Conerns around backburning amendments

Conerns around backburning amendments

07 March 2025

Independent MP Nick McBride has called on the State Government to remove an Amendment to legislation which aims to tighten the operation of the backburning defence in relation to causing a bushfire.

In Parliament on Wednesday, the Government’s Statutes Amendment (Attorney General’s Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill passed the Lower House. According to the Government, the aim of the Bill is to rectify minor errors and deficiencies identified in the Legislation. However, Mr McBride believes the changes in subsection 85B(3)(b) in Part 4 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act could have serious consequences.

“In Parliament, Minister Close outlined that currently, a person who causes a bushfire and intends to cause a bushfire, is guilty of an offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. However, no offence is committed if the bushfire results from operations directed at preventing, extinguishing or controlling a fire – such as backburning.”

“Now – the Government wants to tighten the back-burning offence – so that, put simply, could result in a farmer facing jail time, if a back burning operation gets out of control and the fire subsequently destroys a neighbour’s property.”

Mr McBride is concerned that primary producers haven’t been consulted about the changes. He believes proper consultation needs to occur, including with the CFS around the use of backburning techniques. Currently this type of fire control is not endorsed by the CFS in South Australia, however it is used in other states including NSW and Tasmania.

“The South East has been impacted by several large bushfires over the past few years, including at Keilira, Blackford, Sherwood, Sherlock and Coles. These fires caused significant damage to land, stock and infrastructure, and some in the community have said the losses could have been lessened – if backburning was used. I understand that back burning is a contentious form of fire control. However, I do believe there is merit in using it in certain situations, and if it is used – it shouldn’t result in potential jail time if something goes wrong.”

“I’m calling on the Government to remove the amendment – until landowners can properly consider what the changes may mean to them.”

Previous

Southern Ports Highway - Proposed Funding
Latest Media Statements

View all Media Statements

Get Involved