Bird Scarer Gas Guns - ERD Committee asked to Investigate

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 17 November 1999

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 1999 Spring Session Index Browse by Subject About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

That the report of the committee on by-law No. 16 of the District Council of Adelaide Hills in relation to bird scarers, be noted.

In commenting on this motion, I advise the Council that the Legislative Review Committee considered by-law No. 16 made by the Adelaide hills council relating to the use of bird scaring devices in the Adelaide hills council area. The committee received extensive and detailed submissions from a substantial number of people. Having considered the matter, the committee resolved to recommend not to disallow the by-law.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I support the motion. The social impact of gas guns on people who are living within audible range is a vexed issue, and it does not necessarily have to be close audible range because of the nature of the noise, particularly if two or more such instruments are going off at different times. Let it be clear that the decision of the Legislative Review Committee in no way reflects a lack of concern or indifference to the impact of gas guns on people who are living in the areas where they are used. There is also considerable sympathy for those who are attempting to make a living from the produce and are convinced that the use of gas guns is essential for them to make a profit.

From my personal point of view, I am not convinced that the gas guns are irreplaceably essential for profit for the various enterprises that use them. I think there is scope for testing and comparing the consequences of alternatives. However, there is the question of how one views an activity which has been in place for some years, maybe some decades, and which has been using these devices for sometime or has latterly found it is important to use them to be able to harvest crops. I have less sympathy for the complainants who have come to live in an area in latter years and then complain of that noise than with those who have been living in a situation free from the noise and free from any expectation that the gas guns would be used but are suddenly confronted with the impact of the noise of gas guns.

The staff of the Legislative Review Committee obtained from the Environment Protection Agency an information pamphlet (IS No. 9, April 1998) which stipulates the decibel levels for certain locations. For rural or predominantly rural-what I would consider the bulk of the areas to which these by-laws apply-between 7 a.m. and 10 p. m. it is 47 decibels; between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. it is 40 decibels, measured at any place where a person lives or works other than the premises from which the noise emanates.

In other words, if a complainant were able to get an EPA officer with the right equipment to measure the actual decibel level at the place at which they are living-and I note that it also includes where they are working, but for my purposes I would say where the person lives-and the measurement is significantly above the stipulated levels of 47 and 40 decibels, then there is the avenue for taking legislative measures to modify it, if not eliminate it entirely. However, as the Hon. Angus Redford indicated, it is not the task and in fact it is improper for the Legislative Review Committee to assess the actual value of by-laws in a subjective way.

We are strictly confined to assessing whether they comply with the head powers of legislation and the other formalities that are required to be observed in the promulgation of regulations or by-laws, and under those circumstances this committee is limited in how far it could investigate or report on the social impact of gas guns on communities where they are being used. I think the proper course has been taken: the matter has been referred to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee for a wider social impact and economic assessment compared to the environmental values or otherwise. I have no doubt that the report that we are noting is the appropriate course to take, and I therefore indicate my support for it.