HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

UPPER SOUTH EAST DRYLAND SALINITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT (EXTENSION OF PROJECT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2009. Page 4366.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (20:30): I came to the house early this morning expecting that we would handle these matters before lunch, and here we are at 8.30 in the evening just kicking off with the Upper South-East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management (Extension of Project) Amendment Bill. I could, but I will not, hold the house for hours on this. What I will do is make some general comments, and I will direct members to the Hansard of Thursday 5 December 2002, page 2200. Thursday 5 December 2002 was the last day of the sitting of the parliament for the year 2002. There had been a change of government in March and, later in that year, the then minister (Hon. John Hill) introduced the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Bill, by dint of his argument, to enable the government to complete the Upper South-East drainage scheme.

I have, I believe, a very good knowledge of the Upper South-East drainage scheme and the drainage scheme in the other part of the South-East, the Mid and Lower South-East. I spoke extensively on that bill on 5 December 2002. Amongst other things, I pointed out that my family, my forebears, in, I think, 1867, were carried to the South-East by ship. They landed with a group of 100 men under the direction of the then surveyor-general George Goyder to start digging an extensive drainage system across the South-East. Those drainage works extended for about 100 years up until the early 1970s in the Mid and Lower South-East and changed the landscape incredibly.

In the mid to late 1970s, after much of the Upper South-East had been cleared in previous years and sown to lucerne, the accidental introduction of two pest species—the spotted alfalfa aphid and the lucerne flea—decimated those stands of lucerne, which had a huge impact on the Upper South-East of the state. What had occurred with the clearing of the landscape of the deep-rooted perennial plants, the mallee scrub, and that being replaced by lucerne meant there was not a huge change to the hydrological balance of the area (lucerne being also a deep-rooted perennial plant) and it maintained the water balance in the landscape.

With the demise of those stands of lucerne in the late 1970s it took very little time before the watertable in the area rose to within a very small distance—probably less than a metre—of the surface (sometimes it came right to the surface), bringing with it salts which had been mobilised through the saturation of the upper soil. During the summer months the moisture would evaporate leaving behind the salts at or near the surface causing salt scald and the problem which is known as dryland salinity. The landowners of that area obviously were most concerned. They had seen the demise of their lucerne. They had seen the carrying capacity of that land—which is basically land grazed by sheep, very productive grazing land, with a reasonably good rainfall, healthy country—be absolutely decimated.

That made it difficult to make a living because the living area obviously changed dramatically. Whereas a family could make a living off maybe a couple of thousand acres, suddenly, that was almost impossible and you would probably need five to 10 times that area to make a reasonable living because of the loss of production—simply because of the loss of lucerne. Then, they saw the rising watertables were bringing dryland salinity that was going to further decimate the carrying capacity of the land and, in fact, turn the land into a waste land. There were many discussions held over a long period, culminating in a plan to create another drainage system, principally to lower the watertable.

I will not go through all the things I said about this back in 2002, but it is still my opinion that the drainage scheme was well conceived. It is absolutely essential to that landscape. The reality is we cannot go back. This is a productive part of the state; and I think the state's economy needs it to continue as a productive part of the state. A significant number of people make their living from it; and, in any case, it is impossible to go back to what was prior to the opening up of that country and the clearing of the native vegetation, notwithstanding part of the solution has involved replanting of native vegetation on significant areas.

Through a lot of negotiations, the drainage scheme was instituted. The then Liberal government and the member from whom I took over the seat of MacKillop, Dale Baker, negotiated with the local farming community to contribute to a scheme. Dale Baker negotiated with the commonwealth government and was certainly one of the primary architects of the Upper South-East drainage scheme. The scheme got underway under the auspices and powers of the South-East drainage act. I argued in 2002 that the powers that were conferred upon the minister by the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act were not necessary. To this day I do not believe they were necessary, because a fair bit of the scheme was created without any of those powers.

By and large, what changed with the new act was that the parliament gave the government of the day powers to compulsorily acquire land, without compensation—something that was an anathema to me. As a consequence, I voted against the bill on 5 December 2002, along with my colleague the member for Stuart. I think we were the only two in this chamber who voted against the bill, and I still think we got it right.

It is interesting that the bill we now have before us tonight addresses a number of the matters that concerned me all those years ago. The bill recognises that the minister does not, indeed, have to hold freehold title to the land on which the drains will be constructed. I argued that at the time. I argued at the time that all the drains that have been dug in the Lower South-East, Mid South-East and, to that time, the Upper South-East, which were extensive, had been dug with the goodwill that existed between the government of the day and the landholders. There were a couple of sticking points, and I identified those in my contribution all those years ago. From memory, I think there were three points where there was some disagreement between the land-holders and the government. I think minister Hill went overboard with the legislation he brought before the house at that time, which was passed through this house and the other house and became law.

Minister Hill, among other things, instituted another levy on landholders and extracted many more millions of dollars from my constituents. He compulsorily acquired large tracts of land and said that that was necessary and the only way he could dig drains. Today, this minister brings to the house a bill which says we do not need to acquire the land compulsorily; instead, by statute, we can declare easements over the land. That would have been a much more sensible tack all those years ago.

The land that has been compulsorily acquired under this bill will be returned to the original landowner where the original landowner is still the owner/occupier of the land or, if the land has been transferred to another party, to that party/person. That is the way it should have been done in the first place, in my opinion. In fact, I do not believe that it was necessary to go that far. I am delighted that the government today has come to the realisation that it does not need to continue to acquire land compulsorily and that it can simply strike a statutory easement across the land where it needs to construct drains, and I fully support that.

I think that any government that is going to construct drains, even with the goodwill of the landholder, should obtain an easement across the land concerned to allow for the construction in the first instance and then for ongoing maintenance. Members may not realise that drains require ongoing maintenance. The South-East Water Conservation and Drainage Board's chief function is to maintain the drains in the Lower and Mid South-East. It is quite a job and it is ongoing in order to maintain the drain itself and the crossings and other structures on the drains. So, I support that part of the bill.

The bill does some other things. I must point out that the extension of the act by this bill will allow for the construction of the last of the series of drains which were planned to be constructed in the original scheme, as conceived way back in the early 1990s. The Bald Hill drain and the Wimpinmerit Flat on which drains will be constructed will complete the scheme. It is a pity that we have to do this now, and there have been significant delays. If my memory serves me correctly, in 2002 the original act was going to run for four years from 2002 to 2006. The minister told the parliament at that stage that in that four-year period he would have the scheme completed.

I remember going on local ABC Radio in Mount Gambier at the time suggesting to the local landholders that they were being duped and they would have been a lot better off if they had decided amongst themselves to form a cooperative in order to put the money that they were going to be forced to pay through levies into that cooperative and to construct the drains themselves across their own land. It would be cheaper and happen more quickly. I was derided by a couple of landholders for suggesting that. I stand by those remarks.

I think the scheme would have been completed many years ago at a small fraction of the cost if they had taken that advice from me at that time. But history shows that that was not the case. The government proceeded under the new act and history also shows that by 2006 we were still a long way from completing the drainage scheme. I suspect it was probably still minister Hill at that stage who brought a bill to the house to extend the act by a further three years. We find ourselves another three years down the road where we have run out of time again, because the principal act has a sunset clause in it. We find that three years later we still have not completed the scheme.

One has to continually ask: what on earth is going on? Some of these constituents of mine have been paying levies—not insubstantial amounts of money; we are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars paid by individuals—for well over 10 years, 12 or 13 years and, in the case of Wimpinmerit and Bald Hills, they still have not seen a sod of dirt turned, still have not seen one bit of improvement.

The Hon. S.W. Key: How many years have they paid?

Mr WILLIAMS: Probably 12 or 13 years.

The Hon. S.W. Key: So, in your government?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes; it goes back into 1995, 1996. It is a long way back not to have seen anything for their money.

The Hon. S.W. Key: At least the current minister got some recent scientific information.

Mr WILLIAMS: Which told him exactly the same as the original EIS which suggested that it was imperative to dig the drains, but there has been a lot prevaricating. Let me say, I do not deny that there are some opponents to the drains. I have always been a strong supporter of the drainage scheme. I have lived next to drains and seen the operation of drainage in the Lower South-East all my life, as has my father and my grandfather and, for at least half his life, my great grandfather.

Can I say that the land I operate as a fifth generation farmer would not be suitable for agriculture of any form apart from raising ducks without some form of drainage in the Lower South-East. It is probably the most productive part of the state. The land around the Millicent district would be as productive as any part of South Australia. It is highly-prized land and as I drive from my home to Adelaide to attend the parliament, and I drive out of the Lower South-East, by the time I get to about Kingston, I start to see the country become dry. I assure you that around Millicent it is still verdant.

Mr Pengilly: The land of milk and honey.

Mr WILLIAMS: The land of milk and honey. It is still verdant.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: It is a lot better than Kangaroo Island, Tom. It is incredibly important to the state. I am digressing a little here but I have made the argument to many ministers over the years that a lot of the livestock that is produced in South Australia is slaughtered, value-added, in Victoria because historically we have been unable to keep meatworks operating for 12 months of the year.

If it were not for the Lower South-East and if it were not for the drainage scheme that allowed that to be a highly productive livestock area which produced stock well into the summer and through summer into the autumn, there would hardly be any abattoirs operating in South Australia. That is a fact of life. I do digress but there are a lot of arguments for us doing a lot to improve the flow in the operation of abattoirs in South Australia to value-add to our livestock production systems.

I will get back to the bill before us. One of the things which this bill does and which the delay in the construction of the final drain in Bald Hill flat has done is condensed the idea that we should return some of the flows at least from the Mid South-East northwards to the Coorong. The minister, only today, talked in the house about the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and talked about the problems with the River Murray and the impact that has had on the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. I think that the Coorong has been more impacted by the drainage system in the South-East than the drought that we are currently seeing across the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Coorong does not necessarily rely on flows down the Murray, and at last some of the so-called environmental experts are starting to realise that the hypersalinity conditions in the southern lagoon of the Coorong have gone too far and are leading to the death of the Coorong. In my opinion, that is not caused by the lack of flows down the River Murray. It has been caused by the diversion of fresh water from the South-East for over 100 years away from the Coorong and into the sea along the coast, stretching from just north of the town of Kingston all the way down to south of Millicent, the outlet from Lake Bonney.

The REFLOWS project which will be incorporated into the Bald Hills flat, whereby waters principally in this case from the Bool Lagoon (which again is another icon environmental site in South Australia and which, I hasten to add, would not be there if it was not for the South Australian Field and Game Society, the duck hunters, who preserve that for duck hunting and who had more to do with maintaining wetlands in the south-east of the state and other parts of the state than any other environmental group), which traditionally ran to the north but which since I think 1972 and the completion of Drain M have run south to outfall into Lake George at Beachport and then through the Lake George outlet into the sea, will be diverted northwards through the old Bakers Range watercourse and through a floodway which will be created as part of the Bald Hills drain northwards eventually either through the Mandina marshes or through Cucunda and out the Tilley Swamp watercourse into the Morella Basin and eventually via Salt Creek into the southern basin of the Coorong.

In the conception of the Upper South-East scheme, I also need to add for the record that, when the deal was struck with the federal government to be a funding partner to the original scheme in the early to mid-1990s one of the conditions put on by the federal government was that no more than 40 gigalitres per year of fresh water would be put into the southern basin of the Coorong. I have always thought that that was a nonsense. I think many people are now realising that is a nonsense. In reality, we have probably never come within cooee of generating that amount of water out of the South-East in the meantime, so it has not been an issue, but it is something that needs to be renegotiated.

The minister might take this on board; that is, when the scheme is completed, I think it would be wise to renegotiate that condition with the commonwealth government so that, if we did have a couple of extremely wet years where a lot of fresh water was generated in the South-East, that could be pushed northwards and into the Coorong at a rate of greater than 40 gigalitres per year, and I think that and that alone would remedy the problems at least of the southern basin of the Coorong.

The REFLOWS project is one that I fully support. I think the vast majority of my constituents support that project. It is a wise move to turn around some of the floodwaters that are generated in the South-East and put them back to where they originally flowed into the Coorong to rehabilitate that to the world-class wetland that it is or should be. In a somewhat rambling way, I admit, I think I have given an overview of some of the history of the Upper South-East project. It disappoints me that it has taken so long to be completed.

In fact, I can tell the house that before I came to this place, probably in 1995, the then chairman of the South-East Water Conservation and Drainage Board, Michael McCourt, announced that he was resigning from that position. He was an elected landholder representative on the board. I rang him and expressed some interest in standing for election for that position. I asked him what the job entailed, how many hours a week or a month it would take of my time and he said to me—and I often remind him of this—'The Upper South-East scheme has taken a lot of work and a lot of time, but we have it pretty well under control and there should not be much work to do before it is completed because most of the hard work and heavy lifting has been done.' I suspect that was in 1995.

I put up my hand and was duly elected to the drainage board. I spent 12 months as an elected landholder member on that board and we discussed not much else other than the Upper South-East scheme. It was a great time and it is when I really learnt the intricacies of the scheme; I got a good understanding of the scheme. It frustrates me that it has taken so long to get to the position where we are today. Some 15 years later I can almost see the light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully, with the passage of this bill and the extension of the principal act, the scheme will be completed.

I have a couple of issues with the bill. The land on which statutory easements will be created are known as category C project works corridors. New section 12C provides that easements will be created but does not provide that easements will necessarily be registered on the title. It does oblige the landowner and any subsequent landowner to the conditions of the easement.

I have some problems with that because a number of my constituents over the years have come to me, complaining that they cannot deal with their titles because, through the process of the land being acquired by the government, the department for its own reasons (which I do not understand) has taken the decision that it would not amend the titles until the scheme was completed, so land titles have had a strip of land for the purpose of constructing the drain vested in the minister in fee simple. They have been in that state without the title being tidied up, without its being registered on the title and the title being rewritten, so the landowner with the rest of the land cannot deal with that land, in some cases for seven or eight years.

Recently, I brought to the attention of the house a particular case where the land has changed hands twice yet they have not been able to settle the contract for the exchange of the land because the title had never been fixed up by the department, and the title holder, therefore, could not transfer the title. One gentleman, who is no longer a constituent of mine because he lives in New South Wales, sold his property, it was onsold again and he was still waiting for the original payment. From memory in the order of $700,000 was outstanding to this landholder. He could not settle because of the intransigence of the department.

The minister in the earlier matter wondered why I was making comments about the culture of departments under his control. Some of my constituents suffer greatly while people in the department who are making decisions take home their weekly pay, get on with their life and are unaffected. However, I can tell the house that it greatly affects some of my constituents. That is why I tell the story of this particular person where a parcel of land ostensibly had changed hands twice but had never been able to be settled. I think that is outrageous. That is why I make the point that I think it is unfortunate that this bill has a clause that suggests that a statutory easement could be placed on a piece of land but it need not be registered on the title. I have some concerns about that.

I note that one part of the bill (I think it is new section 12A) provides that the land which was vested in the minister or the land which was compulsorily acquired will be revested back into the name of the original landholder, or a subsequent landholder if it had changed hands in the meantime. I applaud that. I told the house earlier that I did not support the original bill. Along with my colleagues, I will be supporting this bill, because we are stuck with the principal act, but I think this improves it somewhat and remedies some of the problems that I had with the original legislation.

Also, new sections 12A(10)(a) and (b) (principally new subsection (b)), provide that an easement can be registered in a category B corridor on the application of the minister. Again I ask: will the minister make such application in every case? If he does not, we will end up with possibly a significant number of titles on which there is an easement but it is not registered. I think that that clause should state that the registrar must register or note the easement on the application of the minister and the minister shall make application, rather than giving the minister discretion not to make application. I think that is an absurd situation and it will only create problems into the future.

Not only does the bill extend the time of the principal act but it also revests that land that was compulsorily acquired under the original act back with the landowner. I applaud and support that. It also makes provision for a category C corridor. I have talked about the reflows to return flows of relatively fresh water northwards to the Coorong through the REFLOWS project, and this act gives the power to allow that to happen.

I reiterate the comments I made back in 2002. I do not know that those powers are necessarily needed but, obviously, the culture of the department is that it wants to work under this act and not use the powers that it would have under other acts—principally, the South-East drainage act, which I believe would give it all the powers it needs. In fact, about half the scheme was constructed under those powers. Recognising what has happened over recent years, I will also support the amendments that provide the powers to create the REFLOWS project.

Clause 12 of the bill causes me some concern on behalf of my constituents. It is probably important to keep livestock away from drains. I earlier talked about maintenance of drains. If you have livestock climbing in and out of drains (particularly cattle but also sheep), as they will, it creates damage to the drains. The drains by and large have been fenced, and I think that is a sensible thing to do.

Clause 12, which amends section 21, gives the minister the power to require the owner of land where a statutory easement is situated to carry out specified fencing work. To my knowledge, the fencing that has been carried out on the Upper South-East drainage scheme to date has been carried out of the cost of the scheme. It seems now that it will be carried out under the direction of the minister by the land owner. Subsection (2c) stipulates that the minister would pay for one half of the reasonable costs of the work associated with that fencing. For the life of me, I do not understand why in this case the landholder should be subjected to paying for half the cost of the fencing. He or she has been levied long, hard and highly, year in, year out, for probably 13 years or more in the scheme.

To the best of my knowledge, those landholders who have already received the benefit of having those drains constructed through or adjacent to their properties and have had the benefit of those drainage works for a considerable time now were not obliged to pay for the fencing on top of contributing to the scheme through their levies, whereas those in the Bald Hill and Wimpinmerit areas look as if they will be paying for half the fencing. That sort of burden should not be borne by those landholders. It smacks of inequity, where they will be treated differently from those who have already had the drains constructed in their area. Not only is it seen that they will be paying more, but also they have waited 10 years or longer to get the benefits of the drains.

I think I have made this comment many years ago: I implore the government to get on with it, complete the scheme and put it to bed. As I said, there are some detractors in the South-East. The delays have only fomented arguments amongst some of my constituents over this. The reality is that through his department the minister has carried out surveys and covered his back in every way, and in every case the results of the surveys, discussions and consultations have said: get on with it; get it completed.

The other thing I will repeat and I have said in this place many times with regard to the Upper South-East scheme is that we have been very fortunate in one respect in that we have had a series of dry years. None of us in the South-East have enjoyed the dry years and particularly their extending for longer than we would like to think, at least 12 or 13 years. If we had not had those dry years—and the drainage scheme obviously has not been completed—I believe we would be suffering an environmental disaster in those areas where the drains have not been constructed.

They are essential; they are about the only option open to us to save from huge degradation large tracts of the Upper South-East country that is full of salt and, if we do not manage the hydrogeological balance, we will be devastated; the surface will become a waste land. Again, I urge the minister to get on with it and get it completed. God forbid that we are back here in another three years debating whether we extend the principal act again.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (21:09): I, too, rise to support the bill. I note the comments by the member for MacKillop and acknowledge his extensive history in the South-East over five generations and his broad knowledge of events that have happened in the South-East over time. The Upper South-East project is a drainage system to manage the dryland salinity, to manage water logging and the degradation of ecosystems in the Upper South-East. The Upper South-East can be defined for this project from somewhere around Lucindale in the south, Salt Creek in the north and Padthaway to the west. The project was commenced in the 1990s. It received legislative effect in 2002 through the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002, which was last amended in 2006.

This bill we are debating tonight seeks a further three-year extension to the act to 19 December 2012. This will facilitate reflows within the drainage system which will result in partially redirecting historic environmental flows in the South-East and, hopefully, flow these into the Coorong. The bill will also provide for a regime for accessing easements through people's properties.

Due to recommendations made by the Natural Resources Management Committee in its 2007-08 annual report on the act two reviews were undertaken. The first was an independent review of the environmental implications of constructing or not constructing the proposed Bald Hill Drain, and the second was an independent review of community perspectives of the Bald Hill Drain and the REFLOWS project.

The result of these reviews was that there was a need to continue the project as degradation would occur to those drains already established, and there was generally broad support for this to occur. As the member for MacKillop indicated, there is some opposition to these drains, but historically drainage in the South-East has opened up thousands of acres of country in that area. I know that the McCourt family—down at Woakwine near Beachport—opened up the Woakwine Cutting many years ago—I think it was with a D6 bulldozer and a small scraper.

Mr Kenyon: Why did they use a small bulldozer?

Mr PEDERICK: Because that is all they had. That was a big bulldozer back then. I think the member for Newland would be wise to go down and have a look at the Woakwine Cutting and look at what was achieved many years ago with the equipment that was available at the time. It was a massive undertaking to drag out thousands of tonnes of material to open up property to make it productive. That was probably the initial drain in the South-East; and certainly in more recent times, up towards the Kingston/Salt Creek area, Tom Brinkworth has opened up major drainage systems in his own right. I went on a public tour of that system, and that was quite a different operation to what the McCourt family had completed at the Woakwine Cutting many years earlier. Tom and his staff opened it up with massive excavators which helped drain many thousands of acres as well.

The South-East, as the member for MacKillop indicated, certainly has not had the wet years it historically has had in the past. I have certainly been involved there over time. There was a period in the early to mid-1980s to the mid-1990s when I was doing seasonal work down at Lucindale and I noticed a lot of empty drains. Certainly it is country that will get wet. The heavy rains will fall again in the South-East and these drains for this project will be absolutely vital in making sure that tens of thousands of acres, or hectares, whichever way you like, of country in the South-East can be kept in valuable production. It is good country. It has high stocking rates. It is very good grazing country for both cattle and sheep. Many thousands of head of cattle and sheep are bred in the area.

So, let us hope that this work is completed so we do not have to be in this place in three years' time moving forward with another bill. Let us get the action ahead, because it will get wet and we need to keep this country productive. I commend the bill.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (21:15): I have had the pleasure of being involved with the parliamentary Natural Resources Committee which considered this matter in great detail and took a great deal of evidence, and I think anyone who objectively looks at the role the committee played would have to say it was very fair and took into account varied points of view. The committee went and looked, and ensured that there was a proper review of the process. At the end of the day, I am of the view that the minister made the right decision in relation to this matter. No-one could say that the people involved did not get the opportunity to state their case, some of them at great length. A decision had to be made and I believe the right decision was made, even though there are still some people who are unhappy. There was a lot of money involved and you cannot half finish a project. It had to be finished so everyone would get the benefit of it.

I do not profess to be an expert in this field, but I believe from the evidence we took the correct decision was made and, obviously, the minister was given the appropriate advice by his department after proper analysis. In particular, I thought the evidence given by one of the ladies in the department in the South-East was exceptionally good and very professional, and she had given a great deal of consideration to it. Therefore, I am pleased to support the legislation.

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) (21:16): I thank honourable members for their contribution. In particular, taking the most recent contribution by the member for Stuart, of course there was a pause in this project for the Natural Resources Committee to make recommendations, and I think we had already resolved to consider some of the environmental effects. We were in the middle of that very long drought and there was some concern that the original justification for the drains might not still be available. However, after the careful analysis that was undertaken and deep discussions with the community, we received the advice that allowed us to make the decision to proceed.

The most recent rains in the South-East (which fortunately has enjoyed an above-average season for the first time in some considerable time) demonstrated the facility of the re-engineering works of the drains. It gives us great comfort that the re-engineering of the landscape to replicate its natural flows through the reflow project back into the Coorong will, in fact, succeed, because we were pleased to be able to deliver 14 gigalitres of water into the southern lagoon of the Coorong.

I must tell members this anecdote about the farmers in the Upper South-East. They said that it is the Labor ministers that keep making all the good decisions, and they reeled them off. They said Lenehan, Hill and Gago, and they said, 'Are you going to be the next one?' It was a very powerful argument, but I had to say to them in response, 'Why is it, if we are so good to you, that we only poll less than 20 per cent in this booth?' They thought that was very funny.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Exactly. They were very good.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They certainly were. However, we were not motivated by our electoral fortunes down there. We were motivated by getting the right result for the environment and the broader community. I thank all members for their contribution to this debate and commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, on my copy of the bill—and I hope it is the same as you have because I have been caught out by this before—clause 8 inserts new sections 12A, 12B and 12C. I refer specifically to new section 12A(10)(b) which provides:

(10) The Registrar-General—

(b) must, on application by the Minister, register or note an easement in favour of the Minister under this section on any relevant certificate of title or against any land (without the need to obtain any consent or approval);

Minister, is it the intent that you will make application for the easement to be registered in every case?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The answer to the question is yes in circumstances where it affects other landholders. In some circumstances, we will be the landholder, so it will not be necessary in those circumstances.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am pleased to hear that. Where clause 8 inserts new section 12C to do with statutory easements, subclause (1) paragraph (c) deals with the installation of a statutory easement. This refers to category C projects works, which is the reflows area. It provides that the easement:

will bind the owner from time to time of the relevant land even if not registered on the original certificate for the land or on the duplicate certificate under the Real Property Act 1886 or, in the case of Crown land, even if not registered, recorded or endorsed in relation to the land (including an owner who takes the land on a genuine basis for valuable consideration in a situation where the easement has not been registered, recorded or endorsed) and will bind any other person who takes possession of the land (on any basis and at any time);

Minister, it seems in this situation that we are going to establish a statutory clause and there may be cases where they are not registered in regard to category C land. Is that the case or am I misreading the clause?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the nature of the scheme is that we have the power to register and, as you have just heard, it is our policy to do that. But, if for some reason we did not do that, this provides a degree of protection that means that we are still validly able to take the steps that we need to take.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am pleased to hear that it is the intent that the easements will be registered. Comments I made earlier in the evening in regard to the other matter apply here. I would hate to think that we are making law that allows that culture of mistakes to be papered over. I do not know that it is good law to say that, if there is an omission, it does not really matter and we can go on with business as usual. I think if there is an omission, there should be an obligation that the parliament or the minister and the administering authority correct the omission at their earliest convenience. However, I am pleased to hear that it is the intent, and I hope that the intent is carried out without omission.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In some circumstances, such as now, for instance, we might want to press ahead with the process of the work so we will have had the contractual agreements to permit us to do that. However, the registration process might take a little longer, so there might be a small hiatus between the time of commencing works and the registration of the easement, although it is our intention to in fact register the easement.

Mr WILLIAMS: I accept the minister's explanation but notwithstanding that, I have some issues with the parliament transferring the risk to the landowner and away from the government. I really do think that it makes for bad legislation. I take your point and I understand the circumstances that you have explained.

I accept that but, as the minister well knows, I have had this issue with landholders in my electorate who have waited for years and years to transfer titles because the department has not been of a mind to tidy up the titles as it has been going through the process and that has caused great anxiety and, in some cases at least, significant detriment to some of my constituents. That is why I think it is unfair of the government to transfer the risk of an omission or a failure to do what was intended to be done from the government to the landholder.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr WILLIAMS: I raised this in my second reading speech. This is about fencing. If I am wrong I am sure the minister will correct me, but it is my understanding that, to date under the scheme, the drains have largely been fenced and the fencing has been an added cost to the scheme. I pointed out in my second reading contribution that landholders have been paying a levy, and those landholders, particularly in zone A where the drains have already been constructed either through their properties or very close to their properties, paid their levy at the appropriate rate for zone A and the scheme constructed the drain and fenced the drain.

It seems that, under the provisions of this bill, in the Bald Hills and Wimpinmerit areas, where the construction will be done in accordance with what we are (I hope) passing here tonight, these landholders will be subjected to paying not only the levy, which they have been paying year in and year out for many years, but also for half the cost of the fence. Is that actually the case and, if so, why is that the case?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, with respect to fencing, it is not our intention to charge landholders for half the cost of the initial fencing. The provision really is there to enable us to deal with questions of the replacement or maintenance of existing fencing or some other arrangement that we might enter into with the landholder.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (13 to 16), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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