BUSHFIRES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2020

Ms JODIE HARRISON(Charlestown) (22:43:24):At the outset of my contribution to debate on the Bushfires Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 I acknowledge the experiences that every person, every landowner, every resident, every community member, every community group and every volunteer has experienced in recent years when they have been affected by bushfires. But in relation to this bill I firstly reiterate concerns expressed by the shadow Minister and other Opposition members who preceded me in this debate. I acknowledge the very speedy work of the shadow Minister and others who have worked with her and the team supporting her. In particular, the concerns I wish to raise are the lack of consultation and the haste with which this legislation has been brought to Parliament and the Government not taking this legislative opportunity to incorporate all the recommendations of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry.

In the interests of saving time tonight, I will not deal in detail with those concerns because they have been adequately addressed by Opposition members. However, I will raise the key concerns about this bill expressed by one of the stakeholdersthe Environmental Defenders Office [EDO]in letters written to Opposition members. For the record, I state that the first concern relates to the proposed Rural Boundary Clearing Code that will be part of the amendment to the Rural Fires Act. The EDO is concerned because the proposed code will facilitate clearing of vegetation without the need for robust environmental assessment or approval and without a clear framework for monitoring and oversight, in some cases overriding existing environmental protections. Given the significant implications this could have on native vegetation and biodiversity, significant scrutiny is warranted. There has been no appropriate justification for that proposal.

The proposal to permit rural landholders to undertake clearing of vegetation on land in a rural zone for the purpose of bushfire hazard reduction was not a specific recommendation of the independent NSW Bushfire Inquiry; rather, the inquiry made a broad recommendation that the Government review vegetation clearing policies to ensure that the processes are clear and easy to navigate for the community and that the policies enable appropriate bushfire risk management by individual landowners without undue cost or complexity. The EDO also stated that there is little explanation of exactly what outcomes will be achieved by introducing the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. For example, why were particular land zoning categories included or excluded? What is the justification for 25 metres? What assets will be protected?

Furthermore, there has been no indication of how much clearing would be expected to be undertaken under the code or whether any analysis has been done. Given the already significantly higher levels of land clearing occurring in New South Wales, this proposal should not go ahead unless there is an understanding of how it may contribute to further and excessive increases in land clearing. Without an up-front understanding of the potential implications of this proposal, there is a real risk that it could lead to perverse outcomes, just as occurred with the 10/50 bushfire code that was introduced following the 2013 bushfires. Substantial detail, including the type and extent of vegetation that can be cleared and how it can be cleared, as well as what protections, if any, will be in place for clearing threatened species habitat, riparian corridors and Aboriginal and other cultural heritage, is not included in the bill. These matters will be left to the Rural Boundary Clearing Code, which is not yet available.

At this stage there is no indication of what, if any, oversight there will be for clearing under the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. For example, will landholders be required to notify a relevant authority before undertaking clearing or to obtain confirmation of code compliance before undertaking clearing? It is also unclear if there will be a framework in place for monitoring clearing under the Rural Boundary Clearing Code to make sure that clearing being undertaken is compliant, or how this would interact with monitoring of clearing on rural land under the Local Land Services Act 2013. There is no legislative requirement to undertake public consultation on the Rural Boundary Clearing Code before it is made. The Environmental Defenders Office states:

In our view, there are substantial risks with allowing the proposed amendments to the Rural Fires Act relating to the Rural Boundary Clearing Code to proceed without further justification for the proposal and an understanding of its impacts, including anticipated rates of clearing; and without further detail on the type and extent of vegetation that can be cleared under the code and how, and what protections will be in place for clearing and threatened species habitat and riparian corridors and for Aboriginal and other cultural heritage. The Environmental Defenders Office has some concerns in relation to proposed changes to the Biodiversity Conservation Act. It says:

This proposal overrides the important environmental impact assessment requirements under the BC Act. Appropriately, the proposed amendment will have limited application, including that it only applies to development applications:

in bushfire-affected development,

that will result in a building or structure that is the same substantially the same,

made no later than two years after the commencement.

We note that the term 'substantially the same' is undefined, and without further guidance, may be difficult to apply in practice and difficult to enforce.

In relation to the proposed changes to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Environmental Defenders Office says the bill proposes to insert a new section 188H into the National Parks and Wildlife Act to protect assets of intergenerational significance. It states:

While we generally support this amendment, as it is intended to protect important environmental and cultural assets, such as the Wollemi Pine, we note that certain aspects of this proposal, including the actions that may be taken for the management of declared land, including protection of the land from bush fire risks are not included in the Bill, but will be provided for in the Regulation.

As legislators, I think we should be better than this. We should not be dealing with legislation at the last minute at this stage of the parliamentary year. We should be informed through consultation with stakeholders, we should be informed through evidence and we should be informed by the inquiry undertaken by this very Parliament. Itruly hopeperhaps in vainthat the Government will support the amendments that will be put by the Opposition as a result of consultation that we have undertaken in the absence of consultation by the Government. That is what our communities expect of us. That is what we should be doing tonight.