WILDERNESS PROTECTION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:17): I, along with others on my side of the house, indicate my support for this legislation. Having had a few areas of land under wilderness protection in my own electorate, I would like to make a few comments. I heard what the member for Port Adelaide had to say about co-management and everything else, and I hope that it actually works well. I do not have that problem in my electorate.

However, we do have a problem with proclaimed wilderness areas that are, to all intents and purposes, not well managed, particularly in respect to fire danger and the fire risk to farming land. The issue with weeds is really not dealt with in these areas, nor is the issue of feral animals: deer, goats and pigs that come out of these wilderness protection areas. Supposedly no-one is allowed into these areas, yet animals come out of them and do a lot of damage in the surrounding farmlands. Also, weeds that might blow in off the road or come from bird droppings get started in these areas and then build up a source of seed supply. They say one year's weed is seven years' seed. They do not go away.

This department is seemingly incapable of dealing with a lot of these matters. I hope it is a different situation in and outside the member for Flinders' electorate when this wilderness protection area comes into existence. I do have major concerns. This is a department that does not have a good track record because it does not do a substantial amount of burn-offs. It puffs and blows about what a wonderful job it is doing. It does not do enough. Only five years ago, I lost 100,000 hectares of land principally under the care and control of the department of environment on Kangaroo Island at an enormous cost. You may all well remember that.

In my view, they are an incompetent mob of dunderheads at the head of this department and they have made a joke out of a number of matters. I hope they get it right over there because it is a cause of great concern to the farming community, particularly on the north coast of Kangaroo Island, in this case, where the wilderness protection area and Western River west of there are, that ultimately a fire will result from a lightning strike.

They are not doing considerable burning in there and nature will take its own course—and it will be, 'Look out,' when it does because it will come roaring out on a hot north wind, and unfortunately it will be a revisit of what has happened in the past. So, I do have some misgivings about this. I am a bit fed up to the back teeth with being told by departmental offices that everything is alright and that it will be managed properly.

The jury is out on what will happen in and outside the member for Flinders' area, but not enough work is being done on feral animal management and weeds control. I know that the KI Natural Resources Management Board have shooters in their employ who go out and do as much as possible to get rid of deer, goats and pigs, but I am not sure what the feral animal position will be out on the West Coast.

It is alright to put these things into place, but they have to be managed properly. If they are not managed properly and normal land management processes are not followed, you are going to end up with an environmental disaster, rather than with something South Australia can be proud of. So, while supporting the bill, I just raise a few issues and hope that they are picked up on in due course.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport) (11:21): I thank members for their insightful and colourful contributions to the debate on this bill, in particular the lead speaker, the member for Flinders—going through this exercise for the first time as I am, I think he did a very good job.

This bill provides for amendments to the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 to improve arrangements for the ongoing protection of wilderness in South Australia. The area of land forming wilderness protection areas has increasing significantly in recent years to what will be 1.8 million hectares following the proclamation of the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area.

While this increase in the area under the highest level of protection is a significant achievement, it has brought to the government's attention some practical matters that are not adequately addressed by the current act. In some respects, the amendments bring the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 more into line with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, but they still preserve the different intent with respect to the higher degree of protection in perpetuity for wilderness values.

To facilitate co-management of wilderness protection areas, the bill proposes to incorporate the co-management provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 into the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 with consequential amendments to tailor the provisions to suit the Wilderness Protection Act 1992. The extension of co-management to the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 is an important feature, as a number of conservation parks and national parks have recently become or may in the future become wilderness protection areas.

An unintended consequence of these parks becoming wilderness areas is that they could no longer be considered for co-management under the current Wilderness Protection Act 1992. This is directly relevant in the case of the Nullarbor. This bill rectifies this issue and also assists the agreement-making process used in resolving native title claims.

Another objective of the bill is to recognise that there are some circumstances where it is appropriate and necessary to preserve existing leases or licences over land on proclamation of a wilderness protection area. This is the case for the proposed Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area, which will be an area of more than 900,000 hectares, and includes some telecommunications facilities that need to be preserved over a small area of land.

The bill has been drafted with a view to finding a balance that enables infrastructure to continue to be licensed where appropriate but protects wilderness values against the construction of commercial infrastructure. Proclamation of the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area will be one of the most significant achievements for wilderness protection in this state. The Nullarbor is an iconic Australian visitor destination, and creating one of Australia's largest wilderness areas there will protect and enhance that tourism product.

A few matters were raised by members during this debate, and I would like to briefly touch on some of those points, and I am sure I will answer more questions during the committee stage. On a point of clarification, I am advised that the Nullarbor Roadhouse (about which many members spoke fondly) is not located within the proposed the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area. It is on freehold allotment adjacent to the eastern boundary of the proposed wilderness area.

The member for Hammond asked whether, in providing for existing leases and licences, there had been consideration of future telecommunication needs within the proposed Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area. I am advised that the bill will not permit new infrastructure to be licensed, consistent with the aims of the legislation. There are, however, numerous small crown allotments near the Eyre Highway which are not being included in the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area and which could be used for such purposes in the future. Of course, in any event, should there be an unforeseeable future need for infrastructure, parliament reserves for itself the right to alter the boundaries of the wilderness area.

The member for Hammond also questioned how the proposed Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area would be managed with respect to new tracks that might be created for mineral exploration. I can confirm that the proposed Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area will not allow exploration for mining to occur.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the Wilderness Advisory Committee which provided independent advice on the bill to the former minister for sustainability, environment and conservation, and also to the Wilderness Society and the Environmental Defenders Office for their considered comments on the bill. Thanks also to Mr Jason Irving, Ms Eliza Northrop, Ms Kathryn Nicolai and other Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources staff for their dedication to this important work. I also extend my appreciation to the Far West Coast native title claimants and their legal representatives, South Australian Native Title Services, for supporting the co-management provision of the bill.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank the former minister and acknowledge his commitment to the Far West Coast native title claimants, that he would seek parliament's support for amending the legislation before the government proclaims the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area. So, to the member for Colton, thank you very much for all the hard and long work that you put in not only to this wilderness protection area but also all the great things you did for water, the environment and other great initiatives that came under your responsibility as minister.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr TRELOAR: In talking about the granting of licences for various activities within the wilderness area, what is the process and time frame for the application and granting of such licences and what sort of fees and costs might be applied to that?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There is a standard form that people are given to fill out and they work on a 30-day turnaround, and there is a nominal fee to put in an application of such sort.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This question refers to the very beginning, subsection (5), I think it is, but essentially with regard to the activities that are not allowed to be undertaken in a wilderness protection area—taking people on sightseeing or scientific expeditions, filming, etc. There is a list that you would be familiar with. Does that apply to all people who do not have a licence?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That is right. A licence is required.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: To be really clear, then, even Aboriginal people who do not have a licence would not be able to undertake any of those activities?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, they would need a licence, unless there is a co-management agreement that would give them access to that area.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have two questions together that follow on from that. If they do not have a licence or access granted through a co-management agreement, how is that enforced to be sure that nobody, Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, undertakes any of these activities? Also, if they are granted access under a co-management agreement, can you elaborate on how that might be?

I can understand if they are undertaking co-management and they need to be out and about and have a look and understand what is going on and see things firsthand if they are a co-management board member or perhaps another person specifically invited for a specific task on a specific day to support the co-management board or board member in undertaking that activity, but are there any other situations in which the co-management board could provide that permission?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The co-management board has procedures in place and they will work with Aboriginal people to manage their access to the area for sightseeing or other purposes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We will deal with that second question, then. Is that for any Aboriginal people for sightseeing or other purposes, or is it for, specifically, work directly related to the co-management of the park?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: It will be for any Aboriginal person.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Still on the second question, just to be really clear, what you said before was only a person with a licence can undertake any of these activities unless they have permission from the co-management board, and what you are saying is that the co-management board would give permission to any Aboriginal person to do any of these things without a licence, if I understand exactly what you said.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: They can give them permission but they may also decide to give them a licence.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No restriction?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: It would still have to be consistent with the management plan for the park.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: My next question is along the same line and we will come back to the enforcement for non-Aboriginal people. How is an Aboriginal person defined then? Must it be, to one extent, a full blood, local Aboriginal person; or any Aboriginal person; or a local person of mixed blood; or an Aboriginal person from another part of the state? This is a co-management agreement drawing on the strengths and knowledge and historical experience of local Aboriginal people to manage local lands, so can you tell me, in the context of your previous answers that the board could give any access to any Aboriginal people: does that really mean any Aboriginal people? How do you define who is entitled to get this access from the board without a licence?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you again for that question. The board would generally reserve those agreements to local community people, but they may also give wider permission on a case-by-case basis.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And that permission would be documented?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes; it would be a decision of the board and that would be documented.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you. Returning to the previous question about enforcement for the non-Aboriginal people who are not allowed to go there without a licence, who oversees that and how is that done? What are the resources put in place? Who is actually responsible for that and how would they do it?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There would be departmental field officers and, generally, it is about education and getting the word out there that people do need to let management know that they intend to go out there and that permissions and licences are required, so it is more of a softer approach rather than a heavy stick. It is just about making sure that people know who is going to be in the area and the intent for their visit.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is my last question in this area. You talked about the co-management board providing this permission. The bill actually talks about the director granting the permission. Can you inform the committee exactly how that works? Is that something that would be solely at the director's discretion, or something that the co-management board must decide and it would then give permission to the director to, essentially, sign the document? How does that work, given that the bill says it is actually up to the director, not the co-management board?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Where there is a co-management agreement in place, the board takes the director's powers. So the director's role, where there is this co-management agreement, is taken over by the co-management board.

Mr PEDERICK: I brought up in my speech, minister, the potential building of more communication towers that may be necessary across the Nullarbor and I have noted on my last trip across there in the last couple of years that there is more mobile service coverage and there is, obviously, the wider network of, I guess, the radio wave towers that are already there. I am concerned about whether the appropriate licensing will be given if there is a need, noting that their footprint is fairly limited, for communication towers across the Nullarbor, and I go to new subsection (6)(b) of section 26 of the bill. Would those structures be covered under that section under a licensing arrangement with the director?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I think we have moved on to clause 5?

Mr PEDERICK: I am just asking if it is applicable under subsection (6) under clause 4? I guess that is my first question—whether the licensing you are talking about in that part of the bill is in regards to structures that could be built, like mobile phone towers, because I note from the current act that section 26(1)(b) talks about the prohibition of activities, which includes 'the construction or erection of roads, tracks, buildings or structures (except those that are specifically authorised by the plan of management of the wilderness protection area or zone)' and the clause about licensing is an adjunct to that. I am just asking first: is that specifically covered there or does it, as you say, go into the next section?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, member for Hammond, it is not covered there, but more likely to be covered in clause 5.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you. I have not had a good look through section 5 because I thought I had it covered, minister.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Clause 5, sorry.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Under new subsection (2), which talks about 'a lease or licence enforced in respect of land immediately before the constitution of the land as a wilderness protection area zone, remains in force', I understand from my reading of that—and I am not a lawyer—that refers to current leases.

What I am talking about is if there was the likelihood, which I think there could be, of other telephone towers, communication towers, being put up by other companies, and obviously this would not be something that would litter the landscape with a whole range of structures because the communications companies are all working together on mobile phone coverage.

I am well aware of the towers that are out there now and they could possibly, depending on the companies, work with the structures and communication equipment that is on them. I am not sure about that. I believe mobile phone coverage is a great thing, especially in the outback, and you do not have to go that far out in my electorate, I can assure you, to lose it, but that is another story.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Okay, well, that would be very good, minister, but I just want to make the point because they certainly will not make a very big footprint, and I think it is vital for communication and safety, especially in the outback.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank the member for Hammond and I am not sure when he took Sally out there for that pre-wedding trip. It was probably morse code, was it?

Mr PEDERICK: I had to check the dates on that and I should have come back to the house. It was actually after we were married.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: As long as it was still Sally.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: In respect of the question, there are a number of small crown allotments near the Eyre Highway which are not being included in the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area and which could be used for things like telecommunications towers in the future. Of course, in any event, should there be an unforeseeable future need for infrastructure, parliament reserves for itself the right to alter the boundaries of the wilderness area. I agree with the honourable member that it is very important to have that access to mobile phones and other telecommunication out in that area.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The probing questions from the member for Hammond made me think of something else on this clause, and I seek some clarity because no doubt this applies to lots of co-management agreements, not just this one, and the principle would be the same in a lot of places.

You have said that, essentially, a non-Aboriginal person would have to have a licence agreement to undertake these activities and that an Aboriginal person could have a licence agreement or could be given particular permission from the co-management board. Very often there are fees paid. Tourism operators pay fees all the time to national parks and things like that, so presumably there is the capacity for charging fees for these licences.

Is it entirely up to the co-management board, or do the department or the government have a structure or a plan in place for where the fees go? Do they go to the department, do they go to the co-management board or do they go into some park funding account that supports work to be done on the park? Where would the fees go that would quite likely be paid in return for a licence agreement? Also, is it possible that Aboriginal people who have permission from the co-management board to undertake filming, sightseeing, tourism, etc., without a licence, might be asked to pay fees and, if so, where would they go?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The director of national parks sets the fees and the fees go into the general reserve trust and are reinvested in the parks. That is part A of the question.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The specific park where they were collected?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Into parks in general. Part B was the question about Aboriginal people without a licence. If they had to pay a fee, it would have to be done under a licence, which would then give permission to charge the fee.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: If the co-management board provided permission to Aboriginal people to undertake these activities without a licence, it would be inappropriate for that Aboriginal person or group to pay any sort of fee or commission, or any sort of transfer of funds in return for that permission that is granted without the licence; is that correct?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That is right, member for Stuart. There has to be a legal basis for charging that fee.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PEDERICK: I know we had a bit of this debate before, but I was just getting clarification of which clause we were working around. I am just a bit concerned, minister, because you said that, on the outside chance that we did need to put communication towers in the designated wilderness protection area, we would have to amend legislation. To me, that seems like having to come back here and rework the act.

I would have hoped that there was some other way under a licensing arrangement with the department and the director, so that if there was that chance—especially in the light of communication towers, which are the main things I am talking about here and which have a very small footprint but could become very vital in the future, and they should be in more areas now—I am just concerned that we would have to come back and relegislate to get those structures in place.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The whole point of these wilderness places is to give them the highest possible protection. We think there are adequate facilities there at the moment for new infrastructure, but no-one can tell what sorts of new technologies will come along into the future. To afford this land the highest protection means that if things are to be reassessed in the future about putting in something that we do not know about now, it will have to come back to parliament to get the tick-off.

Mr TRELOAR: Clause 5 again: I note, in subsection (8):

(8) A lease or licence cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with except with the consent of the Minister.

I assume this means that the minister of the time will become a key figure in transfer of what is, in effect, commercial property (for example, the Nullarbor Roadhouse), should—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: That's not in?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That is not in the wilderness area.

Mr TRELOAR: That is just outside? Okay; well, thank you for clarifying that. But, if there was to be a commercial venture within the wilderness zone, the minister becomes a key figure in the transfer of a licence or, in fact, the commercial property. The member for Stuart has just reminded me that even though the Nullarbor Roadhouse is not within the wilderness area, it could hold a licence, for example, to have activities within the wilderness zone as part of that proponent's business. How does the minister deal with that should the entity be put up for sale?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank you for the combined questioning. It is two against one there; you're coming after me.

The CHAIR: It's a tag team.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: If a licence is going to be transferred, the minister would need to be satisfied that the new person would be able to meet the licence agreements.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thanks for that, minister. Could you tell me why is it that the co-management board can issue licences whenever it chooses via its right to assume the director's authorities, and yet only the minister can actually transfer existing licences? Why is it set up that way? It seems to me that that could cause a problem.

The member for Flinders has quite rightly pointed out that these licences probably have some commercial value and it might be that the Nullarbor Roadhouse proprietor has a licence to undertake tours outside of their freehold land in the park, or it might well be that a successful Aboriginal cultural tourism operator has a licence.

As I understand it, only the minister can give permission to transfer that licence, but if the minister does give that permission, the board could immediately provide another licence to somebody else if they want to. It seems to me that it would be more sensible to have either the co-management board, because it assumes the authority of the director, or the minister doing both.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: There are two different things here: if someone was operating a tour, it would get back to the co-management board or the director. If we go back to clause 4(6)(c) it says:

(6) A licence granted by the Director—

or the co-management board, as we have explained—

(c) cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with except with the consent of the Director.

So, that still stays with the director or the board of management if it is something like a tour. What we are talking about in section 5(8) is a lease or a licence being transferred, so they are two different things.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Are you saying that the licence referred to in clause 4 is completely different to the licence referred to in clause 5?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Under clause 5, section 28(8) refers to infrastructure, so it is a long-term lease perhaps or then an annual licence—that is what we are dealing with there.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The CHAIR: I draw to the committee's attention three minor typos that appear in clause 6 on page 6: in paragraph (d) it states 'a reference in section 28 (5), (6) and (7)' and it should read 'a reference in section 28 (6), (7) and (8)'; and in paragraph (e), 'section 28(8)' should be 'section 28(9)'.

Mr TRELOAR: My question relates to co-management. We have talked a lot about co-management both during the contributions from members and also in the minister's wrapping-up in his final speech. Obviously it is the minister's intention to establish a co-management board, and we have talked about that. I am very conscious of the time frames involved. What is the time frame likely to be? How is the process gone through? Who is likely to be on these co-management boards and fill those roles?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The state is negotiating native title at present and co-management may be an outcome of that process. Co-management boards usually comprise fifty-fifty Aboriginal people and departmental people but it is by negotiation and it is done on a case-by-case basis. As for the timing, as I say, it is underway now but we are not exactly sure where the end point will be on the formation of the co-management board.

Mr TRELOAR: Given that the process is underway now, when would the minister expect that a plan of management would be in place for this wilderness area?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We would have to wait until the co-management board was put in place, and the first job of the board would be to put up a draft management to the minister who would then release it.

Mr TRELOAR: I would like to make a further comment on clause 6. I notice that one of the objectives within the wilderness protection zone is for the restoration of land and its ecosystem to their condition before European colonisation and the protection of land and its ecosystems from the effects of modern technology and exotic animals and plants and other exotic organisms. As has been mentioned by numerous contributors that, in itself, presents one of the great challenges in the management of these parks.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That is the object of the Wilderness Act and that is the highest priority for the management board when put in place.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Following up from a couple of questions ago about the appointment of the co-management board, the minister mentioned the fifty-fifty typical model of departmental people and Aboriginal people. Obviously the department would choose its 50 per cent of the board. Who would have the authority to choose the 50 per cent of the board representing Aboriginal people?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That comes from the Aboriginal group that is a signatory to the co-management agreement with the minister.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think I know the answer to this, but I would like it clearly on the record: they are opportunities or authorities to appoint people, but certainly the department could appoint an Aboriginal person if it wanted to and certainly the co-signatory group could appoint a non-Aboriginal person if it choose to. Is it entirely up to those two groups to choose whoever they think would make the best contribution?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That is correct, member for Stuart.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr TRELOAR: With regard to entrance fees, the minister responded earlier to a question regarding funds raised and the establishment of a trust. With regard to entrance fees, it seems that the fee payable must be paid to the trust established for the area or zoned under the National Parks Act. I assume that that is one and the same trust, which accommodates licence fees as well.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That is right, member for Flinders. The trust we were talking about before is where the money goes and is then dispersed into the parks system across South Australia. It does not go into general revenue.

Clause passed.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have a general question. I thank the minister for clarifying things for us. How will the co-management board, the government, the minister, determine whether this changed land use and changed management has been successful? It is a difficult question, so I do not expect a full and complete answer, but the member for Flinders quite rightly pointed out that what is trying to be achieved here—and it is a good aim and a good objective—is probably one of the most difficult things you could do with any land anywhere, namely, to bring it back to it is pre-colonial state.

It would be silly for any of us here to think that that could be achieved 100 per cent perfectly. We respect the fact that the government has that as a very good objective, but one, five or 20 years down the track what is the government's determination with regard to how we would consider whether or not this change has been successful?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I thank the member for Stuart for his question. The board will have to report to the minister annually. The annual report for the co-management board will have to be tabled in parliament each year. The Wilderness Advisory Committee can report directly to the minister on how well things are going. I also remind members that we have people from both sides of the house on committees, such as the Natural Resources Committee, who may take an interest in these in the future to see how well they are going.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Is it the government's intention that that suite of reports and opportunities for committees will include comparison with how things may have gone if the change had never taken place?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The intention would be to monitor the impacts over time, and that would include looking at reduction in weed species, feral animals and other pests, and the NRM board would play a crucial role in all of that.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, would not exactly that have happened anyway without this bill?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That is correct, member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, then, all of the objectives, all of the measurements and all of the tools and opportunities to manage, report and inquire that will happen under this bill were all available under the previous bill. Why is the government pursuing this?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Once something has been declared a wilderness area, there is a higher level of focus than there would have been. So, different procedures but same reporting standards.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: With that higher level of focus will there be a high level of resourcing to achieve these objectives?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That will depend on the need, and also working to what the co-management plan is.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will take this opportunity to say a couple of things. Minister, I think that that answer would be exactly the same whether it was a conservation reserve, national park or a wilderness protection area. Unless there are extra resources to support the extra focus you are talking about, I cannot see what this is all about; I cannot see what you are really trying to achieve.

We can certainly have co-management boards. We can have co-management without wilderness protection. As I have said many times, I think it is a good thing to have the co-management, there is no doubt at all about that. But I would say very strongly and very clearly that to say that there is a higher focus is terrific but, if there are no additional resources, it is irrelevant.

To say, 'Well, it will depend on what the reports say, what the management says and what the priorities at the time seem to be,' I accept is the reality of the world, but I say again that that would be exactly the same reality if we had never come here to debate this bill, never made this change—that is, the answer would be exactly the same.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I did not say there would not be more resources put in. This is about giving that land the highest possible protection and, once the board has been set up and they come up with their plan, that then goes to the minister and then the decisions will be made on what the resourcing needs are to maintain this land at the highest level it can be maintained at.

Mr TRELOAR: I have just one very general question and after this I have no further questions. I will just take the minister back to his remarks when he closed the debate. I think you spoke and mentioned the national parks act as well in your remarks and suggested that there may be, at some time in the future, an attempt to combine the two acts—this particular act and also the national parks act. I just ask the minister what the government would be thinking they might achieve by doing that?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: As a point of clarification for the member for Flinders, what I was saying was not about bringing the acts together. I will read exactly what I said:

In some respects, the amendments bring the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 more into line with the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, but they still preserve the different intent with respect to the higher degree of protection in perpetuity for wilderness values.

Schedules (1 and 2) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport) (12:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.