HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT LAWS

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:28): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about development laws.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We are all aware, of course, of the terrible tragedy in Victoria in recent days. Indeed, we expressed our condolences today in the motion earlier, but the sad fact is that it could have been us in South Australia as well. Most recently an article in the Sunday Mail carried a revelation that some 300 people could die in an Adelaide Hills death trap (as the article called it) in a fire's first hour if it occurred in certain regions of the hills. Modelling by the CFS apparently concluded that 50 people could die on Sheoak Road, Belair, and noted that sections of Belair, Blackwood, Upper Sturt and Crafers West are so-called 'no-go zones' for CFS crews in a bushfire.

Senior CFS officials also told the Sunday Mail that literally thousands of homes are surrounded by bushland and could not be saved in the event of a major bushfire. These homes could conceivably be saved if development laws allowed residents to clear firebreaks around their property without having to go through a tortuous application process or facing hefty penalties under the Native Vegetation Act if they do so.

Indeed, the case of Liam Sheahan is clear proof here. He is a farmer who some years ago bulldozed a firebreak around his home at Reedy Creek in Victoria and, under similar laws to those we have in South Australia, Mr Sheahan was hauled before a magistrate and fined $50,000 for clearing. Last Saturday, that illegal firebreak saved his home and possibly the lives of his family. Indeed, his home was the only one left standing in a 2 kilometre area. My questions are:

1. Does the minister agree that the case of Mr Sheahan in Victoria supports the argument that some over-zealous environmental initiatives may actually be putting human lives at risk for the sake of very small parcels of bushland scrub?

2. If so, does the minister agree that this is entirely inappropriate and, indeed, unacceptable?

3. Will the minister investigate a change to our development laws to allow home owners at risk of bushfire to construct reasonable firebreaks around their properties without the Native Vegetation Council preventing this commonsense, probably lifesaving practice?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (16:31): Earlier today I made a ministerial statement in relation to bushfire planning and indicated that obviously in the light of the Victorian bushfires we need to upgrade what has already been a comprehensive review of bushfire regulations since the Premier's Bushfire Summit back in 2003. I also indicated in that statement that we need to consider whether the events that we saw last Saturday week are likely to occur more often due to climate change. Clearly, in those sorts of situations, as other members expressed during the condolence motion, there is virtually nothing one can do.

In relation to vegetation clearing, it is my understanding that there are already provisions that enable people to clear around a development. Whether or not those distances are sufficient is probably something that will be looked at again in the light of what has happened. However, I also pointed out that following that bushfire summit the development laws have been changed so that if one is to build a residence in a high bushfire risk area, the CFS must look at that development application and has the capacity to either reject it or require certain contingency measures. Indeed, in the aftermath of the Victorian bushfires and the horrific losses, even in cases where there had been protection around many of the buildings that were burnt, there has been some discussion about whether some form of shelter should be mandatory in such high risk areas.

We do have complexity. I know that one of the members in another place has suggested that we should ban all development from taking place in areas such as Sheoak Road. There are some roads around Crafers that, in my view, are worse than that because they have only one way out. At least Sheoak Road has an entrance at each end because it is a through road. There are many other roads up on ridges in that area that have only one entrance. The member for Fisher in another place has suggested that there should be a categorical prohibition against development in those areas. I notice that the member for Davenport (Hon. Iain Evans), who, like me, lives in the Adelaide Hills, has commented that he does not believe that is practical, and I myself have made the same comment.

There are many blocks in the Adelaide Hills that people have bought in the expectation of building on them. If we were to suddenly render those blocks effectively worthless, we would have to consider what compensation we would give to those people. Rather, perhaps the answer is in requiring other forms of protection such as bunkers or housing that is more compatible or offers more protection from bushfires. Of course, that would be expensive but, certainly in my view, home owners in those areas should be prepared to pay. People who live in those high risk areas cannot expect others to put their lives at risk trying to protect them during the sorts of conditions that we had last Saturday week.

There are some complex issues here. I indicated in my statement earlier today that we need to review all current laws in the light of the experience in Victoria. I note that the royal commission in Victoria has indicated that it will provide an interim report in six months, and that report may well resolve some of these matters.

In the condolence debate today, my colleague the Hon. Carmel Zollo raised the issue of whether people should stay or go, and people should make any such decision early if they live in these high-risk bushfire areas. Clearly, we need to look at a whole range of issues, and I think it over simplifies the matter to say that we should simply prevent people from building in a particular area or just totally clear native vegetation. Most of these areas are water catchment areas, and it is important for the integrity of our water resources that we try to keep as much intact vegetation there to protect that.

Obviously, there are a number of other important issues we need to take into account, and I think we have to achieve a balance. We need to learn from the experience of every bushfire, particularly those that are as devastating as the fires in Victoria. We will certainly review all our bushfire policies in that light. I well remember the Ash Wednesday bushfires; many of these issues were debated at that time, and they are not simple matters.

As I said, it is not practical or sensible to undertake mass clearing of our major water catchment areas. Clearly, we should encourage people to live where the risk is lower, and there are many things people can do to remove the risk. However, as I said in my statement earlier, you can never reduce the risk to zero in places such as the Adelaide Hills; you can only lower it to an acceptable level, and how we determine that acceptable level will depend very much on how we assess the increasing danger from issues such as climate change.

It was 70 years ago that South Australia last recorded temperatures such as those we experienced last Saturday week. Given climate change, how long will it be in the future? Will it be another 70 years or another 20 years, or will these be one in 10-year events? No-one knows the answer. We will clearly have to make some judgment because that will determine the acceptable level of risk we can allow in these areas, and it is certainly an exercise the government will be undertaking.

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