 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M. J. Elliott:
That the regulations under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 concerning exemptions, made on 16 December 1999 and laid on the table of this Council on 28 March 2000, be disallowed
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: There are a couple of aspects to this regulation that need to be examined very carefully. First, the effect of these regulations is to allow something that would otherwise have been contrary to the act and, in particular, to allow the clearance of significant amounts of vegetation. When I say `significant amounts of vegetation', I point out that people need to realise that in the Upper South-East the vegetation that has been cleared is a strip 17 kilometres long by 50 metres wide-I think that is 850 hectares. It is a very sizeable amount of native vegetation to be cleared. It is a matter of principle that one would allow 850 hectares to be cleared under a regulation which was proclaimed on 16 December but which did not come before this parliament until three months later.
When regulations are used to provide an exemption to an act of some significance and if parliament is denied access to that regulation, it is bad government. I would have thought as a matter of principle, and for that reason alone, the regulation should have been defeated. What is the message from the government? The message is that, if you can get away with it, go for it. It is trying on a regular basis to see what it can get away with and what it cannot. It has got away with this one.
Without arguing about the merits of clearance, which I will get to, I point out that this is a matter that has been around for many years. They were quite capable of either bringing it forward by a month or two or taking it back by a month or two. I do not believe the timing was purely coincidental. We have seen that with other regulations in this place, where they avoid parliamentary scrutiny until after the deed has been done-not only that something had been made legal but the act they wanted to make legal had been carried out. The parliament was actually irrelevant in relation to the issue. That is the first point.
This is not minor clearance: it is over 800 hectares, in a strip 17 kilometres long by 50 metres wide, right through the middle of native vegetation. That has a great many ramifications and it is why Senator Robert Hill was so upset, because for the most part he takes this sort of thing seriously. He realises that a scheme that commonwealth funding goes into for environmental reasons has been used for major environmental vandalism.
I am not opposed to schemes to remove salinity from the Upper South-East. In fact, the parliamentary record shows that I have been raising issues about dry land salinity in the Upper South-East for as long as I have been in this place.
The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Well, that could be. This is not simply a matter of being opposed to native vegetation clearance itself. I remind honourable members that, if they take the time to look at changes in the Native Vegetation Act, they will see that a change was made to allow clearance of what was known as `isolated trees' under some circumstances. Previously, the Native Vegetation Council could not grant permission for clearance and, as a consequence, significant farming activities were being held back in some cases. The Democrats facilitated the passage of amendments that allowed that to happen. In hindsight, I believe that that clause has been abused, but we do realise that there are times when native vegetation clearance becomes necessary.
The next point is how necessary was the clearance authorised by this regulation? It has already been conceded in this place that there were other options. The Hon. Angus Redford talked about the cost of land acquisition. One has to ask the question: what value does one put on 850 hectares of native vegetation? How much would it cost the government to pay for a revegetation scheme for 850 hectares? Once you cut a swath through native vegetation, you usually find that the native vegetation either side of that will degrade. I understand that this drain will flow most of the time and will interfere with the movement of native animals, particularly smaller ones. The impact will go well beyond just the obvious native vegetation issue. Of course, one would expect that around the drain there will now be a perched water table. A water table will always rise to the same level as the water within a drain. One will now see salinisation on either side of the drain killing vegetation further back. So, we have lost 850 hectares already and there is a fair chance we will lose another 1 000 or 2 000 hectares more, or at least it will be severely degraded with an impact on the movement of native animals, at which point the money being talked about is an absolute pittance.
As I said, there were alternatives. There were alternatives that Senator Robert Hill, the federal Liberal environment minister, wanted. But they did not happen. Now, it has almost been suggested that a perhaps a bit of blackmail was involved in terms of how one landholder was going to behave. That makes it even more reprehensible: it is not a defence. We should be debating in this place the Upper South-East drainage system and the raising of levies. That is the debate that should be happening rather than a debate about an action by the government because a threat was made on the levies. It is quite extraordinary. There were alternatives and, quite simply, they were avoided.
In relation to the case on Eyre Peninsula, I have previously made the point in this place that the government seemed to have a remarkably selective memory or understanding. We passed legislation in this place and the government refused amendments that noted the impact that trees have on groundwater recharge. In this regulation-which predates this debate by close to seven months-the government is saying that trees have a major impact on recharge and it is important to remove trees. The issue of water resources on Eyre Peninsula is important, but the government has not presented any scientific evidence to back up what it is doing. Advice I have received is that aloe casuarina, the predominant genus to be cleared, is a shallow rooted tree that has limited impact on groundwater recharge. The government may want to dispute that but my understanding is-and members certainly have not responded during this debate-that they do not have the scientific evidence that shows that the removal of that species of tree will improve recharge in any significant way.
This is typical of the government: it does not do the necessary work before making a decision. If we rubber stamp sloppiness, it no longer reflects on the government but on the members of this place, and it reflects upon the parliament. I am bitterly disappointed that sloppiness is rewarded and that contempt of parliament is rewarded, because it seems that is what is happening in this place at the moment.
There should have been proper scientific research in terms of the impact of those trees, not only in terms of recharge but the importance of the trees in other ways. When presenting the motion initially I noticed that glossy black cockatoos on Eyre Peninsula are in very small numbers. It is a very rare and endangered species and, as I understand it, aloe casuarinas are a very important food source for most cockatoos. Again, I believe that fact would have been neglected during consideration of the regulations. Homework should have been done on that. What alternatives were considered?
In other water limited areas like Kangaroo Island the government has considered desalination as a source of water for domestic purposes. It is unfortunate that we have to go down that path, but there are some areas of the state where it looks like it will be inevitable. We have to be very careful in our use of the resource. The old notion of the European garden has well and truly gone. For many people in Streaky Bay it went long ago, because I understand that they have considerable restrictions in place. That, unfortunately, will have to continue.
I urge members who have suggested that they will oppose this disallowance motion to give it urgent reconsideration, otherwise they will be rewarding contempt of parliament as well as rewarding scientific and other incompetence on the part of the government.
Motion defeated.
