HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SIGNIFICANT TREES

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:40): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question relating to significant trees.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I recently spoke with a resident of the Adelaide Hills who expressed his concerns regarding the impact of significant tree legislation on bushfire prevention. As Adelaide approached the extreme fire conditions of 7 February, the resident, also a member of the CFS, contacted his local council for permission to trim a significant tree on his property which presented a fire risk.

The tree was a 40 year old gum tree, which is significant by virtue of being two metres in circumference. While the proposed trimming was approved by the Native Vegetation Council, the local council required the resident to go through the normal application process under significant tree legislation.

In spite of the latitude within the Native Vegetation Act for bushfire prevention, he was advised that there is no such capacity in the significant tree planning controls. The application process would take six to eight weeks and would involve an application fee of $80 and an arborist's report of between $300 and $400 before the application was considered. I stress that the landholder was only proposing to trim the tree, not remove it.

In mid-February, the government released a code of practice for the management of native vegetation to reduce the impact of bushfire. The code refers to the significant tree legislation but makes no mention of any accommodation for bushfire prevention in relation to significant trees.

My question is: will the minister review the significant tree planning controls to ensure that landholders are able to undertake appropriate bushfire measures without significant cost and delay?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:42): Indeed, we did review it, we made significant changes to it and we put it to this parliament and, guess what, the honourable member voted against it, and so did his colleagues and so did a majority of people in this council. As a result of that, that legislation was delayed.

So, yes, I have reviewed the significant tree legislation. I do agree that there are some absurdities in it. The honourable member referred to native vegetation, but the same could apply to a pine tree. There are some very large radiata pine trees that have been removed in national parks because they are regarded as weeds, but under the current act they are significant trees.

What I sought to do with some of the amendments that we debated 12 months ago in this place was to look at exempting some types of trees, and that could well include olive trees, for example. If you have an olive tree that is more than two metres in circumference it could be argued that that is a significant tree and you would need planning approval. There are some anomalies, and I sought to address that in the significant tree bill that was stalled in this place, but in view of the—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It stalled. It did not have the numbers in this place to get through and it was—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They are not bad, are they? They oppose this tooth and nail and they are caught out, and now they are trying to say, 'Why didn't you get it?' Isn't this great? This is the sort of economic sabotage that members opposite specialise in. In this place they block key bits of legislation, they damage the economy of this state through their utilisation of powers within this parliament and then they go out there and say to the government, 'You haven't done anything.'

What I can say is that it is my intention that we revisit the significant trees act, and I look forward to the honourable member's support in making some much needed changes to the legislation.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Show us any mention of bushfires. Does it mention bushfires once?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: So, you have an absurdity in a piece of legislation that makes certain types of trees, such as radiata pine trees, which many people would argue grow like weeds in the Adelaide Hills, subject to planning approval. I would try to change it so that we can exempt some species, but no, you cannot do that, but as long as you mention bushfires you can. Clearly we need to clear up—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: They will hold your government personally responsible.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They hold our government personally responsible, and you blocked it! I tell you what: they will be holding you responsible. You have just been found out because you had no idea what you were voting for. I am sure he had no idea! He did not mention it. He has been found out; no wonder he is embarrassed! You voted against it. When they said, 'Will you vote for the change?', you put up your hand up and said no. No wonder he is embarrassed.

Notwithstanding that, he may try to misrepresent the position. Being a Liberal, he is highly experienced at misrepresentation to the electors. From the Leader of the Opposition in another place down, they are great at doing that sort of thing. This government will not give up on the issue of significant trees. We will bring back measures, notwithstanding members opposite, and we will see whether they have changed their mind and whether they accept the reforms to the significant trees legislation, which are badly needed.

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