HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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.

(Continued from 29 October 2008. Page 656.)

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:17): I indicate that I am not the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill but I will make my contribution now on this matter, as the member for MacKillop, who is the lead speaker for the opposition, is currently doing a radio interview.

This issue has been brought to the house over many years but this bill is largely to tidy up the Native Vegetation Act 1991 and, in most instances, to align it with the Natural Resources Management Act, which we passed in this house. I refer, for instance, to clause 14, which changes expiation penalties to bring them into line with the NRM Act—and we have no problem with that. This will be in accordance with guidelines established by the Native Vegetation Council in the case where an offset exceeds that required to provide significant environmental benefit. The Native Vegetation Council may credit the applicant with this excess which may be used in subsequent applications.

Several sections are deleted; sections 9 and 10 are gone altogether. Those matters are now covered under the Public Sector Management Act. The membership of the council now has one person with knowledge of planning and development nominated by the minister in lieu of the member nominated by the commonwealth minister. I think the bill is not contentious generally, although I know the member for Stuart will propose some amendments—and I will be supporting him—particularly in relation to cool burns in that period between March and November. We know the world over that cool burns now are a management tool that the forest organisations themselves are using to minimise the danger of losing the forest in hot periods. The situation we are facing in the Adelaide Hills, as the member for Finniss raised with me this morning, is now critical this summer. A bill such as this should be amended to enable cool burns, particularly of more than 100 acres at a time, as long as we do not remove the capacity of people to control burn on the right day in that period, without having a heap of bureaucratic nonsense to go through.

The member for Stuart will move the amendments, which I and some of my colleagues will support. Before it gets through the upper house hopefully we will reach consensus. We sought feedback with the Farmers Federation and the Local Government Association on this matter, and their responses have been forthcoming. We are supporting this bill, but many of us will support the member for Stuart because over many years he has championed the cause. With the Wangary fires on the West Coast, as indeed with the Melrose fires in the upper north—I was involved in inspections of both—cool burning took place. The Wangary fire was only put out against a road where the farmer had undertaken undergrowth control. They had wild oats up to one metre high in other places against fencing and those roads were no barrier to a raging fire.

We have to encourage landholders and farmers to control the undergrowth, particularly along the roads that are used in a time of fire. I make no apology as a land owner myself: I always slash the road sides, particularly where you see the threat, namely, on major roads. I also cool burn when that is possible. I did not get to cool burn this year because the season closed early and it was too risky to light fires. You could normally light a fire in late September or October and burn off 50 per cent of the undergrowth, which certainly makes a huge difference.

I will await with some interest the amendments of the member for Stuart. I have always supported him in these matters and I certainly will in this case. Without any further ado, I will resume my seat and listen to the member for Stuart, and hopefully the member for MacKillop will arrive soon.

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (12:23): I rise—

Mr Pengilly: There's no scrub in Springfield.

Mr O'BRIEN: There's a bit! I rise to speak in support of the bill. South Australia, according to the federal government's Australian Natural Resources Atlas, has seen 11 per cent or 10.4 million hectares of native vegetation removed since European settlement, mainly in the higher rainfall areas in the south of our state. The remnant vegetation in areas such as the Eyre Yorke block, Kanmantoo, the Flinders Lofty block, the Naracoorte coastal plains and the Murray-Darling depression bioregions is also highly fragmented. Most affected major vegetation groups are: the mallee woodlands and shrub lands; eucalypt woodlands; acacia shrub lands; hummock grasslands; and eucalypt open forests.

This bill is one part of the wider process of ensuring the more effective management of our native vegetation, which has been under continuous pressure in part due to property development and the increasing effects of climate change. Before we are able to secure our significant and unique environmental treasures, including native vegetation which cannot be found elsewhere in the world, we need to ensure we strike the right balance when clearance is required and provide environmental offsets to compensate for that clearance. This bill provides that balance and it also facilitates the protection of our environmental biodiversity.

The more effective management of our native vegetation began with the appointment, in August 2007, of a new Native Vegetation Council. One of the most important decisions made by the Native Vegetation Council during its first meeting, in September 2007, was the institutional creation of the Native Vegetation Assessment Panel as the expert based body which would approve native vegetation clearance applications.

Since the Native Vegetation Council's delegation of this responsibility to the panel, the council has been able to more appropriately focus on development and strategic issues with a view to more effectively manage the state's native vegetation. Among the strategic issues currently being considered by the Native Vegetation Council is how best to deliver the statutory requirement for native vegetation clearance to be offset by a significant environmental benefit.

A major contributor to the process of better managing our native vegetation has been the South Australian Planning Review, which was released on 10 June this year—and I had an interjection a little earlier wanting to know what my interest in this particular topic was. The Planning Review Steering Committee, which I chaired, was determined to integrate native vegetation issues into our planning system.

The planning review examined the effects of legislation outside the Development Act 1993 on the South Australian planning system. Clearly, the Native Vegetation Act legislation impacts significantly on planning and development outcomes and the committee was resolved to ensure that the Development Act and the Native Vegetation Act were not fundamentally at odds.

Broadly, the planning review indicated that management of native vegetation needed to be overhauled through more effective strategic planning and the removal of multiple referrals. To that end, the Planning Review Steering Committee proposed that urgent steps be taken to continue with the identification of priorities and standards for retaining remnant vegetation. It is important that clear standards and definitions exist in relation to vegetation, especially in order to determine which vegetation needs to be preserved, which vegetation can be cleared with offsets and what can be cleared without permit or approval.

Importantly, the committee noted the significance of the native vegetation mapping process against the above standards for insertion into regional plans. The committee also felt that structure plans should be put in place in areas where it is felt that further investigation is required on the impact of population growth and economic development on native vegetation. However, with effective management in mind, the committee felt that, once the vegetation in question has been classified as either to be retained, cleared subject to offset, or clearing permitted, regulations should ensure further referrals and concurrences for individual developments be removed.

This bill provides for increased flexibility in the delivery of significant environmental benefit offsets for vegetation clearance as an innovative way to support necessary economic development in South Australia, while also providing the conditions necessary to achieve our biodiversity conservation objectives. This is fully in line with the planning review report, which indicated:

It is essential that developers be able to offset the loss of vegetation to ensure that overall statewide and regional vegetation retention targets are met.

The ability to offset native vegetation losses would enable land needed for housing, agriculture, economic development and mining to be made accessible with a proviso that the environmental impact of such activity is kept to a minimum. This bill provides a number of amendments to the Native Vegetation Act, which will enable the protection of vegetation to be efficient and proactive. The offset process will be delivered to areas where they are needed most, including regions which are outside the zone of the original clearance.

As part of the government's strategy to combat the impact of climate change, the planning review highlighted the need to ensure that native vegetation was disrupted as little as possible when determining future urban growth boundaries. The government's support of the transit oriented development concept (ultimately seeking to establish 11 multipurpose, high density living sites adjacent to public transport infrastructure) will go a long way in easing urban sprawl, which will more effectively utilise existing infrastructure and reduce car dependence, while minimising the need to clear native vegetation to accommodate more outlying suburbs.

In order to facilitate the findings of the planning review on the issue, a native vegetation project committee, including representatives from DWLBC, DEH and Planning SA has been established to facilitate the implementation of those recommendations. In the interim, DWLBC has undertaken a project which will lead to a fact sheet being prepared which will encourage developers to include a biodiversity statement with all development applications. Planning SA, the LGA, City of Port Lincoln, Kangaroo Island Council and selected developers have all been involved in this project. DWLBC is also working with Planning SA during the development of several master plans to ensure native vegetation considerations are included.

As a way of providing more structured and detailed information on this vital issue to all relevant parties, the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation is finalising development of a handbook which includes standardised methodologies for the biodiversity assessment of native vegetation proposed for clearance. This provides for improved consistency and transparency for applicants, consultants and local councils. The handbook will be forwarded to local councils and natural resource management boards for their use in clearance proposals.

This bill is part of the broader strategy the Rann government has pursued since 2007 to improve significantly the management of native vegetation in South Australia. The amendments in this bill will act to strengthen biodiversity conservation, as well as provide greater flexibility for promoting economic development in an environmentally sustainable way. The planning review has also played a very important part in providing direction in relation to native vegetation which is evident in this bill. Overall, the government is developing a tightly coordinated approach to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of South Australia's management of its native vegetation. I therefore support this bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stuart. Can I confirm that you are not the lead speaker for the opposition?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:33): That is correct, even though I could—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: You do not want to be like that, minister, because I could use the provisions of the standing orders in committee to keep you here for a long time, if you want me to. I actually have some knowledge of the standing orders, and I hear that the government is a bit short of things to talk about this afternoon. Notwithstanding all that, let me come to the focus of my comments. For a number of years, we have had in place provisions which may have been done with the best will in the world but which have proved to be quite unnecessary and unwise in relation to the protection of the public against the ravages of bushfires.

I do not know whether the minister was one of the people who visited the Lower Eyre Peninsula after that tragedy and had a look for himself. I am not sure whether he has looked at other parts of the state, or whether he has been watching on his television what has been taking place in California, because, if he had, he would be aware that provisions in this legislation are contrary to the best interest of hazard minimisation.

The proposals that I intend to put to the house at a later stage are purely designed to protect the public: there is no other purpose in them whatsoever. I have had some experience in the matter—I have controlled burning off and made sure that large areas of native vegetation will not cause difficulties for adjoining landholders. There are some subjects that come to this house that I do not know a lot about, but in relation to controlled burning off and the burning of native vegetation and grasslands I think I have had as much experience as anyone in this house. My proposals ensure that on a long-term basis land managers can take positive steps to protect the public.

We all saw at first hand what happened on Kangaroo Island. What always happens is there is a huge cost to the taxpayer, there is tremendous disruption to the community, emergency decisions take place, the costs are horrendous, and at the end of the day we have an inquiry and often we do not appear to learn a great deal from what has taken place. My proposals set out to change certain provisions of the parent act so that people can hazard-reduce by doing cold burning.

If you want any better authority, ask the director of the Country Fire Service. Some years ago, when he appeared before the Economic and Finance Committee and was questioned on this subject, he was quite clear and precise in his concerns about the provision in the Native Vegetation Act that precludes burning. It is a complete nonsense and oversight, and I do not care what anyone says: the government and the bureaucrats have been warned of the potential hazards.

It is only a matter of time before there is another disaster and, if ministers sit by and rigidly stick to the lines they are fed by their bureaucratic masters, they will have to pay the heavy price. Because they will pay a price—there have been too many warnings given and there are too many focus groups around the community that know we are sitting on a tinder box.

Go to the Adelaide Hills and these vast areas of native vegetation. You cannot even get into them, let alone take some positive action to reduce their potential. I do not know whether the minister or his colleagues have seen these huge Mallee fires roaring with porcupine grass underneath them and how they catch fire half a kilometre ahead—the trees light up. To expect people to go in and do something without the ability to get out is an absolute nonsense, and that is why you have to have adequate access tracks—first, so that vehicles do not get punctured but, also, if you ask someone to go in, you have to give them the opportunity to get out. That is the first thing anyone should do.

The second thing is: if you want to contain them, there is only one way of doing it and that is to backburn and, to backburn, you have to have something to backburn onto. It is no good having a little narrow track, because you cannot have a fire truck coming behind you because the heat is too intense. So you have to have a decent break or access so you can backburn onto it. That is absolutely fundamental, if you know anything about it. I have lit up hundreds and hundreds of acres of scrub at times, and all you have to do is hold your nerve and know what you are doing and you do not have a problem. You light against the wind and, once you start, you get the lot alight as quickly as possible so it ends up in the middle with a big puff. If you do not get onto it quickly, you will have big problems.

That is why I have gone to the trouble of having these amendments drawn up that give certain powers to council. They also clear up a foolish anomaly in relation to the pastoral industry which is, when the government changed, the bureaucrats got their own way and reinterpreted the act. It is an absolute scandal and a nonsense of the highest order, and those responsible should be dealt with. I look forward to when my colleague and friend, the member for MacKillop, is in a position to deal with the people responsible for those clauses, because it is absolute nonsense to stop people in pastoral areas from having the ability to extend pipelines without going through some bureaucratic process that is not only unnecessary but also unwise and foolish of the highest order.

Surely one would want to encourage people to stop stock from walking for more kilometres than they have to. It is the height of stupidity, and what happens is one of the failures of our democratic system (and there are not a lot): people who have no practical understanding or appreciation of the subjects they are dealing with are put in charge of departments. So, they are then in the hands of their bureaucracies, and their bureaucracies have a particular point of view. They attempt to guide the minister and make sure that they have only certain information. That is a weakness.

As someone who has been in this place for a long time, I have seen Sir Humphrey Appleby at work at his very best. I saw some of it last week in the United Kingdom: I saw it at its absolute best. We have to make sure that those people who understand and are aware of the difficulties are given the opportunity to be involved in the decision making. When a minister does not know something he is in the hands of the bureaucracy. If people come along and put a case to him and he is not sure, he will turn to his safety valve and go back to the bureaucrat who has caused the problem in the first place with respect to people complaining.

Being on the NRM parliamentary committee has given us the opportunity to look at Kangaroo Island, and some of the hassles that have taken place with people wanting to put in dams is absolute nonsense. There was the case of one person who had been denied the ability and then, I am told, when given permission of recent times, these nasty bureaucrat inspectors had been down there checking up on him.

I am looking forward to revisiting Kangaroo Island as a member of the NRM parliamentary committee. We will be able to have a look at this issue and perhaps we might call some of these people before the committee. Their performance with respect to Kangaroo Island, I think, of all the bureaucratic nonsense we have had to face, when they tried to prosecute the person who put in the dam that saved Kangaroo Island from running out of water, would take the prize of being as irresponsible and foolish as any group one could ever get.

I have already spoken about firebreaks. If a local council does not know what is fair and reasonable, I do not know who does. The locally elected people are the ones who know. They are the people with an understanding of local issues, and if they get it wrong they will suffer the chilly winds of the ballot box. However, we have out of sight, silent bureaucrats, committees and councils sitting on these decision-making processes, which is not right. My provision for up to 20 metres is fair and reasonable, and is set out to protect the public.

In relation to the burning of native vegetation for hazard control purposes, let me make it clear from the outset that, if burning was going to destroy native vegetation, there would not be any native vegetation left in South Australia, because all the eucalypts and mallee have been burnt in the past. That will happen again if we are not careful. So, one takes steps to burn it at the most convenient time, otherwise it will burn at the most inconvenient time, and the disruption and the cost will be spread across the whole community.

In my view, it is not an option to do nothing. We have had that philosophy in place and it has failed—for instance, the Kangaroo Island and Wanilla fires. I have seen it for myself. I have been to the Flinders Ranges, to Mount Remarkable, and the fire that burnt at the back of Wilmington. That fire was brought under control, and the people responsible did a marvellous job. I was there that day, and one of the people in charge of the graders said to me, 'Am I going to be in trouble?' I said, 'What are you talking about?' He said, 'We graded along here and we got rid of the native vegetation.' They stopped the fire to save Wilmington. I said, 'If the fools come up here, let me know and we will put them on the television and we will lead a deputation to see the Premier, but I look forward to it.'

The volunteers did outstanding work to stop the fire in the most difficult terrain. One fire truck was immobilised because it was so steep. They had to pull it back with a bulldozer. They were the sorts of conditions in which they were operating, but there were people who were more interested in reading the regulations and making life difficult for people. Unfortunately, well-meaning governments have a great ability to make life difficult for practical, sensible people who are going about the business of trying to protect the community. We are fortunate in this state to have groups of volunteers, including the Country Fire Service and others, who do outstanding work. When there is a fire they are supported by the Salvation Army and local communities, but there is disruption.

One of the worst things I have read in recent times in the newspaper was in relation to some criticism made of the director by other bureaucrats who were carrying out an assessment. I thought it was not only ill-considered, unwise and unnecessary but also highly irresponsible. Mr Ferguson has conducted himself and carried out his duties in a manner of which we all should be proud. We are fortunate to have a practical person carrying out these duties. He has the support of the volunteers—which is very important.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, if you do not have someone like him then you will not have a service. It is as simple as that. The other bumbling bureaucrats are criticising him and it reflects badly on them and not at all on Mr Ferguson.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I am a shy fellow and he is putting me off. It is hard to get me on my feet. I have not been here for a fortnight. Members opposite are probably pleased about that, anyway. It has taken me a whole week to work myself up to make this speech.

Mr Goldsworthy: Stop showing off.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, you want to keep the house going. I am supposed to be in a parliamentary committee meeting where we are dealing with other matters. Nevertheless, I could not let this opportunity pass. I have amendments which I am keen to see fully debated in the committee stage. I hope that the minister gives them due attention because they are designed for the sole purpose of applying common sense and making sure the public is properly protected. They are not designed in any way to carry out irresponsible land clearing. They are preventative measures to make it safer for the people of South Australia. This is not the first time I have attempted to bring these measures to the house. The government and those who oppose them should be warned: they will be held accountable the next time there is a major disaster and people are in danger, if these sorts of provisions are not enacted.

I will have more to say when the matter is before the committee, but I say to the minister that there are many courses of action necessary to bring common sense to this legislation. I am one of those who believe that people in the section have their agenda to push and that they have forgotten about common sense. I commend my measures to the house and look forward to debating them at a later stage.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:49): I welcome this bill, which is designed primarily to try to protect what little is left in the Mitcham council area of grey box (eucalyptus microcarpa). It is now estimated that less than 4 per cent of that woodland is remaining. This bill does what should have happened a long time ago, that is, it extends the provisions of native vegetation protection to areas such as the Mitcham hills.

The member for Davenport would know that groups in the City of Mitcham are committed to trying to protect grey box woodland. The fact that so little of it is left is typical of what has happened in South Australia in regard to the clearance of native vegetation. In the Mount Lofty Ranges less than 15 per cent of native vegetation remains, and much of that has been compromised as a result of weed infestation, as well as other activities by humans, such as riding trail bikes, and so on.

In the metropolitan area tightly defined—that is, basically the Adelaide Plains—something like 4 per cent or less of native vegetation is left. That is an appalling record. Whilst we do not want to say that the pioneers did it simply out of greed (in many cases it was greed), it was often done out of ignorance; and, in some of cases it was as a result of legislative requirement in terms of taking up a lease. Farmers had to clear the land in order to continue with the lease of the land from the government. A mixture of reasons is involved, but, even today, some clearance is still occurring. In my view, it should be absolutely at a minimal level and in exceptional circumstances only.

I have paid tribute in this place before to people such as the Hon. Don Hopgood, because if it was not for people like him there would be even less native vegetation left. Some people on the Liberal side of politics have been committed to protecting remnant native vegetation. Mr Brookman was one and there were some others, but the real move to protect native bush or vegetation occurred during the era when people such as Don Hopgood were in the ministry. People who appreciate nature, the value of habitat, and so on, will forever be grateful to people such as Don Hopgood.

This bill, as I said at the start, is primarily directed at trying to protect threatened grey box in the Mitcham council area. Grey box does not normally—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Yes, that is right, but it is principally designed to protect grey box. One of the deficiencies under the significant tree provisions has been that it is based on the girth size of a particular tree. I guess that I was the father of that provision in that I lobbied Di Laidlaw hard on that issue, and she appointed me to chair a committee to look at it, and we recommended certain things.

I did not agree, obviously, with one of the outcomes, which was that the definition of 'significant' applied to all trees of a certain size. The deficiency in that is that a tree can be significant if it is not of a particular size. If it is not a big tree, if it is not a large tree, it can still be significant, and that is where grey box in particular has suffered along with other native species.

Grey box is incredibly slow growing. If you see a grey box of the size that meets the significant tree provisions, you are probably looking at a tree which could be a couple of hundred years of age. We do not know a lot about grey box, but one thing we do know is that they are very slow growing. I can show members examples where, in 50 or 60 years, there has been no noticeable change or growth in particular grey box species with which I am familiar. So, it is an incredibly long time.

When the significant tree provisions came into force, they were designed to protect mainly large river red gums and, to a large extent, they have done that. However, as we know, it has also led to the preservation of trees that were never part of my vision as being worthy of protection. So, we have some silly examples; for example, pinus radiata at Prospect is protected when that was never my intention. However, things change, and we now know that, in some cases, pinus radiata in the metropolitan area may not be a bad thing if it provides food for cockatoos and so on. So, I guess there is always two sides to the story.

When we are talking about native vegetation, we are talking about something beyond simply plant species. We are talking about them as habitat, as well as their providing some aesthetic benefit. We have in Australia the paradoxical situation where it is a criminal offence to export native animals overseas, certainly without a permit, yet, on the other hand, in other states people can clear the habitat of a species, which is the surest way of wiping out the species. So, there are mixed messages. I am not saying that there should be wholesale export of native fauna. I am just saying that we have this bizarre approach, where it is a criminal offence to shoot a koala, but you can wipe out their habitat so that you make sure they are absolutely dead by giving them nowhere to live.

So, when we are talking about protecting native vegetation, we are talking about protecting habitat. To a large extent, there is widespread ignorance in the community about the value of particular species; we have not even studied many of them in terms of their benefit. I know that members who are farmers would appreciate that things like saltbush, grey bush and bluebush are very important as stock feed. We know something about these species, but we know little, for example, about the medicinal benefits of many of our native plants. Members would appreciate that many of our medicines, including aspirin and others, originally came from plant sources.

We have not even studied much of our native vegetation, and we know little about it. We know very little about the impact of fire in terms of managing native vegetation. I know the member for Stuart is passionate about trying to create what he would see as fire prevention measures. I can understand his concern, although I would go about it in a different way. I am not opposed, for example, to cool burning, providing it is based on science and is properly conducted.

Returning to the point I made earlier about habitat, in South Australia a quarter of all plants and animals are considered to be threatened species, and for mammals the figure is 63 per cent, according to the figures I was given today about species under threat. So, this measure is not simply a 'feel good' measure. There is a strong feeling in the Hills area about protecting remnant vegetation. There have been examples where people, out of greed and, in some cases, ignorance, or both, have removed unnecessarily not just grey box but other species as well, and it is time that something was done. So, I applaud the minister for taking this action.

Another thing the bill does is to allow someone to replace the nominee of the commonwealth minister on the Native Vegetation Council, and I do not have a problem with that. I think it is important that you have people on that council who have the necessary qualifications and experience. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]



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