Landscape South Australia Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:59): I continue where I left off just before the lunch break. As part of the reforms, the government has sought to expand the scope of natural resources management. Landscape is a broader concept than natural resources, reflecting an integrated hill-to-sea approach.

The bill defines the landscape as being made up of three components: the natural and physical environment, including coasts and seas adjacent to the state's land; natural resources, including land and soil, water resources, native vegetation and animals, and ecosystems; and the different ways people value and interact with their environment, including environmental, social, cultural and economic values.

Our coasts and seas immediately adjacent to land are important parts of the landscape. Our government is one that recognises the immense value of our over 5,000 kilometres of coastline and seeks to protect it through our broad and strong environmental reforms. I am sure that I will not be challenged when I indicate to the house that the seat of Flinders has more of the state's coastline than any other electorate in this state.

There are benefits for the primary production sector. A key benefit from the act will include reducing costs to businesses and household cost-of-living pressures by introducing a CPI cap on land and water levies, enshrining the principle that boards will work in partnerships and collaboratively with primary producers and local communities to deliver real outcomes, and the landscape priorities fund will deliver landscape-scale restoration projects and provide greater opportunities for natural resources management focused programs. In other words, it is a whole-of-landscape approach.

I want to talk briefly in these last few minutes about water because it has been a significant part of my dealings in the electorate of Flinders since first being elected in 2010. The focus of the landscape reforms is on resetting how boards operate to deliver a simpler, more transparent system. As a result, water management has not been a focus in the consultations that have shaped the landscape reforms.

We were very clear about this from the outset in our extensive consultation process and publicly available discussion papers. As such, most water-related provisions in the act have been carried over unchanged to the new bill, continuing the existing role of water allocation plans and providing for the sustainable management of water resources and existing licensing and permit arrangements to manage water resources.

Water-affecting activities, such as building a dam or drilling a bore, will continue to be regulated. To enable the simplification of regional landscape plans and give greater consistency and clarity for consumers as to where policies on water-affecting activities are, these rules will be set out in a water-affecting activity control policy or a water allocation plan.

The bill also provides transitional arrangements for the winding up of existing natural resources management boards and the transfer of any assets and liabilities, with options to ensure continued delivery of services on ground. Critically, options to ensure a smooth transition from natural resources management boards to regional landscape boards have been provided for. Together, these reforms will deliver a fundamental change in how natural resources are managed in this state for the benefit of all South Australians and will move South Australia towards a productive and sustainable natural landscape, upholding the landscape for both environmental and economic development of our state.

Before I commend the bill to the house, I indicate that a number of members of this parliament attended a Friends of Landcare meeting over the lunch break. It was capably and ably convened by the members for Heysen, Frome and Giles, and I note that the deputy leader was also at that meeting. I am going to quote from page 13 of Landcare Communities—Australia's Future:

Australia is beautiful, biodiverse and productive. Our land, water and biodiversity are integral parts of our national identity, our economy and universal life. They provide abundantly for our agricultural, tourism and resource industries, recreation, the clean air we breathe and the water we drink. They are our natural systems and the foundation of human existence.

I look forward to being actively involved in the newly formed Parliamentary Friends of Landcare group. I commend the bill to the house and look forward to its passage and implementation. I have to say that as Chairman of Committees I am also looking forward to the committee stage of the bill.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (16:04): It is a pleasure to close the debate this afternoon on the Landscape South Australia Bill 2019. I would like to thank all speakers who have provided a contribution on the bill before the house. I particularly want to thank the deputy leader for her indication that the opposition will provide broad support for the bill.

I look forward to considering the foreshadowed amendments and responding to the particular clauses that are of interest to the opposition and the crossbenchers during the committee stage of the bill. I indicate that a number of amendments have been provided to me that we will not agree to in this house, but that does not mean that we will not come to a landing on those between the houses or in the upper house.

I want to make a few closing points. Lots of comments have been made on the bill, the merits of this reform and why we are doing this reform. Those comments have been made by members of both sides of the house. I think that it is fair to say that there is a general recognition that this area of legislation is ripe for reform after slightly less than 16 years since the introduction of the Natural Resources Management Act. It is time for us to take a good look at the legislation that manages the environmental status of the privately held landscape, the landscape that is owned by South Australians at an individual and corporate level.

Through this legislation, we need to ensure that we have a framework that manages that landscape effectively, ensuring that it is sustained for environmental, social and economic outcomes. We know that if the private landscape across South Australia, the farms and productive lands across our state, is not managed in an environmentally sensitive and environmentally sustainable way, then it will have a complete lack of ability to contribute to the state's economic output.

We know that agriculture and food production is right at the top of the state's economic agenda. It consistently and generationally has been at the very top tier of the economic development, economic growth and economic output for our state. We know that if we do not get the natural environment right, the natural environment that wraps itself around the economic output of our state, we will not have that economic productivity in our state, particularly in regional South Australia.

We have to get the environment right. We have to look after our water resources. We have to care for our agricultural lands. We need to look after the life-giving soil that supports our agricultural lands, and we need to look after the biodiversity of our landscape as well. Incredibly important within that is building resilience, and this legislation aims to build the resilience of the natural landscape. We know that biodiversity needs space to survive and to thrive.

As a consequence, we need to look for landscape-scale change that sustains biodiversity, whether that be a journey that a river takes from its source waters to its estuarial waters; taking a look at our coastal habitats in a coherent and linked way, all 5,067 kilometres of the coastline around South Australia; the quality of our air and the quality of our soils; the interface between our built environments and our natural environments; or the way that communities understand, appreciate, learn about and engage with our natural environments.

All these things lead to sustainability. They connect together to create an overall resilience within the natural landscape. Our natural environment faces so many threats, whether that be a growing population and increasing urban sprawl, or whether that be a change in climate which, of course, is the foremost challenge facing our natural environment. The environment is under attack from all sides. What we need to do is give it the resilience and the space to withstand those attacks.

We know that when we start getting things right recovery occurs quite quickly. Species can re-establish, whether that be plants or animals. When they are given a helping hand, ecosystems start to recover quite quickly and then start to sustain themselves. All across South Australia and Australia there are good news stories to be told.

Last night, I had the great privilege to have a 20-minute conversation with Jane Goodall, an internationally renowned environmentalist who has done so much incredible work across the world, particularly in Africa but really at an international level, promoting environmental sustainability and teaching people about the value of preserving and revitalising our natural environment. When I talked to Jane Goodall, we talked about the good news stories as well. I asked her about her views on the opportunities to sustain and having success with sustainability. She told me that there were many good news stories.

There are many bad stories as well, but it is good stories that we have to tell people because when we tell people the good stories it gives them hope. If you look at the environmental problems facing our planet at the moment, it could all be far too difficult and you could give up and not want to do anything. If you look at the individual success stories at the local level, which then can be linked together to create corridors of success and landscapes of recovery, that is when those good news stories start to create a whole narrative of success.

I am really hopeful that, during my time as South Australia's Minister for Environment and Water and while the Liberal government occupies the government benches, we are able to take significant steps forward with environmental sustainability in our state and ensure that investment, albeit limited at times, is going towards the right projects, those that link together to create those corridors and that landscape-scale change.

The recent summary report by the United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services highlighted that nature is declining globally and at unprecedented rates and that the rate of species extinction is accelerating. In Australia, we have been at the forefront of that. Our continent has given a tremendous set of very poor statistics when it comes to species extinction.

There has been some suggestion that our bill somehow removes nature from natural resources management and undermines our response to those challenges that were outlined in the policy platform's findings. It is my very strong view that it is quite the opposite. What this legislation aims to do is to mitigate species losses and build resilience into the landscape so that species, whether they be plants or animals, have the opportunity to hang on, to rebuild their population, to have their populations be sustained and spread their reach.

To assist policymakers and lawmakers, the UN-backed body I mentioned a moment ago has identified the top five drivers for biodiversity losses and extinctions. I think it is worthwhile to reflect on the identified causes of these declines and look at how the landscape bill, which is before the parliament at the moment, contributes to this.

The number one driver identified is enormous changes in land and sea use, with three-quarters of the land-based environment and two-thirds of the marine environment now being significantly altered by human actions. Second is the direct exploitation of organisms, on which this bill, or indeed the previous National Resources Management Act, can have little legislative impact to bring about change.

The third is climate change. We have really done a significant amount to insert in the bill the importance of taking a changing climate into consideration when it comes to decision-making, engagement and the allocation of resources. We have embedded that into the bill in a way that was not present in the previous Natural Resources Management Act, significantly as a result of the passage of time between the Natural Resources Management Act being enacted in 2004 and the present day, when the understanding and knowledge around climate change and the impacts of climate change obviously have become much more advanced.

Yes, we were aware of those problems and those challenges in 2004, but the sophistication of response and the need to find responses have substantially advanced since 2004. This bill really attempts to capture the urgency and the necessity of embedding climate change and a response to climate change within the landscape legislation.

Fourthly, the panel finds that pollution is a significant reason for the extinction of species at a global level. Ambient pollution is primarily regulated under other legislation, including the massive pollution of plastic in oceans. There are many measures within this bill that complement other legislation to ensure that we sustain our freshwater sources. We can abate potential sources of pollution through clauses that are embedded in this bill and which were recently reflected in the NRM Act. I want to assure the house that those clauses are very much part of the legislation.

The fifth point that the UN panel made clear was the contribution of invasive alien species in a landscape—namely, pest plants and animals—to the extinction of species at a global level. This bill really puts this in the forefront. It highlights it as one of the most pressing challenges facing South Australia's natural environment and inserts it as a key policy driver and decision-making trigger point for landscape boards in the future. They have to take into consideration the environmental impact of pest plants and animals.

Along the way, I have received some criticism for this back-to-basics approach to natural resources management, including around pest plants and animals. I refute all that criticism. It is backward to make that comment because the UN, experts across the world and academics and conservationists in South Australia, in Australia and internationally have identified that dealing with pest plants and animals is a way that you can give our natural landscapes resilience. Through that, they can then take on those other challenges, the main one being climate change, but there is also the impact of increasing populations, urban sprawl and the increasing intensification of farming. All those things can be better withstood if our landscape is devoid of pest plants and animals.

It would be incredibly hopeful to think that we could wipe out pest plants and animals in South Australia altogether, but I really hope that this legislation and the back-to-basics approach that this legislation is founded upon create an opportunity to really get on top of the some of those invasive plants and animals that are having an incredibly negative impact on biodiversity in our state. I hope that they can get on top of the problem at a landscape level, not just with little envelopes of pristine vegetation and environment that are not linked to each other but connected corridors and connected landscapes of significant recovery and significant restoration. That is the legacy that I hope this legislation can trigger.

I want to finalise my remarks by highlighting some of the key reforms within this legislation. I have talked about the back-to-basics approach. I also want to highlight the decentralisation of landscape boards, handing power back to communities, relying on knowledge and understanding that is held within communities, and respecting communities for being the custodians of our natural environment, while also giving them support and education and sharing with them the knowledge and understanding of experts and governments but relying on their local knowledge just as much to get a strong outcome for our environment.

Decentralisation, which is synonymous with the ideology of the Liberal government, is something we can really benefit from with the establishment of landscape boards and the creation of elections to ensure that three board members on each board are elected by the community so that a community voice is present on these boards and that the wider community have confidence that they have representatives who are elected through grassroots democracy and are a part of natural resources management in their communities.

The legislation creates the grassroots grants program that again is about respecting local communities and giving local groups—whether they be friends groups, agricultural bureaus, NGOs, local councils perhaps or, even better, a combination of all these groups—the opportunity to come together and work together to come up with solutions for environmental problems and strategies toward sustainability. We are creating the grassroots grants fund that will enable a guarantee legislated stream of funding to go toward on-ground projects led by the community for the community.

I think this is a significant reform. We have grants handed down by NRM boards at the moment, but they tend to come and go, they tend to be inconsistent and they tend not to be guaranteed from year to year. The creation of the grassroots grants fund will enable us to have a guaranteed grants fund embedded within our landscape legislation.

The other fund that we are setting up, which I think is a real game changer, is our landscape priorities fund. That is taking some of the levy collected in the Adelaide metropolitan area and redistributing it into regional and rural South Australia, giving those boards the opportunity to bid for funds, to undertake large-scale, potentially multijurisdictional—when it comes to councils and when it comes to different boards that neighbour each other—landscape-scale projects.

These are the projects that will really make a big difference, will increase the resilience in the landscape and will ensure that big projects, potentially multimillion-dollar funding projects, can actually be delivered. That is something we are not getting enough of at the moment. When we get these amounts of money coming together with partners also contributing funds, we are likely to attract large portions of money from federal government sources or from large not-for-profit organisations in the environmental arena. We think that the landscapes priorities fund can really be a game changer for the resilience of our natural environment, giving boards the capacity to undertake big projects that will make that real environmental difference.

Interestingly, through a very thorough consultation process, there was no pushback from levy payers in metropolitan Adelaide about contributing to the regional landscape. It was apparent that people living in Adelaide understood that, by way of living in the city, they often go and enjoy the regions, they put pressure on the regions, they gain food from the regions and they understand the economic contribution that our regions make. Having this small levy distribution to the statewide priorities fund gives us the opportunity to really see Adelaide's levy base contribute to regional projects. I think that is a really substantial piece of reform that will be well received and can have genuinely very good environmental outcomes associated with it in the future.

Undertaking a significant piece of reform such as this does require a lot of effort, and we have still a way to go with that—the committee stage and the bill moving in the future to the Legislative Council—but I want to thank the public servants within the Department for Environment and Water for their role to date. I also thank the speakers from the government who made comments and contributions in favour of the bill: the member for Narungga, the member for Heysen, the member for Finniss, the member for Colton, the member for Chaffey, the member for King, the Attorney-General, the member for Waite, the member for Schubert, the member for Newland, the member for MacKillop, the member for Flinders and the member for Hammond.

Again, I thank the deputy leader for her contribution and the shadow minister for regional development (member for Giles) for his contribution, as well as the general support the opposition has provided throughout this process.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Dr CLOSE: I am not going to use clause 1 to ask a lot of questions. I just want to check that I do not miss an opportunity to ask a question later. Therefore, my question is: in which section would I raise questions about the management of pests? Is it only in clause 183, or is it earlier that I should be asking those questions?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Deputy leader, I am advised that the best point would be the body of the bill where this is dealt with in most detail, that is, from clause 183.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Dr CLOSE: This is a lengthy clause that deals with definitions, so I am just looking at a way to orient where I am asking my questions. Essentially, subclause (2) has the definition of landscapes; that is on my page 25, and I assume we all have the same version. My question is about the way in which this act is anticipated to interact with various other acts that deal with elements of landscapes—for example, coastal protection, marine parks and, given the definition at (c), planning and heritage considerations.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: When we went out to consultation on the NRM reform, it was very much our view that, within reason, we wanted to make quite a clear commitment to those who were attending consultations. We acknowledge that there were other pieces of environmental legislation present in our state legislation that needed reform. Without naming any acts or giving an order of how reform would unfold, it is my intention to undertake legislative reform in other areas in the coming months and years of the Marshall Liberal government.

I have made commitments publicly, in public consultation forums, that we would be heading in that direction, whether that is around coastal protection or whether it is around water, and you would be aware that we have not gone into water reform in a lot of detail here. Of course, the act is open and subject to amendment, if that is the will of parliament, but it has been the government's intention not to go hard on the reform around water, with the intention to come back and look at water in the medium term. We have said that on a range of pieces of legislation. The National Parks and Wildlife Act is another one of those, and the Marine Parks Act could be one of those, and the planning and development legislation, which is subject to ongoing development of policies and regulations at the moment.

I say all that because this bill does not fundamentally change the approach that the previous Natural Resources Management Act took in engaging with those pieces of legislation. It is my intention as the minister responsible to move forward, subject to the passage of the landscape bill, and then start to talk to stakeholders about the modernisation of other pieces of environmental legislation, with the idea that the landscape bill is quite foundational in many ways when it comes to the management of our natural environment in our state.

So we get this reform right, hopefully, and then we can look at reforms to other pieces of legislation, which will be informed by this modern body of legislation that I hope will become the landscape South Australia act. It is also important for people who are using this legislation, whether that be boards, individual landholders or stakeholders who are using it for their day-to-day business—whether that is planning or general activities—to ensure that they are able to connect with the holders of other legislation, such as the Coast Protection Board and the Parks and Wilderness Council, and we will be encouraging those opportunities as part of this as well.

Through the process of engagement on this legislation, we have connected with the chairs of some of those bodies. We have had those conversations, particularly with the chair of the Coast Protection Board, Allan Holmes, who has an understanding of the planning system as well. We consulted with him quite extensively on this legislation, so we have had those conversations. That is a bit of a lengthy explanation, but I hope it answers the deputy leader's question.

Dr CLOSE: To tease that out a little bit more, when we come to talking about regional plans or even the landscape strategy for the whole of the state, does this legislation give any power to those instruments to guide or change activity that sits under those other pieces of legislation? Could they alter or encroach upon the responsibilities of the Coast Protection Board, for example, or are they required to nonetheless acknowledge the pre-eminence of those pieces of legislation relating to those elements of landscape?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Those other pieces of legislation remain pre-eminent. The planning legislation is of particular relevance and, given the stage of reform that planning legislation is at, it remains as per the current NRM legislation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 4 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Close–1]—

Page 27, lines 32 and 33 [clause 7(1)]—Delete 'of the natural resources that make up or contribute to our State's landscape' and substitute:

of the state by establishing an integrated scheme to promote the use and management of the natural resources that make up or contribute to our State's landscape

I think that the changes I am looking to make are around the importance of the clarity of language in the way we talk about our natural resources, in that we talk about sustainable development. I think it is just an unfortunate turn of phrase to talk about ecologically sustainable development of natural resources. There are many, if not most, natural resources that should not be developed, so I have suggested in this clause that we return essentially to the language used in the existing act, which talks about the sustainable development 'of the State by establishing an integrated scheme to promote the use and management of', rather than the direct development.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I mentioned in my earlier speech that I was not going to accept the amendments from the deputy leader but did make it clear—and I have spoken to the deputy leader separately—that a number of the amendments she has proposed are amendments which I and the government are quite amenable to. Some amendments have changed in the last few days, including one that amends an amendment.

I have some processes I have to follow through and, as a consequence, we will oppose this amendment at this stage, and I will have a similar answer to some other amendments that are proposed by the deputy leader. However, we will continue to work on those with the deputy leader and other members of parliament between the houses and in the Legislative Council to see if we can come to a landing on this.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: My question relates to the definition of 'intrinsic values' and what the minister understands by 'intrinsic values' or whether there is legislative precedent to define that. I refer to clause 7(1)(a).

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have been advised that, regarding the mention of 'intrinsic values' in clause 7(1)(a), the use of the words actually replicates what was in the Natural Resources Management Act and really tries to capture the inherent value that our natural environment, landscapes and interconnected landscapes have to the community. It was in the NRM Act that we repealed and it has been brought across. I am also advised that the conservation sector, with which we had extensive and ongoing engagement as part of the development of this, sought to ensure that 'intrinsic values' was retained, despite it perhaps not being a phrase that people use a lot or necessarily have a stand-alone definition of.

Dr CLOSE: Unsurprisingly, I understand what the intrinsic value is and I am a supporter of it, but I am curious about not only recognising but protecting the intrinsic value and what legal weight that would have in the case where what people would regard as the intrinsic value of a landscape is under threat from any particular action, activity or development, and whether this has any weight or is just an acknowledgment that we regard the environment as having value on its own.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you for the opportunity to answer this question and to seek advice about it myself. All the objects and principles taken together will be taken into consideration by the decision-making body that might be using the act, whether that is the individual who is using it to guide their day-to-day work or, of course, at the other end, a court that is using the act to come up with findings about the merits, or lack thereof, of a particular activity. We are confident that the term 'intrinsic values' is one that the court would have to interpret, should it get to that point, and it would have to use that, taking into consideration all the other objects and principles found under section 7 of the act, to determine whether or not a breach had occurred.

Dr CLOSE: I am happy now to move on to my second amendment of schedule 1. I move:

Amendment No 2 [Close–1]—

Page 28, lines 1 to 3 [clause 7(1)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) provides for the protection, enhancement, restoration and sustainable management of—

(i) land, soil and water resources; and

(ii) native fauna and flora, especially so that they are resilient in the face of change; and

My intention here is to correct what I think is a missed opportunity to talk about nature in natural resources. The current version provides for the protection, enhancement and sustainable management of land, soil and water resources. It omits to talk about the importance of native fauna and flora and also the importance of not only protection and enhancement but restoration, given the very dire state that so much of our ecosystem is in.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We will be opposing this amendment based on my previous comments. We do believe that the amendment would expand the object of the bill to include providing for the protection, enhancement, restoration and sustainable management of native fauna and flora. While I am not fundamentally opposed to that I do think—and I mentioned this in my speech a few minutes ago—that there has been some misunderstanding that the bill somehow diminishes the need to protect nature and the need to enhance biodiversity.

That is certainly why we have modernised the language. I believe that all through the legislation we have highlighted the importance of maintaining the vitality of biodiversity in our state. This is an amendment we are happy to look at, but we believe that the legislation does make very strong attempts to ensure that nature is protected and that opportunities are sought to revitalise biodiversity across our landscape in South Australia. The government will oppose this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Close–2]—

Page 28, lines 4 and 5 [clause 7(1)(d)]—Delete paragraph (d) and substitute:

(d) promotes, protects and conserves biodiversity, and insofar as is reasonably practicable, supports and encourages the restoration or rehabilitation of ecological systems and processes that have been lost or degraded, and promotes the health of ecosystems so that they are resilient in the face of change; and

I will not be proceeding with amendment No. 3 [Close-1] but will instead move amendment No. 1 [Close-2], both of which deal with paragraph (d). It is entirely consistent with the point that I have just made about the importance of talking not just about flora and fauna and biological diversity but also the idea of ecosystems and the need to restore and rehabilitate them.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The government will also oppose this amendment on the basis that we believe the promotion of healthy and resilient biological diversity and ecosystems is an object of the bill and is inherent throughout the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Close–1]—

Page 28, line 6 [clause 7(1)(e)]—After 'environment' insert:

(including a recognition of the need for mitigation and adaptation)

Although I applaud the far greater presence of climate change in this bill than in the existing act and, as the minister said in closing his second reading speech, the nature of the passage of time and our greater understanding of the importance of climate change and its impact, I would like to explicitly talk about the need for mitigation and adaptation. I believe that much of the work that these boards will be undertaking in the future will be about adaptation to a changed climate rather than hoping that we can halt its course altogether.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Again, we will be opposing this amendment but have very significant interest in exploring this mitigation and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. It will absolutely be a significant role for landscape boards when they come into being. It is a significant role of the current natural resources management boards that are found across South Australia at the moment.

In the context of South Australia dealing with climate change, adaptation and mitigation are incredibly important. We know that our relatively small impact in an international context does not mean that we should not show leadership and that we should not continue to demonstrate opportunities to not only reduce emissions but store emissions and mitigate and adapt to the challenges that we are currently facing and inevitably will face more of in the future.

It is important to note that the landscape legislation is not a stand-alone solution for climate change. The state's climate change legislation—I think it was amongst the first in the world—is one of those acts that I should have referred to earlier when the deputy leader asked whether there are other pieces of legislation that this legislation would interact with. We see the interaction of the future landscape act as being very much about tackling climate change and adapting to the impacts of climate change, and we are very keen to look at opportunities to strengthen and enhance the legislation between the houses.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: If we can move on to subclause (2)(b), I have a question about the definition of 'life-supporting capacities'. Does that refer exclusively to supporting human life, or is it a wider definition?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That definition is not specific to human life. It would take its ordinary meaning, which is obviously broader.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Close–1]—

Page 28, after line 41 [clause 7(3)]—Insert:

(ca) environmental factors should be taken into account when valuing or assessing assets or services;

Essentially, this amendment adds an additional paragraph after subclause (3)(c) to say that environmental factors should be taken into account when valuing or assessing assets or services.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I advise that the government opposes this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: I did not hear anyone say no.

The CHAIR: It was a bit light on for noes. Deputy leader, I am usually pretty good with that, but thank you for picking me up. The amendment is not agreed to. I called it.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Close–1]—

Page 29, after line 4 [clause 7(3)]—Insert:

(da) consideration should be given to the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity;

This amendment seeks to include consideration of biological diversity and ecological integrity.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I note that this is one of the existing principles in the natural resources management legislation. One of our aims in all this legislative reform is simplification of legislation, trying to get a piece of legislation together that is accessible and workable. It is felt that this amendment is not needed because biodiversity is canvassed as a very substantial object of the act. On that basis, we oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Dr CLOSE: I have a question on subclause (1):

(i) as the Minister thinks fit, to take any other action that may promote the preservation, protection, management, enhancement, restoration or rehabilitation…

It is nice to see restoration and rehabilitation there. I am wondering why there is such discretion being given to any future minister and whether there are any limits that are within this piece of legislation as to what those actions might be.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the deputy leader for her question. The minister's use of discretion would of course have to be made in reference to the objectives of the act. These are protective principles in nature: preservation, protection, management, enhancement, restoration or rehabilitation of the state's landscapes. It is our view that the protective nature of all these words as a class of words means that they are positive and seek to enhance the environment, rather than exploit it, so that in itself is a limitation on the powers that the minister has under this catch-all discretionary clause, which, as the deputy leader correctly highlights, does appear to be broad in its nature. It is broad in nature, but it is limited by its context in the positive around environmental sustainability.

Clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Dr CLOSE: I have a couple of questions before I move my amendment and they are in relation to the establishment of regions. I understand that the legislation creates the power for a government or a minister to declare or gazette regions and that the minister has expressed an intention to revise the boundaries, including, of course the creation of Green Adelaide but not exclusively to do that. My first question is: why has the minister chosen to remove any consideration of catchments, given that that was the foundation of this system from even before the current act came into place?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader is right to raise this. This is quite a significant part of the reform. It formed quite a significant part of the community consultation and engagement that occurred around the creation of this legislation. We did want to create a body of legislation that was more inherently connected to communities and so as part of the engagement process we specifically posed these questions to the attendees, asking: did geographical communities of interest in large part outweigh what a catchment was?

The deputy leader is very accurate and completely right to highlight the previous Natural Resources Management Act, which came from the integration of a whole range of things, including pest control boards, soil boards and water catchment boards. Under an integrated system, they then evolved into natural resources management boards and were formulated under water catchments.

We found that this led to some geographical perversities, where a town like Mount Barker, the largest town in the Adelaide Hills and the fastest growing town in South Australia, found itself in the SA Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board because the water catchment that serves Mount Barker heads in an easterly direction towards the River Murray and the mouth of the river.

However, we were intent on creating a Hills and Fleurieu board for a range of communities of interest reasons. Not to have the largest Hills town of Mount Barker in that board would not have made sense from the point of view of keeping coherent communities of interest intact. When we had a consultation in the Hills, we specifically put this question to people living in that community who attended, and they said that they felt that communities of interest trumped water catchments.

Notwithstanding that, we have embedded into this legislation the ability, the need and the requirement to work across boundaries and for boards to work together when there are cross-boundary issues. One of these will be water catchments and water catchment management. It is an imperfect tool, in many ways, to pick communities of interest over water catchments but, equally, to pick water catchments over communities of interest is not an ideal outcome either. So we have made a call with this legislation, based in the overarching spirit of the legislation, to make it more accessible for communities at an everyday level. We have made the commitment to move towards communities of interest.

I picked Mount Barker because it is probably the best example of this, but there are a handful of other examples where you see a water catchment disconnected from its board. The community of Burra in the state's Mid North is currently in the SA Murray-Darling Basin board, but it will move across to the Northern and Yorke board because that is more in line with its communities of interest, as opposed to being connected to the Riverland and Murraylands towns. This is no doubt a challenge. It is difficult to pick how this works. We chose communities of interest over water catchments for this legislation.

Dr CLOSE: I have to say that I do not think that the legislation requires the decision to be made. The legislation merely requires that attention be paid not that it be settled one way or another, which is why my amendment gives attention to putting catchment back in. Before I move that amendment, and I will move it, I have a question about what work was done within the department—and, I hope, brought to the minister's attention—about the potential negative effects of moving away from using catchments as the region boundaries.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The department undertook analysis around water allocation planning and how that would interact under the new legislation. That is obviously addressed in the component of the bill that covers water. There have been lots of discussions about this. This was one of those wicked problems within the legislation as it currently stands under the Natural Resources Management Act, and we made a call on this.

The deputy leader is right: I was too enthusiastic in the strength of my language around 'requiring', but I would like to think that boards would pay attention to water catchment areas, as the deputy leader's amendment suggests, as part of their good governance. That makes sense. There is no doubt that there are more discussions to be had on this because water catchments are a critical part of our landscape, a very substantial part of our legislation. We will discuss this between the houses and give particular consideration to this amendment.

Dr CLOSE: I have one more question before I move the amendment, and it is largely around the transition. Presuming that the change is made subsequent to this legislation coming into force, and that there will be changes to boundaries, what is the intention with the regions within the environment and water department? Will they be matching these new boundaries, or will you have a mismatch of boundaries?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader might be aware there is a restructure being undertaken in the department at the moment led by the chief executive. That is something we are working through at the moment. It makes sense for alignment and, in my view, from an administrative point of view. That is being looked at, and how it will unfold will be a structural and administrative reform within the department. I do not want to give anything definitive on what is happening operationally with the chief executive's restructure of the department, but it is certainly being looked at in line with this legislation.

Dr CLOSE: As a preamble to moving the amendment, I would offer the gratuitous advice that, although it is convenient to have the boundaries aligned, it would be a pity if the environment and water department did not have any attention paid to catchment boundaries as being a primary driving force, particularly given the predisposition of our climate to go into drought. I move:

Amendment No 7 [Close–1]—

Page 32, line 30 [clause 11(2)(a)]—After 'environment' insert:

and give particular attention to water catchment areas

This amendment is to allow water catchments to be considered by the minister in formulating boundaries.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Dr CLOSE: Environmental groups have come to see me, as I am sure they have come to see the minister, and one of the areas they are concerned about in this bill is the absence of the requirement for particular types of consultation. Before I move my amendment, could the minister explain his thinking, for example, in not consulting with any particular organisations in establishing the boards?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the deputy leader for her question. I come back to the point with this legislation: our aim is to create a simpler system, but we did not want to be overly prescriptive. We have embedded the importance of engagement—and this is very important to me personally and professionally as minister—and, to get engagement right, we have embedded it though the legislation and, I feel, ramped it up in many ways.

The prescriptive nature of engagement has not been followed through. We have tried to step away from the prescriptive nature of the previous act. We felt that one of the things that was quite cumbersome in the previous act was the prescriptive nature of engagement and consultation, so we have stepped away from that approach and, while requiring engagement at various points throughout the act, we did not go into detail as to what that would look like, and the main reason for that is around simplicity.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Close–1]—

Page 34, after line 8 [clause 13]—Insert:

(4a) The Minister must, before publishing a notice under subsection (1) or (3), consult with the bodies that are, in the opinion of the Minister, the peak bodies concerned with the environment and land use in the state.

This amendment requires that the minister consult with bodies that are, in the opinion of the minister, the peak bodies concerned with the environment and land use in the state. The nature of the feedback that I have had, which I am sure has also come back to the minister's office, is not that there is any concern in particular about the current incumbent, nor perhaps should there be in a change of government with respect to the current shadow; it is concern that the legislation going on the existing act will last a decade or more and that they wish to make sure that they are not reliant on the goodwill of a particular minister at a particular time.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 14 and 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Dr CLOSE: I suspect the answer to my question will be couched in simplicity again, although the bill, I think, is about the same length as the existing act. I was contemplating introducing amendments, and so I signal now that there may be amendments in the other place either from me via my equivalent in the other place or perhaps from another party. The question is whether the matrix that is currently used for having a clear sense of the range of skills required to make a functional board ought to be captured either in a schedule or in legislation.

However, rather than bring in an amendment now, I would like to give the minister an opportunity to explain how, particularly given that there will be the election of members, the minister will ensure, and a future minister will be required to ensure, that there is the right balance of interests and experience and skills.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: On this point, deputy leader, this is an interesting area of our reform because we are inserting the elections into the process. In some ways we are trading off the ability for a minister to have more options when it comes to selecting a good skills range and a mix of skills against having that community voice.

It is absolutely important for ministers who have responsibility for this legislation to be required to ensure that that skills mix is in place. Of course, there needs to be quite a level of discretion because different regions need different skills. My view would be that it is not just skills: it is also dealing with geographical distribution in some of these boards because you would not want all board members on the Eyre Peninsula board to come from the town of Cummins, for instance. You might get three elected from that community and the minister is going to have to select people from around the district to create that balance, and not only geographical distribution but also potentially gender as well, so you would want the minister to have the discretion to take those into consideration.

We have put under clause 1 the idea that 'the minister will determine the skills, qualifications, knowledge and experience that persons should collectively have'. I think the word 'collectively' is important because it ensures that, when the minister comes to appoint their members, they look at the group as a whole. It is certainly my intention with the first round of establishing these boards to appoint a chairperson, then have elections and then appoint board members.

For the first round of creating these boards from scratch, the minister (being me at this stage) would have the opportunity later on in the piece to distribute geographically in terms of skills and gender and to take those things into account once three elected members were in place. I am not sure whether the deputy leader was aware of that. It is not implicit in the legislation but certainly, from a policy point of view, that is the approach I will be taking in the first instance.

The word 'collectively' is one of the keywords here in terms of how we will make this work well. As we move further down, clause 16(3)(a) provides:

(a) must demonstrate that they have any skills, qualifications, knowledge or experience determined by the Minister (and the Minister may put in place processes to ensure that members of regional landscape boards have those skills, qualifications, knowledge or experience);

I think the words 'and the Minister may put in place processes' are also important because that will create structure or rigour around the selection. While it says 'the Minister may put in place processes', it is certainly my view that we would be looking to ensure that there were appropriate selection criteria to map members' skills, geography and gender against. I have gone a little broader by talking about geography and gender as well, but I think that is important for a minister to take into consideration when getting these boards right.

Dr CLOSE: Nonetheless, the law only requires that the minister be satisfied, rather than there being any objective criteria or any process by which the minister is required to seek the advice of others on what that particular minister's view is on what is the collective composition of the board.

I wonder whether the minister has considered or might smile upon an amendment. I know you cannot agree to any such amendment, particularly as it is not being moved today, or perhaps he might contemplate one between the houses, including a clause that at least requires the minister to undertake a process of consultation on the skills composition that the minister is determining. That would give more comfort to the people who have raised the concern with me that, under this piece of legislation, there might be boards that are not well balanced in their view, although the minister will say, 'Well, I have the discretion and they are in my view.'

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Again, this is one of the outcomes of the attempt to simplify the legislation. Of course, we would be happy to contemplate an amendment between the houses or, in fact, in the upper house, if one is presented to us.

The CHAIR: Before I put the clause, I note that the minister used the town of Cummins as an example in one of his responses, which of course is my home town. We do note that. I was born in Cummins, minister, and I know you have a soft spot for Elliston as well.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes. We might talk about Elliston.

The CHAIR: We might talk about Elliston.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Dr CLOSE: This is where we have the introduction of the idea of board elections. As I think I indicated in my second reading speech, we will not be opposing the principle, either in here or the other place. However, I do have questions about the practicality of the introduction. My first question is: how will people know that a nomination process is available? If someone would quite like to be one of these members, how will they be informed about it? In order to make this shorter, if you would like to talk about how you see these elections working, that might answer some of my questions.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This is an area that will be prescribed through regulations. There will be a detailed set of regulations dealing with elections. The election side of things is, I think, a really worthwhile reform. I strongly hope it will inject a level of confidence and goodwill into these boards—that is certainly my hope—and get that community voice as part of them and engender confidence as a result.

I acknowledge that this reform is one of the trickier ones in terms of administering it. We are working through what that looks like at the moment. It may be that the first elections are slightly different from ongoing elections, and there may be a transitionary set of elections. I want to ensure that the regulations that are brought into being are flexible enough to allow electronic collections, potentially.

We have also talked along the way of aligning local government elections with the landscape board elections. There is no doubt that the alignment of those elections would boost turnout. It is my view that, in terms of turnout, we will have to embark on a publicity campaign of sorts to really encourage people to nominate and to encourage people to turn out to vote. I expect and acknowledge that voter turnout will likely be lower in the first elections. That should not be seen as a failure of the legislation, but it should be seen as something that we need to build on.

I do not have a crystal ball; I am not sure that will be the case. However, I think if you look across the world, when you bring in these sorts of non-compulsory community elections, turnout is low in the first case. We need to try to lift it, but I think aligning it to local government in the out years will lift knowledge, understanding and awareness of this. There will be a substantial campaign that is inevitable to promote these upcoming elections. There will be a drive to try to encourage people to stand.

It is likely that board chairs will be appointed before elections take place. We have chairs in place at the moment, and some of them are very capable and show a great deal of capability in promoting the value of landscape boards, or NRM boards as they are currently stand. I would foresee the chair of these boards taking quite a significant role in promoting upcoming elections and opportunities particularly through regional media. We know that regional media is a way to get those messages out into regional communities. I do not want to go into much more detail because this has to be agreed to by cabinet and come in through regulation. There will be a significant recruitment campaign to encourage people to stand. There will be a significant amount of promotion around the elections.

Dr CLOSE: Do you have an estimate of how much the initial election will cost and where that money will come from?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We will undertake a procurement process for this. We are looking at that at the moment. Obviously, we will be looking for the most cost-effective method to deliver these and a process that has a high level of integrity because that is completely critical to ensuring that there is community confidence. We are working through that process at the moment.

Dr CLOSE: I draw your attention to the second part of my question because you must have anticipated, if not exactly how much it will cost, whether it will come out of NRM resources that would otherwise be going to the management of natural resources.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, the intention is that it come out of NRM board budgets.

Dr CLOSE: Will each board be responsible for their own cost, regardless of the size of their budget?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We are working through those issues at the moment. I acknowledge that particular boards with smaller budgets do not scale up equally. For a board with 4,000 people, the election will not cost a tenth of a board with 40,000 people. We are working through that and looking for ways to make sure that occurs in the most cost-effective way that does not detract from the business of the board.

Clause passed.

Clauses 18 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Dr CLOSE: This question has come from discussions that I have had with members of the environment movement and various organisations under that umbrella. There was a concern about the lack of requirement for transparency, therefore I will be moving amendment No. 2 [Close-2]. I think there might have been a slight tidying up by parliamentary counsel, but it essentially reintroduces the requirements for the meetings to be held in public and for the minutes and agenda to be made available.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The only reason this was not in the act was that we felt that it could be accommodated in the regulations. We were fully intending to transfer this component into the more administrative part of the act through regulation. It certainly was not an attempt to avoid or circumvent transparency and it was our intention to go down this track anyway in regulation.

I should say that the proposed amendment would mean that boards could hold an in camera session in any circumstance that they consider necessary and appropriate. Currently, the NRM Act prescribes the circumstances when boards can hold an in camera session. I am not sure if my role is to ask the deputy leader questions on her amendment, but I was interested—

The CHAIR: Minister, you can do that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This is the first time I have done this, so I am learning.

The CHAIR: But we have not got to the amendment yet.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, the deputy leader moved it.

The CHAIR: My understanding is that we need to deal with clause 22 first because what the deputy leader is proposing is a new clause.

Clause passed.

New clauses 22A and 22B.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Close–2]—

Page 39, after line 32—Insert:

22A—Meetings of boards to be held in public

(1) Subject to this clause, a meeting of a regional landscape board must be conducted in a place open to the public.

(2) A regional landscape board must give public notice of its intention to hold a meeting that will be open to the public in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The notice must state the time and place at which the meeting will be held.

(4) The regulations may dispense with the requirement to give notice in prescribed circumstances.

(5) A regional landscape board may order that the public be excluded from attendance at a meeting if the board considers it to be necessary and appropriate to act in a meeting closed to the public in order to receive, discuss or consider any information or matter in confidence.

(6) A member of the public who, knowing that an order is in force under subsection (5), enters or remains in a room in which a meeting of the board is being held is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(7) If an order is made under subsection (5), a note must be made in the minutes of the making of the order and of the grounds on which it was made.

22B—Agenda and minutes of meetings open to public to be made available

(1) A regional landscape board must make available for inspection and purchase by members of the public, copies of the agenda, and copies of the minutes, of each meeting, or the part of each meeting, that is open to members of the public.

(2) An agenda must be made available under subsection (1) at least 3 days before the meeting to which it relates is held except where the meeting is held in urgent circumstances.

(3) A regional landscape board must not charge for inspection of an agenda or minutes and must not charge more than the fee prescribed by regulation for sale of copies of an agenda or minutes.

I will take this opportunity to answer the question that was asked about the simplification of language from the existing act. It could be that, were this to pass, it could be amended in the upper house if the minister were so minded, but the advice I have received is that the way in which in camera matters are dealt with in more modern legislation is to allow that discretion, rather than to seek to bind in advance.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That does fit with our aims for simplification, obviously. It is still our intention to deal with this in regulation, but it is something we can deal with between the houses. We will oppose the amendment, but we will look at it between the houses.

New clauses negatived.

Clause 23.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Close–1]—

Page 39, line 39 [clause 23(1)(a)]—After 'landscape management' insert:

and biodiversity conservation

I have both questions and amendments for clause 23. The section that establishes the functions of the board is really crucial. Along with the objects and principles of the act, it really says what these creatures do. I was disappointed to see what I regard as a lack of emphasis on biodiversity and conservation and much more about management and, again, the mantra of back-to-basics water resource, pest animal and plant control.

It does talk about integrated landscapes, which is a good concept, but it requires practical application. Therefore, I move this amendment, which adds the words 'biodiversity conservation' after 'landscape management' in order to be specific about this being a bill that is also about nature and not just about the management of resources from which we extract productive use.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am going to oppose this, but this is certainly an area that we are very open to having further discussions on. We believe that clause 23 already provides for biodiversity outcomes to form part of the board's functions through the concept of integrated landscape management.

Delivering multiple outcomes is central to the internationally recognised concept of integrated landscape management. An integrated landscape management approach enhances human livelihoods and wellbeing, improves agricultural production and conserves biodiversity and ecosystem health. That is from the United Nations definitions. However, we will be taking a really good look at the deputy leader's amendment, and I am extremely open to accommodating that.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Close–1]—

Page 40, after line 24 [clause 23(1)]—Insert:

(ea) to undertake an active role in ensuring, insofar as is reasonably practical, that the board's regional landscape plan, landscape affecting activities control policies, water allocation plans and water affecting activities control policies, advance the objects of the Native Vegetation Act 1991 and promote the conservation of wildlife as envisaged under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972; and

This is an addition after paragraph (e). What both (e) and this new paragraph (ea) are talking about is the interaction between the plans for which the board is responsible, other legislation and other legislative instruments. Paragraph (e) is specifically around the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. In my amendment, I am seeking to restore interaction with and advancement of the objects of the Native Vegetation Act as well as the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The amendment brings back in the importance of native vegetation and wildlife and the interaction with protected areas in constructing the objects and effect of the plans that the boards will write.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We will oppose this amendment, as we have all of them. Again, we think that there is very substantial merit here, and we will probably amend the amendment, and we will do that between the houses in consultation with the deputy leader. We understand the intent of what she is attempting to achieve here and broadly support that direction.

To an extent, it comes back to what I said earlier about the need to modernise some of our other pieces of environmental legislation in South Australia. I believe that the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 is one of those. The Native Vegetation Act, the Coast Protection Act, etc., are others that could require some modernisation. It has been my intention to look at the intersection of the new landscape act with those acts down the track; however, I think that we can reach a landing on this between the houses. For now, we oppose the amendment, but I flag my intention to support something similar.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: I will move to subclause (1)(h), which is the last part of this clause I have questions about. I believe that this brings the capacity to manage native animals into NRM for the first time. Previously, it sat with the National Parks and Wildlife Act. It would be good to confirm that this is a reform, a change, but my question is about how this will work.

I absolutely appreciate that there are overabundant native species and that they are a problem for themselves, a problem for productive lands and also a problem for ecosystems, but they are not always all of those. It is possible that a native species can be a problem for productive use of land but not otherwise cause harm or be overabundant, in the sense that its removal and destruction would not cause a problem with its general population, if I am not speaking in too many circles. Subclause (1)(h) begins:

…the management of any native animals that adversely affect the natural or built environments, people or primary production…

How does that sit with the need to consider the native animals in their own right and within their own ecosystem and not just the way in which they affect human activity?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Firstly, I want to inform and reassure the committee that permits, largely permits for destruction but also other animal-related permits, will continue to be administered under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

However, the deputy leader raises a vexed problem and she would be more than aware that the Natural Resources Committee is undertaking an investigation into overabundant species at the moment. As the minister, I certainly look forward to hearing the outcomes of that investigation because I think the government will benefit from the recommendations of that committee.

As a government and certainly from the point of view of the Department for Environment and Water, we think there needs to be a role for natural resources management boards in assisting the management of overabundant species because they are boards that are inevitably, and certainly under the new legislation, closer to communities and will have a greater understanding of the impacts of overabundant native species. We really did want to have this clause in here to say that we are trying to find a legislative response for what is a very tricky issue for any minister for environment and water historically in this state, and that is dealing with overabundant native species that could be having a social or environmental impact but could also of course be having a negative economic impact on the landscape.

This does not necessarily need to be a negative outcome for native species, for example, resulting in their destruction. There is also an opportunity here, when landscape boards are taking a community-level approach to the management of overabundant native species, that could include NRM boards having their education role activated, providing people with advice and knowledge about how to manage their land in a way that potentially discourages native species without destroying them. It might include support for fencing, wildlife corridors, native plantings and things like that that would detract from the species using the agricultural landscape for food, etc.

This is one small section in the act. We could talk about it for days, but we actually do see a role. What we want to create is an opportunity for landscape boards to be involved in this space. We do not want it to be a role just for the Department for Environment and Water. That is why we are broadening responsibility. I emphasise that we think there is a positive opportunity here for boards to work alongside the communities that they represent to manage wildlife, rather than destroy wildlife.

When we went out to regional South Australia with the 20-plus regional forums, this was something that was repeatedly asked for during the consultation phase. People continually brought this up as being an immediate and very visible problem. Part of that, no doubt, is because of the dry impacts in parts of our state. When we were out consulting, parts of our state were under pressure, and still are, from long periods of dry weather. This was enhanced in the minds of people—top of mind—particularly those working the land. It came out in many of our forums across the state. Of course, that was usually in relation to kangaroos, but not always.

Dr CLOSE: I just signal that I will look at whether there is a form of words that might give some comfort that this activity could not happen in isolation of understanding the potential ecological or biodiversity conservation impacts of these kinds of mechanisms. Again, through the houses, we will see if we can find something so that we are not in the position where boards are supporting mechanisms that might exclude animals from having access to water, for example, because those animals are causing a local problem for a farmer, because that could cause a negative ecological impact. I am sure that is not what you are intending. So we might just see if we can find a form of words.

Clause passed.

Clause 24.

Dr CLOSE: Before I move my amendments, I have some questions about the way in which the Green Adelaide board itself, or on the basis of interaction with its community, will be able to determine what matters. In a document that is otherwise quite light on specificity and is designed to enable the capacity for boards or the minister to make decisions, I find it curious that the number seven has been chosen and that those priorities have been established through legislation.

I would like to understand where those seven priorities came from and whether there has been any consideration of the capacity to change them at some stage. There are probably many examples of priorities that one could think of that are not in the list, but the one that particularly leapt out at me was climate adaptation, given that is a pressing issue already in the urban environment and will also be so in the very near future.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the deputy leader for a very reasonable question on this point. When we established the seven key priorities relating to Green Adelaide, we were very keen to try to capture, in a broad sense, all the main bodies of work undertaken in the context of the metropolitan environment by the current Adelaide and Mount Lofty NRM Board. It is my view that these items, if done well, achieve what is probably an overarching outcome that the deputy leader refers to as climate adaptation. We really want this body to focus on the effective environmental management of the urban environment.

We think that having a body like this is, in many ways, an Australian first. In the greening of our city, we have the opportunity to be an international leader. If we get priorities A to G right and get them functioning well, it is my view that the overarching climate adaptation outcome will be achieved. I would go further than the deputy leader and, rather than inserting something like climate adaptation as one of the seven priorities, I actually think that is part of the resilience that we are aiming to build with respect to climate. That is found in point 1, immediately above the outline of the seven priorities. I think climate resilience is actually the overarching objective of the body to be known as Green Adelaide.

The fulfilment of the seven key priorities as they stand, including the greening of the city to reduce the urban heat island and the creation of more resilience in the natural habitats within the metropolitan environment, would achieve that. I have given a rationale for not having climate as one of the seven but, to go back to the reasoning for the seven being picked, that was as a result of an analysis of the work that the current NRM board undertakes in the Adelaide context.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.