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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 November 2023.)

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (16:43): I read the second reading speeches with interest and heard many of them sitting here, and I was pleased to see that there seems to be a degree of unanimity. There is a prospect perhaps of some amendments being considered in the upper house that was foreshadowed by the leader, but otherwise it seems that we have a sense of a shared purpose with this piece of legislation and I thank all participants.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, will the government be providing any additional resources or resourcing to the Pastoral Unit to ensure that conservationists and pastoralists continue to work together as cooperative neighbours with each other—as an example, maintaining stock fence lines, controlling pest plants/weeds—on their respective properties?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As the member may be aware, there was an election commitment that was fulfilled to add $1 million over the four years to the Pastoral Unit. That was in response to concerns that had built up over a number of years that the assessment of the leases was not proceeding as quickly as was suiting pastoralists in order to be able to continue to have their rolling leases. That money has been used to employ pastoral officers who are able to work on the ground with pastoralists and, of course, with other landholders in the area.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, you have given me an understanding that it was an election commitment. Will those extra resources come from a government budget or will they come from the existing levy?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They were added from the central government budget into the department in 2022 for the four years.

Mr WHETSTONE: We have talked about the election commitment. For conservation purposes, does the government intend to undertake broader reform of the act, as an example, to allow land condition assessments to be conducted using some of the modern approaches—drones and satellite imagery—to continue to monitor, to manage?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am aware that there are other technologies that have been contemplated to assist with land assessment. Their view is that there is no need for further change to the act in order to facilitate that. While I think on-ground assessments will probably always be an important part, there is no prohibition on that unit from continuing to explore different ways of making sure that the assessment is as accurate as possible.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, with the interpretation of land management, is carbon farming already occurring in pastoral lands and, if so, on how many leases is it occurring?

The CHAIR: Clause 2 is the commencement clause, member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: I beg your pardon. I have none on the commencement clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr WHETSTONE: Again, the question on the interpretation of carbon farming: does it already exist on pastoral lands and, if so, how many of those leases?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand that six have been approved and that five are in progress where the application has been made and being considered at present.

Mr WHETSTONE: Are those approvals on pastoral lands or on conservation property?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Bearing in mind that they are all pastoral in the sense that they are all covered by the act, but I appreciate the distinction that you are making. Largely, they are on pastoral, but there is some on both.

Mr WHETSTONE: Have the regulations on carbon farming already been prepared? When will the government conduct consultation with the stakeholders on these?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Those regulations have not yet been drafted, but that will now happen as soon as we get this legislation through and immediately we will go to consultation on that.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will the Pastoral Board or the relevant department produce policies associated with the use of pastoral leases for either pastoral or conservation purposes?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that there are existing guidelines but that they will be updated once the legislation is through so they have the final form of the law.

Mr McBRIDE: I have a question for the minister, bearing in mind that I do appreciate the fact that the minister is moving this legislation to allow for carbon farming in the pastoral regions, which we personally as a family are indulging in or pursuing for the benefits that carbon farming may bring to our pastoral lands. The question that I bring to the minister was probably highlighted with the briefing I had. In regard to carbon farming, one of the things that we are concerned about as a family that has operated in these areas for a long time is the desertion of pastoral leases by human activity and pastoral pursuits.

I know in the carbon farming market and world and meeting criteria, it is a prerequisite that these farms are not totally locked up and walked away from just solely for carbon. I am just wondering how the minister or the government of the day—and that may not be the government today, as in the Labor government; it might be future governments—are going to manage and address the land and this carbon capture being perhaps overextended for the pastoral leases and the pursuit of agriculture in general, which may be cattle or sheep, for example.

It might be considered not appropriate and yet I know and believe that the rules say that these properties must still be operating as farms as a percentage, and then there is a percentage of the farm or pastoral lease that can also go to carbon. I am wondering what the minister's knowledge of this area is, and how any government will make sure that these pastoral leases are not deserted?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Thank you; that is a very thoughtful question and it is useful for me to be briefed in answering. The way in which the pastoral leases are being approved to have carbon farming requires that the pastoral activity continue and that there is an overlay of carbon farming but on a continuing activity of actively using the lease for pastoralism. That is the approved methodology at the federal level. While that is, as I understand it now, concluded at the federal level, we are waiting to see what the update will be. The idea of continuing to do carbon farming while there is active pastoralism is the model that is being used today as part of the guidelines that we use.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you for that answer; it is appreciated. I am glad you are learning, as I am learning through this process, too, minister. Another question is in regard to pastoral leases that have been purchased by previous state governments—and I am sorry I cannot remember the name of these pastoral leases; I do not want to get it wrong so I am not going to mention a name—and certainly there have been leases purchased by state governments in the past and turned into parks or national parks or suchlike. Are these parks that have been purchased, that were pastoral leases that were destocked—and from my knowledge of one of them, it was sheep—going to be able to be measured for carbon capture, or was the purchase and the locking up of these pastoral leases too early to meet criteria around carbon farming?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It might be useful if the member would care to provide some specific examples perhaps between the houses and we can give a further briefing, because it will vary depending on the pastoral lease that has been subsumed by government for other purposes. It depends on which one we are talking about. Usually and perhaps always they are not being then used for carbon farming.

One I am thinking of is the Nilpena Ediacara lease with the Farghers, incorporating that into the new national park that celebrates, of course, the incredible fossil record. That has been taken for conservation, fossil preservation and tourism purposes, not for carbon farming. Whether there is any example where carbon farming has been looked at, I am not certain. We can have that conversation perhaps separately in more detail. The human-induced carbon reduction is what has been applied in pastoral leases that are seeking to have carbon farming and that requires the continuous activity of both.

Mr McBRIDE: The minister might not know the answer to this, but I want to raise it because it comes back to that fear as a pastoralist that one of the things we always had to work with is isolation in these areas, the vast distances and the large scale of these pastoral leases. If this carbon capture is looked at as a real model for pastoral leases into the future that sees the tyranny of time, we are really concerned that these pastoral leases obviously have a great deal less stock on them, a great deal less human activity, and a great deal less occupancy because of less stock and stocking rates.

Has the government considered what perhaps a depletion of 50 per cent of our stock numbers, for example, or even more might mean on a state basis in our pastoral regions? If it is required that you can lock up a property 60 per cent, for example, to carbon and leave the other 40 per cent for stock and management, then there is a real depletion in the stock numbers on these pastoral leases.

Has the government given any consideration to what this means for infrastructure, such as roads, the population base in these areas, the lack of production in agricultural terms and what that might mean for the state as a whole? Is there any consideration to the changing of habits in our pastoral areas and pastoral lands with perhaps the success of what carbon farming might mean for these areas?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In many ways we are collectively in the early days of how we manage our land in the context of carbon farming. In some elements of the answer, carbon farming represents an opportunity for pastoralists to have another source of income. That should not be underestimated. As we move into looking at biodiversity credits as well it will be interesting to see how that might form another element of income for landholders.

It is also the case that with the pastoral leases that have been approved to date for having carbon farming, we have not seen an overall drop in human presence or in stocking. What is happening is it is managed slightly differently so the stock is moved to different paddocks at different times to enable the regeneration of the native vegetation. That then becomes that carbon credit. Although we are in the early days, I think the concerns that you are raising are not yet ones that ought to be present.

I would put a larger lens on this. I was just reflecting on the question of how we make sure we are sustaining the land for future generations to continue to be able to have pastoral activity or whatever other primary production activity we might be talking about. We do need to create the incentives to manage the land in the best possible way that not only contributes overall to a reduction of carbon but also helps that particular bit of land be more robust and more resilient, and it appears at present that they are the guidelines that are being used to inform carbon farming in the pastoral region.

Mr TEAGUE: I go to subclause (1) and the introduction of these two new defined activities. Is it fair to characterise these two—if we are looking for a distinction between carbon farming on the one hand and conservation purposes on the other—that carbon farming might be described as an adjustment in pastoral uses that might otherwise continue, an adjustment for some economic benefit, so that it might, in simple terms, be described as reducing the permitted stocking rate from full capacity down to something less so that some carbon farming might fill that gap, but otherwise that it is the continuation of that traditionally defined pastoral use, on the one hand, and the further defined purpose that is introduced—that is, conservation purposes—is clearly distinct from pastoral purposes use of the land. The minister might agree or otherwise with that characterisation.

Perhaps the bottom line question is: does one or both, and I have in mind particularly the introduction of conservation purposes—is that so novel now in the statute book as to raise a question of changed use, and can the minister rule out, for example, triggering things like native title claims and so on being made on the basis of a change of use, as opposed to a gradation of use that is perhaps the subject of the carbon farming definition?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will try to keep my thoughts on three things here. One is a correction and update to the figures I gave earlier: six have been approved, and not five, but eight are in progress, just so that we are completely accurate. Broadly, the characterisation that the member gave of the definitions is a reasonable one. Specifically, we have advice that the use of conservation purposes does not trigger any changes in native title, so that final question is answered.

I would like to add a lens, which is really the reason that this bill exists, which is that there were concerns raised that it was ambiguous whether conservation purposes were allowed under what was known as the pastoral lands in the pastoral act. They had in fact been occurring for some time, but there had been this sort of legal question, so my commitment was that we would look to make sure that that was no longer a question mark.

The other element was that there was an argument that there needed to be an extension in the term of these leases in order to facilitate carbon farming, and I wanted to make sure that while we were not extending the term, carbon farming was in fact going to be able to occur and there would be no legal impediment residing within this piece of legislation. As I understand it, carbon leases are usually about 25 years, and so I could not see that a 42-year lease would imperil a 25-year lease. In any case, it is attached to the title which is forever, rather than the lease which may be transferred to other owners, for example. Nonetheless, that was in fact the motivation for this piece of legislation.

Mr TEAGUE: I note that subclause (3) requires the minister's consultation as to the definition of carbon farming with those number of stakeholders, and that is welcome. In relation to the definition of conservation purposes, which we see expressed in a more complete form, it captures a sort of catch-all at the end—other ancillary conservation uses.

We can take, for example, the largest of the Nature Foundation SA properties, Witchelina, which is about 4,200 square kilometres, about the same size as Kangaroo Island, and which covers a whole range of different areas in the arid and pastoral country. We can bear in mind that it has been managed for a variety of what one might describe as conservation purposes by Nature Foundation SA for many years now, including droughts, floods and all sorts of things, and perhaps further recognising the particular special mixture of participants of Nature Foundation SA that include pastoralists, environmentalists, researchers and experts.

All of those people have an interest in perhaps a whole variety of different aspects of what might be caught under the umbrella broadly of conservation, and it might include seeing what the pasture does when it does not have stock on it for a while, and it might include a curiosity in having some stock on it again, mixing up the use.

What I have particularly in mind is what perhaps might be described as a colonial history of the pastoral use of Witchelina, and that includes buildings on the station, water infrastructure, in particular the famous Chinese wall that was one of the more significant versions of such things, and the huge amount of toil put into preserving what amount of water could be preserved for pastoral purposes.

It is not spelled out as such. That is a fairly wide range of uses of a former pastoral property that might include the preservation of those aspects of pastoral history as well as perhaps what might be caught more as a core part of the definition in terms of biodiversity, geology and other natural observation and learning about the country. Can there be confidence that that broad range of conservation activities, including those of the pastoral history, will be caught by the definition as it is expressed?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is nice that you know Witchelina so well. I did not realise it is quite as big as Kangaroo Island; that is enormous. I think that we should not get too caught up in an exhaustive definition of everything that can occur on a pastoral lease that is for conservation purposes in order to be justified. I do not mean to trivialise this at all, but a pastoralist family might well hold a birthday party or a wedding, and that does not necessarily conform to the activity of pastoralism but it does not breach their lease. There will be activities that occur on any of these leases that are part and parcel of the operation of the people who are involved with that, but the definition here of conservation purposes is intended to be sufficiently broad to capture the kinds of activities that you have described that Witchelina undertakes, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps I might be even more particular, reflecting on the example the minister has just given; Witchelina is engaged in the eradication of feral cats and the study of what they are consuming and the process, the baiting of feral animals, and the study of those things as well. One might say, 'Well, they are caught up in what pastoralists do to manage pests, as well.'

To highlight another core area of activity on a property that has been set aside for conservation—and Witchelina provides a good example for these purposes as well—is the capacity of that property to attract what are known as SEBs (substantial environmental benefit provisions) and hence, membership of organisations like Nature Foundation—I hasten to add that I am a member; I have been involved in some way over the years. The capacity for it to meet the criteria for the receipt of those SEB payments as part of its having been established for those activities, is that also clearly caught by the definition set out in the legislation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: At this stage our advice is yes.

Mr WHETSTONE: Chair, would you be gracious to allow me one question?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): One quick question, Mr Whetstone.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you sir. Minister, with the interpretation, I understand you will consult one of the five bodies—the board, or whether it is the council or the Indigenous corporation—but what is the process for a neighbour's carbon farming actions that impact on a neighbour?

As I understand it, currently there are no wind farms or solar farms on pastoral country as such. If there is an impact by a neighbour on his or her neighbour, what is the process? As the minister, who will you refer to with an impact on a neighbour? Should there be power poles, should there be power lines, that type of infrastructure that will impact on a neighbour that I do not think currently exists on any of the pastoral country?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: To disentangle this a little bit, with the renewable energy projects that have not yet been approved but may well be in the future, the provisions for the approval of that have all been swept into the hydrogen act, including on pastoral land. So the way in which communities are consulted sits in that act, and that belongs to Minister Koutsantonis. We can arrange for a briefing to make sure that is clear.

With carbon farming it is far less likely that there would be a deleterious impact, particularly of infrastructure, on a neighbour. The way in which the neighbour-to-neighbour management occurs at present is that there are pastoral officers. There is an encouragement to engage directly—I am sure that is largely how things get resolved—but we do have pastoral officers, and we have the board that can be appealed to if there are concerns.

There are certain requirements and obligations, particularly around fencing, which of course is one of the areas that can be a hot area if you are not maintaining fencing and stock is getting out and causing issues. However, I think the heart of your concern is now sitting in another act.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, what does the government expect will be covered by the term 'appropriate purposes'? Under the current amended bill, you will allow pastoral land to be used for conservation purposes and you will allow pastoral land to be used for pastoral or conservation purposes or other appropriate purposes such as carbon farming. Does 'appropriate purposes' embrace tourism offerings?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The board does have a list of what are broadly regarded as appropriate purposes that are consistent with holding a pastoral lease or a lease that is for conservation purposes. Tourism is included and some infrastructure such as telecommunications towers are included, but there is quite a long list and that is under the aegis of the board.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, in your second reading speech you mentioned that there are currently 21 pastoral leases which are used wholly for conservation purposes. Are there any leases which are used for pastoral and conservation purposes or pastoral and other appropriate purposes concurrently?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just to be clear, in my previous answer I probably implied that there was a list that said tourism, tick; telecommunications, tick. It is a guideline that enables the board to make the decision that then leads to things like telecommunications and tourism to be approved, just to be specific. There are currently nine pastoral leases that have been approved by the board to be for both pastoral and conservation purposes.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to clause 4 and allowing pastoral land to be used for conservation purposes, a number of people in this chamber right now were lucky enough to go on a Natural Resources Committee tour up to the APY lands. It was chaired and headed by the member for Heysen. We obviously got to observe the APY lands and a cattle business up there and a community. It was clearly highlighted and I saw for the first time that this corner of South Australia is very unique in the fact that it is obviously nearly the centre of Australia isolation-wise, perhaps even temperature and heat-wise, but it receives a great deal of rainfall, more than what we are accustomed to in our neck of the woods. One of the things that came to mind was the fact that the APY lands is a lease and is operated as a cattle lease. Pastoralists are working with the APY lands Indigenous community to operate a cattle property there.

Coming back to the conservation purposes in clause 4, one of the big issues was camels. No doubt camels in the landscape are not going to be great for carbon capture. They were a menace and seen as a menace by the community up there at the APY lands. Just like goats are a menace for us in some of our pastoral leases closer to Adelaide, they are also going to be a menace, these vermin-type animals.

I am just wondering whether the minister can shed some light on the management of vermin like goats and camels but particularly the camels. Goats have a market and are managed by pastoralists, but the camel herd and the management of camels was seen as a really difficult task because of the sheer size and numbers of the animals. There was and is a market for camel meat, but the tyranny of distance I think kills that market, and accessing it does not allow it to happen. I think even the Indigenous owners of the land and perhaps those working with Indigenous people are not that happy about destroying camels and leaving them in the landscape, which then adds another complexity to the removal of camels. I just wonder whether the minister could help highlight what effect these sorts of animals are going to have on carbon capture/conservation purposes around this bill and act.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I remember the trip that the three of us were on. I nearly had heatstroke at—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Oh, four of us were on it, yes.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: You didn't go? He was on the committee but not on the trip. I almost got heatstroke in Nilpena Ediacara by the time we got up there after the plane incident, but we will not go there. It was a good trip, though.

To start with, the APY lands of course are the land of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara and therefore are not subject to this act because they are not part of the pastoral leases run by the government. However, we did see there an example of what looked like very bad stocking practice and also a lot of camels, as well as quite a few donkeys.

The management of pests is essentially a combination of the landholder being responsible and, of course, landscape boards making decisions to come in and do large-scale culls. Every so often landscape boards will go through and get rid of camels, including on the APY. I am advised there are fewer camels in the rangelands, in the pastoral lands that we are talking about here, but they are nonetheless present from time to time. The landscape board is the entity that will come in and do aerial culling, as I say, from time to time. What then happens with the carcass is, of course, challenging. It is a resource question. It is a question that is also partly the responsibility of the landholders, given that they are responsible for managing ferals.

Goats are an interesting one. You spoke about them in exactly the way that describes why they are complex, because they are regarded as meat as well as being a pest. At present, the stocking rate that is managed by the board in the pastoral leases only looks at cattle and sheep. It does not include goats. I am aware that over the years there has been a debate about whether you ought to include goats, particularly if you are effectively farming them if you are using them for meat, but that is not the case at present. The legislation does not restrict the species that are included in the stocking, but the board's practice has long been to only include cattle and sheep.

I am also aware that in some parts of South Australia we have had great success in reducing goat numbers when there has been that will—through the Flinders, for example—a very determined effort, along with some excellent shooters. There is a bit more of a debate, I think, in the pastoral lands about that.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you for that answer. Just to capture that magnificent, excellent trip that we did on the Natural Resources Committee, one of the things was we had a nearly 40° day in amongst the oldest fossils in the world and our minister was struggling to stay on her feet. I said, 'Two things: you need to stay on your feet away from the ground where it's the hottest and, secondly, breathe through your nose, not your mouth, because your mouth dries out so much quicker.' So I did help you survive these conditions, minister, and back you up in those trying times.

I remember the President from the other place might have been with us too. He had some real feedback about what the hell we were doing in this 40° heat looking at bloody fossils. Anyway, it was a magnificent trip.

I just come back to the vermin control and obviously the act of trying to capture carbon in the pastoral lands and all the benefits that represents. I am positive about this process. The station I was also going to talk about (I have just looked it up) was Bon Bon Station. We are neighbours to Bon Bon in this neck of the woods, which is about 300 or 400 kilometres north-west of Port Augusta. Of all the recent acquisitions, this one is more recent in terms of the time when the government purchased it—it might be 10 or 20 years ago.

The reason I raise this is that the pursuits of pastoralists recently have been of the Dorper sheep. It is not one that our family has engaged with, and I have to say thankfully so. There are lots of names the Merino sheep breeders give to Dorpers, like 'ground lice' and 'nearly feral goat-like activity'. We are talking about goats, but the Dorpers are really hard to fence and control.

I feel that, for those who have pursued the Dorper sheep across these pastoral properties, it is going to be very hard for them to keep their Dorpers at bay from carbon capture, just like the feral goats will be. I was also going to come back to what were pastoral leases but are now national parks or purchases by the government and how the government will keep goats and/or Dorper sheep, for example—I consider there is very little difference—at bay from carbon capture.

I also want to talk about the question asked by the member for Chaffey about fencing and neighbourly relationships. If the member for Chaffey was out there running a major pastoral lease and he was into Dorpers, like he could be, how we may then be a Merino sheep enterprise and we might want to close up part of our property for carbon capture, and yet his Dorpers do not know where home is anymore, particularly on his own property. Whether he sees them again or not—

Mr Whetstone: Is it a Dorper fence, not a dog fence?

Mr McBRIDE: It could be. I am just wondering whether the minister knows of those sorts of complexities that the pastoralists are going to have to work through in the neighbourly negotiations and also the management of tough animals like goats and Dorper sheep and the like.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think much of that was commentary rather than question because the member is accurately describing the complexity of managing across this landscape with a lot of introduced species, some of which were accidentally introduced in the sense that we no longer have a particular use for them and they are out there and causing havoc, and others which were introduced firmly because we want to make money out of them. Then there is that little bit in the middle where they escape and cause trouble, but if they were well managed they would not be a problem or would be significantly easier to manage.

This is the nature of being in primary industry in South Australia—I do not need to tell you that. As far as the government is concerned, obviously, PIRSA is a very active participant, as is the environment department, particularly when it is land that is under their care and control. However, the landscape boards are really where everything meets and these kinds of challenges are identified, prioritised and addressed.

Mr McBRIDE: In my preamble, I think one of the questions I asked was about Bon Bon Station. Could any of your staff or the minister's advisers give a little bit of intel about Bon Bon because we have already felt and seen the Bon Bon Station being accessed by dogs and Dorpers. I am not sure about goats—I cannot give you any sort of intel there. The question is about the government's parks and their management. I am not sure whether you are still going to be able to capture carbon on a property like Bon Bon or whether you purchased it too early for this process. Secondly, if it is able to be accessed for carbon capture, how is the government going to go about keeping things like Dorpers and goats out of it?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: With Bon Bon specifically, I will get you a briefing so that we can make sure that we are covering off on all the particular questions that you have associated with Bon Bon. There is of course an obligation on landholders to maintain fencing in order to keep their stock in, and I am advised that the board is working on an improved guideline on fencing that is exactly directed at the management of Dorpers.

Mr TEAGUE: The legal advice that the minister referred to in relation to my question on the previous clause, that is Crown law advice, I presume?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am sorry, I missed the very beginning—which advice?

Mr TEAGUE: The minister referred to legal advice in relation particularly to my question about change of use and native title; I presume that is Crown law advice?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it was.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of that answer, is there any impediment to the minister making that available to the committee or otherwise publishing it?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My understanding is that we never publish Crown advice because it risks removing the client privilege and therefore I think both sides of parliament. I recall asking for the Crown advice that related to Martindale Hall and was unable to receive that, so I think that is just standard practice.

Mr TEAGUE: Of course, it is the government's privilege to waive as it sees fit so I do not understand the response to indicate any particular impediment to its release, and I understand there might be common practice in relation to advice of various kinds. The minister has given a fairly definitive answer, I suppose, to my question on clause 3. Is there anything further that the minister can say about the subject matter the advice covered and anything else of relevance that can provide comfort to the committee in relation to that matter?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What might be best is if we take this between the houses on notice and we will seek a written briefing to give the best comfort that we are able to without breaching our privilege.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to the point in the amendment, 'Pastoral land not to be freeholded', is that a change in the legislation or is that just maintaining the status quo?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This maintains the status quo.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 17:33 the house adjourned until Thursday 8 February 2024 at 11:00.