HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CROWN LAND MANAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 November 2008. Page 1128.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:52): I signify to the house that I am the lead speaker for the opposition and, for the information of the Government Whip, that means we could be here until very late in the night; but I suspect we will not be anywhere near that long. My colleague the member for Goyder informed me that he would be very brief in debate on that last matter. In fact, I have been caught out, because he has been even more brief than I expected, but I will get my notes organised fairly shortly and we will be on our way.

I will say from the outset that the opposition broadly supports the legislation brought to the house by the government to repeal the Crown Lands Act 1929 and to introduce a complete rewrite in a new act, which will be known as the crown lands management act. I note from the minister's second reading explanation and from the briefing I had on the bill that even the name change, from the Crown Lands Act to the crown lands management act, is designed to more closely reflect what the new legislation will be about as opposed to what the old Crown Lands Act 1929 was about.

In my opinion, the old act is of historic significance. The passing of this bill through the parliament gives us some cause to reflect a little on the management of lands within South Australia and the history behind the management of lands in this state from 1836—even prior to 1836 to the present time—because a lot of the changes that have been made via this bill are as a result of the evolution of the management and allocation of lands in South Australia over that period.

I do not think I am giving any new information to members when I say that one of the things that sets South Australia apart from other colonies not just in Australia but in other parts of the world (whether they were settled by the British or other European communities during the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s) was some of the philosophies behind the way South Australia was to be settled. One of them was the way the land would be allocated using the Wakefield Plan—whether you like it or loathe it.

There are plenty who have both opinions about the Wakefield Plan. Some say that it was a fantastic plan and that by selling land and then reinvesting the funds raised from the selling of land enabled the bringing out of more migrants to help develop the land and the colony (at the time) was a great idea. Others argue that by artificially inflating the price of land, it locked away the class structure, where the land was owned by the wealthy and the money raised was used simply to bring out basically vassals to work for the wealthy.

It is an interesting piece of our history which I think is worth our remembering at this time. I will talk a little about the establishment of the 1929 act, because throughout the history of this state, there have been various stages where the allocation of land determined the shape of the state as we moved forward. I know in my own district of a number of pastoral leases. The one which I know very well was the Mount Graham pastoral lease. I own part of the land that did form a small portion of that lease. My family and a cousin of mine now lives in what was the Mount Graham homestead which was built by Archibald Johnson in 1864.

Archibald Johnson was a shepherd minding flocks of sheep for squatters and it came to his attention that leases were being allocated for land in the district not far from Millicent. Folklore has it, at least, that he rode his horse nonstop to Adelaide and secured the lease to a large portion of land. Archibald Johnson retired a very wealthy man to a home that he built in Toorak Mount Melbourne not many years after first taking up the lease of Mount Graham station. That was in the 1860s. Certainly, the third home which he built on the station was the Mount Graham station homestead (or that is what it is known as now). It was built in 1864, so he probably took up the original lease some years before that.

It was not many years after that that the government of the day decided that it needed to get more people owning land rather than just living in the country and working for landlords, and those large stations were broken up. I remember my father telling me that one of the owners—and it was subsequent to Archibald Johnson at the Mount Graham station—registered the blocks in the names of his shepherds. I think they were about 1,000 acre blocks. That worked for some time until one of the shepherds came to the understanding that the title to the land was registered in his name. As soon as the first one realised what was going on, put it on the market and walked away with the money, the rest of the pastoral empire disappeared very quickly.

That was just one story about the move towards closer settlement. I was looking in the Crown Lands Act 1929. There are still sections giving the minister the power to resume, almost without question, parcels of land if they had more than a certain value. I think the value is £40,000, from my reading, which would not buy a very big parcel of land today. The current act still has some sections that have absolutely no relevance today, but the act certainly was important in achieving the sort of land settlement that we were wanting in South Australia post 1929.

As well as repealing the Crown Lands Act 1929, the bill also repeals, I think, five other acts, and I will briefly talk about those. One act is the Discharged Soldier Settlement Act 1934, which was a consolidation of nine earlier acts ranging from 1917 to 1931. That act was designed to allow for the settlement of discharged soldiers from the Great War onto farming land. The act allowed for crown land to be allotted to discharged soldiers and for land to be purchased for the same purpose.

The minister was also empowered to provide and maintain training farms for the purpose of imparting the appropriate knowledge to those soldier settlers—returned service men and women. I think that in those days it was probably exclusively men from the 1914-18 war. Another act which will be repealed by this bill is the Irrigation Land Tenure Act 1930. Similarly, that repealed five former acts and provided for the legislative framework to establish and settle irrigation districts. Again, returned service men and women would have been involved, but that also included the establishment of town allotments and the setting aside of crown and other land for specific public and charitable purposes.

The Marginal Lands Act 1940 is also repealed by this act, and that is another piece of the state's history. The definition of 'marginal lands' states:

...means any land which has been used principally for wheat growing, but which, in the minister's opinion, because of inadequate rainfall with or without other causes, is unsuitable for wheat growing as the principal operation carried on thereon;

So, it gave the minister the power. Section 3 of that act, 'Powers of the Minister', states:

For the purpose of promoting the more profitable and successful working and development of marginal land, the minister may do all or any of the following things namely:

(i) purchase any real or personal property and sell, lease, hire or otherwise dispose of any property so purchased;

(ii) enter into and carry out any contract or transaction of any kind.

According to the act, the moneys to carry this out was coming from the Commonwealth of Australia. We no doubt all remember the old saying that the rain followed the plough, and—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: The Willochra Plain.

Mr WILLIAMS: 'The Willochra Plain,' the member for Stuart says. Many citizens of the state were enticed into land under good seasons. They went a long way north of where Goyder would have had them farming and where he would have certainly argued there was non-arable land. The Marginal Lands Act was one of the pieces of machinery to correct that, purchase off those unfortunates who found themselves basically in a dust bowl and re-allot that land for a more suitable purpose, principally for grazing, and I will come back to that a little later.

Another act that is repealed is the Monarto Legislation Repeal Act 1980. That act repealed the Monarto Development Commission Act and the Monarto Land Acquisition Act 1972. The Dunstan government proposed to build a satellite city at Monarto, just this side of Murray Bridge, and resume a significant number of farming properties in that area with the idea of developing a city. I often think that it was probably one of the better ideas that premier Dunstan had, but he never put it into practice because the bureaucrats and the bureaucracy were going to revolt. When asked who was going to live at this place, premier Dunstan suggested that they were going to send a lot of public servants out there, and the public sector revolted against it.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Was it? I thought it was a good idea, and I still think it is a pity that it was not put into practice. I happen to be one of the people who think that the city of Adelaide has grown beyond what is economically and socially viable, and it is a pity that the Monarto idea never took off. In the meantime, most of the land, I guess, has been replanted. There is quite a forest out there that some would argue is idle. It is certainly much better farming land than the marginal lands.

We are also repealing the Port Pirie Laboratory Site Act 1922. I cannot find any copy of that act either in the printed folios in my office or on the internet so I have no understanding what that act was about, but I am sure it was designed to do good things for the state. I have no idea what we are repealing there.

The last act to be repealed is the War Service Land Settlement Agreement Act 1945. This gave legislative power to an agreement between the commonwealth and the state for the purposes of settling discharged members of the forces from the 1939-45 war onto viable farming allotments. Unlike the aforementioned Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act, this act was an agreement between the state and the commonwealth—the agreement is in the act—and basically the state is merely the administrator of the scheme on behalf of the commonwealth. Both crown land and land purchased specifically were used for the scheme.

I mentioned earlier that there are clauses in the current act to give the minister power to resume sections of land over a certain size. I think one of the last remaining significant properties—significant in terms of its size—in the district in which I and my family now live was a property known as Chetwynd. That was owned by I.T. Williams and family (no relation of mine) and broken up, I assume, under that act into smaller properties that were then allotted to returned servicemen.

Interestingly, the piece of land that my home is situated on is what we call a soldier settler's block and, having read the War Service Land Settlement Agreement Act 1945 and understanding that the state was merely administering a commonwealth scheme, I can understand now why the title to the block that my family home is on was not subject to freeholding under the accelerated freeholding process that this government has undertaken in recent years, because of the commonwealth involvement in the lease conditions. Suddenly, that made sense to me to a greater degree than previously when I read the agreement between the state and the commonwealth.

I mention those acts that are to be repealed purely because we are taking another step in the history of land development in South Australia. Ever since 1836 the Crown has been intimately involved in developing the state and for most of the state's history this state has relied on agriculture for its economic development, and various parliaments throughout that history have used various mechanisms to maximise, in their eyes, the use of the land to create wealth for the state.

The principal act that we are repealing, the Crown Lands Act 1929, the latest iteration of that process, was designed at a time when the Crown still owned large portions of the land in the state, and it was designed specifically to give the minister of the day the opportunity to utilise that land—again, to foster economic growth and economic development.

Today, the lands that are left in crown ownership are quite small. They are lands which I and my colleagues on this side of the house and, I am sure, members of the government believe, by and large, will always remain with the Crown. So, as mentioned earlier with a change of name to Crown Lands Management Act, the emphasis is the ongoing management of those remaining crown lands, as opposed to the earlier emphasis as to the development of the state to drive the economy and to maximise the economic return from the land.

Until recently managed under the Crowns Land Act, there were something like 20,000 perpetual leases. I mentioned a moment ago the accelerated freeholding program of the government. I assume that that program is virtually finished but my understanding is that there are still some of those leases to be converted to freehold title. I will not praise the process that was undertaken because I think it had significant flaws. I think a select committee looked into it some years ago and made recommendations, most of which were taken up. However, the idea that the Crown convert perpetual leases to freehold title, I think, was a very good idea; it was just the way the government went about it that raised some inequities, in my opinion. That is 20,000 parcels of land which no longer need to be managed under the Crown Lands Act.

I am told by departmental offices that there are something like 15,000 parcels of unalienated crown lands still managed by the minister and his department. A lot of these are parcels of land that are, for example, waterfront—whether it be on coastal waters or other navigable waters—which are held by the Crown. These are the lands that I expert will always be held by the Crown.

There are something like 11,000 parcels of dedicated lands, which may well be the local football oval or the like; parks and gardens which are crown land but which are dedicated to the care and control of, in many cases, local government. In fact, I suggest that, in most cases, it is dedicated to the local government authority who then, in most cases, probably has some sort of an arrangement if they are used for a sporting activity with a club or a group of sporting clubs as sub-tenants.

I am told there are somewhere between 500 and 1,000 term leases and somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 licences to occupy. The totality of those parcels of land—and we are talking about more than 30,000 parcels of land—compromise somewhere between 3 per cent and 4 per cent of the area of the state. It is a large number of parcels of land and a significant area of the state. Three or 4 per cent is a significant portion of the total area of the state. So there is still a considerable task for the government to manage those lands. The opposition, by and large, supports the measures in the bill before us as a way to manage those lands into the future.

Just out of interest, I think it is worth putting on the record details of what comprises the rest of the lands of the state. During the briefing the departmental officers gave me this information and I found it quite interesting: some 20 per cent of the state, in area terms, is Aboriginal lands; some 40 per cent of the state is under pastoral lease; some 21 per cent of the state comprises our system or network of parks—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: And Ivan's got the rest! This is the figure that interested me: the settled areas comprise a mere 17 per cent or 18 per cent of the state's area which, in the context of the 3 per cent or 4 per cent that is still owned by the Crown, is not a large proportion of the state. I was somewhat surprised by that number. If somebody had asked me before I was given a briefing, I would have probably estimated it to be 30 per cent or 40 per cent. I was aware that the pastoral lease covered a significant portion of the state.

I have accepted the government's point that, as we move forward, it will be more about the management of existing crown lands. I have acknowledged that we would probably wish those lands to remain under the ownership of the Crown. I want to bring to the attention of the house some economic development issues which I think are very important. I know that my colleague the member for Stuart will briefly touch on this because it is an issue that he has raised many times, and I will not steal his thunder in regard to William Creek, but he has taken me there to show me the site and tell me about the circumstances there. I will not waste the time of the house because I know that the member for Stuart will talk about that.

I happened to be with some friends recently who told me a story about one of their acquaintances, and they introduced me to him. He runs a business in the Far North of the state doing incredibly important work to support the mining industry. It is up in the Cooper Basin. As the house would be aware, when we were in government, we forced the hand of Santos to use a lot of its exploration leases or give them up.

In doing so, a number of exploration leases became available and were re-let, and a significant number of smaller companies now operate in that area and are doing very well. They are tapping into oil reserves of a scope that did not particularly interest Santos. Companies like Beach Petroleum and Stuart Petroleum, to the best of my knowledge, are doing very well up there, but they require a number of other businesses to be operating in the area to support them.

For instance, it is impossible to drill a well without getting to the well site and, in that country, it is impossible to get to the well site without having a roadway built. It is impossible to set up a heavy drilling rig to drill in that area without putting down a pad or a bund and probably an area to hold water or drilling mud. There is quite a bit of earthmoving required just to support that industry.

I was told by this particular operator that his biggest problem is that he has all his equipment up there and a significant number of people working for him, yet he cannot find anywhere to build a depot. He cannot get a piece of land, because he needs to make a considerable investment. It appears that Santos will only allow people into Moomba to set up on the site within the Moomba area if they are contracted to Santos itself. A number of these businesses are not contracted to Santos; they are working principally for other companies.

I was near Innamincka some years ago very close to where Geodynamics is drilling its holes and undertaking its experimental work on geothermal energy. The camp was run by a trucking business carting the materials and needs in and out of that area for Geodynamics and other mining and exploration companies. Again, if my memory serves me well, that company has been told by the government that its licence to occupy the piece of land where their camp is is rapidly coming to an end, and they will have to move their camp. The earth mover who I was talking to said that he needs to spend at least $1 million. He needs to build a decent workshop to service his equipment, he needs a base for his staff, and he probably needs some living quarters, a canteen, and those sorts of things, and some other shedding, at least. He is not of a mind to spend that sort of money in a remote area of South Australia without some sort of security of tenure.

I say to the minister and the government: notwithstanding the rhetoric that this government is supportive of the mining industry, the mining industry relies absolutely on these types of businesses. Unless they can get support to be able operate in what is fairly inhospitable country, the mining sector will suffer. I am making the point that there is still a need for the economic development of the state to be sensible about the way we manage crown land.

There may be opportunities for crown land to be used here, or there may be opportunities to excise small parcels of land off pastoral leases. I would argue, as I know the member for Stuart would argue, that, under the circumstances, these people should be granted freehold title to some of those portions of land.

We will be going into committee. I see that the government has some amendments to this bill. I have put on file one amendment. I will speak briefly to that now. The bill proposes that the minister will have the power to dispose of crown land by issuing a freehold title. Under the current legislation, such disposal of crown land can be made only by the Governor. My amendment proposes that we retain the power of the Governor, and I will talk more about that in committee.

I understand that one of the minister's amendments is to do with clarification of the valuation. I have had discussions with the Hon. John Darley, from another place, who has expressed some concerns about that particular part of the act, but he had not seen the minister's amendments at that time. I gave him an undertaking that, if he remained dissatisfied with the minister's amendments, we would have further discussions with him between houses. Given his experience in matters of valuation, I sincerely hope that the government has satisfied his requirements.

I think I have covered most of the things that I have noted here. With that, I will close my remarks, and indicate to the minister that I suspect that the bill will have a relatively speedy passage through the rest of its stages.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (16:24): I will be brief. I think it is important to put on the public record my views in relation to the land title system in this state. There is nothing more important to agriculture and the business sector than to have security and title over the land which they manage, operate or farm. For a long time, I have been very concerned that some of my constituents have been denied that justice. They have been treated as a lower class of lessee than most of us who had the opportunity to freehold our perpetual leases. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would want to deny those people who have perpetual leases in what is known as the 'transitional zone'. Absolute nonsense was talked at the time of the select committee, and even the minister admitted that the bureaucrats gave a weak explanation for not acceding to freehold.

The difficulties people in little places like William Creek and Innamincka have experienced in getting reasonable opportunities to freehold are just really appalling. In my view, you should be paid to live in those places and not have to pay astronomical amounts to freehold. I think Sir Humphrey wanted $7,000 for a house block at William Creek, which is absolute nonsense.

I do not know how many people have been to William Creek or who would like to spend a weekend there, but some of my colleagues have been there with me, and it is interesting when Lake Eyre is full. They made life so difficult for the poor fellow who ran the take-away shop that he is no longer in business. He decided to shut up shop, which is a great pity for the travelling public because it was a very good facility.

The Crown Lands Act has been an instrument used to develop South Australia. Another area which I have always been interested in and which needs tidying up relates to a survey of lots of small towns in the northern parts of the state. From time to time, the councils have put up these blocks of land; well-meaning but misguided people have bought them, but they get up there and realise that they are a liability, and so the revolving door circus goes on. We need to ensure that the local councils can take action to close off those towns. I know that one of my constituents had literally dozens of small perpetual leases on his property, and if we could streamline that, it would be a good thing.

The need to effectively convert from existing title to freehold is important. However, I will not be here to see that, but I know that, in the future, my colleagues will fix it and it will happen. People can mount a rearguard action and try to stop it; they can stop it in the short term but, in the long term, those perpetual leases in transitional zones will be freehold, so they ought to face reality. It will be an executive decision and not a bureaucratic one.

It is a bit like the argument we had about freeholding shacks, and during my time in parliament I have heard some interesting arguments about why that should not happen. Excuses were made at Blanche Harbor, and it took ministerial direction after ministerial direction to carry out the will of the government. I will never forget a public meeting where a character came up from Adelaide and commenced to read to us sections from the Health Act. Not one person there was interested, and I had to get up and tell him that I thought the best thing he could do was cease his reading and go back to Adelaide because we were not interested.

Whatever he thought, they were not going to have flashing red lights or sirens on top of their septic systems. They thought common sense would apply and they would be freehold, and the 150 people who were at the meeting agreed. That is the sort of nonsense we have had to put up with. I hope that this bill was streamline that.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government would want to insist on having any involvement in these perpetual leases in the transitional zones. Why would it want to be bothered? Other acts of parliament are in place to ensure that sensible and responsible management practices are enforced.

Certain sections seem to be hesitant about actually letting people own it and have a contract with the Crown. As my colleague said, we are opposed to doing away with the right of the Governor to sign these leases. It is my view that this is a contract between the Crown and the lessee; therefore, as the Governor represents the Crown, he or she should be the one. I do not think it takes a great deal of the Governor's time, because there are not a lot of them left. A previous minister told me that he signed them, and that was it. He never even turned them over; he just signed them because, in most cases, it was a formality.

We have had the situation in the past where permission was needed to mortgage or transfer and, in the early days of the Dunstan or Walsh government, they tried to limit the amount of perpetual lease land to, I think, 4,000 acres. That has all gone by the board, thank goodness.

In conclusion, I say to the minister: in the future, would you please have a close look at the freeholding policy in some of these isolated, small communities and have a good look at the perpetual leases in what are known as the transitional areas, and in relation to people who hold miscellaneous leases. For goodness sake, let them get freehold; let them all move on. Some of them have enough difficulties in their lives and they need all the support, help and understanding that we can give them. If we can give them a better security of title, it may allow them to trade out of some of their difficulties.

My whole purpose in this particular area of interest is to see that people are treated fairly and reasonably, and that they act responsibly. I know one of these areas of difficulty that we are talking about. One of the contaminated leases is in my constituency at Jamestown. Irresponsible activity was taken by people operating the sawmill and, unfortunately, I think the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. I think there is a strong case to say that we all did not pay enough attention, and I do not think that ought to be the responsibility of taxpayers. If someone pollutes, they ought to be held responsible for it, they really should be.

Mr Williams: The bill does that.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, I know that, and I am pleased about it. This particular case is right in Jamestown itself. What are you going to do? No-one wants it. Just try to sell it. People would not go within a kilometre of it, because the cost of remedying the problem is horrendous. So, we have to ensure that that sort of irresponsible behaviour never takes place again. People living next door to us are not very happy either. They do not know whether the pollution will eventually affect them, so it is difficult . It is not the minister's fault and it is not this government's fault; it has happened over a long time and we have to ensure that it does not happen again. I support the second reading.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:33): I support the words of both my colleagues, the shadow minister, the member for MacKillop, and also my long-term friend, advocate and comrade in arms on this matter, the member for Stuart. I will declare an interest because, over the years, we have had several crown leases, and I believe that we still own a couple, although a lot of them were freeholded under the previous government. It has made things much tidier and much more efficient, particularly for the department that had to send out all the paperwork.

Currently, the management of crown land occurs under the Crown Lands Act 1929, and leases and agreements are made under various other acts. This bill seeks to repeal the acts currently providing the legislative framework for the management of crown lands and replace them with a new single act, which we support—completely updated and modernised to allow for the contemporary management of the state's crown lands.

Administration functions will be made more efficient, with more modern processing and record-keeping methods recognised, which I think is a positive step. Any changes brought about that make the management of crown lands more organised and updated have to be desirable and welcome.

However, as the shadow minister has said, we on this side of the chamber have some concerns. They relate primarily to the power that the minister would have—which was formerly held by the Governor—in relation to granting fee simple of crown lands to any purpose; granting to any purpose the fee simple of any dedicated lands in trust for a purpose for which the lands were dedicated; by proclamation, if required, cancelling the grant of any dedicated lands; and by proclamation free from the trusts and, if required, cancelling the grant of any lands set apart for a particular purpose. I commend the previous Liberal government for freeing up huge parcels of land in the mid-1990s which allowed transfer from farmers who owned their land under various tenures, particularly perpetual lease. It was costing the government much more money to collect some of these fees than it was receiving. It was common sense.

We had a couple of goes at getting the fee right, and I believe that, in the end, we did get it right. Many farmers, especially those who had any clues, made application and paid the fee to freehold their land. Most of them have never regretted what they did because the tenure is now secure. I commend the previous government very much for allowing these transfers.

Many of these crown leases were water leases because, in the old days, we did not have pipes. If there was a river, they all shared a piece of the river for watering their stock and, of course, they were always held as crown leases. Many of these leases are still retained, and I know I have at least one. I have no problem with its remaining as a crown lease because it is an environment and heritage area—and it is not far from our house.

We also allowed the land in marginal lands to be freeholded. The member for Stuart has just said this very capably. We went in to bat for hours on this issue. I think some of the very few public servants with whom the Member for Stuart got on well worked in this area. I think some might be sitting in the gallery right now. Over the years, we sat for hours looking at these maps with the then minister, and bit by bit we got more of these lands that were in the transitional zone allowed to be freeholded.

I have an historic interest in this because, years ago, my family was one of those families who did follow the plough—with rain, followed the plough. They went north to Quorn to the Willochra Plain. Luckily, my great-grandfather did not go. His two brothers went up there and he stayed at Crystal Brook. Just as well he did, because, for the first three or four years they were there, the rain followed the plough and they had good years, but then it just stopped. Some very good rain still falls up there and, when it does, you can whip up there and put in a crop, but it is an exception nowadays.

Certainly I believe that much of this land should be freehold. In fact, I have no problem with all the outback lands being freeholded, because the day of the farmer or the pastoralist raping and pillaging his land is gone. All of them are now very conscious of their land and looking after it. I have no problem with it all been freeholded one day. I hope I live long enough to see that happen, but I doubt I will. I am sure that, when the member for Stuart leaves here, he will leave someone here entrusted with the ideas which he has been pushing for years. Hopefully, it will be me in the short term and probably the member for MacKillop in the long term. Much of that land in the north was farmed, and it can be farmed again with modern practices, and I have no problem with its being brought back as freehold land.

I think the shadow minister raised the subject of Monarto. The first land the Venning family farmed as their own land in South Australia was at Monarto. I can go there and I know where the farm is and everything else: it is quite historic. I agree that it was a good initiative of the Dunstan government to try to move sections of the government out there, in fact build a city out there, but it was the bureaucrats, the Sir Humphreys, who killed it.

They did the same thing in New South Wales at Orange. They moved the department of agriculture out there and it has worked very well. Of course, the ironical thing is that much of the money that was spent developing Orange for this purpose, you would not believe it, was money from Super SA, our own state monies. I could not believe it. That was a long time ago. I understand it is still very successful.

Farmers have also been the backbone of our state and our country. The link between farmers and their land has always been a very important issue. My great-grandfather campaigned all over the state and the country on land issues. It is all documented. We have a pictorial address hanging on the wall at home which talks about these issues.

This led to setting up the Strangways Act, for anyone who studies land tenure here. There is a picture of Mr Strangways in the corridor here. This allowed farmers to own land, and the government actually helped them get it. It is all tied up with governments and it is all tied up with a lot of history here. My great-grandfather, for the record, started the State Bank. That will raise a few eyebrows. I support my colleagues. We welcome a bill such as this. It is certainly tidying things up. I am happy to give the government kudos any time. Give us good legislation and we will say it is good legislation.

Apart from the one amendment (which I hope the government will support in relation to the powers of the minister versus the Governor), I hope that the minister will see the merit of our case and then we can make this bill even better. It is not bad for a start but it could be better. I support the bill with the amendment.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (16:40): I thank members for their contributions. I am happy to address the matters that have been raised in committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4.

Clause 5.

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister might take this as a question or merely as a statement, but I do acknowledge—and I said this in my second reading contribution—that this bill is more about the management of the land that still remains with the Crown rather than the previous act, and having the object to further the economic benefits of using land for economic development and growth in the state. Some of my colleagues raised the issue with me about clause 5(2)(a), 'Principles of crown land management', which states:

that principles of ecologically sustainable land management be observed in the management and administration of crown land.

They asked me to get onto the public record some examples of the government's intention with regard to this clause. By way of example of the confusion that is caused at least in my mind, if not in the minds of my colleagues, subclause (2)(a)(iii) talks about 'avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment'. I note that only several weeks ago the very same minister declared a number of marine parks in South Australia and failed to declare a marine park over the two most degraded pieces of our marine environment, namely, the metropolitan beaches and the Coorong. I am wondering what the government's standards are particularly with regard to remedying adverse effects and activities on the environment and how it sees the way it would instigate the use of the principles of ecologically sustainable land management.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The marine parks are based on protecting habitat and the science dictated which areas were looked at. Of course, it is the case that in those areas that are the most affected by human activity there is less of that natural habitat to be protected. So representative samples of each of the biodiversity regions were chosen and hence the marine parks focus on those areas. So it is no surprise that the more trafficked areas of the metropolitan coastline and other areas do not find their expression in marine parks.

Mr WILLIAMS: I was hoping the minister might express the principles of ecologically sustainable land management and where he sees issues with regard to crown lands that are under his management.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the principles of ecologically sustainable land management are self-evident. I do not think I can add anything to that phrase to make it any clearer. It is a question of making sure that we use the land in a fashion that balances the economic, social and environmental matters, and it really underscores that, instead of preferring one of those elements—the economic—it is balanced with both the social and environmental factors. It is sometimes called the triple bottom line. It is becoming a pretty commonly used phrase. The notion of sustainability really encompasses the way we now realise we have to deal with all our natural resources. I do not think I can add much more than that.

Mr WILLIAMS: During the second reading debate I mentioned the number of parcels of land to be managed under this regime. I guess there is some concern, in the opposition ranks at least, that there may be a burgeoning growth in the bureaucracy to manage these and that, given the principles of crown land management and the way it has been set out in the act, this might obligate the minister to set up a significant team of people to physically go out and manage, quite differently, these parcels of land. There are many thousands of parcels of land across the state—I think I got to over 30,000 of them—and we are a little concerned about any cost implications to the state.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This does not oblige the government to take any particular steps. It just sets down the principles by which the activity of the government (the minister) should be guided in exercising its functions and responsibilities under the act. So it guides, if you like. It provides a framework for how powers and responsibilities that reside in the act should be exercised. It does not dictate that they should be exercised in a certain way, and there is certainly no intention to establish a large bureaucracy to do things differently in relation to the management of crown lands.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Mr WILLIAMS: This clause will establish advisory committees, and I can understand why you might want to do that. I can understand why you might want to do that, and I can understand why you might want to, under clause 11, establish a management committee; I do not have any problem with that. For some reason I was thinking that there was a clause that said there would be some sort of remuneration for members of such committees and, in re-reading the bill last night, I could not find the clause. However, is it intended that members of such committees will receive remuneration?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, not other than that which is provided under section 66, which is the valuation review. That committee does have a provision that the members of it should be paid, but not under clause 10, advisory committees.

Clause passed.

Clauses 11 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

Mr WILLIAMS: I move:

Page 12, after line 22—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) If land subject to a dedication under this or any other act has been granted in fee simple, the dedication can only be revoked by proclamation made by the Governor.

I have four amendments on file, but they are all consequential on this amendment.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This amendment is accepted.

Mr WILLIAMS: You accept this? In that case, I thank the minister. Just by way of explanation, because I did not explain my thinking in the second reading, clause 16 gives the minister power to delegate powers and that would include the powers that I see, the power that currently is enjoyed by the governor and not the minister, and that is to sign off on a grant in fee simple of a piece of crown land. I am delighted to learn that the minister accepts the amendment that I am putting.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is not quite the reason we agree but this clause refers to the resumption of declarations of trust lands which were issued by proclamations which also provided for resumption by way of proclamation by the governor. The government's view is that the requirement for the governor to proclaim the resumption adds unnecessary red tape. However, these resumptions occur very rarely and so their overall addition to red tape is small. Because the opposition feels strongly about this we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment carried.

Mr WILLIAMS: I move:

Page 12—

Lines 23 and 24 [clause 19(2)]—Delete 'minister must not revoke the dedication' and substitute:

dedication must not be revoked

Line 26 [clause 19(3)]—Delete 'the minister revokes a dedication of land' and substitute:

, under this section, a dedication of land is revoked

As I said, the four amendments (in total) are all based on the same premise—that is, that the opposition believes that it is no small matter to dedicate a piece of land, to revoke a dedication or a proclamation and, indeed, to dispose of crown land by a grant in fee simple. So I am speaking to all four amendments; they are all based on the same principle. We do not see that as a small matter.

I again refer to clause 16, and this is one of the reasons we do not see it as a small matter. Clause 16 gives the minister the power to delegate any authority. The minister would have these various authorities which are addressed by my amendments. Under clause 16 he can on-delegate those authorities to a person or a body. It does not necessarily even mean that it would be to a person in the bureaucracy. I am assuming that that would be where the authority would be delegated, but clause 16 gives the minister the power to delegate his authority to any person. The opposition believes that, in dealing in this manner with crown land, the long-held view that the Crown via the Governor should be involved in the process is well worth keeping.

I take the point that the minister made a moment ago in regard to amendment No. 1 that, even though it may impose some small burden (referred to as a bit more red tape), I suspect that these matters will happen rarely, and I do not think it will be onerous on the Governor to be required to still be part of the process in all these matters. The opposition stands by those reasons for moving the amendments.

Also, clause 16(3), which deals with the minister's ability to delegate his powers, provides that those powers can be further delegated. We could have the situation where powers dealing with crown land, which we see as quite extensive, could end up being delegated to a very minor bureaucrat who may not have the full understanding which we believe should be brought to bear in these matters. For that reason, we think it is paramount that the Governor is involved in the process.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I indicate that we support amendments Nos 2 and 3.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 20 to 23 passed.

Clause 24.

Mr WILLIAMS: I move:

Page 13, after line 25—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) The Minister may only dispose of Crown land by grant of the fee simple with the approval of the Governor (and such approval may be given without the advice and consent of Executive Council).

We are making great progress. The power of the argument has been doing very well. I would like to hear that the minister will accept this amendment. The earlier three amendments were consequential; this one is the key amendment.

The opposition believes that this is the most important one because we are talking about the actual disposal of crown land by a grant of fee simple. We often talk about checks and balances, and I think the mere fact that we are going to be disposing of crown land means that the bill does set certain conditions. It is probably important for the committee to understand that when we look at clause 25(1), and I know we are not quite there yet, it provides:

A disposal of Crown land by transfer or grant of the fee simple must be by public auction, public tender or such other open competitive process as the Minister may determine, unless—

Then the options available are detailed. If we ended that clause after the words 'such other open competitive process', the opposition may not have been so keen to insist on this amendment, but it goes on with the options the minister has in the disposal of crown land by the grant of fee simple.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.W. Weatherill]


Mr WILLIAMS: We think this is the important one. Again, it is, as I have said, and you probably alluded to it in your second reading contribution, about now managing the remaining crown lands. It is not our expectation (and I am sure it is not your expectation) that the issue of a land grant in fee simple will be something that happens very often. You may correct me; you may have reason to believe that there will be a flood of these. I do not expect that it will happen very often.

I would be somewhat disturbed if it could be argued that the Governor would be overwhelmed with having to sign off on these. It is one of those checks and balances that the opposition thinks is important. I hope that the government would have a little feel for the historic context of what we are doing here today. That is one of the reasons why I mentioned in the second reading that this has been a gradual process in the way that we have changed the importance that the various iterations of crown land management acts have had in the development of this state. I think it is not only important to have the Governor remain involved in this process, but it would also be a break with the historical context not to have the Governor involved.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The requirement for the Governor to grant land on behalf of the Crown is largely ceremonial, dating back to the commencement of settlement of South Australia. Under the Crown Lands Act 1929, those grants can be issued only on approval of the minister. So, while grants are currently prepared and personally signed by the Governor—I note, without the involvement of the Executive Council—the land grant document is never issued to the grantee.

Instead, the grant document is lodged with the Registrar-General and a computerised freehold title is issued to the grantee by the Registrar-General. Over the last 10 years, work has been done to facilitate automated processing of subsequent documents lodged against the title under the Real Property Act 1886. Since 1982, the minister has been authorised to issue land grants for easement purposes. Currently, signing and sealing land grants is a manual process that inhibits the adoption of automated processing of crown land transactions.

To look at other legislation, notably the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993, it already provides for the Registrar-General to issue titles directly over crown land, that is, the sea bed, on authority of the minister to whom the act is committed. The Minister for Environment and Conservation represents the Crown in the administration of the bill, and replacing the role of the Governor in signing grants will not lead to any diminution of probity or quality control.

It really is a classic piece of red tape. As for the suggestion that there will not be many more of these, if the opposition gets its way there will be lots more. There will also be the question of surplus crown land that is routinely processed from time to time. It creates a sort of manual bottleneck to an automated system, that is just not desirable, including all the paraphernalia that goes into preparing a submission to go before the Governor and the processes of Executive Council. It ties up a lot of people: a lot of ministerial officers, cabinet subcommittees, cabinet submissions, Executive Council submissions, proclamations and gazettes. It is a lot of red tape for something that really is of no consequence.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 25 to 65 passed.

Clause 66.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I move:

Page 30—

Line 1 [clause 66(4)(b)]—Before 'review panel' insert 'Ministerial'

Line 2 [clause 66(4)(b)]—Before 'review panel' insert 'Ministerial'

Line 6 [clause 66(6)]—Before 'review panel' insert 'Ministerial'

Line 10 [clause 66(7)]—Before 'review panel' insert 'Ministerial'

Line 25 [clause 66(11), definition of reviewer, (b)]—Before 'review panel' insert 'Ministerial'

Line 26 [clause 66(11), definition of reviewer, (b)]—Before 'review panel' insert 'Ministerial'

This arises out of consultations which have occurred on the bill with the Hon. John Darley of the other place. He was concerned to ensure that there was clarity, that the valuation review panel posed under the bill is not confused with a similar review panel set up under the Valuation of Land Act 1971. Accordingly, we seek to insert the word 'ministerial' in front of 'the review panel' in section 66 of the act in order to make that situation clear.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 67 to 81 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I move:

Page 38, lines 30 to 39—Delete Part 5

This amendment removes the proposed related amendment to section 93 of the Real Property Act 1886. The government now intends to introduce other amendments to the Real Property Act 1886, and parliamentary counsel has advised that amendments to section 93 of that act should be dealt with by those amendments, rather than in this bill. This will avoid possible conflict in the timing of the assents of the various amendments. It is a highly technical change we seek to make.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title.

Mr WILLIAMS: I take this opportunity to put a proposal to the minister. I still feel fairly strongly about clause 24, but I do accept his point. However, I suggest, minister, that between the houses you look at a possible further amendment. The opposition would feel much more comfortable about clause 24 if clause16, the delegation of powers, did not apply to clause 24. If the minister would undertake to look at that, we would be most happy.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (17:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank all those who have worked for so long on this bill, particularly Mr Doug Faehrmann, who I think has been working on it since 2000 and who was hoping to have it completed and through the house before he retired. I think he is planning to retire soon, so I promised him that I would seek to achieve that.

This is probably not the most exciting bill that has ever been brought before parliament, and that is probably why successive ministers have not put it at the top of their list. However, it is work like this that our public servants do on important pieces of legislation that operate the very important principles of property management and enable our state to operate in an effective and functional way. So, I just want to pay tribute to him for his work, and to his manager, Jack Nicolaou, and also Aimee Travers from parliamentary counsel for her work in relation to this particular piece of legislation. I also thank the opposition for their support.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT