HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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.

(Continued from 25 November 2008. Page 1014.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:45): I indicate to the house that I am, indeed, the lead speaker for the opposition on this matter. I start by remarking that, in speaking with the minister yesterday, I noted that I thought that we would conclude this debate yesterday afternoon. However, I naively overlooked an important fact, which was that many of my colleagues wanted to come into the house and contribute to the second reading of the bill.

I point out to the house that the fact that so many members—particularly from this side of the house—wish to contribute to this debate (bearing in mind that virtually all the regional areas of South Australia are represented by members from this side of the house), indicates to me that there is still quite a bit of angst and that there are still quite a number of issues with regard to native vegetation, the laws pertaining to native vegetation and the way they are administered in this state. The fact that so many opposition members chose to put on the public record their concerns about the principal act, particularly, having been given this opportunity to debate what is, in itself, a relatively minor and non-controversial piece of legislation, I think sends a pretty clear message that we are still a long way from getting the administration of the Native Vegetation Act and the principal act itself bedded down into something that can serve the long-term benefit of both the environment and the people who interact with the environment on a daily basis, particularly people who live in regional areas.

I think that it is high time that we asked ourselves a couple of first order questions. Principally: what are we trying to achieve; and how do we think that this piece of legislation is delivering on those aspirations? On many occasions I have spoken about native vegetation in this house and virtually on every occasion I have lamented the fact that I do not believe that the Native Vegetation Act and the way it has been administered are serving the long-term benefit of native vegetation in South Australia. It is certainly not serving the people of South Australia who, as I said, on a day-to-day basis come into contact with native vegetation in their business.

I think that it is generally accepted by everybody that there is bipartisan support for protecting native vegetation, and we have to understand that we are not just protecting native vegetation; it is the whole biodiversity of the state's ecosystems that we are trying to protect because, by protecting native vegetation, we are, indeed, protecting habitat. That is a very important thing, that we are protecting habitat, not just one part of the whole ecosystem, that being the floral part of the ecosystem. The species loss that we have seen already since white (European) settlement of this state has largely been as a result of the destruction of habitat.

I think that a number of people believe that protecting native vegetation is only about protecting native vegetation and that is as far as it goes, but that is only a very small part of it. That is why I think that there is probably bipartisan support for protecting habitat and I am unsure whether or not we should have an act on our statute books which actually talks about that. It talks about, rather than it being a native vegetation act, maybe it should be a biodiversity act or a habitat act to more clearly enunciate, I think, that larger goal.

Interestingly, I was recently at a workshop here in Adelaide run by the Conservation Council and the keynote speaker was Hugh Possingham. That is a name that is very well known, certainly in the environmental movement here in South Australia. As I understand it, he now holds an academic position in Brisbane, but he came down and was the keynote speaker at that particular workshop.

One of the very important points that he made, and it rang very true with me, was that the biggest issue on people's lips in our communities today is water, the lack of water, and the drought, obviously, contributing to that, and he made the statement that he thought that as a society we would resolve that problem.

He said that one of the other big issues in the environment movement at the moment, obviously, is greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of that through climate change. He made the statement that he thought that that was solvable too, and that Australia and the rest of the world would resolve that problem. He did suggest that there might be a significant timeframe—I think he mentioned maybe 200 years—but that those were the sorts of issues that we would be able to resolve.

He then very powerfully made the point that every time we lose a species, in two million years we will not have got it back. That is what I mentioned a few minutes ago, about asking ourselves some first order questions about the legislation and the administration thereof in South Australia: what are we trying to do?

The government has, within its State Strategic Plan, a target of having no more species loss. The minister obviously knows the answer to this, and I do not, because the minister is today releasing the EPA's five-year report card on where we have been going with regard to the environment. I understand that some people are in lock-up now who have had access to that report and who are, obviously, being advised, by the minister's spin doctors, about what is in the report and what it means, as I speak.

I will be surprised if that report says that we have done very well. I will be surprised if that report says that the government is going to easily attain its target of no more species loss in South Australia. One of the reasons for that is that we have failed to recognise what we need to do, particularly with regard to native vegetation and habitat.

Something in excess of 20 per cent of the land area of South Australia is already tied up within our parks system. The government agency responsible for maintaining biodiversity and the spread of native vegetation and fauna across the state, already has control of over, I think it is something like 22 per cent or 23 per cent of the state's land area. That is a huge portion of the state's area. Unfortunately, the majority of that area is not necessarily in the spread across the variety of ecosystems that were present in the state prior to white settlement. That is unfortunate, and I recognise that.

The comment I would like to make is that I think in South Australia we are still failing to adequately look after those areas which are under the direct control of government. I think we are failing to put the resources in and I think we are failing to adequately look after those. My colleague the member for Hammond, in his contribution yesterday, spoke about fire management, and I think he referred to the Ngarkat park, which is in both his electorate and my electorate: a very extensive park.

Ngarkat park in the Mallee of South Australia—even before white man knew that Australia was here—would have been subject to fires. Now that we have a portion of that extensive park preserved, I think it is pure negligence that we manage it in a way that allows incredibly hot fires to wipe out large areas of it. Since I have been the member for MacKillop, having a greater interest in that park than I did previously, I am aware of an incredible number of huge fires that have burnt through the park and wiped out large portions of it.

The first fire that was brought to my attention was in the summer of 1999, when a huge portion of the park was subject to a very hot fire. I think I am right in saying that, in the last 20 years, there is probably only one small portion of the park that has not been subject to extensive burning from a very hot fire.

If we go back to the areas that were burned only a few years ago, and in particular the fire to which the member for Hammond referred—I think it was two or three summers ago; it will be three this summer—you can only marvel at the regeneration of the flora, but we really do have to question the ability of the fauna that previously occupied that area to regenerate itself.

I think there is a real issue. We absolutely have to protect those parks, and Ngarkat is one that goes up regularly from lightning strikes. We have to be able to make sure that we protect significant parcels within that park where the fauna can migrate out after such an incident, and we have not done that. I think we have had the wrong attitude.

I think we also have to accept that, when we have the sorts of fires that we have had in those parks burning such a significant percentage of the park, we are actually changing the mix of plant species. I suggest that, across the whole of the Mallee in South Australia, and largely in the seat of Hammond prior to white settlement, there would have been hot burns, but they would have covered only a small percentage of the total area of the Mallee. A couple of the fires that have occurred in the last 10 years have probably covered half the area of that particular park, and that has an incredible impact on the mix of species that regenerate after a fire. So, fire management is a huge issue.

I want to acknowledge some of the improvements that have been made in fire management. A number of members have mentioned the Chairman of the Native Vegetation Council, Dennis Mutton, who also chairs the NRM Council in South Australia. I think everybody in the house has a great deal of respect for Dennis and his ability, and I think it was a good move for the government to put him in charge of both boards.

This bill is somewhat about aligning the two acts: the Native Vegetation Act and the NRM Act. I will discuss the clauses in the bill shortly. I think that is a good move; I acknowledge that, and I congratulate the government on that appointment. I believe that it has, in fact, somewhat improved the administration of the act, but I still think there are some fundamental flaws in the act.

While speaking to the bill yesterday, the member for Davenport highlighted that, when he was the minister for environment—I think it was some time in 2001—he introduced a bill in the house to significantly amend the Native Vegetation Act. As a backbencher in that government, I was fortunate enough to spend a considerable amount of time on the backbench committee that did a lot of work in the development of that bill. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

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