HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIVE VEGETATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 February 2009. Page 1385.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:23): I rise to indicate the opposition's position not only in relation to the particulars of this bill but also the more general issue of native vegetation management for bushfire prevention purposes. At this point I indicate that on behalf of the opposition I will move amendments to the native vegetation bill moved in another place by my colleague the member for Stuart regarding the issues of bushfire prevention and agricultural land management.

In relation to the bill as a whole, I indicate that the opposition supports the bill. Indeed, the main thrust of the bill (the concept of native vegetation offsets) was initially a proposal of the former Liberal government. The bill has three main purposes: first, the native vegetation offsets; secondly, a minor modification to the Native Vegetation Council composition; and, thirdly, minor amendments to the Native Vegetation Act.

The first issue is the primary feature of this bill. This is the issue of native vegetation offsets and allowing out-of-region offsets and offset credits. Under the current arrangements, landholders, where approved, can clear native vegetation provided they plant more native vegetation on the land after it has been cleared or on adjacent land as an offset for the native vegetation cleared. Any such offsets only apply where they are conducted as part of the proposed clearance.

Under the scheme proposed by this bill, the offset scheme will be expanded in two ways. First, the bill provides for offsets to be delivered anywhere in the state without regard to the location of the proposed clearance. Where there is the opportunity for important environmental benefit from native vegetation establishment and maintenance in another region, the offset may be delivered there as an alternative. The opposition considers that this is a sensible suggestion and, as I mentioned, it was originally put forward in a bill introduced by the former Liberal government. Unfortunately, after the 2002 election the proposal was not reintroduced and we have been left waiting until now—seven years of wasted opportunities for environmental benefit.

The second expansion to the offset scheme is the creation of a credit system. As I said, currently, any offsets must be agreed to as part of the proposed clearance to which they relate. Many landholders have experienced situations where they previously conducted native vegetation establishment or regeneration for various reasons but, when they have later submitted an application to clear native vegetation, the work they have done has not been permitted as an offset, forcing the landholder to conduct further native vegetation improvements. This has led to a general perception that, if you are planning to undertake native vegetation improvements, you are best advised to wait until you need to clear other native vegetation so that the improvements can be used as an offset. This sadly delays valuable native vegetation improvements for no good reason.

Under the new system, landholders will be able to claim credits for any native vegetation improvements they undertake, regardless of when and where it is conducted. This encourages landholders to conduct native vegetation improvements immediately, secure in the knowledge that, should they wish to clear other native vegetation at a later date, they can claim the native vegetation improvements as offsets.

The Liberal Party supports this concept—again, a Liberal Party proposal—although we believe that the concept could be taken further. In addition to preventing offsets, we believe that allowing offsets to be traded or sold would provide further incentives for landholders to conduct valuable native vegetation improvements, particularly in areas where the environmental benefit would be especially valuable. Whilst it is disappointing that the government chose not to introduce this further measure, we are nonetheless pleased that the idea of out-of-region offsets and offset credits has finally been introduced, and we support these measures.

There are two other less significant elements in the bill in relation to the changes to the Native Vegetation Council. I understand the federal minister has decided to no longer nominate a representative to the council and, accordingly, this bill seeks to replace the minister's representative with a planning or development expert. We support this measure and agree that such expertise would be of value to the council and its operations.

The final feature of the bill is amendments which update the act and also increase some of the penalties relating to breaches of the act. The opposition supports these amendments, also.

Having addressed the particulars of the bill before us, I now turn to the amendments that I will move on behalf of the opposition. The amendments deal with bushfire prevention and agricultural land management. I will mention those amendments particularly dealing with bushfire prevention, and my colleague the Hon. Caroline Schaefer will handle those amendments relating to agricultural land management.

A commitment to fire prevention and management should be the underlying principle of native vegetation legislation, in the view of the opposition. The opposition's amendments respect the right of landholders—and, indeed, the responsibility of landholders—to take fire prevention measures, including to clear firebreaks and provide access tracks. The current system is too complex. It needs to be simplified so that landholders better know their rights and responsibilities. Landholders need to be able to clear native vegetation for fire prevention purposes. The Victorian experience shows that often the only time to stop a fire is before it starts.

The Rann government has failed to act on repeated recommendations to better manage native vegetation and, accordingly, is putting South Australia at risk of a major bushfire—perhaps a bushfire of the magnitude of the Victorian disaster. The lack of native vegetation control has already contributed to major fires such those in Port Lincoln, Kangaroo Island and the Ngarkat park.

The recent Proper Bay fire was yet another example of the importance of effective management of native vegetation. This is not a new issue. The Premier's Bushfire Summit in 2003 raised concerns regarding native vegetation management which were echoed in the 2005 parliamentary committee report into native vegetation and the Port Lincoln fires.

The coronial inquest into the Wangary fires again raised issues in relation to the management of native vegetation, particularly through firebreaks and prescribed burns. That report was at the end of 2007. In June 2008 the government, in response to that coronial inquest report, assured the community that the Coroner's recommendation would be addressed, including amendments to the Fire and Emergency Services Act, and in relation to a code of practice for native vegetation.

The government said the code of practice would be in place before the commencement of the 2008-09 fire danger season. Yet, here we are in 2009 and still we have not seen any amendments to the Fire and Emergency Services Act. Three weeks ago, more than half-way through the 2008-09 fire danger season, we finally received the code of practice. While the code of practice may be useful in clarifying the current arrangements, it does not change the arrangements. We still have exactly the same system.

The government has wasted six years since the Bushfire Summit. The opposition believes that we cannot afford to continue waiting in the hope that the government will eventually take action. That is why we are taking this opportunity to amend the Native Vegetation Act. The first amendment seeks to remove burning as a definition of clearance for the purpose of native vegetation. The reasoning behind this, as outlined in another place by my colleague the member for Stuart, is to permit the practice of back-burning to reduce fuel loads. Fuel load reduction is an important part of reducing fire hazards. A number of my colleagues in another place commented on the importance of back-burning and the effectiveness of fuel load reduction in reducing fire hazards, and the opposition believes that this is an important step in addressing fire risks.

I draw to the attention of the council that the House of Assembly debate was particularly long. A number of members of the opposition spoke at length and with passion—and that debate was before the Victorian fires. This is not a reaction to the Victorian bushfires but a reiteration of a long-standing concern which has merely been highlighted by the Victorian fires. In South Australia, a series of fires have demonstrated the danger presented by high fuel loads where the fires were fed by years of accumulated fuel: Ngarkat, Kangaroo Island and Proper Bay, to name just three.

The recent tragedy in Victoria has brought to national attention the importance of bushfire prevention, including the need to reduce high fuel loads. Without proper preparation we are planting the seeds of fires which may not be able to be controlled and which may wipe out entire communities. Many firefighters, scientists and other experts have observed that the lack of clearance and the back-burning of native vegetation was a key factor in the disaster which unfolded last month. We need to learn from this disaster. In this context I highlight the situation in merely one of a number of areas of South Australia which are at risk.

The Northern Argus of 18 February 2009 had a front page article headed 'Bushfire disaster could have happened in Clare.' The article states:

It's been 26 years this week since the Ash Wednesday bushfires swept through the Clare Valley destroying property and changing lives. Now, almost three decades later, the local CFS remains concerned that some property owners have not done enough to prevent another disaster.

In another part of the same article CFS Group Officer Chris Sullivan is quoted as saying:

The Victorian bushfire disaster could easily have been replicated in South Australia.

CFS volunteer Alister Hope is quoted as saying:

... believe it is imperative landholders are allowed to clear appropriate fire breaks of at least 25 metres around their property. I don't think people should have a pine tree within 50 metres of a house.

The concerns expressed in this article by the CFS volunteers are similar to views held by many throughout the volunteer firefighting community and, for that matter, many in the professional MFS firefighting community.

I turn now to the second amendment, which is of particular importance. Currently, the Native Vegetation Act takes precedence over the Fire and Emergency Services Act except during an emergency situation where a CFS officer may take any action deemed necessary to protect people, animals or property. The opposition believes that the protection of human life should always be the overriding consideration before any other issues and, as such, the Fire and Emergency Services Act should take precedence over the Native Vegetation Act.

We believe that for this to be fully achieved there may need to be a range of changes to these and perhaps other acts, but we believe that it would be an important first step for this council to clearly state the principle that the protection of life is paramount.

Bushfire prevention is equally as important in protecting lives as emergency firefighting itself. It is better for the community that a fire never happens in the first place or, if it does, that it is controllable. It is not acceptable to say that firefighting takes precedence only in an emergency, at the last minute. The reality is that, in many fires, men, women and children are condemned to die before the fire even starts if proper prevention measures have not been taken. The opposition appreciates that there is a diverse range of factors increasing the risk of bushfires and that private landholders bear significant responsibilities. However, we implore the government and the wider community to avoid a blame game where inadequate preparation in one area is highlighted to distract or even justify inadequate preparation in another. We must all do better.

The final amendments relate to fire prevention measures involving the clearance of native vegetation for fire breaks and access tracks, and amendments permitting the practice of cold burning. I have already stressed the importance of fuel load reduction, so I will turn now to the issue of the clearance of native vegetation for the purpose of establishing fire breaks and access tracks.

The current provisions for establishing fire breaks and access tracks under the Native Vegetation Regulations are limited as to where breaks and tracks can be established and how wide they can be. The member for Stuart ably outlined the problems with the current situation, particularly in relation to the width of fire breaks and access tracks in that they are not sufficiently wide enough to allow room to manoeuvre a vehicle, particularly in an emergency. For example, if there was a sudden change of wind, an emergency vehicle may need to change direction but may not be able to turn on such narrow tracks.

The minister in the other place agreed that these amendments are based on common sense but stated that the government would not support them as it asserts that it needs a planned and orderly approach. When the minister referred to a 'planned and orderly approach' that, to me, sounded like code words for 'bureaucratic and slow'. I was recently advised of a landholder who has been waiting for 2½ years to get a bushfire-related plan approved in relation to his properly.

This bureaucratic, slow-moving approach is not acceptable. The opposition believes that it is important that adequate measures are taken to ensure that native vegetation can be cleared for firefighting and prevention purposes. Whilst the protection of native vegetation is important, the protection of human life and the ability to control fires must take precedence.

The minister in the other place suggested that a number of the opposition amendments could be better drafted. The opposition is very keen that this parliament take decisive action to ensure that landholders and councils have the ability to better prepare for bushfires so that South Australia may be spared from fires of the intensity of those in Victoria.

I would indicate to the minister in this place that we stand ready to work with the government to see how best to achieve that goal. Likewise, the opposition will be engaging crossbench members. After all, the government has a monopoly on neither wisdom nor common sense.

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

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