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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 February 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:36): The pastoral act covers 323 leases, comprising 219 stations over an area of 40 million hectares or about 40 per cent of South Australia's land area. Of the existing pastoral leases, 21 are already being used for conservation purposes with the approval of the Pastoral Board. However, legal uncertainty about the board's ability to approve non-pastoral use has arisen in recent years and hence this amendment bill was brought forward by the minister to clear up this ambiguity. This bill also seeks to make provisions for the permission of what is defined to be conservation purposes on the one hand and carbon farming on the other as additional permitted uses.

Pastoral country can be tough but it is incredibly rewarding. Utilisation of the land brings a strong sense of purpose. Pastoralists focus on good management and prudent use of land to ensure the land's resources are maintained and its yields sustained. Pastoralists are innovative people and are not afraid to diversify the use of their land, and many welcome the ability for greater flexibility for other land uses on their properties to supplement income streams and spread the risk. However, it is important that if land is going to be used for purposes other than for pastoral purposes that the same rules apply for these landholders as those that apply for pastoralists.

These rules relate to maintaining existing fencing in a stockproof condition and keeping existing constructed stock watering points in proper working condition. We must not have a situation where pastoral land is leased, the gates locked up and the land left without management. The government's own communiqué on sustainable rangelands states:

Assessment of a lease approved for conservation purposes will not need to focus on its stock carrying capacity and degradation of watering points by stock grazing, but would consider other indications of condition and degradation.

There certainly are questions around what 'other indications of condition and degradation' encompasses and I would like to foreshadow a number of questions that I will raise in relation to the maintenance of stockproof fencing on areas where pastoral land is being used for conservation purposes. It is important that landholders are good neighbours when it comes to the land and we must understand and ensure that there is consistency with the overall management of fire, weeds and pests and in the maintenance of fencing.

I note the words of the Minister for Environment and Water in the other place that the Pastoral Board's powers in relation to the management of pastoral lands will not change and that all leaseholders will still need to actively manage their leases and remain subject to pastoral act obligations, unless conditions are varied by the Pastoral Board.

That brings us to the question of management and the role of the Pastoral Board. It is crucial that the board has the resources it needs to ensure that the conditions of a lease are being met. This is crucial not just for the pastoralists in terms of the maintenance of shared infrastructure, it is also critical to ensure the land is being grazed appropriately.

We must remember, and also seek to retain, the central purpose of the Pastoral Board. It exists to look after and manage pastoral leases and land. Given that purpose, it is surprising that there is currently no legislative requirement for the Pastoral Board to be comprised of at least 50 per cent pastoralists. We have the opportunity to make that change, and I will be moving an amendment to that effect.

A simple amendment would ensure fair and correct representation on the Pastoral Board, and it is important that the majority of those serving on the Pastoral Board have practical experience in managing pastoral land, not just working in the pastoral area. It is also important that the presiding member of the board has a strong pastoral background, understands the practical requirements of managing pastoral country and has the skills to manage the board.

Talking to pastoralists, this is something they believe is critical and, consequently, I will move an amendment—that is the same amendment—that will ensure that the presiding member is or has been a pastoralist. Whilst the Malinauskas government moves to change other elements of the act, our party is focused and is advocating for these amendments on behalf of the pastoralists.

It is evident that within this bill there lacks any indication of a set goal or an upper limit regarding the proportion of the pastoral estate that could undergo conversion from productive pastoral use to conservation purposes. This underscores the importance of being mindful of our state and country's food production requirements. As policymakers, it is crucial to consider the diverse array of factors and potential impacts stemming from the legislation we propose. The economic vitality stemming from our pastoral lands, both in domestic and export markets, is truly remarkable.

We must ensure that decisions regarding the transition of leases from production to potential conservation do not undermine the ability of pastoralists to advocate for their interests amidst potential regulatory and management changes. Currently, 90 per cent of our pastoral estate is dedicated to pastoral purposes, highlighting the significance of maintaining this balance because, let's be clear, pastoralists and farmers are often some of the best conservationists we have in our state. They understand that they need to look after the land responsibly, and the soil management, vegetation management and overall land management by these land managers, I think, is something that needs to be commended and recognised in this place.

In conclusion, it is important that the experience and insight of pastoralists is acknowledged and valued when making decisions regarding pastoral land and leases. Novelist Neville Shute wrote in The Breaking Waves when the protagonist returned to his family's remote Australian sheep station, and I quote:

I had travelled the world and I had come to realise, in faint surprise, that I had seen no countryside that could compare in pastoral beauty with that of my own home. It takes a long time for an Australian to accept the fact that the wide, bustling, sophisticated world of the northern hemisphere cannot compare with his own land…

We must ensure that stewardship of our beautiful, tough and unique pastoral landscape continues. The Pastoral Board must be made up of board members who have this at the heart of their decision-making, and our Liberal amendments today will help to ensure that that remains.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:44): I rise to speak in support of this bill. This is another of the Labor Malinauskas government's election commitments that has a long-term vision. It delivers on the commitment to allow conservation and carbon farming on pastoral leases. Just to clarify, a pastoral lease allows the occupation and use of Crown land for grazing and raising livestock, known as pastoralism.

Prior to the 2022 election, the government committed to a set of practical initiatives to support landholders across South Australia to care for their land in a sustainable way. One of the Labor Malinauskas initiatives included confirmation that pastoral leases can be used for carbon farming and conservation, in accordance with the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. The definition of conservation covers activities required to conserve and restore natural ecosystems in the rangelands, including biodiverse revegetation using plants native to the area, erosion repair, and feral animal control.

In regard to carbon farming, we know this has long-term benefits to agriculture and addresses environmental and economic challenges which contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. Currently, carbon farming projects need to be registered with the Australian government's Clean Energy Regulator. Approval from the Pastoral Board must be sought, and the applicant needs to consult with native title holders where relevant and seek the consent of the minister as an eligible interest holder under the federal government legislation.

This process will not change under the new bill. However, a new regulation may specify more detail about the types of carbon farming projects that may be considered, including how they are registered and what kinds of methodologies may be used. The pastoral act covers 323 leases, making up 219 stations over an area of 40 million hectares, which is roughly 40 per cent of South Australia. To date, 21 pastoral leases have been approved by the Pastoral Board, with five pastoral leases currently being used for carbon farming.

This bill amends the objects of the pastoral act to confirm that pastoral leases can be used for conservation and carbon farming as defined in the act and will preserve the role of the Pastoral Board in relation to the approval of non-pastoral uses of pastoral land for some or all of the pastoral lease.

The amendment enables the current 'on the ground' status quo efforts by lessees, Aboriginal people and regional communities who are managing pastoral lands in a variety of ways. The Labor government wants to give certainty to what is happening on the ground. The bill will ensure that the economic viability of the pastoral industry is, and will remain, an object of the pastoral act. It provides leaseholders with opportunities to generate alternative sources of revenue for conservation and carbon farming activities on their lease. Environmental benefit offsets and agreements can be applied to all or just part of a pastoral lease, as long as the Pastoral Board has approved the use of that area for conservation and the project fits the conditions of the lease.

The Pastoral Board will not need to approve the offset or agreement itself. The Minister for Climate, Environment and Water approves these under the Native Vegetation Act 1991, once it is confirmed they are consistent with the pastoral act and other legislation. This amendment to the pastoral act will validate the Pastoral Board's power in relation to the management of the rangelands, which will not change and nor will current pastoral leases.

The bill has been informed through intensive consultation with a range of organisations that have a close interest in pastoral land management, including the Pastoral Board, Livestock SA, Primary Producers SA, Conservation Council of SA, SA Nature Alliance, SA Native Title Service and First Nations of SA. I commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:49): The purpose of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Use of Pastoral Land) Amendment Bill 2023 is to formally allow pastoral leases to be used for conservation purposes and carbon farming activities, alongside existing pastoral purposes. The bill clarifies the definitions of 'pastoral lease' and 'conservation purposes' and introduces a new definition for 'carbon farming'. It adds new objects to the act, including allowing pastoral land use for conservation and for other purposes like carbon farming, alongside pastoral purposes.

The bill allows for leases to be granted for purposes beyond just pastoral use. The process for assessing land considers the purposes the land will be used for, including conservation and carbon farming. Leases will include conditions related to conservation and carbon farming activities. The bill clarifies how rent is determined for leases used for purposes beyond pastoral activities. The requirement to verify stock levels can be exempted if the land is not being used for pastoral purposes. Leases already approved for purposes beyond pastoral use are considered valid under the amended act.

In general, the bill aims to create a more flexible framework for managing pastoral lands in South Australia, allowing for more sustainable practices and economic opportunities for pastoral leaseholders. I support the bill in principle to the extent that it does not deter our food production. I also see merit in the Hon. Nicola Centofanti's amendment to ensure that at least three members of the board must be persons who are or who have been pastoralists. Whilst it is important to provide flexibility to open up economic opportunities, it cannot be to the detriment of our world-class food bowl.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:51): I rise today to speak briefly in support of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Use of Pastoral Land) Amendment Bill. Organic, biodynamic and regenerative agriculture can improve farming land's health and resilience against extreme weather events, while keeping farms economically viable and environmentally sustainable.

'Carbon farming' refers to managing land or agriculture to maximise the amount of carbon stored and/or to minimise greenhouse gases emitted, mainly carbon dioxide and methane. For landholders, carbon farming can deliver benefits such as improved soil health and water quality, less erosion, better water infiltration, boosted on-farm biodiversity and greater resilience to drought. Carbon farming creates healthier land, which means more resilient, productive land as well. Landholders who practice carbon farming are delivering benefits to Australia by helping tackle the cumulative pressures of climate change, land degradation and food insecurity.

To streamline processes, reflecting the ongoing work of existing pastoral leases and the contributions of pastoral lessees to sustainable land management in South Australia, is a change we are happy to get behind. I commend the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:52): I thank all members for their contributions. In response to a question of the member for Finniss in the other place regarding the time validity of agreements to clear native vegetation I am able to provide a response, as I think was suggested would be done as this bill progressed between the houses.

Consent to clear native vegetation decisions are valid for a period of five years, I am advised. Recommencing grazing after 10 years is considered clearance of native vegetation under the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017 and as such would require an application and approval from the Native Vegetation Council, I am advised. I am further advised that there is no ability for a 10-year pre-approval native vegetation clearance decision.

Regarding the amendments that have been filed by the Leader of the Opposition, I advise that the government's position is to oppose these amendments. I might outline now, for the sake of clarity for the committee stage, that in relation to amendment No. 1 it is our view that there is no compelling need to change the act, as has been proposed in the amendment, and that in fact these amendments would possibly significantly limit the number of potential willing representatives as board members or as a presiding member.

At present, the board has three current pastoral leaseholders or managers as members and three deputies. Two of the three members and three of the deputies have current or past experience in managing stock on pastoral leases. Most past presiding members would have been ineligible under the opposition's amendments. Similarly, a number of other potential industry representatives who would otherwise be suitable would be excluded under the amendment.

In relation to amendment No. 2, this provision, I am advised, would potentially cause significant problems in the implementation. Given the proposed narrow definition of 'pastoralist' proposed in the amendment, no current members and only one deputy of the board would currently meet the definition. With that, I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister advise the chamber whether conservation leases will have the same oversight as current pastoral leases? I ask this question, as was alluded to in my second reading speech, in terms of ensuring that boundary fence lines are well maintained and that there is sufficient control of weeds and pests.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, yes, that is the case.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I again note the words of the Minister for Environment and Water in the other place when she said that the Pastoral Board's powers in relation to the management of pastoral lands will not change and that all leaseholders will still need to actively manage their leases and remain subject to pastoral act obligations, unless conditions are varied by the Pastoral Board. Under what circumstances would conditions be varied by the Pastoral Board?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised there would be a range of situations. An example might be the maintenance of water points for a conservation lease where there is no stock on the land. There may be a range of reasons why conditions might be varied.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Would there ever be a situation where the conditions on boundary fences would be varied?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, effectively, you can never say never, but it is difficult to see a reason why or how that would be the case.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Regarding the percentage of either a pastoral or a conservation lease, is there a percentage in relation to the area of either a pastoral or a conservation lease that could be used for the other purpose? For example, is there a percentage of a conservation lease that could be used for grazing purposes and vice versa?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there is no percentage limit that would apply. For example, a lease for conservation purposes could be used in some circumstances and up to a certain limit for pastoral purposes and vice versa, but there is no limit as to the percentage of a lease that that could apply to. That is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just to confirm, if the lease were being used for conservation purposes and then was to be used for pastoral, that would be subject to Native Vegetation Act implications?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, yes, that is the case.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is the department considering conducting land condition assessments with more, shall we say, modern approaches, things like drones and satellite imagery, and is the government satisfied that the department has the required resources to undertake land condition assessments where more leases will fall under conservation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there has been an additional allocation of funding to undertake those assessments, and I am advised that there is an ongoing assessment of what technologies and methods may best be used to undertake them.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Finally, has the government received any advice about Native Title Act implications of changing leases from pastoral to conservation and vice versa? If there is a change from pastoral to conservation or to conduct carbon farming, does that change create a situation in which compensation might need to be paid to native title holders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for the question. My advice is that changing use between pastoral and conservation, to the best we can understand it, would not affect native title rights.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is there any other situation where it might change?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, on a case-by-case basis, any native title issues are taken into account. If there is a change of use, they are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I notice new section 4(h) states:

(h) to allow pastoral land that is being used for pastoral conservation purposes to also be used for other appropriate purposes (such as carbon farming).

What does the government expect to be covered by 'appropriate purposes'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that this clarifies existing practice, in effect, that such other purposes, as long as they are subordinate to the primary purposes, could be included, such as tourism or a telecommunication tower, for example.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Does it concern the government that currently, as I understand it and as the minister alluded to in his second reading explanation, only one board member fits the definition of a 'pastoralist'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Having talked this through with the advisers, I guess what would be more concerning is if the amendments succeeded. The definition of 'pastoralist' would significantly narrow the available pool of people who would be able to be appointed to the board.

A pastoralist has a narrow definition of the leaseholder of the pastoral land itself. In some cases that will be the people who manage the property, but under the definition that the mover of the amendment proposes those who have the actual experience who may not be pastoralists but might be managers of the property would not be able to be appointed.

As I have said, no current members and only one of the deputies would fall into that category, so it concerns us but probably for exactly the opposite reason that the honourable member might be concerned. It concerns us that we would narrow it and you may be lacking then the working experience of running pastoral properties that the current regime provides for.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is the Attorney able to inform the chamber as to how many landowners or pastoral leaseholders currently fit the definition of a 'pastoralist' out of the 323 leaseholders there are?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am advised that we simply do not have the breakdown of those sorts of figures. 'Pastoralist' is not defined under the act at the moment because it is a term that is being proposed in the amendment. It might be someone who is the pastoral leaseholder who, for example, lives interstate. It might be someone who is a pastoral leaseholder who lives on the property but does not actively participate in the management of the property. But in terms of a breakdown of those who do not live on the property and those who do not live in South Australia who actively manage property, we do not have a percentage breakdown.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister then perhaps just explain then as to how he can then derive that the pool of applicants under the opposition's definition of 'pastoralist' would absolutely be limited?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the current definition for appointment in these areas are those who are involved in the production of beef or sheep, which may include pastoralists but may, as I have said, include those, in particular, who actually manage or run the properties, whereas under the Leader of the Opposition's proposed amendments it would just be the pastoral leaseholders.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: By leave, I move my amendment in an amended form:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 4, after line 9—Insert:

(5) Section 12—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) At least 3 members must be persons who are, or have been, pastoralists.

(6) Section 12(4)—after 'member of the Board' insert:

(who must be a person who is, or has been, a pastoralist)

(7) Section 12(5)—after 'Board' insert:

(and at least 3 of the deputies so appointed must be persons who are, or have been, pastoralists)

(8) Section 12—after subsection (8) insert:

(9) In this section—

pastoralist means a person who holds a pastoral lease under this Act or engages in or manages pastoral stock.

By way of explanation, I take the Attorney's advice in that we certainly do not want to be limiting those people who are managing stock on pastoral land but are not necessarily the owners of pastoral leases. That is my understanding of the Attorney's response; therefore, I am moving to amend my definition of a 'pastoralist' to mean 'a person who holds a pastoral lease under this Act and engages in or manages pastoral stock'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A person who holds a pastoral lease?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And is engaging, so you have to do both of those things. You have to be a pastoral leaseholder and you have to engage in or be managing. Do you mean 'or'?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Sorry, 'or'. It would read 'pastoralist means a person who holds a pastoral lease under this Act or engages in or manages pastoral stock'. Now that we have clarified that, again this amendment does two things. It ensures that 50 per cent of members of the Pastoral Board are pastoralists—that is, someone who holds a pastoral lease or engages in managing or pasturing stock—and it also ensures that the presiding member is someone who is or has been a pastoralist of the same definition.

As I have said previously in my second reading speech, 90 per cent of our pastoral estate is dedicated to pastoral purposes, highlighting the significance of maintaining the balance of practical pastoral experience on the board. We must seek to retain the central purpose of the Pastoral Board—that is, to look after and manage pastoral leases and land—therefore, the opposition moves these amendments on behalf of the pastoralists across our state.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her contribution. I think it is a sensible change to knot the unintended consequence of potentially narrowing the definition of the pool of people who could be appointed, but we still maintain that we prefer the balance that is currently contained and will be under the act. I think the balance—in terms of having those who represent the pastoral industry as well as those who have experience in the field of land and soil conservation, ecology and the management of pastoral land, and in the administration of pastoral leases—is important, so we prefer the balance that is contained within our bill rather than the amended amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (8 to 13), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.