for Stuart is trying to do is to make that system more efficient so that the grazing impact will be less, not more.

I suspect that there are people within the minister's department who do not understand that, and I suspect that there are possibly people in his department who would like to see the pastoral industry closed down, and I suspect that is why the minister gets the advice that he does. I do not expect the minister to change his mind overnight, but I would ask him at some time—hopefully sooner rather than later—to go out and talk to some of the pastoralists about this and get a decent understanding of what the member for Stuart's intention is here. His intent is not to increase the net grazing pressure. His intent is to be able to spread that so the impact is lessened. That is a very important point, and I think it is a sound point that the member for Stuart makes in that amendment.

I will talk a little about fire and in the second reading I alluded to the fires in the Ngarkat Conservation Park. Just before the last election in 2006, the member for Hammond and I attended a number of meetings. We attended a meeting at a farmer's property with a number of farmers and we attended a public meeting a little while later at Lameroo, I think it was. I was absolutely amazed that a CFS officer, who was in the control centre—and I think I am right in saying that he was actually the senior CFS officer at the time and was probably responsible for the effort to control that fire—when asked why permission was not given to allow back-burning, made a statement that officers of the minister's department, who were in the control room, intimated that permission to back-burn had to come from the minister, that it would take a couple of hours to get that permission and that it would be pointless, because there was a wind change due and there was a small window of opportunity.

Because that CFS officer accepted that advice, the permission to back-burn was not given. As a direct result of that, a considerable amount of private property was lost. More importantly—and this is one of the things that annoys me—generally, when a fire occurs in a national park, we receive a statement from the minister's department saying, 'We've done a good job because no property was lost.' Why do we have national parks? I think that they are property and I think they are valuable, so I do not think that we should differentiate between fire damage caused inside a park or outside a park. If it is inside a park it is probably more devastating, or—depending exactly when the fire is—possibly more devastating than it is outside the park, in certain circumstances. Notwithstanding that, officers of the minister's department, I believe, deliberately misled that particular fire control officer, or person who was responsible for the control effort of that fire in that situation.

As a result of that, significant private loss was incurred. As the member for Hammond pointed out, the loss of fencing still has not been compensated for by the government. Just as importantly, if not more importantly, it caused incredible loss within that park. Whereas a well organised back-burn effort would have resulted in a much cooler fire and potentially the considerable saving of both flora and fauna in that park.

I think, minister, that you are possibly receiving advice from some people who have a particular attitude towards fires, particularly within our parks system, which does not necessarily reflect the absolute best way of managing those parks.

The member for Stuart makes some very sound points in the amendments that he has put before the house about how we can and should be doing more to lessen the impact of fire in our national parks. I think that we should be thinking about the impact of fire within our parks. What always comes out of the department is, 'The fire was contained within the park. It didn't cause any loss of private property.' The point is that it is causing great damage within the parks. We, I believe, to this point in time have failed to protect our parks from fire.

One of the ways that we will protect our parks from fire is to make sure that we have a good workable relationship with the CFS and the farming community because, by and large, when a fire breaks out in a park they are the only people who are going to go in there and try to put it out. If we do not have a good relationship between the management of the park and the CFS and the local farming community (generally the same people), if that relationship continues to break down, the parks will not survive, and I think that is the wrong way to go.

The amendments that the member for Stuart is putting forward are, I think, very sensible and at the end of the day would see us have a much better control of fires, particularly wildfires, in our parks system.

Again, minister, I would ask you to go out and speak with some of the farming communities. If you speak with some of the farmers on the northern edge of the Ngarkat Park (the member for Hammond's electorate), if you speak with some of the farmers who were impacted and who were down fighting the fire on Kangaroo Island, if you speak with some of the farmers near Wanilla and around Port Lincoln, then I think you will get an understanding of what their expectations are of the Native Vegetation Act and how it could be improved to give them a better opportunity to save our national parks.

New clause negatived.

Remaining clauses (15 to 21), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time and passed.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.W. Weatherill]


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