Mike Elliott: ERD Report

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
31 October 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I support the motion to note the report. I am also a member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. I have been a member of the committee since its inception and, having had some experience on a number of other select and standing committees, I consider that this is, by far, the most valuable committee with which I have ever been involved on an ongoing basis. Despite the fact that the committee has representation from Labor, Liberal, the National Party and the Democrats ( and, prior to the arrival of the Nationals, it still had Labor and a Democrat on it), I think on all but one occasion it has produced unanimous reports-and on that occasion it was a relatively small matter about which there was disagreement.

I note that, while the committee has, I think, worked extremely effectively, it has been pleasing that the work of some ministers also has been effective. In the presence of the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning, I note that Minister Laidlaw is one of those ministers who works very closely and cooperatively with the committee. She responds promptly to any issues raised, she provides comprehensive amounts of information and, I am also pleased to say, she takes on board and frequently acts on advice that comes from the committee. Unfortunately, I cannot say that of some other ministers with whom the committee needs to work from time to time. I do not need to name them: it is almost every other minister except the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning.

During the past year the committee has covered a wide range of issues. I guess that, by far, the most important issue for us was our involvement in the ecotourism reference, about which I have already spoken in this place on a previous occasion. I just reiterate that there is a major opportunity that, at present, we have barely scratched the surface of in relation to ecotourism. I will not make further comment. I invite people to look at Hansard in relation to the report on that matter.

The committee also looked at the issue of native fauna and agriculture. There is no doubt in my mind that the processes that we have used over the past couple of years have been inadequate. I note that the Minister for Environment and Heritage stopped the cull some time after we made a recommendation that there was a need for change, but I have not so far seen any proposals emerge regarding what will happen in the next season. I note that the next fruit season is now approaching-in fact, this year, the parrots in my neighbourhood had eaten my almonds before I managed to get the nets over (I have been a bit busy), and I imagine that they are probably also becoming active generally throughout the Adelaide Hills. I have not seen at this stage what the minister's reaction is other than to stop the cull as it was working last year. I would be very interested to note those changes-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I think they have already been: they had their fill and left. Again, that is a matter that has been commented on in this place previously, so I will not linger on it.

With respect to the issue of urban tree protection, the minister introduced legislation in relation to significant trees-legislation which was amended in this place, so that it was not just trees of 2.5 metres but also, in the interim period at least, trees of a circumference greater than 1.5 metres and native trees of a height greater than 4 metres. That protection was due to lapse in the middle of this year, and many councils expressed concern that the number of trees they needed to assess was such that they could not fulfil the requirements in the time frame. I am pleased to note that the minister reacted to our report requesting an extension. She gave an extension of a further year, and we thank the minister for that. The minister noted only yesterday in this place that an award has been given-and I am not sure whether it was to Planning SA or to the minister-in relation to the urban tree legislation generally, and that is well and good.

The committee had, at the time of reporting, advertised the commencement of an urban development reference, and we have made further progress on that reference since that time. Two weeks ago, we held a major meeting using the House of Assembly chamber, where representatives from a wide range of groups made contributions by way of speeches. There were then opportunities for questions and discussion across the floor between members of the committee and those groups. That reference will go further. I find it a very exciting reference, and I look forward to the time when the committee can report on it. But, as I said, that reference is still progressing.

The committee revisited some issues that we had looked at on previous occasions. For instance, we revisited the Sellicks Hill caves issue, because we had made recommendations at a previous time and we had an understanding as to what was to happen in relation to the Sellicks Hill caves. Despite a clear understanding given to the ERD Committee, that there would be a genuine attempt to ascertain whether any part of the Sellicks Cave system was still intact, I am sad to report that no such attempt has been made, nor does it seem likely that any attempt will be made. Some ministers have responded positively to suggestions from the ERD Committee: others have not.

Unfortunately, in the area of mines, the committee has not had a good strike rate and it is bitterly disappointing. The cave, as it formerly existed before it was imploded, was the most significant known cave on the Fleurieu Peninsula. Certainly, we know significant components of it were destroyed. Whether that cave system went further and just how much further it might have gone we do not know, and unfortunately the current government has no intention of ever trying to find out. It will simply be quarried away. That is its fate: whatever is there will be quarried away and South Australia will never know what was there. To the great shame of this government, what remained and what else was undiscovered, we will never know.

We looked at issues around River Murray houseboat waste disposal. It is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed in more depth. The government is acting now to get greater control in relation to shacks. Yet, while we have control in relation to shacks, we have nowhere near enough control over the impact of the boats that are on the water itself.

We visited the issue of fruit fly: that is one that the committee will have more to say about later on. There is no doubt that the fruit fly program, as it was operating, was grossly inadequate. Whether one enters into the debate about the safety or otherwise of the sprays being used, there is no question that the period of pre-warning being given to people that spraying was going to occur, the advice about how they should react to that spraying in terms of what they do in the yard, and what they should do with their pets and so on has been grossly inadequate. The process seems a little haphazard.

There is no question that fruit fly must be controlled. I am pleased to see that this year the government intends to use the sterile male technique. I am surprised that it is just setting about using this process, because I remember around 1973 being taught at university about the sterile male technique being used to control populations. Thirty years later, something that is already well known in scientific circles is about to be used in South Australia, even though it has been used in other countries with other species for a considerable period of time. I have great pleasure in noting the report, another in a valuable series from the ERD Committee.