NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 17.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 8, after line 34 [clause 17(7), after inserted subsection (3a)]—Insert:

(3b) A regional NRM board must, in setting out its proposals for the application of the board's funds that are to be recovered by 1 or more levies declared under Chapter 5, seek to provide reasonable levels of support to community organisations contributing to the management of natural resources within its region based on a benchmark of at least 10% of money recovered from such levies being used to provide such support.

To me, this is an important amendment for consideration by the committee because it goes to the heart of community organisational recognition. It is important because it mandates that at least 10 per cent of each board's levy revenue must be given in grants and other means to community organisations. To me, this is not an over-the-top request. In fact, talking to one of the farmers who has done a lot of work on a LAP program in his region, he thinks it should be more because he said that the real ground activities where it does make a difference towards farmers and improvement of their land happens a lot of the time with the volunteer groups, which are mainly made up of farmers and other interested country community members. This amendment stands and speaks for itself.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment, like we did in similar amendments that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire moved a little earlier in a similar fashion. We also recognise and appreciate the extremely valuable contribution being made to natural resources management by community organisations but the amendment does not really consider that community organisations are not uniform across the state. It needs to be recognised that communities and regions are at different levels of capacity and that the demographics of community groups do not always fit the regional priorities that need to be delivered. Therefore, providing a minimum percentage of NRM levy funds to community organisations would tie board programs to what community organisations can deliver rather than what may be best for the natural resources in that particular area at that particular point in time.

It assumes that there are community organisations involved in natural resources management in every region and those organisations are incorporated bodies and are willing and able to manage funds according to government requirements. This is not necessarily the case, particularly in those regions with a very low population base—I am thinking of the Far West Coast in that situation. The government does not consider that it is realistic to provide these requirements when it cannot be certain that suitably accredited community organisations will be available to administer the funding.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party is not supporting this amendment, not because we do not support the sentiment of it—and I think it is fair to say there are a lot of these sorts of amendments which are about sentiment but will actually have the end result of making the act more prescriptive, and that is not something that we support.

There is a diversity of regions within these programs and I think that if we are to set these sorts of things in such a prescriptive way then we are going to tie them up in more red tape, which is contrary to what we are trying to do with this particular act. In most instances, a lot of the on-the-ground programs are already delivered in partnership with NGO organisations and LAP groups and the like and I think to specify it does not really add anything to the legislation, so we will not be supporting it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I also appreciate the sentiment with which this amendment has been moved, and I do so as someone who has spent 16 years of my life working for organisations that may well meet the definition, but an arbitrary allocation, or even if it is a benchmark, I do not think is a practical response to better managing the relationship between the government and the community sector. There would be difficulties. If you had a situation where there was only one group or one application, the assumption would be that they would be entitled to 10 per cent of the budget regardless of the merit or otherwise of what they were proposing to do.

I know the honourable member has not worded it in such a hard and fast way that it guarantees that money, but there would certainly be a presumption in favour of handing that money over, and it just may not be appropriate. There may be other circumstances where over 10 per cent of the budget might well be best expended by non-profit community-based groups. So, I appreciate the sentiment but we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I was just wanting to know if the minister could inform the committee how much of the NRM budget is allocated to non-government organisations or community organisations to deliver NRM services or activities? Also, how many of those community groups or organisations that are funded are Indigenous by nature? Are there any Indigenous communities that have NRM funding to do any sort of natural resource management in their areas?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for her very intriguing and important question. I do not have the information before me but I will certainly take that on notice and bring it back to her. There are certainly Indigenous communities involved in NRM activities. The Riverine Recovery Project in the Coorong and Lower Lakes region, for example, is one of them, and there are many others. There is also, of course, the largely Indigenous NRM board AW—Alinytjara Wilurara, I think it is called—but I will get those details for the honourable member and bring them back.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Just in summing up on this clause, and a question to the minister, I hear the voices of the committee but I am also hearing that people are very concerned about the fact that you have, year in and year out, ever-increasing numbers of paid people extracting funds from NRM levies and yet on the ground it seems to get back to expectations by your department that the volunteers still have to deliver. So, how much bigger are you going to allow this bureaucracy to grow as a monster? Are you going to ensure that, whilst this clause which was put in to have some check and balance on how money was spent and to remind the paid people and the boards that they have to start to look after the volunteers that are doing the on-the-ground projects, are you going to put a cap on the amount of people who are going to be employed and are you going to ensure that volunteers are respected and looked after and adequately funded to do the work that needs delivering?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the member for his questions. I suspect he probably already knows the answer to this. The NRM boards are set up in such a way that they can leverage additional sources of funding, funding that my department cannot access, particularly commonwealth funding, but also private funding. The whole rationale behind using NRM boards is to take advantage of and utilise the incredibly good services that volunteers in our communities provide to their communities—they put back into their communities and they love doing so.

So, the NRM board process actually leverages many more dollars through those individual processes, volunteer organisations, the utilising NGO organisations and Indigenous communities to do good works in their local communities, and will continue to do so. Volunteers are crucially important to my department and to the NRM boards and their authorities, and will always be so.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Based on that answer, given that the minister said, if I understand him correctly, that effectively the moneys for the levy are quarantined from his department, can the minister then assure the house that not one dollar will be siphoned off through any additional input costs and associated running costs to his department and/or the staff now that those 320 staff have actually been put over to and employed by DEWNR? Can the minister explain at law how they could therefore do that if they cannot take any money out of the fund because it belongs to the NRM boards?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you are asking a question of the minister on your own amendment?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, sir, because of the minister's answer. In answering part of the question in debate on this clause the minister said clearly that his department cannot touch any of that money, but 320 staff have gone across. So, I do not understand, and I am seeking a response on whether he can assure the house that none of this money will therefore go across to the department.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am not quite sure where to go with this question. The commonwealth, in making allocations to the NRM boards, has the requirement in many cases that the money go directly to the boards, whether for specific programs, projects, or whatever. Boards of course have service agreements with my department to cover all the services provided through that process. Boards may very well ask my department to enter into an undertaking to provide services that they request, for example. That is normal day-to-day business as operated by the boards. I cannot give any undertaking of the sort the Hon. Mr Brokenshire asked for because, quite frankly, I do not really understand the question.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I do not want to speak for the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, but it posed a question in my mind, namely, with the NRM levy that everybody pays on their rates notices or whatever, where is that money allocated and for what purpose is that money used?

The CHAIR: We are being very flexible here.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We are being very flexible, but I am in a magnanimous mood right now. My advice is that the levies provided to the NRM go into the same bucket of funds to which both the state and the commonwealth contribute, under the control of the NRM boards to provide the services on which they consult their communities in order to develop their business plan for the forthcoming two or three years in advance. That is from where their funding comes: contributions from the levy pool, contributions from the state, contributions from the commonwealth.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clause 18 passed.

New clause 18A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 9, after line 17—Insert:

18A—Insertion of section 76A

After section 76 insert:

76A—Water allocation plan cannot require person to install etc certain devices

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, a person cannot be required by or under a water allocation plan to supply or install a prescribed device, or to service, maintain, repair, replace or adjust a prescribed device.

(2) Despite any other provision of this Act, a person—

(a) cannot be required by the Minister to pay any costs involved with the supply or installation of a prescribed device; and

(b) is not liable for rent for a prescribed device.

(3) In this section—

prescribed device means—

(a) a device intended to collect or divert surface water or water in a watercourse for the purpose of ensuring that water above or below a particular threshold will not be taken or will be returned to the relevant water resource; or

Note—

An example would be a device commonly known as a low flow bypass.

(b) any other device prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.

This amendment seeks to prevent a person from being required to install, service, maintain, repair, replace or adjust a device intended to collect or divert surface water or water in a watercourse through a water allocation plan. It also prevents the minister from requiring an individual to pay any costs associated with the installation of such a device and from making an individual liable for rent for such a device. An example of such a device would be a low flow bypass system.

The amendment also allows other similar devices to be prescribed by regulation. The amendment is similar to that relating to meters, in that it only prohibits landowners from being required to foot the bill for low flow bypass systems. It does not prevent the minister from installing and maintaining a low flow bypass system at the department's expense. The low flow bypass system can still be installed, but the landowner will not incur the cost, nor will the minister be able to recover the cost of installation or any associated costs from the landowner or make the landowner liable for any rent in respect of a low flow bypass system.

For the benefit of members who have not read it, principle 174 of the draft Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Water Allocation Plan (which can be found on page 159) provides:

A dam, wall or other structure that collects or diverts surface water flowing over land or water from a watercourse must include a low flow bypass device...that ensures that any water present in a surface water flow path or watercourse at or below the threshold flow rate...

(a) will not be taken; or

(b) if taken, must re-enter the same watercourse or surface water flow path immediately downstream of the diversion structure as soon as reasonably practical (and no longer than 24 hours after diversion), and must not be of poorer quality than the water that was diverted.

Principle 175 of the plan further provides:

Any low flow bypass design:

(a) shall be approved by the relevant authority prior to the granting of a permit for the erection, construction, modification or enlargement of a diversion structure;

(b) shall be designed and constructed to ensure its correct operation is automated and cannot be manually overridden;

(c) shall be designed and constructed so that its correct operation minimises the risk of erosion and damage to infrastructure; and

(d) shall not increase the area that directs water to the diversion structure beyond the natural size of the catchment area upstream of the diversion structure.

Principle 176 of the plan provides:

A low flow bypass:

(a) shall be maintained in such a condition that it continues to be effective in meeting principle 174; and

(b) must not be obstructed or tampered with in any way.

Principle 177 provides:

The design of the device that will achieve the outcomes required by principle 174 must be approved by the relevant authority prior to the granting of a permit for construction or enlargement of a diversion structure.

Lastly, the principle provides:

Evidence that the device has been constructed as designed must be provided to the satisfaction of the relevant authority within one month of construction or enlargement of the diversion structure.

According to these principles, there are obviously very stringent requirements in relation to low flow bypass systems in terms of their design, which will inevitably translate into additional costs. As suggested by the plan, it was anticipated that low flow bypass systems would need to be installed on all dams. In 2011 there were also some discussions taking place as to a cost-sharing arrangement between farms and the government. In more recent times, I understand that the NRM has indicated that it may be reconsidering the requirement for low flow bypass systems on dams altogether.

What this demonstrates is that it is still unclear as to how the government will proceed on the issue of low flow bypass systems. Notwithstanding any suggestion that the government may decide not to proceed with these devices, it is not reasonable to expect farmers to be burdened with these costs. Again, these are costs that could run into thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars that farmers simply cannot afford.

I have seen one example of a new dam the permit for which was subject to a condition that it be fitted with a low flow bypass device. I am advised that the dam cost somewhere in the order of $35,000 to construct. That is a lot of money for a dam. This eventually turned out to be a dismal failure and compensation was necessary. I would urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I rise to oppose the amendment. A low flow bypass is a device that allows flow to bypass a dam until a certain level of flow is achieved. Scientific investigations into the impact of current water resources development on natural habitats indicate that critical ecosystems are under threat due to deviations in the natural flow regime.

Providing low flows to the environment means that more water is available to be allocated to water users. For example, in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, with low flows 15 per cent of the annual adjusted upstream run-off in a catchment can be allocated; without low flows, this would be less than 5 per cent, and this will not meet the social and economic needs for water. Low flows will also ensure that water-dependent ecosystems get flows at critical times, especially when they have been enduring a long, hot summer, for example.

Without low flows in the Eastern and Western Mount Lofty Ranges, the choices are to significantly reduce water entitlements, adversely affecting irrigated agriculture in those areas or causing irreparable damage to the environment and water-dependent ecosystems. It is important that members are aware that a low flow bypass is only one option for providing for lower flows. The department and relevant boards, I am told, are continuing to explore other options in conjunction with their community members. Discussions around the cost of establishing low flow releases and how this cost is covered is also part of that consideration and discussion.

This amendment will preclude persons who take water from a dam from being included in funding options into the future. I should say it also relates to a future amendment of Mr Darley, amendment 13 [Darley-4], affecting dams, as I understand, and for similar reasons we will be opposing that amendment as well.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: These amendments arise from the situation which has been taking place in the Eastern and Western Mount Lofty Ranges and which has been taking place for several years now, and I think it is a very apt response to the concerns that have arisen there.

I will address the issue of low flow bypasses first. It is a thing that most people find quite bemusing until they look at it in greater detail. A couple of years ago, I went up to the Clare Valley to examine some that had been installed there. The landowners told me that they had been operating for about 10 years and that half the time they did not work; they got silted up. That is in a region that does not have the large volume of rainfall the Adelaide Hills has. So, if I can use that expression 'thought bubble' again, I think that the insistence by the department on low flow bypasses for everyone was a thought bubble on its part.

I am aware that there has been some fairly prescriptive engineering attempted to be imposed on various landowners, both in a retrospective sense and when they have been planning to install dams. Personally, I am a great sceptic when it comes to the value of these low flow bypasses. Another thing we know about Australia is that it is a land of droughts and flooding rains, and when the water comes and it often comes down in—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Sing it!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, I'm not going to sing it; you would regret that.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, you will regret it. The water comes down in great volumes, and my understanding, from what landowners told me as recently as the other week at Willunga, is that these things can be replicated by landowners using pumps and spilling at the time of rainfall. Whether or not they are necessary really is a question I think many of us do not believe in, and I note that the department seems to have backed off somewhat on whether it will insist on them.

As to the Adelaide Hills water prescription process, metering and so forth, irrigator groups have again told us that the department is moving to a risk management approach, which is really the approach it should have adopted in the first place. Some of the things that have taken place there and what people have been told have really got people's backs up and have done a lot of damage and undone a lot of good work that landowners might have had towards environmental issues.

In spite of all that, we are not able to support this particular amendment because, again, I think it goes to issues that are overly prescriptive in the act. The Liberal Party policy has been out there, and I think Vickie Chapman was circulating something when she was at some of the Adelaide Hills shows. Our position is clearly on the record. However, in a policy sense, we agree with a lot of these things in this amendment, but in the interests of not trying to tie this act up too much in red tape, we are unfortunately unable to support this amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I would be inclined to support this amendment because I do believe that the Hon. John Darley has moved this amendment—and I do not want to second-guess him either—to ensure that the metering of dams and the fitting of low-flow bypasses would not go ahead because we know that the government would not be prepared to cough up the cash for it. They are more than happy to expect the farmers to pay up tens of thousands of dollars for the installation of these devices without any real concern as to whether they can afford it.

I was actually at a meeting with a few farmers and a bank manager and they put forward a proposal to the bank manager because they would not have the cash to be able to do it and to pay for it up-front—'If we were required to fit a meter to our dam or to fit a low-flow bypass to our dam, would we be able to secure a loan to do that?' The bank manager was very clear and asked the question, 'Is it going to improve your productivity?' The figures that the farmers put forward about this showed, 'Well, no it is not; as a matter of fact, it is going to cut our productivity.'

A few other questions were asked and they were guaranteed by the bank manager that they would not be able to secure a loan to have these devices fitted to their dams under any circumstances, that it was a risk the banks were not prepared to take, and that the reason it is such a high risk is that there was every chance that the productivity of those dams would go down the drain and those farms would be out of business anyway.

Farmers refer to low flow bypasses as no flow bypasses, and I have actually seen evidence of this. I have been to a dam where a low-flow bypass has been fitted—not retrospectively but when the dam was constructed—and the dam is dry because the water is certainly diverted away from the dam. The farmer has spent money to have that dam constructed and have the low flow bypass fitted at the time of construction and no water flows into that dam at all.

I know that there are at least two farmers who have asked to be provided with evidence of the fact that low flow bypasses are effective. They have waited since last August, I do believe, to have any studies or any evidence provided to them that the department is working off to justify the installation of low flow bypasses. One can only assume that, with silence for almost 12 months now, we can pretty much assume that there is no evidence to justify this; that it is as the Hon. Michelle Lensink said, nothing more than a thought bubble.

The other thing is when the minister said about the flowing of water in hot, long summers. I would like him to take me to a place where, under those conditions—hot, long, dry summers—these waters flow that need to be diverted away from dams and into the environment? Every dam out there leaks water into the environment—every dam. Farmers tell me that they lose anywhere up to a third of the water they collect in their dams through these leaks, and that water goes directly into the environment. These dams are built with spillovers, so if the dam gets too full, the water spills over the side of the dam, as the name would suggest, into the spillway and that water goes directly to the environment.

This whole notion of low flow bypasses is, as again the Hon. Michelle Lensink said, a bit of a furphy. To retrofit a low flow bypass is a cost impost that our farmers cannot bear. I have seen the quotes for two dams: $35,000. If you expect our farmers to bear the cost for something that is nothing more than a furphy or a thought bubble, think again. I remind the minister that at the meeting at Strathalbyn last year, where I think 900 people attended a meeting at the Strathalbyn hall—and at least 300 people were turned away because they could not fit in—there was a unanimous vote that if these initiatives were going to be put into place, the farmers would rather go to gaol than comply with any of this.

Go ahead with it at your peril. I do not support the Hon. John Darley's amendment for the pure reason that I do not believe in even supporting the notion that the fitting of any of these devices is needed or acceptable. It is only for that reason that I will not support the amendment. At your peril.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First will be supporting this amendment because, like a lot of our amendments, it is an attempt to try to start to get some fairness and focus back on the right to be able to produce food and farm, as well as the issues that we all have with responsibility for the environment. I know where the Hon. Ann Bressington is coming from. I actually with agree with her if I push it right out, but at least this is an opportunity to actually stop enforcement on property owners. That in itself, I think, is a step forward.

I would just say that on low flow bypasses, up until the rains came a couple of months ago, we had not had any rain for six months and I did not see, minister, water running anywhere on the Fleurieu Peninsula. In fact, the springs and the natural ecological water systems stopped much earlier last spring than they do generally, and they actually opened later last year than they often do. That has got to do with high pressure systems, low pressure systems and all those sorts of things, as well.

Having said that, I also want to say that, for a very long period of time now, you cannot just go and do what we used to do in the good old days, and that was put a dam anywhere. We have had to get approval from the department for probably 20 years now, maybe longer, for putting in a dam. So, there are checks and balances on that without a low flow bypass. I think really, minister, one of the things that you ought to do is spend a bit of your government's money and actually set up a trial low flow bypass system and have a look at all of the costs. Have a look at the maintenance costs and actually do a net cost-benefit analysis thoroughly and scientifically before we even really debate any further the pros or cons of low flow bypass systems.

I know of one—I will not name where because the department will probably be onto the person like a ton of bricks—where in order to try to address an issue where there were some riparian rights debates sometime ago, the department said that this person had to put in a low flow bypass system. The person below accepted that as a way forward for them to get what the department had said would be more water flow. The person above was determined not to maintain the low flow bypass and it was not very long before it stopped anyway, and they continued to be able to achieve the holding of as much water as they had capacity to without the low flow bypass.

If you have a look at the native animal life, and if you have a look, minister, at a lot of the vegetation, particularly where dams are below springs or on the side of a hill where there is a bit of spring activity, I have never seen so many kangaroos in my life as I see everywhere at the moment. The are flourishing with water that is stored, that actually would not be stored if it were not for those dams that were put in and, therefore, we have created an artificial opportunity for kangaroos, in particular, to breed like mad. Secondly, there is a lot of flora, fauna and birds as well there looking after the ecology because of these dams. So, I do not think it is all negative when you listen to the department saying how bad these dams are and how we need these low flow bypasses.

The final point I would make is that I do not know whether it has registered with the government yet, and I was always taught that the vomit theory has to apply, and I am looking forward to the government eventually vomiting, and that is when they realise that farmers are not a bucket of cash and that it is pretty tough out there. It is easy for departments, bureaucrats, ministers and cabinets to sign off on some initiative that does not hit their hip pocket but it makes it damn difficult to continue to farm. Many have had a gutful of all that, and it is time to draw a line and say, 'If you want to bring these things in, you bring them in at your cost, but let's give people an opportunity to get a bottom line profit of some sort because they are really finding it tight and these are just additional imposts.' To that end, I congratulate the Hon. John Darley on bringing this amendment forward and we support it.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Does the Hon. Mr Darley want to respond to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire or are you happy to let the Hon. Mr Parnell go?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I am quite happy for Mr Parnell to speak.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman, and thank you, Hon. John Darley. The issue of environmental flows and the fair sharing of water between upstream and downstream users has been vexed forever, probably for the entire existence that humanity has been farming. I can remember in 1976 in geography we studied the Colorado River, a river that was so mighty that it carved the Grand Canyon, but it ceased its flow and it never reached the sea because they had so messed up the extraction regime from that river.

I am not going to suggest that there are any streams flowing through the Mount Lofty Ranges that rival the mighty Colorado River or the Grand Canyon, but I make the point that, ultimately, if we are going to live sustainably on this planet, water needs to be able to be used for agriculture, certainly, but it also needs to sustain the environment and we need as a society to share the resource fairly.

The amendment that is before us is not about whether or not a low flow meter or a high flow meter or any other particular engineering device is appropriate in any given situation. There may well be situations where they are not appropriate or where they have been inappropriately installed. That is not the question. The question before us is: are there any situations at all where a landholder ought to pay for ensuring that some water gets through either for the environment or for other water users? If the answer to that question is yes, there are some circumstances in which the landholder ought to pay, then we have to reject this amendment because the amendment actually precludes the state from requiring the installation of a device or a payment of a share of the cost.

So, whilst I do not mean to get into an argument about whether low flow or other engineering devices have been appropriately or inappropriately used, this amendment, if it passed, would prevent the state from ever requiring a landholder to pay all or part of the cost of allowing some water to flow to the environment or to flow to downstream users. So, on that ground alone, I do not think it warrants support.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Very briefly, I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for that explanation because I have changed my mind now, if this prevents farmers from ever being required to pay for the low flow bypasses and meters that they absolutely do not want, for good reason. When the Hon. Mark Parnell suggests that farmers should contribute to environmental flows, they already do. Their dams are constructed in a way where they have a spillover when the dam reaches capacity, so they cannot withhold more water than their dams are permitted to hold. The dams leak, as I said, a minimum of one-third of their water back into the environment because that is what dams do. They have a sandy base that eventually leaks more and more.

How much water do they need to provide back to the environment when they have already paid, as the Hons Robert Brokenshire and John Darley said, $35,000 to construct the infrastructure to capture the water to feed the stock that we all buy at the butcher and consume? How much more do they have to contribute to us eating our food? What does the Hon. Mark Parnell think that is going to do to the price of food, the price of beef and lamb in the butcher shops, when some farmers on big properties have anywhere up to 15 dams on their property? We are talking about a cost of maybe $35,000 per dam. How are they supposed to sustain that kind of cost?

As I said, I know of two farmers who have requested from the department scientifically based evidence that low flow bypasses contribute in any meaningful way to environmental flows, and they have been waiting for almost 12 months to be provided with that evidence. As I said, if it cannot be provided, then it does not exist.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I probably do not need to speak now that the Hon. Ann Bressington has changed her mind, but what I was going to say was that I agreed with her initial sentiments. When I first looked at this provision, I was going to oppose it outright, but on reflection I thought that a reasonable compromise would be the amendment that I have now put.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Majority of 13 for the noes.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 9, line 26 [clause 20, inserted subsection (1a)]—Delete 'in accordance with the regulations' and substitute 'in a manner determined by the board'

I am now proposing to remove the proposal that a board give public notice of commencing to prepare a draft plan in accordance with the regulations and provide for a notification process consistent with a series of amendments that allows regional NRM boards to be accountable to decide the most appropriate method for their regions. The revised process does not affect the provisions allowing the public to contribute during the development of a plan and during the consultation on the draft of a plan prior to its adoption.

The substantive amendment in the bill is consequential on clause 19. It makes it clear that a board must prepare a draft plan and give public notice that this is occurring. This provides a less prescriptive approach and, apart from requiring a board to publish a notice on its website, it then allows the board to notify the community in a manner that the board considers to be the most effective and appropriate for those affected by the proposal. Regional NRM boards should be accountable to decide the most appropriate method for their regions and this is a congruent amendment to one that we have moved previously.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would like to ask the minister a question on this for clarification. This government has what it would call a proud history of creating red tape and causing more impost for business, but now all of a sudden it has woken up and the sun is shining and it is saying, 'We've got to streamline things and get rid of red tape and leave it for more discretion of the boards.' That is what I understand you are saying.

My question to you, minister, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this and consequential clauses are putting more decision-making into how they consult and advertise and promote draft plans. I think that is what it is about. So, why would the government not be keen to ensure that the boards had a strict procedure and policy so that landholders who are going to be affected by those draft plans actually start to learn early rather than late what the consequences are?

The Western and Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges water allocation plans is a case in point. Those plans went out for consultation in late October, early November. Farmers have to harvest at that time of year and they only had until the middle of January to damn well respond. So, this is the sort of stuff that we have to put up with. If I understand it correctly, we are going to make it more discretionary as to how plans are put out for public viewing and assessment.

If that is right, minister, then I think we are on the wrong track. We need more transparency and more opportunity for landowners to understand what those draft plans are early so that if there is a problem they can actually start to work on it well in advance, rather than at the eleventh hour, which is happening regularly with NRM plans.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I advise the honourable member, in reply to his question to me, that the act actually provides at section 79 preparation of plans and consultation. The board must consult for at least two months after the first publication of invitation under subsection 10A. So, the board already has a two-monthly period. What I am proposing—and the honourable member seems to be criticising me for this, and that is his right—is to put more power and decision-making back in the hands of these local boards so they can make decisions for their local regions which suit the conditions of their local regions. I am proposing to put more power back into the local people involved in making these decisions that affect their local communities. I think that a good thing.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do not think, the way this is framed, that it is a good thing, and I will give you a scenario. The board is hijacked by extreme environmentalists.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Greens.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Greens and others associated with the Greens. So, the board is hijacked. The absolute majority of people on the board want a certain direction. It can happen, and then all of a sudden farmers are done over again. I might be a lone voice again—I feel like the Melbourne Football Club at the moment, and I am sure some of my other colleagues do, too. Nevertheless, we are still out there playing the game and trying to kick a few goals. We oppose this amendment on principle.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I should resist the temptation to comment, but members of boards are appointed by the Governor. I do not think the honourable member is suggesting in any way that the Governor would attempt to hijack any of those boards.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 9, after line 30—Insert:

(ixb) any community organisations delivering projects within the relevant NRM region; and

This is a fair and reasonable amendment because, as I understand it, it is an issue regarding the delivering of projects and involvement with community organisations. This is the third and final of our amendments for recognition of community organisations. This amendment comes after the government has actually inserted (correct me if I am wrong, minister) a requirement to consult with the Aboriginal community on the drafting of the plan.

We have no problem with that, no problem whatsoever with the government ensuring that our Indigenous people, our Aboriginal community, be consulted on a plan. However, we actually think that, if we are going to do that, and given the others who have mandated consultation at present in the act, the community organisations that deliver projects in the regions should also be consulted to have an opportunity in shaping the plan. I see it as broadening out our democracy.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We can all be for that, but when you broaden it out to such a ridiculous situation you really make a mockery of the whole process of this act. We oppose the amendment, obviously. It is too broad in its scope. Complying with it would be totally unreasonable and possibly even unworkable. The amendment in its language says 'any community organisation'—any, no prescription, no connection to NRM is required—'delivering projects within the relevant NRM region'. What projects are we talking about? Again, it is impossible to put this prescription on any board and have any hope that it can deliver on it. I oppose the amendment and ask the committee to do so as well.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am just double-checking the context of the amendment. Normally, you would want community groups to be involved and to be consulted. Putting it in context, it is about section 79, which is the preparation of the draft plan. The question is: who should be given a copy of the draft plan? There is a list in the section of who gets a copy. The minister gets one (which is nice), as well as various government agencies, the NRM Council, peak bodies, NRM groups, the constituent local councils; Aboriginal groups have been put in there as well. If the question is a statutory one about the giving of copies, if it was a tightly worded amendment that basically talked about stakeholders who had a clear engagement with NRM—who had perhaps received money from NRM, or whatever—but it does not say that—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: The delivery of projects for the NRM, so they have to be delivering a project.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It says 'any community organisations delivering projects', but, as the minister said, it could be a mental health project, it could be a sporting project—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, it says 'within the relevant NRM region'.

The Hon. A. Bressington: No, it doesn't.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yes, it does. I am reading from the amendment—'within the relevant NRM region'. Again, I do not know whether it is something that could have been fixed up by drafting but, at the end of the day, all we are talking about is who is entitled to get a physical, hard copy of the draft plan. I would have thought that the stakeholders are going to be in there; they will be getting it, they will be downloading it from the web, that would be the first thing they would be doing. It does seem that we are getting to a level of detail that is unnecessary and unhelpful within the legislation.

I am not saying that these people do not deserve to have access to this document, but in a fairly general way to effectively give any community organisation delivering any project within that particular region a right to a physical copy of the plan does not really make sense, so we will not support the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The way I read section 79 of the act is that the copy must be given to peak bodies, NRM groups, and other persons or bodies prescribed by the regulations. I would have thought that would cover the sorts of groups that the honourable member is talking about. Again, I am slightly confused about the language in this amendment because it says 'any community organisations'. I would have thought a better wording would have been 'relevant community organisations'. It is very hard to support this because it does tend to suggest that it will be anyone, whether that be the local or mothers and babies group or so forth. It is just not tight enough.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Honourable members would realise—and realise it regularly—that I am not perfect, and I rely on parliamentary counsel to draft. I invite honourable members to move an amendment to this, and I am happy to recommit this at the end because—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, I will just give you an example of where it is necessary. Unfortunately, at times hardworking organisations or groups—and the intent of this was for where they are delivering projects for the NRM; I put that on the public record—sadly, fall out with certain senior bureaucrats in NRM regions. I know for a fact (and I will not name them because I respect them) that they were totally removed from the process because they challenged some of the costings and things like that on an earlier project. I am just trying to ensure that these groups, that actually do the work, that you are forcing the NRM officers in that board and region to ensure that they have some input. However, I would be happy to recommit it with an amendment to get more specific.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 9, after line 30—Insert:

(2a) Section 79—after subsection (6) insert:

(6a) The Minister must cause a copy of a draft plan given to the Minister under subsection (6) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the draft.

I think the whole process of the Mount Lofty Ranges NRM plans shows that these issues are so important that draft plans need to be put before the parliament.

I agree with the Hon. Michelle Lensink when she said on Tuesday that the allocation of water and prescribing of resources for the first time is highly political. There is no doubt about that—it is highly political—and it is because the sustainability of the resource and of farming businesses is at stake. Parliament needs to be given notice as to the proposals in draft plans sooner so that they can be analysed and, if necessary, modified before becoming final.

This is also important because the concept statement aspect of the bill has now been removed. Where we had a concept statement aspect of the original bill the government is removing that. We are going to have less transparency on the drafting of plans now under this bill than was originally proposed.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Concept statements were really a bad idea.

The CHAIR: Don't worry about interjections.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We are going to have less transparency, as I see it. By way of comparison let's go back and have a look at another issue—the pokies issue. I know there is a bill before parliament on this but I think the illustration helps. The pokie barons were happy with a mandated community pre-consultation process to be put into the gaming machines new allocation process because they wanted to know what their prospects of success were before running the gauntlet of objections and possible court action.

In the same way here, by putting the draft plan to parliament at an earlier stage of the process, the heat can be taken out of the final plan by clearing up the problems with the plan. Just to finish on that, if you are a member of parliament and you do not happen to have the responsibility for the portfolio and you do not happen to be a landholder living in a water allocation plan area, you have to put in an enormous effort to try to find draft plans and where they are up to.

There is no process in the parliament with these plans (I have checked with the minister's senior adviser) whereby we can disallow, object or oppose a water allocation plan. It goes out and it is developed, it takes a lot of consultation, etc., and it is ultimately signed off by the NRM and then the minister, but we as a parliament have no input into that and no way of altering it.

I think that is fundamentally wrong. If the minister tabled the draft plan within six sitting days of when he received it at least we would have a chance to look at it and to put some proper deliberation into it. That is all I am asking for.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment. Draft consultation plans—'draft' consultation plans—are publicly available, and the tabling of any draft plan in parliament, which is subject to further amendment before being finalised, seems totally unnecessary and inappropriate at the stage of that plan's development. All previous draft NRM consultation plans, I have been advised, have been amended based on the comments received during public consultation and after further consideration of issues by boards and the responses that they have received.

The Natural Resources Committee of parliament already has a role with the NRM plans. A comprehensive regional NRM plan that provides for an NRM levy must be referred to the committee for resolution on the levy proposal. Annual amendments to a board's business plan, a component of a regional NRM plan where the amendment proposes a new levy or an increase above CPI must also be referred to the committee for resolution. Any amendment to an NRM plan must be provided to the committee.

I fail to see the sense in adding another layer of bureaucracy, of putting a draft plan to the parliament which we know is going to be heavily amended after subsequent public consultation, and the draft plans are publicly available anyway.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am a little bit at sixes and sevens on this one. However, I take the point that if these draft plans are publicly available and we are able to find them then I do not really see that there is much to be added by tabling them in parliament as well.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 9, after line 30—Insert:

(2a) Section 79(10)—delete subsection (10) and substitute:

(10) The board must publish an invitation under subsection (9) on its website, and may give such other public notice of the invitation as the board may determine.

In keeping with previous amendment proposals relating to regional NRM boards engaging with the community, this amendment removes the need for a board to give public notice in two newspapers of an invitation for the public to make written submissions in response to a draft plan and to attend a public meeting. This is replaced with a requirement to give public notice on a relevant board's website to notify the community in a manner that the board determines. Boards will then determine the most effective and appropriate means by which to notify and engage those affected by the proposal. Regional NRM boards should be accountable to decide the most appropriate method for their particular regions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As with the Hon. Michelle Lensink's contribution to the last section, this is one that is a little bit tricky because, as far as members of parliament are concerned who might not live in an area and who might want to comment on one of these plans, if we are not going to have the tabling of draft plans in parliament, then one of the things that I think we would want to be sure of is that there are going to be mechanisms for people to find out what is going on. I am a fan of putting things on websites, but I am also a fan of people being able to register their interest with various government agencies in relation to being informed of things that are going on.

My question to the minister is: is there any system within the NRM regime that allows people to register an interest in receiving communications from the various NRM regions or groups, and if there is not currently such a system, has the government considered assisting boards to implement such a system?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am not aware of any prescribed form or listing that the honourable member might be suggesting. Of course, each board would have a list of all those members of the public who make submissions to them. They could feasibly put that list together as a community consultation list, if you like. What we are doing here, again, is no different to what we have done previously in the other amendments that have been agreed to in this place.

We are saying, 'We will not tell the board how you must best communicate with your members of the public. We will allow you to make that decision based on your own local knowledge of the community and what communication strategies will reach those people best.' It may well be they will continue to use newspapers. I understand that one board—the AW board which I mentioned earlier—has found using newspapers not to work at all and they have to use other means and other mechanisms that are available to them. All we are doing is saying to boards, 'You know best. It is your community. You make those decisions.'

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am happy to accept for now the minister's answer in that regard. The proof will be in the pudding. The worst result of changing these regimes would be someone with a very genuine and legitimate interest who says, 'I did not know this process was happening.' I do not know to what extent that happens in relation to NRM. I certainly know that it happens in relation to land use planning under the Development Act and I have a bill before parliament to deal with that very issue of direct notification of people affected by a plan, but I am happy for now to accept this amendment; to accept that the boards, as far as I am aware, have done more than they need to in terms of communicating with the community.

It was very unparliamentary of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire to display in parliament one of the NRM brochures but, as with the honourable member, I have many of these and I always look at them. Some of them are of very high quality and they are very large in size. I do not think anyone can accuse the boards of not communicating with the community, but we are talking here about people's statutory right to engage in a process and I would not want to see legitimate people not finding out that a plan was being developed when they have a legal right to comment on it.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am a little bit the same. I do have concerns about whether this is going to reduce transparency, but I also have engaged with some of the board's presiding members, particularly in one region—I forget which one it is—whose advice is that they are effectively required to advertise in a lot of newspapers and electronically is probably the more effective means, so I think we will have to take this one in good faith and perhaps review it in the future.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I have to say that I am just a little bit amused by this. We have an issue about how NRM boards should publish information or whatever, when the problem could quite easily be solved with an amendment reading 'by whatever means necessary', which does not necessarily just specify websites. That is what this does. It specifies a website, and then it is not prescriptive about any other way. I guarantee that there will be boards out there that will say, 'Website—that's all we're required to do' and that is all they will do.

When the Hon. Michelle Lensink says that she has consulted with members of boards about how this is working for them, I would suggest that it should be about how it is working for the people who come under the actions of these boards. Quite obviously, there are people out there who are not satisfied with the amount of consultation that is occurring prior to certain activities being implemented, and they do not feel like they are well enough engaged or well enough informed. If that is the feedback that we get, that is what we should be acting on, not the feedback from the boards whose job will be made just that little bit easier by this particular amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: If I could just respond to that, the point I was trying to make was that they spend a lot of money on advertising. That is basically landowners' money, money that should be better spent towards on-ground projects. The reason that they say that it is not really effective is that they do not get the response from the newspapers. There are probably other direct means by which they consult. There still are the statutory consultation times within it, so I think we just have to take this one on good faith. They are, by and large, community people who live in their communities and are responsive to their communities and trying to do their best.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will just be very brief. I attended a meeting down south where there was an NRM officer or representative—she was a LAP member. She was a very sensible, very honest person who truly believed in the initiatives that NRM were implementing, but when you got down to a conversation with this woman who has been on these LAPs for 18 years or however long—a long time—she could not believe that NRM were acting the way that they were in the Mount Lofty Ranges area.

Her particular little arm of the NRM was rolling things out the way it was meant to be rolled out and consulting with the community the way that they were meant to be consulting with the community. She was actually shocked. She was also shocked at the proposal that dams up in Mount Lofty Ranges would be required to have low flow bypasses, by the way.

My point is that some of these NRM organisations and groups are doing their job, doing it well and doing it to the letter. They are delivering outcomes for their community, they are consulting well and those communities are quite happy with that. But we have other areas that are not doing that, and in here today we are ignoring that that even happens—just absolutely disregarding the stories that we have heard. We say, 'Well, this lot over here is doing it great so that's all we need to worry about.' I have said it before and I will say it again: it is the bad behaviour that is occurring that needs to be addressed, that we are not addressing, and therefore we will not be preventing it in the future.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a brief question of the minister before a more detailed comment and possible question. Can the minister advise the committee who drove this particular amendment? Was it the department? Was it the NRM Council or did you have heaps of NRM chairs of different boards rushing in saying, 'We are really concerned about this and this will save us some money'? Who dreamt this one up?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the boards considered this to be an important amendment and conveyed that to my department and myself.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is interesting because I am on the Natural Resources Committee and the boards come before us—I will ask my office to check the transcript of the evidence—but I cannot recall one board raising this with me. Two things worry me with this, and one is that this potentially lets a board off the hook. A lot of the boards are doing everything in their power to do the right thing, but we have to govern for the what-ifs as well as what is generally happening. If you get a different mix of personnel on board, and they decide to drive their agenda, I am not convinced that we are going to have the consultation and the transparency that Premier Weatherill talks about. I am happy to put this on the record: if the Liberals win office on the second Saturday in March 2014—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Third.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —third Saturday. I will be there on the second and the third. If the Liberals win office then the shadow minister will become the minister I assume, and I take it from that that we will see pretty significant debate occurring from what you have said on this whole saga, and I look forward to that. On the other hand, if the government wins, I predict that we will see a further shift towards the socialism side of the left, I am pretty sure of that. If you look at the candidates, they will be more to the left, so therefore there is more chance of them inviting certain people they want to drive certain agendas, and that is how politics works when you are in government. I have been around long enough for that, and that is why I am concerned with this.

I will be chucked out if I demonstrate again, sir, so I will not, but they will be happy to do all the glossy publications that make it look good for their agenda, but on the stuff that can really affect the community, the property owner and the hip pocket of the farmer, according to what the minister said, they will really only have to put it on a website. The cost of buying a few ads in the country papers as against the cost of these beautiful publications that are distributed everywhere is miniscule anyway, but I think it is about giving people a chance to know what is happening.

One of the problems that we have now—and I am sure my colleagues are the same—is that I have more and more of the community coming to me saying, 'We didn't know about this. Why weren't we told about that? We weren't informed. Why didn't you inform us?' People are screaming out for that and I see this as an unnecessary amendment that is going to make it more difficult for people to know what is happening with plans—that is the thing that worries me, not stats but plans—so we will be opposing this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 9, after line 30—Insert:

(2a) Section 79(16)—delete 'subsections, prepare a report on the matters raised during consultation on the draft plan land on any recommended alterations to the plan.' and substitute:

subsections—

(a) prepare a report on the matters raised during consultation on the draft plan and on any recommended alterations to the plan; and

(b) prepare a report, or cause a report to be prepared, on the socio-economic impact that the draft plan would, if adopted, have on the area affected by the plan.

(2b) Section 79(17)—delete 'subsection (16)' and substitute:

subsection (16)(a)

(2c) Section 79(18)—delete 'the report' and substitute:

a copy of each report

This amendment seeks to require that a report be prepared on the socioeconomic impact that a draft water allocation plan would have on an affected area if adopted. There are two consequential amendments, that is, amendment No. 6 and amendment No. 7, which relate to the same reporting requirements.

In practice, this reporting requirement would follow the consultation period for a draft water allocation plan and be in addition to the preparation of a report on the matters raised during consultation on the draft plan on any recommended alterations to the plan. The NRM board would then be required to provide both reports to the minister for consideration. After receiving the plan and the reports, the minister would then consult with the NRM Council and with such other persons as considered necessary. He or she would also have regard to any submissions received from members of the public and any reports from public meetings. The minister would then adopt the plan with or without amendment or refer it back to the board for further consideration.

If a plan provides that all or some of the funds for implementation of a plan should comprise a levy proposal, after adopting a plan, the minister must refer the plan and the accompanying reports to the Natural Resources Committee of parliament. That committee has the ability to object to a levy proposal and any such resolution must be laid before the House of Assembly which in turn can pass a resolution to disallow the levy proposal.

The aim of the proposed amendment is to ensure that the socioeconomic impact of the plan is available at every stage of the decision-making process. It will ensure that the minister is aware of any negative impacts that the plan and any NRM policies may have on a particular region. Where a plan recommends a levy proposal, this amendment will ensure that the Natural Resources Committee is also aware of those impacts before passing any resolution with respect to such a levy proposal.

When I learned that there was no specific requirement to undertake a socioeconomic impact study directly in relation to the preparation and consultation of water allocation plans, I was astounded, especially given the very broad-reaching effects that these plans will have on a given region, and given the integral role such studies play or ought to play in planning and decision-making.

During the 2011 debate, I attended a public consultation meeting for the draft Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges water allocation plan where, during an answer to a question from the floor, I understand one of the speakers indicated the NRM were considering preparing a socioeconomic impact study as part of the preparation of a plan. However, I might stand corrected in relation to this, but it was my understanding of the response provided at the time. If that is the case, then this amendment would only complement such a process. In any event, this is a sensible amendment which will better inform not only the minister but also the Natural Resources Committee and the NRM board of the impacts of water allocation plans on a given region. As such, I commend this amendment to all honourable members.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for his amendment and I understand and have sympathy with some of his views, but we will be opposing the amendment. The act currently requires a social impact assessment to be prepared and included as part of the business plan of every regional NRM plan if that region receives funds through levies. This assessment relates to the expected social impact on the imposition of any levy imposed, both land based and NRM water levies.

This amendment would require an additional socioeconomic impact report to be prepared on a draft plan. A socioeconomic impact report is a complex and resource intensive process that will divert significant resources from on-ground activities to consultants, especially if it applies to all draft NRM and water allocation plans as this amendment requires. The requirement is unjustifiably onerous, in my view, and could unnecessarily delay development that requires access to water. If it delays the adoption of a water allocation plan, that sets the rules for future dealings in water rights.

The water allocation plan is already required to set out principles associated with the determination of water access entitlements and for the taking and use of water so that an equitable balance is achieved between environmental, social and economic needs for water. A social impact assessment report prepared for a board has cost in the past approximately $30,000. A socioeconomic impact report is expected to cost more, and economics of regions can vary significantly. Any additional expense will need to come from the levy, moving funds away from the on-ground opportunities to more administrative costs. With that extra advice and information about the impact of having to do another assessment on the draft plan, I hope the chamber will reject the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: From my understanding, the social impacts are required to be included within the reporting requirements. I can only concur that the purpose of large amounts of this bill we have before us is to try not to add additional requirements to the boards but to try to reduce the administrative requirements for the board, so we will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 9, after line 37—Insert:

(1) Section 80(13)—delete 'laid before the House of Assembly' and substitute:

furnished to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly

(2) Section 80(14) and (15)—delete subsections (14) and (15) and substitute:

(14) The President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly must, on the receipt of a copy of the plan under subsection (13), lay the plan before their respective Houses.

(15) If a House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the levy proposal of a plan laid before it under subsection (14), the levy proposal ceases to have effect.

(15a) A resolution of a House of Parliament is not effective for the purposes of subsection (15) unless passed in pursuance of a notice of motion given within 14 sitting days (which need not fall within the same session of Parliament) after the day on which the plan was laid before the House.

This provision attempts to rectify what Family First thinks sits poorly with the current structures of parliament for disallowance of regulations. At present, only the House of Assembly can move to disallow a plan. The Legislative Council cannot move to disallow a plan. Every regulation can be disallowed, yet a final plan cannot, but in the House of Assembly it can. Naturally, unless you have a minority government, and even then Independents who do not support the government on every bill, it is highly unlikely that a plan will be disallowed.

The government has the power to push through a controversial plan using its numbers and these plans can have a far greater impact on the land than regulations. We believe the same disallowance process as applies for regulation should apply to these plans, namely, disallowance available to either house of parliament, not just the House of Assembly. So, I move the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government will oppose this amendment. The current requirement under the act that a resolution to object to a levy proposal be laid before the House of Assembly is the same as that which existed under the previous legislation. This was based on the principle that money bills are only introduced in the House of Assembly and that principle was extended to the consideration of NRM levy matters. The government considers that the principle should continue.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 9, after line 38—Insert:

(a1) Section 81(1)—delete 'plan annually.' and substitute:

plan—

(a) at any time the board is proposing an increase in the amount to be raised by way of levy (being an increase not contemplated by the current plan); and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a), at least once every 3 years.

(a2) Section 81(2)—delete subsection (2)

(a3) Section 81(3)—delete 'annual'

This amendment is the second of three amendments to provide that the business plan component of a regional NRM plan need only be reviewed every three years rather than annually. Replacing the annual review of the business plan with a three-yearly review will provide efficiencies for boards. However, the government recognises that any three-yearly review process will require an additional legislative mechanism to trigger further review should a board be proposing certain changes to its business plan since the plan was originally adopted. This trigger is limited to any increase in the amount to be recovered by way of a levy from that already proposed and adopted.

Changes to a business plan because a board has been successful in attracting additional external project funding not previously identified does not require statutory community consultation. This applies to additional funding from any source other than from NRM levies. The amendment provides that a regional NRM board can propose a three-year business plan. It also provides that no further statutory consultation is required if, each year, the board keeps within the amount to be recovered by way of levy. However, should a board propose to increase the amount to be recovered by way of a levy from that already proposed and adopted then the amendment requires the board to undertake a review and public consultation of the business plan.

The normal processes under the act would apply, including forwarding of the amendments to the Natural Resources Committee should any levy increases exceed CPI. Moving to a three-year review of the business plan accords with one of the initiatives suggested for consideration by the Natural Resources Committee in its 49^th report on the review of natural resources management levy arrangements.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise the committee that, based on the way the debate is going, I am withdrawing amendments Nos 16 and 17 standing in my name.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 10, lines 1 and 2 [clause 22(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) Section 81(7)(a)(i)—delete subparagraph (i) and substitute:

(i) publishes a summary of the proposed amendments, as well as a notice inviting members of the public to provide it with written submissions in relation to the proposed amendments within a specified period (being a period of at least 21 days), on its website and in such other manner as the board may determine; and

The original amendment in the bill provided that a regional NRM board need only publish in a newspaper a summary of the changes that it proposes to a regional NRM plan as part of the annual review process, rather than a copy of those changes. I now propose, with the concurrence of the committee, to revise this.

In keeping with previous amendment proposals relating to regional NRM boards engaging with the community, amendment No. 21 now requires a regional NRM board to publish on its website a summary of the proposed amendments to its regional NRM plan, as well as a notice inviting members of the public to provide it with written submissions in relation to the proposed amendments. In addition, boards will be required to notify the community in a manner that the board determines, congruent with previous amendments. Boards will then determine the most effective and appropriate means by which to notify and engage those affected by the proposal.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 10, lines 3 to 8 [clause 22(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Section 81(10(b)—delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) an amendment proposes that a levy under Chapter 5 Part 1 Division 1 or Division 2 imposed in one financial year be again imposed in the next financial year (whether or not the amount to be raised or recovered by the reimposed levy will differ from that raised or recovered by the current levy).

The government bill proposes to retain the requirement for a social impact statement to be included in a regional NRM plan only when a new levy is proposed or when an increase that exceeds CPI is proposed. The amendment proposes that a social impact statement be included, irrespective of whether the levy will differ from that raised or recovered by the current levy. It will not be limited to instances involving new levies or increases in levies above CPI.

I have already touched on the importance of socioeconomic impact studies in relation to water allocation plans. The same sorts of arguments are equally applicable here. Those studies should not be limited to instances where there are increases in levies. I commend the amendment to honourable members.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes the amendment. The current provision states that the levy proposals are only required to be referred to the Natural Resources Committee of parliament for a resolution where a proposal provides for a new levy or an increase above CPI. This has been a well-accepted and sensible requirement since the act came into operation.

This amendment, however, would require all levy proposals to be referred to the committee for a resolution, regardless of any increase, decrease or even cases of no change at all. The government does not consider there is any benefit in referring every levy proposal to the committee. It introduces an unnecessary level of process and uncertainty for regional NRM boards that is not justified in cases where boards are proposing no increases in levy above CPI. I can see no benefit from changing the current requirement so as to refer every levy proposal to the committee, and I ask the chamber to reject the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Members will see as I debate my amendment No. 18 why we will support the Hon. John Darley with this. Quite frankly, I do not see that it is a big impost on the committee, having been a member of that committee, but I see a massive impost on irrigators when it comes to water levies, and we have to start to consider the business and the social impacts, and we are not doing that at the moment, so I support this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

New clause 22A.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 10, after line 13—Insert:

22A—Amendment of section 84—Time for preparation and review of plans.

(1) Section 84(2)—delete 'preparation of a concept statement or by the public and other consultation required by this Act, the Minister may dispense with the requirements for the concept statement and' and substitute:

public and other consultation required by this Act, the Minister may dispense with the requirements for such.

(2) Section 84(3)—delete 'the annual review of its plan' and substitute:

reviews of its plan as required under this Act.

This clause provides for consequential amendments in two parts: subclause (1) removes the reference to a 'concept statement' and is consequential on clause 19. Subclause (2) is the final in a series of amendments to provide that the business plan component of a regional NRM plan need only be reviewed every three years rather than annually. It provides legislative consistency for three-yearly review business plans and supports the amendments proposed under clause 22.

New clause inserted.

Clause 23.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 10, line 17 to page 11, line 10 [clause 23(2) and (3)]—Delete subclauses (2) and (3)

It is proposed to remove this amendment from the bill because these arrangements are in the Natural Resources Management Financial Provisions Regulations, and it is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 24 passed.

New clause 24A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 11, after line 13—Insert:

24A—Insertion of section 100A

After section 100 insert:

100A—Application of water levy provisions

On and from 1 July 2014, no levy may be imposed under this Division.

Obviously, this is one that I am sure there are different viewpoints on, but when this bill came into parliament back in 2004 I do not think any of us realised just how much money was going to be collected in the second part of the levy structure; that is, the water levy component. As a result of that we now see a situation where a lot of irrigators are being charged $10,000 or more a year for water that they paid for when they bought their properties, or that their families paid for when buying the properties in earlier generations.

This is a straightforward amendment. It moves to abolish all water levies from 1 July next year. To give an example, with the water allocation plan, I think it is for the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, where they have been able to manage with the part A NRM levy thus far, they are now predicting about $360,000 in the first year for water levy collection. That is a huge impost on farmers. I do not think it is right, and I am therefore moving this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment, which would significantly affect the government's and the boards' ability to manage our water resources. NRM water levies are required to support water planning and management undertaken by the boards. South Australia's current arrangements with respect to water levies are consistent with its commitments and obligations under the National Water Initiative Intergovernmental Agreement, which the Australian government and all jurisdictions have signed.

In principle, the cost of managing our scarce water resources should be met at least partly by those who use or extract our water. As direct beneficiaries it is reasonable that holders of water entitlements contribute to costs associated with water planning and management. At present, entitlement holders contribute only to part of the costs incurred on behalf of the community in this area. The proposed amendment would, in effect, shift an even greater share of the current cost burden for water planning and management away from extractors and on to the South Australian taxpayer. I ask the chamber to reject the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Again, this is an expression of sentiment, and one with which we have a lot of sympathy. There are fewer landowners who are subject to water levies than are subject to land levies; basically anyone who owns property in South Australia pays the division 1 land levy and that is, therefore, a large number of people. The people who are rated on water are a smaller rateable base of people, and therefore politically it is not as loud a voice when their levies are increased.

We have been very concerned about some of the increases in the water levies, because I think they were seen as being a bit of an easy target. However, I do not think it is feasible to remove the water levy from the statutes altogether; there does need to be some charge associated with managing that resource, so we are not able to support this amendment.

New clause negatived.

The CHAIR: The Honourable Mr Brokenshire and the Hon. Mr Darley have a couple of amendments that cross over, still inserting clauses 24A and 24B. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, if you can do yours first and I will then call on the Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My amendment No. 19 is a consequential amendment that was lost so I withdraw that one. I also advise the committee my amendment No. 20 was also a consequential amendment regarding intensive farming, so I also withdraw that amendment.

The CHAIR: We thank you for your advice.

New clauses 24A and 24B.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 11, after line 13—Insert:

24A—Amendment of section 101—Declaration of levies

Section 101(13)—delete subsection (13) and substitute:

(13) A levy cannot be imposed under this section with respect to—

(a) the taking of water for domestic purposes; or

(b) the taking of water from a dam.

24B—Amendment of section 103—Special purpose water levy

Section 103—after subsection (13) insert:

(14) The regional NRM Board in relation to whose region a special purpose water levy is declared must include in its annual report a statement setting out the extent to which the levy has been applied.

(15) If any portion of a special purpose water levy (being a levy declared on the basis that it will apply until brought to an end by the Minister by notice in the Gazette) has not been applied 2 years or more after being raised, the Minister must bring the levy to an end by notice in the Gazette.

The proposed amendment has two aspects. The first seeks to prevent levies from being imposed on water taken from a dam in addition to water taken for domestic purposes. It would apply to all dams irrespective of whether they are used for stock and domestic purposes or commercial purposes.

By way of clarification, and before I proceed any further, during the last debate on this bill I had a similar amendment which also applied to water taken for watering stock that is not subject to intensive farming. Given that the government's proposed amendment to intensive farming has now been deleted from the bill, there is no reason to progress that line of argument in relation to levies.

There is already a growing level of discontent amongst farmers in relation to increasing levies, and farmers and irrigators have become extremely untrusting of government in relation to this matter—and rightly so. The overwhelming consensus appears to be that they are fed up.

In the past, I have met with representatives from the Apple and Pear Growers Association of South Australia, and I note that they are particularly concerned over increasing costs, including levies for their growers. They are particularly concerned that every time a group is excluded from the ambit of levies or other costs, another group is faced with increased costs. This amendment would provide these growers with some assurance that they would not have to pay levies on dams even where those dams make up part of their overall water allocation.

The second aspect of this amendment relates to special purpose water levies. Section 103 of the act provides that the minister may declare a special purpose water levy where he or she is of the opinion that it is necessary or desirable to raise money for a purpose related to the management of a prescribed water resource, the management of any effect that the taking or using of water may have, or to the restoration or rehabilitation of any part of the natural resources of the state on account of the taking or using of water. This would apply in situations where a regional NRM plan has identified a levy as an appropriate way of raising money but where it is considered unfair or unreasonable for all persons who have water management authorisations to contribute, or contribute to the same extent, to the amount needed for the relevant purpose.

A special purpose levy, which is in addition to liability for a levy under section 101 of the act, may be declared by the minister on the basis that it will apply for a specified period corresponding to one or more financial years, or on the basis that it will apply until brought to an end by the minister by notice in the Gazette. Section 103 provides a number of other conditions with respect to the imposition of such a levy, including requirements in relation to consent.

In relation to the special purpose levies, this amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to require that the regional Natural Resource Management Board in relation to whose region a special water levy is declared, to include in its annual report a statement setting out the extent to which the levy has been applied; that is, the extent to which it has been spent or used. Secondly, it seeks to require the minister to bring the levy to an end if any portion of the levy has not been applied two or more years after having been raised. This is a very sensible amendment which seeks to provide a greater level of transparency in relation to special purpose levies.

Given the level of dissatisfaction that exists at the moment in relation to the issue of levies, I think it is more than reasonable to ensure that we have adequate reporting requirements in place as well as a mechanism for bringing a levy to an end where it has not served its intended purpose. Two years is also adequate time for the levy to be applied. I commend this amendment to all honourable members.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think the Hon. Mr Darley has spoken to both new clauses so I will do the same, if I may. In relation to amendment No. 9 standing in his name, an amendment of section 101, the government opposes this amendment. Subsection (13)(a) simply repeats section 101(13) in the act which provides:

A levy cannot be imposed under this section with respect to the taking of water for domestic purposes or for watering stock that are not subject to intensive farming.

Essentially that part is fine if you want to repeat it, but not allowing levies to apply to water taken from dams in paragraph (b) creates an artificial distinction based on where the water is taken, rather than on the quantity of water that can be taken or that is used. Such an artificial distinction is inequitable.

Under this proposal, those who take water directly from a watercourse or underground water may be liable to pay a levy, while those who take water from a dam would not. This would be the case even though both may be using water for the same commercial purpose. It is reasonable that people who have rights to take and use water contribute to the costs of managing our precious finite natural resources, and so we oppose the first part of the amendment.

The second part of the amendment to section 103 is also opposed. Before a special purpose water levy can be declared by the minister, a regional NRM board must identify in its regional NRM plan that a levy is required for the purpose concerned. This includes information on the program to which the special purpose water levy relates. Funding raised through a special purpose water levy can only be used for that purpose. Requiring boards to undertake more administration which, in effect, duplicates what is already available in the plan, is not a good use of resources, I would say. A special purpose water levy can only be declared if a majority of those affected approve and the levy can only be used for the purposes set out in the plan and for which it was specifically raised.

There may be circumstances in the future where a portion of a special purpose water levy has not been applied within the period stipulated and where works are still pending. I can only speculate, but there could be a situation where the delivery of infrastructure ordered from overseas is severely delayed and it would be quite inefficient to have to start the special purpose water levy process all over again, which I understand that this amendment would require, so I ask the chamber to reject both amendments.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to the first part of the honourable member's amendment, I understand that it prohibits the levying of water which is taken from a dam regardless of whether it is for commercial purposes, such as irrigation or intensive animal farming, and is not seeking to include water taken from rivers, bores or wells. I will give an example of why that will be inequitable and that is the Clare Valley grape growers, in that they have a pipeline which they part funded. The larger commercial grape growers have established fairly large dams and this would mean that they would be excluded from paying a levy, whereas the smaller operators who rely on water that is piped for SA Water at what we have argued is an exorbitant price would be disadvantaged, so there we have an example where I think this is well intentioned, but it would cause a great deal of problems.

In relation to the second one, I understand the sentiment, and we are all irritated about the River Murray levy which really was a tax imposed by Kevin Foley within his first 12 months of office, and we are very sceptical that it is all applied for the purposes for which it is intended. From that point of view, as I said, I am sympathetic, but I think it is a little bit awkward to apply that through this amendment, so we will not be able to support these new clauses.

New clauses negatived.

Clause 25.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 11, after line 14—Insert:

(1) Section 106(1)(d)—after subparagraph (ii) insert:

or

(iii) from a dam for any purpose,

Section 106 deals with determinations with respect of the quantity of water taken and provides the means by which those determinations are made where the basis of a levy is or includes the quantity of water taken. Basically, it sets out what water will and will not be included in the calculation of water used. Section 106(d) deals specifically with what will not be used in those calculations or what will be disregarded for the purpose of those calculations. It provides that levies will not apply in relation to the taking of water in instances where it is taken by the occupier of land for domestic purposes or for providing stock with drinking water and the taking of water for firefighting purposes.

The government bill extends these provisions also to provide that a levy based on the quantity of water taken will not apply to water taken for the purpose of the construction or repair of a public road. This amendment seeks to further extend this provision by providing that a levy will not apply to the taking of water from a dam for any purpose. For the sake of clarification, the amendment does not relate in any way to a water allocation. It simply prevents dam water from being used in the calculation of levies payable irrespective of whether that dam is used for stock and domestic purposes or for irrigation or commercial purposes.

As I mentioned earlier, the Apple and Pear Growers Association of South Australia have been particularly concerned over increasing costs, including levies, applicable to their growers. They are particularly concerned that every time a group is excluded from the ambit of levies or other costs, another group are faced with increased costs. I appreciate that they are in a very difficult position in trying to achieve the best outcome for their growers, and I believe this amendment, which they supported in the past, goes some way towards addressing at least some of the concerns they have raised with me. As I said earlier, if the government is serious about not levying dams, then this amendment ought to be supported. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment as well.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes the amendment on the same basis that we opposed the last one in new clause 24A. It is inequitable to exempt levies based on how and where water is taken, as opposed to the quantity of water that is allocated or that is used.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Just to say, some dams are really huge and are used for some very significant commercial operations, so I do not think on that basis that we can exclude every single dam from the regime.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Just a question for the minister. Can the minister provide some detail of how the department landed on the capacity of a dam being five megalitres or more, and so requiring a licence? What was the basis for that, if we are talking about meters now?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that it was arrived at in consultation with the public and was a figure that was arrived at to achieve balance between commercial and non-commercial use.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: In light of the minister's answer, and I do not quite know how to frame this, we have a farm that may have two five-megalitre dams and they are both required to be licensed and they may be required to have a meter fitted, but up the road, we have a farm with five three-megalitre dams on it and none of that water is taken into consideration at all. Those dams are not required to be licensed and they will not be required to be metered.

If this is really about water allocation, keeping track of water and making sure that every drop of water is utilised well, and all the palaver we get about why this is so necessary, can the minister explain why one farm that may have three, four or five three-megalitre dams on it, and one farm that may have two five-megalitre dams on it, is not required to be included in the system, and why that farm with three three-megalitre dams is not required to be in the system, even though they are probably holding more water than the farm down the road with the five-megalitre dam?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the situation the Hon. Ms Bressington may be referring to, we need to be clear, only applies to the Western Mount Lofty Ranges. Where water is taken from a dam of five megalitres or higher for purely stock and domestic purposes, yes, it needs a licence, but smaller size dams for commercial purposes will also need licences. So, when we are talking about stock and domestic, it is my advice that above five megalitres is the level only in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges, but if it is for commercial purposes any other dam would need to be licensed.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: So, still I ask the question, minister: you have a farm with three or four three-megalitre dams—and this is supposed to be all about keeping track of the water, the water usage and all that—so you have one farm that has more water on it but it is in smaller dams, stock and domestic, it is not required to be licensed, but the dam down the road with five-megalitre dams that is holding less water than the farm up the road with three-megalitre dams is required to be licensed. If this is really about keeping track of water, how does that make sense?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am not sure how far I can take this with the honourable member at this point in time. I understand that a farmer could have multiple small dams, but whether that is an efficient use of their resources, having lots of small dams, I do not know that that happens very often. Again, we are talking about the Western Mount Lofty Ranges area there. Again, I come back to the point that the figure was arrived at with community consultation and with extensive feedback. It was aimed at getting a balance between commercial and stock and domestic use, and that was the figure that was settled on in consultation with the public.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Different line: so, given the minister's answer, if a five-megalitre dam was arrived at through public consultation, how can the minister explain the absolute outrage of farmers who said they would rather go to gaol than comply with these regulations? Nine hundred of them.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 26 passed.

New clause 26A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 11, after line 26—Insert:

26A—Insertion of section 116A

After section 116 insert:

116A—Person cannot be required to install etc meter except in certain circumstances

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, a person cannot be required under this Act to supply or install a meter, or to service, maintain, repair, replace or adjust a meter, unless the meter is reasonably required to measure water for the purposes of a levy imposed under Chapter 5 Part 1 Division 2.

(2) Despite any other provision of this Act, a person—

(a) cannot be required by the Minister to pay any costs involved with the supply, installation, testing or sealing of a meter required under this Act; and

(b) is not liable for rent for such a meter.

It is a similar amendment to the Hon. John Darley's but it is broader and it covers meters with respect to dams, bores and wells. It does not preclude the government from putting meters on and it acknowledges that there are sometimes reasons why you have to have meters on bores. We have already got them on our three bores. However, it is the issue of who pays and the impediment which is considerable. For the public good, I believe that if the government wants meters on bores and irrigation dams, then the government should pay and maintain them through general revenue, so that is why I am moving this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment. This amendment provides that people could not be required to install and maintain meters on dams unless the meter is required to measure water for the purposes of raising a water levy. Meters are required principally for the collection of accurate data about the use of water for resources management purposes.

Metered water use data is a fundamental component in determining accurate water balances for water resources. It is also used to check compliance. Accurate information about water use can only be obtained by measuring use through meters. Such information is critical to the government's capacity to manage water resources sustainably and to protect the rights of all water users, so we urge the chamber to oppose this amendment and, for similar reasons, the amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 11, after line 26—Insert:

26A—Insertion of section 116A

After section 116 insert:

116A—Person cannot be required to install etc meter except in certain circumstances

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, a person cannot be required under this Act to supply or install a meter, or to service, maintain, repair, replace or adjust a meter, on, or in relation to, a dam unless the meter is reasonably require to measure water for the purposes of a levy imposed under Chapter 5 Part 1 Division 2.

(2) Despite any other provision of this Act, a person—

(a) cannot be required by the Minister to pay any costs involved with the supply, installation or sealing of a meter on, or in relation to, a dam; and

(b) is not liable for rent for such a meter.

The amendment provides that a person cannot be required to supply, install, service, maintain or repair a meter on a dam unless that meter is reasonably required to measure water for the purposes of a levy. Further, a person cannot be required to pay any costs associated with the supply, installation or sealing of a meter on or in relation to a dam and cannot be liable for any rent for such a meter.

The amendment does not impact on any existing meter and schemes that exist under the act or the regulations. However, unless the meter is required for measuring water for the purposes of a levy, then a landowner cannot be required to install and maintain that meter at his or her own expense. That is, the meter can still be installed on the dam but the landowner will not incur the cost nor will the minister be able to recover the cost of the installation or any associated costs from the landowner or make the landowner liable for any rent in respect of the meter.

One of the key concerns amongst farmers in relation to water allocation plans and legislative requirements is the growing number of expenses they have to meet. Not only do they have to pay levies for the installation and maintenance of meters, they are also being told they could be required to pay for low flow diversion systems, the fencing off of creeks, rivers and dams, and in some cases the redirection and reinstallation of irrigation piping from dams.

Coincidentally, at one of the NRM public consultation meetings that took place in 2011 at Strathalbyn, a hydrologist from the Department of Water explained that by using aerial photography and a reading taken at the base of the dam wall, as well as using certain formulae, they could calculate the capacity of the dam. Since the mid-1980s, we have also had access to remote sensing techniques and satellite imagery.

By using relatively simple software, the capacities of dams could be automatically monitored on a daily basis using the existing technology, thereby avoiding the need for the 19^th century mechanical equipment vis-a-vis meters and the costly monitoring of these meters. This advice coincidentally came from former surveyor-general Peter Kentish who retired last year. The point is that there are existing mechanisms that could be used to monitor the capacity of dams without putting farmers to additional expense.

The fact of the matter is that there are many farmers doing it tough at the moment and these are huge costs, running into the thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars, which they can ill afford. If the minister wants meters on dams then the minister should be responsible for the associated costs. I would urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have a fair bit of sympathy for the second part of the amendment. The first part of it, however, sort of runs counter to what we believe should have been the process in terms of the water prescription in the Adelaide Hills which is now being adopted, which is a risk management approach. Not very many of the subcatchments are actually under stress so my question as always been: well, why force everybody to go through this process when there is only some 5 per cent of the areas that really need to be managed?

For that reason, I would have thought, in a hypothetical situation, that you might go into those areas where you think the subcatchments are stressed, put some meters on just to see how much water is actually being used before you make an assessment about whether those areas need to come under management. So, I think it is almost counterintuitive to say that you cannot actually install it unless you are going to impose a levy. It does not make sense and we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire's new clause negatived; the Hon. J.A. Darley's new clause negatived.

Clause 27.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have noted members' concerns raised on this section, so I propose to delete the clause to allow further consideration and consultation.

Clause negatived.

Clause 28.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 11, line 33—Delete ', (6a) and (6b)' and substitute 'and (6a)'

As the government proposes to remove clause 28(2) from the bill under amendment 26 the reference to section 124(6b) is no longer relevant. The remainder of the clause in the original bill clarifies that section 124(3) is also subject to section 124(6a), which deals with the taking of water from stormwater infrastructure. This amendment will ensure the legal integrity of the provision.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you have an amendment at clause 28 as well?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is consequential and therefore I am withdrawing it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 11, line 34 to page 12, line 4 [clause 28(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment continues this series of amendments to remove 'designated drainage infrastructure' and 'drainage infrastructure' from the bill, and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire likes this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 29.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment continues a series of amendments to remove 'designated drainage infrastructure' and 'drainage infrastructure' from the bill. Its removal from the bill is consequential on the decision made under 4.1 and makes everybody happy.

Clause negatived.

Clause 30.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 12, after line 9—Insert:

(a1) Section 127—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) Subsection (3) does not apply to, or in relation to, an activity consisting of repairing a well or dam where the repair does not result in an increase in the storage capacity of the well or dam.

Section 127(3) provides that a person must not undertake certain activities unless authorised to do so by a water management authorisation or permit granted by the relevant authority. In relation to a dam, those activities include erecting, constructing modifying, enlarging or removing a dam, a dam wall or any other structure that collects or diverts, or is capable of collecting or diverting, water from a prescribed watercourse, a watercourse in the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed that is not prescribed, or surface water flowing over land in a surface water prescribed area or in the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed.

This amendment seeks to remove the need to obtain authority where the activity undertaken involves repairing a well or a dam but does not result in any increase in the storage capacity of the well or dam. As already mentioned, my office has spoken with farmers who are growing increasingly frustrated about their inability to simply get on with farming because of increased bureaucracy and red tape. This is a classic example of that sort of red tape.

Farmers with years, if not decades, of experience on the land are having to seek approval before undertaking what, to them, is the simplest of tasks. We should be encouraging farmers to get on with the job of farming and producing food, rather than getting bogged down in red tape and additional paperwork, which all come at a cost.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thought I might speak now because this is identical to my amendment; therefore, I will withdraw my amendment, but in doing so I clearly support the Hon. John Darley's identical amendment for the reasons he gave. I understand what the government is trying to do when it comes to building new dams, etc., permit requirements and so on for water-taking activities, but this is just an impediment and surely we can see common sense in supporting the amendment.

You get very small windows of opportunity sometimes to be able to repair these dams, or you may have a situation where part of the wall falls away and it is about to start raining and you want to get in and repair it. This is just about repairs and maintenance, and this can actually save the environment. I have seen dams where walls have slipped, they have not been repaired, and then you get big scouring in the gully below. I appeal to the minister to support this one as a common-sense practical amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On the face of it, it does seem like a common-sense amendment, but I will explain now why it is not. The government opposes the amendment, which provides that approval would not be required to dams or wells if the repairs do not increase their storage capacity. But it is critical that well and dam repairs are appropriately regulated because there are risks of damage to water resources and to other persons' rights to access water if repair works cause contamination or otherwise impact on the environment, and I will give an example in a moment.

For example, repair work to a well that is carried out incorrectly may interconnect to a polluted water aquifer with an aquifer that contains high quality water. This could contaminate water that is accessed by other water users. Likewise, repair work to a dam that is carried out incorrectly may increase sediment flowing into a watercourse or drainage path and lead to a decline in water quality and may also result in increased erosion and the loss of riparian vegetation.

Examples of why we need to have a permit include situations where we need to ensure that a more saline upper aquifer is cased off to prevent leakage to better quality water, or ensuring that work on a well does not intrude into another aquifer which is already fully allocated or overused and has an effect on groundwater-dependent ecosystems. These are complex systems and we need to make sure that we have licensed drillers undertake this work. Therefore, permits are required.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I understand the importance of having drillers do things with bores—we would never touch our bores ourselves, we always get the driller, but dams are a different thing—but if we were to recommit a clause excluding wells, would the minister then support just the dams? We are not interfering with aquifers when we are cleaning the silt out, repairing a wall or getting rid of some reeds that have come up.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is to decline the offer. I did talk about dams in my explanatory note. If a dam is not properly rectified in its defects there could be situations where that repair work could cause contamination of a watercourse, more sediment flowing into a watercourse and degrading the water quality. Again, we need to know that those processes, those repairs, are being carried out in a proper manner.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do not want to hold the committee any longer than is needed, but this brings up a really important point I want to get on the public record from the government. The government is implying that, once you go through an approval process, you pull that silt out from that dam, you may reline the dam wall on the outside to grow grass on it, and you have some other soil you might want to spread out over the side of the paddock, the department has the right, supervision and legal powers to order that farmer to truck that excess soil away from that site.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that NRM officers are very well aware that these permits are required to be issued with some haste, and our turnaround time is quite quick. It basically only takes getting in touch with an engineer to get approval. I also understand that repairs on dams usually go over some considerable period of time and are not usually done in a quick way, so there is time to get the appropriate licensed person to do the job.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would like it on the public record. You go through the cost not only of getting whatever the NRM officer says but you may actually have to get an engineer in then because of the way this is happening, and there is some overburden soil which is on the farmer's property that the farmer decides he would like to leave there for another day. Are you telling us that they would have the authority to force that farmer to truck that excess soil away to an area where they are satisfied it is not going to cause an issue?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am not an engineer and I am not a technical expert in dam construction. I certainly cannot give the Hon. Mr Brokenshire that advice.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 12, lines 10 to 15 [clause 30(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

The purpose of this amendment was to provide that in appropriate cases the relevant authority could require a separate application for each individual activity for which a permit is required; for example, in circumstances where it would be difficult to apply different conditions to each well that is authorised under a single permit. In light of members' concerns with the proposed amendment it has been removed from this bill.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Page 12—Lines 16 to 20 [clause 30(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This is in relation to the penalties that apply for taking of water within prescribed areas. I will probably have some questions for the minister on this issue as well. The reason that we are seeking to delete these—and we indicated in 2011 that we would be deleting these—is that we think that the proposed penalties are going up too far, in that the current maximum penalties that can be imposed by the courts are $35,000 plus a prescribed rate of $25 per kilolitre for a natural person, or for a body corporate it is $70,000 plus a prescribed rate of $25 per kilolitre. The government is proposing to increase that to $700,000 for a natural person and $2.2 million for a body corporate.

We think those penalties are far too high. In the briefing provided to us (whenever it was, two or three years ago) we were advised that they were the maximum penalties in all of Australia based on the New South Wales EPA Act which we do not think is an appropriate benchmark for those penalties. We looked at whether there was a penalty regime that might be appropriate, such as whether it is in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars, because we appreciate the fact that, particularly in times of drought, water theft is more likely to take place, and that will have an impact on downstream users to the point where they may not even be able to access that water.

It is a balance between trying to set the penalty high enough to have that as a deterrent versus people who overuse their water allocation and it is some sort of accounting error. We believe that those people should be treated differently but we were not able to obtain the sort of information that would enable us to come up with a new penalty regime and, therefore, we are going to oppose these increases outright.

We do not think that irrigators or landowners should be subject to such a huge regime when it may just be a matter of them having a faulty meter or, in the case of an irrigation trust, the situation is that each farm has to have its own meter and it is quite difficult to balance all of the water that is allocated to each property.

I am not sure whether I am able to ask a question at this point but, first, can the government justify that increase; and, secondly, has consideration been given for irrigators and landowners who may just overuse their allocation as opposed to people who deliberately steal water?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I will respond briefly to the honourable member's questions. I would be very surprised if people who overused were convicted of water theft because people who overuse water are subject to penalties under the act elsewhere. I do not have those penalties before me but they are prescribed elsewhere in the act.

What we need to do with the proposed bill is to increase the incentive, if you like, for persons not to take water illegally. If fines are likely to cost less than purchasing water entitlements and paying levies people may be encouraged to do the wrong thing. If potential penalties do not provide an adequate deterrent the amount of water that is taken illegally could be quite significant. I am advised that the increased maximum penalties are consistent with the terms of the national framework for compliance and enforcement that South Australia endorsed in the COAG water reform process.

Paragraph 5 of the COAG agreement provides that jurisdictions agree to use their best endeavours to introduce and pass legislation to establish consistent penalties across Australia by ensuring that maximum penalties for water resource offences are adequate and take close account of the higher level currently imposed by water resource legislation. The highest maximum penalty for equivalent offences, I am advised, is $2.2 million for corporate bodies in New South Wales and $1.1 million for natural persons in New South Wales.

You will see from the provisions in the bill that I have presented before you tonight that for natural persons we have revised that down to $700,000. We think we have struck a balance in this. Obviously, we have copied the provision in terms of corporate bodies. The current act, as the honourable member said, applies penalties of $70,000 for bodies corporate, and we think that is nowhere near sufficient.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First, again to be quick with the time, will be supporting the opposition on this. These are absurd and outrageous—$700,000 and $2.2 million is a joke.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will also be supporting the opposition's amendment, but first I would like to ask the minister: how many people have actually been charged and prosecuted for water theft or overuse of their water allocation in the last two years?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I will take that on notice.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Page 12, line 24 [clause 30(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

This amendment is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 31.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment continues a series of amendments to remove designated drainage infrastructure and drainage infrastructure from the bill and enjoys broad support.

Clause negatived.

Clause 32.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be moving my amendment as it is consequential.

Clause passed.

Clause 33.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment added the option for a well to be capped as a less costly alternative to requiring that a well be backfilled, plugged or sealed. I now intend to remove this amendment from the bill with the concurrence of the committee. Although capping can be a cheaper option, the position now is that if a well is no longer used the well should be cleaned out to the original depth and backfilled.

Clause negatived.

Clause 34.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 13, after line 4—Insert:

(a1) Section 150—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) However, the following cannot be transferred under this section:

(a) a water access entitlement, or part of a water access entitlement, in respect of surface water located in—

(i) the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges; or

(ii) the Western Mount Lofty Ranges;

(b) any other water access entitlement, or part of a water access entitlement, of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.

This amendment seeks to prevent the transferring of water access entitlements in respect of surplus water located in the Eastern and Western Mount Lofty Ranges. However, I should point out that it does not impact on any arrangements pertaining to the River Murray. An overwhelming and indeed growing number of landowners continue to voice their opposition, not only to the trading of water to overseas investors but also to the trading of water within the Mount Lofty Ranges more generally. Many landowners are particularly frustrated that this can occur at a time when more and more restrictions are being imposed on them in terms of what they can and cannot do with their water and on their properties. They do not consider it fair or necessary.

Even in discussion with officers at the consultation meetings that took place back in 2011, it was agreed that, in a number of situations, the transfer of water access entitlements and water allocations within the Mount Lofty Ranges would be impracticable. I would urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We oppose this amendment. This is a blanket ban on transfers of surface water in the Eastern and Western Mount Lofty Ranges, including with the sale of land and on the death of a licensee. However, the amendment would not restrict transfer of water allocations. When a resource is fully allocated, transfers provide an opportunity for people who cannot otherwise obtain water to negotiate with licence holders who want to sell all or part of their entitlement. The terms of the transfer are determined by the relevant parties.

This amendment would restrict development in the Eastern and Western Mount Lofty Ranges. Preventing transfers of these water rights would decrease their value for owners and prevent water being traded to higher value users. It would also reduce the capacity and flexibility needed by water users to adjust to changes in water availability. The proposal is also contrary to the broad objective of the National Water Initiative, which is to remove unnecessary restrictions on the trade of water rights. It also would be inconsistent with the basin plan water trading rules, which will apply in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. We urge the house to reject the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Whilst unusual in this debate, on this occasion Family First will not be supporting the Hon. John Darley and will be supporting the government. I acknowledge and understand that the Hon. John Darley has had some representation from some primary producers, as indeed have Family First and I am sure others. In fairness to them, I do not think they understand, once you get water licensing and water allocation plans in place, the importance of having transferability available between landowners within a scientifically approved basin, aquifer or watercourse region.

This is different from foreign ownership, which we will debate later. I just think the capacity of a region to be able to capitalise on the highest and best use of that water—and to be able to capitalise on future diverse and other opportunities in irrigation, and also to assist primary producers who simply want to grow their business or who may want to retire and not irrigate any longer, sell off their water licence but maintain their land to run beef on, for example—gives flexibility. Having studied this in detail years ago, we need to be able to maximise the opportunity for return economically in a region, and therefore on this occasion, whilst I swallow hard, I support the minister.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment either. There is, I think, a debate that has been lost in this country about whether riparian rights should be attached to land or not. I think that this is contrary to the National Water Initiative. Whatever people's views may be on whether that was the right thing or the wrong to do, it is with us and here to stay. There is a little bit of water trade that takes place in the South-East and limited in other regions, as well, and I think that is something that everybody just needs to live with and move on with. Unfortunately, we are unable to support the honourable member.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 35 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment provided for water conservation measures to be made by a notice published in the Government Gazette rather than being declared by regulation. This was consistent with the Water Works Act 1932, but it is proposed to remove this amendment from the bill because the Water Works Act has since been repealed and replaced by the Water Industry Act 2012. This is consistent with the existing provisions in the NRM Act.

Clause negatived.

New clause 39A.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 15, after line 16—Insert:

39A—Amendment of section 171—By-laws

Section 171(7)(b)—delete 'cause to be published a notice in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the region settling out' and substitute:

publish the proposed by-law, as well as a notice inviting members of the public to provide the board with written submissions in relation to the proposed by-law within a specified period (being a period of at least 6 weeks), on its website and in such other manner as the board may determine

In keeping with the previous amendment, proposals relating to regional NRM boards engaging with the community, this amendment removes the need for the board to give public notice of its decision to proceed to prepare a draft in accordance with the regulations. It replaces it with a requirement to give public notice on the relevant board's website and to notify the community in a manner that the board determines. Regional NRM boards will then determine the most effective and appropriate means by which to notify and engage those affected by the proposal.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We support this for the reasons expressed previously.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 40 to 43 passed.

Clause 44.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: With respect to clause 44, and the requirement to control certain animals or plants:

A person who has in his or her possession or control an animal of a class to which this subsection applies must comply with any instructions of an authorised officer with respect to the keeping or management of any animal of that class.

I would like some clarification on what sort of animals they are talking about. Are these pest animals, or what is it about? I do not understand it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that the animals fall into classes 1, 2 and 3. Class 1 animals are those that are most likely to escape confinement. I think they include things like tigers and lions and bears but also animals like cane toads and other such pest animals.

Clause passed.

Clause 45.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 17, after line 22—Insert:

(2) Section 223(2)(d)—after 'water' insert 'by means of specified irrigation or other machinery'

This amendment repeals the reversed onus of proof for any water-taking so that prosecution will have to prove the amount of water taken by, for instance, livestock. This amendment would still allow the reverse onus to apply for use of irrigation or machinery, for example, pumps, but not any other forms of taking water. It would be the farmer who holds the records of hours of pumping or any volumes pumped, but in other cases the prosecution needs to do their work.

I understand where the government is coming from if they are trying to ensure that someone is not stealing water by virtue of a pump from a dam or a bore, but if an officer comes along and wants to take on a farmer because, under this intensive animal husbandry, there are some allegations of livestock using more water than they are allowed to use, I think they have to prosecute and have a situation where there is no reverse onus on the landowner.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I rise to oppose the amendment and foreshadow my amendment. The government opposes the amendment. Section 223(2)(d) of the act provides that an allegation in criminal or civil proceedings that the defendant took or used a specified quantity of water must, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be accepted as proved. The amendment would restrict the application of that section to specified irrigation or other machinery.

However, water can also be taken in ways that do not involve irrigation infrastructure or machinery. For example, the act defines 'to take' to include (1) to stop, impede or divert the flow of water; (2) to release water from a lake; and (3) to permit water to flow under natural pressure from a well. In some cases, it might be possible for an estimate to be made of the volumes of water that have been allowed to flow from a well into a dam or into a trench.

Because the act defines 'well' to include an opening in the ground that provides access to underground water, a well does not always involve machinery. In cases such as these, it is important that the evidentiary provisions in section 223 of the act, which are designed to avoid lengthy and costly trials, apply.

Amendment negatived; clause negatived.

New clause 45A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment of section 226—NRM Register

(1) Section 226—after subsection (1b) insert:

(1c) The minister must, within the Water Register, establish a subregister that records—

(a) the name of any designated entity that holds a water licence; and

(b) in relation to the water licence—

(i) the water resource to which it relates; and

(ii) details about the share of water available under the relevant water access entitlement; and

(c) such other information prescribed by the regulations.

(1d) Subsection (1c) does not derogate from the operation of schedule 3A.

(2) Section 226—after subsection (6) insert:

(7) In this section—

designated entity means—

(a) a person whose principal place of residence is outside South Australia; or

(b) a body corporate with a registered office or principal place of business that is located outside South Australia.

This is an amendment I had way back when we were going to debate this bill. I note that we had support from the Liberal opposition and other crossbench members for the foreign ownership of the land register. This would allow for a foreign ownership of water register. In addition, there is a paragraph in the designated entity on interstate owners. That is what it is about: it is about setting up a register for foreign ownership of water.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment. The amendment would increase the administrative burden on the department for no apparent reason. This information will not serve any useful purpose, I contend. Even if it were apparent that water rights are held by persons who reside interstate or overseas, the minister could not refuse to grant or transfer allocations of entitlements on that basis. That would be inconsistent with the broad objective of the National Water Initiative, which is to remove unnecessary restrictions in the trade of water rights.

It would also be inconsistent with the basin plan water trading rules that will apply from 1 July 2014. Section 12.07 of the basin plan provides that a person may trade a water access right free of any restriction on the trade that relates to the person being or not being a member of a particular class of persons. Again, I reiterate that this would just impose another unnecessary administrative burden on the department and the board.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do not believe it is an unnecessary burden, and it does not actually stop the transfer of water. What it does is start an opportunity where we will have a register so that we can actually start to see who owns our water. I would like to think that in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, if we see a significant percentage of our water registrations going overseas, or even interstate to superannuation funds or whatever, the parliament of the day on behalf of the people would be able to—

The Hon. A. Bressington: Change the rules.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Change the rules, change the law. All it is asking for is a register to be set up.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: All it is asking, like a register for land ownership.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: How much would that cost?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will actually be supporting this amendment. I would like to make the point very quickly that the minister says, 'How much is that going to cost?' and 'This is a burden.' Consider all the red/green tape they are putting on farmers. Most of this bill has been about removing the burden of reporting and whatever for NRM. People just want to know where our water is going and, as the Hon. Robert Brokenshire said, in 10, 20, 30 years' time (but I would not give it that) when people start to worry about who owns our water, you will be able to go to a register and see it. There is evidence there to the government of the day that perhaps we need to change the legislation because we do not own any of our water any more.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This is an interesting concept and we have supported the honourable member in relation to the foreign ownership of land register. I have spoken to people who are involved in the water trade industry and what they tell me, which is probably a reflection of the government as much as anything else, is that South Australia's water licensing transfer system is so slow that a lot of other interstate operators will not even bother trying to trade into our water market because it takes forever.

This is to do with the River Murray at least. They prefer to trade with other states because the system here needs a lot of work and needs a whole lot of time taken out of the system, so I think this is a worthwhile concept. However, given that and that South Australia is currently being disadvantaged under the current water trading system, we are not able to support it because we think that our system needs to be sped up and this is just going to add to the time taken.

New clause negatived.

Clause 46.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 17, lines 23 and 24—Delete subclause 46 and substitute:

46—Substitution of section 234

Section 234—delete the section and substitute:

234—Ministerial reviews

(1) The designated Ministers must, on a 5-yearly basis, jointly undertake a review under this section.

(2) A review—

(a) must assess the extent to which the object under section 7(1)(d) has been achieved over the preceding 5 years; and

(b) may include or address other matters determined by either designated Minister to be relevant to the interaction between their respective portfolio responsibilities and the operation of this Act.

(3) The designated Ministers must, on the completion of a review, furnish a report on the review to the Minister responsible for the administration of this Act.

(4) The Minister responsible for the administration of this Act must cause a copy of the report furnished to the Minister under this section to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

(5) In this section—

designated Ministers means—

(a) the Minister with portfolio responsibility for agriculture within the State; and

(b) the Minister with portfolio responsibility for mining activities within the State.

The point of this amendment is to set up a process that brought both the agriculture minister, who likes to be very busy, and the mining minister into the reviewing of NRM legislation—not just plans, but the operations of NRM generally—into whether it is obstructing the agriculture and mining industries. I felt that it would be good based on what farmers have said to me, more so than miners, that when the designated minister does the five-yearly review they have to involve the agriculture minister and the mining minister so that there is consideration with respect to what may be happening in the environment, farming, mining, etc. making it more homogenous, if I can put it that way.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes these amendments. Focusing the review primarily on section 7(1)(d) ignores the interrelationship that exists between this subsection and all the other provisions of section 7 of the act. The review of the objectives of the act is very labour intensive and could take quite a considerable amount of time to complete.

The sustainable management of our natural resources naturally evokes strong and passionate reactions from the community, and the focus on just one aspect is likely to arouse a sense of polarisation between the diverse community views. Many activities are aimed at increasing the level of engagement between the natural resources management and primary production sectors.

For example, the NRM Council convened an NRM leaders and agricultural workshop on Thursday 20 June 2013. This workshop was an opportunity to interact with leaders from across the NRM and agricultural sector and follows on from a focus panel session held in March 2013 at an NRM Council meeting to discuss agriculture and NRM. Regional NRM boards also convene agricultural field days and workshops.

The government considers that, because of the cost involved, such reviews should occur when there is evidence of a problem, rather than at predetermined intervals. While the government opposes the amendment, it is not averse to ongoing conversations between relevant ministers to promote the objectives of sustainable natural resources management and, indeed, that is exactly what happens.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just to make the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's day, the Greens are inclined to support this five-yearly review and I make the point that there are a number of instances where the mining minister or the mining department and government officials involved with farming are not talking to each other as well as they should. We have seen instances in the Mount Lofty Ranges, but as members would know I have been having a bit to say about hydraulic fracking in recent days.

It is coming to the South-East, and if you read the government's roadmap for unconventional gas, it is coming to all parts of the state. It is only five yearly, I do not think it is as onerous as the minister points out, but there will be a more formalised discussion between competing primary industry sectors to make sure that those ministers do work together in relation to a renewable but locally finite resource over a certain time period, that those conversations take place and that reports result.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 6 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Page 5, lines 10 and 11—Delete clause 5 and substitute:

5—Amendment of section 11—Powers of delegation

Section 11(4)(b)—after 'Chapter 5' insert:

(other than a function or power under section 110(3), 111, 114(10) or 117(4))

This amendment is to amend the government's bill in relation to the delegation of chapter 5—Financial provisions. We expressed concern when we last debated this bill that the decisions in relation to levies should not be delegated down through to departmental officers and the like, but have agreed that there are some financial provisions in this chapter to which it would be appropriate to provide delegation powers and, in fact, that it would make life a little bit easier for the minister in terms of not having to be responsible for making all of those decisions himself.

I did mention these in the debate on Tuesday, and they refer to: section 110, which is to release a person suffering from financial hardship from paying interest; section 111, the power to discount levies; section 114, refunds of levies; and section 117, the power to apply any part of the NRM fund. So, we think it is more appropriate that that is limited to those particular areas rather than all of them.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: After a considerable amount of arm wrestling, the Hon. Ms Lensink won and we will be supporting her amendments.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New schedule 1.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 17, after line 24—Insert:

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

1—Presiding member of NRM Council to continue

Despite section 13(7a) of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 as enacted by this Act, the presiding member of the NRM Council immediately before the commencement of this clause (being the member referred to in section 13(2)(a) of that Act) will continue as the presiding member of the NRM Council until—

(a) he or she is removed from office, or his or her office is vacated, under section 14 of that Act; or

(b) the expiration of his or her current term of office,

whichever occurs first.

This amendment is consequential to amendment No. 7 which we have passed previously. It will ensure the current presiding member of the NRM Council will continue as presiding member until the expiration of the current term of office.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would just like to repeat comments that I have made in relation to this bill. This bill has been in deadlock in the Legislative Council for two years, or potentially more, and it arose from an original review of the act in 2007. The efforts in this week have been to try to find some consensus to make this legislation less bureaucratic.

There are still a lot of outstanding issues, and I acknowledge that, but I will not have it said that the Liberal Party has backslid on any of its commitments at all—I will take anybody to task who tries to say that in any venue—but we do recognise that there were a number of issues on which the government was not going to move and, in that instance, those sorts of deal-breakers would mean that any attempts to reform the legislation at this point would fail, and on that basis we have been prepared to cooperate. I would like to thank the minister and his staff for their work on this bill.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (18:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Can I put on the record my thanks to the many people who were involved in this long process for quite some period of time. I would like to particularly thank those members who have contributed to this debate. We have not always agreed but I think it has been a great exercise in ending a longstanding problem with the NRM Act. We have got a better act. I understand people have a view that it needs to be improved further and I look forward to working with them on that.

I would like to particularly thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her support in this process. She is a bit of a tough operator. I have to admit that I had to give way on a number of proposals that were very dear to the government's heart, but I think through this process we have come up with a result for the community of South Australia and for the NRM boards and the NRM officers.

I would also like to thank the officers of my Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, and particularly Kevin Gogler and Andrew Moll, who have assisted me through this process. I could not have done it without them.

I also thank Richard Dennis and Mark Herbst from parliamentary counsel for all their hard work with a very difficult bill, and all the non-government agencies and organisations and persons who gave us advice on how we can make this legislation an improved version.

Last, but not least, the efforts of the natural resources management boards need to be acknowledged, particularly some of their presiding members who have assisted us with this process. A special thank you must go to Sharon Starick, the Presiding Member of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board; Heather Baldock, the Presiding Member of the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board; and Caroline Schaefer, the Presiding Member of the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board.

Bill read a third time and passed.