Landscape South Australia Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 24.

Dr CLOSE: We are on clause 24, and I previously asked a number of questions about subclause (2). I would like to move two amendments (not combined, but one after the other) that I have to that clause. I move:

Amendment No 3 [Close–2]—

Page 41, line 36 [clause 24(2)(c)]—Before 'water' insert:

biodiversity sensitive and

I have done this at the request of a couple of organisations involved with the environment movement. These organisations are concerned that the legislation be forward facing. While the term 'biodiversity sensitive urban design' is not in common use, it is an expression that is beginning to be used.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the deputy leader for her amendment. The government will support this amendment. I think this is a really good addition to the bill. One of the good things about this process is that we can use the committee stage of the debate to refine proposed legislation that is before the parliament.

As I have previously indicated to the house and to the deputy leader, we did not accept a number of amendments the last time around because of various internal processes—both party political and departmental—that I wanted to follow through. It is my intention to potentially return to some of those between the houses or address them in the upper house.

Equally, while I will oppose a number of amendments that are before us today, I want to indicate to the deputy leader that we may look at alternative wording or alternative placement within the legislation, in order to have the desired effect that the deputy leader might be intending. We will work through those amendments as we get to them.

As it stands, with the amendment that the deputy leader has proposed to clause 24, which is to insert the term 'biodiversity sensitive' before 'water sensitive urban design' to ensure that we are capturing water and biodiversity as a key priority of Green Adelaide, I think this fits with the spirit and direction we want for Green Adelaide. We believe this body can have a bold greening agenda for our capital city. We think it is a great direction in which to head, and we think this could be world leading.

As I am sure the deputy leader is aware, the term 'biodiversity sensitive urban design' has been advanced in Melbourne in particular. As we develop Green Adelaide, it is definitely my intention to look to other jurisdictions to see what good things are happening, whether that be in Australia or overseas. No doubt, Melbourne will be one of those places. With that, I accept the deputy leader's amendment.

Amendment carried.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Close–1]—

Page 41, line 38 [clause 24(2)(e)]—Delete 'and flora' and substitute:

, flora and ecosystem health

Clause 24(2)(e) in the bill presently reads 'fauna and flora in the urban environment'. My amendment would change that to 'fauna, flora and ecosystem health', recognising that fauna and flora in themselves do not necessarily constitute a healthy ecosystem.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The government will oppose this amendment. It is our view that promoting ecosystem health more broadly is part of delivering integrated landscape management, and the concept of integrated landscape management is at the very heart of the legislation that we are developing and is before the house today. The concept of integrated landscape management is reflected as a headline objective of the legislation that all boards, including Green Adelaide, will be required to consider and seek to further in their functions.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: I want to pick up one question on the clause about those seven priorities and ask the minister: should the board form a view that those priorities are no longer the right ones—they might seek an additional one or they might seek to replace one—is there a mechanism by which they are able to do that?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Of course, the board could prevail on the minister of the day to seek to amend the legislation, which would be the most direct way of doing it, I guess. Under clause 23 there is the opportunity for the minister to assign other functions to the board. Under this legislation, we class Green Adelaide as one of the regional boards; for the purposes of the legislation, it is one of the regional boards. Clause 23(i) provides 'such other functions assigned to the board by the Minister or by or under this or any other Act', so there would be the possibility of the Green Adelaide board speaking to the minister to enable that through clause 23(i).

However, as I said to the house before, it is the aim of this legislation and the priorities of Green Adelaide to comprehensively capture what occurs now and what is occurring with the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. We think we have been able to capture that. We have consulted broadly on these priorities and my view is that we attained through very solid and authentic engagement a broad agreement on these priorities notwithstanding my desire to have that biodiversity-sensitive urban design included at paragraph (c).

Dr CLOSE: The final question I have on this clause is whether there is a definition in the act of what a pest animal or a pest plant is?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Both animals and plants are defined in the preliminary part of the act, which includes the definitions. When it comes to defining pests, part 9—Control of animals and plants, expands the concept of pests. What we are looking at here is declared plants and animals that have been declared pests, which are included under part 9 of the bill and would be in clause 183.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Dr CLOSE: A question has been raised with me by the Landcare organisation about the nature of the election commitment relating to the grassroots grants program. Their strong impression was that this money would have a couple of features that it appears not to have as it is expressed in this legislation. One feature is that it be in addition to the funds already being assigned to natural resources management—so the funds that come through the levy. It would be an additional grant program available. Another feature is that it be statewide rather than a requirement for each individual board to administer their own.

A question that arises from their concern is the question of equity across regions. For example, a board that has a smaller fund because it has a lower levy base may not be able to provide as much of a grassroots program as another board that has a greater financial capacity to do so. I invite the minister to respond to the question about it being out of step with the election commitment and also the way in which this will operate in a way that it is equitable.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have also picked up the same feedback, that there was an assumption or an understanding, particularly from the Landcare Association of South Australia—a great organisation that does so much to represent the grassroots focus that we want from this legislation. I would say that is a misunderstanding. At no point did the election commitment in my public statements say that this would be additional funding.

The spirit or the philosophy behind the creation of the grassroots grants fund was to ensure that a portion of the levy take in each region would be handed back to community groups to develop the capacity to expand the reach of the funds and to not only create community capacity but also stretch funding further. It is ideologically my point of view and that of this government that, if you empower community groups and organisations such as the Landcare Association, the Agricultural Bureau and friends groups, we will be in a far stronger position to stretch money further through partnerships.

We wanted to say that a portion of every levy take in each region will be handed back to the community through a structured grants process that would enable on-ground works to be taken out in partnership with community groups, having Landscape South Australia, or the landscape boards, as a key partner, as a grant funder. It is certainly my view that there was never an intention that these would be additional funds but, rather, a guarantee that there would be that giving back of money through grants.

We know that grants have come and gone through the NRM process. Some boards have been very committed to grants. Others have not been so forthcoming in providing grants to their communities. Grants programs are always very easy to cut when difficult financial times emerge, so we wanted to ensure that the confidence of having a consistent grants program was built into legislation.

The deputy leader also referred to the statewide pool. That was something that was considered. I would not say there was any commitment made. In the early days, I certainly discussed a statewide pool of funds. But, through our engagement and consultation process, it became very clear that communities wanted their boards to have autonomy over their grants, and that would create a level of fairness. Grants could be targeted to particular local issues and priorities, and that could be done by boards rather than by one central large pool of funding. It was definitely shaped through feedback from our very thorough and broad engagement stations across the state.

Communities said, 'Give us our own grants pool so that that can be administered by boards and so we can have confidence that that is then redistributed into our local communities.' Obviously, some boards have a smaller levy take. The AW board, the Kangaroo Island board and the Arid Lands board are the three which, because of population, have particularly low levy takes. That means that their grants will be lower. As a consequence of this legislation, the boards of those communities will have access to the statewide priorities fund, which is that redistribution of Adelaide's money, which is a much larger landscape scale grant scheme as well.

Clause passed.

Clauses 27 to 32 passed.

Clause 33.

Dr CLOSE: This is the section where we get into what will be the new staffing arrangements. Many questions have been raised with me by environment groups and also by the union about what this will mean. Can I start with the industrial conditions that these workers will be under? Is the EBA that they are currently signed up to going to remain in force, not only for the remainder of its term? Will they be the conditions under which the new EBA will occur or will there be a shift because they have moved into a different category?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the deputy leader for her question. It is an important matter, and clearly one that she ought to raise on behalf of the people who raised it with her. It has been something that we have worked through carefully. The decentralisation of the boards will inevitably create staffing changes, perhaps a feeling of uncertainty among the workforce, and that has been something that, as minister, I have made very clear to the officials within my department that we must work through in a careful, sensitive and appropriate way, consulting heavily not only with the staff affected but also with their representation through the union and in particular the Public Service Association.

Engagement has commenced with the Public Service Association and will continue during the change process and, as appropriate, union consultation will occur in accordance with applicable industrial instruments. Similarly, engagement will occur with other public sector unions as required if that is identified as being necessary. It is intended that any employees who transfer to a board as part of the Landscape SA reform will do so with predominantly the same or similar terms and conditions of their current employment, and this will be subject to further work as part of the transition planning.

Terms and conditions of employment will be the subject of significant consultation with affected employees and their unions. As the Green Adelaide board will be supported by DEW employees, it is worth saying on the record here that the terms and conditions that apply to those employees will not change at all. The change, if any, will occur to those who are moving out of the department structure with landscape boards. But, as I really emphasise, the aim is that terms and conditions of employment will be largely the same.

Dr CLOSE: Will terms and conditions, or the enterprise agreement under the way in which the legislation is written, potentially differ between boards?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Deputy leader, it is technically possible that the terms and conditions could be different between the landscape boards, but it would be largely my intention and that of the organisation to keep those as consistent as possible to really ensure mobility across the organisation. We would fully expect—as occurs at the moment—people to move between boards and between the departmental organisation and the boards. Efforts will be made to maintain that consistency, but technically they could be different between boards.

Dr CLOSE: And there will be boards with larger funds at their disposal than other boards?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes. In terms of just the salaries or the bucket of money they have, yes, definitely.

Dr CLOSE: And there is nothing in this piece of legislation that would require a particular level of work to be done at a particular payment?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The staff who are involved with boards continue to be public servants, so this legislation will not deal with their employment conditions. Other pieces of legislation will deal with that because they remain public sector employees.

Dr CLOSE: I think that there is some confusion between 'public sector' and 'public servant' that the minister might like to clarify. The do not remain public servants: they do remain in the public sector.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, that is correct. Apologies, deputy leader. They remain public sector employees, not public servants.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Thank you, deputy leader. I will move clause 33 as printed. All those—

Dr CLOSE: Can I just ask a question because I have not previously been limited to the number. Is that clause—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I know, because that is my discretion. Indeed—

Dr CLOSE: Can I ask for clarity for the future?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Yes.

Dr CLOSE: Is it that under all of clause 33 there can only be three questions, or there could be under each of the subclauses?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): No, just under the clause. There are three per clause, per member. Sorry about that, deputy leader.

Clause passed.

Clauses 34 and 35 passed.

Clause 36.

Dr CLOSE: On clause 36, a question has been raised with me about how we maintain a firewall so that the funds held by the board are not able to be used by the department.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I guess your question goes to the very spirit of the legislation. One of the driving motivations for having it was to create a situation where there was not a feeling, particularly in regional communities, that their levy was being used by the department central to prop up the bottom line of the budget. That was one of the driving policy rationales for the creation of the Landscape South Australia Bill.

Under this legislation, each board will be required to have a separate account. We are working through the financial governance arrangements and what that looks like with the Department of Treasury and Finance. The assurance I can give you is that the account is required by legislation for each board but that the policy rationale for the decentralisation is to prevent exactly what you have suggested from occurring.

There will, of course, be opportunities and we do not want to reduce or cut off or prevent the opportunity from boards sharing resources with each other or, indeed, working with the department central to achieve outcomes along the way, as occurs at the moment, but we want to make sure that occurs in a sensible and cost-effective way. We will not be closing the door to those opportunities at all, but it will be governed by the board and by the board members.

Clause passed.

Clauses 37 to 41 passed.

Clause 42.

Dr CLOSE: My first question relates to the consultation that was undertaken in determining what the landscape strategy would cover and what kind of feedback the minister received on what environment groups and also landholders wanted to see in the state landscape strategy.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The requirement in the act for the state landscape strategy was one of our ways of simplifying in legislation the work of the boards in comparison with what occurs with the natural resources management boards as they stand. There seemed to be a criticism not only since I became the minister but during my 14 months or so as the shadow minister that there was a perception—again, particularly in regional communities—that NRM boards do a lot of planning, planning, planning and not a lot of doing. That was a substantial criticism.

This state landscape strategy is designed to be a simpler body of work that really focuses on creating a long-term vision for managing the statewide landscape and ensuring we have considerable community feedback shaping that as well. Engagement will be critical to the development process of the first state landscape strategy. I hope the process of developing it will occur soon after the legislation has passed. It will be a key part of the work of the new boards and the department to get that body of work underway.

The statewide planning for this will need to take regional priorities into account. Each board will have their own plan, and those priorities will need to be taken into account with regional plans, outlining how those priorities are expected to maintain, protect, improve or enhance the state of landscapes at a regional and local level. Engagement at all levels will be critical, with stakeholders, with other boards, but the key finding that we had from our community consultation and our engagement with stakeholders, conservation groups, the PPSA, etc., was to make sure that community feedback and authentic engagement are embedded in the development of this strategy.

There has been a lot of endorsement of the process that we went through to develop this legislation in terms of the engagement. I heard people on both sides of the house make positive comments about that. My intention would be to reflect that style of authentic engagement through the development of the state landscape strategy.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 12 [Close–1]—

Page 53, after line 41 [clause 42(3)]—Insert:

(da) assess the state and condition of the natural resources of the State; and

(db) identify existing and future risks of damage to, or degradation of, the natural resources of the State; and

(dc) provide for monitoring and evaluating the state and condition of the natural resources of the State; and

Essentially, this is to restore the science work that was being done under the current act. I am seeking to have the landscape strategy require an assessment of the state and condition of the natural resources. I accept that that appears to a degree under subclause (4), but this makes it a more active process, assessing the state and condition. It also identifies risks, existing and future. It is difficult to have a good strategy if you do not know what the risks are. Thirdly, it provides for the monitoring and evaluation that are so essential in order to know not only whether those risks are coming to fruition but also that the activities that are occurring under the strategy are having their desired effect. I therefore move that amendment.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, deputy leader. You have moved three new paragraphs. I would like to test your interest in my accepting paragraph (db) but not (da) or (dc). Of course, there are other places for us to work through that if required. It is my view that (da), 'assess the state and condition of the natural resources of the State', and (dc), 'provide for monitoring and evaluating the state and condition of the natural resources of the State', are included in the broader functions of the act. But it does make sense, in our view, to pursue your new paragraph (db), 'identify existing and future risks of damage to, or degradation of, the natural resources of the State'.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Is that acceptable to you?

Dr CLOSE: Am I able to ask a question about this without losing a question?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Yes, I will permit that.

Dr CLOSE: You are very generous, sir. I think we should probably vote either in favour of or against this amendment so that it does not get complicated if for no other reason than we can work it out in the Legislative Council. In considering how we go in the Legislative Council, my question really is: who does the assessing of the state and condition? Who provides for monitoring and evaluation under the general act? Who is actually going to do it, who is required to do it, who is held to account? If it does not sit in the state landscape strategy, which has clear accountability, how do I know that that is going to happen?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: If you look at clause 9 of the bill, the minister has a whole range of functions. Essentially, the instrument of the minister is the Department for Environment and Water in this case. It has a range of headline functions. They require the minister to provide that information, support and advice to boards, depending on which way you look at it. Boards have a corresponding requirement to include that information in their plans, which is also embedded in the legislation. So I am quite confident that the knowledge, understanding, science and factual foundation are issues that the boards will have to deal with by legislation.

Dr CLOSE: It is my inclination to proceed with moving my amendment, and we will look at how we can reassure ourselves between the houses before we see amendments upstairs.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I understand that the minister would like to move an amendment to your amendment. For the benefit of the house, it is to insert new paragraph (db); is that correct?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes. There is every chance that we would oppose it and have to do exactly the same thing in the other house, so we might as well do it now.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I am comfortable with that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move to amend the deputy leader's amendment:

Delete paragraphs (da) and (dc).

This leaves new paragraph (db).

Amendment to amendment carried; amendment as amended carried.

Dr CLOSE: I will not proceed with amendment 13, as it does not work without having had amendment 12 pass, but I will proceed with amendment 14, which is to add 'the best available climate science information' to the list of what the state landscape strategy must take into account. I move:

Amendment No 14 [Close–1]—

Page 54, after line 9 [clause 42(4)]—Insert:

(d) the best available climate science information.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The government will oppose this amendment because the bill already requires decision-making to be informed by the best available science, and that includes climate science. Under this legislation, the minister will need to consider the significance of climate change in our environment and in developing plans, as recognising the significance of climate change is an object of the bill.

I have been keen to ensure that this legislation is modernised to ensure that it captures the importance of building a resilient landscape in the face of a changing climate up-front in the bill as a key objective. Best available climate science is one form of scientific information. Other science, such as soil science and science relating to water, will be relevant to regional planning, so we do not believe we need to insert this clause here because it is embedded within the legislation at the objectives stage.

Amendment negatived.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Do you have any more questions on this clause, deputy leader?

Dr CLOSE: I have a question that arises from the response to my proposed amendment. I have checked clause 9, which describes the things that the minister must do, and making sure that the best available science of any sort, including climate science, is not there. By what legislative instrument does the minister feel assured that the best available climate science would be embedded in a state landscape strategy?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, deputy leader, for seeking clarification. I will clarify. The bill, under clause 7, objects and principles of the act, requires us to pay attention to the principles of ecologically sustainable development. I am just following what is a complex bill. Clause 7(3) provides:

(3) The following principles should be taken into account in connection with achieving ecologically sustainable development for the purposes of this Act:

…(d) decision-making should be informed by local knowledge and expertise, and traditional Aboriginal knowledge, together with the best available science, to achieve a functioning, resilient and productive landscape and avoiding, where practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment.

I apologise for hopping around the legislation but that is where the section on ESD and best available science is found.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 43.

Dr CLOSE: The order of the amendments is dictated by the order of the bill, but in fact one makes absolutely no sense without the other, so I will gauge by the reaction to the first amendment whether the second one, which is the one that has consequence, is likely to be supported. I move:

Amendment No 15 [Close–1]—

Page 54, line 17 [clause 43(1)]—Delete 'The Minister' and substitute:

Subject to subsection (1a), the Minister

Amendment No 16 [Close–1]—

Page 54, after line 22 [clause 43]—Insert:

(1a) The Minister must at least, in acting under subsection (1), 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.

I would like to explain the reason I have put these in. Every stakeholder who has spoken to me has been concerned that undertaking such consultation as the minister determines to be necessary is not enough comfort or protection for them. That is no reflection on the current incumbent. The concern is that at least the peak bodies ought to be required to be consulted; therefore, my proposition is that there be consultation with the bodies that are, in the opinion of the minister, who is still retaining some discretion, the peak bodies concerned with environment and land use in the state.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the deputy leader for a very worthy contribution. We will oppose these amendments today, but we will certainly look at alternative wording with the shadow minister. We are working through this legislation and trying to strike the balance between not creating too much bureaucracy and red tape around consultation and, at the same time, valuing and seeing engagement and consultation and connection to community as being at the very heart of what we are all about with this decentralised natural resources management model.

Given the scope and status of the state landscape strategy, it is recognised that there will always be a need to consult with key stakeholders in establishing and reviewing the strategy. Because that is so inherent in what needs to happen, we did not want to be overly prescriptive as to how that occurred. However, these amendments are worthy of consideration between the houses, and we will certainly look to land an outcome that is acceptable to the sector and the shadow minister as a consequence of that.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 44 passed.

Clause 45.

Dr CLOSE: I have several amendments that relate to this clause. In fact, I think all my remaining amendments relate to this clause. My concerns and questions are twofold. One is around the lack of a frame in which the regional plan needs to sit, other than going right back to the objectives and the principles—so a more discrete picture of what the board is required to do in producing a regional landscape plan. The other is an insistence on how many priorities are to be pursued.

I understand the desire, and indeed the desire that has come from feedback the minister has received, that one does not want plans that are overly extensive, overly detailed, and that take all the effort of their board to prepare and there is no effort left, no room or time left for acting on what needs to happen on the land. Nonetheless, I am wary of a piece of legislation that restricts a board to five priorities at a time.

I am concerned that, in principle, it removes from the board the right, the ability, the capacity to identify more and that it risks making these plans overly dictated by a desire for neatness and simplicity, rather than being dictated by the needs of the community and the needs of the environment, that may express itself then in five, six, seven, or even three priorities. I have amendments to each of those and I invite the minister to give a general response for us to look at between houses.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This really is again a very central part of the reform in trying to get a streamlined, straightforward, accessible piece of legislation that provides our landscape boards with enough discretion to deal with the challenges and opportunities environmentally that are unfolding within their region. It creates boundaries so that they really focus on getting the basics right, the foundational items in terms of environmental management, and communicating to their communities, their levy payers, that they are doing this effectively and doing it in a way that is efficient in terms of both human resources and financial resources, being the levy collected from the landowner.

Through a statewide consultation, that was something that was very apparent. Rightly or wrongly, people had a perception of money wasted. The perception was created as a result of the idea that too much money went into bureaucracies within metropolitan Adelaide. That perception can be broken through a simpler planning framework.

Requiring through legislation the concentration of five items is really getting boards away from trying to wrestle with a huge, long list of legislative requirements and getting them to sit down with their communities and engage with their communities and use the expertise that will be available on the boards, and also among the staff who will serve the boards, and use a combination of that expertise, that knowledge and understanding, to come up with a high-level, five-tier regional landscape plan that sets out five priorities for managing the regions' landscapes.

However, it is important to say that this does not preclude boards from doing other things. While we are saying, 'Identify your five key areas and put resources and effort towards them and communicate them to your community, to the people who voted you on this board or the people who pay the levy for the board. Communicate those effectively and tackle those issues,' equally, nothing precludes the board from doing lots of other things as well. There will be other legislative requirements which fall under the legislation, which is part of business as usual, day-to-day business and functions of these boards, but which do not necessarily fall into that headline five-priority five-year plan.

We are not going to accept any of these amendments because we do believe that it adds a section of complexity to what is one of the central tenets of this legislation, which is to have a simplified planning framework.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Deputy leader, any further questions?

Dr CLOSE: No. I will now move my amendments and simply say that the central tenet of the legislation should be protecting, conserving and restoring landscape rather than being simple. Given that the minister indicated that he will not be supporting any of them, I am happy to move them all together.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There is one amendment that I want to accept and one that I want to highlight to the deputy leader that I would be very willing to take a look at between the houses in terms of alternative wording.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Minister, before you go on, which one are you prepared to further consider?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Amendment No. 20, which inserts the word 'value'. Amendment No. 21 is one I would like to work on. Can we oppose the first three?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Perhaps the deputy leader would move her amendments Nos. 17 to 19.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Close–1]—

Page 55, after line 2 [clause 45(1)]—Insert:

(aa) include information about the issues surrounding the management of natural resources and the state of landscapes at the regional and local level, including information as to methods for protecting, improving and enhancing the quality or value of natural resources within the relevant region, and the health of those aspects of the environment that depend on those natural resources; and

Amendment No 18 [Close–1]—

Page 55, line 7 [clause 45(1)(a)(ii)]—Delete 'its 5' and substitute 'at least 5'

Amendment No 19 [Close–1]—

Page 55, line 15 [clause 45(1)(c)]—After 'level' insert:

, with particular reference to the conservation, use and management of natural resources,

Amendments negatived.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 20 [Close–1]—

Page 55, line 16 [clause 45(1)(c)(i)]—Delete 'and quality' and substitute ', quality and value'

Amendment carried.

Dr CLOSE: I no longer wish to pursue amendment No. 21. We will have a discussion between the houses. Now that I reflect on it, I was going to ask some more questions about its absence between the act and the bill, so I will not proceed with it, but I move amendment No. 22:

Amendment No 22 [Close–1]—

Page 55, after line 28 [clause 45]—Insert:

(1a) A regional landscape plan must take into account the best available climate science information.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 46 to 50 passed.

Clause 51.

Dr CLOSE: I understand that water allocation plans effectively have not changed in this piece of legislation from the current act, but I had a query, when we talk about the key features of the plan, about the method by which scientific input is sought and expressed in the plans.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Because water is such a complex area, I have another water adviser here to provide additional support on these clauses. The Department for Environment and Water provides the scientific advice to the boards, and that would continue. That is the current situation with natural resources management boards across the state when it comes to water allocation plans, and that approach would continue under the proposed legislation that is before us.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There will always be conflicting scientific opinions and a responsible minister should respond to those communities.

Clause passed.

Clauses 52 to 63 passed.

Clause 64.

Dr CLOSE: We now move to the often vexed question of levies. The changes are not clear to me. I do not think there are necessarily significant changes in the manner by which the levies are raised. But given our earlier discussion about the changes in the boundaries, I have some consequent questions, then I also have a question about the cap. One concern that has been raised with me is that in the changing of the boundaries there might be a net loss for a board; they will lose revenue and not gain it in another area. I invite the minister to say how any transition will be managed and how any long-term disadvantage will be managed.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, deputy leader; you do raise a good point. There has been much discussion about this. While raising the levy is very important to enable boards to undertake environmental works on-ground, it is also important that levies do not have an undue cost of living impact on South Australian landowners and South Australian households.

With that in mind, we have tried to strike that balance. There will only be significant change occurring where boards are impacted by the abolition of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, the creation of Green Adelaide, the creation of the new Hills and Fleurieu board, and then the area to the north of Adelaide which will change as a consequence of that as well. So you are right to identify that there will be that knock-on effect because different regions currently calculate their levies in different ways and use different methodologies to do that.

Any impact of the reforms of land levies will be mitigated through a three-year transition scheme approved and gazetted by the minister. This aims to ensure that people will not pay higher land levies as a result of finding themselves in a different region that calculates its boundaries using a different methodology. That was very important to deal with that cost of living aspect. The Local Government Association will be consulted and any impacted arrangements for land levies collected during the transitional period. These arrangements are provided for in clause 94 of schedule 5 of the bill which enables the minister to put in place a transitional scheme for financial years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23.

Dr CLOSE: A second question: could there be a net loss to NRM levy revenue altogether? Because there are different calculations, could it be that overall the sum that is raised becomes smaller because of the change of the boundaries? Has there been any work done to model that in considering the way that the boundaries will change?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is the case, deputy leader. That could certainly occur in a couple of the regions if you exclude Hills and Fleurieu because that is a new creation, essentially. Obviously, Green Adelaide has less money because it is a new entity with different boundaries. But you could have a situation where the SA Murray-Darling Basin board has a lower overall quantum of money because it no longer has particularly the regional settlement of Mount Barker, and the Northern and Yorke board could have a smaller levy take as well.

We have done modelling with that. We certainly believe that the impacts of that reduced levy-take in those regions will not be as substantial as to prevent them from carrying out their functions and we are balancing the cost of living versus raising enough money to undertake the implementation of this piece of legislation.

It should be also mentioned that, because of the creation of the statewide priority fund that we are using to distribute some of Adelaide's levy, there would be an opportunity through the creation of that for regional boards to gain large, centrally provided grants using the Green Adelaide levy-take to undertake very large works. As a consequence, that opportunity is likely to offset the lesser levy-take in those couple of regions. We cannot guarantee what projects will get up, of course, but it is likely to offset that.

Dr CLOSE: In terms of the cap, the bill foresees some methods by which that could be changed in exceptional circumstances. Is there a mechanism for the community to ask for that or can it only occur through discussion between the board and the minister?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There is no specific mechanism within the legislation to trigger the community seeking for the CPI cap to be buried; however, the boards can certainly do that by putting together a case and coming to the minister. I would hope that boards would have a connection with the community so that if there was a particular issue that the community thought needed to be dealt with, that would be fed through to the boards. Our plan is that they will be closer to community with, obviously, community voice on them as a consequence of the elected members on those boards.

Of course, any proposal, whether it is initiated in the community and taken to the board or initiated by the board themselves, will need to still address the exceptional circumstances test. Exceptional situations where benefits outweigh the costs will also constitute exceptional circumstances, providing flexibility to deal with unforeseen eventualities within communities or regions.

Dr CLOSE: I understand the concept of exceptional circumstances, but we live in exceptional times with climate change and the biodiversity crisis. Would either of those trigger a minister under this act to be able to lift the money that is required for a board?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The legislation requires that exceptional circumstances would need to be demonstrated through consultation with communities and then brought to the minister. They could be used to address infrastructure issues or natural or environmental disasters, which of course we know are increasing in the face of a changing climate. That would fall under the reference that the deputy leader has made. Or it could be some other major event with an adverse impact on a significant part of the community.

I would see the invasion of a pest species or a particular plant as falling under that category as well, leading back to that test that exceptional situations where the benefits outweigh the costs will also constitute exceptional circumstances. What the deputy leader is after—the challenges to biodiversity, the increasing storm events, the natural disasters that we are grappling with at an environmental level—would certainly be captured in this area. That is really one of the central reasons why we built this into the legislation.

Clause passed.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I rise to give a personal explanation.

The CHAIR: Minister, we are in committee at the moment, so you will have to find a time to do that when we come out of committee, which may or may not be tonight. The Clerk says that you can do it towards the end of the evening, so keep that in mind, minister.

Clause 65 passed.

Clause 66.

Dr CLOSE: The clause states that funds may be expended in subsequent years. If several NRM boards carry over money, or if one NRM board carries over money to a high degree, does that contribute to the budget bottom line? Does it appear within the budget papers as money that the state holds?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am advised that nothing has changed with regard to this part of the legislation, so it would appear in the budget for the following year. However, where funding has accumulated, a carryover of expenditure authority must be sought through standard Department of Treasury and Finance processes to ensure that board expenditure in subsequent financial years does not exceed cabinet approved budget targets.

Clause passed.

Clauses 67 and 68 passed.

Clause 69.

Dr CLOSE: I think this is the first of several questions that will sound identical. Are there any changes between the existing act and this bill in relation to the activity in this clause?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There are three changes to the situation here. The first is that the bill introduces the concept of the CPI cap on land levies outside council areas in the same way as we have the CPI cap in other areas. The second change is that the levy will be declared by the board and published in the Government Gazette. Previously, it was declared by the minister and declared in the Government Gazette.

Then there is a new clause—and this clause partially replaces section 97 of the NRM Act—which has been separated into two headings, creating two options for the basis on which the land levy is charged, which will no longer be available as they have never been used and it is seen as an unnecessary component of the NRM Act.

I believe that the department actually suggested this be removed. These are the location of and the purpose for which rateable land is used and the area of land. Under the previous act that was never used for the calculation of the levies in out-of-council areas.

Clause passed.

Clauses 70 to 72 passed.

Clause 73.

Dr CLOSE: What changes, if any, are there in effect between this bill and the current act?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am advised that this clause is exactly the same as the equivalent clause in the Natural Resources Management Act.

Clause passed.

Clauses 74 to 85 passed.

Clause 86.

Dr CLOSE: What changes, if any, are there between the act and this clause?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There are no changes to this either. It simply replicates the provision in section 115 of the NRM Act.

Clause passed.

Clauses 87 to 90 passed.

Clause 91.

Dr CLOSE: When it comes to the landscape priorities fund, I am interested in understanding what public consultation might be undertaken on the expenditure of the fund, what scientific input will be required and why the minister has chosen not to have a board or any kind of external body oversee its expenditure.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the deputy leader for her question. The landscape priorities fund has one of the greatest pieces of potential within the new legislation. It is a solid piece of policy reform that can really stretch the landscape-scale transformation that can be achieved as a consequence of applying some of Adelaide's levy take to the broader state landscape. The fund will be applied to projects that have a relationship with the state landscape strategy.

In debate in committee earlier, the deputy leader and I discussed the potential amendment that would insert consultation or engagement with peak bodies, something that I am more than happy to look at between the houses. The bill requires consultation in developing the statewide strategy, which would then be used to guide investment from the fund. I would be quite confident that the communities' desires would be mirrored through the statewide strategy, which will involve community consultation on the use, direction and targeting of the landscape priorities fund. That is the consultation side of it—it has that link.

In terms of scientific input, I would bring the deputy leader back to the objects and principles of the bill, under clause 7, and the concept around ecologically sustainable development, which forms the key part of the objects of the bill. That concept would require scientific input to be referenced or paid due attention to through the process of administering the fund. You asked a last question—

Dr CLOSE: About the board.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —about the role of a board or a selection. I have never foreseen this being used as a fund to undertake particular projects at the will or the discretion of the minister. I think there would be a departmental selection body involved to assess projects, which I would foresee being competitively tendered or put to this fund for funding. Certainly, my intention would be that the department would establish a selection panel or a committee with representatives from, potentially, Green Adelaide, other landscape boards across the state or other peak bodies. I think there would have to be some sort of selection panel in place.

Clause passed.

Clauses 92 to 99 passed.

Clause 100.

Dr CLOSE: Are there any changes in the expression of this section of the bill to the effect in the current act?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We have moved into the water section of the act: clause 100—Water affecting activities control policies. This is a new provision. This clause specifies the matters that a policy may contain or address in relation to water-affecting activities. Currently, rules about water-affecting activities for water resources are set out in 10-year regional NRM plans, water allocation plans or, on occasion, three-year business plans.

To promote consistent approaches to establishing rules by boards, enable simplification of regional landscape plans and provide greater consistency and clarity for customers on where rules on water-affecting activities are, this clause provides for rules for water-affecting activities, such as building a dam or drilling a bore, to be set out in either a water-affecting activities control policy or a water allocation plan.

A policy should not overlap the provisions of a water allocation plan in relation to any prescribed watercourse. Requirements for preparation and amendment of policies are set out in schedule 2 of the bill. Mandatory consultation will be required in accordance with guidelines prepared by the minister and any requirements prescribed by regulations.

A policy may be prepared by a regional landscape board, or the chief executive of the Department for Environment and Water in the case of Green Adelaide. Transitional provisions will ensure operational viability of current plans as boards effect these streamlined processes. This clause was formulated upon receiving feedback and also expertise, knowledge and understanding put forward through consultation within the Department for Environment and Water.

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate that the minister said the changes are as a result of feedback, but can he further elaborate on why he has chosen to change this part of the water area within the act, whereas he has left all, or nearly all, of the other elements relating to water alone?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader is right to identify that we largely left the water components of the Natural Resources Management Act in place without significant change or amendment, apart from occasional modification of language and issues around potentially dated components; however, the previous legislation had quite a convoluted prescriptive approach to this, which was seen as potentially bureaucratic. As I said, this was suggested by the water experts within the department, so the creation of clause 100 simplifies the approach. It modernises it and aims to have a less bureaucratic approach to dealing with water-affecting activities than was previously in the NRM Act.

Dr CLOSE: Is it possible that water-affecting activities will now be permitted that are not currently permitted under the existing act?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am advised that is not the case. The controls that are in place and the regulating activities remain the same. It is the process side of things that has been modernised in this act.

Clause passed.

Clauses 101 to 104 passed.

Clause 105.

Dr CLOSE: I am not sure whether I am able to ask a question over multiple clauses, but it will save time if you can give an answer that covers clauses 105 to 109 as to whether there are any effective changes between the current act and the bill.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There have been a couple of terminology updates, but that is just for consistency, in terms of language, which would not affect the conduct or execution of the bill. The main change is the change to penalties. We lifted the penalties by using the CPI from the period when the NRM Act had been created to the present day. The maximum penalties that may be imposed by the court have increased. That is quite a substantial increase on paper but that is because it was felt, and I would strongly agree with this, that the passage of time had seen the punitive implications of the penalties in these sections diminish.

Clause passed.

Clauses 106 to 182 passed.

Clause 183.

Dr CLOSE: We turn to the question of pest plants and animals, which the minister has been at pains to say are one of the back to basics that should be central to this act and central to natural resources management. I do not want to paraphrase the minister's close of the second reading inaccurately, but my understanding of what was said was that there was a great deal of concern on the minister's behalf about pest plants and animals that affect not only productivity and farmers and producers in the bush but also our ecosystems that might not have an impact on primary production but do have an affect on ecosystems, or have an impact on both but not the same impact necessarily.

My initial question is: what in part 9, clause 183 to start with, can identify that as a priority; the question of the impact of pests or overabundant species on ecosystems as opposed to on productive land?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader is welcome to paraphrase my contribution earlier to the house in that if I was not clear about that, and hopefully I was, her interpretation of it is certainly accurate in that it is not just the economic impact of overabundant species or pest plants and animals, which clearly do have an economic impact, but it is their impact on ecosystems more broadly and the health of biodiversity or the occurrence, the existence, of a healthy dynamic biodiversity which will inevitably also be impacted.

In many cases, probably before the economic landscape is impacted, the biodiversity will falter and be impacted by the presence of pests. For me, that is a very important part of this legislation. I have talked about it as being quite fundamental in building the resilience of the landscape, and one of the best ways to do that is to limit the incursion of pest plants and animals. I know that is even more relevant in the face of a changing climate.

The way the legislation deals with the control of pest plants and animals is woven throughout the legislation from the objects and principles right through to part 9, which is the division that specifically looks at the declaration of pest plants and animals. I think we need to look to answer the deputy leader's question, and then, to hopefully give the deputy leader comfort, we need to look right through the bill at those principles, those objects, and then at the way the bill strengthens existing regulatory arrangements for managing pest plants and animals.

It does that in five ways. Firstly, a new type of order is being introduced in response to the feedback we have received that there needs to be a simpler and faster process for dealing with landholders who are failing to take action to destroy or control declared pests and animals, and the legislation does that. Secondly, a more structured approach is required for granting exemptions from certain pest plant and animal control offences, which is introduced through this legislation. Penalties will apply for failing to comply with those exemption conditions. Thirdly, the bill introduces a new expiation fee for possessing category 2 animals, noting that, to date, very few animals have been declared in this category. This will provide an alternative to prosecution for people possessing these animals, and that still holds them to account.

Fourthly, penalties for pest plant and animal control offences, which have not been increased since 2004, as we have dealt with in the previous response, have now been increased by up to 40 per cent, which equates to spreading CPI out over that same period. Finally, removing the distinction between state and regional authorised officers will increase compliance capacity and hence responsiveness on the ground. Regional authorised officers will no longer need to be cross-authorised by multiple boards to be able to deal with cross-boundary pest plant and animal control issues. We are trying to build in all these strengths to deal with pest plant and animal control. It is woven through the whole legislation and is obviously a central role of boards.

However, I think it comes down to programmatic rollout in terms of whether it is an economic project, a biodiversity project or both. I know the current boards have some really good examples of projects that develop multiple outcomes. The deputy leader may be aware of Rewilding Yorke and Wild Eyre, two separate projects that combine biodiversity and enhancement with economic outcomes. They are two projects that really inspire me around this legislation. The modernisation of this legislation is based on my desire to see projects like Rewilding Yorke and Wild Eyre, landscape-scale projects that enhance the economic output and sustainability of our regions but overlay that with the sustainability of biodiversity as well and demonstrate that we can do this hand in hand and in a way that potentially is world leading.

That is the sort of project that I think this legislation enables us to get a handle on, and it gives us the tools. Whether it is the landscape priorities fund or right down to the more agile compliance requirements, I think we have got it in the balance. Of course, I am happy to hear any suggestions from the deputy leader between the houses or in the upper house on that.

Dr CLOSE: It is interesting to me that I was contacted by a couple of environment groups in the last couple of days picking up on what was said in the second reading closing speech and looking at the act, so it is not just coming from me. It is possibly partly an unfortunate consequence of the minister not being able to consider some of the amendments I have proposed, which the minister has indicated he may well support between the houses or in the Legislative Council, which seek to make sure that biodiversity, ecosystems and habitat restoration are restored into this bill as they exist in the current act.

One of the questions I was asked to ask today as a result of that interaction over the question of whether pest plants and animal control is essentially targeted at agriculture and primary production rather than at natural resources and ecosystem support and protection, was: how much is currently being spent—and you may not be able to answer this here today—on those pests that are causing an impact on ecosystems or on native fauna and flora, but not yet necessarily making a difference to primary production? Having obtained that figure, does the minister expect that under this act there would be no diminution in that effort?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader makes an interesting point and one that I would be happy to explore. Obviously, I do not have the breakdown of how that works. I imagine it would be quite hard to unpick in some circumstances because multiple pests traverse multiple landscapes and are dealt with in different contexts. We will certainly take a high-level look at that within the realms of the resources that we have to do that and try to get a better understanding.

I hope there would not be a reduction. It would be completely against my aims for this legislation to see a rolling back of reduction strategies or programs for pest species that impact biodiversity as opposed to impacting an agricultural landscape, primary production, etc. I will undertake to look at that and see if it can be dealt with by way of amendment and, as previously mentioned to the deputy leader, there are a number of her previous amendments that I was not able to consider several weeks ago, prior to the debate, that I will be looking at, and I can confirm there are some that we will, no doubt, be accepting.

Dr CLOSE: Are there, in fact, any changes between the bill and the current act, as it relates to the control of animals and plants?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In my earlier longwinded answer to the deputy leader's first question on this clause, I went through five key areas in regard to pest plant and animal control that we had taken a focus on reforming and those are the five main changes. I am advised there is one offence in the previous act not replicated in this act because it had never been used and overlapped with another offence.

Clause passed.

Clauses 184 to 189 passed.

Clause 190.

Dr CLOSE: This may have already been answered in that previous answer, but just to check: when it comes to the owner of the land being required to take action to destroy or control animals or plants, has there been any change between the bill and the current act?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have largely covered this in my earlier answer. I should note that clause 190 operates alongside clause 191. Clause 191 is the new action orders, which I outlined as one of those five methods of controlling pest plants and animals, which we put in there to strengthen, but this section is largely the same as what was previously there, notwithstanding it has been modernised with the items that I mentioned in my previous long answer, if that answers the deputy leader's question.

Clause passed.

Clauses 191 to 201 passed.

Clause 202.

Dr CLOSE: Are there any changes in this section of the bill in comparison to the current act?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There have been a couple of changes, but they are really for administrative ease and the modernisation of the act. There are no substantial changes. The main change, which was also mentioned in the previous longer answer around pest plants and animals, was in relation to authorised officers. Currently, only state authorised officers can exercise powers with respect to residential premises. Going forward, this power will be exercised by any authorised officer unless limited by an instrument of appointment which could be put in place around their qualifications, etc. The power is exercisable only under a warrant or if there is reasonable belief that high-risk pest plants or animals are present on the premises.

One reason for making this reform was that in communities it can be difficult to get a state authorised officer into a small community where there might only be a very small workforce—somewhere like Kangaroo Island or another remote community—and it is just giving that broader discretion within the workforce to undertake compliance. It was really seen, again through departmental and workforce planning feedback, that this was something that ought to be modernised within the legislation to bring the legislation up to useable standards, reflecting on what was not necessarily working in a practical way with the existing NRM Act.

Dr CLOSE: If I can just clarify, that means that there might be a broader range of people who could become authorised officers for certain activities; is that correct?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, that is absolutely correct.

Clause passed.