HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIVE VEGETATION (ROAD VERGES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 November 2012.)

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (11:17): The government opposes this motion. The Native Vegetation (Road Verges) Amendment Bill introduced in the House of Assembly by Dr Duncan McFetridge MP seeks to amend the Native Vegetation Act 1991 to provide for clearance of roadside vegetation for either road safety purposes or to reduce fuel load.

Roadside vegetation is often the only remaining native vegetation in the areas that have been cleared. The verges often contain rare or endangered plants which can be a vital source of local seed for revegetation projects. Roadside vegetation also provides windbreaks and shelter for stock on adjoining farmland, as well as corridors for the movement of birds and other native fauna.

This bill proposes provisions for the clearance of roadside vegetation for either road safety purposes or to reduce fuel load. The amendment would allow any person to clear native vegetation along roadside verges if they consider it to be reasonably necessary to do so. It is recommended that the proposed amendment be opposed, as:

1. It does not distinguish between roadside vegetation and native vegetation.

2. Roadside native vegetation has significant value as biodiversity resources, providing habitat for native flora and fauna, acting as a genetic resource, providing habitat for residual or pre-European settlement flora.

3. It does not recognise that clearance of native vegetation for road safety purposes is already included in the Native Vegetation Regulations, section 5(1)(1b), and the framework for clearance of native vegetation for road safety, including sight lines, developed by the Native Vegetation Council in conjunction with the Local Government Association and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

4. It does not recognise that clearance of native vegetation for fire mitigation purposes is already included in the Native Vegetation Regulations section 5A, either through direct South Australian Country Fire Service approval or through an area of bushfire management plan approved by the State Bushfire Coordination Committee.

5. It does not recognise that the control of pest plants can be undertaken by private landholders in roadside verges if the landholder has the approval of the relevant local council and the local council is acting in accordance with the Native Vegetation Act 1991.

6. There is a risk in allowing a subjective interpretation of when roadside verges need clearing in that it may result in excessive clearance of native vegetation and potentially fire hazards, as the form of clearance is not controlled.

In summary, options for the management of roadside vegetation are well provided for in existing legislation and policy and is consistent with the South Australian Strategic Plan target 69, Lose no species. These address all the concerns raised by the honourable member and provide for the conservation of native vegetation.

The SPEAKER: Before the member for Morphett replies, it was unfortunate that the member for Port Adelaide referred to the member for Morphett by his Christian name and surname and I ask her to refrain from doing that in future, for the reasons I gave earlier. The member for Fisher.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:21): I will just make a brief contribution. I understand what the member for Morphett—I used his correct title, sir, you note.

The SPEAKER: After 23 years, I would expect you to.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Do you get a bonus point if you do the right thing in here, or is it only a negative punishment system? Anyway, I will leave that for you, sir. I understand what the member for Morphett is seeking to do. I think in its current form this bill is somewhat lacking. There is a member in another place who I believe has generated photos on a website that show enormous heights of grasses in the Adelaide Hills, which you can easily do—I am not saying she did it this way—by getting down low with a camera; but I do not think she clearly distinguished between native grasses and exotic ones, and I am not an expert in the field, but there is a difference.

I think, as the member for Port Adelaide indicated, some of this is already covered. I guess what the member for Morphett is trying to do is simplify and accelerate the process so that people are not bogged down for a long time in getting approval to remove vegetation which might be posing a road safety risk or a fire risk.

Our neighbours did not deliberately plant shrubs to block our view as we come out of our drive, but we come out blind because we cannot see over their bushes. Two women live there, and one is happy to have the bushes pruned and the other one is not so happy. When you ask the local council if we can put up a mirror opposite so we can see, they say no, because they are not approved road infrastructure.

You cannot have a mirror to look to see if there are cars coming that want to demolish you. That situation with our neighbour does not involve native vegetation—they are diosma bushes, most of them—but this is an issue in terms of road safety, and also fuel load. This bill does not really deal with the removal in a way which I think is probably appropriate and necessary, so I think I would have to—at this stage, anyway, unless it is amended—not support the bill.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:23): The only way to not be misrepresented is never, ever to say anything that does not make an impact. That is what is being misrepresented with this legislation, by a number of people when they are commenting. They give the impression that this bill is going to allow landowners, rural property owners, to go out with their chainsaws and fire lighters and completely devegetate the road verges. It is not that at all. As it says in my bill, it allows reasonable actions to be taken—reasonable—and that is defined in the Acts Interpretation Act and all sorts of legislation. The term is 'reasonable steps'.

I actually trust rural property owners and landowners. I trust South Australians to do the right thing. Nobody cares more about this country than our farmers and our rural property owners. You will see fantastic examples of revegetation of native vegetation. You will see creeks being fenced off, you will see thousands and thousands of dollars of infrastructure being put in by our farmers and rural property owners to protect native vegetation.

But get into your cars, go out past Gepps Cross, go out past the tollgate, go out past the southern suburbs and have a look at what is going on on our road verges. Have a look at the phalaris grass, 1½ metres high, that is in amongst all the native vegetation. If that goes, there will be no native vegetation along those road verges and there will be no small creatures living in those road verges because it will be completely out of control.

The problem we have is that getting permission to clear the verges, even for exotics, is so complicated. The member for Port Adelaide, for whom I have the greatest respect, quoted the Native Vegetation Regulations 5(1)(1b). That, to me, says it all. It is so complicated. You have sections and subsections. You have to talk to the Native Vegetation Council, the Commissioner of Highways, local government. Who knows who you end up speaking to? Who knows about the delays, the confusion, the bureaucratic nightmare you have to go through to try to achieve a common-sense approach to clearing the verges of the fuel load and any particular road safety hazards?

It is not about getting the chainsaw out and devegetating or napalming the verge—it is not that at all. I said to the government in my second reading speech, 'Come back to me with some amendments. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.' We have just seen, for 3½ years now, the member for Davenport propose his natural disasters committee, and it has been adjourned again. We have not had a major bushfire in South Australia for many, many years in our suburbs and periurban areas, but heaven help us if we do because the mixture of exotics and overgrown natives in our road verges and in some parks and gardens is just massive. We need to control it.

There are very sane arguments out there to allow property owners to reduce the fuel load on the road verges and to remove obstacles and obstructions for road safety reasons. I trust South Australians to do this. I trust the people of South Australia to do the right thing. If you do not like what we are getting here, do not just say, 'No, we do not want it.' Offer some alternative, rather than just a bureaucratic nightmare, because the alternative is delays, obstructions and form filling. There will probably be no trees left if we have to keep filling out all of the forms because they will be chopped down and turned into forms. That is what the old CFS guys used to say about being able to go out and do their job.

One of those very senior CFS officers said to me that the best training our volunteers could get was going out and doing burn-offs. A lot of those burn-offs were clearing up along road verges because they know that many people die while they are attempting to escape bushfires by travelling along roads where there is massive overgrowth of not only native vegetation but exotic vegetation.

Allow a common-sense approach. I said in my second reading speech that this bill may not be the answer. This is a fairly basic piece of legislation here. It is not open slather: it is what is reasonable, it is what is required, and I ask the government to reconsider this because a disaster is going to happen. It is not if, but when, and if people die in a bushfire in South Australia while trying to escape down roads overgrown with native vegetation and exotic vegetation, I know who I will be pointing the finger at. It is a disgrace that we are not seeing any attempt to even amend this, just excuses that we go and look at regulation 5(1)(1b). That sort of thing is not what we expect, it is not what is required and I am so disappointed, once again, in a gutless government.

Second reading negatived.

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