Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Use of Pastoral Land) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2023.)

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:48): I am a little underprepared, but I will continue my remarks. As I recall, I was talking about some of the pastoral lands. Some of the rhetoric that came from the minister was about power generation and wind turbines in some of those pastoral lands. I want to put on the record that I think that one of the great disappointments in our great landscape has been the introduction of structures such as poles, wires and some of that infrastructure that has been put on our vast pastoral lands. Some of that infrastructure has been necessary and some of it has been an overreach.

My contribution here is that we will listen to the pastoralists and we will listen to the Pastoral Board to make sure that there is not that overreach with infrastructure that will invade and distract from one of the great landscapes of the world. In most instances, the pastoral lands can be a beautiful thing and a sight to behold. When we see landscapes absolutely littered and almost destroyed by poles, wires and infrastructure, sometimes that is the fault of the legislators and sometimes that is the fault of investment into our landscape, but I think it needs to be much more carefully considered and it needs to be much more carefully planned and thought through for the betterment of the state's future.

Here we are talking about the pastoral lands and the act. As a former minister responsible for pastoral lands and the Pastoral Board, it pains me to think that we have legislators, a government, that is looking to continue to invade those great pastoral lands with that invasive infrastructure.

Without further ado, I have made my contribution. I think it would be only fair to say that the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Use of Pastoral Land) Amendment Bill and the amendments should pass. We need to make sure that we protect our pastoral lands and use them for the best attributes that they pose on our great landscape.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (15:51): I rise today in support of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Use of Pastoral Land) Amendment Bill 2023. This bill seeks to deliver on yet another election commitment that we took to the people of South Australia in 2022, this time to confirm that pastoral leases can be used for carbon farming and conservation.

The bill seeks to amend the objects of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 to confirm that pastoral leases can be used for conservation and carbon farming. Carbon farming refers to the management of land or agriculture, which maximises the amount of carbon stored and minimises the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, playing an important role in global efforts to address climate change, land degradation, food insecurity and the rising threat of extinction.

Should the bill be passed, the minister responsible for the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act would be allowed to adjust the definition of carbon farming activities as carbon farming markets evolve. As the Deputy Premier has already advised, our government would consult on any proposed changes to this definition, which would happen through regulation.

The bill also seeks to preserve the role of the Pastoral Board of South Australia in relation to the approval of non-pastoral uses of pastoral land and formally recognises past decisions of the Pastoral Board approving the use of some or all of a pastoral lease for non-pastoral purposes. Successful passage of the bill would clarify that land assessments would consider the purposes for which the land is being used for all leases and clarify the required qualifications of potential Pastoral Board members nominated by the Conservation Council of South Australia.

The current threats to global biodiversity could be soon, if not already, classified as a crisis. Australia has the highest mammal extinction rate in the world. Around 12 per cent of our own native species in South Australia are threatened with extinction. The most recent available data published by the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in their Global Assessment Report suggest that as many as one million species worldwide are threatened with extinction. That is more than 40 per cent of amphibian species, almost a third of reef-formal coral, more than a third of all marine mammals and as much as 10 per cent of insect species.

We know that human activity is the largest contributor to species decline. In fact, human actions are said to have significantly altered as much as three-quarters of the land-based environment and two-thirds of the marine environment. Even if for a moment we put aside the moral obligations of sharing this planet with the other species that call it home, we have an obligation to future generations to immediately work to address this crisis. Threats to biodiversity also threaten global food production and exacerbate the impacts of climate change.

While governments, businesses and communities are slowly beginning to focus on the threat posed by climate change, we must also understand and work to reverse this alarming trend of biodiversity loss if we ever want our children to inherit a sustainable environment. South Australia rightfully has a proud history of protecting our environment. Previous state Labor governments were responsible for the greatest growth in national parks and the creation of statewide systems of wilderness protection areas and marine parks. We have a really strong system of protection of our important biodiversity, but there is more work to be done and we must continue to encourage other jurisdictions to protect biodiversity and immediately begin to address these threats.

The Malinauskas Labor government is taking biodiversity protection and restoration incredibly seriously. Recently, in one month alone we saw more than $1 million in Green Adelaide Grassroot Grants be awarded and the announcement of more than $2.2 million in funding to reduce the threat of invasive buffel grass and its destructive effect on remote landscapes and communities. Our most recent state budget included $27.1 million in investments to protect and preserve our state's unique natural environment and biodiversity. This investment includes establishing BioData SA, which will overhaul the data held by the state and guide decision-making on protection and restoration programs.

The bill before us today continues our government's work and begins to deliver on our plan to support landholders to protect nature. In November last year experienced pastoralists, land managers and conservationists were among nine new appointees to South Australia's Pastoral Board. Delivering on another state election commitment, the Pastoral Board now reports to the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, with an additional $1 million in funding over four years to be administered by the Pastoral Unit to support timely land condition assessments.

The Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 covers more than 40 per cent of South Australia's land area, including 323 leases comprising 219 stations over an area of 40 million hectares. With approval of the Pastoral Board, 21 of these existing pastoral leases are wholly used for conservation and five are used for carbon farming. However, in recent years legal uncertainty has arisen about the board's ability to approve non-pastoral uses.

Successful passage of this bill would confirm the Pastoral Board's ability to approve a range of uses of pastoral leases. It would empower Aboriginal people, regional communities and other lessees to manage pastoral lands in a variety of ways. These changes confirm that significant environmental benefit offsets and heritage arrangements under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 can be implemented on pastoral leases—tools which provide leaseholders with opportunities to receive funding for conservation activities on their lease.

The Pastoral Board's powers in relation to the management of pastoral lands and current leases will not change. All leaseholders will still need to actively manage their leases, which remain subject to the obligations of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act. Any new request to change the use of a pastoral lease will be considered by the Pastoral Board on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the act and the Pastoral Board's revised guidelines.

When the Pastoral Board approves a change in use of lease, that change will remain in force unless the lessee seeks further change. Pastoral stakeholders have been reassured that all pastoral leases, regardless of whether primary use is pastoral or conservation, will still require assessment and active management to consider broader impacts across the pastoral zone.

In closing, I would like to thank the range of organisations with a close interest in pastoral land management who helped inform this bill through consultation, particularly the Conservation Council SA, SA Nature Alliance, SA Native Title Services, First Nations of SA, and the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia.

Thank you also to the Pastoral Board, Primary Producers SA and Livestock SA, who coordinated further discussions with pastoralists. All your contributions are appreciated and play an integral role in bringing comprehensive reform and legislation to this place. I also want to thank the Deputy Premier and Minister for Climate, Environment and Water and her team for their efforts in bringing this bill before us and their ongoing leadership in continuing South Australian Labor's proud legacy of fighting for our environment.

We are proud of our legacy, but there is always more work to be done. We must continue to do everything we can in this place and call on other jurisdictions to immediately work to address the ongoing impact of climate change and threats to biodiversity, not just for ourselves but for the next generation. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:00): I rise to make some reflection about where we have got to in terms of the rangelands, the magnificent pastoral country of South Australia, and what are I think opportunities now for, firstly, the express recognition of those conservation purposes that are engaged already in a fairly extensive way through the pastoral country and also to contemplate, more particularly, some of those activities in terms of the carbon farming and those aspects that, without amendment to the act, might otherwise have been beyond the description of what constitutes activity that is compliant with a pastoral lease.

I will not reflect on the recently debated Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill, except to identify the fact that we are here in this bill making provision for the permission of what is defined to be conservation purposes on the one hand and carbon farming on the other as additional permitted uses. I make the point that carbon farming in particular in the bill is included as a kind of work-in-progress concept. It is not even defined in the bill beyond the means by which the minister will in the future go about consulting with a view better to defining what carbon farming is.

Secondly, the concepts of conservation and carbon farming in their conceptual stage, as it were, are put in the context of a non-exhaustive list of such activities because we see in clause 3(2) that we are now to contemplate not only those defined and to be defined terms but other purposes of which carbon farming and conservation purposes are just cited as examples. The board is going to have what appears to be a capacity to consider a range of activities that might broadly be analogous or similar to or achieving, broadly, aims that might be seen as in line with those terms.

Those pastoral leaseholders out there, let alone the rest of the South Australian community, will therefore be particularly aware that, in the circumstances of this bill, we are seeing the broadening of the permitted use of pastoral land by pastoral leaseholders to encompass those wider activities, including for the purposes of generating income and moving therefore into broader engagement with the economy. I will come back to some of the pastoral leases for which these provisions will have particular benefit, and that will serve to illustrate the sorts of things that are going on in the state already.

What it does not include for the benefit of those pastoral leaseholders is the capacity for pastoral leaseholders to engage in the renewable energy investment opportunities that the government tells us are coming full bore in our direction. In fact, those opportunities, and the management of how that might best be done alongside traditional pastoral activities, indeed alongside some of these activities, is expressly excluded and made the subject of another piece of legislation under which pastoral leaseholders in particular, and freehold landholders as well in certain circumstances, will be expressly excluded from the opportunity to participate in those activities, except that those activities in some cases will be more or less compulsorily applied to their pastoral lease holdings.

Those who are following this debate might, if they have not already, take a particular interest in the contents of the hydrogen renewable energy legislation because one needs to compare and contrast the range of activities and the benefits that flow as the result of them. That is in circumstances where we see an evolving environment of investment appetite for a variety of different energy uses. We also have seen a developing interest in the philanthropic and other economically motivated conservation purposes for pastoral land and, indeed, the opportunities that carbon farming might present for the benefit of the environment, for the benefit of pastoral leaseholders and for all of us as South Australians.

So let's all be clear about watching how this develops. It is incredibly important. In fact, it is fundamental to the health of the environment in the rangelands, the pastoral country of South Australia, that we see thriving communities, expert managers of pastoral country managed in such a way that there are means by which it is possible to avoid overstocking, pushing the country harder than it can manage because that is a sole source of income where other opportunities might be available. It is important that we make sure that we understand the needs of those pastoral communities, those expert pastoral leaseholders and the sorts of things they would engage in, in order to make sustainable those pastoral operations. It is vitally important.

The board, in line with clause 3 of this bill, will have a clear power now, a clear remit, to consider approving those uses of pastoral land that might include wholly conservation purposes and, as we have seen in its sort of conceptual stage, the activity of carbon farming. I spell all that out in that somewhat ponderous way to just make clear that we should be very wary that there is not, in the course of seeing these two parallel pieces of legislation, an injustice visited upon pastoral leaseholders.

We have heard the Minister for Energy and Mining in this place providing a range of assurances, and we have also seen the Minister for Energy and Mining really, to my mind, put the pastoral leaseholders of the state on their warning in terms of the range of property rights that this government considers pastoral leaseholders to enjoy or not. I commend the debate in that regard.

So here we have the capacity by this permissive legislation for the state to see, to the extent that they were not already, the permitting of conservation activities that might now thrive into the long-term future. South Australians will be familiar with the already well-known pastoral leases that are used in different ways wholly for conservation purposes, and those have been operated in a number of different ways and for shorter and longer periods of time. I understand that of the 320 or so, 323 I think, pastoral leases in South Australia, there are 21 leases that are in that category broadly already. For illustration purposes, I reflect on and celebrate three of them.

Firstly, I mention Arkaroola, one of the smaller ones. Arkaroola, for those who have visited in recent times, is a place that you do not go to by accident. It is a really remarkable part of South Australia, an extraordinarily unique part of our natural environment, sitting as it does out there at the Gammon Ranges. We know the legendary history of Reg and Griselda Sprigg, pioneering exploration and adventure in the north of South Australia and through the Simpson Desert that goes all the way back to the 1960s.

Their then young son, Doug Sprigg—I think he was about seven years old when he was first brought across in, I think, the first motorised crossing of the Simpson Desert back in the early sixties—grew up part of the family's endeavours to preserve and enhance Arkaroola. Doug has taken on the custodianship of Arkaroola and lives and shows off and maintains Arkaroola to this day. He is now one of the modern legends of northern pastoral conservation. I thank Doug and recognise him for his unique experience, his expertise, his generosity and his spirit for the north of our state. Arkaroola is continuing to do that very valuable work of informing and welcoming people to the north in the Gammon Ranges.

There are two significant pastoral properties that are owned by Nature Foundation of South Australia. I have been a member and involved in Nature Foundation of South Australia now for many years and have been involved in different ways as a volunteer, contributing to its governance, and have had the opportunity in that way to see the model under which Nature Foundation of South Australia follows a model of environmental management. As the name 'foundation' suggests, it starts with the acquisition of properties of all different kinds. Nature Foundation of South Australia has now properties spread throughout the state—some of them small, near metro landholdings, some of them held for particular environmental significance and focus—and among them two of our state's large northern pastoral lease holdings.

The first in the north is Witchelina. Witchelina is to the immediate north-east of Lake Torrens and is really, to any view beyond those used to that country in South Australia, of epic proportion. It is a really vast area of land, and it is a key example of what can be done to apply knowledge and to learn and to encourage visitation and engagement with that country in circumstances where it otherwise would be really very remote, unvisited and largely unproductive. At the time Nature Foundation of South Australia took it over, it had been run very hard indeed, and not only the land but also the infrastructure—house, shearing shed and so on—had been really very thoroughly run down.

The beauty of Nature Foundation is that the members of Nature Foundation include such a wide range of people with interest and expertise in the natural environment, including farmers and station owners, environmental experts, builders, mechanics and those with health backgrounds. You name it, there is an aspect of expertise to be able to draw upon among the membership and the active volunteers of Nature Foundation.

What Witchelina has seen in the time of Nature Foundation of South Australia's ownership is the most fascinating recovery of grazing land, the result of removing grazing for an extended period over areas that had been overgrazed. That is fascinating for farmers and pastoralists, those who run that country, to be able to test out what occurs when you apply those practices. There has been tremendous work done in pest eradication.

The size and destructive capacity of some of the wild cats that are captured and destroyed at Witchelina is really truly remarkable. In turn, that leads to the capacity to be able to share knowledge, as well as the wideranging visitation that is now possible at Witchelina by school groups and those in need of support and an opportunity to go somewhere together and to be in a place where one can enjoy natural beauty and learn and thrive in an educational way. That has been one of the tremendous opportunities for Witchelina.

And just so at Hiltaba in the Gawler Ranges. I was very fortunate with two of our children to have a very quick visit to Hiltaba earlier this year on the way over to the West Coast. Hiltaba has its own extraordinary beauty—not quite so vast as Witchelina—but, again, a place where the natural beauty of the environment can be coupled with an appreciation of its pastoral history, its carrying capacity, the measures that were taken (some of them heroic) to be able to capture and store water for the purposes of running stock and, in turn, a wonderful opportunity for visitation, education and so on.

The capacity that the bill will now formalise for those activities is to be welcomed, and I just emphasise that in taking these measures, whether by this bill or by another one previously, we ensure that we are promoting the best use of our pastoral country throughout the state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for King—and may I wish you a happy birthday as well.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:20): Thank you very much. I also rise to speak in support of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Use of Pastoral Land) Amendment Bill 2023. Landholders, whose families have worked the land for generations, know that caring for the land means having a healthy environment. It is pleasing to see over recent years there are more and more people wanting to protect a patch of bushland for future generations In fact, I have a friend who takes great pride in working in pockets of his parents' farm to help encourage conservation within their realms. It has been absolutely great following the progress of this project through his social media.

I grew up on a farm myself and, while we had cattle and crops, we also took great pride in protecting as much of the land as we possibly could. We would remove parasitic vegetation that threatened native species, we kept waterways and areas of open space free from grazing so that it could support all the native flora and fauna to thrive, and we would never take more than we needed from the land. In fact, I remember quite fondly my dad would find people sneaking on the property to pinch a bit of firewood, and he would get right onto it because we knew that the logs and the branches form an important part of the ecosystem and we could not afford to lose too many.

I appreciate that others give money to non-profit organisations to buy up land or enter into leases to help restore nature, and that there are big challenges: pests and weeds, overabundant native species, loss of vegetation, and the increasing pressure of climate change means it is getting harder to keep ecosystems healthy and productive. It is a big part of why we made a commitment to support all these landholders with practical incentives to support their efforts for a sustainable country.

A huge component of delivering on our election commitment to confirm that conservation and carbon farming are permissible on pastoral leases is addressed thanks to these amendments. These amendments have been informed through consultation with a range of stakeholders, with close interest in pastoral land management, such as the Pastoral Board, Livestock SA, Primary Producers SA, the Conservation Council SA, SA Nature Alliance, SA Native Title Service and the First Nations of SA.

Significant work has taken place on this bill to confirm the Pastoral Board's ability to approve a range of uses of pastoral leases, including the conservation and carbon farming which has been in place on the ground for over 30 years. The Pastoral Board of South Australia is responsible to the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water for the administration of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989, and a pastoral lease allows for the occupation and use of Crown land for the use of grazing or raising livestock, with over 323 pastoral leases covering over 40 per cent of our state. Currently, there are 21 pastoral leases being used with the board's approval for conservation, and five leases being used for carbon farming.

Conservation activities cover undertakings such as conserving and restoring natural ecosystems in the rangelands, including biodiverse revegetation using species native to the area, erosion repair and feral animal control. However, there remains some level of uncertainty about the ability of the board to approve non-pastoral uses of land because of some of the inconsistencies in the Pastoral Act.

These amendments will provide certainty to the ongoing efforts being made by lessees, Aboriginal people and regional communities to manage the pastoral lands in a variety of ways. These changes confirm that Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) offsets and heritage agreements under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 can be implemented on pastoral leases. It will give the Pastoral Board full certainty that they can continue to exercise their power to approve non-pastoral activities with previously approved non-pastoral uses remaining in effect.

New applications will be considered by the board on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the act and the board's revised guidelines. These tools provide the leaseholder with opportunities to receive funding for conservation activities on their lease and ensure that they can continue to have flexibility in how they use the land and flexibility to diversify future undertakings subject to the approval of the Pastoral Board. For example, as the demand for carbon farming projects are expected to grow in demand, land managers can tap into this growing market and receive a new source of income through carbon farming projects that can be contracted out to the Australian government or to private investors who are seeking to offset their emissions.

At present, carbon farming initiatives in Australia require registration with the Australian government's Clean Energy Regulator. Applicants must consult native titleholders where relevant and seek consent of the minister under the existing laws, and with the passage of this bill before us this will also remain unchanged. It will not impact the economic viability of our pastoral industry. It will however support leaseholders to manage their land with flexibility, with economic viability remaining an object of the act. We have seen for more than 30 years at this point that pastoralists and conservationists can work side by side across the rangelands, and we expect this to continue for many more years.

With this amendment the current lease will not change nor will it change the Pastoral Board's powers in relation to the management of pastoral lands. Leaseholders will still need to actively manage their leases and remain subject to the Pastoral Act obligations, which include requirements to maintain fencing and watering points unless conditions are varied by the Pastoral Board. While the previous government sought to introduce 100-year leases, a removal of stocking limits and ceasing on-the-ground assessments on the land, our government will not be pursuing such proposals. Instead we are confirming what is currently taking place across the rangelands.

I understand that pastoral stakeholders have been reassured that all pastoral leases, regardless of whether primary use is pastoral or conservation, will still require assessment and active management considering broader impacts across the pastoral zone. We are committed to protecting our rangelands and understand that when managed well they are more than capable of being utilised for primary production.

Coming into government we reaffirmed our commitment to maintaining these precious and fragile lands, which cover more than 40 per cent of our state so that they can continue to be used long into the future while ensuring they are managed sustainably. This bill before us is another step we are taking to ensure a prosperous future for our rangelands, and I commend this bill to the house.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (16:27): I rise also to speak on the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Amendment Bill. This is certainly something I have a lot of personal interest in that goes back many, many years. I have had many friends over my lifetime being very directly connected with the pastoral zone, and one of my closest friends from school days grew up very much in the pastoral zone.

I very much enjoyed going to visit Commonwealth Hill Station where his father was the manager at the time. Mark Burden was the manager's name. Dominic, his son, also worked on that station with his father and it was a pleasure to go there. It is a fascinating property. Certainly it has enormous history. When it was in its original form Commonwealth Hill Station was bigger than England, just to put it into perspective for people. It is very interesting that one property could actually be bigger than a significant country like England.

It was of great interest going up there and seeing particularly the money that had been spent there during the time that wool was pound for pound. The woolshed was an enormous building built of stone, and it is a lovely building. When I was there, it was probably about 50 or 60 years old, but it looked like it was going to serve another couple of hundred years the way it had been built; likewise with the homestead. It is a very large homestead of over 100 squares and a beautiful home built to survive the hot environment, with enormous breezeways through the middle of the house and covered verandahs. You could easily sit outside on the verandah on a warm summer's evening very much enjoying that life.

My limited working experience on the station was with my friend Dominic. One day, while I was up there I went out and helped muster. I remember we were sent out with two plastic bread bags, one full of sandwiches and the other full of cake; each of us had that, and that was our food for the day. I had never seen so much food in all my life. Effectively, it was lunch, morning tea and afternoon tea, and we were going to be back for dinner, and I thought, 'What am I going to do with all this?' We packed it on our motorbikes and headed out.

We probably rode for about an hour and a half before we got to the paddock we were going to muster. When we got there, we started mustering and, because I was not familiar with the country, it was decided the best way to do it was to ride out from one of the fence lines and we would take it turns. If we found some sheep, we would bring them back to the fence line and take them towards the water, where they were to be collected. We were out there for about 12 hours and found four sheep, so it was not an overly productive day mustering—spending 12 hours and finding four sheep between two of us—but that is the life of the station. It is very challenging.

It is a beautiful environment. It is a very challenging environment. The environment is very sensitive as well. The station owners, the managers, do their utmost, and have done their utmost, to make sure that the natural environment is protected in the way they manage it, very much making sure they do not overgraze because it takes so long for that country to recover if you take it too far. I think that is something we have to be very aware of as we go forward, that is, how we manage this country.

I think there are huge opportunities. When I was the minister responsible, I was very keen to look at the future in this space and how it could be managed. Using new technologies, using satellites to assess the tonnage of organic matter growing on any particular part of the property I thought was going to be a fantastic way to make sure we protected that environment going forward because it can be done in real time and it can be done instantly. Currently, inspecting those properties by traditional means going out and taking photos and comparing them with previous photos to see whether it has changed; whereas you can take satellite picture anytime a satellite is flying overhead and use it to see and assess what sorts of changes are going on.

It is important that we continue to think about the future in this area and how we might be able to manage this country, whether we look at completely different technologies that could be used to enhance and protect the area by using virtual fencing to make sure that we keep cattle and sheep out of particularly sensitive areas so that we can protect those areas. We can use the technology to improve the management of this country to make sure it is productive for the pastoralists but also very much protecting that sensitive environment. It is a fascinating area.

Some of my other memories of my first visit out to Commonwealth Hill Station include going out with Mark Burden, the manager, on a water run, checking water and travelling around the property, which also involved visiting the fencing contractor—and I use that term quite loosely. He was in charge of maintaining the dog fence for the MacLachlan properties through that zone and he would work his way along. Our job was to drop off his supplies.

Interestingly, I thought his supplies were food but no; his beer was what he was most desperate for because he had run out, and on those cold winter evenings he apparently needed a few beers to keep him in the right direction and make sure that he was heading down the fence line as necessary.

The dog fence is such an important part particularly of the sheep industry through that pastoral zone. Work was done by the previous government, investing with the federal government, to make sure the fence was brought up to a sufficient level of protection to keep the dogs on the northern side and allow the pastoralists to use their properties south of the fence, and it is pleasing to see that work continue. It is such an important part of the management in the zone.

The gentleman who was actually doing those repairs was very much a hermit character who very rarely saw people. He had been two months without anyone to talk to, so he was up for a little bit of a chat, particularly when he realised we had cartons of beer for him. He certainly opened one straightaway. It was interesting for a teenager to have that experience out there.

One of the other interesting things that I remember from my time there was when I was with my friend Dominic, who would often do water runs too. I went out with him one day—it was a bit icy and cold one morning—and he wanted to check the depth of one of the dams. He had actually taught his dog to go swimming on command. If the dog walked out into the icy cold water of the dam and kept walking, he knew there was not enough water left in the dam so they would need to shift the sheep out, but if there was depth there the dog would go for a swim.

He would yell at the dog. 'Bogey' was the word to go for a swim and so the dog would go for a swim. This poor dog would turn around and look back at Dom as if to say, 'You have to be kidding me. It's minus two right now and you want me to go in the water.' The dog was very obedient and would go for that swim. It certainly was an interesting way to see how the pastoralists were able to manage in that environment.

The interesting things are the challenge of this environment and protecting it. The use of new technologies is, I believe, a real key. Whether it be the technologies to protect those sensitive areas through the virtual fencing, or whether it be satellite technology to see what is growing there, I think there is huge potential to make sure this wonderful environment is there for the future, both for pastoralists and for the conservationists.

I also think it is important that this amendment bill does what is necessary to protect those properties that have gone fully down the conservation path. Certainly, as minister, we had some Crown advice that concerned me about what could be triggered through this process, whether those properties that were already operating down that path could have been at risk of triggering compensation under native title. It was really hard to pull that apart and try to work out how best to achieve it.

I think carbon farming is certainly a great opportunity to supplement the income, particularly in the pastoral zone. It is a challenging zone in which to run a farming enterprise, a grazing enterprise, so to have something that gives you a bit more constant income would certainly be of benefit to that area. It is really pleasing to see that there is support for carbon farming in this zone.

It was mentioned by the previous speaker, the member for King, that there was an intent to take it to 100 years. No, it was never 100; yes, it was 99—but it was very much to make sure that the pastoralists had the ability to enter into long-term contracts to make sure they were actually able to take full advantage of the carbon farming. It was nothing more and nothing less. It was just to give them the ability to enter into those long-term contracts. There was concern that if they did not have that sort of tenure they would not be able to get access to the better carbon farming benefits of being able to enter into those long-term arrangements, so it was very much that we went along that path to make sure we are able to achieve that outcome.

It is important that we continue to make sure that this pastoral land is protected. It is certainly a very large proportion of South Australia: it is 40 per cent of the state, approximately. There are many pastoral families that continue to farm this area and graze this area, as they have for many, many years. We have the McBrides, represented here by the member for MacKillop. Certainly, he has a long family history.

The MacLachlans are another family that has huge long ties into this space. It is interesting to see that there have been some changes within the structures of the MacLachlan business recently, with the two sons deciding to break away and go out on their own, breaking up the Jumbuck Pastoral company business into smaller bits and allowing them to manage it under their own names. It will be interesting to see how they take it forward.

We have also seen other families get involved in South Australia from other states: the Hancock family, for example, have come into South Australia over recent years. We do have some amazing long-term families that have done a wonderful thing in managing these zones for many, many years. Like all farmers generally, they operate the land to protect the land for the future, the reason being that is the best way for them to actually get good output from that land.

It is pleasing to see that we continue down this path in making sure that we achieve what is necessary, but we do want to make sure that we have the right structures and we do want to make sure that there is the conservation but also preserving the use of the land for pastoral purposes. It is a great part of our history. It is a great part of the economic structure of our state to make sure that there is a productive income coming in off that land. Pastoralism has done it well for many, many years.

As I said before, we do need to make sure people can diversify their incomes and make sure they have the ability to protect themselves, particularly during those drought years. 'Drought years' in pastoral country does not mean one or two; it could be a decade. We have a challenging time in making sure that the pastoralists are able to diversify their income. Carbon farming is certainly going to give them that ability to do so.

Likewise, I commend those businesses and enterprises that have done a complete conversion, who have decided they want to protect those lands as conservation properties and invest in those properties as conservation properties, often making them available for other people to see and managing those lands in a particular way.

This pastoral zone has certainly been changed over many years. The establishment of water points to operate those pastoral countries has changed the native wildlife as well. There are certainly a lot more kangaroos, for example, in the pastoral zone that would not naturally have been there, apart from the man-made watering points that have been installed into this zone.

It certainly was important that we were able to make sure that, with all the changes that were being made, as I raised before, we did not trigger a native title compensation payment due to a triggering of native title over these properties. It is important that we did not put this impost onto these conservation properties, that we did not want to inflict a cost onto them because they had chosen to go down this path.

I am very much pleased the minister has made a commitment to make sure that is not going to be a problem and that we are able to actually continue down this path of making sure that native title would not be triggered and there will not be that unintended consequence. It is certainly something that, as minister, as I said, I had to battle with, trying to work out how best to take this forward.

Getting back to those early days of visiting that pastoral land, it is the sheer distance that certainly is the most interesting and challenging and how much changes in that time as you travel. As you head north of Port Augusta in particular, there are many significant changes in the landscape as you go. It is intriguing to see what is good country and what is bad country.

I very much remember there was one property that was a bit overgrazed and you could certainly tell that as you drove through it, which was disappointing, but that is why I think it is so important that we move to these new technologies where we are actually able to react much faster. We are actually able to see with satellite technology that a particular property or part of a property is under stress so we can instantly have people step in and say, 'Just hang on. Something seems to be wrong here. You might just need to back off that particular area.'

I think it is important that we continue to make sure the opportunities are there for the pastoralists. I really encourage the government to continue to look at any of those future opportunities to invest in this space, and whether we can help those pastoralists engage in and adopt those new technologies. They are being used elsewhere around the country to help manage the properties themselves, so give the pastoralists the tools to see what is happening on their property.

There is very much the opportunity to bring that back into part of the regulatory regime to use those tools to actually help make sure they are protected and delivering great outcomes for those pastoral zones. With those few words, I thank you for the opportunity to make comment on this bill. I think it is an important bill for such a large proportion of our land mass.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (16:47): I rise today to make a contribution to this important amendment of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. It is something that we as decision-makers should not do lightly. As has already been spoken about when debating this bill, the pastoral lands in South Australia make up a significant proportion of the land mass but also make a significant economic contribution to our state by what they produce and by the small businesses, the bigger businesses and the individuals who are involved in the management and utilisation of these pastoral lands.

As I said, we should not be walking into making an amendment to this pastoral act lightly. I know that anyone who has the opportunity to visit some of the vast pastoral lands across northern and western South Australia in particular really do gain a different perspective on life outside the ordinary bubble of where the majority of our population live, which is in this place.

The people who are involved often have vast experience, vast history and vast knowledge about the diverse nature of this land, and the diverse range of rainfall, vegetation types and land types that cut across their pastoral land. But they also know how to manage these lands in a way which continues to keep the production that is existing and has been existing for decades, if not centuries.

The knowledge that is built in within these businesses, in particular, is pretty incredible because it is a unique skill set which has been developed over time. As I said, anyone who has had the opportunity to be able to visit these pastoral lands and see the space, the distance, the isolation which has to be dealt with, truly, I believe, does come away with a greater respect for the people who are involved in this.

In looking at some of the changes which are being put forward in this bill, obviously the scope of the amendment is very discrete and will allow the holder of a pastoral lease to be able to use the land for purposes other than pastoral purposes. The amendments will allow pastoral land to be used for conversation purposes and other appropriate purposes, which specifically in this bill include carbon farming.

It is a pretty important amendment to a pretty important piece of legislation because, of the 323 pastoral leases here in South Australia, there are already 21 which are used wholly for conservation purposes. The lessees range, as I said, from individual families, smaller businesses and bigger businesses—ASX-listed corporations—involved in a significant percentage of the land mass of South Australia where the vast majority of people probably have not ever set foot or even experienced the life in those pastoral lands.

It is going to be a fascinating first step and I hope it is done in a way which is conscientious and is not the thin edge of the wedge being pushed into our pastoral lands. I hope that some of that knowledge and experience that is within those managers of that pastoral land is not lost through some of the push that is being made.

I do think there is an opportunity to set up a framework for pastoral leaseholders to be able to have another income source, and have a way to be able to droughtproof, for want of a better word, some of the business and operations that they have, because we know that the extremes that we face in South Australia are no more pronounced than in the pastoral areas of our state—some of the driest, most isolated, hottest parts of our state where some of the most incredible characters live and run businesses.

I have been looking closely at this bill and, as I said, I am interested in particular in some of the proposed changes around the carbon farming opportunities. Carbon farming is a concept which we are still gathering information about, and we are still developing what concepts are going to be workable within the space. The definition given within this bill is:

…carbon farming means land management activities that avoid or reduce carbon in the atmosphere or sequester carbon in the landscape, as defined in the regulations.

That is a broad concept and a broad term you can understand. The way in which carbon farming and the awareness of both vegetation and soil carbon capture is developing at the moment continues to be a great challenge for science, for business and for decision-makers because at the moment it is an inexact science, and we cannot be certain about the way in which it is going to develop over future years and future decades. In putting this terminology in particular into the legislation, I think it is really incumbent on us as decision-makers to know the scope of what this may actually entail and for business and industry to be able to appropriately develop some of these measures and do so in an effective and sustainable way.

As I said, we have to be cautious that decisions and changes that are being made do not undermine existing businesses and do not undermine existing sectors that have been sustaining our state's economy for such a long period of time. The production that comes out of the pastoral lands on a per capita basis is pretty incredible. There are not a lot of people who live in the north and west parts of our state on these pastoral lands, but the amount that they contribute to the economy, the jobs that are involved and the wise way in which they are managing those lands cannot be overestimated.

Already mentioned in this place in some of the contributions from other members are some of the incredible properties that are included within these pastoral lands and those businesses that are involved in that. I know that the process to amend this bill commenced several years ago, and that work was done across terms of government, during the previous term of government and with the reform agenda at the time. It was quite broad, looking at the potential of modern pastoral lands into the future, ranging from the terms of the pastoral leases to the need to allow the lessees, as we are talking about in this bill, to diversify their income sources, including the opportunity to use pastoral leases for conservation purposes and allow carbon farming.

This work has been worked towards for a long period of time. I know the government at that time were aware that a question had been raised about whether pastoral leases that were used specifically for conservation purposes were consistent with the objectives of the act at the time. To see this advanced gives some certainty that those uses that were starting to appear and now happen within our pastoral lands have a scope and a capacity to be able to be operated.

It provides clarity and reassurance to those lessees who are involved in these things that these activities, which they now conduct, are legitimate, that they are not inconsistent with the act. They are able with more certainty to progress some of the opportunities beyond and including, as I say, some of the carbon farming opportunities, which are developing not just here in this state but across the country.

While the opposition certainly has spoken in support of this bill, there are aspects where I know, if this reform succeeds, there will be the potential for a degree of dilution in the pastoral estate in South Australia. This is something that, as I said, we as decision-makers in this place need to make sure that we are aware of because in reality, when you are creating legislation, you must have a mind to where an end point might be for the scope and the range of the framework that that legislation develops.

We know there is nothing in this bill that indicates a target or an upper limit to the proportion of the pastoral estate that could be converted from productive pastoral use into conservation use. As I said, this does speak to the need for us to be aware of the food production needs of our state and our country and to make sure that, as decision-makers, we are taking into account all the different aspects and all the different potential impacts that could happen from legislation that we put forward. The economic activity that is driven from our pastoral lands, as I have said, both the domestic market and the export market, is pretty incredible.

We have to be aware that decisions made around the transition of leases from production into potential conservation do not dilute the ability of pastoralists to continue to have their voice heard on potential changes to regulation and management in this place due to there being a lower number of pastoralists. At the moment, 90 per cent of our pastoral estate is currently used for pastoral purposes.

It has been interesting to see the way that this legislation and its changes have developed over years and to see the input the pastoral sector and the livestock sector have had, in consultation, I am sure, with both sides of this chamber, to make sure that opportunities are maximised for pastoral leaseholders and that the risks are minimised, because there are potential advantages for pastoral leaseholders, but also there are aspects which could potentially add additional risks to existing business—existing productive business—which is based within our pastoral lands.

As I am on my feet in this chamber today, can I personally commend the wise and consistent way in which our pastoral lands have been managed by our pastoral leaseholders. They do so in a way which has a mind to future generations, not just future generations of their business or future generations of potential pastoral leaseholders looking to utilise the business opportunities within those pastoral areas.

Like any other land managers around our state, farmers and pastoralists are some of the greatest environmentalists we actually have in our state. The land management techniques which are put in place by the people who are responsible for their farms, for their pastoral lease, are pretty incredible. The awareness that they have around the management of topsoil, the minimisation of water erosion, the management of stocking rates and the way that can potentially impact the vegetation and the way that a mismanagement could impact or harm the future of the soil and of the vegetation cannot be underestimated.

As a regional MP who sees firsthand the efforts and the time that gets put into soil management, vegetation management and overall land management by these land managers, farm owners and pastoral leaseholders, I think it is something that needs to be commended and recognised in this place. As someone who is involved in a primary production business, I know that the passion with which farmers and pastoral operators deal with their land management cannot be denied, because they are the ones who have the firsthand involvement in what future outcomes will be for these parcels of land.

With that, I will finish my remarks in the recognition that, as decision-makers, we need to make sure that the decisions we make around changes to the pastoral land management act, and now the conservation aspect, should be done in a conscientious way and in a way that has an eye on the future of our state, both economically and environmentally.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (17:03): I, too, rise to speak on the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Use of Pastoral Land) Amendment Bill 2023, which is a very important bill seeking to overcome and resolve what is essentially a legal uncertainty about whether the Pastoral Board has the ability to approve the non-pastoral uses of pastoral land and, more specifically, to facilitate the use of pastoral land for a variety of conservation purposes, including, most importantly in this bill, carbon farming.

I want to say at the outset, and acknowledge at the outset, just how important our pastoral landholders and our pastoral rangelands are to our state. They cover a vast area. Indeed, over 40 per cent of the state is covered with pastoral leases. There are more than 300 individual pastoral leases, which cover some 40 million hectares of land, so it is a vast area. It is also a huge economic contributor to South Australia.

As well as being a very important economic driver to our state, I also want to acknowledge at the outset the very important role our pastoralists play as environmentalists. As others in this house have acknowledged, it is our pastoralists who are often best placed to be custodians of the land they are on and it is our pastoralists who we see undertake a wide range of conservation activities that are beneficial to all right across the state. I think this bill really does acknowledge the enormous contribution that our pastoral lessees make not only in driving our economy but also in the sustainable management of our lands.

It then goes on to resolve this legal uncertainty about whether the Pastoral Board can approve our pastoral lessees, our great conservationists, being able to undertake this conservation exercise. It does that through a series of fairly narrow and discrete amendments to the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. Those amendments include to facilitate the use of pastoral land for conservation purposes and also for other appropriate purposes which, importantly for present purposes, include specifically carbon farming.

This bill also seeks to insert a definition of carbon farming into the act as well as a definition for conservation purposes. Importantly, the bill requires regulation to be developed in relation to carbon farming. Those regulations will be required to be developed in consultation with a very wide range of stakeholders, including the Pastoral Board itself—but not just the Pastoral Board—and environmental stakeholders, such as the Conservation Council of South Australia, First Nations representative (including the Aboriginal Corporation) and, importantly also, representatives of pastoralists, including Primary Producers SA and Livestock SA as well, so a wide range of consultation for the regulations to ensure that a wide range of interests are taken into account.

This bill will also update the objects of the pastoral land management act to ensure that it can include the use of pastoral land for conservation purposes and also, when that occurs, to allow the lessees of pastoral leases who are using pastoral land for a purpose other than a pastoral purpose to obtain an exemption from the Pastoral Board from the need to provide an annual statutory declaration as to the stocking levels on the pastoral land.

The sum of all this seeks to clarify that we can be using our pastoral leases to undertake activities that are not strictly for pastoral purposes. What that really does is codify or validate activity that is already occurring right across South Australia.

As I mentioned before, South Australia has approximately 40 million hectares of pastoral land, that is, 323 pastoral leases. Of those 323 leases, there are 21 presently that are already being wholly used for conservation purposes—the very purpose this bill is trying to address.

Of those 21, they are managed by a wide range of lessees. There are many examples, whether it is Arkaroola being managed by the Sprigg family, Arid Recovery by BHP, Kalamurina by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC), and Witchelina by Nature Foundation. It is 21 right across the state already being wholly used for a purpose other than a pastoral purpose, indeed for a conservation purpose, and it is a very important purpose.

If we just take a couple of these examples, Kalamurina, which is managed by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy—and I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr Tim Allard from the Australian Wildlife Conservancy earlier in the year to get an update not only on this project but also on the work they are undertaking right across the country.

I also had the pleasure of engaging with the Australian Wildlife Conservancy during my time in the United Kingdom, and I can tell you that the AWC has a very big brand name in the UK. There is a lot of love for Australian biodiversity in the United Kingdom, just as there is a lot of love here. We did a lot of work with them, particularly in the fallout of the bushfires of 2020 and 2021.

It was useful to talk to Tim Allard and others from the Australian Wildlife Conservancy about their various projects, including Kalamurina which is one of these pastoral leases, which is a vast desert wilderness covering a huge area of South Australia at 679,000 hectares, and of course it is at the intersection of three of our central deserts.

It spans 140 kilometres from east to west. It has spectacular dune fields, a network of freshwater and salt lakes as well, and importantly is a very big hub for biodiversity. It provides a refuge for a variety of desert wildlife, including the crest-tailed mulgara, the dusky hopping mouse and the regionally endemic Lake Eyre dragon.

The climate at Kalamurina is harsh. It has very little annual rainfall and summer temperatures that frequently exceed 45° Celsius. It requires very active management to conserve that land, to protect that wildlife that we see at Kalamurina. That management program is informed by data collected by AWC and focuses in particular on the reduction of feral animal numbers.

Unusually for Central Australia, it is also effectively weed free so that is not as much of an issue there, but what we see at Kalamurina is an example of one of these 21 pastoral leases being used for a conservation purpose. That is already occurring here in South Australia, and this bill seeks to validate and confirm that action.

Another of those 21 pastoral leases is Witchelina, which is managed by Nature Foundation, and similarly it has been a pleasure to have been able to engage with various office holders from Nature Foundation during my time as the shadow assistant minister for the environment. I want to commend them for the great work they do right across South Australia, including at Witchelina, which is a former pastoral property which comprises an amazing outback expanse extending from Lake Torrens in an area larger than Kangaroo Island.

Once again, we see Witchelina being home to a wide variety of wildlife, biodiversity, flora and fauna that we are seeking to conserve, whether it is the thick-billed grass wren, the wedge-tailed eagle, the spinifex hopping mouse, the plains mouse, the river red gum and coolibah woodland and the blue bush shrublands. What we also see at Witchelina, when wet, is the creeks and waterholes being arid zone refuges for ducks, sandpipers and a whole range of other waterbirds. Once again, Witchelina, like Kalamurina, is a pastoral lease already being used for a very significant conservation purpose.

It is already happening on 21 leases right across South Australia. I have spoken about two of them. They are actions we should be encouraging. I understand the genesis for this bill, though, is concerns that have been raised that these leases, as they are currently operating under the current act, might not be complying with the current provisions of the act, and it is this bill that seeks effectively to clarify and validate the legitimacy of those very important activities.

They are important because, as I said, they are good for biodiversity. They are also very good for emissions reductions. It was the previous Liberal government in December 2019 that released one of the most powerful visions for climate action of any South Australian government in history. That was developed with input advice from Professor Ross Garnaut and included 68 actions across seven focus areas—everything from energy, the economy, transport, and importantly to agricultural landscapes and habitats. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.