HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIVE VEGETATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 February 2009. Page 1189.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:46): I rise to speak to this bill and to make some comments in relation to problems faced by landowners whose property adjoins a national park. There were a number of bushfires during the year I was the shadow minister for the environment, and one of those bushfires was near my old home at Bordertown, in the Ngarkat National Park. It was a blaze of some significance, burning, I think, about 50,000 hectares.

The thing that alarmed me in that particular instance was the fire control procedures that were put in place. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Acting President, these fires often start with lightning strikes or in hot weather like we have been experiencing. When we have these bushfires, they are in difficult terrain and hard to get to and they gradually spread out. However, when there is a wind change, that is when you get a massive fire front. There were some issues in controlling this particular fire. I know that the Hon. Stephen Wade has some amendments on file in relation to the burning of native vegetation and the creation of firebreaks, in particular, to control fires.

In this particular instance, the order to put in a firebreak was not given. In fact, there was no control put in place in the early stages of the fire, when the wind was blowing in an easterly direction and blowing the fire back towards Tintinara. I think it was 24 hours later that approval was eventually given to put in a firebreak. Then, of course, there was a wind change to the south-west, so the fire did not burn out into the property where the firebreak had been prepared but headed in a north-easterly direction, eventually exiting the national park on the northern side.

On that northern side, which is the area that is of most concern to me, you have landowners who have erected fencing. In most cases, landowners maintain a very high quality netting fence, which is often higher than normal, to keep vermin out of their property. Often, the netting is ploughed into the ground to bury it so that rabbits cannot dig underneath it. Often, the fencing is quite high, with a couple of rows of extra barbwire and, at some points, an angle attachment to the post that sits at an angle of 45 degrees back into the park so that even kangaroos are unable to jump over the fence. So, they are quite an expensive and elaborate form of fencing.

In this particular case, because there was a very small firebreak, which was probably a track, and some bush which had been rolled down flat but was still tinder dry on top of the ground, the decision was made by the Department for Environment and Heritage that it could not control the fire within the national park because it was too risky as it was coming out at such a rate. The department then made a decision to fight the fire on the landowner's property where there was, in some cases, a bit of stubble from a Lucerne crop, a bit of dry grass and some Lucerne, where the fuel load would be much less. So, they made the decision to fight the fire on the landowner's property, and they eventually brought the fire under control. However, it got close to some houses and other property and destroyed the fence.

When the Hon. Gail Gago was minister, I questioned her on this issue. The convention has always been that landowners share the cost of fencing. I know that the act provides that fences that adjoin national parks are the responsibility of the landowner. However, in a case such as this, where the department has made the decision not to have a clear felled firebreak (so it is a break where the fuel load is suppressed, but it is not an adequate break in those conditions) and where the decision is made to fight the fire on the landowner's property and his fence is destroyed, he has to pay the cost of the replacement.

If you allow poor management of a park and its firebreaks, and when you try to control a fire and fight it on the landowner's property and their fence and property are destroyed, I think it is un-Australian to expect them to pay for the fence. In this case, I think the government made some sort of gesture but, clearly, the type of fence I described to you, Mr President, was an elaborate one and much more expensive per kilometre to erect. Again, the landowner was left with the cost of replacing the fence.

I know that you lived in the country for a number of years, Mr President. In good times, in good seasons, when wool and livestock prices are high and there is money around for grain crops, you could argue that fires happen very rarely and that you could insure your fence and therefore be covered if it were destroyed. However, we all know that, in the past 15 or so years, things have become progressively tougher in rural South Australia. We have not seen prices keep pace with the cost of production, and we certainly have not seen the seasons to which we have grown accustomed.

I would like a response from the minister about whether the government is prepared to recognise that this is a significant impost on adjoining landowners. Just last week, I met with the Farmers' Federation, and it raised this issue with me as a concern in tough conditions. Clearly, when the department does not have an adequate firebreak on the government's property, if you like, and it makes a decision to fight the fire on the landowner's property, it effectively sacrifices the landowner's fence, but it is not prepared to cover half the cost of its replacement. I think that is un-Australian. I would like the minister to address these concerns when he sums up.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (15:53): I, too, will make a brief contribution. This bill seeks to tidy up some of the anomalies within the Native Vegetation Act 1991. The problem with the act might have been partly the act and partly some overzealous application and too literal an understanding of its requirements, rather than, at times, the act itself. I commend the new Native Vegetation Council, particularly the stewardship of Mr Dennis Mutton, who I think has brought a modicum of common sense to the application of native vegetation clearance as it applies today.

One of the big issues for farmers in particular, but also for anyone who wishes now to clear native vegetation, is that they must offset what they have cleared with additional plantings.

I do not know anyone who has objected to that. However, the necessary practicalities of, for instance, having to replant 10 or 15 hectares of native vegetation on a property which has been cleared of, say, two or three hectares of native vegetation for the installation of, for instance, a centre pivot irrigation system have proven to be almost impossible in a number of cases.

One of the amendments sought by this bill is to allow that offset planting to take place in a denuded area but not necessarily in the same area as the clearing took place. This will allow flexibility. We all know of cases of, in particular, denuded public lands where there might be an eroded creek or something like that where previously Landcare groups received some moneys to deal with that, and those moneys seem to have dried up.

This now gives farmers the opportunity to plant that offset vegetation somewhere where it is needed, again, with the permission of the Native Vegetation Council. Of course, it would also have to be planting appropriate to the region where it was to be planted, which may not necessarily be the same vegetation as was cleared. It does apply some common sense, I believe, to the application of the bill.

To me, that is probably the major change to the act from these amendments, which are relatively minor. Previously, a nominee of the commonwealth minister was on the Native Vegetation Council; now that would be a person nominated by the state minister with knowledge of planning and development. Again, that seems to be a very common-sense attitude to take. While my knowledge of native vegetation clearance applies almost entirely to rural properties, there are always issues when areas are developed for housing or in peri-urban areas. So, again, having someone with the knowledge of planning laws on that council to make these things go forward more quickly and expeditiously makes a good deal of sense to me.

The Liberal Party will be putting up a number of amendments, some of which I will speak to at the time but, again, what we are seeking to do is preserve our native vegetation and our ecology but apply common sense to the clearing of vegetation. As my colleague the Hon. David Ridgway pointed out, had sufficient vegetation clearance been allowed quickly enough, I believe that at least two of the lives that were lost during the Eyre Peninsula bushfires would not have been lost, and there is anecdotal evidence that several of the houses would also have been preserved, had the land owners had permission to burn back quickly and efficiently.

I am also a great believer of a decently wide fire break, where people can seek refuge in a wildfire and where they can take their plant and machinery to be safe. The amendments moved in the lower house and which will be moved here seek to allow quite wide clearance, particularly at the edge of parks. We continually hear from the department of environment about how much land it has now set aside, but my concern is that the management of that set aside land is highly questionable. Having experienced, flown over and walked through some of the areas that have been absolutely devastated by major bushfires, I can assure members that there is nothing left after a wild fire. So, the preservation of bushland by clearing native vegetation to a great enough degree that the bushland may be saved is, in my view, common sense and well overdue.

Similarly, we have some amendments to do with being allowed to clear areas in pastoral land to put out pipeline. Again, Mr President, you would have personal experience that if waters are allowed to be taken further away there is less damage to native vegetation than if the stock is forced by this somewhat draconian law to gather in one spot where they do, indeed, denude the native vegetation.

The amendments that we have, as I have said, in all cases I believe are common sense. They are streamlined. I think no-one in this day and age wants to clear vast tracts of land. What people want to be able to do is operate their land in an ecologically and economically sustainable fashion. I happen to be a great believer in cold fires. I believe a cold fire run through some of that native vegetation at the end of the wet season (if we ever have a wet season again!) would indeed do a lot to save animals, lives and homes. We have witnessed three very dangerous fires in the vicinity of Tulka in the past four or five years, and certainly the Mayor of Port Lincoln, and others, has pleaded for the right to clear some of that country and put a cold fire through it.

Our amendments will seek to establish some of those extras, but I agree with the general tenor of this piece of legislation. It does streamline it and apply some practicality, and it cuts down on some of the burdensome red tape that has gone with this legislation previously.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:02): I rise to support this legislation also, and some of my comments will be very similar to those made by previous speakers. I think there is cross-party support for the principle of native vegetation for the purposes of preserving habitat and biodiversity and going in some way to providing protection for our threatened species. However, I would have to say that, when one looks across the range of environmental laws and agencies, it is quite a fragmented area. I think our environment spokesperson in another place, the member for MacKillop, alluded to this also and said that we may need to integrate further some of our environmental laws to ensure that the threatened species are mapped together with remaining vegetation and some areas may need to be revegetated to provide appropriate habitat for threatened species.

On that note, being a bushwalker in the Adelaide Hills, I also make reference to the parks system. I have some concern about the level of infestation of exotic weeds and so forth, and that adjoining land-holders may not be fulfilling their duties to the environment to keep those under control. We have also had issues in several parks in the state where people may take their dogs into conservation zones or ride their bikes when it is clearly not intended. That can certainly have an impact on the local flora and fauna, in that they can bring in weed seeds. Also, dogs can scare the local wildlife. From that point of view, and from the point of view of natural resource management, we may need to rewrite our entire environmental laws if we are serious about protecting species into the future.

I would like to declare an interest, as a member of Trees for Life and as someone who has for the past two years been growing seedlings that are intended for revegetating at Emu Bay on Kangaroo Island. We know that, since European settlement in South Australia, we have cleared vast tracts of land without understanding its impact on biodiversity. In many ways, we need to look at winding back the clock, if you like, and there are quite a few people who have heritage agreements, and so forth, with primary producers who are working very hard to try to provide additional vegetation. It is an area where we have a better understanding, but I think that we will need to continue to do a lot of work in that area. This bill takes steps in the right direction and streamlines the rules relating to native vegetation clearance.

Many people (and many of our members in the House of Assembly over the years) have spoken about native vegetation and the vexatious relationship between landholders and the Native Vegetation Council, which has been seen as overly bureaucratic, very focused on its rules and not flexible in its approach towards landholders. So, I am very pleased that this bill will assist in that direction, in that the offsets may be provided in areas that are separate from the remnant vegetation, there are better linkages between natural resource management and the Native Vegetation Council, and a range of other measures.

My colleagues the Hon. Caroline Schaefer and the Hon. David Ridgway referred to firefighters. As a Hills dweller, that is something about which I am also very conscious, particularly in these days of very high temperatures. I believe that our firefighters, particularly the volunteers in country areas, ought to be given the tools to do their job effectively and without endangering their own lives.

For those reasons, and also for reasons concerning the point of view of the landholder, the Liberal Party will move a number of amendments to this bill, to which previous speakers have referred. These amendments will be tabled by the Hon. Stephen Wade, who has the carriage of emergency services issues and, in particular, country fire services. He has great sympathy with respect to a number of their concerns. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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