Bills

Natural Gas Authority (Notice of Works) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 March 2015.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:44): I am very excited to speak about the—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: —yes, it would be handy—Natural Gas Authority (Notice of Works) Amendment Bill. I indicate that I am not the lead speaker, and I am sure that the member for Stuart and other members will have fascinating contributions to make in due course. Obviously, this is an important area of public policy, and the purposes of the bill are significant because it needs to be amended to require landowners and others, such as road builders who wish to perform certain types of work, such as excavating, drilling, planting trees or shrubs or using explosives on land subject to statutory easements on which natural gas pipelines are situated, to give consent to that work.

The opposition's case more fully will be put by the member for Stuart in his typically forensic, detailed and considered manner, supporting of course as he does, and as the opposition does, the industry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a thrill in store for us.

Mr GARDNER: I think, Deputy Speaker, you are going to be very excited by what is ahead—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And knowledgeable.

Mr GARDNER: You will become deeply informed. I just wanted to say for myself that I have appreciated the opportunity to spend a bit of time looking into natural gas matters. I appreciated the opportunity to go up to Moomba a couple of years ago and meet some of the workers and some of the executives who have been working on these issues. The operations are very important for South Australia, and its continued and positive development as an industry will be appreciated by all South Australians.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (15:46): I apologise if I held the house up a little. I was expecting this to be the bill after one at the moment, but that was clearly a mix-up. Let me say at the outset that I think this is a pretty straightforward bill, and I appreciate the information briefings from the minister and his staff on this issue. Essentially, what we are really talking about here is the Natural Gas Authority Act 1967, which applies to the Moomba gas pipeline and the Katnook gas pipeline and their associated spurs to Port Bonython, for example, and, as I understand it, just trying to get things back on track the way they were.

The Natural Gas Authority Act 1967 was amended in 1995 when the pipelines were sold to Epic Energy. These amendments extinguished the previous registered easements and replaced them with statutory easements. However, this did not include a requirement for landowners to give notice to or gain the consent of the pipeline owner for work near the pipeline which did previously exist.

An important aspect of what the government is establishing here is that the pipeline owner may not object to the proposed work, unless the owner of the pipeline is of the opinion that the work would interfere with the safety or operation of the pipeline or associated equipment, and that the owner of the pipeline would have to set out very clearly reasons why the owner of the pipeline was concerned. That seems pretty straightforward, and the opposition supports this bill.

I have a few questions which, hopefully, we can resolve quite easily, but for the benefit of those who read Hansard I will put a few things on the record to summarise really clearly what we are talking about in a little more detail. One of the key distances is: what is near the pipeline and when do people really need to come and ask for this permission? The bill and the act specify that easements subject to this bill may vary between 15 to 25 metres in width for the main pipeline and 3 to 15 metres in width for the small lateral/spur pipelines.

The bill requires landowners, lessees and other parties such as road and rail operators to seek permission for prescribed work near pipelines. The bill also outlines the process to be followed to reach a resolution if consent is not granted. Prescribed works, and this is really getting to the nub of it, include the following:

(a) excavating, drilling, installing or erecting any pit, well, foundation, pavement or other structure; or

(b) disturbing or altering the grades and contours of the servient land; or

(c) planting trees or shrubs; or

(d) storing plant machinery, equipment or materials; or

(e) using explosives.

The bill proposes that the way the communication would work, whenever a landowner wants to do any of these activities, is that landowner or other parties must give 21 days notice of proposed work on the pipeline easements. Within 14 days of receiving the written notice, the authority must consent or object to the proposed works with an option to extend this period by mutual agreement or negotiation. I note on that point that it would be possible for the pipeline owner to come back to the party that would like to do the work sooner if that was practical, and I am sure in many cases that would be sensible, particularly for very minor and routine, regular work that that landowner or operator did on a regular basis that the pipeline owner/operator was very familiar with.

The next stage in the communications is the pipeline owner must not object to proposed work—and I say this again, because this is actually very important—unless the owner is of the opinion that the work would interfere with the safety or operation of the pipelines, and must set out the reasons for the objection in the notice to the landowner or other party. That is obviously very important and that gives some comfort to the people who would need to do this work from time to time: the pipeline owner cannot be obstructionist. I have no reason to believe that they would or have any interest in that, but it is important that that is clearly on the record.

If the owner of the pipeline gives notice of an objection, the owner must notify the minister of the objection. So, that is saying, if there is a problem, at least some broader understanding and notification of the problem or perceived problem must be given to the government, essentially, so it is not just the two people directly involved. The minister may mediate between the parties in order to arrive at mutually satisfactory terms under which the landowner or other party may carry out the proposed work. So, the minister may choose to get involved or may just leave it up to the parties.

If the minister decides to attempt mediation, the minister must give the involved parties notice of his or her decision within 21 days of receipt of the notice. If the minister does not give notice after 21 days, it will be taken that the minister has decided against personally attempting to settle the dispute, and let us hope that that would be because the minister believes that it would be very easy to have the issue resolved between the two key parties. If the dispute is not successfully resolved by the minister or the minister does not attempt mediation, the landowner or other party may apply to the Warden's Court for resolution.

That is really just a quick summary of what we are talking about here, and it all seems pretty straightforward to me. This is, of course, so that the pipeline, which carries gas, is as safe as possible. It makes great sense. You would not want people without permission or knowledge coming and doing any sort of work, particularly deeper drilling or excavating pits or wells or any of the other issues that I mentioned before, without at the very least the pipeline owner/operator knowing about it. This gives the pipeline owner/operator the opportunity to actually give permission and potentially just adjust the work into sort of, 'We're not quite comfortable with exactly what you have planned, but if you were to change your work plan this way or that way, that would be fine with us.'

An area that I would like to receive some clarification from the minister on when he has the opportunity to speak shortly is just with regard to exactly who has to seek the permission, because largely the bill talks about the landowner. If we think about a pipeline running through a farm, for example—freehold land—and that farmer wants to do some quite sensible work, it seems logical, of course, that the farmer would go and seek that permission, or if it was through a station, as much of this pipeline is in the north, that it would be the station lessee. But, minister, I would like some clarification on whether at different times it would be the landowner/lessee or licensee of the land versus the actual operator.

I am thinking specifically with regard to railway lines; so, where railway lines might intersect. For example, where national Highway 1 might intersect the pipeline. As I understand it, in those situations, typically but not necessarily, the state government would still be the landowner. So, if you think about a tract of land that might be leased long term to an operator, such as Genesee & Wyoming Australia, would it actually be Genesee & Wyoming Australia as the lessee of that land that needs to seek the permission? Would it be the state government talking to itself because it is the landowner? Would it be potentially ARTC as a company that might be involved in the operation, or if they were to bring in a significant contractor to do a significant piece of work, would it be the contractor who would be required to seek the permission?

There are multiple layers of involvement in the work that takes place, and it may not even be possible, of course, to say definitively how it works, but even just to provide some guidelines to operators with regard to how they would go about trying to deal with that sort of situation.

The other question that I have for the minister, which I am pretty sure could be dealt with easily and straightforwardly but which I would love on the record, relates to emergency situations. Say you happen to have a train or a road train accident right where the railway line or the road happens to intersect and some emergency work is necessary, I am sure that the government would not expect written permission, 14 days' notice, etc. I am sure there would be an expedient way in which those sorts of issues could be dealt with, but I would be grateful if the minister would just put on to the record how he would expect the government and subsequent governments would deal with that sort of thing.

You imagine a train derailment. Bad luck if it happens to be right where the railway crosses the pipeline, there would not be clearly time for the process that is required under this bill to be dealt with, but there would be a very common-sense approach, I am sure, and I would be grateful for the minister to put that on to the record.

Let me close by saying that, clearly, this is so that we do not have the very significant type of disruption that the communities of Port Pirie and Whyalla experienced recently when the gas pipeline was—and it is still to be discovered—either damaged or not maintained to a significant standard, or whether, perhaps, there was a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, that might have impacted upon it. That information I do not believe has been made public yet. That is not actually the issue, this is about protecting gas supplies both with regard to immediate safety in the vicinity of a potential breach of the pipeline and also with regard to the supply of the gas, because, of course, that would create significant disruption.

As I say, the opposition supports this bill. We think that it is quite straightforward, but I would be grateful if the minister could just respond with some guidelines, perhaps, with regard to who would actually have the technical obligation to seek the permission in the situations where there are multiple layers of involvement—so, landowner, land lessee or significant contractor doing the work, and then, of course, the emergency services situation as well. Thank you.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:58): I rise to speak to the Natural Gas Authority (Notice of Works) Amendment Bill 2015. Essentially this bill is about making sure that we have safe and sure access to gas, and the member for Stuart reflected on the recent breakdown of the line in the Mid North which caused significant disruption to both Port Pirie industry and homes and Whyalla. It is interesting to note what we are dealing with here when the owner of a property has to give notice to the owner of the pipe. Quoting from the bill, prescribed works means:

(a) excavating, drilling, installing or erecting any pit, well, foundation, pavement or other structure; or

(b) disturbing or altering the grades and contours of the servient land

I might be assuming too much, but I assume that means cultivation; however, the minister might be able to clear that up. I would expect that with a gas pipe—and I do not have gas pipes traversing my property, but I do have several telecommunications lines, a couple of fibre-optic cables and that kind of thing traversing my property, or they are just inside a fence on my property at Coomandook. I assume that you have to give a clearance anyway with any surface tillage next to a buried pipeline, but I will be interested in the minister's response to that. Also:

(c) Planting of trees or shrubs; or

(d) storing plant, machinery, equipment or materials; or

(e) using explosives.

That is fairly obvious, to say the least. Certainly in regard to the legislation—I think this was where the member for Stuart was heading—in relation to statutory easement, '4—Amendment of section 11—Rights conferred by statutory easement' has to do with the owner of the pipeline. One of the amendments involves the words:

, and to carry out work on outlying land related to the installation, maintenance, repair or replacement of a pipeline across the servient land

Then we come to:

Section 11—after subsection (1) insert:

1(a) Any associated equipment installed on or under the servient or outlying land for the purposes of this section remains the property of the owner of the pipeline.

There is certainly a broad definition of associated equipment on top of the equipment that is already listed in the act. It adds telecommunications equipment. Obviously an Optus line or a Telstra optic fibre line technically would not be the owner of the pipeline. It would not own that line, but I would like that clarified by the minister, and also whether there is some sort of sub-leasing arrangement if it is on the same easement as the gas pipe.

In relation to cultivation, as I said, I do not have a gas line going across my property, but we can cultivate across where the telecommunication lines are because they are buried about a metre deep. Certainly the last guys that came through used a very good machine that basically ate rocks and spat them out in a thousand pieces. So they did a good job with anything they ripped up and the cleaning up.

It is great that there are a lot of conversations in this place and the other place about access to land, and it involves miners, and also access to land in regard to telecommunications, whether it is main trunk lines for water or other activities. In the main, personally, we have had very good conversations with people involved in that work because obviously we are on the main route between Adelaide and Melbourne and they need to have that access.

With respect to the owner of the land, they have to give notice of prescribed works on the land subject to statutory easement:

(1) An owner or occupier of servient land must not carry out or permit the carrying out of prescribed works on or under the servient land without the prior written consent of the owner of the pipeline on the land.

There is a maximum penalty of $60,000. There is a whole range of clauses involving the owner or occupier having to give at least 21 days' notice and the owner of the pipeline having to give notice in writing to the owner or occupier of servient land within 14 days after receiving that notice. One thing I am intrigued about is if the owner of the pipeline has to do work on the easement, but on the property owner's land, does he need to get permission from the property owner? What are the rules around that situation?

I would be interested to hear what because there is a lot of information that, in my mind, refers to the owner of the property getting permission from the owner of the pipeline so that the owner of the property can do works, which can be, as I said, as simple as planting trees or shrubs. Certainly, many farmers do that along fence lines and that is pretty well where an easement could be. So, I would like to have that clarified. Also, and it is probably covered under another act but whether the sea gas pipeline which comes up through our area from Victoria and the South-East is covered under this legislation. It is not printed in the explanatory documents. It talks about all the Katnook lines around Penola and then it is all about the main trunk lines out of Moomba.

There is no doubt of how careful you have to be with gas. I know the member for Chaffey has worked in the Cooper Basin, as have I. One of my first jobs up there when I was earthmoving back in 1982 was to dig some rubbish pits close to the main camp and close to the main Moomba plant with all those gas trains running and associated works. We made sure we had plenty of safety officials and plenty of people on hand because when you have a 70-tonne scraper and you are digging a rubbish pit, the last thing you need to do is scrape the edge of a gas pipe and get blown to wherever. So, you sort of had your heart in your mouth a bit. You had to trust the people and that the maps with the underground pipes, of which there were dozens and dozens of those in the area, were in the right place so that we could dig in the appropriate area.

There have been some horrific breakdowns of gas pipes. Thankfully, they are very rare events, especially the big dramatic ones. There was one on the Sydney pipeline (I think that was during the eighties) and it caused quite a problem, obviously, for gas supplies to the East Coast of the country. What I am saying is this seems like very sensible legislation but I am just wondering, in the main, what rights the actual owner of the land has in relation to the owner of the gas pipe or their associated contractors coming onto the owner's land, the freehold land, to do works. Yes, it is authorised under a statutory easement but I think there has to be each way communication.

As I said, I had easements put through our property and we know where they are and we had great communication from the companies. It is a lesson that a lot of companies could learn, and some do it far better than others, whether it is related to access to telecommunication lines, water pipes, gas lines, or whether it is access for mining arrangements. If people approach it the right way and everyone sits down sensibly and negotiates an outcome then, at the end of the day, that is the best way to do it. It does not cause bad blood or an outbreak of hate from the people whose properties are being accessed. With those few words, I commend the bill. I will be interested to hear the minister's clarification of some of the things I have spoken about. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:08): I will make a brief contribution. It is mostly around understanding the requirements of the permission to undertake works in near proximity. As I gather, when the pipeline was sold to Epic Energy there were some bits missing in the agreement with the permission to act anywhere near the trunk line or within those spur lines off that main trunk line. I worked in the industry for a number of years, and what I have seen in recent times, with the rupture in that spur line, was that that line is obviously made up of a high pressure line. I guess it would probably be a schedule 80.

However, what I would like to know from the minister is about the schedule of the pipe, the main trunk line and all of the other spurs with regard to those lines. If you are going to ask permission and consider the legalities around what it might mean, that recent rupture on that pipeline under pressure just highlights the vulnerability of that line. If anyone is going to undertake works near that pipeline—and it is not about whether they disturb the soil—it is about whether there is anything acidic on that pipeline. I understand that pipeline would be wrapped and would have weatherproof guard put in place so that it is not conducive to any external pressures, if you like.

My concern is the internal condition of the pipe. I understand that the internal condition of the pipe is not right down the line of what we are talking about today, but it will impact on whether permission is needed to do any of those works near the pipeline, just how vulnerable that pipeline is, just what sort of condition it is in from the inside, not from the outside in.

I note that this amendment bill is really about understanding if there is any intrusion into the area close to the pipe and whether there are any works that will interfere with that pipeline. In doing that, it is important to know that when any high-pressure pipe has external factors such as earthquakes, heavy equipment, a train derailment, or whether it be any anything that has come out of left field, it will impact on that pipe. If that pipe is in sound condition, it will probably weather the storm but if that pipe is scoured, if that pipe has any form of degradation internally, that will create some serious safety issues.

Anyone who comes within the close vicinity of that pipe—and it might be a matter of doing any earthworks in a close proximity and only releasing a small amount of pressure on one side of the pipe that will allow that to become unstable—and in a matter of a millisecond we could have another rupture. There could be maintenance teams, it could be anyone's life that could be in jeopardy, so one of the questions I would like to know is: if we are going to have the amendment bill require permission to undertake works within an area of that pipeline, do we know the condition of that pipeline? I think that is a critical question that needs to be answered because it is all very well that, while it is buried and out of eyesight, once any of those earthworks are undertaken it poses a risk, particularly if the pipe is not in good condition.

What I would like to learn today is: have there been any audits done on the condition of that pipe, the trunk line and the spare lines? What sort of vulnerability is there for anyone who is undertaking any earthworks in the close proximity of that pipe? That really is the essence of my contribution. In understanding that permission needs to be undertaken, anywhere you work in the oil and gas industry there is heavy regulation around permits, job requirements and work permits. I understand that, as does the minister I am sure. However, what we do not know is the condition of that pipe. Where is the audit that tells us that that pipe is safe to have any work undertaken in any close proximity? I look forward to the member for Stuart's forensic questioning of the minister and his team and I look forward to them perhaps answering some of the questions that I have just raised.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (16:14): I will start off by thanking the opposition for their support, I assume. I thank them for the speedy passage and I thank the members for their comments. Some interesting questions have been raised, especially by the member for Hammond, about access. I think the comparison he made to mining companies having access to farmland versus pipeline owners is slightly different and nuanced. I do not mean any offence when I say this, but I think they are completely different.

Pipeline is also private property and the government has allowed an easement below the surface. Access to that land for work that may be required is not the same as a mining company seeking to do exploration or to do works on that property, so they are nuanced and different. For example, if a gas company has been advised by its maintenance team that an occurrence is imminent, it is not the same as a mining company wishing to do exploration on a farmer's freehold land and gaining access. Access has to be gained, and gained immediately, because there is a risk to life, a risk to industry, guarantee of supply, etc., so they are nuanced, but I do think—

Mr Pederick: What I'm talking about is 'in good faith'.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I agree, and that is where I think we are of one mind. There is a common-sense rule that applies to this sort of behaviour. If a government is continually hearing of owner-operators of these pipelines continually disturbing agricultural land for maintenance that may be unnecessary, or if no notice is being given at all for non-emergency work, the government will act.

I think what we are trying to do with this bill is keep the integrity of the pipeline to avoid there being any disturbance to the pipelines. We saw what happened to those regional communities when a pipeline did go down. It is quite dramatic, especially for small business. Often, when a pipeline goes down, the focus is on people not being able to have warm showers and people losing amenity in their homes.

Often the people who suffer a greater loss are those with businesses that cannot trade because landlords do not give exemptions for rent. People just lose trade and it does quite a bit of damage. Maintaining pipelines is very important, but I do think there is a lot of common sense that needs to be in place so that people are informed and there are people actively on private property to do work.

I cannot imagine a situation, unless it is an emergency, where the property owners are not notified in advance of works. If the member has examples of that occurring regularly, I am more than happy to have a look at making further amendments to the bill, because I think it is common courtesy that people are given notification that someone is about to enter their property. But, again, I also point out that there may be other circumstances that require immediate access, so I think the common-sense rule applies.

In terms of the questions the shadow minister raised concerning railway lines and emergency response to accidents—if a road train hits a train, for example—those pipelines are deeper at those intersections. I cannot imagine a situation where excavation below a certain level would be required to seek as an authorised event—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Grading the surface, so you can drag a truck out, that sort of thing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, the pipeline is at a depth of between 750 millimetres and 1.2 metres and, as we get to those intersections, they do get deeper. If there is going to be an interface between that occurrence, then there is a requirement. I am advised that it becomes a specified action under the act and you will have to notify, but if you are talking about an accident where a road train hits a train, train lines are usually elevated. Between the houses, I will try to get a more detailed answer about this for the member because I think what he is talking about is remedial work after the incident.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Some of the prescribed works that you would have to seek permission for could easily happen if you were just trying to clean up after an accident. Even tree planting requires permission—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we going into committee over this?

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: I'm trying to avoid it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are trying to avoid it. This is not a quarrel between the parliament, surprisingly. I will get a more detailed answer for the member between the houses, and if he is not satisfied with that we will deal with it in the upper house where the government does not have the majority and he will have more influence. Obviously, the purpose of this bill, I think, is to try to put in place as much common sense as we can. The government is not attempting to take away people's private property rights but attempting to make sure we have a continuous supply of energy for our industry and households.

I thank the opposition. I have forgotten, sorry, the comments made by the member for Chaffey, but I will endeavour to speak to him after the debate and have them answered between the houses. I thank the members for their contribution, I thank the team at Energy for their hard work and diligence, and I thank the opposition for the speedy passage of this legislation.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (16:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:22): I just want to clarify some things. The issue I did not hear the minister address was about clarifying who needs to seek the permission when there are multiple layers of involvement. You could have a landowner, a land lessee or a licensee, and you could even have a—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think we have missed the chance for that, haven't we?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we have, but this really should have gone into committee, because if you have another question now it is all a bit late.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, it is my third reading speech.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But if you have another question—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am clarifying; I do not have another question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is good. I was just saying that if you did, it would be different—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am trying to save the house's time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, in the end we haven't.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is an issue I am happy to have resolved between the houses. Just to put it on the record again, I did not hear the minister address it and I am sure it was accidental. When there are multiple layers of ownership and involvement—an owner, a lessee, a licensee, a significant contractor who will take full responsibility for all the work on behalf of somebody else—who really needs to seek the permission?

There is another section I will touch on briefly just to clarify my question, and the minister can address this in his third reading contribution or between the houses. There are situations where there could have been an accident—and it could be a train derailment, or it could be a car or a truck accident—where it is physically nowhere near the depth of the pipeline but where there are many other prescribed works like tree planting, or even just storing machinery, plants, equipment or materials are prescribed works. Technically, even just parking a vehicle as part of an accident recovery process would be a prescribed work requiring permission under the bill.

For the minister's benefit, it is really not necessarily something that goes to a depth that is anywhere near the pipeline, but the bill does require that to do that sort of work, to even bring a piece of equipment onto the land surface within the easement to jack up or drag off a vehicle that has been an accident, would technically require permission to be given. I am just seeking some clarification that that would be expedited in a common-sense way.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (16:24): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your patience between the shadow minister and myself.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No-one is happy up here because it really should have gone into committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I refer the opposition spokesperson to the bill. The 'owner' as defined by the bill is:

(a) if the land is unalienated from the Crown—the Crown; or

(b) if the land is alienated from the Crown by grant in fee simple—the owner (at law or in equity) of the estate in fee simple; or

(c) if the land is held from the Crown by lease or licence—the lessee or licensee; or

(d) if the land is held from the Crown under an agreement to purchase—the person who has the right to purchase;

If a rail line goes through some private property, the rail line would have to tell the owner of the property that work is required. If there is an easement, the person who has the easement is the one who makes the application, but I will give the member a more detailed briefing from the department on that issue.

In terms of prescribed works, parking your vehicle is not a prescribed operation so the bill describes what 'prescribed works' means:

(a) excavating, drilling, installing or erecting any pit, well, foundation, pavement or other structure; or

(b) disturbing or altering the grades and contours of the servient land;—

which I think is the part that you are talking about in terms of grading, but removing a vehicle from an accident would not be prescribed work, I am advised. You are correct in saying the planting of trees and shrubs is prescribed work near a pipeline because some of the root systems could do damage.

(d) storing plant, machinery, equipment or materials; or

(e) using explosives.

In terms of parking emergency vehicles on top of a pipeline to deal with an emergency event, it is not a prescribed activity, I am advised, but storing plant and equipment permanently is, but if that is incorrect between the houses—that is the advice I have received—I will get that for you.

I understand the anxiety that members have and we do not want this to go crazy where all of a sudden there is an accident on a private road that goes over a pipeline and, as happens in regional areas, communities bond together to try and do the right thing and an excavator is brought along to try and get someone out of trouble, and all of a sudden they find themselves in breach. This is not what we are attempting to do, it is not a prescribed work, and that will not come into effect. If the member has examples of that occurring, I would be more than happy to come back to this parliament and remedy it.

Bill read a third time and passed.