Bills

Biodiversity Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

Clause 24.

Mr BASHAM: Just unpacking a bit of the understanding of the scientific committee, in my thinking this may be one of those committees that does not necessarily have a set number of members because it could go up or down depending on a particular task. Is that a possible approach for this committee? For example, if we wanted to delve into the fungi space for a while we might have someone with fungi expertise come in, but they may not sit there for the entirety of the time.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I was initially saying, yes, exactly, but the advice is that it will probably be a static committee, it will probably be the same number. I can understand the circumstances to which the shadow minister is referring, that it might be that we need to flex up a committee for a year or two because of a particular focus on something, but largely we would expect this to be a pretty competent, broad-based committee that would be able to cope with most of the topics before them.

Mr TELFER: I absolutely understand the reality of what the composition of the scientific committee is going to deliver as far as scientific advice specifically pertaining to biodiversity goes, but I am curious about a requirement. We are going to talk about functions and the like of the scientific committee and exactly what they are going to be aiming to achieve. To legislate that one member of the scientific committee must be an Aboriginal person means, I think, once again, that we are trying to find someone who has the scientific expertise who happens to be Aboriginal, we are trying to find an Aboriginal person who has an interest or qualifications.

The cultural advice the ABC is absolutely going to be equipped to be able to provide and the scientific committee's requirements to provide scientific advice, I would have those two as separate important aspects. To legislate that one of the members of the scientific committee has to be Aboriginal is, I think, a little bit disjointed. Can you give an explanation as to why?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Overall, as I mentioned in reference to the clearance committee, we have made a commitment in this piece of legislation to engage Aboriginal people in all aspects. There are many Aboriginal scientists, and the overriding requirement is that these people be scientifically expert. There would be numerous Aboriginal people I can think of at the moment who would be good additions to this committee for that reason.

Clause passed.

Clause 25.

Mr BASHAM: It is very clear that this scientific committee is to supply advice to the minister. I just question that there is no function that allows them to apply advice directly to the council. Is there any reason why not?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: When we were crafting this, the parliamentary counsel advice was that the scientific committee is not required to report to the council, but nothing prevents it from providing information to the council. As I said earlier, this will work through engagement across, but they are not subordinate to the biodiversity council in being forced to report to it in any sense. The information that they consider under this act will assist the biodiversity council in fulfilling its obligations under the act.

Mr BASHAM: Just to get some clarity around how that may operate, if the biodiversity council were looking for some advice that the scientific committee was suitably skilled to provide, would they need to go to the minister, to us, or could they go directly?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They could go directly. In fact, when it refers to the functions of providing advice in relation to the state biodiversity plan and other plans and policies, I imagine that it would be reasonably frequently that advice would be sought by the biodiversity council. It is just that the biodiversity council are not required to seek their advice, nor are they required to report to them.

Clause passed.

Clause 26.

Mr BASHAM: Are there any committees or advisory bodies the minister envisages that would be created under this, or is this just a catch-all again?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is a catch-all. I think we have created quite a number, and we will be filling up those committees with some really good people. I do not imagine we will need any others for a while.

Clause passed.

Clause 27.

Mr BASHAM: A very similar question: does the minister envisage any necessary reason to create a trust under this clause?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This particular clause has been the subject of quite extensive discussion with some of the stakeholders who had wanted us to be required to create a trust, that the legislation would establish the trust rather than giving the capacity to do so. That is an understandable desire to see more money being put into the environment generally and specifically for these biodiversity conservation outcomes.

Our view was, given that we have no plan immediately to enact such a trust, the potential of it ought to exist and always the desire, if there is a source of money that could be identified to create one in order to enable those funds to be used wisely. This was the more sensible approach given that we have no immediate source of money to put into a trust.

Clause passed.

Clause 28.

Mr BASHAM: Conditions of membership of these bodies: here it is talking about reasons members may be removed for noncompliance, a breach, etc., of conditions of appointment. Is this just a standard government-type appointment structure and nothing outside that sort of thinking?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My advice is this is completely standard.

Clause passed.

Clause 29.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister give any expectation of what the cost of managing these committee structures is going to be going forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No. In part at least one of them is replacing an existing process and a panel that becomes one of the committees. So, no, we have not done a detailed budget on this but it will be absorbed within the current budget of the department.

Mr TELFER: This clause specifically designates that the minister will determine any remuneration level—obviously of the biodiversity council, the ABC, the CAC but also any other advisory body which may be established under the clause that we have previously been discussing. Is the process for the ministerial decision on the level of remuneration one which is comparable to other advisory boards? A lot of this process is often external when it comes to assessing remuneration levels. This is really around the powers completely within the hands of the minister.

I definitely do not expect this from the current minister or any others, but we are setting legislation which sets a framework for any potential future ministers who, under a process, have the power to decide exactly who they want to appoint, the overall decision rests with them, they also decide how much they are going to be paying this person, setting up the potential for a minister—like I said, I would not expect the current minister—to use that power in a way to advantage someone who set up a friend to come into the position of chair and set a remuneration level at an exorbitant level.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Sorry, we were just getting the number and then I pressed the wrong button on the phone. There is a Premier's circular that guides the remuneration for all government boards and committees. Although the legislation is written that 'the minister determines', in fact that is done under the aegis of the Premier's circular, which requires all of us to go through a process of having the boards, councils and committees assessed by DPC to determine what level they sit at so that we cannot go off on a frolic of our own and pay people a different amount than would be commensurate in another department. It is all centrally managed and that will be the case for this one.

Mr TELFER: I seek clarification that that DPC process would rank the committees as far as output requirement obligation, and within the current system, which I am well familiar with, they will make an assessment as to where that committee sits and then the remuneration band which would fit under both for the chair and the board members—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That exactly describes the process, yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 30.

Mr BASHAM: My question here is: why are the procedures for the council to be established by the council but the procedures for the CAC, ABC, the scientific committee and any other committees determined by the minister?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Largely, the procedures will be established through the regs. This is just for the exceptional circumstance where there is something that is not covered by those. I believe that the distinction between the council, or the committee established by the council being able to determine those procedures that might sit beyond what is contemplated by the regs, but that the scientific committee, the clearance assessment committee and the Aboriginal biodiversity committee would need to have establishment by the minister—that that is the case of the council having been a Governor-appointed level, that triggers the capacity for them to make that determination.

Mr BASHAM: I have one final point. How will those procedures be documented and will they be published transparently for general viewing?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The regulations will be of course that determine essentially the procedures of how they operate, and that because they will be determined by regulation it means that they will also be disallowable by parliament. In the case of the additional procedures, I think this is a fairly standard clause in legislation, and I do not know what happens in the event that an additional procedure is determined, but I can seek to find that information between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 31 passed.

Clause 32

Mr BASHAM: In relation to the staffing of the council, the committees and the advisory bodies, are they to come from current staffing, or do you envisage them coming from staffing from the Department for Environment and Water, or are they likely to be new roles dedicated to these councils or committees, or are they adaptations of current roles that are servicing them under native veg, for example?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: At the moment, we are envisaging that this will be accommodated within the current staffing profile of the environment department. The environment department has had a bit of a boost in the last couple of years in money coming in, particularly for biodiversity. A lot of what is occurring in this establishment is replacing something that already exists to the extent that there is additional work that is being managed within the approach of the department currently and thanks to the additional funding that has been supplied in recent budgets by the Treasurer.

Clause passed.

Clauses 33 to 35 passed.

Clause 36.

Mr BASHAM: Is the minister able to instruct the biodiversity council on expenditure from the biodiversity restoration fund?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, the biodiversity council's function is to manage the funds, so the minister cannot control that.

Mr BASHAM: In clause 11—General duty, it talks about there being no penalties but refers to funds being deposited into the biodiversity restoration fund if an order is made to pay money into that fund. Is that consistent with the lower penalty approach, or is this just a way of fixing an issue by putting some money in so that we can deal with it later?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The criminal offences that are not attached to clause 11 do potentially see money going into the biodiversity restoration fund in order to be spent on biodiversity restoration, which is the purpose of the act. The general duty clause does not allow for funds to be taken from people and put into the biodiversity restoration fund.

Mr BASHAM: Will all expiation fees and penalties recovered end up going into this fund?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Minister—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am so sorry, but I want to correct what I have said. We keep talking about this as if it were the Native Vegetation Act, and now I have fallen into it as well. There may be expiation fees and penalties that are associated with wildlife that would go into the wildlife conservation fund and not into the biodiversity restoration fund.

Mr TELFER: I think this is a pretty important aspect, minister, because obviously the biodiversity restoration fund is basically going to be absorbing the funds that exist within the Native Vegetation Fund at the point of changeover. The Native Vegetation Fund is a bit of a point of contention for a lot of communities in regional South Australia, in particular those who are frustrated that the funds are extracted from operations in regional South Australia under the obvious nature of the boundaries of the Native Vegetation Act but are not necessarily expended in the same way.

I am also concerned that this is only going to exacerbate the concerns that moneys extracted from regional communities through the structure of the native vegetation legislation could now be potentially expended in an even broader way that is even less specific to the regional communities from which that amount is extracted.

If there were a way to be able to frame the funding boundaries, potentially so that moneys that have been sourced under the Native Vegetation Act structure can be expended within the same equivalent boundaries, I think it would be a way to be able to give some confidence to communities that the cost of the obligations of the native vegetation aspects of the act could at least bring some advantage to the communities from which they are extracted. I note that subclause (5) of this clause provides:

The part of the Biodiversity Restoration Fund that constitutes payments made in lieu of a requirement to achieve a significant environmental benefit must be applied in accordance with the SEB policy.

Is this the framework that you are envisioning will be used to give the assurance that there will be equivalent investment of this fund in an area that is comparable to where it has been extracted from?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand it, the construction of how the current Native Vegetation Fund can be spent is now regarded as being too limiting, and therefore it is not being spent to the extent that it should be, which must be an enormous frustration for those who have paid into it. This subclause is enabling a bit more flexibility in the approach of how it can be spent.

That said, the point made by the member about the challenge of seeing particular communities having to pay some money for an SEB in order to have a development and that they would like to see the benefit of that SEB rather than having it head off elsewhere, the SEB policy that will be determined over the next couple of years as part of the subordinate legislation process will define this more exhaustively. The expectation is that the first-order priority is that it be as close as possible to where the damage is done. That is one of the principles that underpins, namely, if you are damaging this bit of vegetation and it cannot be avoided with the mitigation hierarchy, then as near as possible to that and as like as possible to that is desirable. That will be guided through the SEB policy.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

Mr TELFER: Minister, before the break we were going through a process of trying to understand how the transfer of the process goes with the fund from the Native Vegetation Act and the structures around that to the new biodiversity restoration fund under clause 36. For clarification, the current Native Vegetation Fund is, as you were speaking about, fairly precise in what sorts of things it can fund. Is the biodiversity restoration fund, which the legislation around the Native Vegetation Act is going to be contributing to, now able to be expended on broader outcomes than specifically native vegetation?

When we are talking about the broad definitions under the biodiversity act, including plants, native vegetation and native animals, is this now meaning that if a developer, a council or a landowner is required to put funds into the biodiversity restoration fund under the Native Vegetation Act arrangements, those moneys can now be spent on, for instance, a local koala habitat restoration, a koala breeding program or a fauna-related activity rather than a flora-related activity, which it currently is under the current arrangements?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate a bit more on that. The fund itself, which is the recipient of income from a variety of places, including the compliance question, so a penalty, can be used for a broader range of activities, but money that is paid as a significant environmental benefit as an offset does have to be within the terms of the policy. That is defined as an SEB policy. That will be worked on in detail over the next couple of years but it will be much closer to exactly what the member is asking that it be: where possible, physically close to where the money has been spent, that it be as much as possible replicating the loss of habitat that has occurred. That part of the fund, the money that goes into that fund, is much more constrained than the general fund.

Mr TELFER: Within the reporting structure of the biodiversity restoration fund, do you envision there being a separation? When it comes to budget time or when it comes to the financial analysis that we go through in this place, do you envision that there would be separate subfunds, for want of a better word, underneath the biodiversity restoration fund so that is publicly available, or through estimates or parliamentary process so that there can be that separation between the moneys that are restricted by the application in accordance with the SEB policy, as opposed to the range of other moneys that have been described here in subclause (3) onwards?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: How Treasury manages the identification of individual—whether they bother to create subfunds within a fund, I do not know, but yes, the accounts will be reported. They will be subject to the Auditor-General, which is in clause 37, and the Auditor-General can, and at least once a year will, do a review or audit of the accounts and the legislation that we are passing now will constrain the way in which the money in the fund that has a number attached to it is spent under the SEB policy.

Clause passed.

Clause 37.

Mr TELFER: Can I just ask a question on clause 37, which has flowed on from the answer that the minister provided on clause 36, specifically around the Auditor-General and the reporting process of this. Within the structure of this part of the clause, it provides:

…must keep proper accounts of receipts and payments in relation to the Biodiversity Restoration Fund.

That is a fairly bland sort of description of moneys in, moneys out, so there are not moneys that are going wherever else. As the minister putting this legislation, do you envision that there would be a more detailed analysis from the Auditor-General as to the different aspects of the contribution towards the biodiversity restoration fund? I am guessing that with the similar clauses that roll through later on when it comes to the other fund descriptions, you are envisioning that it will not be a simple money in, money out, but there will be a dissemination, a classification of the different moneys within that biodiversity restoration fund, in particular.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, I do and the reason is that the Auditor-General will be referencing this legislation in auditing the accounts and will therefore be expecting to see and will see the amount that has come in for particular purposes and the way in which it is spent in accordance with this legislation.

Clause passed.

Clause 38.

Mr BASHAM: Moving to the Wildlife Conservation Fund becoming the biodiversity conservation fund, are there any significant changes in the way that this fund will operate and was the minister in control of it previously?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The significant change is that '(e) expiation fees and penalties recovered in respect of offences' are paid into it and that it relates to the wildlife side of this legislation. So that is a change, but otherwise it is the same, including the ministerial responsibility. When I said '(e)' that includes over the page through to (f), (g) and (h).

Mr BASHAM: Can the biodiversity council approach the minister for funds from here to supplement funds in the—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No.

Mr TELFER: Obviously there is not a prescriptive contribution that exists that goes into the biodiversity conservation fund and there is a bit of a different structure to that. Minister, with regard to subparagraph (i), which is a 'royalty paid under this Act', can the minister inform me what royalty would be appropriate under this act? I am trying to work out what the main contributor to the biodiversity conservation fund is going to be.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The example that has been given to me is the kangaroo harvesting tags that we sell. That is a form of a royalty and so that goes into this fund.

Mr TELFER: So currently those sorts of funds, which are existing and already in place, just go into the general operating budget of the department and this is going to be just the changing of where that ledger item goes?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The royalty currently goes into the Wildlife Conservation Fund that is turning into the biodiversity conservation fund.

Clause passed.

Clauses 39 to 41 passed.

Clause 42.

Mr BASHAM: This gets down to where I went around in circles in my mind regarding the definitions in relation to 'plant' and then 'native plants' and then 'native plants of a relevant kind'. When the term 'native plant' is used here, the fact is there are two interpretations: one for 'native plant' and one for 'native plant of a relevant kind'. I am trying to work out whether a native plant of a relevant kind is still a native plant in the rest of the legislation, because I guess the fact is that there are two itemised interpretations of those two things, and to me it was not clear whether it is or it is not, and as you are reading through this, particularly in this passage where 'native plant of a relevant kind' is used several times, what does the native plant interpretation mean alongside that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand the confusion. 'Native plant' means native to Australia because 'native' is used largely in that sense. 'Relevant kind' means native to South Australia or it conforms to the conditions of being a regulated tree.

Mr BASHAM: Is that as mentioned in part 2 there with the carve-outs? That is where I get really confused, when we are talking about carve-outs at schedule 2. The carve-outs never describe 'native plant of a relevant kind' but does it include native plants of a relevant kind? To me, one of the big complications in the wording here is how to interpret that.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I appreciate that the legal terminology and use of language there is not readily apparent. Its meaning is not readily apparent to those who do not have a law degree, including me. However, the answer to your question is yes, and this is the way in which parliamentary counsel have crafted it, so that it is legally unambiguous that that is the case.

Mr BASHAM: I guess I am really trying to get my head around this particular circumstance. If we use 'Australian' and 'South Australian' instead just for a simple way to talk, when it talks in the schedule that, for example, if you plant an Australian tree then it is carved out for 20 years, does that include a South Australian tree because the South Australian tree has effectively had its own definition?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: When it comes to schedule 2, an Australian native, Australian tree is covered so its clearance is exempted, as well as a South Australian tree or plant, yes.

Mr BASHAM: With your indulgence, I just wonder, in the interpretation and definition section, whether it would be very useful for people reading this to say that a native tree includes a native tree of a relevant kind, just to link the two so that when people are interpreting this they are not labelling 'Australian' and 'South Australian' as two separate things.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I absolutely understand the desire for clarity and I will take advice between the houses on whether that might be of assistance in the interpretation section.

Clause passed.

Clause 43.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister explain why, in this section, it does not apply to an Aboriginal person taking plants of a prescribed species or plants of prescribed means or in prescribed circumstance?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Native Title Act confers these rights on Aboriginal people who are native title holders. All this does is extend that to all Aboriginal people rather than distinguishing between whether or not they have been successful in holding native title; but it effectively does the same job.

Mr BASHAM: They are allowed to take effectively—clear or take for any reason?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just to be more helpful, and this is my version. This is that an Aboriginal person is able to clear or take a native plant for non-commercial, cultural or spiritual purposes, including for food, and there will be some prescribed species or some prescribed purposes that would be removed from that, but it is not for any purpose at all, and it certainly is not for commercial purpose. What it does in that sense is mirror the rights that exist for those who hold native title but extends it a little further.

Mr BASHAM: Is there an example, perhaps like carving a canoe out of a canoe tree type scenario?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The taking of berries and leaves and the digging up of a plant in order to get witchetty grubs are exempt by virtue of the fact that these are cultural practices by an Aboriginal person.

Mr TEAGUE: By way of preamble, I would have thought those activities are not contrary to anything else that is set out in the bill anyway, but perhaps they might be. I guess the question about clause 43 is: why is subclause (2) not just included as an additional clause in schedule 2? That is the first question. Perhaps to go on from the member for Finniss's line of questioning, is that sort of structural preparation for exceptions that is in subclause (1) therefore contemplating that the minister of the day might determine prescribed species, prescribed means and prescribed circumstances that will then override such cultural and spiritual activities?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that although this clause is there in order to prepare for a possible future scenario, in practice making such a decision as a minister would need to be done extremely carefully and with full appreciation of the complexity of interaction with the native title legislation which of course, being federal, is likely to override consideration at a state level.

I think this has been put in in an abundance of caution to allow some room rather than with an intent specifically now to deal with a particular issue that is before us that does not currently exist, and there is a recognition that there would be a legal challenge in how that were to be applied and what justification would need to be used.

Just to round that out, that clause exists currently in the National Parks and Wildlife Act. That is where it has come through, but I do not believe has been used. Rather than abandoning it, we have brought it over, recognising nonetheless the complexity of it and the low likelihood that it would in fact be used, given that it never has been.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright. I did not hear in that an answer as to why subclause (2) is not just in schedule 2 as an exception. As distinct from clause 23 of schedule 2 that deals with the cultural burning exception, this does not purport to be linked to biodiversity at all whereas cultural burning, at least by reference to 'the biodiversity policy relating to such cultural burning' that is linked to that clause, is linked to biodiversity. This is not, presumably deliberately—that is, subclause (2) of clause 43, a similar carve-out. To the extent that is deliberate, what has been the rationale for linking one aspect of cultural practice to a biodiversity policy and this clause 43 practice is not purporting to be linked to such biodiversity policy?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that when we started drafting this we did have it in schedule 2, and the extensive advice from both CSO and parliamentary counsel, in terms of its interaction with native title, recommended that it be done in this way. That may not be a sufficiently fulsome response, but it is all I have this evening. If we have some more I will seek that we can provide it to you between the houses to better elucidate what that thinking was. But this is all that we have with us tonight.

Mr TEAGUE: These are not trick questions, and I think it is helpful. The broader public interest is that we are navigating all of this just to understand what the rationale is in the drafting of the bill. It is interesting, for those who are not familiar with cultural burning, to navigate that by connection to biodiversity policy and then to have a clear appreciation that even though this—call it a further carve-out provision—is not contained in schedule 2 it is nonetheless broadly analogous to the nature of the carve-out at clause 23 of schedule 2, without express reference to any biodiversity policy and subject to a capacity for the prescription of species, means and circumstances, albeit without any such contemplated structure.

So the question in all of those circumstances is: if you have the ABC that is responsible for the biodiversity policy for the purposes of cultural burning, is there anything that we can see to connect the ABC to anything going on in clause 43?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Not directly. I am being advised that this is because of the sensitivity of making sure that we comply with the Native Title Act. What I will do, rather than just continue to give you that answer, is actually seek some more detail for you between the houses. I think that is probably the easiest.

Clause passed.

Clause 44.

Mr BASHAM: In this clause the minister is given the ability to gazette that a native plant effectively be a weed; that is my understanding. Blue gums on KI, for example, are the classic that I would have thought fit into this space. My question, though, is actually: for South Australian plants that are growing prolifically in areas where they are not meant to be historically, why does the minister not have the same powers to declare that the Fleurieu should not have Flinders Ranges plants growing that are weeds per se?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Our old friend, schedule 2, about which there will be no questions by the time we reach it because we will have referred to it so often. On page 141, you will see Division 6—Plant and animal control, and this comes over from the Native Vegetation Act. It was in regulations and we are putting it into the schedule here. Division 6 enables us to declare a species an invasive species, essentially one that needs to be controlled under certain circumstances; therefore, where the plants are having a detrimental effect on the management of natural resources, essentially, so it does give us that power.

Mr BASHAM: And that would include designating areas and things like that? Would that be done in the same way with a lodged map?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What we have done is said that the council guidelines would respond to that. So the council would come up with a guideline that talks about the native plant that are of the species and in a location that is specified as being problematic.

Mr BASHAM: I have one final question. With the declaration on Australian plants that are not indigenous to the state, are they ongoing declarations or are they time based? For example, are the blue gums on KI forever or is it a 12-month renewal process per se?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand that it can be either. Tasmanian blue gums on Kangaroo Island are my least favourite plant at the moment because those wildlings are terrible. But, no, it can be declared in either way, as time limited or as ongoing.

Clause passed.

Clause 45.

Mr BASHAM: Here we are talking about penalties, $1 million for body corporates and half a million for individuals, plus five years' imprisonment. With penalties of this severity, certainly I can understand landholders being very scared of making mistakes. This is where I am worried we may see the perverse outcomes of people avoiding planting native plants going forward because they are scared they might make a mistake. I am looking for the minister's thoughts about how we make sure people do not make mistakes and that they have the confidence that it is not there to trip them up, I guess.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: One element that might be reassuring is that the offences are the same, although the penalties are higher. The Native Vegetation Act came in in 1991. Everyone who is a primary producer, who are probably the main concern of the member, but also the local council, developers and so on, will be familiar with the legislation in that form, so that has not changed. Yes, the offences are higher, but I can put on record that it is not the intention or the wish of the government or anyone who works in the government to be unduly punitive.

This is about avoiding the problem happening rather than creating little traps for people to fall into and then find themselves paying up a lot or being imprisoned. That is not ever the intention of good legislation. The intention is to dissuade people from doing the wrong thing in the first place, which requires education, information and so on, and we will engage in all of that. Although, as I say, in this case those offences have not changed, so it would be unlikely that people would find themselves suddenly falling foul.

Mr BASHAM: The next part of the question is in relation to paragraph (b)(i)—well, we are talking about both corporate and others: the per hectare calculation. I am trying to understand, for example, if someone has done something that they are not meant to do—cleared five trees, for example, on their 300-hectare property that is a single title property—is that calculated as one hectare, or is it calculated as 300 hectares because that is what the title of the property is? Or is it literally that between the five trees they occupy five square metres? How do we actually work out what it is?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that it refers to the land that they have cleared rather than the land that the primary producer or landholder owns. If they have cleared less than a hectare, they will be done for a hectare. It is about the clearance.

Mr BASHAM: So, effectively, the canopy space?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, exactly, rather than they have cleared less than a hectare but they own 300 so they are done for 300. It is not that: it is the minimum of one.

Mr BASHAM: But calculated on canopy space, not trunk size, for example?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am hesitating over the terminology 'canopy' because I do not know if that is the terminology used, but it is where the damage is done rather than the land that the person happens to own that might have had absolutely nothing done to it. It is about what clearance has occurred.

Clause passed.

Clause 46 passed.

Clause 47.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to possession or control of a native plant that has been illegally taken or acquired, if someone has dug up a plant from the side of the road—a South Australian native that they should not have dug up—and they give it to you as a present, you have illegally received said plant. I am assuming it is not the intent of this piece of legislation to deal with that. What is the intent of it?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Generally, no, of course not, but it is a reasonable question to ask. This has come over from the National Parks and Wildlife Act. An example that has just been given to me is when someone was in possession of a large amount of sandalwood that had been cleared. That obviously has commercial value. In the event that it had been taken illegally—which it had been—the possession of it then would attract this kind of penalty. So it is designed to deal with what is, in common parlance, a crime or an offence, rather than an incidental occurrence. That would be very difficult to prove in any case, I am sure.

Mr BASHAM: It is not to stop someone going to Bunnings, stealing all their native plants and then selling them on, reselling the stolen property.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that is just theft.

Clause passed.

Clause 48.

Mr BASHAM: Under 'Authorisation', when authorisation is given to conduct a regulated act or activity, a person is authorised. Is that person able to have someone else conduct the work, or does the person conducting the removal actually have to be the authorised person? So, employing a contractor to come in to remove said tree: does the contractor actually have to be the authorised person, or is it the person wishing the work to be done?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: So the landholder seeks the authorisation rather than the contractor. The landholder, of course, can use a contractor. There is on page 147 under schedule 2, our old friend, clause 36–Assisting in regulated act or activity. That refers to a person who might have been contracted to do that because they are assisting an authorised person but the authorisation is held by the landholder.

Clause passed.

Clause 49.

Mr BASHAM: In the course of clause 49, can the minister outline how the amount an applicant would have to pay is calculated in relation to a payment under this where we are paying into the Biodiversity Restoration Fund? How is the prescribed fee established?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This is an existing fee and therefore is subject to the rules that we have in government where the fees only go up by either CPI or an amount that is set by Treasury, which is sometimes lower than CPI.

Clause passed.

Clause 50.

Mr BASHAM: Under subclause (2), it states that the CAC must exercise discretion in relation to the primary producers in wanting to run an efficient business. This applies to all consideration of native plants including the native plants of a relevant kind.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it does. This has come over from the existing Native Vegetation Act.

Mr BASHAM: Under subclause (3) where assessments are being made on the sustainability of land use, is that based on the carrying capacity of the land use, the soil types, or is it based on the sustainability of the business model? What does sustainability cover in making that assessment?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This has come over again from the Native Vegetation Act and apparently has never been used, but it envisages the possibility that someone might say, 'I want to clear this land for this purpose.' Dorpers, I think we started talking about briefly last night. I cannot remember who was the dorper enthusiast. Possibly the member for MacKillop.

Mr Telfer: I think he is anti-dorper.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: He might be anti and Hammond might have been pro but, anyway, it is all lost in the mists of time now. In any case, the landscape board may have a view that clearing the land for the purpose that is being proposed is not a sustainable activity. It envisages the possibility of that, but it has never happened to date that that has actually been a proposition, that a landholder would want to clear a bit of land for something that people patently can see will not be sustainable.

Mr BASHAM: As I said, sustainability can be on basically business grounds, the sustainability of the land.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I suspect the two become one in the sense that you cannot run whatever the business is in land that cannot sustain it. So, it is, I imagine, a combination of the two.

Mr BASHAM: So a good example would be to clear north of Goyder's line to go cropping, for example?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Correct.

Mr TELFER: I would like to have some clarification on this process because the words on paper might seem good, but the reality of the uncertainty of what the make-up of the CAC might look like really does weigh heavy on my mind when they are considering the point in subclause (2) at the end there, when they 'have regard to the applicant's desire to operate the business as efficiently as possible.' Without any certainty about what the make-up of the CAC is going to be, how will they make a judgement call if the desire to operate a business as efficiently as possible is reality or if it is something which is beyond the pale? The words 'as efficiently as possible' are pretty ambiguous, and efficiency is in the eye of the beholder when there is not the expertise within the CAC.

This is where there is continuing frustration with some of the decisions that are made with limited knowledge or understanding of the reality of what is actually happening on the ground, whether it is a primary producer operation or, as we spoke about earlier, the nuance of an individual town or area when it comes to development. One here, where we speak about yes, indeed, there might be an applicant's desire to operate the business as efficiently as possible, if there is not the expertise within the CAC to be able to firstly understand it and secondly make the judgement on that, where does that leave a primary producer then trying to prove the point of the reality of their drive for efficiency? It is a pretty ambiguous, immeasurable point, especially when there is a lack of expertise within the CAC.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think there are two parts to the question. One is: what does that look like, allowing someone to do something as efficiently as possible and, also, will the committee be competent enough? On the second point, the committee needs to be able to exercise its functions, and therefore it is the responsibility of the minister in appointing the membership to have people who are capable of doing that, and that is buttressed now by the fact that there can be an appeal. That makes it still more important that people are capable of making a decision that would survive an appeal should there be one, which ought to give some comfort.

On the question of what an efficiency example might be, if a primary producer who wants to put in a centre pivot has avoided a large amount of vegetation and is proposing to put it just where it would require the removal of one paddock tree, then that would be recognised as working as efficiently as possible and avoiding as much as possible the appearance of native vegetation, and that would be an argument for allowing that person to do that.

Mr TELFER: Seeing we are running scenarios I will run with you as well, and this is one which is certainly in front of mind when it comes to broadacre agricultural farming practices and operations in which there is an ever-increasing need to be as efficient and as productive as possible. You have a scenario where you have got a 200 hectare paddock and you have two trees in a paddock, in the wrong spot for an AB line for your two centimetre autosteer function. And the additional ongoing cost of having two trees in a paddock such as that when you have to have overlap an added expenditure for a seeding or spraying operation. So this is about efficiency and productivity. Is this the sort of thing that actually could be considered when a business is trying to put forward an application for something like this, in individual arrangements such as that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is another very good example. That is exactly the sort of thing that would be considered, and ought to be.

Clause passed.

Clause 51.

Mr BASHAM: Under subclause (11) it specifies circumstances where clearance is allowed, including Commissioner of Highways' work, infrastructure under the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Act, and other prescribed buildings, and to maintain walking tracks. It also includes tracks, if they are more than five metres in width for commercial use and also for dams on pastoral land. I guess reading this list there are some other things that come to mind. Will councils be allowed to clear land on their road reserves or alongside their road reserves? Will tourists or pastoralists be able to widen tracks to be able to travel around pastoral land, even though it is not for commercial purposes?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Sorry, this is legislatively complex—and I have now forgotten the question. We will come back to the question, but I will explain this and see if it answers it accidentally. These specified circumstances were previously itemised in the regulations attached to the Native Vegetation Act and still are until this commences. In this amendment, they are being brought in as reasons why you will get approval even in the event that you are dealing with intact stratum, whereas previously under the legislation you would not get that approval if it were intact stratum.

When the question of road reserves comes into play, I think that road reserves are in many ways dealt with in schedule 2, which does not even require application as long as you are operating under the guidelines. So you do not have to ask for it; you have the right to do it, whereas this requires application.

Mr BASHAM: Here it talks about the Commissioner of Highways. That is not necessarily road reserves; that could be building a road that is currently not a road reserve, effectively?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Road reserves in schedule 2 are about maintaining road reserves; this is about creating something new.

Mr TELFER: We might get to schedule 2 later, we might not, but I would like to speak on that subject matter in particular. One of the great frustrations for local government is the constriction and restriction that they currently have on being able to manage their native vegetation burden on road reserves. There are two different parts to it, in particular: firstly, the limited capacity and limited mechanisms that they currently have within the existing legislation, the existing framework, to actually do that, and the strictly mechanical and costly and short-term mechanisms which allow them to work with that.

Secondly is the definitions. You referred to the current regulations. The definition of a road reserve within those specifics varies when you compare it to a national definition of a road. So when we are talking about footprint and verge of a road, the Native Vegetation Act is actually more restrictive than what the nationwide definition of a road reserve is.

I would encourage, in the developing of the regulations to do with this and maybe with schedule 2 later on, that there is a body of work that is done, specifically in consultation with local government, to have more clarity around the definition of a road reserve and to provide enough flexibility for the core function of what that piece of land is actually for. It is in the name: it is a road reserve, rather than a nature reserve or a biodiversity corridor. It is a road reserve in its core function.

Second is the capacity for local government to be able to effectively manage the encroachment of the native vegetation to the corridor of the road reserve in more flexible, more medium and long-term ways, rather than the current restricted short-term mechanisms that they have. It is probably just as much a comment as anything, but this is the context that I come to this subject matter with.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I appreciate that and I think we will take that as part of the consultation process. Just to reassure the member, as we discussed last night, schedule 2 does include clearance along road reserves, but it is the removal of the requirement of the councils, which is currently in place, to have a management plan that under this act will no longer be required. But otherwise I will take it as feedback for how we should be constructing regulations.

Clause passed.

Clause 52.

Mr BASHAM: Under subclause (2) of Consultation and representations, the CAC must allow a 28-day period for people to make representation. How is this going to be promoted and inform people about the representation? Will it be published in local papers? Will neighbouring properties be informed?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This does not require that form of publication. This is as it is currently under the Native Vegetation Act. Our experience is that when we receive applications and put them up on the website, the people who are interested do tend to trawl that site, but that is all.

Mr TELFER: Clause 52(3) is about the capacity for:

…a person to appear personally or by representative before it to be heard on whether the CAC should or should not consent to an application to clear native plants.

The wording there is 'may, as it thinks fit'. Is this reflective of the current arrangements within the Native Vegetation Act and, if so, is it an appropriate mechanism to have in place when it is obviously a very divisive time?

You have an applicant putting forward a matter to be considered before the CAC, and I think that there should be—and whether this is in regulation or an adjustment to the wording of the legislation—greater parameters put in place for appropriate capacity for an applicant to be able to go through the process to have the ability to be able to have a personal representation when considering the matters.

In the end, a lot of these matters have significant personal and/or financial impacts on applicants and to allow the capacity for the CAC to just, as it sees fit, declare and say, 'No, we're not going to allow you to present to us either personally or by representative,' before they consent to an application to clear native plants, I think creates an additional level of angst and/or uncertainty when it comes to these applications.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, I will take that by nature of feedback. Obviously, we have chosen to continue what is currently in the Native Vegetation Act, although at least it is now subject to review. The committee is required to receive written representation. It is just a question of a decision of personal representation or not, but I will take that as feedback.

Clause passed.

Clause 53.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to the significant environmental benefit referred to in this clause, does that benefit need to occur on the land in question or can it occur elsewhere? Effectively, can something be achieved off site to meet these provisions, and does that have to be in South Australia?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, it can occur off site, but also the detail will be subject to the policy that will be developed.

Clause passed.

Clause 54 passed.

Clause 55.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to consent being given and remaining in force for a period of two years or longer, but not more than five, if the timeframe has elapsed but the clearance has not been done, will they need to go back and complete the whole process again or is there an ability to renew? Can they effectively say, 'We were approved but we weren't able to, for some reason, complete; can we just reactivate the timeframe?'

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They do have to reapply.

Clause passed.

Clauses 56 to 58 passed.

Clause 59.

Mr BASHAM: To understand the environmental benefit credits that are identified here in this clause, can the minister explain how this is envisaged? A question was put to me: when measuring the environmental benefit of a particular biodiversity habitat where, for example, there may be a pine tree or a blue gum or something in the middle of it, is there the ability to go and remove that plant and effectively increase the value of the credit—in other words, a carrot rather than a stick approach to actually getting a better outcome?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: These environmental credits exist currently, although I am not sure how much profile they have. They are fundamentally linked to the significant environment benefit policy, so the way in which they will be calculated is in large part the way in which they can demonstrate significant environmental benefit. One of the significant ways in which they are used is to be a credit in order to demonstrate that you are giving a significant environmental benefit in order to receive approval for the activity that you want to undertake.

But they are themselves designed to be able to be sold to others to be able to use, so you can create an environmental credit on your land—you are not doing any clearance but you can assist someone else by selling what you are doing. It is a way of valuing that. But your question about 'how does that get valued' will largely be worked up through the policy of the significant environmental benefit.

Mr BASHAM: Just following on from that, for someone who has some native scrub that has no biodiversity agreements on it or any other agreements over it, is that something they could offer up as something to be valued to be a credit?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It would need to have a biodiversity agreement on it in order to qualify.

Mr BASHAM: With that process, would they be encouraged to improve it? I guess it is getting back to the carrot—that making sure it is more pristine has more value.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is exactly the kind of work that needs to be done. Protecting it is one way of adding a benefit so that it is not at risk but also then working on it to revegetate it, to put a fence around it or to weed it. All of the detail of that is still being worked on.

Mr TELFER: Minister, you referred to the fact that environmental benefit credits currently exist. In what form do they currently exist? Are they under legislation? Obviously, as you say, they are not well understood. What is their foundational basis?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: They exist under the Native Vegetation Act and we think they are called a benefit for environmental credit. So it is essentially the same name, but it is slightly reworded here.

Mr TELFER: So it is not quite the same but is comparable. You are transposing a comparable thing to this piece of legislation. Do you envision the same definitions? I am not au fait with them, so please enlighten me as to what the definition of a benefit for environmental credit—or whatever terminology you used—is. In the definitions that we discussed last night, the definition for an environmental benefit credit just refers to clause 59(1); there is not another definition within the definitions. Clause 59(1) is fairly open and creates a level uncertainty for a layperson like myself. It provides:

(1) If a person…

(a) has achieved, or proposes to achieve, an environmental benefit (not being a significant environmental benefit required in relation to a consent to clear native plants or in accordance with any other requirement under this Act); or

(b) has achieved, or proposes to achieve, in accordance with a consent to clear native plants, an environmental benefit that exceeds the value of the minimum significant environmental benefit needed to offset the loss of the cleared plants,

Under the current legislation, is the definition or the judgement of whether a benefit is an environmental benefit or a significant environmental benefit, and where that all balances out, purely made by the Native Vegetation Council and their processes? Thus is it, once again, a structure that will be put in place for the CAC to make a judgement as to what constitutes an environmental benefit or a significant benefit, or is there another definition somewhere that is not provided within this legislation that would provide more clarity for me?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This has essentially been lifted from the Native Vegetation Act, although I understand the language, though still perhaps a bit opaque at times, is nonetheless clearer than in the existing act. There is, I understand, a guideline in some form that guides the Native Vegetation Council and its clearance assessment panel in the decision about whether something is or is not. Our proposition is that, over the next two years as part of this effort to bring this act to life, there will be more significant policy work done to define that.

At present an example would be that, if you have a heritage agreement over a bit of land, you do not automatically get an environmental credit for that but you could apply to get one, if you wish to, and therefore either seek to use it yourself for a clearance or be able to provide it to someone else for a consideration to assist them with a clearance application.

Mr TELFER: This probably goes into where I have more knowledge in terms of constituents living through a process such as this and the ambiguity and the uncertainty that is actually created in going through an assessment process. A balance exists, whether it is proactive in terms of a proposal to clear and is offset with an environmental benefit credit—or whatever the terminology is currently within the Native Vegetation Act—or whether it is a punishment or is an agreement after an act which contravenes the existing Native Vegetation Act.

There is often negotiation, and that negotiation comes from the alleged perpetrator of the contravention being in a very low bargaining position when it comes to trying to negotiate. There has been a lot of frustration that I have heard from people right around South Australia with the inconsistency around that agreement process when trying to get that balance right. The need for there to be greater definition around environmental benefit and more clarity around those measure points is absolutely necessary, as is a judgement call based on outside knowledge of the environment in different areas across South Australia.

I think we need to have more involvement from our local landscape board or the equivalent, because some of the deals that have been proposed that I have heard about do not pass the sniff test, from my local knowledge of what goes on at the moment. When we are looking at this, this is the lived experience that I have had with working through this process on behalf of my constituents or in conversation with them.

It is not included anywhere—and maybe this is in existing arrangements—as to what sort of timeframe or length of time you can bank your benefit. Is there a timeframe within existing operations? It is obviously not within this legislation. Or is this an ongoing benefit that you can pop in your back pocket and we are going to discuss what you can do with it later on in clauses 61 and 62? Is it envisioned to have that clarity provided to South Australians through the regulation process or guidelines, or what do you envision that end point is going to be?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: First of all, there is no time limit, as I understand it, currently. Secondly, yes, there will be much greater clarity offered through the development of this policy. Thirdly, although we may come from at times different positions in relation to how these matters should be managed, we would benefit from sitting down with yourself and a few other regional MPs to understand what you hear from your constituents, because you tend to get, as I do in my electorate, the people who have had the roughest time where the system has not worked. You tend to hear those stories and they can be very useful, so I think that might be the most productive way forward.

Clause passed.

Clause 60.

Mr BASHAM: The question here again is about the environmental benefit credits. Is it the landholder who is effectively the custodian of the potential credit? I guess I am talking about a scenario where someone may actually be investing in the land and putting improved vegetation onto a piece of land that they are leasing. Does that belong to the landholder and not the lessee? And, if the property is then sold to someone else, does the credit transfer to the new landholder and any responsibility of that credit has been sold?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The credit is owned by the landholder at the time but could be sold to someone else. The way that it is maintained on that piece of land is through a biodiversity agreement, which is basically a heritage agreement now, that is then attached to the land. So that is in a legal entity that means that land is protected, and that is why it is possible for the ownership of the credit to be sold knowing that that is secure, or indeed for the land to be sold because the heritage agreement, or the biodiversity agreement, goes with the sale of the land.

Mr BASHAM: So it would be possible, through agreement between the landowner and a lessee, for example, that the lessee has an arrangement that he or she invests in a biodiversity credit for environment and will be the beneficiary of that because it has been agreed to in the lease arrangement?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Exactly. That is how it would have to be captured.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to these areas, if it has been used to offset something else that has been done and, after that approval has gone through, a bushfire takes it out, for example, and reduces its value, how is that accounted for? Is that just an act of God, effectively?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Effectively, yes, but nonetheless the heritage agreement or the biodiversity agreement remains on that bit of land.

Mr TELFER: Can I just unpack this a little bit more, minister? It seems unique. You can have a situation where an environmental credit is gained by a landowner. The landowner can sell the land without the credit. They can pocket the credit. They can hold onto the credit for an unlimited period of time, by my understanding. The credit does not go with the land at the point of sale. Does the credit have a consistent value?

I am trying to work out the value system of this environmental benefit because my judgement call on a piece of native vegetation in the year 2000 might have had a different value to what my judgement call is in the year 2025. If there is no timeframe on expiry for an environmental benefit credit, what is the ranking system, the point system? How do you keep consistent value for an environmental benefit credit as the years go past? Like I said, you can have it in your possession and it has the potential to be a form of asset that potentially could have a cumulative value increase over time.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: When we think about value, there are two ways of thinking of the value of the credit. One is the points assigned to it by what will be the clearance assessment committee, and that is done initially. 'I have this bit of land. I am going to do this work to make it better.' 'Okay, we have an agreement with you that you will do that, and these are the points.'

At the point in time at which that is either going to be given to someone else to use to clear or you are using it yourself to clear, then the assessment committee will re-evaluate to check that all of that work has been done and to assess the points of value at that point in time. Dollar figures are whatever someone wants to buy given the points in value for clearance, and that is a market question.

Mr TELFER: It is indeed a market question. This is why I am getting to the point where a market question in year 1 is different to a market question in year 20. You are creating a commodity which from my perspective could be used or misused throughout a process without any sorts of checks or oversights over and above, seemingly, the whim of the CAC who can grant an approval and grant that point system to a current landowner who can then have cumulative points assigned to them as an individual. The register is going to be an interesting one because you are going to potentially have a situation where you are going to have to keep the individual details of South Australians who have cumulative points under their name but not necessarily attached to a piece of land that has been included in the previous heritage agreement.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The points count at the point of a decision to clear, so you go with, 'I have got this. I believe it is worth this many points because this is the agreement that I entered into a while ago,' or 'This is the one that I have just purchased from my neighbour,' and then at that point the assessment panel says, 'Yes, that enables you to clear this much as a significant environmental benefit.' But that is the moment in time at which its value in that sense is determined and the person who has gained these points will need to make a calculation about whether they are sufficient to get the offset and they either will or will not be sufficient, and that is in the hands of the clearance committee.

Mr TELFER: I am just trying to get to the bottom of where this is at. I will buy the equivalent of 10,000 points from my neighbour, make an application to clear a section of land and that gets judged to be worth 8,000 points. So I have a surplus of 2,000 points. That 2,000 points I can hold onto ad infinitum. That 2,000 points has an equivalent value and I can realise that equivalent value immediately by selling it to the next neighbour or I could sit on it for 20 years and the judgement of the value of that number of points at that period of time in 20 years' time could be wildly different in the eyes of a CAC who are made up of a small group of people with, as we have already talked about, the differing skills and capacity and understanding in values. Can you see where I am getting to? This is the bit that I think adds an extra layer of uncertainty and ambiguity and it turns biodiversity into a commodity rather than a positive outcome for a community.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is the conundrum, isn't it, because without turning it into a commodity in any way it is very hard to ensure that that biodiversity's value is taken care of up against questions of spending money and commodities. As to the question of the value of the points changing over time, yes, that is both a risk and potentially an opportunity that they have gained value, but the only difference I would have with the member is in referring to this as a small committee. It made it sound a little bit like it might be capricious about what it chooses to do over the years. There will be guidelines—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, so at risk of that being the case—there are other guidelines. There will be the policy that dictates that, and the policy being a regulation is subject at least to new scrutiny both of the government of the day but also the parliament of the day. So, the specific points will not be subject to the scrutiny of the parliament.

Clause passed.

Clause 61 passed.

Clause 62.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister explain the process of review by the council in relation to decisions made by the CAC? The thing that I am wondering about is will there be a fee for that to be appealed? Will there be the ability for the council to review a decision without being asked to do that because they are concerned by it? Will there be the ability for the minister to instruct a review, or can someone else ask for a review besides the applicant?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is only the applicant. This does not allow for third-party appeals. Although we have allowed for a prescribed fee, there is no current contemplation of that. This is all new, so we are allowing that so that we can work out how this review system is going to work, but it is not intended to be used to dissuade people from having an appeal.

Mr TELFER: On the face of it, I think you could say that a review provision seems to be an improvement, but clause 62(3) discusses decisions that are not reviewable under the clause, including partial consent in paragraph (a) and those with conditions in paragraph (b). Is there a risk that the council could structure decisions to avoid certain decisions being applicable for review? What is the rationale around carving out non-reviewable decisions with partial consent or with conditions provided?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The view is that an approval is an approval, even if it is a varied approval from the original position. The way in which the branch of the agency works with the applicants seeks to find a way for the development to proceed with that modified approval from the position where they first started so that that would not require an appeal. There is in no sense a desire not to see people appeal a blank no. This is an important step forward, I think, in the soundness of the legislation, and therefore there is no desire to see that not happen.

Mr TELFER: I am reassured somewhat that there is no desire to, but it still does not completely annul my concerns where you have the council here, when you are talking about the potential for a review by council of the clearance refusal or revocation. Do you envision there being any assurances, like policies or practices, being developed and put in place to avoid the biodiversity council structuring decisions to effectively prevent any reviews from being undertaken? Do you envision developing policies or practices to just ensure that aspect?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That was part of your question and my view is, no. I would be very surprised, given the rules within which the clearance approval process is required to operate, that there would be a capacity even to structure a decision in that way, but certainly not a desire to avoid it by doing that.

Mr Telfer: That is not overly reassuring.

Clause passed.

Clause 63.

Mr BASHAM: In an appeal process to the ERD Court, if the applicant is successful in that appeal would they be able to seeks costs? Likewise, if the applicant was vexatious in their request for an appeal and it was found it was just outrageous that they were making it, could they be found for costs on behalf of whoever is the CAC, I guess, as the carriage?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We have envisioned the awarding of costs associated with this. We will check whether there is another way that the ERD Court works that might regardless be relevant to this. It is certainly not something that we are putting in and we will inform you between the houses if that is the case.

Mr TELFER: I just seek some clarification on the escalation process of an appeal. This is a decision made by the CAC. There can be an appeal process, as we talked about in the previous clause, for the biodiversity council to review the decision that has been made by the CAC. If the decision of the biodiversity council is made to uphold the ruling of the CAC, after a review under section 62, with a confirmation from the council, the person can then make an application to the ERD Court. Would it be the biodiversity council making the defence through the ERD Court process, or is it going to be the responsibility of the CAC to defend that decision? In other words, is the appeal to the ERD Court an appeal against the decision of the biodiversity council, or is it an appeal against the original decision of the CAC?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My reading of it is that it is the appeal of the original decision and in terms of who is defending, I presume the Crown acts in any case on behalf of the government, but the decision that is being appealed, I presume, is the original decision because the biodiversity council, in a sense, has not made a decision other than to confirm. It has not made a separate decision.

Mr TELFER: Except on my reading—

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is a decision of the council that is being appealed.

Mr TELFER: That was my reading and that is why I was seeking that clarification.

Clause passed.

Clause 64.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister outline the significant changes, if there are any here, moving from the National Parks and Wildlife Act to this?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: These are all consistent with what is currently required.

Mr TELFER: Continuing on from that, this is a transposing of those you spoke about directly. Are there any additional ones that have been added in from other pieces of legislation? This Biodiversity Bill seems to be a bit of a grab bag of all different aspects of legislation, but there are also additional aspects. Within clause 64 in particular, are there added extras over and above what is existing in that native parks legislation as you have referred to?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, this has come over just from the wildlife part of the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

Clause passed.

Clause 65.

Mr TELFER: Minister, is the transposing straight from the national parks and wildlife aspect the same with these penalties or are these penalties, like we have seen with a number of other penalties throughout this piece of legislation, amped up from what they currently are?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will just clarify that the penalty itself has increased, but not the offences, other than the introduction at both paragraphs (a) and (b) of the concept of a trafficable quantity. The answer I gave to the shadow minister earlier—we were talking about clause 64, but I had a sense that maybe you were asking for the part generally—is that everything has come over as is, but it is fair to point out both the amount the penalty has increased in the penalty clause and also the existence of trafficable quantities. But other than that, the part is essentially the same as it is now.

Mr TELFER: On my basic reading, in that compare and contrast with the existing legislation, it is a reasonable increase. Can I get an insight from the minister into how the decision was made to set the penalties at these amounts: $1 million in the case of a body corporate, $500,000 in the case of an individual involving a trafficable quantity, $500,000 for a non-trafficable quantity, and $250,000 for an individual? They are pretty hefty dollar figures.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As we mentioned last night, with the increase in penalties in the earlier section and because of the way that we do our legislation in South Australia, it is only really when acts are opened up that we get to update the amount of penalty listed, and so we have taken the opportunity to do that. We have looked at the other states in order to benchmark where they are. We are about mid-range with these penalties, and it should be remembered that for some wildlife trafficking there is a significant amount of profit to be made and there does need to be a serious penalty to attempt to dissuade people from doing it.

Clause passed.

Clause 66.

Mr TEAGUE: I just briefly note that at clause 66 we see a clause in the same sort of format as clause 43; that is, a general carve-out at subclause (2) which could have found its away into the schedule 2 carve-out broadly, but has not for reasons that we have covered at 43. There is the structure of prescribed species, means and circumstances that can be a carve-out from the carve-out, so again, no reference to a biodiversity plan for the purposes of this clause. Is there any such prescribed species, means or circumstance that is presently in contemplation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Not in existence nor in contemplation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 67 to 69 passed.

Clause 70.

Mr BASHAM: Just a quick question in relation to establishing this threatened species list or right through to the extinct list. I understand the national ones—do they have to be included in the national? Do they have to actually be known to be in South Australia to be included in the South Australian national, or is it a national list? Does the Tasmanian devil, for example, appear on our list or is it purely for South Australian historically found?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We believe that it would be included, or the national list species would be included, although we will double-check that for those that are not in South Australia—but in any case they would have the protection that is afforded as a nationally-listed species. Should one appear here it would have that national level protection regardless.

Clause passed.

Clause 71 passed.

Clause 72.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister identify what ecological communities or critical habitats would be included on the list that are not native species? It says 'other than native species'.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I might seek your indulgence, given that it is late, that we come back and give you an example. We were going to get one but I do not really want to hold up the chamber. Thank you.

Mr BASHAM: I am happy if we pass this clause and come back to the answer while they phone a friend.

Clause passed.

Clauses 73 to 77 passed.

Clause 78.

Mr BASHAM: I am just trying to understand the provisional listing and understanding that if we are looking at something that is listed as threatened, is that threatened in South Australia even if it is common elsewhere in Australia? Or is it just a South Australian perspective of threatened?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it can be listed in South Australia as threatened even if it were to not be threatened elsewhere if it is threatened here.

Clause passed.

Clause 79.

Mr BASHAM: Under clause 79, can the minister make an action plan that is binding the plan on someone who may not necessarily want to be engaged?

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

Mr BASHAM: An action plan, can it be binding on someone who is not necessarily engaged in a process?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is not intended to be a stick; it is more an action plan or a guide for government to encourage activity. It does not have penalties or coercion included within it.

Clause passed.

Clause 80 passed.

Clause 81.

Mr BASHAM: This is a similar question in relation to an abatement plan: can it be binding on someone and can it require a private landholder to follow the plan?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Not through the existence of the plan; it does not confer any powers for requiring anything to occur. It may be that the minister would have at their disposal some other legislative instrument that could be used that then would be in accordance with a threat abatement plan, but the threat abatement plan in itself does not create that.

Clause passed.

Clause 82.

Mr BASHAM: This clause requires the Scientific Committee to hold an inquiry into potential extinction of a native species or the potential collapse of an ecological community in the state. What is the trigger for such an inquiry to commence: is it the listing of the species, is it through ministerial direction, is it through scientific evaluation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Scientific Committee essentially directs this extinction inquiry and makes the judgement about whether the Scientific Committee has a view that a species has become extinct. There is, however, a whole IUCN process and there are international protocols in determining that a species is extinct that are conformed to already. Species are known to be locally extinct, for example, and then reintroduced, so there is a process to go through to make that determination that a species has become locally extinct.

Clause passed.

Clause 83.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to subclause (2), after consultation with the minister responsible for fisheries it is determined that the Fisheries Management Act has appropriate cover, why cannot the minister add it to the list anyway?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What we are trying to do is make sure that we have regulatory simplicity. If a species is already protected elsewhere, what we do not want is to have someone who is seeking to do something with that animal have to seek two levels of authorisation under two different acts, so we are trying to have that simplicity.

Clause passed.

Clause 84 passed.

Clause 85.

Mr BASHAM: Again, I am just clarifying in relation to where the minister may agree or arrange an action plan. Is that on the same basis that it needs a willing partner on the other side, rather than just in the plan itself? There may be other instruments, as the minister described earlier, that may be able to be actioned, but in the case of a plan or an agreement, it is needing the willing partner?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: While the declaration of the critical habitat is in the minister's power, although of course in consultation with the owner—so section 84, as passed—section 85, where it refers to an action plan, does require the working with and the consent and agreement. There is no coercion that sits within that clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 86.

Mr BASHAM: Minister, the Fleurieu swamps comes to mind as something that may be covered here, but they may also be not covered, because it is protected under federal legislation as well. Assuming the Fleurieu swamps are not protected but just the concept of that sort of environment, is there a requirement to stop animals getting into a Fleurieu swamp, for example, to protect it? Are cattle or sheep wandering through that would be causing damage—is that effectively now required to be protected in some form?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: To explain a little bit about the way a critical habitat operates, this is something that exists in New South Wales and I think has been used four times, so it is a very rare instrument to use. What it is doing is identifying where there is a feature of land that is utterly necessary for the survival of a species—so it is at the most acute end of the requirement to protect. In the case that that is declared, it is declared for its features rather than as a bit of land, and those features do need to be protected.

The workable way that that would happen is that the features would be identified—the threat to that individual species or collection of species having triggered that—and the landholder would be worked with to determine how that feature could be protected. In the event that such a critical feature is identified, it is because it is in existence now, by definition. This means that however the landholder is using it, it is not preventing that species from existing now. It is about any change to that, more likely, in order to prevent such a change having the impact of us losing an entire species.

Clause passed.

Clause 87 passed.

Clause 88.

Mr BASHAM: Will landholders be able to continue their current practices around management in critical habitats, or will they need to seek an authorisation to do so? If an authorisation is required, will it be an ongoing thing or will it be a managed process?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I guess it is hard to answer definitively without individual examples, and we currently have none, which makes it complex for both of us. My expectation would be that the current use of the land has not seen the extinction of the species and therefore the current use is unlikely to need to change or change significantly. An authorisation would be sought in the event that something were to be proposed to be done to that land that might risk the feature on which that species is dependent, in which case there would need to be difficult and hard work done to work out how that could be managed. This is not about trying to put an undue imposition on a landholder; it is just about recognising that there is a shared treasure, that this is the last bit of habitat, and we need to do all we can to protect it and to avoid its disturbance. It is about the feature of the land, as I say, rather than the entire title of the land.

Mr BASHAM: Would that possibly lead to government support to help financially in certain circumstances?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It would certainly not require that the government support it financially, but we all know that there are decisions made by governments in order to make things work easily and so it is not precluded either.

Clause passed.

Clauses 89 to 95 passed.

Clause 96.

Mr BASHAM: My question here is again going back to lessee tenants—in other words, the occupier of the land may be a tenant, not the owner—and trying to establish, where a sanctuary is going to be established, whether you have to have the approval of both the owner and the occupier to establish the sanctuary.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it would have to be both the owner and the occupier. This has come straight out of the National Parks and Wildlife Act and is frequently used on pastoral land, where obviously the owner is actually the government.

Mr BASHAM: I guess we are not talking about someone living in the house that sits on a parcel of land as being technically the occupier. The occupier would be the user of the sanctuary itself. Is that what we are saying? If a parcel of land has a house that is rented out to a tenant, but they only live in the house—they are not actually controlling the whole property; they are just living in the house—they are not considered an occupier in this circumstance?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Broadly, I think that is right. We would have to know what the lease that that person held was, but it makes sense that they are likely to hold the lease to live in the house rather than to occupy all of the land.

Clause passed.

Clause 97 passed.

Clause 98.

Mr BASHAM: I think we have sort of said this before, but the biodiversity agreements are tied to the title of the property and therefore transferable with the sale of the property?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes.

Mr BASHAM: Again, in the case of a natural disaster destroying the asset under the biodiversity agreement, is that a possible trigger that could mean that it could be terminated, even if 20 years has not passed, if effectively the asset has been lost through a fire, for example?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: A fire would not necessarily result in anyone wanting to terminate the agreement, because land comes back beautifully. Heritage agreements can be terminated currently and it would be the case for biodiversity agreements, but it requires the minister to agree and it has to be on the advice of what is currently the Native Vegetation Council and will be the biodiversity council.

Clause passed.

Clause 99 passed.

Clause 100.

Mr TELFER: This clause around authorised officers is a fascinating one. In reading it and reading some of the powers of the authorised officers that we will cover in upcoming clauses, I am actually quite concerned at the level of what I would see as potential overreach when we reflect on the definitions that we have discussed already in the committee stage and the powers of the authorised officers, which we will discuss afterwards.

When it comes to the appointment of the authorised officers in clause 100, subclause 100(1) provides for the appointment of a range of state government officers as authorised persons under the act. Can the minister give me some understanding of what indemnities are available to these state government officers to protect them from civil liability for their acts and omissions?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is something under the Public Sector Act that we can give you in detail, but not tonight. The issue of authorised officers, which was extensively canvassed in the second reading speech, caused me to check the extent to which this is replicating what is already in legislation, and largely it is already in place. I am not sure if there are any particular issues in any of the clauses relating to authorised officers that are new that are of concern to the member, but largely these have been in place and exist across several pieces of legislation—not just the Native Vegetation Act but also the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Landscape South Australia Act and the EPA, so this is not breaking new ground.

Mr TELFER: We will get to the breaking of new ground later on, happily. I am now pivoting from clause 100(1), where the answer you gave was around the Public Service provisions. Clause 100(2) talks about the minister's capacity to be able to appoint council officers as authorised persons. Obviously, the existing protections that you spoke about for state government officers do not necessarily apply to local government officers. If a council employee, a general inspector or another officer employed by local government, has been made an authorised person under this section, does the bill provide that council officer with any indemnities?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Under the Native Vegetation Act, we believe the minister can currently authorise local council, but the question was raised during stakeholder consultation by the LGA about whether there was sufficient indemnity covering local council officers, and that is why the drafting was amended to say that the council has to give approval so that local government can determine whether or not they wish to facilitate that to happen. If they do not, because they do not believe that there is sufficient indemnity, then they will not give that approval.

Mr TELFER: So the explanation is that state government officers who are authorised officers under this act are covered for civil liability indemnity under existing legislation but local government officers are not. However, the local government area can decide if they want them to be included as an authorised officer if they think they have their own capacity within their existing insurance frameworks to cover them from those civil liabilities.

Whether it is upon request or otherwise, getting a local government officer to provide the level of power that an authorised officer under this act does have, what is the reason for providing protection for civil liability for state government officers but not for local government officers who may be performing the exact same range of powers under the act and instead expecting, obligating or requiring that liability for those officers to be covered by local government, or ratepayers in the end?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Recognising that ambiguity is why we have put in that failsafe of the approval of the relevant council. It is currently in the Native Vegetation Act, so it is currently legal right now for the minister to appoint a local council officer. What we are doing in this legislation is recognising that given that there is some legal uncertainty we are putting a failsafe in while that is being resolved, bearing in mind that this will not come into place for two years.

Mr TEAGUE: Just very quickly in terms of clause 19(e) and the purpose of the CAC to commence enforcement processes—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: Just with clause 19(e) with the functions of the CAC, which include initiating enforcement action for the purposes of this part, that is expressed in the broad, and here we are: the commencement of Part 8—Enforcement, and we have the authorised officers established and the functions the authorised officers are going to have to undertake and so on. It is not until clause 111 that we see specific reference to compliance orders and the CAC being one of the designated authorities that is empowered to issue a compliance order.

The question at 100 is: the powers of the CAC per clause 19(e) are not so limited in terms of the power described at 19(e) so the CAC could do more than act on a compliance order in clause 111; is that a correct reading? It could get involved in the activities of the authorised officers outside of 111?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The question is: can the CAC operate beyond 111? The advice I am receiving is no. The CAC as an entity cannot operate beyond. Individuals can be authorised by the minister, although that it would be surprising if the minister would choose to do that with individual members of a committee, but just to make that distinction.

Mr TEAGUE: So when we read clause 19(e) and its reference to part 8, it is confined to 111 and does not go to any broader interaction with authorised officers. That is just helpful.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that is right.

Mr TEAGUE: If so, it could be drafted that way.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: You are far more qualified than I am to give commentary on drafting, but I believe your interpretation is correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 101 passed.

Clause 102.

Mr TELFER: Minister, this is where we sort of started talking about the powers of the authorised officers and you saying that it is pretty much transposed over. Firstly, the point of difference is the scope of the Biodiversity Act is a lot broader than the scope of the Native Vegetation Act, and this is why I think there is additional capacity for authorised officers under this act to do more than currently is in place with the Native Vegetation Act. Secondly, in the Native Vegetation Act, there was the capacity for authorised officers to enter and inspect land for any reasonable purpose connected with the administration or enforcement of the act, and that act is a lesser act than the Biodiversity Act, and thus there is less scope to enter land.

At subclause (1) the powers of authorised officers include:

(b) enter and inspect any vehicle and for that purpose require a vehicle to stop, or to be presented for inspection at a place and time specified by the authorised officer, and board any vessel or craft; and

(c) inspect (including open) any thing that is in or on any place or vehicle, including a package in the postal system;

These are massively broad powers, which are not currently within the Native Vegetation Act. These are well over and above what is already existing, and this is where I am sort of thinking the capacity to be able to enter and inspect any vehicle, come in and force them to stop, and open any package within that vehicle for inspection in connection with the administration, operation or enforcement of the act. What is the justification for those extra powers?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Although the wording might be slightly different, the effect of the first part of the clause that was read out, being (b) the capacity to enter and inspect any vehicle, is in effect in the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Native Vegetation Act, the Landscapes Act and in the Environment Protection Act. The idea of being able to inspect, including open anything that is in or on any place or vehicle is, you are correct, not in the Native Vegetation Act, but is in the Landscapes Act in effect. The new element is the capacity to open a package in the postal system, which is directed at the trafficking of wildlife which often, bizarrely and horrifyingly, happens through the postal system, and that is why that has been introduced here.

Mr TELFER: The point I am making is that those powers are not within the Native Vegetation Act of my reading. The act is so much broader now. You are including powers from all the different aspects, and pushing them all together so it is one in, all in. It is powers that are covering the whole range of the Biodiversity Act and all the different gamuts of the legislation that you are bringing in together, and the powers are covering all of it.

This is why I am really cautious about all of this put together, especially with the broad range of definitions, including the definition which we have already discussed around the definition of a plant. I appreciate the intention. I appreciate that you can expect, 'This would never happen,' but if you put something within legislation where it could happen, well that is, from my perspective, poor lawmaking. This is why I am flagging my concerns, especially as a regional MP who has seen from the perspective of my constituents—and certainly witnessed it myself—what could be considered under existing legislations an active overreach from an officer. It is just a statement as much as anything, sir.

Clause passed.

Clauses 103 to 167 passed.

Clause 168.

Mr BASHAM: Just a quick question here on subclause (1) and the requirement of permission to be in writing: for taking a native plant, does that include firewood from a native plant, and does hunting include hunting foxes and rabbits? To me, if it does, this is never going to be complied with, because verbal permission would be given. Hunting is defined as taking mammals or birds that you are allowed to take, which includes foxes and rabbits, and it says 'any land'.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: These are the provisions that exist in the National Parks and Wildlife Act at present—that they apply to all land—and yes, you do have to get permission even if you are going to go and shoot some foxes.

Mr BASHAM: It says here 'in writing'. I guess that is the thing: I suspect it is being broken left, right and centre currently, because it would be done verbally but not in writing.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If I do not know anything about this, I do not know anything about this.

Clause passed.

Clause 169 passed.

Clause 170.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to agreements against a title to land, can a potential purchaser negotiate with the minister, for example, on a biodiversity agreement to be terminated prior to settlement? Could it be a condition of purchase that that be done on settlement?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are just trying to work out how you would legally capture that. In theory it ought to be possible, but it is not common practice, so it would have to be captured in some form of deed because the agreement is with the landowner and that point of transfer is somewhat complex.

Mr BASHAM: I can understand the complexities, but there may be a reason why someone wants to purchase it without the agreement and have it removed, but not want to purchase it if the agreement is there, so it is just whether it can be terminated.

Clause passed.

Clause 171 passed.

Clause 172.

Mr TELFER: Minister, this is about data provision and the ability for the minister to obtain biodiversity data. What regulations are being proposed under this aspect, and who is likely to be asked for data?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: An example would be that people who are required to seek permission to gain data would then, as part of that, be required to share that data. So researchers would be required to provide that data so that it is available to the public.

Mr TELFER: Will the minister be able to ask a person or a corporation for data, even when the request is burdensome, resource intensive or otherwise unreasonable? Will there be any caps on the minister's power to require data provision?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is not a rule or practice of government to introduce regulations that are burdensome and administratively difficult to achieve, but this is nonetheless subject to regulations. It is not in my mind to do anything that would create such a burden, but it is in my mind that the more data we have, as we were discussing earlier, the more information provided, the better the decisions are. So the regulations will work that way through. It is not intended to require people to gain data that they would not otherwise be gaining; it is more the sharing of it once they have it.

Clause passed.

Clause 173.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister outline the process of establishing the state biodiversity plan, how it will be first established over the next two years and what consultation will be conducted?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This is a good piece of legislation, in my view. I think this is one of the really positive elements that is going to come to life as a result of it, and the development of this plan I think will be a piece of work that people will very much enjoy participating in.

There is some requirement within the legislation, as proposed here, to seek advice from certain entities in order to make sure that we are gaining the information required to make this a good plan. But in fact my intention—in the event that I am continuing to be minister as this is prepared, and I think any minister would have this view—would be to engage as widely and as well as possible in order to gain the best possible local information, as we discussed at length last night, of communities and individuals on the land who understand what is going on in their area in order to best develop a biodiversity plan that we can really be proud of.

The biodiversity plan, in my view, would be able to be used by South Australians and by the South Australian government as almost a prospectus of ways in which investment can be made here to have a positive effect on the health of nature. While that might be something that many individuals in South Australia want to achieve for various philanthropic reasons, in fact it is increasingly becoming an economic imperative that companies achieve ESG credentials. Having this biodiversity plan that they can see is the prioritisation given by a state government enshrined in the legislation is one way of giving those opportunities to gain those ESG credentials. That is very much the vehicle that I am hoping will be very useful for all landholders and for the state as a whole.

Clause passed.

Clauses 174 to 184 passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr BASHAM: We have had some discussion on this previously. I just want to reiterate a concern that I have, which is how it could be done with not having a map or a description. I note that in a recent bill that has been through this place, a map was part of the bill that was named and that map became the area, so it is possible to do.

My concern is if it is left here where it is done by regulation, it could be misused by the point that if it were disallowed it could be reintroduced until all the trees were cleared, time after time, to effectively get rid of what was done to allow a parcel of land to achieve an outcome by a future minister. I just have a concern.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 2.

Mr BASHAM: This has been an important part of the discussion here, particularly part 2, particularly around the clearance of natives. This is where I got very confused reading through the bill clause by clause to actually understand the difference, or how native plants of a relevant kind would be interpreted in here, so this is particularly where I think it gets very confusing when having those definitions cross over the way they do. It can be challenging in people's minds.

Likewise, the 20-year rule is something that I have concerns may lead to perverse outcomes, and to me that is something that we need to be very conscious of going forward. If we put this in place, we do not want to see landholders choosing not to plant native plants because of their concern that in 20 years' time it may remove their ability to do what they want. They are some comments that I just feel need to be made around schedule 2.

Schedule passed.

Remaining schedules (3 to 5) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (22:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I will not prolong this evening by doing an extensive speech, but of course I do want to thank everyone who has been involved, including the opposition. It has been a very good conversation, discussion and series of questions. I very much thank the advisers who are with me, in particular my dear Emily Gore, who has been significant in the crafting of this piece of legislation and contemplating amendments that may be considered in the other place. Thank you all for your patience.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (22:08): I would just like to thank the minister likewise and the minister's staff for their time over the last couple of days as well as for the briefings, and I also very much thank my colleagues who have been involved in this debate.

Bill read a third time and passed.