Biodiversity Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 3 June 2025.)

Clause 14.

Mr BASHAM: I have a quick question here. Is there an intention for remuneration to be made to the members of the council and, if so, how much is envisaged?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it will be remunerated, as the vast majority of government boards and committees are, if not all of them. It is, as I am advised, to be determined by the minister, but the custom and practice is that there is a process the DPC oversees that identifies the level at which various boards are categorised in order to identify what remuneration it attracts. Obviously, we have not gone through that process yet.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr BASHAM: This is a particular area where we have had some feedback from peak bodies, in particular in relation to the appointment of members of the council, and particularly part 4 where we talk about the different bodies getting to nominate three names and the minister being able to choose from those three names or, if the minister does not believe those names are suitable, then they can choose someone else. Certainly there is significant feedback about a concern from those bodies in particular around this, and I am just wanting to understand the minister's thinking here as to why it has been left at that level, even not going back to the bodies themselves if the first three are not appropriate.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The shortest answer is that I think between the houses we are doing a bit of work on this. We are aware that stakeholders have much more confidence in the overall system if they can see the role that they are able to play in it. The first draft of the legislation that went out in fact just had a skills-based board, where usually the orthodox government approach is to try to get the skills to fit, but I recognise that it was likely that the various bodies who had been involved in suggesting people before would like to do that again, and so we have moved to this model. There are still some concerns, as the member points out, that we will work through.

If we are going to have skills listing, then we are going to need some kind of mechanism for the minister to make some choices. If the various people who are nominated by the various stakeholders do not in fact then ultimately allow the matching up of skills and that becomes a challenge, you need capacity to deal with that. But there is the question, of course, that maybe we go back to those organisations rather than finding someone else. We are actively working on that at present and I expect, by the time it is considered by the Legislative Council, we will have a clearer view about what we are doing.

Mr BASHAM: Following on from that, some concerns have also been raised that it provides that the minister can only appoint members of the ABC positions if they have been nominated by the ABC, so the minister cannot choose a different member of the ABC. I guess that is seen as a slightly different approach for a couple of members who are on the council.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If we read subclauses (1) and (8) together, two of the members must be members of the Aboriginal biodiversity council. Those can only be recommended or in fact nominated by the Aboriginal biodiversity council rather than the minister choosing to select someone else from the Aboriginal biodiversity council who has not been recommended collectively by them. It is just a mechanism to ensure that the Aboriginal biodiversity council is supportive of those people being the people who are representing. Obviously, we have the two genders, man and woman, so it seemed like the most respectful way to manage that.

Mr BASHAM: Yes, I acknowledge that. It has just been raised about the slightly different treatment of the industry bodies versus the ABC, that the minister does not have to follow the nomination in the way it is currently drafted. I am drawing that to your attention. In relation to how the skill set was decided and what was there, what was the thinking about that? How was that skill set that is listed in subclause (2)(b) actually decided on as to what is needed at this level?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The base of this skill set has come from what is in the Native Vegetation Council at present, but then adapting it because the biodiversity council has brought a remit, as does the Biodiversity Bill, bringing in the Aboriginal knowledge and also a bit more emphasis on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, conservation and the word that we still have an issue with between us, restoration.

I believe this was first canvassed in the discussion paper that first went out, and the kinds of skills that we would be looking for. Of course, it has then gone out in the draft bill for discussion. I think this stands the test of, 'Is this the kind of range of skills that you'd expect to be concentrating on, the kinds of matters that are addressed within this legislation?'

Mr TELFER: On Clause 15 around the composition of the council, to provide some certainty as far as this process goes, what do you envision and under what circumstances is it likely that you see the minister will set aside nominations put forward from peak bodies such as the LGA, the Conservation Council, primary producers, etc? That is an interesting power and capacity of the minister to be able to set aside those nominations and have their say. Under what circumstances would you see that happen?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I said in answer to the previous question from the shadow minister, I recognise that there is some concern amongst stakeholder groups about why and what that means. The reason for it being here is that, given that we have a skills-based council we have a certain number of skills that we expect to have on the council. In an instance where, amongst all of the nominations from the various groups, some skill sets were missing, that would create a problem, because then you are not fulfilling the skills range that is required to make up the council to allow it to do a good job. That is why that is there.

However, as I said, recognising that there are some concerns about how that might play out and whether it might be better to go back to those groups to find new nominations, we are working that through. We are not certain which way we are likely to land, but we have got a little bit of time before it hits the other place and we are actively considering how to make that something the stakeholders are comfortable with.

Mr TELFER: Thank you for that consideration. Obviously there are many worthy bodies who nominate representation to a large number of statutory bodies and government boards. As you spoke about before, this is a sort of unique, almost extraordinary, veto power which is currently baked into the bill, which is why I think there is that uncertainty around the final call or judgement being made by a minister rather than having that input from the groups as far as their nominations go. Take that more as a comment and an affirmation of review of the process that is currently baked in.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not certain if it is unique—I have not done an extensive comparison of legislation—but I think this bill is probably a little unusual, and that might have caused this, in having that collective skills list requirement as well as a nomination process. I think normally you would have one or the other, that you would have a skills set and the minister would choose against that or you would just allow bodies to nominate. Because we are trying to land both, we are working out how you manage it if, not through any deliberate oversight but through happenstance, amongst all those nominations you do not cover that skill set. What is the fail safe there? This is the version that has come out in this bill. We are prepared to look at something else, and we will be working on that.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to this composition of the council, in the seven to 12 positions we looked at I can see primary production and pastoralism, and then potentially land use and urban and regional planning would be the only representatives that may be commercially based, that would take some accountability to the expense and cost that this council could be responsible for.

What I mean by that is if you are going to have developments around this state—urban development, electricity grids, new pipelines and infrastructure, wind farms and access to wind farms like tracks and pads (and you have 1,200 wind farms proposed in the Gawler Ranges that were once there for a hydrogen development for Whyalla)—if this council decided that, 'No, that land is too precious and it needs protecting, we don't want you mowing down that bush; no, the roads have to go around the bottom of the hills, we're not going across the top of the hills, because we want those preserved,' who on the council do you think would give us, give the government, give the people of South Australia, the best economic outcome based on the makeup of the skills base that I can see there?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We tend to a little loosely use the term 'representative'. Obviously, once you are on a council, you are there to fulfil the functions of the council. You have been nominated by an organisation, but you are not there solely carrying the message of that nominating organisation: you are there for your skill set, you are there because a significant stakeholder group believes that you are worthy and have useful knowledge and skills to add, and you are there to do the job, collectively, of the council.

The skill sets that we have identified do include energy and resources, primary production, and land use and urban planning, each of which have significant impact on the environment and also, of course, are significant contributors to the economy. Our view is that the knowledge that is brought with those skill sets will add to the considerations of the biodiversity council in a way that is useful both for protecting the environment and for ensuring that we are able to continue to be a prosperous state.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, I really appreciate your answer. I agree, and I know that these skill sets are so that the council can be broad and can have great traction across all aspects of its responsibilities. I will give another example. I will not talk about this council yet, but I will talk about the old Native Vegetation Council, where five trees in Naracoorte have been valued at $30,000 each. That is stopping a housing development from taking place because they are $30,000 each, and now there is no development at all.

I look at this and I say that this same development process could land with this new council. I can see no reason why this council is going to say, 'Jeez, it would be really good to have those houses in Naracoorte. We would love to see the 20 houses built on this block. We would love to see those stringybark trees, which are a dime a dozen in a north-south perspective in Naracoorte, bulldozed, burnt, put in a pile and got rid of'—or whatever it is they might want to do with them, and replant them somewhere else in a sensible number instead of the $30,000 each that it is going to cost now.

Minister, what I am trying to advocate here is that the environment is important, biodiversity will be important, but what gets lost in these arguments when we try to preserve and be angled at looking at something that may be really important is that something even more important, like housing, will be put aside, pushed aside, and not get the traction that the community is desperate for. I can only see three representatives here in whose position I would have confidence to say, 'I know they will bat for me. I know they will bat for my energy being reliable. I know they will bat for housing developments in MacKillop that we need more of, not just in Naracoorte but in all regional towns.'

For the primary production representative, he or she will be from a farming background, representing farming investments, and will be then probably accountable to say, 'That could be a good thing to have new houses in Naracoorte.' But for the rest of them, I would be really worried about getting the best answer there. Minister, can you help me have the confidence that you may have that I cannot see that this council will be representative of good strategy, good investment and not wasting taxpayers' funds?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As fond as I am of the member, I do not know that I am going to be able to convince him one way or the other. What we have before us is a piece of legislation that establishes a number of protections, and number of exemptions to those protections, for the environment. There are processes contained within this. The individuals will pass through. There will be different ministers and different members of councils. What we have before us is the legislative architecture that establishes this, and I believe we can trust the wisdom of the people of South Australia and the people who are in such organisations that usually sensible decisions are made. I am not sure I can offer any more confidence to the member.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you for the answer, minister. I know what your intentions here are, and it may work out and I might be worried about something that is only shadows. The third question I have is: if there is a major development for the state, like the 1,200 fans that were proposed in the Gawler Ranges for renewable energy and hydrogen production and what was to be the Whyalla proposal—and it may still be in the future. I do not think it has been ruled out; it might be just shelved at the moment. If a development like those 1,200 wind farms needs the new biodiversity council's approval, they may not give you the approval and may make it really hard.

Can the Minister for Energy, for example, come over the top of this board and say, 'Hang on, we don't need to ask for your approval. We need these pads, we need these roads, we need this infrastructure put in place. Sorry, biodiversity council—as important as you are, your opinion doesn't matter today.' Minister, could you help us have confidence that when there are major projects in place this council is not the be-all and does not have the only say in what takes place for the best interests of the state?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just to clarify some matters, first of all this council does not determine clearance approvals. That is done by the clearance committee, which is akin to a subcommittee of the Native Vegetation Council presently. Secondly, the pathways for whether a piece of vegetation is protected and unable to be cleared, or the circumstances under which it may be cleared, or that certain activities are in fact exempt from having to seek permission, are all guided by the rest of the legislation and policies and guidelines that sit beneath it. There are pathways for major infrastructure to receive clearance approvals.

So I think we should not overemphasise the powers of this council, nor be distracted, perhaps, by who might be sitting on it as opposed to what this legislation is doing, which is finding the right pathway for biodiversity to be properly protected but within a modern economy that has certain requirements.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr BASHAM: Does the minister envisage the council will be the manager, for a better word, of the biodiversity plan and its reviews, or will that sit within the department?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The hesitation is just that we are checking through with clause 173, which describes the state biodiversity plan in some more detail. Certainly the state biodiversity plan is the creature, in a sense, of the minister, but the minister is required to seek the advice of the council and, as is identified under clause 16, the council is required to give advice to the minister on the state biodiversity plan.

I would personally as minister, should I still be minister when this comes into force, expect that substantially the plan would be prepared under the aegis and guidance of the state biodiversity council but the work would probably largely be done by the department and that there would be, through the development of that state biodiversity plan, a significant amount of consultation across the community to make sure that it benefits from all of the knowledge that the community has to offer.

Mr BASHAM: I have a question in relation to one of the functions, which is to review decisions made by the clearance assessment committee. There is a member listed under the membership of the council from that committee. If there was an appeal made, would it be envisaged that that member would be not party to that discussion?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, absolutely. That would be my expectation. I would expect that the procedures that are developed would capture that, but it would be common governance sense that that would be the case.

Mr TELFER: Obviously there are a number of different functions of the council considered here, minister. I was interested in paragraph (j) because it is pretty ambiguous and it does not really give much detail. It provides:

(j) to engage the community in relation to the importance of biodiversity conservation;

Is this to do with specific applications, projects, considerations, or is it a PR process so that they can tell everyone how important biodiversity is?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is fairly open-ended, and it is because it needs to be one of the things that the council is capable of doing, so we give permission for that to be something that occurs. I would expect that there will be one or several people on the council who will be very engaging and good at talking to others about the importance of biodiversity. When I think about Professor Chris Daniels, being the Chair of Green Adelaide, for example, he is one of the most engaging speakers in South Australia on any topic and obviously he specifically talks about biodiversity. He is an enthusiast who informs people and encourages them to do more good work.

That is the kind of expectation I would have that would happen from time to time. It will depend partly on the personalities and the experience of the people on the council, but it is right and proper that people are involved in a significant council like that, such as the Premier's Climate Change Council at present, where Martin Haese is a significant leader in our state. He chose to put effort into putting on two industry climate change conferences in order to engage with business on the way in which climate change might affect their business and how they can respond. It is that kind of capacity to be able to really capture the skill set that is likely to be sitting around that table.

Mr TELFER: I am just looking back on the composition of the council. Obviously, there is a bit of a difference in the correlation between the composition of the council, which we went through before. It is not communications, public relations or anything like that. With the number of council members—seven, not more than 12; it will be interesting where that lands in the end—are we just trying to find this unicorn of a person who fits all these different aspects of these skill sets and/or knowledge as well as the ability to present with the sort of flair that someone like Chris Daniels does?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I appreciate the compliment to Chris of his very special qualities. Nonetheless, I think that most people who are engaged in significant government/council board work have a range of those kinds of skills, again to refer to Martin Haese. Last night the film Ocean by David Attenborough had a special screening as part of the Premier's Climate Change Council's effort to bring people together to see something that is really important, that they understand what is happening. It is that kind of work that is likely to be a feature of the work that is undertaken. I expect that most of the people if not all the people on the council will be more than capable of engaging with others.

The other week, I had a conversation with a few women who are involved in mining businesses that are at the engaging exploration stage. A couple of those women were so impressive in the way in which they bring together ESG credentialling for their businesses and get out there and try to find minerals. The skill sets of the people in South Australia are extraordinary, and I am certain that many of them will be engaging in different forums with different audiences.

Mr McBRIDE: Subclause 16(e) says 'to manage the Biodiversity Restoration Fund'. Can you give us a little bit of insight with regard to that type of responsibility? In other words, is this new council allowed to create a fund that goes into the millions of dollars? Do they have to spend the money, otherwise it could be lost or given back? Can you tell us what kind of responsibility this means where it says 'Biodiversity Restoration Fund' under the functions of council?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There may be more specific questions the member has when we reach clause 36, which describes in more detail the biodiversity restoration fund, but the responsibilities are exactly those of the current Native Vegetation Council with the Native Vegetation Fund.

Clause passed.

Clause 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Mr BASHAM: Just a quick one: what is the size of the clearance assessment committee, numberwise, that is envisaged? Will a quorum of that committee be required to actually be present to make those decisions?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This is modelled on the current—and forgive me if I have got the title wrong—native vegetation clearance assessment panel that sits under the Native Vegetation Council. We think they currently have around three members who are required to meet. The normal process for government boards would be that there is a quorum, but because we are allowing this to be defined through subordinate legislation it is one of the many things that is going to take up the two years after this piece of legislation goes through. We will determine what the right number is and, of course, what the quorum would be. I think that the existence of a quorum is something that is standard practice in government.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, in regard to the composition of the clearance assessment committee, you just mentioned three members and that the committee is two years away. One of the things I would be interested in when this committee makes assessments on native veg and the value of the native vegetation that they assess—please correct me, and I know you will in your answer, if I am getting this wrong.

If there is an opportunity to remove native vegetation it usually has a price: it could be either offsets or it could be a value figure. In this process of the clearance assessment committee—and now that we have heard that there are only three members and that maybe you would look at it in a different light in two years' time—when they put a value of native veg as a dollar figure, does this committee actually gather those figures and the value of the vegetation? Do they collect those moneys when they say there is a tree worth $30,000? Does the $30,000 come back to the clearance assessment committee, or does that go into another government pool or coffer?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: At present, the way that the Native Vegetation Act works is that when an offset is determined that is going to be a financial one rather than putting aside some land that money goes into the Native Vegetation Council fund, which can then be spent on biodiversity. The equivalent under this legislation will be that it goes into the biodiversity restoration fund, which will effectively do the same thing, although it may therefore be able to invest more in, say, concentrating on wildlife restoration as well as native vegetation. So it just enables that slightly broader understanding of what biodiversity is.

The State Biodiversity Plan, in guiding the prioritisation of where we get the most value of restoration in the state—where there is the most acute need and where we can get the biggest bang for buck—will help guide the way in which that will be spent.

Mr McBRIDE: I could wait until we go to the function of a CAC, but, coming back to the composition—and this really goes to the heart of the question that I was going to ask you, but I needed to ask you the first one, as I just did. If you have members who compose the clearance assessment committee who are—and I am going to be a little bit derogatory and really be like an environmental Nazi—the best tree-hugging, biodiversity and environmentally aware, most highly acclaimed, university-degreed members we could have in this composition, what we will find, if we collect individual members of that type of pedigree, is that everything else does not seem to matter.

They become that really strong enforcement on vegetation, they value vegetation very highly in aspects of biodiversity and environmental purposes—I get it. What we then have to recognise is what are the breaks and the walls and the bloody hurdles that get put in place that stop housing developments and developments of wind farms or roads or any other development the state wants to do.

The question then to you, minister, is: with the composition of this committee, do we have a chance to at least get a balance between environmental outcomes and economic prosperity and growth? If we need houses built, can we have representatives there that will bat for housing developments, because, yes, native veg is important but so is housing?

This composition is what I think we are suffering from in the state already on the native vegetation clearance committee. Maybe, minister, there is a really great opportunity for the Malinauskas government and you as the minister for the Department for Environment and Water to actually bring some balance.

You have only told us about three members because the member for Finniss has already asked how many members are on this committee. I actually do not mind that it is small—I just want it balanced. So the question, again, to you, minister, is: is there an opportunity to get a good balance and composition of the clearance assessment committee so that we can have native vegetation or biodiversity as an important consideration, but also the wellbeing of state economic growth and development balanced alike?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think we just need to be clear that the clearance assessment committee really is working under the existing legislation on what is exempt and what is not exempt. So the guidelines, the rules, are set and the clearance assessment committee simply goes through and applies them. What we are doing for the first time in this legislation is providing two steps of review that has not been possible before. The first, should one be unhappy with the decision that has been made, is that you go to the biodiversity Council for review, and then, if you are still unhappy, you have the right to go to the court.

We have not had that facility before, but we recognise that for people's confidence in the system, being able to say, 'Well, I do not like that decision and I think it was made wrongly and I can have that reviewed,' increases confidence in the quality of the decision-making. So this panel does not have the kind of discretion that I think the member might be concerned about.

Mr PEDERICK: Just following up from the member for MacKillop and trying to get a spread of people on the clearance assessment committee, will there be a requirement to have a primary producer on that committee?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Not a requirement under the legislation as it is written, but, as you can see, there will be regulations that will identify the requirements for skills and expertise of the members and how the appointment will be undertaken. Because I have given a commitment to all of the stakeholders that they will be actively engaged in the development of the subordinate legislation, including this, I expect that kind of question will be aired then and a decision will be made in full consultation before it comes in as regulations, which of course are then open for disallowance through parliament, should people feel so moved.

Mr PEDERICK: I guess this is more of a comment and reiterating what the member for MacKillop indicated—the reason I am asking that is just trying to seek balance on this committee.

Mr TELFER: Minister, obviously we have had some questions from both the member for MacKillop and the member for Hammond about this aspect in particular of the composition of the CAC because although we have been reflecting in the previous questions around the biodiversity council, where it is quite prescriptive, we have quite prescriptive compositions and quite prescriptive functions. The composition of the CAC really is quite ambiguous and it really does give the power solely in the hands of the minister. I understand the reasons behind it and how we got to the point that we did.

What is the intended process, do you envision, to make nominations to this body? Obviously it prescribes the appointment process and the skills, which we will talk about as required by regulation, but what do you envision the appointment process would be? Would it be something that would likely mirror the process of nominations for the biodiversity council, for instance?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is an interesting question, because when we are debating legislation it kind of does not matter what is in the mind of the minister, because that mind may change over time, and the minister changes, but I am happy to share my own views. This is essentially a committee that has a particular task of following what has already been established by others, largely through legislation when it comes to clearance exemptions and clearance rules, and therefore what you want are people who have a degree of expertise in following the detail of what has been set out for them and applying them in a way that will stand up in court, because we are allowing court review.

My view about how that might take place is I am very open to being shaped by the process of consultation that we will go through with the stakeholders when we are proposing to look at regulations on the requisite skills and expertise. I think the legislation here is very reasonable in saying that people ought to be capable of fulfilling the functions and also have a commitment to biodiversity generally. People from all of the sectors would be able to fulfil that. Many people in mining —and nearly everybody involved in primary production—have got a focus on making sure that biodiversity is strong.

But in terms of the detail I am perfectly comfortable to allow the consultation process really to throw up some options, just recognising this is quite a constrained and narrow role. The one quality that I think is absolutely essential is that they are capable of making decisions that withstand judicial review, because this is the integrity measure that we require.

Mr TELFER: And obviously we are going to speak about the functions to come, but in the consideration of the composition, obviously you are right, it is a significant aspect of what you would consider is the capacity to be able to apply the SEB policy. From my contributions in this place over the last few years, there can be no doubt that I have real concerns about the current process and the ambiguity for landowners, developers and farmers going through the SEB process and some of the perverse negative outcomes for regional communities, in particular, throughout the native veg process and that assessment that has happened.

As we put together a structure for consideration of that policy, I get the different aspects of it. I still have real concerns that this legislation is going to only add additional barriers and the lack of specificity within this aspect of the bill, which allows the minister the powers to be able to set who the minister of the day wants to be performing the function of the CAC, does not provide me with any further confidence in there being a balance when it comes to the decisions that are made under the prescription of the existing legislation, as you point out. Some of the decisions that are being made around native vegetation for regional communities have had really negative and perverse outcomes.

I am interested, minister—and I spoke about how there was little detail in the characteristics skill sets within the clause that we are debating at the moment. One aspect that you do give specificity to is in subclause (4) where:

One member of the CAC must be an Aboriginal person, who may, but need not, be a member of the ABC.

Once again, it leaves it pretty ambiguous and open as to what that process might be. If it was a flow down or a flow sideways from the ABC into the CAC, it could be said that there has already been an assessment made about the individuals who are part of that ABC in the process, which we will unpack in a short while. But if it then opens up to the capacity for the minister to just bring in any Aboriginal person from outside the existing structures of the ABC, why have you considered that this is an appropriate process to bake in rather than joining it all up together when it comes to consideration of the members of the committee?

Once again, it is a bit like the debate or the questions that we had last night when working out the identification and appointment process. This seems to be a layer of ambiguity being added for what I see as no real reason.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In some part I will take this as a contribution about views that the member would like to see shaping the way in which the regulations would be drafted. Specifically on the question of the Aboriginal member, if the question, as I understand it, is why it is that we are not using the Aboriginal biodiversity committee as essentially the source of them going into the others because they are for the biodiversity council why then not using that, I think it is a question of logistics that there will only be so many people on the Aboriginal biodiversity council. The people going on to the biodiversity council itself cannot be on the clearance committee because we want to make sure that we are keeping conflicts out as much as possible and, therefore, we are not trying to overuse one relatively small group of people. It just enables the capacity to bring someone else in so I am reasonably comfortable with that.

I think the point made of the frustration that some local communities have had in the regions about decisions that they felt were wrong decisions where there was no pathway is one that we have heard and which is why we have brought in the review process, and it is why this committee above all must be capable of making sound decisions that do not constantly lead to losing in the ERD Court.

Mr TELFER: What I was probably trying to get to is that if there is not a clear process as to how to source an Aboriginal person to be a representative on the CAC, what that nomination process or advertising process might be. There is a clear source if we have an existing structure. If you were thinking that there was not enough capacity within the ABC because the representatives that might be capable are already siphoned off into the biodiversity decision-making body, is this going to be just a ministerial appointment saying, 'There's someone that I know, an Aboriginal person with a skillset,' or is this going to be something which is advertised for nominations, or direct correspondence to Aboriginal corporations or whatever it might be? This is where, with the specific nature of this aspect in particular, it opens up for questions about that sort of process.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand those questions but I am not able to exhaustively answer them now because this legislation enables the capacity then to create regulations to define that. Being involved in the environment portfolio, it has an extraordinary number of committees and councils and so on, some of which have a significant amount of delegated power—the Heritage Council, the Native Vegetation Council. It is not even delegated necessarily but actually given by legislation, and the minister has no say—and all of the landscape boards. My view has been to not dial around friends and suggest them to the Public Service. I just think that is not the way that ministers should operate.

Other ministers over time may have different views, but my view is that what you are looking for are people who are going to do a really good job, and it tends to be better to go and ask the community or ask people who are involved in the sector. We will work through those regulations and I am going to take most of what has been raised here as being views about how that might be shaped when we get to that.

Mr McBRIDE: The benefit of going last is that I get the opportunity to ask questions no-one else has asked. Minister, I think this is probably one of the most important committees and pieces of legislation around this Biodiversity Bill when it comes to the clearance assessment committee, and coming from three angles.

The first is that you are putting a committee together that will value native vegetation and biodiversity in a monetary fund or offset. In regard to the monetary, it means that they can put a value on native vegetation and biodiversity to help build the Native Vegetation Fund if they choose, have the will to do or have a bias towards, or if they have no inkling to do so. It can be a choice. But I have never heard bureaucracy or government employees say, 'But we don't want any more money. We will just leave it in the community because that's theirs.' That is usually not the premise of how they act and the way that they roll out this type of value.

The second point is, in regard to this clearance assessment committee, history tells us that we get people who really have a lot of expertise around native vegetation already in this space. I have to say that I think the state has suffered as a consequence, and it has suffered in a myriad of ways. I will give a couple of examples that have shown us this in history as the issues have arisen. I can give you a tiny couple of snippets.

The first is that we had a tree in a primary school down in my electorate and the school was concerned about the tree falling on the kids. It was overhanging and had dangerous limbs. They got an assessment on it and they were not allowed to touch it. Luckily, over the weekend the branches and the limbs fell off and onto the ground. Had that happened on a school day with kids playing under the tree on a hot day, the bloody branches would have fallen on the children. The parents came in and cleaned up the tree, cut it back to a good shape or maybe even removed the whole thing altogether, I am not sure. It does not matter. That is just one example where native veg has failed but we are lucky it was not worse.

Another one is to do with our road infrastructure. Our Department for Infrastructure and Transport and the minister for roads are aligning roads on road transport corridors which have trees on them in a more expensive way to preserve native veg that has grown back, because the Native Vegetation Council will not give them permission to move the trees on the left-hand side, for instance. Or they are going up against boundary fences with roads because the vegetation is considered too expensive, the department does not want to go through the hassle or this type of committee does not give the approval.

Another one is the example I have given about housing in Naracoorte and the $30,000 trees. They may be valuable native veg but what is missing in this committee—and, minister, this is an opportunity for you; it is not a criticism but an opportunity to highlight—is that we seem to have those with the best knowledge about biodiversity and native vegetation but we do not have a balance on the other side.

We do not have a person who can say, 'If you leave trees hanging over the roadsides and branches fall off at will, it could land on a car,' and we know that that has happened. And it could land on a car with people in the car, and we know that has happened. But we do not have people here who represent roads or transport corridors or DIT and schools. That seems to be the imbalance.

All I will ask you, minister, is could you consider or would you consider a better balance in the clearance assessment committee that is not just solely about biodiversity and native veg but the consequences of that preservation and the value that it might have on the other side of the equation to the state?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The good news is that much, if not all, of what has been raised is addressed through existing legislation and in an improved form in the new legislation. Schedule 2, towards the end of this bill, contains the exemptions to clearance restrictions. If you look at division 7, which is safety and fire prevention, and specifically clause 20 in schedule 2, the safety of persons and property, it is okay to knock down a tree to make sure people are safe. A little earlier than that in division 2, and in clause 8 therefore of schedule 2, 'Roadside or rail corridor plant management,' some improvements have been made, I think, from the member's perspective, in the way in which roadside corridors are able to be managed.

There was a requirement that councils have a management plan, which was costing councils a lot of money. The view from the department was that that was not adding any value to the way in which the land was being managed, and therefore we have removed that requirement. We have also fixed up an anomaly we discovered had existed that suggested safety issues were not allowing clearance when it came to roadside vegetation, even though generally it was the case. We have now made it the case.

Please rest assured that while the department, myself, and the legislation, of course, has, as an enormous priority, that we have a healthy environment for all of us, we all understand the complexity of what that means in modern Australia and the importance of safety from fire, safety from limb fall, and the way that roadside verges are managed, and much of the concerns of the member have not only been addressed previously in legislation but also now been added to in this legislation.

Mr TEAGUE: Just an interaction point. I am interested, at subclause (4), in the requirement that one member of the CAC be an Aboriginal person—we will get to the ABC in a minute—and at clause 10 we have dealt with what description of Aboriginal knowledges we have. So there is an obligation on everybody who is engaged in the administration of the act to, as far as practicable, consider and apply Aboriginal knowledges. That applies to everybody who is engaged in the administration of the act.

The ABC is structured in such a way as to—and we will get to it, presumably—develop and elucidate those Aboriginal knowledges for the benefit of all those engaged in the administration of the act. Therefore, insofar as there is a requirement for an Aboriginal person to be a member of the CAC, surely it is not to be read into it that that person is therefore supposedly the custodian of the Aboriginal knowledges for the purposes of reference points for their CAC. That is not as it is structured.

It just leaves open the question of what, from a skills and expertise point of view—and not to overburden that individual—are they expected to bring to that committee as a distinct point in terms of internal reference relevant to Aboriginal knowledges, if anything? Or is it really just that it is a parallel requirement that, independent of anything else, there needs to be an Aboriginal person of whatever expertise or background, whether or not related to Aboriginal knowledges?

I heard the minister say earlier that it might be desirable that that person not be a member of the ABC, because you want to draw people from all over and spread it around. All the more so, if that person is not a member of the ABC, what are they bringing vis-a-vis their Aboriginality, and how might that be distinct from the work that the ABC is doing, let alone what everybody else is doing, in reference to clause 10 and the need to consider and apply those Aboriginal knowledges?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is difficult to exhaustively answer. We made a commitment in the preparation of this legislation to really integrate Aboriginal people into the approach to management of biodiversity and its promotion. I think that is a reasonable general approach to take, not only generally in Australia and South Australia but also specifically when we are dealing so much with country, when we seek to engage at every level as much as possible.

I agree with the member, or with what I am inferring from what the member has said, that it is unfair to necessarily say that because you have Aboriginal heritage you carry all the weight of all of the Aboriginal knowledges. If I am right in that, I agree with that proposition. It is not something that can be expected to be confined to one person and carried entirely by that person. I think it is reasonable to say that we have to make sure that we have people from Aboriginal background or Aboriginal people at all levels in this, therefore we have made that a requirement.

That individual person will bring, depending on who it is, different experience and skills. That will evolve over time, just as on the other council, when you have someone with mining expertise, they might couple that with also a good knowledge of, say, fungi at the same time because they happen to be interested in it. That does not mean that role will always carry that, but that is something that they bring. Individuals bring a variety of experiences, but we have just made sure that we are populating this with a deep acknowledgement of the importance of having Aboriginal people engaged at every level.

Mr TEAGUE: In those circumstances, then—and it might repeat what the member for Flinders has already contributed; if the minister regards it as rhetorical, then I respect that—why is it not more coherent to have as a stipulation that that Aboriginal person is a nominee of the ABC, if not the chair or a designated participant in the ABC, so that if there is to be work in the development, elucidation, consideration or appreciation of Aboriginal knowledges, that is actually an objective of this CAC process as opposed to just an incidental qualification, as it were?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think it is quite likely that that is how it will work. It may well be that is one of the ways in which the processes are developed. I guess the challenge is, say, if the chair of the ABC and the other person who has the most time to give to other committees are already on the biodiversity council, and the other people who are on the ABC just do not have time to add another committee, then you do not want to be stuck. It is just a question of not overemphasising and putting too much expectation on those people who are on that committee, but I imagine actually in practice it is quite likely to work the way the member has described.

Mr TEAGUE: As succinctly as possible at this juncture, I just indicate that, as it is structured at the moment, it is quite possible, indeed meritorious possibly, for the person who is on the CAC pursuant to subclause (4) to have a completely divergent view to those who are part of the ABC and responsible for developing things that sound like they are talking to the clause 10 Aboriginal knowledges. I just indicate that.

Clause passed.

Clause 19.

Mr BASHAM: Following on a bit from that angle, looking at the functions of the CAC and paragraph (d): we are shortly to talk about the scientific committee, whereas paragraph (d) is saying that the clearance assessment committee is going to be a source of expert advice in relation to native plants matters, including management, conservation, restoration and enhancement of native plants. It just seems like a very strange function of a committee that is set up primarily to make assessments around clearance.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think the way to understand this is that the mitigation hierarchy looks to say there are other ways of doing a development that will minimise the impact. So, understanding what the impact is and the ways in which that might be minimised and the development could be accommodated but the biodiversity also protected requires some knowledge and understanding of the way that biodiversity operates.

Mr BASHAM: Clause 19(f) states that there could be other functions assigned to this committee. Does the minister have any thoughts about what may be—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, that is a pretty standard clause and I have nothing in mind at present.

Clause passed.

Clause 20.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to the establishment of the Aboriginal Biodiversity Committee, will this committee be required to give an annual report to the minister?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it will be required to. All of the committees that are named in the legislation are required to give annual reports to the minister. I believe that is in clause 33.

Mr PEDERICK: We may refer to it there, but seeing I have started on it here will there be a penalty process if there is no annual report sent to the minister?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Clause 33 does not have a penalty applied to it, but it does say that they 'must' and that the minister must, within six sitting days after receiving the report, cause the report to be laid before both houses of parliament. You will have noticed, I think yesterday, I had one of my very long lists, partly because I represent the Attorney-General in this house but also my own annual reports. They will be added to those lists of annual reports. I do not believe any committee that reports to me that is required to give me an annual report has ever failed to.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

Mr BASHAM: How many members of the ABC are envisaged to be—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not have a view about that at present. We will determine that over the course of the two years while we are establishing this piece of legislation.

Mr BASHAM: I have one further question in relation to a public servant being unable to be the chair of that committee. Is that a state public servant or just a public servant of any level of government?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand it, that is to be interpreted as being state Public Service commonly.

Mr TELFER: Just a little bit further on from that, then, minister, so I have a bit of an understanding of the process that you envision as the minister putting this legislation forward, that it will be followed when:

Members of the ABC will be appointed by the Minister on the basis of the environmental and cultural expertise considered necessary to achieve its functions.

What do you envision the process looking like for you to seek nominations to the ABC through this sort of cascading description of process from the biodiversity through to the CAC and the ABC, probably even less designation about what that process will look like? It states that the minister will appoint them on these bases, but what will the actual process for the nomination and appointment look like from the perspective of the minister putting this legislation forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Again, I do not have a firm view about how we might proceed with this. The legislation rightly allows that to be set out through regulation, which gives us an opportunity to make sure that, as suggestions come up about how some might be managed, that will also influence how we think about how others are managed. At present, I have an open mind, and I am looking forward to the engagement of all relevant stakeholders in helping us guide the most sensible way to give flexibility to the government to have a broad range of skill sets but also confidence from the community that the people on these committees and councils have the right approach, skills and experience.

Mr TELFER: I am once again asking a question about subclause (6), where it talks about the chair of the ABC not being a member of the Public Service. With its exclusion, it is the allowance of other members of the ABC to be members of the Public Service. This specific nature of the chair means that obviously the others could be. With other committees, the CAC and biodiversity and the like you look at what potentially could be sourced members from representative bodies. It might be different aspects of the department. Is there a risk that when there is an appointment made of a member of the ABC from the Public Service, although they may be appointed for all the genuine reasons, they might be representative of the department that they are actually a member of?

You could have a member of the Public Service and the environment department who has been appointed to the ABC, and there could be the risk of a crossover of responsibilities and roles. It states, very broadly, that the minister should seek to appoint persons who can demonstrate 'a commitment to action to address biodiversity conservation, restoration and enhancement' and 'an understanding of the issues and impacts associated with biodiversity.' Is it best practice for a member of the Public Service to be a representative on a board like this? I have a few qualms about that.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I can understand where those questions are coming from. Very occasionally, when we are doing the appointments of those, as I mentioned, numerous boards, councils and committees in the environment portfolio, there are public servants who appear on those lists, but it is pretty rare. For both of these, we have said that the chair cannot be, but it might be that a person on the committee is a public servant. There are really kind of two categories, are there not?

There is someone who is in the department and is on a committee associated with their department, and then there is someone who happens to be a public servant, who might be working in child protection, or a teacher, but nonetheless is putting themselves forward. Probably the member would be more relaxed about those than someone who has the same boss and therefore might feel constrained to run a certain line.

I generally do not think it is the best thing to ask of a public servant, to be in that situation; I agree. I would think perhaps in this case for the Aboriginal biodiversity committee, I can think of a number of the Aboriginal rangers I have met over the last few years—and we added another 15 over these four years—who are really knowledgeable and senior people within their own communities and have also developed an expertise of the kind of white way scientific approach on biodiversity that might well be reasonable to consider.

So I would not see it as a prohibition on that, but generally my inclination is not to put a public servant in a position of being on a council that is supposed to give frank and fearless advice as a council or a committee, as opposed to a public servant who, again, should be frank and fearless but through a hierarchy. Generally I would not approach it in that way, but I can imagine exceptions that everyone would find to be reasonable.

Mr TELFER: Continuing on this aspect, it states that the chair of the ABC may not be a member of the Public Service. There is another sort of subcategory, and that is someone who works for an organisation that receives public funding. This is where, once again, there could be a question around the ambiguity of decisions that are made if there is a person who has an interest in the government funding.

Are there examples in other pieces of legislation where it specifies that a member should not be receiving a benefit from public funding? Often, with some of the Indigenous corporations and the like, there is this sort of ambiguity which could be shade that could be thrown over decisions, with that sort of involvement. I would like the minister's perspective on that in particular.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In general, I absolutely understand the logic of those questions. At the same time, I also think about the way that South Australia operates and how we are not a particularly big population, and so we tend to fall over each other, in some ways, under the different guises. We do have some people who are involved in the environment movement who are on various committees, for example. Sometimes the organisations they work for would have had a grant or multiple grants, and yet that does not seem to stop the individuals from being critical of government, thank goodness. So it is not impossible for someone to come with expertise and that they hold a few hats and that they manage those well.

It is also true for, say, someone who is a pastoralist who holds a lease from government, or someone who is involved in primary production in the South-East and who nonetheless occasionally applies for a grant for some kind of equipment to go onto the farm, or a mining company or a developer who wants to get government permission to do activities.

It is very hard, I think probably anywhere but perhaps even more acutely in South Australia, for us to find people who have no involvement at all with government and never any connection. I do not know that it is necessary to be that cautious, as long as we are all clear about where conflicts of interest sit, and it is of course extremely important that they are managed appropriately. But in general it would not be my preference to have people about whom there might then be a perception of them being captured in some way. My preference is always to have people who might, occasionally to my detriment, choose to be critical, but at least they are giving their honest views.

Mr TELFER: Can I ask a supplementary question to that one?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): A quick supplementary, very quickly, because this is a long bill.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, sir. Does the minister envision that a register of interest process or a declaration of interest process similar to what we see with other committees will apply to this Aboriginal biodiversity committee?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is a standard requirement that conflicts of interest are named in committees and also in government. Of course these committees will be developing their own procedures, and again it would be standard that that would be part of it.

Mr TEAGUE: Along the same lines as a previous question in relation to the CAC, in terms of the interrelationship between clause 21 and clause 10, I think the connection that there is between a requirement of the composition of the ABC to have Aboriginal knowledges, and then its application, as we will see in clause 22, to the provision of advice in relation to Aboriginal knowledges, is at subclause (2), but only that far. There is otherwise no explicit reference to Aboriginal knowledges in clause 21, so the members of the ABC are appointed on the basis of the environmental and cultural expertise considered necessary to achieve its functions, and those functions include providing advice to the minister in relation to the application of Aboriginal knowledges.

So members of the ABC appear to be necessarily capable of providing advice to the minister in relation to the application of Aboriginal knowledges—that might be regarded as a question or just a statement of the basis of the starting point—but they, like others who are engaged in the administration of the act, are not themselves necessarily the possessors of those Aboriginal knowledges.

In that case, are they, including by dint of their Aboriginality, so far as the structure of the bill is concerned, expected to be those who are in a position to go about acquiring or referring to those knowledges and then in turn advising the minister what they are? Are they in an especially better position to be able to pass those on? In so doing—and it might be a question more directed to clause 22—is there some, therefore, acquisition of Aboriginal knowledges that is developed in the course of the administration of the act that we can all benefit from, or is that a work in progress that needs to be just kept online, as it were?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is a bit of 'column A, column B' for that last bit, but I will come to that. If we refer to subclause (d)(i), part of the job of this committee is to develop the policy about the consideration and application of knowledges. So, indeed, as was expressed by the member, this is not about them being the entire keepers and holders of Aboriginal knowledge but rather that they develop the policy for how that is to be acquired, how that is to be used in order to help guide the administrators of the act more generally.

The question of the use to which the knowledge that is gathered in the process of this act is put and its availability for others is something that is, of course, a work in progress, but consistent with the objects and principles of the act, the more information that is provided generally to the public to help make good decisions, the better. There is an expression that I occasionally unleash on the team, 'All facts are friendly'. The more information that is provided, the better we can all make decisions collectively and let knowledge be our guide.

So that sort of approach would sit behind also sharing such information as is able to be shared and has been acquired. But as I said, 'column A, column B', because that is of course still a work in progress, and how that is done, and how that is done sensitively. But if we refer to our discussion last night about the culturally significant biodiversity entities—that is, enabling a community to identify that something is of cultural significance to them within biodiversity—it is a piece of information that is useful to people and can be taken account of when making decisions. That is the approach that sits beneath much of the legislation here.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Mr BASHAM: With the operation of the ABC and the operation of biodiversity council, the way I read this, they both report through to the minister. There are connections where two members of the ABC are members of the council, but is there any working relationship intended between the ABC and the council?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is not an official mechanism, other than the shared membership that cuts across from the Aboriginal biodiversity committee into the biodiversity council. The minister is kind of the funnel in that sense, but the reality of how this always works is that the work that one does informs another. It will not be limited necessarily to the work done by these committees.

The Premier's Climate Change Council recently commissioned some scientific research on the likely impact of coastal processes in sea level rise and then that information has been provided through to the planning department and it has been provided to the Coast Protection Board. Even though they are not required by legislation to report to those organisations, their functions only work effectively when they are providing the information elsewhere, so that is exactly how I would expect all of this to operate.

Mr BASHAM: I guess with that sort of understanding, with the two reporting to the minister, there could be occasions when they have completely different views on a particular point, so that would be for the minister of the day to decide which direction the minister would like to head; is that correct?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right, and that could express itself, say, in the biodiversity plan where there are competing views, but that is exactly what government and politics is all about.

Mr TELFER: Obviously in paragraph (d) it talks about the need for the ABC 'to co-develop with the minister relevant biodiversity policies, including the following,' and it specifies how many. We spoke a little bit last night about the culturally significant biodiversity entities process and what you envision that will look like.

As far as the development of these specific policies, can you provide to the committee any further insight into what decisions these policies will drive—the process for the culturally significant biodiversity entities we spoke about last night? Can you unpack a little bit the policy about the consideration and application of Aboriginal knowledges for me as well? I think I broadly understand subparagraph (iii), the policy about cultural burning of native plants, but can you give me some context as to the scenario in which that policy would be in place?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They are the three that we have identified as being necessary policies. I am not contemplating others. It may well be that they will propose them though. These are the ones that we have regarded as being of significance immediately, the first one being the way in which, when understanding the operation of the act—and we have said it is important that we learn from Aboriginal people what they have to offer—one goes about that and what is the approach. This policy will help guide that.

The second one about the culturally significant biodiversity entities we discussed a little bit last night, so it would create, I would presume, criteria for what those entities might have to fulfil and also the process by which they might have to be accepted. They would be the kinds of areas that I would expect, being very aware of the limits to my knowledge, we would let people come up with great ideas that, of course, ministers do not have.

The third one we also touched on briefly last night, which is that while prescribed burning to minimise fire risk to avoid fire is something that does have exemptions from clearance approval, cultural burning does not. It exists in a sort of stranded area legally, because in some ways cultural burning, although it is for cultural purposes, not explicitly for fire-management purposes, can nonetheless have that impact. So what we need is someone to work on what that looks like, what that policy would be and would it then trigger some form of exemption from clearance approval.

Mr TELFER: In which locations? Are we talking specifically about Aboriginal lands, lands that are managed by Aboriginal corporations? The nature of the cultural burning obviously within those lands is easy to specify, but could it be utilised in other areas including for private landowners, etc? What are the parameters regarding the location scope?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It has just been drawn to my attention that in division 8 of schedule 2, which is the schedule that has all of the exemptions, there is the cultural burning clause there, but it requires the policy to be developed, and what we are saying is that this committee will do the development of that policy.

My view is that cultural burning would not necessarily be confined to lands that are held under native title or held in freehold by Aboriginal corporations. It may well be in parks, it may well be on private land, but that policy will be developed by the committee.

Mr TEAGUE: Just bearing in mind clause 23 of division 8, schedule 2, the carve-out for cultural burning, there is a neat reference there to that being done in accordance with 'the plan' small 'b'. The question is: presumably that is not necessarily the same plan that is the capital B plan—the one that is yet to be determined but will be the overarching state biodiversity plan referred to at clause 9. Again, that is just by way of setting the scene.

Clause 23 of schedule 2 provides for the carve-out for the clearance of native plants by means of cultural burning 'undertaken by Aboriginal persons in accordance with the biodiversity policy relating to such cultural burning'. That presumes there is such a policy. That is not the state biodiversity plan obviously. Has there been some consideration of circumstances where that cultural burning might be distinct or completely unrelated to biodiversity as such? It is certainly not otherwise contemplated in the state biodiversity plan. Is it necessary in all circumstances or appropriate to shoehorn such cultural burning into the notion of a biodiversity plan per se?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If I understand the question, the idea of cultural burning that does not require exemption or permission to do because it damages native vegetation, so it does not require the trigger of an exemption clause such as we have created here, would not necessarily be governed. It is not for us to govern what cultural burning is writ large. It is for us—when I say 'us' as created by the Aboriginal biodiversity committee—to develop the biodiversity policy referred to in clause 23 of schedule 2, to trigger that exemption that sits within that clause. Does that make sense?

Mr TEAGUE: I was accused of not making sense yesterday.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It was a gentle, 'Please help me understand you,' rather than an accusation. I do not know what I do not know about cultural burning so I am not going to present myself here as an authority on all of the ways in which cultural burning could take place. What I am saying is that currently cultural burning under the existing legislation does not receive the exemption that prescribed burning does.

This legislation seeks to remedy that but says that in order to trigger that exemption it needs to be done in accordance with a policy: that policy is developed by this committee. That is what the biodiversity policy relating to such cultural burning refers to—is to this clause—a clause for policy about cultural burning of native plants undertaken by Aboriginal persons. That is the same document. So the document that is prepared by this committee is what that exemption clause is referring to.

Mr TEAGUE: That is good, because it does not say so, in that it does not make the express link, like other parts of the bill do, to say, 'That's where you will find it.' It is good that that is on the record and we know that. Therefore, if we are focused on subclause (d)(iii), they are codeveloping with the minister these relevant biodiversity policies, including this one. When we get to the schedule, that is then described as a biodiversity policy. I probably share the minister's perspective in that I do not know what I do not know about cultural burning as well.

Has it been squared away that cultural burning, including the sort of cultural burning that clears native plants and so on, is ipso facto consistent with a biodiversity policy? Or is it possible that it is completely contrary to any notion of biodiversity and the objects of the bill otherwise, and therefore is actually properly characterised as a carve-out, as is the rest of schedule 2, from things that would otherwise be prohibited by clause 42, among other things?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Schedule 2 contains a lot of carve-outs for a lot of activities and it is just adding this, which had previously been omitted. I think the reason that subclause (d), to go back to the clause we are discussing, is to codevelop with the minister is just to make sure that it is not simply being dealt with by a committee independent of any other engagement, that the minister is also responsible for codeveloping in the sense that the minister is responsible for this legislation so that it remains consistent with the intent of the legislation.

However, as the deputy leader points out, it is in the same terms in which one can be consistent with the biodiversity legislation in creating the exemption to enable damage to biodiversity under certain conditions, because schedule 2 is full of them and almost none of them relate to Aboriginal people. This is a rare one.

Mr TEAGUE: To be clear, therefore, it is a bit like the acquisition, the consideration or the elucidation of Aboriginal knowledges generally. It is not a core component of the bill's treatment of cultural burning, that somehow cultural burning is always going to be incorporated into what we understand to be biodiversity planning. It can be something that is otherwise contrary to the interests of biodiversity, but it might get over the line by virtue of it being incorporated in this particular policy and therefore included in the carve-out.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The point of the carve-out is not necessarily that it is entirely contradictory to the interests of biodiversity, it is saying that you do not have to go through a process of getting approval. It is saying that we accept this is something that will happen. I think many people who are exponents of cultural burning would say it is good for biodiversity, and it may well always be and it may well sometimes be; I do not know.

What I am saying is that this is a procedural question of, 'Do I have to go through the process of being challenged that I am not allowed to do this because it is regarded as clearance?' or is there an exemption pathway and, if I do it in accordance with this policy that has been developed—

Mr Teague: Biodiversity policy?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Biodiversity policy—by the Aboriginal biodiversity committee then I trigger not having to go through that process and it is an exemption.

Clause passed.

Clause 23 passed.