Proclamation of Naracoorte Caves National Park

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
29 November 2000

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2000 Spring Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

That this Council requests His Excellency the Governor to make a proclamation under section 29(3) and section 28(1) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 abolishing the Naracoorte Caves Conservation Park and constituting the land formerly comprising that park (except for four small parcels that have negligible value) as a national park with the name Naracoorte Caves National Park.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: In speaking to this motion I want to raise some questions with the minister, and the Democrats' reaction to the motion will really be based upon the answers that we receive. The first point I make is that, when this was first announced, it was announced as a major upgrade of the park by renaming. It is worth noting that from an environmental perspective the level of protection for the park does not change when you change its name from conservation park to national park. Some people might think that, somehow or other, it gains extra protection. In fact, it is nothing more nor less than a change in name.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It gets called a national park rather than a conservation park. But that is well and good. Perhaps if people overseas had more understanding of what a national park and a conservation park are, that would be fine.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes. I make the point that, from a purely conservation viewpoint, it does not make a hill of beans difference whether you call it a conservation park. If you read the act, they are both treated in exactly the same way in terms of the way in which they are protected or not protected. I am quite happy for the name change, just as there was a change for the Belair National Park from conservation park to national park about seven years ago, although I must say that its being considered a national park did not stop a major proposal for a resort development inside the park.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am glad that it was stopped, but it was there for a very long time before it was.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No. In fact, I think that if the government had said, `Our policy is not to allow that sort of development', it could have stopped there and then. In terms of being in charge of conservation, the government-as distinct from the planning minister-was always in a position to have a clearly stated policy about what form developments in parks would take, when it is appropriate and when it is not, etc. It is an issue that we are addressing in the ERD Committee right at the moment, the whole issue of ecotourism, and it is proving to be most interesting.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It is. I am a very strong advocate of ecotourism, but people have many different views about what it actually means. For some people it is building five star resorts in among the gum trees: for others it means far more. In terms of the economic return, I suspect that niche marketing ecotourism of the non-five star variety is likely to get a better economic return as well as to better protect our parks. But that is a digression.

I have had the opportunity to visit the caves on a few occasions, although it is a couple of years since the last time. I must say that, after visiting a few caves in the South-East, there is a certain sameness about them, but they are still quite amazing places to visit. The one thing that you have to be careful of with caves is that you do not love them to death. One of the big risks with caves is that, as you open them to make them more accessible, you increase the air flow. If you increase the air flow, they start drying out; and, if they start drying out, you then interfere with the stalactites and stalagmites, and other more delicate things that build up in caves can actually stop, so you can even cause damage.

Although I have no evidence that it has happened down there, while in our enthusiasm we promote it and, as I said, they are wonderful places to visit, I do hope that there is careful assessment being made as to what level of visitation is sustainable for the cave in the longer run.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I would be interested to know what assessment has been made in relation to that. That is not an anti-visit-caves comment but just a comment along the way. To me the more important questions relate to the latter part of the motion, which actually excludes what are described in the motion as `except for four small parcels that have negligible value.' We are not told whether this negligible value is ecological value or financial value, but I suspect that that has more to do with what is happening in this motion than the renaming of the park, and it is about this matter that I want to ask questions. In South Australia, we have had probably the most significant clearance of vegetation anywhere in Australia in terms of the percentage of vegetation cleared.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No. It is true that we have stopped and Queensland is going berserk on clearance, but in percentage terms we have already cleared far more vegetation than any other state. As one who comes from the South-East, I can say that the South-East has probably had far greater clearance than most other areas of South Australia. The only bits that have not been cleared are some of the coastal areas which are totally useless for farming. They are extremely rocky, probably salty, and have no soil. So, you get these little parcels of land mainly hugging the coastline which have not been developed and which make up most of the national parks in the South-East.

I remember as a kid with a different mindset going for drives to Portland. I noted that the moment you got to the border of South Australia and Victoria suddenly the land was all scrub. I used to think how underdeveloped this place was and how backward the Victorians were. We had all our scrub cleared and we had farms and pine trees. The Victorians have been catching up. However, because they started clearance in that area later, they still have some quite significant national parks in comparison with what we have just over the border.

The first question that I put to the minister is simply: what area of remnant vegetation is there in the whole of the South-East? My next question is: of the vegetation type that is found within the Naracoorte Caves Conservation Park, how much of that is still remnant in the South-East? These questions are important because, if you are trying to conserve both fauna and flora, you need to understand what are referred to as island populations. You can have island populations on the mainland in terms of remnant vegetation appearing in islands. You have populations of plants which have been separated from each other and therefore are not cross-breeding, but, more importantly, you have remnant populations of animals. Sometimes, if you have a quite small island of vegetation, you can have a small number of a particular species which is no longer interbreeding with remnants of that species in other island populations. What happens is that you end up with a narrowing of the genetic base and a very dramatic collapse and you lose that species from the island and, bit by bit, you lose the species totally.

A bit of work has been done recently in relation to the Mount Lofty Ranges on this very issue. I note that it is expected that, within 20 years, we will see a dramatic decline in the number of species in the Adelaide Hills for this very reason. Why is that significant in relation to the Naracoorte Caves? I want to be convinced that this particular island of vegetation is large enough in itself to be important and that there is enough of this vegetation type more generally in the South-East so that animal populations and species which are dependent upon it are protected.

I have noted during debate that the excuse for carving off these four small parcels of land is because they are considered to be degraded. However, my understanding is that, whilst the understorey is degraded, the upper storey is still there. Just because the understorey is degraded is no reason to say that it is no longer important. First, we should recognise that in terms of many species mature trees which contain hollows provide homes for half the species of birds that we have and about half the species of mammals. So, those mature trees, although they are in an overall degraded habitat, are still significant for some species.

Secondly, we can look at what has been done in the Belair National Park. The western end of that park was severely degraded in the past through grazing, etc. Whilst it is nowhere near pristine, significant work has been done by volunteer groups over several decades progressively to reinstate it. They are keen to do that because, first, the vegetation types in the western end are poorly represented and, secondly, they are attempting to make the island of vegetation larger. So, in respect of this matter of saying that the land is of negligible value, I would welcome the tabling in this place of the biological reports that were prepared for the minister which make the case that this land is of, I presume, negligible ecological value and which examine those issues that I have covered in terms of the area of remnant vegetation, remnant vegetation of this type and, therefore, the significance of this particular island of vegetation.

I suspect that this land has significant financial value because, in most areas of the South-East now, there cannot be the creation of new farmlets. Most councils went through a stage a couple of years ago where hobby farms were being created. It has now been realised that we are starting to lose too much valuable farmland because of that. As I see it, these four small parcels of land (new hobby lots) would be attractive to some people and would probably bring a rather tidy sum. I am sure that, whilst that money would be spent in national parks, it would be a one-off expenditure, and, once that land has been fully degraded and lost to hobby farms, we will not be able to get it back.

I welcome the minister's response to those issues regarding the ecological value of those four parcels of land, recognising that they still may be severely degraded, and I am particularly keen to see the reports which back up the claim that these parcels are of negligible value.