WILDERNESS PROTECTION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 February 2013.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:02): I pick up from where I left off in the middle of my contribution last sitting week on the Wilderness Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012. At that point in time, I was talking about a concern that I and many of my colleagues and constituents have about the fact that while technically there are the same expectations and requirements for land managers, whether they be those in charge of freehold land, crown leases, pastoral leases, perpetual leases or taxpayer-owned land managed by a government department on the taxpayers' behalf, those rules and regulations are often not equally applied.

I would like to reiterate that the sort of land we are talking about in this bill, but also conservation reserves, national parks and many others, is actually taxpayer-owned land. It is not the government's land. It belongs to South Australians. It is managed by the government on behalf of all South Australians. I think that is a very important principle to keep in mind. I am not criticising that, by the way, of course it is important that that does happen in many instances, but it is actually taxpayer-owned land. There are certainly cases where the rules and regulations with regard to control of feral animals, weeds, native vegetation, a range of issues, are the same but they are applied differently, and I think that is a very serious concern.

It does happen. It happens in my electorate of Stuart and in many other places across the state where if the resources are not available for the private landowner, or land manager, to do the job that is required they can be told by the government, 'Well, we'll send a contractor in and we'll just do it for you and send you the bill.' If the resources are not available, this is often quite understandable because the people who work for the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, on the whole, do a very good job and, in my opinion, are understaffed, underfunded and underresourced to do what is expected of them in a perfect world.

If they cannot do it, they say, 'We have not got the resources. I am sorry, we have not got the people to do it ourselves. We have not got the money in our budget to get a contractor in to do it, so it will have to wait. It will get done later.' However, the private landowner is not given the same courtesy to the same extent and I would say quite openly that they are often given time to do things. It is not a sledgehammer approach, but the courtesy does finish; whereas, with the government operations, the courtesy really never finishes. If there are budget concerns, it just gets done later.

I point that out as a broad, general issue that I think is very important, but it is also directly relevant to this bill with regard to the resources that may or may not be made available for this new section of land. This new section of land, while it is a wilderness protection area, cannot just be left alone. You cannot just sort of ring fence it, shut the gate, walk away and say, 'Right, now that is fine.' It will require significant government taxpayer-funded resources to manage this piece of land and that will be absolutely critical with regard to its success or failure.

I say quite clearly that I am concerned about this because, in a national park, for example, which is the most commonly known, highest accepted use of public land, we struggle for the resources to do everything that government staff, the public and neighbours of those national parks would like to have done. If we cannot do it in national parks, I really do worry about whether we are going to be able to do it in wilderness protection areas. So, I really urge the government very sincerely and very strongly to think very hard about the resources that are going to be necessary to manage this tract of land because there will be pests, weeds and a whole range of other issues that will need to be dealt with in this new category.

That leads me to my next point which is this is another category. We already have many categories of taxpayer-owned government-managed land out there, largely but not exclusively for environmental protection and conservation purposes. That is a very good thing but I question whether we need another category again which, presumably, will entail another level of management and which will struggle to attract the funding that it actually needs.

With regard to management, I would like to just touch on co-management, which is a key feature of this bill. Let me say very clearly that I am a supporter of co-management; that is, government management with regard to local Indigenous management of certain sections of our state—not for every conservation reserve, not for every recreation reserve, not for every national park, but there are certainly some places where I think that is very important. I will have some questions to ask in detail during the committee stage about exactly how that can be applied.

The thrust of my comment here is I think it is sensible. How on earth could you think otherwise? If you have a tract of land that you really want to optimise with regard to its environmental and conservation value, then why would you not include the knowledge and experience gained over thousands or tens of thousands of years from people who have been living on, working and caring for that country in one way or another for that period of time. I think that makes great sense.

The trick, of course, is who then gets involved in the co-management? Who has the right to do the co-management? There is nobody alive today who knows what people knew 1,000, 2,000 or 10,000 years ago. There are certainly Aboriginal people who know lots of it. There are certainly Aboriginal people who know far, far more than non-Aboriginal people, but purely by definition of the fact that society has moved on and technology has moved on, even people who live on the APY lands and have done so all their life cannot possibly know as much as they or their forebears would have known 1,000 or 10,000 years ago.

So, who then gets involved? One of the things I fear is that it can be the people who are the current day leaders, and they are often the current commercial or political leaders, or leaders in some other way. They get involved either by having the opportunity to participate actively and directly in the co-management or the opportunity to appoint the person or people who will actively participate in the co-management.

I have a few more questions to ask about that during committee but, let me say again, I support the principle of co-management, not for all land like this but, certainly, this would a very good example of it, and there are others in Stuart whom I support as well, and I think that that is very important. I will leave it there and come back with some more questions during the committee stage. Thank you.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (11:10): I rise to make some comments about the co-management regime under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, as one of the principal aims of this bill is to insert that regime under the Wilderness Protection Act. The South Australian protected area system encompasses over 21 million hectares, equating to around 22 per cent of the state. The majority of these parks and reserves are significant to Aboriginal people.

Relationship to country is central to Aboriginal culture, identity, spiritual beliefs and wellbeing. Access to country is critical in maintaining this relationship and can provide additional social, health and economic benefits to Aboriginal people. Traditional knowledge and land management practices can also inform and improve contemporary approaches to science and park management, and significantly enhance park visitor experiences. In recognition of this, the National Parks and Wildlife Act was amended in 2004 to provide for the joint management of national parks and conservation parks between the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation and traditional owners.

These amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act were prompted by a state government commitment in 2002 to grant ownership in the 2.1 million hectare unnamed conservation park (now re-named the Mamungari Conservation Park) in the far west of South Australia to the traditional owners while continuing to maintain the area as a conservation park. This represented a significant commitment by the state to work with Aboriginal people to jointly manage natural resources and conservation lands. Prior to the amendments, there was no formal mechanism to transfer control and management to traditional owners.

The National Parks and Wildlife Act now provides for the co-management of existing Crown-owned parks, and also provides for the establishment of parks over Aboriginal-owned land and subsequent co-management. A co-management agreement is based on four principles: first, to ensure the continued enjoyment of the park by the traditional owners for cultural, spiritual and traditional uses; second, to ensure the continued enjoyment of the park by members of the public; third, to ensure the preservation and protection of Aboriginal sites, features, objects and structures of spiritual or cultural significance within the park; and, fourth, to provide protection for the natural resources, wildlife, vegetation and other features of the park.

Co-management agreements over Crown-owned parks can establish one of two governance structures. The first, a co-management advisory committee is established to provide advice to the minister and the director of National Parks and Wildlife in the management of the park. This advice usually includes the preparation and implementation of management plans, protection and management of Aboriginal heritage and culture on the park and increased cultural awareness for park visitors.

The alternative structure is a co-management board. A board is established by regulation under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and assumes the control and management of the park from the minister and the director of National Parks and Wildlife. To reflect the spirit of co-management, membership of a co-management board is usually equal between the state and traditional owners.

Co-management agreements may also establish parks of Aboriginal-owned land. The Governor may proclaim Aboriginal-owned land as a park or reserve provided there is a co-management agreement in place. For Aboriginal-owned co-managed parks there is also a co-management board established which assumes the control and management of that park. The membership of these boards is predominantly traditional owners, and the chairperson is also a traditional owner.

A key feature in the establishment of co-managed parks is the requirement under section 38 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act for new management plans to be prepared for the park by the minister in collaboration with the co-management board or committee. The new management plan is the critical first step to achieving a shared vision between the department and the traditional owners of the park. The process of undertaking joint planning is fundamental for the development of relationships and capacity on both of the parties.

Co-management arrangements have the potential to support active involvement of Aboriginal people in the control and management of their traditional lands, improve the protection of cultural sites, maintain traditional practices that might otherwise have been excluded and provide for greater conservation of biodiversity.

This government has entered into 10 co-management agreements to date over a wide variety of parks across the state. Other than the Mamungari Conservation Park with Maralinga Tjarutja and Pila Nguru people, the other Aboriginal-owned co-managed park is the soon-to-be proclaimed Breakaways Conservation Park.

Under an innovative arrangement, the District Council of Coober Pedy has agreed to facilitate and support the operation of the board and undertake the operational aspects of park management on behalf of the co-management board. This reflects the previous status of the land as a reserve under the Crown Land Management Act 2009.

Under the co-management agreement, the land will soon be transferred to the Antakirinja Matuntjara Yankunytjatjara and then proclaimed as an Aboriginal-owned co-managed park, which will be managed in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act and contribute to the national reserve system. The co-management board will also have an advisory role to the minister and the director of national parks and wildlife over the Tallaringa Conservation Park.

Co-management agreements establishing co-management boards over Crown-owned parks have been entered into over the Vulkathunha-Gammon Ranges National Park and Flinders Ranges National Park with the Adnyamathanha people; the Witjira National Park with the Lower Southern Arrernte and Wangkangurru; and most recently, the Lake Gairdner National Park with the Gawler Ranges people.

Co-management agreements establishing co-management advisory committees over Crown-owned parks have been entered into over the Ngaut Ngaut Conservation Park with the Mannum Aboriginal Community Incorporated; the Coongie National Park with the Yandruwandha Yawarrawarrka; the Gawler Ranges National Park and Lake Gilles Conservation Park with the Gawler Ranges people; and most recently, the Wabma Kadarbu Mound Springs Conservation Park, Lake Eyre National Park and Elliot Price Conservation Park with the Arabana people.

Co-management recognises and respects the connection between indigenous Australians, their cultural heritage and connection with place and country. It enables the state government to actively engage with indigenous Australians and support the management of their traditional lands by incorporating traditional knowledge and practices with contemporary land management and conservation techniques. It represents a true partnership between the state government and traditional owners.