HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BLUE GUM FORESTRY

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:32): I move:

That this house notes the environmental, social and economic impact of blue gum forestry in South Australia.

It is with very mixed feelings that I move this motion today. I say that because in a past life in local government I was part of the planning and development committee which approved the planting of multitudes of blue gum forests on Kangaroo Island, at that stage. These were schemes that came into place under the managed investment scheme of the government at the time, and I think it is fair to say that the managed investment schemes have, to all intents and purposes, proven to be a disaster, and none more so than with blue gum forestry when it is planted in the wrong place.

I sat there with other members of the council at the time, including the mayor of the time, mayor Janice Kelly. We reluctantly, in the main, had to approve the granting of the applications because our development plan clearly approved forestry; it was an approved industry under the general farming zone. Indeed, on the one occasion where we did reject one of the applications, there was an appeal, and that appeal was won by the proponents, and, basically, that finished off the job.

What has happened now, though, is it has had an enormous effect, and I am being purely parochial about my electorate with this. I did have 1,100 hectares of blue gum forestry—the former Adelaide Blue Gum that went broke—on the Fleurieu and some 13,000-odd hectares (the figure seems to be a little bit up in the air) on Kangaroo Island. On the Fleurieu, they were small plantations, a number of them being sold off privately. Indeed, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in another place, his family bought one small plantation. They levelled it and it has been returned to pasture. If you go down Hindmarsh Tiers Road, you will see that there are plantations there that have been levelled and re-pastured. Ultimately, I think probably all of the 1,100 hectares on the Fleurieu will go that way.

Just recently, I had a few days in Western Australia driving down in the south-west, because I wanted to have a look at the forestry industry down there. I went past hundreds of kilometres of blue gums, hour on hour on hour, many of them owned now by the receiver or the current owner—whoever that may be, I am not sure—but with the Great Southern Plantations sign up there. Great Southern were also the main buyers and growers of blue gums on Kangaroo Island.

The big difference is that in south-west Western Australia, they have the opportunity to export the blue gums through ports there, and it is a completely different situation. However, I go on to say that even there it is a vexed issue with the farming community. Similar to my area, the south-west of Western Australia is high-rainfall, productive country, and many of these blue gum forests over there may be there for a long time. They have actually put them in marginal land, as well, and are growing nowhere near as well there as in some of the lusher parts of the south-west of Western Australia.

I need to return to the issue of the motion, which is peculiar to South Australia, and I would like to talk about the impact of blue gum forestry on Kangaroo Island. In short, it is a disaster. It is an economic disaster, it is a social disaster and it is an environmental disaster. I am spoken to very regularly by my constituents about what is going to happen, and I will come to that in a minute, but let me say that a number of people who sold their properties and were put into blue gums in the nineties and early 2000s actually got out of their farming properties with a bit of dignity and a few dollars. Now, that may not have happened otherwise.

There were some people there who thought it was the best thing that had ever happened to them. I have respect for the fact that they did get out, but there are other properties that other people sold for blue gums, and they were offered enormous amounts of money at the time—money which all fell over, I might add, with the collapse of Great Southern. They were high-producing farms; I know one business there had a number of properties and they were turning off thousands of lambs, wool, cattle and heaven knows what else.

The situation now is that (and I stand corrected if necessary) with blue gums, when they get to about 11 or 12 years old, they turn from soft wood to hard wood, and if you cannot pulp them, they then have hard wood that is not much use unless it is harvested for some other use. A number of the trees on the island now have reached that stage. There are other much younger trees which are suited for pulping, but the issue is that it is totally, completely, absolutely economically unviable to harvest the trees, pulp them and get them off the island. It just cannot happen.

Even tomorrow, I am meeting the new owners who have secured the trees. I think they have secured pine trees, as well; I will find out more later. Even with the pine trees, the pine mill has fallen over again. So now we have these tens of thousands of productive, high rainfall land in trees. When you get out past the township of Parndana—which I will also return to in a moment—you meet a wall of trees, with the odd farm in the middle of it.

What has happened, and what is continuing to happen, is that it has killed the west end of the island socially and it has killed the west end of the island environmentally, I believe, with the amount of these trees. On the environmental side they are sucking up such huge amounts of water that creeks are not flowing anymore; they are not flowing down through to the south coast. One farmer, Rick Morris—who is down in the Karatta area and still farming there with blue gums everywhere around him—has noticed that the amount of water that he is receiving now, his run-off coming down from the northern plateau area, is abysmal compared to what it used to be. They are having that effect. What have we heard from the department of environment? Absolutely stuff all, quite frankly. They are not doing anything about it.

I shudder to think what is going to happen with these trees. I am not being alarmist; I am being realistic about this, because as we get into spring and summer the north coast of the island is conducive to a lot of thunderstorm and lightning activity, multitudes of lightning strikes. What I can see happening is an enormous conflagration with these trees when they go up—

Mr Venning: It might solve the problem.

Mr PENGILLY: I understand, member for Schubert, but I do not want to see it happen; don't get me wrong. It is impacting on the schools. The Parndana school's numbers are reducing rapidly; that means that people move out of the town, there are not enough kids going to the school. It is impacting on the sports clubs; the Western Districts Football and Sports Club and the Parndana clubs are battling for numbers. It is a sad sight to go into the two shops in Parndana; they have nothing on the shelves anymore because—

Mrs Geraghty: I was there a couple of days ago and bought stuff.

Mr PENGILLY: The Parndana supermarket, that used to be bustling, has little on the shelves, if you go down the grocery end. It is a sad indictment of what is happening with the community. People are most distressed over what is going on with it.

I do not suggest that there any easy answers, but I need to bring it to this place. There have been talks about using the trees for biomass power production and what not, but that is a no go because you cannot get the power off the island; the cable is not big enough to get it back the other way. My view is that they should all be knocked over and returned to farming land, quite frankly, but that is far easier said than done. It has enormous impacts on land values. I suggest it would take some form of a government scheme, similar to the land settlement scheme, to do that. It would bring large amounts of land back in for sale; it would require an enormous effort.

However, if something does not change, whether it be by the current or a future state or federal government, I do not know what will happen. I do not have all the answers to it, but I say to the house that it is an appalling situation, absolutely appalling. Of course, in the middle of all the blue gums you have all the natural vegetation, which would spring back. I found it necessary to bring it to this house. As I said, it is causing distress and it is something that is going nowhere.

I just wonder where it will all end up because, quite simply, on top of the fact that these trees are continuing to grow unabated they are absolutely full of vermin. Wild pigs and deer are getting in there, koalas eat blue gum and they are through there, kangaroos and wallabies; the numbers are out of control. The pigs are completely out of control, from what I am told by locals. I know the local pig shooters are having the time of their life. You do not easily get into a blue gum plantation and find your way out; you need to know what you are doing in there.

They were being managed appropriately, but there is one person left looking after 13,000 hectares of blue gums; one person. The fences have fallen into disrepair, the gates are down, the pigs get in, the roos and wallabies and everything else get in, the koalas get in. I do not think anybody could tell you exactly what numbers of animals are back in those blue gums and what will happen with them.

I am upset about it and, as I said initially, I take my share of responsibility for the fact. However, I also need to say that even with the best intent of the council of the day, when you try to change the development plan, you are met with a brick wall by the bureaucrats of the time in Adelaide and the government planning authorities. It just takes so long to change a development plan. It is ridiculous. By that time all the land is sold. It created a lot of employment at the time for tree planters, labourers and whatnot. That was all fine, but what a hell of a mess we have now. It is just appalling.

I considered long and hard about whether I should bring this matter to the house. I felt it was necessary to bring it to the house. We have members in this place who come from the South-East of the state, and blue gum forestry is a completely different issue down there. They have the Port of Portland where they export but, even then, they may contribute; I do not know. However, to put 13,000 hectares or so of blue gum forest on Kangaroo Island with a strip of water between there and the mainland and no hope of getting them off is, quite frankly, economic sabotage. The amount of stock that could be run on those properties if it was farming country again would be astronomical. The number of people that that would employ, the numbers that it would put back into schools and into sports clubs, keeping them going, would be marvellous.

I am interested to hear what other people in this place have to say on this particular motion. There may be some people who disagree with me. At the outset I said I am peculiarly parochial about this because, when I am on the island, I cannot go anywhere without having this matter raised with me. I go to the football and to sports and whatnot. Last Saturday I was at the football on the island and I got belted about it. I got an email this week about it. I have a group of people who live out that way who want to speak to me about it. They are upset about the matter because no-one seems to be doing anything. So I raise this matter in here as a priority for my electorate. As I said earlier, it is something that is not going to go away. Quite simply, if it goes on, I do not know what will happen.

It is all very well to promote the island as a great tourist destination but, quite frankly, I think it is being overpromoted to the elitist end of tourism and we are forgetting about families, but that is another debate entirely. To pour $6 million or so into marketing the island for tourism is one thing, but doing absolutely nothing about this environmental social and economic disaster that is blue gums on Kangaroo Island is another. I look forward to hearing what other members have to say, but I think I have said enough for now.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:48): This is a very important issue for us in the South-East. I think there are about 175,000 hectares of blue gums in the Green Triangle region. The blue gum industry basically came about from an initiative of the federal government to give massive tax breaks to companies to plant the trees. A lot of prospectuses came out that were a fair bit over the top as far as what the predicted yields and returns would be and a lot of people got their fingers burnt. Of course, farmers who were getting to retirement age, etc., who sold their properties did quite well out of it, so there was an upside to that.

Many of the blue gums that were planted were planted in the wrong places: where the rainfall was too low, where the soil types were wrong and, of course, where they were too far away from ports. Kangaroo Island is a classic example of where there was no port to even take those chips out. In the South-East and west of Victoria, the trees that are further away from the Port of Portland have to have extremely high yields per hectare or they are completely unviable. I would suggest that out of those 175,000 hectares, probably a half to two-thirds of those trees in the areas they are in will be completely unviable.

The vermin were mentioned. The blue gum forests are now becoming full of foxes, deer and pigs, and of course they are also having trouble now when they are harvesting the blue gums with koala being in those trees and they have to go through a fair old program to try to relocate the koalas before they start harvesting.

The other effects are on the water table. Wherever those trees have been planted where the water table is within six metres of the surface, the trees themselves are sucking that water table right down and there are now cones of depression in the South-East under those trees, and they have become a major consideration in formulating water allocation plans. Where they have been planted to such vast areas, it has had a large effect on many of those small towns, communities, schools, churches and sporting clubs because they no longer have the number of people within those communities.

There are some great benefits in the blue gum industry where they are planted and farmed properly and they are close to the ports, but unfortunately too many of them have been planted where they shouldn't have been. Of course, the other thing is that it will cost a fortune for that land to be converted back to farming and grazing; even if you get the land for nothing, especially where it is marginal. I don't know that some of that country will actually be converted back and it will then cause a problem way into the future.

Unlike pine trees, blue gums have to be harvested somewhere between 12 and 15 years and, if you leave them any longer, the quality of the chip deteriorates very rapidly and then they become worthless. With a pine, if the market is depressed for up to five years you can leave the trees there and the quality of the timber only improves, but unfortunately with blue gums it just gets worse.

I certainly support this motion that the house notes the environmental, social and economic impact of blue gum forestry in South Australia. I feel that probably the federal government were the ones that put the initiative in to plant all these trees and perhaps they should show some responsibility on what we are going to do about those environmental impacts where those trees are no longer viable.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:53): I am delighted to speak to this motion and I thank the member for Finniss for bringing it to the attention of the house. I want to go back a little bit in my contribution into some of the history behind this. I don't quite share all of the thoughts about the impacts of the blue gum industry that the member for Finniss does. I think the impacts in my electorate have been somewhat different in many cases; in some cases the points that he raised are relevant.

The reality is that this country has a substantial forestry industry but we are a huge net importer of forest product. Something in excess of $2 billion a year is spent by the Australian community importing forest product from overseas. A lot of that comes out of endangered rainforests throughout Asia and I am not too sure that ethically we should be doing things to continue that particular import. I think we need to be cognisant of that when we talk about forestry and impacts in the immediate region and we need to look at it on a world scale to some extent.

The commonwealth government, probably 15 years ago under the Howard government, came out with a forestry vision which was to double the area of plantation forestry in this nation by the year 2020. That was a very worthwhile vision and one which I certainly supported, representing an area which is probably the birthplace of plantation forestry in this nation and still at the forefront of plantation forestry.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Wirrabara.

Mr WILLIAMS: I'm talking about Mount Burr, not Wirrabara. But, certainly, forests were planted in Wirrabara prior to being planted at Mount Burr but they were much more successful at Mount Burr and turned into a magnificent industry.

The other thing I think we need to be cognisant of is that the blue gum industry was predicated on the MIS (managed investment schemes). It was driven by a tax break for city-based people who had incomes which created tax problems for them and they needed to look for somewhere to park their money. That sort of incentive always will send the wrong economic signals and, I think, where there have been problems created by the plantation of, particularly, Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), it has been because of these flawed economic signals which have been delivered through the managed investment schemes.

Let us not forget those two important factors that were behind our vision to increase our plantation forestry. Not only was that driven by the need to address our desire for forest product when we did not have the capacity to meet demand within our own forestry industry in Australia, but a large portion of our forest industry still relies on native forests and I think we all would agree that has a very limited life. The governments in New South Wales, Victoria and, indeed, Tasmania, are seeking to move their substantial timber industries from operating in native forests across to plantation forests.

That, again, puts the nonsense to some of the policies that we have adopted or are about to adopt here in South Australia with regard to forests, because those states are going to continue down the path of creating more plantation forests to accommodate that shift out of their native forests. That is another thing we need to be cognisant of in the whole forestry sector across Australia.

I am absolutely certain there are more blue gum plantation forests, and probably softwood plantation forests, in my electorate than any other electorate in the state. There have been probably 40,000-odd hectares of blue gums planted in my electorate. They have virtually all been planted in the last 15 or 18 years, and they have created social upheaval, there is no doubt about that. On the other hand, it had a positive effect on a significant number of farmers (a lot of them returned servicemen, soldier settlers) who were stuck on a farm which was barely viable and were not able to afford to get off that farm and get themselves into a decent retirement.

The advent of the blue gum industry allowed a lot of those farmers to get an inflated price, or a price which was above what otherwise would have been the then market value, for their property and get off and have a decent retirement—to move into one of the local towns or to the coast and build themselves a retirement home or purchase an existing retirement home and have a decent retirement. That was one of the significant advantages for the people who sold their farms to the blue gum plantation companies.

One of the other things I think we need to be aware of is that the blue gum industry is predicated on making woodchip. It is probably the very low value end of the timber industry. The high value end is saw log and the blue gum industry is predicated on creating woodchip, mainly to be exported into Asia and China (Korea and Japan) for conversion into paper. If that area that has been turned over to blue gum forest were growing saw log, it would be a much more valuable industry.

The South-East economy relies on a sawmilling sector in the softwood plantation forestry sector utilising primarily Pinus radiata, which grows exceedingly well in that climate. It is my understanding, as we go forward, that a large portion of the area currently planted to blue gum forests will indeed be converted in second and subsequent rotations to pinus. Interestingly, that can only happen because the blue gums were planted there in the first place. The member for Mount Gambier talked about the use of water in these forests and how they have drawn down the watertable—they certainly have.

In that area, the hundreds of Short and Coles to the west of Penola, the standing watertable prior to the blue gum plantations going in there was just below the ground surface in the winter. Those blue gum forests have drawn down that watertable to, probably, six or eight metres, and some people are complaining that that is bad. The reality is that, now that the watertable has been drawn down to that level, as individual blocks of blue gums are being clear felled and harvested, with that lower watertable some of that land can now be replanted to Pinus radiata, which is a much more valuable forest product to grow.

I believe that in the medium to long term we will see a considerable conversion away from replanting of Eucalyptus globulus (Tasmanian blue gum) in the South-East towards pinus on that same land. We will see a significant portion of those lands, as the member for Mount Gambier said, return to general farming, because some has been found to be unsuitable for blue gum and it will be unsuitable for pinus as well. In the medium to long term we will see a shift, and that will, in my opinion, add greatly to the Pinus radiata plantation sector and industry in the South-East.

One of the things I have argued in the whole time I have been in this place is that we need to increase the forest estate in the South-East, or in the greater green triangle region, which extends right across into Victoria, to underpin the very important and very valuable sawmilling and value-adding industries in and around Mount Gambier.

The forest estate has not grown very greatly in the South Australian portion of the green triangle for many years, but I think we will see a step change into the future with the conversion to pinus. It is not all bad news, and I agree with a number of things the member for Finniss has said about the lack of management of some of these forests, and they do need to be managed. Maybe there is a role there for the state, particularly through the Department of Environment, to look at that. It is not all bad news, and certainly in the South-East, where the vast majority of these plantations have been put in in my electorate, it is not all bad news and I suspect there will be some very good news as well.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:03): I rise to address this notice of motion moved by the member for Finniss, 'That this house notes the environmental, social and economic impact of blue gum forestry in South Australia'. Certainly it has been a roller-coaster ride for blue gum forestry. It shows, when you only use one driver for an industry, that it just does not work. I appreciate the words from the member for MacKillop, when we talk about the scheme put up by the Howard government to try to increase plantation forestry in this country.

We always see the protests that rightfully go on when there is talk about clearing native forests, and we should be farming more plantation forestry—that is the way we should be going in this state and country. You cannot just rely on one economic driver to make it work, as we have seen with the managed investment schemes across the state. You actually have to have a market at the end of the day, so a lot of these plantations were put in in hope, and that is about where we have landed—in the great world of hope.

People I know saw an opportunity. They bought earthmoving equipment. They went out contracting, putting in these blue gums and they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment. They certainly created jobs and hired a lot of people, but all of that has fallen away and I believe that some of those people, sadly, lost their main farming properties because the work just ran out.

Having worked down in the South-East (mainly in the shearing sheds over time) I have seen where the blue gums have expanded further and further north from the Mount Gambier and Millicent areas, heading up towards areas like Callendale and Lucindale. I believe that some of those plantations further north may be single-rotation crops.

I also take note of the words of the member for MacKillop where there may be some opportunities for some of these plantations—once the first initial harvest of blue gums has taken off—to go into pine because that is where we need to expand and it would give an opportunity for that. To a degree, it does break my heart when I go down to one of the properties that I used to work on out at Callendale—it was Dean Baker's, brother of the former agriculture minister Dale—

Mr Goldsworthy: God rest his soul.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. It was a great grazing property down there. I went through there in the last 18 months and called in and right up to where the sheep yards used to be, the posts are still there but they have ripped the panels off because they are not running sheep on that property anymore—it is wall-to-wall blue gums. I look at it and I think what a waste because there is no substantive, economic market for that product at the minute. That is an interesting place to be when you look at the issues where people are protesting against harvesting native trees and native forests. So, it has to have an economic outcome.

We have seen the discussion in the South-East with the proposal of a billion dollar pulp mill—that has not happened, but there is some timber that gets pulped and exported out of Portland in Victoria. Obviously, with the price of pulp coming down, that is not as successful as it could be and there are a whole lot of infrastructure issues around that matter.

I believe that some of this land that has gone under blue gums will be a one harvest and that gets down to the simple fact that, essentially, it will have to be cleared again and, thankfully, it is a bit easier to clear country than it was 100 years ago—we are not out there with an axe and a horse.

I note that there are some earthmoving companies around the place, and there are some in Victoria, that specialise and advertise that they are there to clear blue gum plantations—they grind the stumps and they say that they are experts at it. That is because of a need to get this land out of blue gums. Some of it is going back to farming land, but I note that there could be opportunities to go into pine, which is sorely needed.

Mr Venning: 'Sorely'—that is a good pun!

Mr PEDERICK: No pun intended, Ivan. So, what we have seen over time (especially with regard to forestry) is the sale of a South-East forest by the Labor government for a paltry $670 million. We talk about foreign investment in this country and that was sold to foreign investors—a north American superannuation firm, and they got an absolute bargain that was putting at least $43 million annually into the state's budget. Now we have a government that has to prop up industries in the South-East, I believe to the tune of tens of millions of dollars so they can diversify the product.

We also have an issue in this state now, and I believe it is directly attributable to the forward sale of forests, where fence posts have just gone through the roof. It is close to $10 a post for a four to five-inch post. That has put another cost on landholders. Apart from that, because now there is only one operator doing it, you can barely get the darn things. I needed some for my fencing contractor a few months ago and I was fortunate and managed to get a batch before they went up to that ridiculous price. This is what happens with very poor decision making.

What I have seen in the Victorian initiative is where they are trialling blue gums to be used in posts. I hope that they do have some success with that, because it would be a real pity to see some of this land essentially just chained and cleared, and then raked up into heaps—apart from the cost—lit up and be a wasted resource. There are opportunities, certainly, if this post operation gets going. There are also opportunities to use it as firewood, but it is a huge job for someone to take on. There is some land that is several thousand dollars per hectare, and it will cost several thousand dollars per hectare to essentially harvest this timber for whatever you want to use it for.

I acknowledge what the member for MacKillop was talking about when he said it did give opportunity. It certainly did give opportunity for people to make plenty of money. There were properties sold for two and three times their farming value, and that was a great boon for people. I know a major operator who had quite a bit of land in the Callendale area who is now down on King Island growing King Island beef, because he could see an opportunity and he capitalised on the outcome. Mind you, I still do not think it was a good idea to put blue gums there.

We have certainly seen from the member for Finniss's contribution the absolute farce that the industry has been on Kangaroo Island. Kangaroo Island is a beautiful place, but there is that big strip of water between it and the mainland, and that is an issue, as the member for Finniss well knows, for everything that goes on on Kangaroo Island. He said that there could be an opportunity for generating power, but the cable is not good enough to transmit back to the mainland. You would have to have a big enough operation so that you could do that, because you would generate far more power than the island needs.

This is a real issue. It certainly needs addressing. If there are commercial opportunities for people to use this blue gum timber, well and good. Where it is appropriate—where the rainfall is wet enough. There used to be zones where they would only come so far north, but it is interesting that, over time, as people thought they could see opportunities, they have come further north towards Lucindale in regard to the South-East. There may be opportunities for pine to go in there, and that would be great, but the blue gums still have to be got rid of, and certainly, I believe, there will be opportunities to go back to productive farmland. This is a big issue and it shows that you need a market for a product and you just cannot have an incentive scheme. You have to have a viable market, and it has proved itself time and time again. As much as it has helped some people along in life, blue gum plantations in this state have also broken many hearts.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:13): I will be brief because other members want to speak. First of all, I declare an interest. I do not know whether I still own one of these plantations in Western Australia. I do not know whether anyone knows whether I still own one, but it is in Western Australia, and whether it is worth the paper—

Mr Pengilly: I probably saw it a couple of weeks ago, Bob.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I am not sure. Theoretically, I could potentially, possibly have a forest in Western Australia, but I am not holding my breath and I am going to keep on working for my super—no, I do not have to. I commend the member for Finniss for bringing this motion to the parliament. He was a little bit apologetic and he should not be—this is what parliament is for. The fact that Kangaroo Island may be different to the South-East in terms of this issue does not detract from the importance of the community and the government trying to deal with this issue. This is clearly a problem on Kangaroo Island, as outlined by the member for Finniss. There are a lot of other issues affecting rural areas but, in particular, this one is clearly having a negative impact on the people of Kangaroo Island.

The Tasmanian blue gum is a magnificent tree in the right place. If my memory serves me correctly, it is Eucalyptus globulus, and it starts off and changes colour and its leaf structure changes. As in the case of Kangaroo Island, where it may not be the best place to plant it, some people in Adelaide planted them close to their front door years ago, and that is not the best place either. All I want to say is that there is an issue there. I do not have a specific answer. I have heard what other members have said, but I think something needs to happen.

One would hope that there would be some experts, people in government, in the wider community, who could help deal with this issue where it is a problem. If we have got productive farmland that is being rendered ineffective because of these blue gum plantations, then we need to do something about it. I am particularly concerned about the decline in a whole range of services and facilities in country areas, and that is the substance of a motion coming up in a few weeks time. This matter needs to be addressed, and maybe it is a question or issue for a special task force to have a look at.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:16): I wish to make some comments in relation to the motion that the member for Finniss has brought to the house. I have listened to the contributions made by other members here this morning, and I think they all raise very valid and worthwhile points. This is a contentious issue. As the member for Fisher said, it is the responsibility of the parliament to raise issues that are contentious and talk about them so that those who have responsibility for these matters do look to them and pay the relevant attention.

The member for Finniss—and I obviously listened to his contribution—touched on the issue of development plans and the manner in which, if a council wants to change a development plan, there is a really, long, protracted and arduous process it is exposed to in looking to change development plans through the DPAs.

I know that in my district it has taken up to five years, approximately, to have a development plan changed, back and forth to the government departments. A lot of agencies obviously have to oversee and make a comment in relation to the proposals in the development plan. There is a real, live example in my electorate concerning the different development plans within neighbouring councils, and I have spoken about that in the house previously in relation to a proposal.

I am digressing somewhat, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is relevant, it is germane to the issue that the member for has Finniss raised. Just across the council boundary of Mount Barker there is a waste water treatment plant being proposed to be built in the Murray Bridge council district to treat waste water from the housing developments taking place in Mount Barker township. That is a real example of the issues with development plans.

The member for Finniss certainly raises some very important points in relation to his electorate. As we all know, we respect that each individual member in this place certainly knows best, has first-hand knowledge and experience, of those issues that relate to their own electorates; but I do have some knowledge of the issues that the member for Finniss raises, particularly in relation to these plantations on Kangaroo Island. It was only a couple of years ago that, on the invitation of the member for Finniss, I visited the island and had a meeting with the local council.

My wife and family came along on that trip and we had some spare time so we drove to the western end of the island, down around the area where the blue gum plantations are located. I saw firsthand the effect that fire has on these areas of dense vegetation, particularly the blue gum plantations. We have spoken about that severe Kangaroo Island fire that occurred a number of years ago and how it came out of a national park and into the blue gum plantations, and great tracts of the blue gum country were severely affected by that fire event.

I understand what the member for Finniss is talking about having travelled around that part of the country, particularly on the western end of Kangaroo Island. Also, other members talked about the issue of the effect these plantations have on the water resource. The member for MacKillop talked about the lowering of the watertable, and I also clearly remember the many public debates which have taken place and the issues which have been raised here in the house in relation to the impact of these plantations on the water resources in the respective areas, to the point where, it is my understanding, that the regulatory regime has changed as a consequence of the impact of blue gum plantations on the water resources.

Also, members have spoken in relation to the investment schemes that were promoted concerning the blue gum plantations enterprise. I have had constituents come to talk to me, seeking some advice in relation to this and, being a banker in a previous career, I am pretty cautious in relation to schemes that to me look too good to be true; and it is the old adage of the conservative banker: 'if it looks too good to be true, then it is'. The marketing that was put out there in relation to the forecasts of returns on the investment were unrealistic, and we have seen it come to fruition that the forecast for the returns on these schemes were certainly unrealistic.

We have seen the inflated price of the land that was sold—good productive farming country that has been planted into blue gums—and, as the member for Finniss stated, on the Fleurieu Peninsula some of that land has been bought back by farming families and returned to normal conventional farming operations. I understand that there is a similar occurrence in the South-East where some entrepreneurial farmers have identified the deflated land price as a consequence of these schemes not working and have bought blue gum country and, if they have not already, they are looking to push those blue gums over and return it to grazing country or other pursuits in relation to more conventional farming.

Members also raise the issue concerning vermin and how vermin thrives in this environment. I can tell the house that it is not just blue gum plantations where the vermin issue is a real problem. It is obviously a problem where there is land with dense vegetation. In my electorate, there are small pockets of conservation parks where the adjoining farming neighbours have complained to me about the impact of the increasing kangaroo populations within those parks and the impact it has on their farming activity, and I have written to the Minister for Environment and Conservation in relation to that.

Also, in relation to vermin thriving in ForestrySA country, particularly in the Adelaide Hills, we have had a recent debate in this place, and a parliamentary committee has looked into the issue of the management of foxes and the increase in fox numbers, particularly in the Adelaide Hills. There was a debate some time ago where the use of 1080 was raised and the fact that there was some concern about the use of 1080 in ForestrySA country in the Adelaide Hills. I put on the record then, and I have continued to do that, that I think that potentially the worst decision that could be made is to abolish the use of 1080 in ForestrySA country because we all know that foxes are well adapted to that sort of country. It is thick, deep, dense vegetation.

Time expired.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:26): I rise also today to make a contribution on this motion from the member for Finniss. The motion is:

That this house notes the environmental, social and economic impact of blue gum forestry in South Australia.

I have listened very carefully to the contributions thus far, and I have to confess that it is not an area where I have a great deal of experience or knowledge, although in my electorate of Flinders—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: I really think that I should let that comment go through to the keeper. I inform the house that we have one small area of hardwood forest in the electorate of Flinders, that being adjacent to the Wanilla township, down the southern end of the peninsula. That was planted in the very early days of the last century (20th century), the idea being to supply railway sleepers for the railway that was expanding across Eyre Peninsula. It is a small area. But as far as investment into blue gum forestry goes, we have escaped thus far.

However, I think that there is a bigger issue here, and that is the issue of misguided government directives. We have heard today on a number of occasions from a number of speakers that the investment and development of the blue gum forestry industry really was as a result of a management investment scheme which was developed by the government of the day to give tax breaks and tax incentives to various individuals and companies, and it really allowed for speculative investment into an industry which was quite immature and which ultimately proved to be spectacularly unsuccessful. I think that the message here is that, when governments get involved in the marketplace, it is fraught with danger and ultimately is doomed to failure.

We have heard about the impact of blue gum forestry on Kangaroo Island and the Fleurieu, which is within the electorate of Finniss, whose representative raised this issue in the house. We have also heard from three members who represent a portion at least of the South-East. I understand that there is also investment and development of blue gum forests in Victoria and Western Australia, and I have been reliably informed that large areas of the blue gum forests in Western Australia at least are being chain pulled and put back into agricultural production—traditional farmland, if you like—mostly for grazing, because it is generally higher rainfall areas.

We have heard about the environmental impact of the establishment of blue gum forests, and there is no doubt that, in this huge, vast and sometimes demanding landscape in which we live and farm, it is a challenging task to manage the environment. We have made many mistakes in the past. We are making fewer mistakes now, but maybe the introduction of an establishment of blue gum had environmental impacts that we could not foresee at the time. It is just one more of the unintended consequences of government directives.

I do not think there is any place for people who sit in high-rise city offices to make decisions about how people should be investing, particularly with regard to primary production. I think the marketplace should always decide about what land use should evolve, should develop. Ultimately the most profitable land use should be encouraged and generally comes to the fore.

I have a theory—and this is not without exception—that for the most part the most profitable land use and production systems are also the most sustainable; by definition they are sustainable. Most primary producers in South Australia and right across this nation take a long-term, even generational, view about their sustainability and profitability. It is this long-term vision that is so critical to our landscape management in Australia.

I am a little surprised that at some point in this discussion the issue of food security has not come up. It may have been touched on by a previous speaker; I am not sure. If that is the case, I apologise to that member. Often food security is thrown up as an issue, as a framework within which to debate land use. I do not actually think that is the issue that some others do. There is plenty of food in the world.

Admittedly there are problems with the distribution of that food. A lot of it is wasted. Up to a third of the food that we produce right across the world is wasted. You only have to think in this country how much food we throw out, each and every day. Think of your own refrigerators, what you throw out when it has reached the use-by date. Think of what is thrown out at the end of every day and at the end of every week from the supermarkets right across this country, and think of all the food that is wasted in food halls and restaurants right across the nation, right across the Western world each and every day.

I think that is one of the great tragedies of our modern world. That is probably a discussion for another day, but my argument of course is that food security itself is not an argument for a particular land use or not. There are many people in the world today who are hungry, but they are hungry because they are poor, not because there is not enough food.

There will be challenges in the future, but I think our production systems will rise to that challenge. I go back to my original point. The point I really want to make in this debate is that governments of any ilk, at any time really have no place in trying to guide investment or production. It is an area they should stay out of, because otherwise the social, environmental and economic upheaval can be quite severe.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:33): I will speak very briefly. I am inspired to make this speech because of the great speech by the member for Finniss. I support the motion and all the speakers who have spoken since. This is very concerning for our state; it really is. These MIS schemes have caused huge problems right across our state, not just in these blue gums; they did the same thing with the wine industry. People were actually planting vines when we could not sell the grapes. They kept on going because of these schemes that they had signed up for, purely about this tax deduction. All these people put money in because it was a quick buck. Well, look where we are. It is a serious problem They have caused huge problems; speculators and poor investment went rife.

These are direct decisions of government. I can recall going to Canberra on several occasions to try to pull this scheme in relation to the wine industry. It fell on deaf ears, because the wine industry at the executive level would not hear of it. It was all attractive to them, because they wanted more grapes cheaply. No doubt about it, there is politics in decisions like this, and now we are paying a huge price for this. There is no consideration at all, when these things happen, of market forces.

As the member for Flinders just said, everything we do should be driven by the potential market force at the other end. These decisions were made and, of course, they are just not sustainable—they never were. Luckily, there are no blue gums in my share portfolio. It is probably more good luck than good management, I think. Anyway, my wife does that, not me, so I do not have to declare anything. All I do is feel very sorry for a lot of people who lost a lot of money in these fly-by-night schemes.

We have had the same problem with the grape plantings, as I said. That is now generally under control, but it should have been stopped two or three years before it was. Eventually, they agreed and stopped it, but people like Leo Pech were telling me and the government for years where that was going to take us, and he was exactly right. If people saw Leo coming, they would avoid him, uncomfortable because he was dead right. He is now retired, with his vineyard sold.

These schemes should never be revisited, and the damage caused really ought to be the responsibility of government. The blue gums need to be got rid of. When the member for Finniss was speaking, I said to him, 'Why don't we burn them?' I think the only real answer in the end is to get rid of them and burn them. Certainly, it would want to be very controlled burning. You would have to be very careful because there would be one heck of a fire.

We need this land in this state. We have not got very much productive land and we cannot have all these tracts of land under useless trees, soaking up all the water. I think it is a matter not just of the loss of production but of the water we are losing as well. I think it is time we bit the bullet, or bit the bark, and said, 'Right; enough,' took direct action and fixed it. It is probably going to take 10 years to fix it.

I think that, every year, we should take out 10 per cent of these trees and try to bring the land back to production, and I believe the government should play a large part in that. I commend the member for Finniss for this motion, and I agree with the member for Fisher that this is the sort of stuff that we want brought to this house. It is a major concern and we should all get together and try to find a solution. I support the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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