HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (16:07): Continuing with my remarks, this means a majority of applications to clear native vegetation will follow one application process, require consistent information to be provided and have the same application fees. This bill will provide for administrative efficiencies but not alter the likelihood of gaining approval.

The Native Vegetation Council will continue to be responsible for considering applications to clear native vegetation, determining offsets and enforcing compliance with the act. Alignment of assessment provisions for Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 referrals is the next objective. This will be achieved through the bill streamlining the referral processes to allow the Native Vegetation Council to meet its statutory timeframe of 20 business days.

The final objective of the bill is to increase fines and penalty provisions. A number of penalties and expiations will be increased to support greater compliance with the act, including a maximum penalty of $500,000 (increased from $100,000) for individuals who clear native vegetation not in accordance with the act, and the same penalty increase for those individuals who contravene or fail to comply with a condition attached to a consent granted under part 5. The expiation fee has been doubled.

We need to have the right balance in South Australia to ensure that future generations can enjoy the native vegetation that we have, whether it be in our national or conservation parks, on the roadside, by our rivers and creeks and along our coast. We want everyone to be able to walk, hike, camp amongst nature, enhance their wellbeing and enjoy the natural beauty our state has to offer, while also protecting our biodiversity. Our state's native vegetation is integral to our First Nations peoples' relationship with country and is why this bill supports greater First Nations representation with the inclusion of a provision to enable the council to establish a committee that will provide opportunity for greater First Nations voices and representation. This is important as our First Nations people have been caring for our native vegetation for up to 100,000 years. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (16:10): I rise in support of the Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water for bringing this bill before the house. There is no stronger advocate for our natural environment and the wellbeing of South Australian fauna than the minister, and while the changes we debate today are largely administrative there can be no doubting their importance. So thank you to the minister, and I am so pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this matter, and particularly right as we finish our parliamentary year.

This bill amends the Native Vegetation Act to streamline its compliance processes, provide fit for purpose clearance requirements, expand the use of the native vegetation fund, and a great deal more. We know that native vegetation is critical to our state's biodiversity, providing habitat and food sources for common and threatened species, absorbing significant carbon dioxide and controlling degradation. But what is lesser considered is that it is also a significant economic benefit, both to our tourism sector and those in farming and agricultural industries. The Native Vegetation Act, alongside the native vegetation regulations, forms the legislative basis for protection and management of native vegetation throughout South Australia, with the exceptions in the Adelaide metropolitan area.

While the act in its original guise presented significant reform upon its introduction, a move which has helped prevent the mass clearing of valuable native vegetation, some elements have grown old, confusing and administratively burdensome. So with a fine toothcomb—and again led by the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water—the Malinauskas government trawled the existing legislation for potential improvements, culminating in the bill before the house today. We can ill afford confusion where laws that protect our natural environment are concerned, in particular given that our state is growing, our economy is booming and development is progressing at a rate we have never seen before. Make no mistake, South Australia is growing up, but that growth cannot come at the expense of what, in part at least, makes us such a desirable city and state in the first place, and that is our flora and fauna.

This bill will deliver on another of the government's election commitments. In this instance, increasing legislative protection, monitoring and compliance of the act, while also ruling a firm line through any reduction in the legislative protections we afford native vegetation. As the minister referenced in her second reading speech, the state budget is further bolstering South Australia's green economic credentials through $6.5 million in funding this year, growing to $7.9 million per annum by the 2027-28 financial year, and what I welcome in that budget measure—and what I hope all members would welcome, for that matter—is funding that is included in that figure for the protection of native vegetation through strengthened compliance.

While we are talking funding, that broadening of the native vegetation fund's parameters that I referenced earlier will allow it to be used for a broader range of conservation-related activities, with changes including a stipulation that money paid into the fund from expiation fees be used to address adverse impacts from the loss of vegetation. These changes are not sexy and it is no surprise that there is nobody sitting up in the media gallery today, but that does not mean that these changes are not important. What we are doing here is increasing legislative protections, while ensuring that we steer clear of amendments that constrain development, and that is a fine line to walk. Ultimately, though, what it is going to deliver is a more consistent application of the assessment criteria, and that can only be a positive for anyone seeking clarity of process and the state more broadly.

It is a privilege to represent a community that sits at the feet of the Adelaide Hills, a region where native vegetation is in abundance. There are few places in the world that I would rather live and there is certainly no other community I want to spend each and every day working alongside. I am so pleased that we have the opportunity to progress these vital protections for native vegetation before the year is out, and I commend this bill to the house.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (16:14): I rise today in support of the Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill represents a crucial step forward in our ongoing commitment to preserve and enhance South Australia's native vegetation. Our state's native vegetation encompasses a diverse range of flora, including trees, shrubs, sedges, herbs, grasses and simpler life forms such as mosses, lichens and fungi. These form the foundation of our state's biodiversity, contributing immense ecosystem use and non-use values.

According to the 2023 EPA's State of the Environment report, the level of vegetation cover in this state was at 87.8 per cent and declining. This underscores the urgent need to further protect and grow our native vegetation to achieve sustainable development and ensure its benefit for future generations.

From an environmental perspective, native vegetation provides habitat, protection and food for our native fauna on land. In aquatic ecosystems it enhances water quality through filtration and nutrition provision while stabilising riverbanks. Moreover, it plays a crucial role in mitigating the climate crisis by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These carbon sinks are not only environmentally beneficial but also hold substantial financial value for our farming communities, as reflected in the expansion of the Native Vegetation Fund.

In my community, the current act significantly contributes to our native biodiversity through Native Vegetation Heritage Agreements. This program benefits both the environment by ensuring the protection and enhancement of localised ecosystem services, and landholders through support from the Department for Environment and Water in maintaining their properties. An exemplary initiative in our community is the Bandicoot Superhighway Project, a collaboration of landholders with heritage agreements, local reserves and the Sturt Upper Reaches Landcare site working to increase the endangered southern brown bandicoot's available habitat.

The benefits of native vegetation extend far beyond environmental protection. It is instrumental in controlling land degradation issues such as erosion and salinity that can severely impact agricultural productivity. Additionally, it provides natural capital to crops by hosting pollinators and pest controllers, offering a multifunctional and sustainable method of agriculture when incorporated.

Native vegetation also underpins South Australia's tourism economy. Our natural landscapes offer unique opportunities for individuals and communities to engage with nature, attracting visitors from all around the world. This not only enhances community wellbeing but also supports local economies and boosts the productivity of regional communities. In the Mitcham Hills, our community is surrounded by numerous parks including the popular Belair National Park; the Sturt Gorge, Brownhill Creek and Shepherds Hill recreation parks; and Watiparinga Reserve, among others.

The importance of this act and its amendments in increasing native vegetation protection and compliance cannot be overstated. It is crucial to acknowledge the history of vegetation in our region, especially to stress the necessity of increasing First Nations representation on the Native Vegetation Council. Prior to colonisation, the Mitcham Hills and Adelaide Hills hosted a wide abundance of iconic native species such as blue gum, red gum and my favourite, grey box.

For the Kaurna and Peramangk people, this was their home. They moved between different locations, living off the natural environment's resources. Evidence of their historical presence in the area includes campsites and scarred trees. The environment was well managed, with ecosystems balanced through cultural burning practices that encouraged land regeneration and sustainable resource use.

After many tens of thousands of years of Aboriginal occupancy and environmental harmony—or until less than 200 years ago in our terms—colonisation brought rapid changes to the landscape. Woodlands were felled, native flora and fauna were replaced with agriculture, and livestock grazing became the new human ecology. Fortunately, the 20th century saw some reversal of this trend, with the government designating conservation areas and local groups undertaking revegetation efforts. However, our landscapes still bear scars, as evidenced by introduced weeds that our environmental volunteers work tirelessly to manage. This new and threatening ecology is exemplified by ironies such as the need to preserve blackberries in some areas to protect our native bandicoots from introduced predators.

Building upon this historical context, the Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024 addresses the need to modernise our approach to native vegetation management. The current Native Vegetation Act 1991 and the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017 have been instrumental in preventing mass clearance, but parts have become outdated and administratively cumbersome. This bill aims to refine these processes while enhancing protection and stakeholder support. Key provisions of the bill include:

clarification and streamlining of assessment and compliance processes;

consistent and fit-for-purpose clearance requirements;

alignment of assessment provisions with the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016;

expanded use of the Native Vegetation Fund for a broader range of conservation activities;

enhanced compliance actions against unauthorised clearance; and

revised fees and penalty provisions.

These changes fulfil our government's commitment to increasing legislative protection without reducing existing safeguards.

To support these initiatives, the 2024-25 budget allocates $6.5 million initially, increasing to $7.9 million annually by 2027-28. This funding will strengthen our state's green economic credentials through improved compliance efforts. Importantly, this bill aligns with our broader environmental objectives, including the development of South Australia's first biodiversity act.

The process of creating this bill has involved extensive stakeholder engagement, including consultations with government agencies, environmental groups, industry bodies and the public. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, with valuable feedback incorporated into the final version.

In conclusion, I support this bill as a vital step towards improving our native vegetation management framework. It not only protects our environment but also supports our agricultural sector, enhances biodiversity, enables economic growth through sustainable practices, and respects cultural heritage. We need to work together to ensure that future generations inherit a thriving natural landscape that continues to sustain both life and livelihoods here in South Australia. I commend the bill.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (16:21): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I wish the minister and her department all the best, and I will try my best to understand that there are some really good intentions here. There are points about streamlining. There are points about re-utilising funds in a way that, perhaps, they are not allowed to be at the moment for the betterment of the environment and the use of the funds that have been collected in the department—the department of vegetation, I think—to be used for all the right reasons that I think were intended.

I am giving a little bit of a heads-up that I do have some amendments I would like to add. They are not to take away from the intent of what the minister is trying to achieve, but to perhaps address some of the really strong concerns or difficult concerns that my constituents are dealing with in the Limestone Coast. We could use these types of little amendments to help fix some of the issues that have been ongoing probably since I have been in politics and perhaps ongoing for many years before that.

The proposed amendments to the Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024 align with the government's desire to further streamline and improve the native vegetation assessment process. The first two proposed amendments deal with clearance for road safety purposes. They allow a regional council, which has been defined as part of the amendment, or an accredited third-party provider to authorise clearance for road safety purposes without restriction. We have defined a regional council as a council that is not within the Greater Adelaide planning area, which has been shown on a map which can be provided.

The other amendments modify the process to gain approval to clear where the clearance is to facilitate residential subdivisions in regional council areas. The key changes we have made are that a council or an accredited third party must, when deciding whether to give consent to such clearance, take into account the need for housing in the area. If the clearance is approved, we have also provided that the required environmental benefit is also to be reduced from the environmental benefit the person or developer would otherwise be required to provide. We hope the government includes these amendments—and I say hope, fingers crossed—which will assist with regional housing developments proceeding and enhance road safety in many regional areas.

It gives me great pleasure to elaborate on where we are coming from and why. We have examples in Naracoorte where a development is proposed for a subdivision that would be subdivided into many houses and there are five trees that are in the way of this subdivision. They are oldish, sort of broken down. They are living. They are manna gum, stringybark-type eucalyptus. These five trees are now worth to the developer $30,000 each to remove, adding a $150,000 cost before he even starts if he wants to remove these five trees.

Under the proposed changes that we are looking to do here, those five trees must be replanted by twofold. That would mean that there would be 10 new trees of the same species, managed and under the authority of either the council or a third party, planting them and making sure that they survive for a period like 10 years and beyond. We are all better off for this example. We have allowed the housing development to take place without the $30,000 per tree cost, which is $150,000. We have allowed the doubling of that species of tree, from five to 10, to be replanted in the vicinity. The government might say within 1 kilometre, they might say within 10 kilometres, I do not care; they have to be planted within the vicinity.

That means we actually have 10 new trees, managed and planted for the betterment of the environment, and we also get the win around these houses. Why is this important? Naracoorte finds itself as one of those examples, and no doubt it can happen elsewhere, where it is very restricted in its expansion. Naracoorte cannot, or it struggles to, expand towards the west or Lucindale because it is an old flood plain. It is on clay soils, they get wet and there is not a lot of drainage. You would have to build up a lot to make sure that you do not build in basically a swamp out to the west of Naracoorte. Out towards the east, it also has those same sorts of issues, whether it be flood plains, vineyards or big old red gums, so it is also very hard for it to expand in an easterly direction.

It can expand, and it has expanded, in a north-south direction. But north to south, which means following the range, is also where we find a lot of native veg, and it actually restricts the whole town and its expansion. If the government recognises, or perhaps remembers, or maybe has been advised, we know the reason this has happened—regional housing and its expansion—is economic failure. We know that the finance sector of Australia already makes it harder for houses to be built in regional areas because the finance is more expensive and the equity levels are greater. We know that is factual. When we then start putting in native vegetation costs, like $150,000 for five trees, we know that we are just killing off the opportunity to build houses in a regional town like Naracoorte.

We do not want to see the area denuded of trees. We do not want to see widespread clearing of trees. We are actually saying we will happily double the number of trees, and we will have a new generation of trees being planted with good management and objectivity, perhaps even governance around this to make sure it is not spiked, misused and abused, that people can cheat the system; I do not see why you would want to, compared to what we are proposing here.

We have defined the regional areas outside the Greater Adelaide area. What is the greater Adelaide area? Sorry to the member for Finniss; I am not able to bat for him. I am not able to bat for the member for Hammond because Murray Bridge is included in Greater Adelaide. Going out to the northern areas, it goes up towards the Barossa, which I cannot include either. Beyond that, we know that all the towns in regional South Australia could do with more housing.

I do not see why the government would want to say, 'Yes, there could be these isolated tree pockets on the edges of towns, and they could be the impost, they could be the stopper, they could be the pothole, they could be the wall.' We just want to allow a gate there to be opened that is easier than the one that the Native Vegetation Council is putting there now. That is what we are proposing.

One of the things that I really hope the government is on board with in its endeavours of looking after the state and prosperity is that we do need regional communities. We do need the towns to grow. We already know that those economic failings and failures have occurred, and they will continue to occur if we keep turning blind eyes to these sorts of hiccups, problems and blockages. They are real expenses when we start talking $30,000 a tree for five trees. That is $150,000. We know that this process is already risky, building houses in the regions, without that sort of impost.

The other thing is about regional roads, again on the same premise and removing ourselves from the Greater Adelaide region where this rule will not apply. Anyone can go to a council—and they have it down here as a third party, but obviously I have just described a third party. The point is that we are saying to councils, 'We've got trees that are blocking visuals, they're blocking road safety, and these trees need to be removed from the roadside.' They have to be, obviously, from the roadside.

I can give you many examples of T-junctions and intersections where the trees are stopping the visual for cars coming and going. It is putting motorists at risk when entering that intersection because they cannot see what they used to because management around these trees and regrowth has been lost because the impost of only clearing about two metres back from the edge of the roadside kerb or one metre behind a white post is not far enough in some cases. We are putting lives at risk.

In that regard, we are saying, 'Council, we've got a problem here.' If the council says, 'No, we don't believe you. Those trees are aesthetically pleasing, they are valuable, no problem here,' that will belong with the council, if they say no to that. What we are then saying is if the council says yes, it will then be left to either the council to engage in that clearance or a private landowner to engage in that clearance, or even a sporting body. This is the bit I will say: we know that there are sporting bodies in my region that would love the firewood from the trees growing over major roads in my electorate to sell at the local football club during the winter. We know that we have stock crates driving on our roads with cattle, particularly cattle that stick their heads up higher than the top of the stock crate, and they are being wiped out by branches. We have animals being wiped out, literally—animal cruelty—because branches are so close to the top deck of the stock crates.

This could be during wet conditions or it could be four years after the last pruning, where the regrowth becomes heavy, subsides and sinks and we cannot do anything about it because there is no authority to fix this. All we want is to give authority to the council to say, 'That tree is outside the specifications of the council clearance heights, but when it's wet and windy and after two or three years it will not be within the design of what the stock crate desires to get underneath it and, all of a sudden, we are damaging animals for no apparent reason'—and this is happening.

I know we can get volunteers to fix this, and they would happily fix this. I like the fact that the minister for the department of infrastructure talked about roadside vegetation, and that is obviously the grass on the side of roads, which we also know has not been managed as well as it could have been because of a contract that is really not meeting maintenance needs. I am suggesting that, in this area, if landowners want to slash the side of their roads they should be allowed to slash the side of their roads, just like we might have to prune the trees on the side of our roads. They tell me that over in Victoria they are allowed to do this. They are not handcuffed; they are encouraged to manage their own roadsides, with the councils missing in action, not being able to do it, did not get to it, or could not afford it.

Do you know what the best thing about this is? People are not turning a blind eye to it. We are allowing people with some authority, with a permission process, to fix it. We want a simple solution. We want to go to a local council, not a state government, not a big bureaucratic authority, and knock on the council door, and say, 'Look, council, this is all going to rubbish. You haven't pruned the trees on the roadside lately. They are wiping out our vehicles. Our vehicles are being damaged by these trees overhanging, and you're not there fixing it. So let's get the footy club in, let's get the netballers in. They will come and do it, I can tell you, and fix this for nothing.' Why are they not doing it? Because they are not allowed to. Why? Because they do not have the authority.

It beggars belief that in these times of austerity we do not have labour, it is hard to get workers, people are underemployed or they cannot get the employees out there. We know we still have these organisations like footy clubs, like a Lions Club, that collect firewood to raise money for the elderly or those who cannot get firewood themselves to keep warm during the winter. These are the sorts of projects that they would take up to fix the problem. They could do it without any cost to government, using some sort of common sense so that we do not just get vandals going down the road, chopping all the trees down and saying that it was all for road safety. No, we have to do it properly. We will have an authority and it has to be about road safety.

We are getting local intel on this, which is being lost because Adelaide does not see the trees coming down onto the top deck of the stock crates and wiping out the heads of the cattle when they get excited and jump up. No-one talks about this, but I can tell you stock crate drivers know about it, because when they unload them there are damaged animals on the top deck. This is happening.

All I can say is I hope that we get a good process. The minister is trying to streamline the process for the betterment of vegetation and native veg. This system is obviously going to help, and with my amendments—I think we are talking about three—around housing and road safety I hope that we can actually get a good commonsense outcome. With that, I await the bill to come to the house and I wish the minister all the best in her pursuits. I hope that I have some luck. I might be stretching my luck, but we can only try. I wish her well in her aspirations.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (16:34): I rise to speak on this amendment bill and to give a bit of context. It is interesting hearing some of the contributions from my metropolitan colleagues in this place, talking about certain aspects of the Native Vegetation Act as a whole, but I want to give some context, as my colleague the member for MacKillop has given some context from his perspective and from his region. I really want to speak about the impact that this existing piece of legislation has. I am sure, as the amendments are considered through this place, that some of the changes that will be brought in will continue to be an impact on regional South Australia in particular.

If you look at this legislation, it really is a piece of legislation for the area outside the metropolitan Adelaide boundaries. Those of us who live outside the boundaries of metropolitan Adelaide fully realise that we have a responsibility for our natural environment and native vegetation as a whole. Let me just say, members of our regional communities really are the best stewards of our natural environment and the native vegetation that we have in the state.

I, for one, have planted hundreds of trees—thousands of trees—thousands more than I have ever taken out, because we recognise that we need to appropriately manage vegetation. However, the legislation and the regulation that is wrapped up within the Native Vegetation Act is unfortunately putting regional communities at a disadvantage. It is putting projects and infrastructure at risk. It is putting potential investment at risk and adding extra cost and bureaucratic burden at a time when we should be enabling our regional communities to thrive, not putting hurdles in place.

I have already spoken this week about some of the frustrations that I have with that bureaucratic malaise when it comes to decision-making. I will give you an example. Just this last week, there was a proposal from Telstra to install a new mobile phone tower at Ceduna South in my electorate. Now, Ceduna is a long way away from Adelaide. We get frustrated that decisions that are made in Adelaide impact us in regional communities, but especially those that are isolated like Ceduna.

The application from Telstra to put a phone tower up went through local government. It went through the processes to get funding from Telstra and, let me tell you, that is not an easy thing to do either. It went through all these processes. It reached the final hurdle, which unfortunately was the Native Vegetation Act and the Native Vegetation Council, and they said no. They said, 'No, you can't put a tower there, because there's some native vegetation and we won't allow it.'

I know the area around where the proposal was for this tower, and it probably reflects the frustration that is heard across regional South Australia, because decisions are made in isolation, without the context of the vast swathes of native vegetation that already exist and will continue to exist within those areas.

I implore decision-makers and especially the Minister for Environment, who is in charge of the Native Vegetation Act, to be fully aware of the impact of decisions made by the bureaucracy, by the Native Vegetation Council, in regional South Australia, because now that funding for that tower is absolutely at risk. Telstra are reconsidering what to do with that project, and that is going to lead to lesser outcomes for my community in Ceduna.

To go through all the hurdles and then hit one, which I believe is a negative impact on a regional community and unnecessary within the context of what is already in place, I think is unacceptable. I hear countless stories from people looking to develop their business further, people who are looking at investing into regional South Australia, who go through all the different approval processes but hit that hurdle of the Native Vegetation Council decision, and unfortunately either they say, 'No,' or they say, 'You have to pay these tens of thousands of dollars.' In my history in local government, I saw this firsthand. We had a project, when I was on council, to put in place a community wastewater management system within one of the towns in my jurisdiction. The process that we went through as a council, the amount of money that was invested, the design, the structure, the advantage for community—we went through all of that.

The piece of land was identified for construction of the key part of that asset, the ponds. It was in amongst an area that I, as someone who lives and breathes it, would not say is high-quality native vegetation. It was an area which had been previously denuded, and obviously there had been a little bit of regrowth. Decisions that were made under the existing legislation by the council ended up costing tens of thousands of dollars more to the ratepayers of the District Council of Tumby Bay, but for what end? In and around this project and infrastructure that was put in place was, once again, vast swathes, acres and acres, of comparative or even higher quality native vegetation. What are these laws trying to achieve?

We have housing challenges at the moment within regional South Australia that are hitting this hurdle. Developers are saying, 'Why are we bothering to look at regional South Australia when we can end up having more opportunity within metropolitan area to have this sort of investment?' We have these restrictions that are in place that are adding extra cost, adding extra impost, adding strange stipulations to developments—here is a piece of native vegetation, and we will put this value on it, whether it is monetary or whether it is an equivalent 10 times the amount to invest, in order to plant into another part of land somewhere nearby.

Some of these decisions are really questionable, and they are actually having negative impacts and outcomes for regional South Australia. This is why we see all the time developers looking at investing in housing here in regional South Australia, but this bureaucratic burden is actually being a negative towards those sorts of outcomes. At a time when we should be looking at what opportunities we can open the door for in regional South Australia, that door has been shut because of restrictions, regulation and legislation that are in place.

I have been a strong proponent for having a bigger picture perspective when it comes to native vegetation and trying to mirror some of the arrangements that are in place here in metropolitan Adelaide in the designated township areas within regional South Australia. Within our planning act, each town, each city has a designated township area within that planning system. Those boundaries are clear. Why is there not the same level of the legislation, regulation, obligation on the areas within that township boundary as there is within metropolitan Adelaide?

This is where I think there is an opportunity with a government that is looking to be proactive at investing into the future of regional South Australia. If those designated township areas did not have these native vegetation restrictions, you would be removing a hurdle out of the way of people who were looking to invest into the likes of housing, the likes of potential industrial growth, the likes of potential commercial growth within those townships and cities in regional South Australia. This is something that I hear right across the whole area. That is something that I hope will be investigated by the government, if they are truly honest about wanting to be encouraging regional South Australia to better themselves and continue to be a strong contributor to our state's economy.

The other aspect I have always been a strong proponent of is around the roadside vegetation management and the inconsistencies I see at the moment within the system we are facing and for us to try to have a structure that actually reflects the national guidelines for roads, so the road reserves reflect that national perspective. 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