|
|
DEVELOPMENT
LAWS Parliamentary Question HON DENNIS HOOD MLC 17 February 2009 |
|
|
|
The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:28): I seek
leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban
Development and Planning a question about development laws. Leave
granted. The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We are all aware,
of course, of the terrible tragedy in Victoria in recent days. Indeed, we
expressed our condolences today in the motion earlier, but the sad fact is
that it could have been us in South Australia as well. Most recently an
article in the Sunday Mail carried a revelation that some 300 people could
die in an Adelaide Hills death trap (as the article called it) in a fire's
first hour if it occurred in certain regions of the hills. Modelling by the
CFS apparently concluded that 50 people could die on Sheoak
Road, Belair, and noted that sections of Belair, Blackwood, Upper Sturt and
Crafers West are so-called 'no-go zones' for CFS crews in a bushfire. Senior
CFS officials also told the Sunday Mail that literally thousands of homes are
surrounded by bushland and could not be saved in the event of a major
bushfire. These homes could conceivably be saved if development laws allowed
residents to clear firebreaks around their property without having to go
through a tortuous application process or facing hefty penalties under the
Native Vegetation Act if they do so. Indeed,
the case of Liam Sheahan is clear proof here. He is
a farmer who some years ago bulldozed a firebreak around his home at Reedy
Creek in Victoria and, under similar laws to those we have in South Australia, Mr Sheahan was hauled
before a magistrate and fined $50,000 for clearing. Last Saturday, that
illegal firebreak saved his home and possibly the lives of his family.
Indeed, his home was the only one left standing in a 2 kilometre area. My
questions are: 1.Does the minister agree that the case of Mr Sheahan
in Victoria supports the argument that some over-zealous environmental
initiatives may actually be putting human lives at risk for the sake of very
small parcels of bushland scrub? 2.If so, does the minister agree that this is entirely inappropriate
and, indeed, unacceptable? 3.Will the minister investigate a change to our development laws to allow
home owners at risk of bushfire to construct reasonable firebreaks around
their properties without the Native Vegetation Council preventing this
commonsense, probably lifesaving practice? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for
Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning,
Minister for Small Business) (16:31): Earlier today I made a ministerial
statement in relation to bushfire planning and indicated that obviously in
the light of the Victorian bushfires we need to upgrade what has already been
a comprehensive review of bushfire regulations since the Premier's Bushfire
Summit back in 2003. I also indicated in that statement that we need to
consider whether the events that we saw last Saturday week are likely to
occur more often due to climate change. Clearly, in those sorts of
situations, as other members expressed during the condolence motion, there is
virtually nothing one can do. In
relation to vegetation clearing, it is my understanding that there are
already provisions that enable people to clear around a development. Whether
or not those distances are sufficient is probably something that will be
looked at again in the light of what has happened. However, I also pointed
out that following that bushfire summit the development laws have been
changed so that if one is to build a residence in a high bushfire risk area,
the CFS must look at that development application and has
the capacity to either reject it or require certain contingency measures.
Indeed, in the aftermath of the Victorian bushfires and the horrific losses,
even in cases where there had been protection around many of the buildings
that were burnt, there has been some discussion about whether some form of
shelter should be mandatory in such high risk areas. We do
have complexity. I know that one of the members in another place has suggested
that we should ban all development from taking place in areas such as Sheoak Road. There are some roads around Crafers that, in
my view, are worse than that because they have only one way out. At least Sheoak Road has an entrance at each end because it is a
through road. There are many other roads up on ridges in that area that have
only one entrance. The member for Fisher in another place has suggested that
there should be a categorical prohibition against development in those areas.
I notice that the member for Davenport (Hon. Iain Evans), who, like me, lives
in the Adelaide Hills, has commented that he does not believe that is
practical, and I myself have made the same comment. There
are many blocks in the Adelaide Hills that people have bought in the
expectation of building on them. If we were to suddenly render those blocks
effectively worthless, we would have to consider what compensation we would
give to those people. Rather, perhaps the answer is in requiring other forms
of protection such as bunkers or housing that is more compatible or offers
more protection from bushfires. Of course, that would be expensive but,
certainly in my view, home owners in those areas should be prepared to pay.
People who live in those high risk areas cannot expect others to put their
lives at risk trying to protect them during the sorts of conditions that we
had last Saturday week. There
are some complex issues here. I indicated in my statement earlier today that
we need to review all current laws in the light of the experience in
Victoria. I note that the royal commission in Victoria has indicated that it
will provide an interim report in six months, and that report may well
resolve some of these matters. In the
condolence debate today, my colleague the Hon. Carmel Zollo
raised the issue of whether people should stay or go, and people should make
any such decision early if they live in these high-risk bushfire areas.
Clearly, we need to look at a whole range of issues, and I think it over
simplifies the matter to say that we should simply prevent people from
building in a particular area or just totally clear native vegetation. Most
of these areas are water catchment areas, and it is important for the
integrity of our water resources that we try to keep as much intact
vegetation there to protect that. Obviously,
there are a number of other important issues we need to take into account,
and I think we have to achieve a balance. We need to learn from the
experience of every bushfire, particularly those that are as devastating as
the fires in Victoria. We will certainly review all our bushfire policies in
that light. I well remember the Ash Wednesday bushfires; many of these issues
were debated at that time, and they are not simple
matters. As I
said, it is not practical or sensible to undertake mass clearing of our major
water catchment areas. Clearly, we should encourage people to live where the
risk is lower, and there are many things people can do to remove the risk.
However, as I said in my statement earlier, you can never reduce the risk to
zero in places such as the Adelaide Hills; you can only lower it to an
acceptable level, and how we determine that acceptable level will depend very
much on how we assess the increasing danger from issues such as climate
change. It was 70 years ago that South Australia last
recorded temperatures such as those we experienced last Saturday week. Given
climate change, how long will it be in the future? Will it be another 70
years or another 20 years, or will these be one in 10-year events? No-one
knows the answer. We will clearly have to make some judgment because that
will determine the acceptable level of risk we can allow in these areas, and
it is certainly an exercise the government will be undertaking. |
|
Search for more information on this subject, or for anything else on
Family First SA’s website, by using our Google
Custom Search: