 |
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 |
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT obtained leave and introduced a Bill for an Act to amend the Native Vegetation Act 1991. Read a first time.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I move: That this Bill be now read a second time.The Democrats have been strong supporters of native vegetation legislation which, as I recall, was first introduced fairly early in the last Labor period in government. At that time the Democrats played a role by inserting amendments into the legislation to ensure that, while it fulfilled its primary role of conservation, it did not leave farmers disadvantaged. The amendments allowed for compensation when clearance rights were denied, and so on. I invite members to read the Hansard record to check that that was the case.
I remind members that, when about seven years ago this legislation came up for review with regard to the clearance of isolated trees, the Democrats supported that basic concept. It was argued that, on occasion, farmers, in seeking to carry out their business, suffered a significant disadvantage because of the location of the odd one or two trees. The attention of the Council was drawn to the fact that a centre pivot does not work very well when there is a river red gum right in the middle. The Hon. T.G. Cameron: It creates a bit of a problem. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It does create a bit of a problem. I do not believe that anyone had ever anticipated that after the legislation had been passed there would be applications to clear 1 200 trees on a single property—which was precisely what was approved for a pine plantation on one property in the South-East. I do not think that anybody anticipated clearance applications for a couple of hundred eucalypts at a time in the Barossa Valley and other places so that vineyards could be planted.Everybody involved in that debate on isolated trees believed that `isolated' meant just the odd one or two trees in a particular paddock, not 1 200 trees all under the one clearance application. At the time nobody anticipated the significant growth in horticulture that we have seen in this State during the past decade for the expansion of vineyards and other crops. In fact, at the time I came into the Parliament we were pulling out vines: I remember that clearly. I had a small fruit property in Renmark and I was committed to not—
The Hon. T. Crothers interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Absolutely none. Not only did I have no grape vines on the property but I was firmly committed not to, and to this day I would not plant them, because they have peaked and the next three years will see a steady and significant decline in prices. Some people will still get a good return but, frankly, I would not want to be an independent grower of grapes in about five years, because I think that we will see the late 1980s revisited. But that is another story.
There has been a rapid expansion of vineyards and we are seeing a rapid expansion of olives. If you go to the South-East, you will see new plantations of apples, cherries and various other horticultural crops. I think that is a great thing. Anybody who cares to look at the Border Watch will see that, over many years, I have been saying that horticulture could and should be much bigger in the South-East: I have consistently said that and believed it to be the case.
I reiterate that never in my wildest dreams did I anticipate that this legislation would involve the level of tree clearance that is now becoming evident. I suppose that I did not contemplate it because the major limitation in South Australia is not a lack of land but a lack of water. You have a fair degree of discretion about planting because it is the water that makes or does not make the land productive. Even in the relatively wet South-East, without irrigation, particularly once you get into horticulture, your productivity would be pretty ordinary to say the least.
I would argue that it is the application of water that makes the land productive and gives it its value. The cost to plant a vineyard or an orchard is tens of thousands of dollars per hectare in some cases. The big money is not in the land but in the trellising and the plantings, but it is worth nothing if you do not have the water to apply to the land. I am arguing that there is an enormous amount of flexibility—
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It's a fact. I am arguing that there is an enormous amount of flexibility—
Members interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I do not have a great deal of sympathy for those people who go into an area that is heavily treed, buy land, get their water right and then apply for clearance, saying, `We have to be able to clear this.' They choose which property to buy. They are buying land which is broadacre and which has relatively low value compared to the value of the land once it has water applied to it, and also—
The Hon. T. Crothers interjecting: The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: But even the value of that is dwarfed by the actual cost of putting the plantings into the ground. Despite all that, trees within a property are not a problem. One only needs to talk to people like Prue Henschke, the viticulturalist for the Henschke family and Hill of Grace. She is an ardent exponent of growing crops in conjunction with trees and an ardent opponent of what is being done, largely, might I say, by the big operators— An honourable member: Wolf Blass. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes; the Wolf Blass's of this world. It is no longer Wolf Blass: that is just a brand name. The Hon. T. Crothers: Mildara. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Mildara; that's right. The Hon. L.H. Davis interjecting: The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, which is headquartered outside South Australia and has no commitment to South Australia other than wanting to get the grape juice out. An honourable member: They used to make good brandy at Mildara. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: You can talk about various brand names. Yahl cheese is great, but it is not made in Yahl any more. In fact, it is not made in South Australia any more, although the label still says `Yahl, Mount Gambier'. But that is another story and it has nothing to do with wine and nothing at all to do with trees. The point I am making is that there are top quality South Australian based viticulturalists who know the business and say that there is no justification for doing it, and they are not talking theory but practice. We are finding that about 50 per cent of the trees that are subject to an application for clearance are being cleared. You could almost apply a formula to it: apply for 100 and 50 will be approved; apply for 200 and 100 will be approved. Unfortunately, that is almost the way in which the Native Vegetation Council is working at the moment. Nobody in this Parliament, at the time the legislation went through initially, considered that trees in a broadacre situation would be at threat. The legislation, in the first instance, was drafted to confront issues of broadacre clearance. On the whole, that is no longer a problem in South Australia, although there are still some illegal practices going on which the Native Vegetation Council, because of a lack of resources, is simply not tackling. Individual trees became an issue by the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Act was amended to try to contemplate that, but nobody contemplated the dramatic expansion of horticulture, and even with that dramatic expansion I would argue that nobody would have contemplated that we would see the level of clearance being approved that we are now seeing. I have pointed out in this place, having made a freedom of information request, that the pattern of tree clearance changed in March, four months after this current Government was elected—and it was a dramatic turnaround.It reflects a change in the composition of the Native Vegetation Council itself, which also changed at that time. I have the graphs and the material in my office to show members who are interested. In one month it went from about 20 per cent approval to 70 or 80 per cent approval—that is how much the pattern changed. It has now settled down: it is closer to 50 or 60 per cent approval, but it is pretty much a one-way street.
The issue that I am tackling within this Bill, though, is not the issue of whether or not trees should be cleared: it is about how we can have more confidence in the Native Vegetation Council itself. The Bill that I present—knowing that this is one of the last days of the session, but also mindful that the Government intends to introduce changes to the Native Vegetation Act in the next session—and the issue I am confronting relate to public accountability and openness, something that the Democrats and I believe in very strongly in relation to native vegetation. In fact, we have even had before this Parliament today changes to a regulation in relation to police records, and I believe that that regulation will be knocked out for the same reason: because most people believe in openness in Government. If you want true accountability, the first thing that must happen is that information must be available for people to see. Of course, in relation to police records, there are an awful lot of provisos about that, but at least historians must get to see it some time. I would argue in relation to the Native Vegetation Act and the Native Vegetation Council that we need to see a level of accountability and openness that simply does not exist at present. The Native Vegetation Council does not advertise the fact that it is meeting—I believe it should. Its meetings almost always are not open to the public—I believe they should be. I have no problems with the council having a right to exclude members of the public, but it really should be only for reasons of utmost commercial importance that a meeting is closed. It is important that the minutes of the Native Vegetation Council are kept and that copies be available for scrutiny. The council, before determining applications for consent to clear vegetation, should publicly advertise so that the public is aware that such a proposal is being made. In many cases, applications are made in secret and approvals are given, and the first people know that there has even been a proposal is when the chainsaws and bulldozers have already gone to work. That is simply not acceptable. I have addressed issues of public accountability directly within this Bill. I gave drafting instructions in relation to trying to make the legislation more stringent in terms of approvals regarding individual trees, but I was unhappy with the draft that I had within the Bill. I did not find it acceptable, let alone asking anybody else to find it acceptable; and, as a consequence, I have not proceeded with that. But it is important that people are aware that in the next session the Democrats will be pushing for much more stringent legislative controls in relation to individual clearance. In fact, that section of the legislation which relates to individual clearance has been interpreted in a way that was not intended. Hence, in the provision which refers to what clearance is allowed and what is not, the legislation says that clearance shall not be approved where it is greatly at variance with the principles contained within the schedule. It does not say that no clearance will be approved: it simply says `where they are significantly at variance'. This really means that the door is already open under some circumstances to allow clearance to occur. In the amendments we made about seven years ago a further subclause was added which referred to isolated trees. Then there was reference to where an isolated tree, which was defined in the legislation and which caused difficulties for farming operations, might be cleared regardless of what else the clause said.So, essentially there was already an open door at the beginning of the clause, and it has been slammed wide open with that further amendment. As I said, it was slammed open in a way that I do not believe anybody involved in the debate at that stage anticipated it would be. That provision needs to be amended simply to say, `No clearance shall be approved where it is at variance', and then perhaps there might be an exceptional circumstance subclause. But to say that there is an exceptional circumstance and then to open that door even further in the way that that provision is constructed simply does not work. We will pay a real price for that in years to come—and not just in terms of amenity.
I am sure that a certain number of people reacting to the clearance of trees do so simply because of the loss of amenity, particularly in the Mount Lofty Ranges where the big red gums and blue gums are an important part of the landscape. Speaking biologically, it is only when trees are a couple of hundred years old that they start getting the sort of hollows which over half the species of birds in South Australia need in terms of nesting, and a large number of our mammals also need those hollows. While the legislation envisages the possibility of clearing a tree and having replacement plantings, if you like, in the corner of a paddock, it is another 200-odd years before those replacement trees get the hollows used by the birds, the mammals, etc. There are also issues concerning salinity. Those very large trees are enormous water pumps. Again, that is largely being ignored at this stage. They have a very significant capacity to impact upon watertables. Much to everybody's surprise, salinisation of soils is occurring even in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Salinisation of soils is not just a problem occurring in the Upper South-East or in patches of Eyre Peninsula and Yorke Peninsula: salinisation is a problem that is occurring in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The loss of those big pumps is of concern.I will now flag a couple other issues which need to be addressed within this legislation, including offences. Currently, prosecution under the Act is made difficult because it is considered a criminal offence. This has meant that courts have required proof beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore it is almost impossible to achieve effective prosecutions. This situation would change if it were to become a civil offence.
I refer to the clearance application fee structure. The assessment fees should be based upon the number of trees applied to be cleared. For example, an application to clear 2 000 trees would involve a hefty fee. Why indeed do we not charge $1 000 a tree for a clearance application? One might say that that is a lot of money to apply to have a tree cleared if it is not approved, but if the Act were interpreted very clearly you would know before you applied whether or not you had a reasonable prospect. In fact, at this stage the rules are such that you can almost be guaranteed of getting half of what you asked for. So, if you seek clearance approval for 2 000 trees, you will be allowed to clear 1 000.
There should be a significant fee attached to each individual tree, and I was surprised, in conversation with people linked to the Native Vegetation Branch, at how much the actual assessment process is costing. That is all being borne by the assessment branch itself at this stage, because the fees simply do not match the cost. It seems to me that, if the general expectation is that clearance in South Australia should have stopped, a person should be prepared to bear the cost himself if he is asking for an exception to be considered, and I advocate very strongly a hefty fee based on each individual tree.
There are major problems in relation to clearance for subdivisions. It is worth noting that in the Mount Lofty Ranges there is very little remanent vegetation left, and over half of that remanent vegetation is found on private land. Some of that is still subject to subdivision, and the cumulative effect of regulations at this stage is quite deadly. For example, if you take 800 hectares, you could divide it into 20 40-hectare blocks and then use 10 metre fencing width, because that is what the Act allows you to clear. By the time you have finished, you have perhaps cleared over half the vegetation. If you then decide to build a house and sheds and need to clear round each of those, it has gone even further. Issues surrounding subdivision and the consequent clearance really need to be tackled, particularly in some areas of the State where remanent vegetation is fairly low.
There needs to be an extension of the role of the Native Vegetation Council. Extra funds should be allocated to the council so that the general public can be better informed as to its role in the administration of the Act. I have already argued within this Bill that more public openness will help achieve this sort of goal. The Native Vegetation Council should be looking at grazing and clearance of native grasses and actively promoting the economic and environmental advantages of replacing poorly adapted exotic grasses and their associated weeds with drought tolerant, perennial native grasses. I turn to fire management and the promotion amongst the CFS movement of the value of native vegetation. As an example, a level 1 CFS course at Swan Reach placed native vegetation last on its priority list. We need to look at the selection criteria for Native Vegetation Council members. Although a number of the members are practising farmers, it is essential that they also be leaders in areas such as salinity management, catchment issues and the conservation value of plant and animal species. In terms of absolute expertise on the committee, the Minister's nominee should be a person who is a trained botanist or ecologist. Unfortunately, the Native Vegetation Council at this stage is top heavy with people who are actually not qualified and do not necessarily have a deep understanding of the very issues they are asked to act upon.It does not mean that they are not well meaning (and this is not aimed at any one individual), but there is not sufficient expertise overall on the Native Vegetation Council at this stage. Just as Governments over the past 10 or 15 years, Liberal and Labor, have been working to make sure Government boards always have a lawyer in them and often have an accountant, it is bizarre that the Government does not have a nominee who is a trained botanist or ecologist on the Native Vegetation Council. I suspect at this stage that an accountant might have more chance of getting on the Native Vegetation Council than a botanist or ecologist.
There is clearly a lack of resources to administer the Act, and I have reflected upon that already. One of the big problems with the lack of resources is that illegal clearance is being reported on a regular basis and simply not being acted upon or being enforced. I have touched on other matters that also relate to that. One person has reported to me that he is aware of 22 illegal clearances in the South-East alone last year, which is quite stunning.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Do you have examples and evidence?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I can present that to the appropriate persons. I have rung up on previous occasions and have not got too far. I have actually rung the Native Vegetation Council on a few occasions. In addition to the need for increased staff availability to monitor adherence to these programs, it is recommended that a bond system be created that would apply when approval has been granted to clear but revegetation has been part of the clearance approval. If a bond were placed on the revegetation program, that would be the best surety you could have that it was carried out. Again, these revegetation programs are being carried out by people spending enormous sums of money on horticulture and, frankly, the cost of the revegetation program is nominal by comparison.
The last issue is this: the recent application for 22 trees in the Hills face zone at Angaston was granted on the basis that the Barossa Council no longer had any interest in the clearance application. However, one person I spoke to knew of two Barossa councillors who had voted against the application on the basis of the amenity value of the trees. When this person checked with the environmental manager of the council, who then checked with his staff, he found that they had not issued any pro-clearance response and were most concerned that the council's view on this application was misrepresented at the Native Vegetation Council. I have covered a number of issues. The prime issue on which this Bill is focused is openness. That is something that all people are realising increasingly that modern society expects from Government and Government instrumentalities, and I hope that all members would agree with that. I will bring the Bill back in the next session and will also be tackling a number of the other issues raised during the second reading.The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS secured the adjournment of the debate.
