HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-09-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Giant Pine Scale

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:04): I seek leave to make an explanation before directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development regarding giant pine scale.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In June last year, via social media, the member for Newland stated in regard to the Hope Valley Reservoir that:

…a trail can now be constructed with minimal impact on the environment. Consultation will open shortly on this trail, which will be funded under the Open Space Grant Program.

Just on the weekend, the Liberal Party highlighted that the number of trees infected with giant pine scale has doubled in the past year, with Tea Tree Gully council being advised that nearly 1,400 trees have been cut down, with a further 750 to be expected to be cleared around the Hope Valley Reservoir and the Highbury Aqueduct. My questions for the minister are:

1. In relation to some movement of the mulch to Murray Bridge in relation to this outbreak, what biosecurity protocols are in place to prevent the spread of giant pine scale?

2. Which agency advised that it was safe to move mulch?

3. Can the minister indeed confirm that pine tree mulch which is potentially infected was moved from within the Tea Tree Gully council to Murray Bridge and on whose authority?

4. Has there been any amendment to the proposed trails or the timeframe for the trails to be completed, given the continuous outbreak of giant pine scale in this part of metropolitan Adelaide?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for her question. I have spoken I think in this place on a number of occasions about giant pine scale. Removal of affected trees remains the best known option for eliminating giant pine scale and is regarded as the quickest and most effective eradication method against the pest. Tree removal also assists in stopping the pest from spreading onto other unaffected pines. We also do a buffer zone, usually 50 metres around the infected tree, and that means removing the pine trees in that area. It doesn't mean removal of other trees, because it is the pine species that is affected by giant pine scale.

In terms of the infected trees, they are removed and mulched or ground, and they are quarantined on site prior to removal for processing. It can take up to six months for that to occur in a normal circumstance. I am advised that the time that it is appropriate for that to be quarantined is somewhat dependent on weather conditions, so it won't necessarily be exactly the same for every particular pile of mulch. Strict hygiene and decontamination of machinery and personnel involved with tree removal is undertaken prior to exiting an infected site to prevent the further spread.

Giant pine scale is something that we have been dealing with now for some time. It was quite fascinating to see the Liberals come out complaining that the Labor government hadn't done enough and then pointing to the fact that roughly 1,400 trees have been removed. It is unclear whether they are suggesting that all the trees should be removed. Perhaps they are suggesting all the trees should be removed from the north-eastern suburbs. As usual they come out with an announcement but without any detail.

We have been working closely with industry, again something that those opposite don't bother to do.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would be very interested to hear, since they are laughing at my comment there, how much they have engaged with the Forest Products Association, which is after all representative of industry. Did they engage with the South Australian Forest Products Association before putting out their media release criticising the government? Do they not accept that industry considers that they have worked hand in hand with government and—to generally quote from some interviews at the weekend—that they consider the government could not have done more?

That is the response from industry. I suggest that those opposite, instead of seeking headlines, actually try to understand the issue and try to work with industry, and then we might be able to get more positive outcomes. Those opposite have shown time and time again that when it comes to biosecurity, they don't see it as something where there is shared responsibility, they don't see it as something where there should be a bipartisan approach, but they see it as something where they can try to get a headline and a political advantage.

What I would say to those opposite is that biosecurity is a serious topic. It affects our industries, whether we are talking about fisheries, whether we are talking about forestry, whether we are talking about grains or other agriculture.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Because it is serious, they should actually try to work constructively instead of yet again trying to seek cheap headlines.

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