HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WILDERNESS PROTECTION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 October 2012.)

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:49): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on the amendment bill. I acknowledge the member opposite, and I understand that he and I are both operating in this capacity for the very first time. So, if you will bear with us I am sure we will get through it. I rise today to support the amendment of the Wilderness Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The bill was initially tabled by minister Caica in November 2012 in anticipation of a motion to proclaim a new Nullabor Wilderness Protection Area. The reason I have been able to take the lead role in this particular amendment bill is because the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area lies almost entirely within the electorate of Flinders which I represent. So, I am really thrilled to be able to do this.

Minister Caica and former premier Rann visited the far west of the state in March 2011 and indicated then that a proclamation would be made of the wilderness area. The wilderness area, in essence, lies west of the Head of the Bight all the way to the Western Australian border and runs north-south from the Great Australian Bight up to almost the east-west railway line. So, it covers quite an extensive area. I am not sure exactly of the area in square kilometres, but I am sure we can find that out.

The amendment is proposed because under the existing act, as I understand it, there is no capacity for providing for existing leases, and there are a number of them within the area. Certainly, the Nullarbor Roadhouse is just within the boundary of the Nullarbor wilderness area, an existing premises and business. Also, the Head of the Bight operates a business, mainly to do with whale watching and such tourist activities, although looking at the map it may be that that is just outside, but anyway access to the Head of the Bight would be required through the Nullarbor protection wilderness zone.

There is also, under the act, as I understand it, no provision for co-management with Aboriginal communities, as applies under the parks legislation, so obviously that needs to be a priority of the amendment. I understand adequate consultation has occurred with those Aboriginal communities and also those who have native title pending. So, it will be, in essence, a co-managed area.

I would like to thank the government and the department for offering a briefing to us (yesterday). The member for Bragg attended, as did the members for Hammond, Finniss and myself. That was much appreciated. I think it is fair to say that the intention of the wilderness act is to conserve the native landscape, the native environment, as a pristine environment. The national parks act is slightly different in its intention in that its intent is to preserve rather than conserve. There is a subtle difference and it is probably particularly pertinent to this particular area because true wilderness areas are relatively rare anywhere in the world, let alone here in South Australia.

In doing my research, I notice that there are a number of wilderness areas that have already been proclaimed in South Australia: five on Kangaroo Island and two in the Riverland, and I see the member for Chaffey here listening with interest. There are four already proclaimed and underway on the Eyre Peninsula: Memory Cove, which is where Matthew Flinders lost a couple of his men; Hincks, in the central part of the peninsula; Hambidge, also in the central part of the Eyre Peninsula; and then Yellabinna, which is way out west, in fact it almost adjoins the wilderness area of the Nullarbor proclaimed zone.

The word 'Nullarbor' means 'no trees'. It is Latin. It comes from the Latin 'nullus' for 'no', obviously, and 'arbor' for 'trees'. Many assume that it is an Aboriginal name, but it is not, it comes from Latin. I have only visited the Nullarbor once, and that has been since my time as the member for Flinders. It is an absolutely iconic part of the Australian landscape. I think it ranks right up there with Ayers Rock and the Olgas, and probably as a tourist attraction is much sought after. The trip across the Nullarbor is almost something that I think every Australian should do at some point in time. It is an extraordinary experience to drive across it.

There are virtually no trees. There is the occasional one but slowly they diminish. There is an area to the north of almost intact and pristine mallee woodland but, for whatever reason—I guess it is a combination of geography, geology and climate—the trees disappear and the Nullarbor is just that—a vast plain of no trees.

Interestingly, my wife and I visited there, as I said, a couple of years ago in, I think, late 2010. We took our children, a couple of other families came with us and we drove all the way from home on Lower Eyre Peninsula to the Nullarbor Roadhouse on the first day, intending to go back to the Head of the Bight to have a look at the whales the next day.

We had had a long day and when we got to the Nullarbor Roadhouse it was well past dinner time. We walked in and I noticed a fellow was busy out in the kitchen of the roadhouse and I asked him if he was the chef. He said, 'No, sir, I am the cook.' It indicated to me that there is a special type of person who takes on the roles at these more remote places. It was a wonderful visit and, as I said, it was the first time we had had the chance to do it, and it was very memorable.

Wilderness areas have always been significant, I think, in human history. Obviously, as Homo sapiens spread out across the world, they went into truly wilderness areas and eked out an existence in whatever way. Slowly, agriculture developed and, of course, those wilderness areas started to be more inhabited and more impacted upon, but in a good way. We as a species rely on a productive landscape, and all that is left now are areas that are either very, very remote or far too inhospitable.

I was harking back to my Sunday school days today and I remembered that, in the book of Exodus, Moses led the Israelites through the wilderness for 40 years until they found their way to the promised land, so the wilderness was important. Jesus, in fact, spent 40 days in the wilderness following his baptism, and the devil appeared to him.

I am sure that will not occur out in the Nullarbor, although you never know. The Nullarbor nymph appeared, apparently, at one point. I understand a movie has been released very recently depicting that legendary sighting of a scantily clad female racing around on the Nullarbor Plain back in the seventies.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Probably Lady Gaga.

Mr TRELOAR: Lady Gaga—it could have been. I have not seen the movie yet, Bob. All over the world, as colonisation took place, these wilderness areas disappeared, and that is exactly what happened in this part of South Australia as well. In fact, Edward John Eyre set foot upon the wilderness and explored what was to become Eyre Peninsula—a part of South Australia that is now named after him.

The member for Bragg loaned me a book a little while ago, which was a summary of Ernest Giles's trek in this part of the world exactly. He set foot in Fowlers Bay and explored to the north and to the west in what was really incredibly inhospitable country. He explored it, he survived, he mapped it, he returned to write his diary and so another part of the Australian continent was understood.

The railway extended across the Nullarbor in 1917. It was not until then that the colony in Western Australia, or what was by then the state of Western Australia, was joined to the rest of the country. In fact, east and west were not joined properly by road until the 1940s, so we really are talking about a very remote part of the state. I can recall, in the 1970s, the sealing of that road taking place.

That part of the state we are talking about is a unique landscape. It was initially trialled for grazing. Of course, as the country was opened up and explored, the merino sheep soon followed. It was probably quite strong grazing country, except that it lacked water and, of course, the wild dogs, the dingoes, were a real problem and, really, that was never resolved across the Nullarbor, otherwise it may have been retained for grazing. Of course, the inside country now refers to that farming and pastoral country that is inside the dog fence and so protects all those pastoral enterprises from the ravages of wild dogs.

I will go back to our visit to the Nullarbor. One of my nephews was caught in a phone box and surrounded by dingoes. He was actually quite frightened until he was rescued. So they are a serious risk, certainly still to sheep farmers and sometimes to humans. This part of the world is now largely avoided, except for tourists, who tend to drive straight across as quickly as they can. Although, having said that, I understand that there are some quite spectacular caves across the Nullarbor which are sometimes used for diving and exploration.

I have only visited a couple of those and only those that are close to the highway, but my understanding is that they are quite spectacular and extraordinarily interesting cave formations. The Head of the Bight, as I have mentioned, is renowned for its whale watching when the whales visit, particularly over the winter season to calf. That attracts many tourists from all around the country to the Nullarbor Roadhouse.

The other thing I think worth mentioning while we are talking about access, tourism and the use of this particular part of the state is the Nullarbor Links Golf Course. I attended the opening three years ago, I think, and I attended the hit-off of the season again this year. There are 18 holes right across the Nullarbor. Holes one and two are in Ceduna—and you can tee off from there—hole three is at Penong, four is at Nundroo, five is at Nullarbor and six is at the Border Village, and so on right across to Kalgoorlie. It is renowned and quite an interesting course. Once again, many tourists from right around the world come to play at that course.

The challenge with all of these wilderness areas of course is the management. Co-management is preferable. I have mentioned the interested parties, particularly the Aboriginal populations that have native title. They need to be involved. I understand that consultation has occurred with them and also with all of the other interested parties.

I think it is worth briefly referring to the original act of 1992. It raises some interesting points. Even though we are discussing the amendment, I think there are a number of things in the act worth mentioning. I note with interest that part of the act describes that the destruction of dangerous weeds and the eradication and control of noxious weeds and exotic plants is a requirement under policy, that the control of vermin, exotic animals and other exotic organisms must be a requirement, and also the eradication and control of disease of animals and vegetation. This is absolutely the biggest challenge with the management of any of these wilderness areas.

I can tell you that in the Nullarbor wilderness area that is about to be proclaimed, a significant number of feral camels are roaming around. There is buffel grass. In other wilderness areas in this state there are pigs, goats, cats, horehound, salvation Jane and whatever you might like to add. Aspirational though it may be, the return of some of these areas to their pristine condition is going to be very difficult.

Another part of the act actually states that, to qualify for a wilderness area, the zone must be able to be restored to a condition that justifies its protection. So, as I said, the challenge is in the management, particularly of feral animals, a significant number of feral animals, which are not really managed at this stage. There is an occasional cull of camels but, as far as weeds and some smaller animals are concerned, there is certainly no active management. In fact, I have it on good authority that the camels are at such a level just north of the dog fence—and of course it is getting drier and they are looking for water—that they are busting down the dog fence and coming into the farming country, destroying watering points and, of course, letting the dingoes in. The issues are ongoing.

Of course, mining is allowed, even though it is a wilderness area. With the permission of the parliament, the Mining Act can come into play. In that north-west area, the Iluka sand mine has been underway for a number of years. It is outside the Nullarbor protection zone, but the old shoreline, rich in those mineral sands that Iluka is pursuing as a company, threads its way across the Nullarbor Plain. I suspect that at some point in the future there will mining activity, or at least application for mining activity, in the Nullarbor wilderness area, pursuant to the act. The last reference I would like to make back to the act is under division 3, section 31—Plans of management, which states:

(1) As soon as practicable after the constitution of a wilderness protection area or zone, the Minister must prepare a plan of management in relation to the area or zone.

Once again, I suggest that this is the greatest challenge. It is all very well to prepare a management plan, but implementation and action are the key and the real challenge in all of that. I happen to believe, philosophically, that the days of shut-the-gate preservation of the landscape are indeed over. There may have been a point at one time when we could do that; I do not believe we are that point now.

I think that, as a species, we have had such an impact on the world we live in that shut-the-gate management or walk-away management is simply not an option these days. Active management is the key, not just in wilderness areas but in national parks as well—and I will probably talk more about that on another day—as we are actively involved as humans right across the landscape, for good reason.

It is about adequately resourcing the management and ensuring it is active. As I said, it is a pristine, beautiful and iconic area that is worth preserving. With those few qualifications, I would like to support the amendment bill and look forward to the shadow minister's contribution as well.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:07): I support this bill. As has been pointed out, it has two elements: it has the co-management position and, in a roundabout way, it allows some activities in wilderness areas, provided that they are approved and have gone through the proper process.

In terminology, 'conservation' really means 'wise use of resources', and 'preservation' really means 'do not touch; do not use'. Here, there is obviously a qualification with respect to wilderness. To some extent, it is a paradox in that it is a wilderness area yet people can do certain things in there, including, as the member for Flinders pointed out, resolving the issue of the roadhouse on the Nullarbor.

We can thank some people with foresight on both sides of politics in respect of helping to establish a network of parks in South Australia—mainly conservation parks. You can go back to people like David Brookman and Cecil Hincks, and on the Labor side you have Don Hopgood and others. David Wotton was also a keen supporter of parks, as the minister for environment.

Overall, in South Australia we have not done all that well in conserving flora and fauna. What we have now is somewhat damaged or compromised by weeds and feral animals, and I think it highlights the point made by the member for Flinders that, while we need to preserve these areas, we also need to manage them. That is not simply visiting them every once in a while in a four-wheel drive; you actually have to have a management plan and the resources to manage them, which can involve cool burns and other techniques.

Unfortunately, in recent years this government has really cut the department of environment's budget to a point where a lot of these parks are not being properly maintained. Not only does that cause a problem for neighbouring farmers and graziers, it also eventually allows the park to become degraded. It is certainly not a wilderness area, but Belair National Park is a classic example; it is becoming a park of weeds, and really degraded.

So one of the points I will make right now to the Premier, as Treasurer, is that in the forthcoming budget I think it is time to lay off cutting the department of environment to the point where it cannot adequately manage the reserves we have, whether they be conservation parks, wilderness or whatever. It has got to a point where those areas cannot be adequately and appropriately maintained, and I think the people of South Australia expect the government of the day to ensure that they are properly maintained.

I think this is a good initiative, co-management provisions which will, I guess, in reality, mean working with Aboriginal people. They were able to look after the environment for something like 60,000 years; it would have gone on forever. We need to have some new approaches and also, as I said before, properly resource the management of these areas. I support it as a bill; I think it is a step forward, and I welcome its speedy passage.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:11): I too support the Wilderness Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012, and note that it was tabled by the minister last November. This had to do with the future proclaiming of the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area, which I believe will bring the area in South Australia covered under wilderness legislation up to about 1.8 million hectares. There just needed to be some amendments to the old Wilderness Protection Act to bring everything into line, and obviously there was no capacity in the existing legislation to provide for existing leases; for example, the Nullarbor Roadhouse.

I have stopped there several times on trips across to Perth and back, and I must say that the member for Flinders quite accurately described how beautiful the country is around there. You talk to some people about the Nullarbor and going across South Australia and then through Western Australia, and you just think of desert scenes, but it is beautiful country that changes all the time. There are almost 100 miles near Balladonia in Western Australia that is nearly a straight road all the way—it is a straight road for about 90 miles in the old language—and it is great country. I remember taking my wife-to-be over there in, I think, early 1999—

Mr Treloar interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I will not respond to interjections.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Pre-honeymoon, yes; that's the one. I was wondering how she would handle the trip, and it surprised me how much Sally enjoyed driving across there and seeing the flora. Thankfully we did not run into too much fauna, although I must say there is plenty of capacity to do that on that road. What this bill does is allow for co-management; working with the local Indigenous people so that native title claims are more easily resolved, and letting them have co-management, as there can be under the national parks act.

There are some things that I am concerned about and, obviously, there will be retention of the existing licences for radio communication towers and the like, and there are plenty of them across there. There is infrastructure for the government radio network and other purposes that will need to be retained and licensed into the future. The only concern that I have with this part of the bill is: what will happen into the future if, for some reason, we need to have more telephone infrastructure or radio infrastructure put in? I wonder if the minister will be able to give us an explanation, or whether we will find out in committee, about whether there is any chance that that is needed.

I am not talking about wholesale changes through the Wilderness Protection Area, I am talking about infrastructure to make communication better across that patch of our great state. Certainly, going across the Nullabor now, there are areas where you can get mobile phone coverage, and I cannot remember exactly where they are offhand, but I know at Border Village you can get mobile coverage now. I am sure into the future there will be demand for more communication through that area, because years ago it used to be a dusty track, and people had to be fairly brave to cross the Nullarbor 50 or 60 years ago, but now you can basically ride a bike if you are that keen.

Mr Whetstone: No.

Mr PEDERICK: I am not that keen, no, member for Chaffey. I have certainly seen people riding bikes across the Nullarbor.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, exactly. I am concerned about and interested in that, and I believe there is still access for mining, so there is potential for tracks to be opened up, so I would appreciate an explanation of how that would be managed. I appreciate the need to manage this country to pre-European settlement, but I think we also have to be realistic about the demands for technology and the demands that we humans have in furthering the needs of the community. I am not discounting the aims of the bill, and certainly not the aims of the act, but we cannot just have things locked up in perpetuity without having access if we need it, whether it is road access, or whether it is to set up more communication options into the future.

As I said, I note that the roadhouse proprietor has had his area identified and he will be excised and that this bill is consistent with the recommendation from the Wilderness Advisory Committee and has the support of other environmental groups. So, I certainly agree with the legislation but, as I said, I do have some concerns about access, if for reasons of mainly technology there is further access needed, and I will be interested in the minister's response in that regard.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:18): I, too, rise to speak on the Wilderness Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and remember that, back in November, it was the then minister Caica who introduced the bill. It is a beautiful, pristine part of the world, as isolated as it is, and as desolate as it might be. It is one of the hidden wonders of, I guess, a very isolated part of the country, but it does have some fantastic attributes, particularly at certain parts of the life cycle within rain events over there, and it really does expose just what beauty can emerge in that part of the country.

Again, there is some of the most amazing coastline in the world over that way. It really is an area worth preserving. Some of my fears are that it cannot be a park that is to be locked up or a park that is to lock everyone out. Yes, there will be some native title issues along the way. Just on reflection, in my electorate in Chaffey we have the Danggali wilderness protected area and that is a very high-value conservation area.

The member for Hammond has just said that he has the Billiatt Conservation Park which is under the wilderness protection area. Fortunately for me, that conservation park is going to come under Chaffey under the realignment of the boundaries and, much to the member for Hammond's displeasure, I will take that into my boundary. Just to reflect on Danggali: it is about 70 kilometres north of Renmark and some of the issues that were exposed when that was proclaimed a wilderness protection area were that there were many species, some endangered, that were noted.

However, since that protection area has been put in place they have found other animal species and plant species, so it really shows exactly what can be achieved. Some of those species, particularly in Danggali—which I have visited regularly with a friend of mine who is one of the district rangers up there—we have spotted: the black-eared miner and the Mallee fowl. A Mallee fowl is a truly beautiful native bird.

The Hon. L.R. Breuer: Big holes!

Mr WHETSTONE: Big holes, yes; they are not very nice to hit on a motorbike, particularly at speed—I can vouch for that because I have many Mallee fowl nests at the back of my citrus property at Renmark. They really are a beautiful bird and have a quite unique existence, having a large nest and in the way they disguise it. The regent parrot is one of the most beautiful parrots, I think, in the country. Of course, we cannot forget about the long-eared bat which is one of the endangered species at Danggali and, of course, the little pied bat, his cousin, is another one of those endangered bats.

There are many reptiles and species out there that have been protected. They are having an existence out there uninterrupted by tourists and many people who come out there just looking at the splendour of it, particularly after a great rain event or a great season. Of course we cannot forget some of the plant species that have been protected and nurtured out there, particularly the slender bell-fruit and the black cotton-bush. They are beautiful little native bushes; there are not a lot of native plants that have spectacular splendour in that very arid landscape but those two really do. Of course, we can always talk about cane grass and the mallee but that is truly unique to the region.

Again, that is a wilderness protected area with great attributes. However, in saying that, we have to also remember that this bill will prescribe numerous activities not previously in other acts in this new prescribed area, particularly when talking about tours and filming of the landscape. There has also been mention of sporting competitions like surfing and fishing that will be a part of that landscape. I think that will need to be managed.

Of course, some of the scientific experiments and expeditions that will occur on that landscape I think need to be exposed to find out just exactly what will happen. Another one of the issues that I do have is: do we have a good bushfire management program out there? Are we going to be able to just lock that country away or manage that country? Are we going to have prescribed burning allowed in that protected area?

Again, it really is about this current state government writing in the appropriate guidelines. The people who write that management plan need to get it right because there have been a number of issues with parks that have been locked away, have had padlocks put on gates and the government has simply walked away. The cost of managing these parks is great, but it is all done for the benefit of keeping some of those protected species—plants—and looking after the area.

I did pick up on the member for Flinders telling me that the feral camels are over there breaking down fences and breaking down the dog fence. That is putting pressure on all the parks over there and all the private properties, so again there needs to be feral animal control, not just for camels. Of course, we look at the dogs, and that is why the dog fence is there, but once the camels have gone through the dog fence there is no protection. Of course, all the other feral pests and weeds also need to have a good robust management plan around them.

One thing that I will reflect on that I have been very passionate about in this place over the last three years is that I do not want to see the government do what they have done to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. We have had the Premier spruiking that he has been the saviour of the river here in South Australia. It is not true, but if he would like to have his day in the sun looking into the mirror that is fine.

The state government has just pulled out a large percentage of their responsible maintenance funding to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and we are now seeing fish programs being dropped, we are now seeing restrictions put on access to weirs, and we are seeing restrictions right up and down the basin, right up and down the river, because of states playing tit for tat.

We have seen New South Wales pull some of their funding out of the authority and now, sadly, the Premier has flagged that he is looking after the river, that he has enough water for South Australia, and yet he has thrown his responsibility with the maintenance program. Every South Australian needs to be watching with caution that every time funding is withdrawn in maintenance on some of these big infrastructure projects there will be a downside to it.

The Premier is not setting a very good example but, again, it is another example of locking the gate and walking away. I do not want to see any of these protection areas mismanaged. Again, we do see a lot of the departments having their funding reduced, and in some cases having their funding withdrawn, and normally some of these parks, unless they have a voice, will be overrun by the weeds. They will be overrun by feral animals and pests. They will be overrun by the mismanagement that we have seen over many years.

Again, we must have the right management plan in place and we must see the right people administering these protection areas. One thing I would like to throw into the works is that, if the government and its departments are not going to be able to manage these areas effectively, will there be neighbouring towns or neighbouring communities that might have some of that funding put to them so that they can actually manage these areas?

It has been proven time and time again that government departments are poor managers of parks when they are under-resourced. When funding is reduced, taken away, continually they have to cut corners, they have to lock up areas and not go to them. They scratch their heads in disbelief that they have had their funding pulled and do not have the resources effectively to manage these areas. I support the amendment bill, but with caution that the government upholds its responsibility and provides the resources not only to administer a protection area but also effectively to manage it.

We will watch. I have seen what has that happened at Danggali, and I think it has been managed reasonably well. We have issues with prescribed burns and with bushfire management plans, but that can be overcome with the government taking responsibility and showing responsible action under this amendment bill. In closing, I welcome the Wilderness Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and hope that the government will show some responsible action in managing it in a much more responsible way than it has other areas in the past.

The Hon. L.R. BREUER (Giles) (17:31): I am very pleased to support this legislation. The area is very well known to me—I have travelled in that area very many times. I was interested to hear the member for Flinders say that it is basically his electorate. I challenge him on that—I think we might share it fifty-fifty. I will not fight him over it as there are not that many constituents out there to fight over.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. L.R. BREUER: I had it all at one stage, but it is certainly very much part of the Giles and Flinders electorates. It is incredible country out there, almost untouched in most areas. I am very passionate about that area and love to travel out there. One of the issues is the Yellabinna forest. That area extends along the coastline and some of it is bare. There is hardly anything there at all, apart from a few bushes. There is also an incredible mallee area.

I actually got lost in that area once coming back from that very remote part of the country. My driver would argue that we were lost—he would just say that we misplaced the road. We did not have much fuel left, and we had to get somewhere to get fuel. We took a short cut, but the short cut unfortunately turned out to be a long cut. We drove around for quite some time. My driver is usually very mild mannered, but he ended up hitting the windscreen because he was so cross about where we were going. I started to panic because I thought that if we got trapped in there we would be trapped for days because nobody would be coming through.

We turned back and retraced where we went and found the exit and got out, and then found that most of the time we were probably only about 200 metres from the highway, but we did not know because the vegetation was so thick. I often have nightmares about that. If we had set off an EPIRB because we were lost in the bush, and the helicopter came along and picked us up and we were 200 metres from the road, I am sure it would have made the newspapers that the local member got lost 200 metres from the Eyre Highway.

I have also heard a couple of stories about the Nullarbor Roadhouse. Somebody said that they went there and he was the cook, not the chef. I went there one day and the person who served us when we went in to pay for the petrol then took our order for our lunch or dinner, booked us in the hotel, cooked the dinner and then came out and served it to us. They do not have a lot of staff out in those places for various reasons.

As for bike riders, there are tourists who go through there and it worries me. We met one young fellow one day riding on his pushbike on the road from the highway up to Cook, a very rough road. When we asked him whether he had water he said that there were lots of lakes on the map and that he would get water from the lakes, not understanding that they were claypans and not lakes and that there was no water in them. It is a very isolated area.

It is important that the local Indigenous people, mainly called the spinifex people, and a number of other groups—the Anangu are there and others—have an opportunity to help manage it. It is really important because they still have a very strong culture in that area and still speak the language. They still have business that goes on through that area. For them, it is very important that they have some say in what is happening in their area. It is important that we do maintain that and look after them in that area.

I am very passionate about this area, as I said. There are all sorts of feral animals there, yes, and we need to be careful about them. I hope—and certainly would urge the government when this goes through—that we do provide the resources (I echo the member for Chaffey on that) to maintain and manage the area, including the number of rangers that are able to work there, because sometimes they are a bit light on. If you want to keep a place in pristine condition then you have to make sure that it is maintained. I am very comfortable about this legislation; I am very happy to support it and I hope that it will go through.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:35): I rise to speak on the Wilderness Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012, and I am delighted to speak on this bill as the shadow minister for environment, water and natural resources. I might not be tomorrow morning, but I am very pleased to still be the shadow minister, and I have very much enjoyed the few months of representation on the opposition's behalf. I compliment the member for Flinders, who is acting on our behalf as the spokesperson and lead speaker on this matter, and applaud his passionate interest in wilderness protection.

The three important reforms of amendment in this bill are largely to introduce a co-management with the Indigenous communities structure that currently operates in our national parks. As indicated, we have no objection to that. The second reform is to recognise and respect existing leases over property, to facilitate their continued occupation and application. The third is to introduce into the act from the regulations the offences that one might commit in breach of the act if they were to undertake certain activities: namely, take a group on a sightseeing tour; film it for any commercial purpose; conduct any tour for a fee or reward; conduct any surfing, fishing or other kind of competition; sell or hire goods; etc. As I understand it, these are all existing activities that are prohibited unless there has been a licence granted by the director of the Department of Environment (now CEO), and they attract a penalty.

I think the penalties are significantly increasing, but it is important to note that in our legislation we already have the most severe penalties for a person who undertakes primary production or who attempts to crop or put stock into a property, or to interrupt the landscape by constructing or erecting any roads and the like. That is in current section 26. There is a strict prohibition on those two activities. Primary production and interruption by construction or erection of any roads or tracks and the like is absolutely prohibited. Indeed, it attracts a fine of some $20,000 or up to four years' imprisonment.

What that tells us, under the current act, is that there is a very clear intention in respect of wilderness areas that there be a focus on the preservation of wildlife and ecosystems and, very specifically, the restoration of any land and its ecosystems to a pre-European settlement state. Essentially, other than for the management of the land by minimising the feral vermin, exotic animals, bushfire management and the like, really the only things that the wilderness areas will be interrupted by would be scientific research and, in certain areas which are the preserve of the Aboriginal people, by hunting and entry for the purposes of observing Aboriginal tradition.

It is very clear that the wilderness areas of South Australia have a very different charter. They are there to preserve. The act identifies a group or a board which has a specific purpose of identifying, for the benefit of all South Australians, what areas are of significant value, and to be able to put those recommendations to the government, the minister in particular, to identify that, approve it for the purpose of being a wilderness area, and then secure it for the benefit of the objectives that are outlined in the legislation.

I want to say that that is in direct contrast sometimes to the origin, purpose and application of our parks and reserves. Shortly in the parliament we anticipate debating very significant amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, which is the principal act responsible for the supervision, management and protection of those types of areas of reserve. I mention that because there is undoubtedly an intention by the government in the review of that legislation we are going to be dealing with to commercialise parks and reserves. That, of course, not surprisingly, has attracted much angst for general members of the public, many of whom have served, until they were all dismissed shortly before Christmas, on consultative committees to the minister in respect of parks.

I am one of probably many South Australians who have ancestors here who have worked, donated, and contributed to the development of national parks in this state. Often, that has involved, not just from my family but from many families in South Australia, the bequeathing of assets and funds to develop and protect national parks and reserves in this state. It has a history independent of government, when we had the parks commissions; it is now all under the government. It does concern me that the very valuable advice that repeated governments have had from members of our community on these consultative committees has all been dismissed by this government, or at least by minister Caica. The new minister, the Hon. Ian Hunter, may or may not resurrect them, but I would almost lay London to a brick that that will not happen.

I am concerned about that, and I am particularly concerned about why the government is suddenly bringing in this legislation. I should acknowledge and say that I am very pleased to have had the benefit of advice from Mr Jason Irving on two occasions in a briefing on this bill. He is the Manager Protected Areas Policy and Planning in the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (I hope have given him his respectful title). He was most helpful in relation to the machinery, operations and development of this bill, and I appreciate that. However, the government is moving this bill.

I suggest to the house that one of the principal reasons for doing what is tacked right on at the end of the bill, in nearly the semi-last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, is reference to the fact that the income from parks is going to transfer from one body to another. You get it—of course it is going to go to the department. I see this bill really as a preliminary to what we are about to receive, which is the legislation of parks and reserves. That is going to cause some haemorrhage, I can tell you, in the general community. I think this is a preliminary for that.

Why do I say that? Firstly, because part of the legislation in increasing the fines, and the need then to consider bringing it from regulation to act, frankly does not need to have a bill. That is really just window-dressing in my view, other than to provide a greater income producing purpose. We argue all the time to have things in the statute and not in regulation. Suddenly, the government are ready to line up here and make this their first clause and amendment, to bring it into the bill. That is not the reason.

The second is that, when we look at the Nullabor area, which we wanted to do, we realised that we did not have co-management structures with the Aboriginal people. Does that matter legislatively? We have not had it all the way through. We have a truckload of areas of wilderness park in this state, and we do not have co-management agreements with those, and it is always open for our minister to have that structure and have that agreement with Indigenous people, which we strongly support, in any event. So, that cannot be a reason why they have had to come in with this bill now to amend this legislation.

The real reason is that they are gearing up for a major reform, a major commercialisation, of parks and reserves in this state, and this is an opportunity for the government to present to those who have a great interest in the environment. The member for Port Adelaide is one; she has come from a history in this area in her professional life prior to her coming into this parliament. Many of us, in difference ways, have had a history in this area of interest and commitment.

What is being presented by the government is, 'Aren't we fantastic? We're going to allocate another 900,000 square kilometres.' It is a hell of big area; I think it is bigger than Victoria. As has been pointed out, it is in the electorates of the member for Flinders and the member for Giles. What are we getting for that? We are going to get the government out there with a big fanfare of 'Aren't we fantastic? Aren't we brilliant?'

I just want to remind members that this area is already a national park. This is not having a new fence around it. This has had no further allocation of money to it. Not one jot has been allocated in the budget or Mid-Year Budget Review to say, 'We're going to upgrade the status of the protection of this area, and we are not going to do one thing extra to provide for it. Not anything.' So, it is a 'lock up, throw away the key' routine, and it has very little provision for it at the moment.

I am, frankly, sick of the government coming out, doing a great big press conference, saying, 'Aren't we fabulous? We're going to give you some fabulous new status. We're going to call it a sanctuary or a wilderness area,' and then make no provision whatsoever for what it is to do. I just want to remind the parliament that the second objective of the 1992 act was to positively proactively restore ecosystems and wilderness to pre-European settlement status. You cannot do that by walking over it or taking a picture or flying over it or going out and doing a press conference with the Prime Minister. You have to actually do something about it.

I have not been in this region, but I am told that it is fairly denuded of vegetation. I expect that there are some significant ecosystems out there, otherwise it would not be applying for this and being recognised in this way. Clearly, it has had tracks traversing over, it has had people who have entered it and who have historically undertaken some primary industry on it, and these things need to be fixed up. You cannot just put a fence around something or, in marine parks, draw a line in the ocean, and then just think, 'Stuff it; now it can look after itself.' That is not acceptable.

So, I think the parliament needs to say to the government, 'If you are serious about these things, we will support you in it, but you also have to apply it. Don't try to pretend that you're going to do something and then not do the second very important aspect of this legislation.' I do not want to see a bill that just brings in massive new camping fees or fees to obtain a licence to take a photograph of a bird or a fee to be able to traverse or to take a University of Adelaide group through it. That is not acceptable to me. They have to do something about it.

I will conclude by saying, as the member for Finniss is not here right as we speak—I am sure that he is listening somewhere—that he represents an area of South Australia that is part of where I was born on Kangaroo Island, just next to property my family still own; in fact, I am first life of it now. We have the Western River Wilderness Area. It is a pristine part of Kangaroo Island. But nearly 50-odd per cent of the island is national parks, reserves or wilderness areas, and the residents of Kangaroo Island and those who have the pleasure of living on it have a great deal of pride that these areas are provided for. That one, in particular, I mention because it is the one I am most familiar with, apart from the national parks otherwise on the island.

We have had a goat problem on Kangaroo Island; a number of regions in South Australia have had that. There have been Judas goat programs which were originally from New Zealand. In fact, I saw a program in operation in the Galapagos Islands where it seemed to be taken to a more extended application. On one island 100,000 goats had been eradicated in the 12 months prior to my having travelled there. It is a very effective program.

It is important because goats are identified as an introduced species which cause damage to the soil, particularly through erosion, and vegetation. It is important that we work on these things. It has been a never-ending battle during my lifetime to be able to ensure that we properly deal with management of pests, introduced species and where we have excessive numbers of abundant native species.

I am pleased that when I recently spoke to someone in the NRM, who has now relocated to serve in the arid lands of South Australia, she told me that all but a few goats now have been eradicated. Well done to those who are doing that and who are actually undertaking that work and making sure that we properly preserve the environments that they are in.

Wilderness protection areas have a higher status, if I can say that, above parks and reserves, and so the government must, if it is serious about being recognised and applauded for undertaking this area of responsibility, not just draw up something, lock it up and throw away the key but actually invest in it to ensure that it is preserved for future generations.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:51): It is always a challenge to follow the member for Bragg because she manages to include so much information and cover so many points in the time that she has on her feet. It is important for me to say a few words on behalf of the people of Stuart about the Wilderness Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. While I understand that it is 900,000 square kilometres in the electorates of Giles and Flinders, this is actually a really important statewide issue and there is an enormous amount of country under a whole range of different land tenure agreements for which this transition may be very important to the electorate of Stuart down the track.

I start by pointing out that this is a national park already. It is changing to another land use. It is changing to technically a higher level of land use and it just cannot be done without resources. I would like to say very clearly that I worry about tightening the rules, making things tougher, potentially for very good reason but trying to apply stricter conditions to land use without allowing additional resources for that to happen because otherwise it will be a disaster.

As the member for Flinders (our lead speaker) has said and the member for Bragg (our deputy leader) has also said, you cannot just shut the gate and leave it alone and expect it to be okay. I have to say that I feel very deeply for people who work for Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources for the pressure that they are under because they do not have the resources to do the job that is expected of them in many instances already. Now this is going to make the job that is expected of them even tougher.

I say that with great sympathy for them but I also say it with a great deal of frustration and anger on behalf of the landowners that I represent who very often are their neighbours, and there are a lot of rules. A lot of them are very good rules applied to land across our whole state with regard to expectations for weed and pest management and a range of other things where the rules are applied to the taxpayer owned government managed land under various different categories. They are also applied to the privately owned privately managed land. Technically they are applied to both but in practicality they are not applied equally to both.

It happens very regularly where landowners are told, 'You need to get rid of some weeds', and for all the right reasons. If you cannot do it, or you do not do it, you do not have the time or the resources, or you do not consider it a priority, or any other reason, you will be told, 'We will get a contractor to come and do it and we will send you the bill.' However, at the same time, for exactly the same issue for exactly the same weed in exactly the same district, that rule is applied technically to the national park, the conservation reserve or, potentially, the wilderness protection area, but if they do not have the resources, time, people or staff to do it then it just gets done later, it just gets done when they can get to it, and it very often does not get done.

I think that is a really unfair imposition on our private landowners. It is not an excuse for them. I am not trying to get them off the hook and I am not trying to say that these rules should not apply to them, they should apply equally to everybody, as they do technically, but in practice they do not apply to everybody equally because private landowners will get the contractor sent to get the job done and receive the bill, but on taxpayer-owned government-managed land they will do it when they can. That is not a criticism of the people who work in that area because they are doing the best they can. The reality is that they very often do not have the resources they need to do that job. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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