HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:36): I rise to speak to the Natural Resources Management (Review) Amendment Bill. I note my interest, and that of my wife, in natural resources management. My wife was a staff member with the Murray Mallee task force and worked on the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan in the Murray-Darling Basin out of the Murray Bridge office, and did work at a senior level with the natural resources management board. Sally does not work there any more because I indicated to her that it was my wish that our two young boys grow up recognising one of their parents.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: The Minister for Correctional Services reckons she is the one that makes the rules in the house. I wonder if that is what happens in his house.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely; he agrees, and he may be right on my side of the ledger at times as well. He is having a very enjoyable time with his first child and I commend his family for what they have been through as far as health issues, etc., and I am glad that things are onward and upward for him.

Getting back to the bill, I declare that interest in natural resources management. It is interesting to note that, since the days that Sally worked there, money seemed to be more readily available, from both the state and federal governments, for natural resources management, under National Action Plan salinity programs. Now applications for funding go through the more competitive Caring for our Country process, which opens funds up a bit more and also limits the access of natural resources management boards to funds.

In light of that, another part of the problem is that bureaucracies have increased by a tremendous amount, and in some cases by about double the number of staff on the ground. This is causing major problems in actually getting funding from natural resources management to hit the ground. You might have a little project of $250,000, for example, and by the time the dollars hit the ground, $200,000 has been burnt up in bureaucracy. So, to get a $50,000 outcome, you may burn up $200,000.

We are also seeing a lot of these boards justifying their existence. There has to be accountability, but you wonder at what level, when plans are constantly put out year by year, some plans biannually, about what projects they want to put up and bidding for projects. It scares the heck out of me how much time and effort is put into the bureaucracy when we see so many issues out there on the ground, such as soil management, control of pest plants, weed management, fox management, etc.

Just as an aside, it is interesting to note that, with fox management, or more like wild dog management, I should say, in pastoral country, you can put out dog baits from a utility, but it is not legal to drop them from the air. I would have thought that if you are going to do any type of program to control the ever-increasing menace of wild dogs getting through to pastoral country that should be relaxed, because there is that much country for these pastoral owners to get over. They know their country, they know where to put the baits, and it would be far more economical to do it from the air.

I would also like to refer to issues with natural resources management, where officers involved with this seem to think that they have more powers than the police. What is happening at times, when some of these officers turn up at people's places to enforce the law, as they see it, is just disgraceful.

I would just like to go through a story about Kevin Parker from Maggea, between Swan Reach and Loxton. I believe there has been a bit of media work on this lately on the radio. This has been an issue for Kevin Parker's family since the 1980s. Going through some of the history, in 1988, his family applied to clear the property, and it took five years before they actually received the approval paper. I note that the clearing permit for regrowth is for 10 years. As long as you keep it controlled every 10 years, it is a legal operation, I believe. Once approved, you must carry the permit on you when clearing.

In 1999—note the time difference, from 1988—he was contacted to say he had been approved. Compensation was paid, and he could clear if he agreed to a heritage agreement on all vegetation. In 2001, a letter arrived admitting that the department had failed to send approval paperwork and to say that he now had a two-year extension. His understanding, therefore, was that he had the 10 years plus a two-year extension from that date.

He has at least four neighbours who are all concerned about what has happened. One neighbour still has 2,000 acres to clear, and he believes that if he cannot do this regrowth clearance, Elders may as well take their farm; he may as well put the farm on the market through Elders, or someone else.

Kevin contacted the office again the other day and said that they had been clearing some regrowth on their property during August. At 11.45am, he notes, six armed police arrived with officers of the Native Vegetation Authority—who stayed outside—wanting his paperwork on clearing and heritage agreements. They were there for four hours and treated Kevin Parker and whoever else was present like animals. They served a court order on him, banning him from any more clearing work on his property—this is 1,700 acres at Maggea, half way between Swan Reach and Loxton. There is a heritage agreement for over 700 acres. They gave no information as to why they were there.

Kevin said that after several minutes he noticed that one of the men was carrying a tape recorder, and this man admitted that he was taping the conversation even though he had not advised Kevin of that. Kevin indicated that, 22 years ago, his father signed a clearing agreement that had no time limit on it to get a clearing permit. Part of the deal was that the department would fence the heritage area—and, of course, they never have, as they never do. He said that his father would not have signed any agreement with a time limit on it because the corresponding heritage agreement has no time limit.

The native vegetation branch is now saying that the permit expired 10 years ago. Kevin Parker says that they never got a copy of the permit at the time, but it appears that whatever the department has does not show a time limit, otherwise the officers would have brought it with them.

He said that someone in the department had interpreted the agreement and decided that the agreements are now for 10 years and that theirs ran out a long time ago. They were not notified of this, if that is to be the case. Kevin believes that he is being victimised and that some local identities are keen to get him off his land. He had a number to call someone in the department but it did not work. He was very angry. He has spoken to his lawyer who says he would love to get the department in court. Why do we get to these levels of angst in the community?

What has happened at Kevin Parker's property is that a work order has been imposed so that he cannot clear this land. The section number that has been imposed upon is part of five other sections which, by law, were freehold under one title. The authorities turned up to serve the work order, which covers the cleared ground as well. He is still harvesting and, when the authorities turned up, police were involved. As I indicated, there were some plainclothes officers as well as armed officers (and I would not be surprised if the plainclothes officers were armed, as well), and there were native vegetation officers, I believe, up on the hill.

As I said, he is still in the middle of harvesting. He wanted to invest in a couple of more modern harvesters to reap his crop and get his contract harvesting business up and running again as it has been silent for a couple of years because of poor seasons. However, this man's problem is that he cannot borrow against a multimillion dollar asset, he cannot afford to get his grain carted (it is all stored on-farm), and he is worried about, just around the corner, sowing this next year's crop and financing it.

I call on the minister to have a look at this situation to see what is going on because it is basically forcing the Parker family out of business. They are jammed in a spot. They have tried to do the right thing over decades. You can almost understand why people do the wrong thing and do not worry about getting a permit because, when they try to do the right thing, they get buried in bureaucracy. Bureaucracy does not function, permits do not turn up on time and the next thing there are police on the property, victimising this poor family.

Mr Williams: They got turfed off a farm further down south in the Mallee.

Mr PEDERICK: They may have; I do not know.

Mr Williams: It was 25 or 30 years ago; the same family.

Mr PEDERICK: It could be. The member for MacKillop says he has had victimisation on another property further down the South-East.

Mr Williams: No, in the Mallee.

Mr PEDERICK: In the Mallee, sorry, about 30 years ago.

Mr Williams: It was 30 years ago—the same thing.

Mr PEDERICK: What I would like to ask is: what is going on here? As I said, I want the minister to investigate this case to see if we can get a decent outcome for this hardworking family in the Mallee who are doing it tough and have had it tough for very many seasons. The one year they get a chance to get a decent crop off, and they would have been able to get some contract harvesting, they are not able to take up all those options.

I also want to mention a constituent I did some work for—Mr Graeme Fischer—and this has made the media as well, and the minister would be aware of this. I note the involvement of the Hon. John Darley from the upper house. I want to put a couple of items on the record. Mr Fischer was convicted in 2006 and fined $18,000 for stealing water from the Bremer River. In light of that he went to his local member (who was me) and made some allegations about how the departmental officers entered the land and as to whether they showed identification or not.

I wrote a letter to the Hon. Gail Gago in September 2006 as she was the minister at the time. It was indicated to me that the property had been raided late at night and the constituent indicated that he was not shown any identity cards and that the officers had forced their way onto the property. The answer from the minister stated:

Officers from the DWLBC (the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation), including Investigations Unit staff, attended Mr Fischer's property at Hartley, on the evening of Friday, 18 August 2006, as a result of information received regarding allegations of unlawful irrigation of commercial crops on the property at that time.

Mr Fischer was clearly informed that officers in attendance on the property were working with the department concerned and an authorised officer identity card was shown to Mr Fischer, as well as an information sheet (Number 8477) being issued to Mr Fischer, pursuant to section 69 of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (NRM Act). A copy of an NRM Act Information Sheet is attached for your information.

DWLBC has informed me that neither Mr Fischer nor Ms Fischer are authorised to take water from the Bremer River for any purpose other than for stock and domestic use and that they are well aware that they cannot take water to irrigate commercial crops.

I am advised that the incident is a result of several months of offending by the Fischer family, after lengthy and repeated attempts by DWLBC staff to ensure compliance through consultation and voluntary measures. DWLBC's Investigations Unit is continuing to conduct an investigation into allegations of unlawful taking of water on the Fischer's property.

I also went in to bat in 2008. I wrote to the former attorney-general, Michael Atkinson, to see what sort of legal aid I could get to assist Mr Fischer. I am not for one minute indicating whether Mr Fischer is innocent of what he has been charged with. He has been found guilty in the Environment, Resources and Development Court; he has had to pay the fine. I am interested that it has come up in recent talkback discussion, but I just asked the question to the minister at the time if the proper actions were taken by natural resources management officers in attending the property.

The minister indicated they were; so my concern is about whether the officers did operate in a proper way in attending the property. I said on the radio the other day that I would like the current minister to go over the file and let me know—it does not have to be in the reading of the bill—in the future and confirm that what the former minister Gail Gago iterated to me is a correct statement.

Here we have issues, and I go back to the Parker issue in Maggea, up there near Mantung. The NRM officers probably need a map to find the place. This is where I believe inappropriate action was taken to enter a property, bringing a swag of armed police. What do they think farmers are? What do they think they are?

My background is farming and, generally, most farmers are good, law-abiding citizens wanting to look after their land. They do not want to cause trouble. I look at the Parker family. They are trying to do the right thing, go through the approvals process, but it appears that the department has not been timely, to say the least, in getting information to them, being accurate with information. When they want to hit with a hard hand in they go—bang—in they come to victimise these people. People need protection, and it should be addressed during the passage of this bill.

I just want to refer to a couple of other things in the clauses. Clause 16, which deletes section 72 of the current act, provides that a person can refuse to answer a question or refuse to provide documentation on the grounds of self-incrimination. So, now, if this section of the bill can go through, not only will you have armed police and native vegetation officers attend your property, but you also will not have the right not to speak. This is a basic human right.

You notice the Americans take it to the nth degree. You do not even have the right not to say anything, especially if these people have not had legal advice and if they are 'monstered', victimised by officers, not sure what is going on. People are trying to do their law-abiding work on their own land, and then they get told, 'No, you have to put up or you're in great strife because you won't make comment.' I believe that is something that has to be dropped out of the bill because it will put people in a very dangerous spot. I hope the minister can address it in his contribution later on.

As I said, there are many issues in natural resources management. There are issues about getting money to hit the ground—money that actually works for people, money that actually controls weeds and feral animals—and not this money that is just being burnt up because they are getting less and less of it, so there is a higher percentage of it being burnt up just paying staff to sit in offices or roar around in Commodores or utilities doing their job.

Even during the locust spraying time, I heard of two NRM officers being sent up from Murray Bridge to the Riverland to have a look. They went up Friday afternoon in two separate vehicles, decided it was pretty bad, and went back to work at Murray Bridge. If the locusts are there, you need to hit them then and there and you get on with the job.

So there needs to be some reality in the job. There are good people on NRM boards who are trying to do the right thing, but I also believe there are as many good people becoming disillusioned who would like to be involved but just look on it, as the deputy leader (the member for MacKillop) said, as just another level of bureaucracy coming down on their lives and telling them what to do.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (15:56): I heard with great alarm what the member for Hammond had to say, in particular in relation to the Parker family—I had not heard that before. What is going on in South Australia with some of these government officers frightens me. I hope that the minister will look into that.

In relation to the bill, the 69 of us who work in this building and who make decisions that impact on the people of South Australia need to keep control of what happens, in my view. My concern is that what we are doing with a lot of aspects of this bill is giving more and more power to the bureaucracy, which I think is inherently dangerous. These are such things as transferring powers from regulations so that there is just a notice in the Gazette giving the minister the power to do things. I think that is wrong, because ministers are very busy people and quite often they may agree to something without thinking through the ramifications.

Australians do not like being over-governed or over-regulated with too many laws. They get fed up to the back teeth with it. It worries me, looking through this, as I said, that more and more powers are going to the bureaucracy, and I think the member for Hammond indicated what happens when these people get out of control.

It is interesting to note the activities of the natural resources management boards since inception in my own area. They took a fair while to get up to speed and get things happening. It was a vast culture change in the transfer of some powers of councils and different boards to roll it all into the NRM boards, but I think we need to check some of the activities and get some sort of balance back into the argument on many things.

The regional plans were put out for community consultation and there were extensive exercises taken to get these regional plans into some sort of final shape before they were agreed to. I actually think the plans we have for my two areas are pretty good. I do not think there is a lot wrong with them. However, I take serious issue with the current Western Mount Lofty Ranges Water Allocation Plan, and the minister is well aware of my concerns there. As I mentioned yesterday, I was happy and pleased that he saw a deputation from Parawa in my area on that.

We are giving these boards grant money, federal and state. We are actually the ones who pay them all in the end, but they are failing in many aspects of their jobs, in my view. The corellas is a classic example. I do not think anyone will deal with this corella problem properly. The community has gone soft on it. Metropolitan people just do not understand the devastation these birds cause. They are not protected. You can see what thousands and thousands of these birds have done around Strathalbyn and down in the Willunga area, for example, and over on Kangaroo Island.

The answer has been to watch where they go and do something else again tomorrow—put up a few hawks. I know that they have tried the hawks. I had an old farmer, a former soldier settler (he is still alive), tell me that the way they used to deal with them was to get wheat, mix it up with alcohol (port wine), put it out in the paddock and then go and club them all when they were drunk. It worked very well. It got rid of them. It might sound cruel, but it got rid of them.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I know that the member for Mawson has problems down in his electorate.

Mr Bignell: Willunga.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, I mentioned that a minute ago. You have actually got to get serious about these things. Blow them out of the trees, blow them out of the sky, poison them or do whatever you have to do to get rid of them. It is no good loving the bush if you are going to allow these things to wreck everything. That is where I think the boards have failed.

I mentioned the animal and plant boards before. I was involved on one of those and we failed as well. However, sooner or later, someone is going to have to find the hard answers to some of these questions. Instead of having 55 different reports and a series of inquiries, you need to get on and deal with it. Similarly, with weeds. I have some frustrated landholders on the Fleurieu who are getting no action taken by the boards in relation to their weed problem.

They ring up and report a problem and say, 'What can we do?' They are told, 'Well, you can't do this, you can't do that. You're responsible for this, you're responsible for that,' and meanwhile the seeds are set each spring and there are even more weeds the next year. There is inherent failure in this system that we have got.

I am just worried, as I said at the outset, that if we keep going and give more and more power to officers in the NRM boards without keeping control of it through the act in parliament we are going to be in trouble long term. I attend a few NRM meetings where possible—subcommittee meetings. I attended the Kangaroo Island NRM Board meeting towards the end of last year. I attended the water subcommittee on the Fleurieu down at Yankalilla not that long ago, and there are some good people on there.

It is also becoming a problem getting people to stand for these boards. One presiding member who spoke to me not that long ago said that they were deeply concerned about who they were going to get. They wanted more farmers on there but the farmers are that busy they have not got time to go on the board, which is a bit of a sad irony, really.

I would also like to take the opportunity while we are talking about this bill to praise the commitment shown by the recently retired presiding member of the Kangaroo Island board, Mrs Janice Kelly. She was a mayor of Kangaroo Island before I was mayor. I know that Jackie and I had many regular spats over lots of subjects, and, indeed, we had a few spats over issues to do with NRM before she left.

To the best of her ability she has looked after the best interests of the landholders and the farming community of Kangaroo Island, and I do not think it has been an easy task. She was one of the people who was concerned about getting members to stand on the board. We have got to get serious about a whole lot of issues.

The member for Hammond talked about native vegetation; well, we are failing there dismally. You only have to see what happened last weekend in Perth where 200,000 hectares of scrub—or 500,000 acres—that had not been burnt went up, and around 70 were homes lost purely because people were not game enough to take on the authorities and actually do something about burning out large patches of scrub.

Only yesterday we had a major fire on Kangaroo Island, just a few kilometres west of my property. Unfortunately, it would appear (and I cannot substantiate this), that fire was deliberately lit on the side of the road, and a lot of people were kept busy for a number of hours. That fire burnt out several hundred acres of scrub, and that is scrub that has not been touched for—well, I can't remember a fire going through it in the last 25 to 30 years. It will make it safe for the next 10 years, anyway, but we have to come to grips with the burning of this native vegetation. I saw the whole west end of Kangaroo Island burnt out in December 2007. So, there are many areas, and I think that if we are not careful we are going to become guilty of over-caring for the environment, instead of working out what we really do with it, and that gets back to the water allocation plan in the western Mount Lofty Ranges, where people produce food and fibre for the world, and they do not want to be burdened by over-officious officers running around telling them what they can and cannot do—it just does not work.

We had this series of years of drought, and Senator Bob Brown—that great doyen of the Greens—said that it was never going to rain, that we were never going to fill the dams again, that we were never going to do this and never going to do that. Well, he has had his head down and well and truly buried over the last couple of months, I can tell you, because it actually always does rain.

I know that my friends the member for Hammond, the member for MacKillop, the member for Mount Gambier and all those people who have lived on the land all their lives know that we get dry years, a series of dry years, and we get wet years, and that is how it works. When I left school and started farming in the late sixties we were in a run of drought.

Mr Goldsworthy: It always rains after a long dry spell.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, as the member for Kavel said, it always rains after a long dry spell. He is quite right, but I am absolutely over these prophets of doom, climate change and the whole lot. I think it is a whole lot of bunkum. I do not care what they say, it is absolute nonsense, and there are people who have developed an industry on this sort of stuff.

As the member for Flinders' father told him, 'You know, son, they said it won't rain again, but it will.' And it does—we have just had one of the wettest winters on record in my area. We had drought in Western Australia and we will probably have drought somewhere else this year. When it did rain, they said that the Murray was going to take, what was it, two or three years?

Mr Pederick: It would take eight years.

Mr PENGILLY: Eight years before it is all back to normal.

Mr Pederick: It took six months!

Mr PENGILLY: Well, six months later, 24 weeks, and you have more water than you know what to do with. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, through you to the minister, get some sense of common sense and sense of order back into where we are going with this. Yes, we will support the bill but, as the shadow minister has said, there are so many aspects of the bill that are concerning people. I think you have heard some contributions from members from regional South Australia today and over the last day or so about their concerns about where this is all going.

We have this nonsensical business where we are creating more and more bureaucracy and getting less and less done, as the member for Hammond said. It is no good; it just does not work. The Treasurer this afternoon has been struggling to come to grips with where we are going to find savings here and savings there. I can tell you where to find some savings: get rid of a heap of these brown shirts running around the place. I do not mind them wearing brown shirts, but I do not want to see too much of them. If I never see another one again, it will be too soon—it is just a nonsense.

I thank the house for the opportunity to impart a few words on this subject. I hope that people will see some common sense in both houses on where to go with this and that the final outcome does not just give extended power to the bureaucracy to do what they want to do.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:09): I certainly have some issues I would like to raise in relation to the bill, and I will make some general statements concerning the management of our natural resources. I represent in this place an electorate that contributes significantly to the economic outcomes and benefits of this state through the production of mainly food and some fibre, but mainly food. We have a very important and a very vital agriculture and horticulture industry in the Adelaide Hills.

The Adelaide Hills is one of the most productive regions in the state in relation to food production. We have a cool climate, good soils, relatively high rainfall and we are close, obviously, to a major capital city and the respective ports to that city. That makes the Adelaide Hills a very important region in relation to food production in this state and right across the nation.

The shadow minister certainly in his contribution outlined some of the technicalities in relation to the bill, and no doubt there will be more exploration of the technicalities clause by clause when we go through the committee stage. However, as highlighted by the shadow minister and the member for Hammond, I would also like to raise some serious concerns about clause 16 that deletes section 72, which provides that a person can refuse to answer a question or refuse to provide documentation on the grounds of self-incrimination.

To my way of thinking, that actually goes against the very tenets of our law and what makes our community operate in relation to current laws. I am not necessarily casting any aspersions over the motives of some of the officers and the like, but there could be situations that arise in these circumstances where people may be giving some information that may obviously incriminate themselves, but giving it to the government officials unwittingly. They may be, you could say, being trapped into providing that information.

I think that clause 16, where it deletes that section 72, has very serious ramifications for the protection of members of our community and, as I said, goes against the very tenets of the laws that we all live by. I know that, on this side of the house, we will be opposing that, and no doubt it will be opposed in the other place when the bill gets there. My interpretation is that that clause will be knocked out and that the minister will have to assess that when it comes back here again.

I will make some more general remarks in relation to the management of our natural resources. I recall with real clarity when this legislation was first debated in 2004, and I remember that the then shadow minister, the member for Davenport, I think gave one of the longest speeches that this house has been subjected to over a number of years. I think he went for something like seven-plus hours in relation to his speech, but it was all very pertinent information.

At that time there was general support for the integration of the management of our natural resources. However, as we all know, things change when it goes from the theoretical approach to the practical approach, and at the time of the legislation back in 2004 I raised significant concerns about the size of the area that is covered by some of these boards; in particular, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board.

That is a significant area, minister, that is covered: all of metropolitan Adelaide; it runs up to the north, up through the Barossa and so on; all of the Adelaide Hills and all of the Fleurieu. It is a significant area. It probably encapsulates two-thirds, if not more, of the state's population. For one board to manage that area, I think, is too much.

At the time, this side of the house moved an amendment to create four regions instead of the one. That was obviously opposed by the government at the time, but I still stand, as the local member representing an electorate covered by that administration, by those comments seven years ago; they are still as relevant today as they were then. I think it is too large an area to manage—two-thirds of the state population. It is an enormous area to really get down on the ground, and that is what this is all about. That is what it is meant to be all about—effecting positive changes for the benefit of the environment, the community and the like in relation to the management of our natural resources.

The other point I want to raise, and it was raised very comprehensively by the member for Hammond, relates to how some officers that are employed by the department treat members of the community. I have had instances where my constituents have come to see me in relation to the treatment of NRM officers towards themselves. I have met with some of these people and I think I am a relatively patient person, but I can tell you one of these officers—and I am not going to name anybody here; I understand the information would get back to them—was particularly officious. I am a pretty patient person but I can tell you that person tested my patience. This is a real-life situation, minister.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Indeed. The information has gone through. These are real-life situations happening out there in the community, where these people roll up to a landowner's property and basically say, 'I can come onto your property when I like, how I like,' and basically run roughshod right over the top of them. Then they get a pretty heavy-handed letter out to the relative landowners and it frightens these people because they have had very little to do with government over the course of their life.

They have farmed their land, and some of them have made a pretty basic living out of their land, but they are happy. They are happy and contented to farm their property and make a living, basically. When they get an officious government official rolling up to their land, running roughshod over them, it scares them. As a consequence, they come to me and I have helped to explain the situation to them and to try to remedy the situation.

If I can give some advice to the minister—and I hope this filters back through the department to these respective officers and offices—I think some of these people need some training in communication. How they actually deal with members of the public is very important, how they communicate with people. Minister, if there is anything I can leave with you that you can take back it is that these people need communication training because my experience is that they certainly do need it, so I will leave you with that point.

I also want to make some comments in relation to the natural resources management board and its relationship with the development of the Western Mount Lofty Ranges Water Allocation Plan. I could go on for a long time in relation to this, because it has been a long time in coming. If my memory serves me correctly, it was first proposed in 2002-03. It was in the early stages of when I first got elected to this place that I started to attend the first meetings where prescription was being proposed.

There are lots of issues in relation to the establishment of the water allocation plan and I moved a motion several years ago in this house imploring the government to carry out the process correctly, because at that stage it was not. It was not being undertaken correctly, and there are still some serious concerns out in the community about how it is currently proceeding.

I attended one of the meetings at the Gumeracha Town Hall towards the end of last year in relation to the supposed community consultation process, and we have talked at length on this side of the house about how the government undertakes its community consultation. However, I attended that meeting and I can tell the minister that there are still some enormous issues and some considerable concern out in the community that the government has to address.

I was made aware of some comments. A person involved in a formal manner in relation to the establishment of the Water Allocation Plan gave some advice to the minister that it was all generally well accepted—I think they were the words used—by the community. Well, I have something different to tell you, minister: it is not generally well accepted in the community.

The Hon. P. Caica: Did I say that?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, I am not saying that you said it; I am saying that the person who communicated that to you was formally involved in the process. He was involved in one of the advisory committees, from memory. I may not have that absolutely correct; however, that information sticks in my mind, and I am pretty confident that I would not get that wrong: that the advice to you, minister, was that the plan was generally well accepted. Well, I have news for you, minister: it is not generally well accepted. I hope you take that back to your department and to the people giving you that advice and find out what the problems and issues are and fix them.

It is all very well to say, 'We'll roll the plan out and we'll suck it and see', to use the vernacular. I think the consequences of the wrong plan is too great a risk to take. You have to get this plan right at the start and not wait for a review after three years to fix the problems. By then, the damage will be done. We have seen that happen time after time. It is too late after the horse has bolted, to use an analogy. After the horse has bolted, it is difficult to retrieve the situation.

In relation to the Water Allocation Plan, I want to raise a specific issue concerning water trading. We hear this sort of information about water trading in relation to underground water resources in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges water catchment region. As you would be aware, minister, there are literally thousands upon thousands of individual rock aquifers that constitute the underground water resource in the Adelaide Hills. The water quality in those individual aquifers varies enormously, to the extent where you could put a bore down into an aquifer and get a very high standard of water that could actually be used in your home: to drink, to wash, to do your laundry and also, obviously, to irrigate.

Compare that with going a few kilometres in any direction of that particular aquifer, where you get beautiful, crystal clear high quality potable water, and putting a bore down and getting water saltier than if it were from the sea. You can take this on notice and comes back to me. How will you institute a water trading scheme in that environment? How can you trade water from one individual rock aquifer that is not connected to another aquifer, with far different resource capabilities in terms of providing water? How can you implement a trading scheme in that environment?

The underground water resource in the Hills is not like the Willunga Basin or in the South-East where you have a sedimentary basin. Basically, it is a big bath under the ground and it does not matter where you stick your pipe in, or where you stick your bore down, you are tapping into the same source. It is completely different in the Adelaide Hills, in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges water catchment region, so how on earth can you put in place a water trading scheme that is going to work? I do not know. We have asked questions at these meetings and the officers have difficulty in answering them.

I can understand how you can trade water if you know that you are in the same aquifer and it has the same capacity but it is a bit tricky working out exactly where you are. I can understand how you can implement a water trading scheme with above-ground water resources in terms of dams along a common watercourse. I can certainly understand how that works but I do not understand how you can implement a water trading scheme where you are dealing with thousands of different individual water resources, being the individual rock aquifers.

The other issue relates to metering of the water resources, and the leader has raised these issues before in the house. I will put this scenario: my understanding is that, if a farmer has a bore and a dam and he pumps water from his bore into his dam and then pumps water from that dam into another dam, he has to have a meter on those three water resources—a meter on the bore, on the first dam and the second dam. It is all the same water because these two dams, arguably, are not in a watercourse.

They are not collecting any run-off to any great extent—only, arguably, the rain that falls on the surface area of the dam. So, tell me, minister, why would a farmer have to have a meter on the bore and the first dam and the second dam? It uses all the same water because the water comes out from the underground aquifer into the first dam and is filled up and, when that gets full, it is pumped up to another dam. Why does the farmer has to have three meters on the one water resource? Tell me that. That has not been explained, either.

I have covered the most pertinent issues that I wanted to raise in the course of the debate and I am certainly happy for some comprehensive responses back from the minister on those issues.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (16:28): I thank honourable members for their contributions. I will start by reinforcing the point that this set of amendments to the Natural Resources Management Act is the result of a review of the operation of the act that was undertaken before the end of the 2006-07 financial year. That has already been mentioned but I think it is important to reinforce it. I do so in the context that to a very great extent we have had a variety of comments proffered about natural resource management that are, in a much broader sense, about natural resource management—if that makes sense—than the subject of the amendments that we are here to determine.

It was the subject of a report on the review of the Natural Resources Management Act. It was tabled in parliament; it made over 60 recommendations, which included a number of recommended legislative amendments; and, essentially, this bill seeks to clarify existing provisions, simplify administration, improve flexibility and address inconsistencies. Whilst I do thank the numerous members from the opposition who contributed, a lot of it had precious little to do with aspects of the bill that are before the house today. They were in a far broader sense.

Take, for example, the member for Kavel. We are not here today to determine or discuss (although he is entitled to debate any subject he wants) the water allocation plan that is being advanced and the subject of consultation and discussion with various communities—the fine communities—that make up the western Mount Lofty Ranges region. It has to a great extent little relevance to the bill that is before us here today.

What I intend to do, and I think the most sensible way of doing it, is what was foreshadowed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that is, to deal with those specific matters relating to the clauses that are being amended when we go into committee. However, there are a couple of points that I do wish to speak to now because I would prefer to avoid having to speak to things that are irrelevant to the bill when we get to the committee stage.

One of the issues raised was the consultation on the statutory review, that there had not been an appropriate level of consultation. Quite simply, I contend that is not the case. There was preliminary internal consultation with the NRM Council, the regional NRM boards and other agencies in mid-2006. This then formed the basis for public consultation and the review in early 2007.

As I mentioned earlier, on the issues identified in the review that were included in the report, comments were received from over 50 bodies, including relevant state agencies, key bodies and, of course, the local government sector, amongst others. That was then followed by targeted consultation that took place on the draft bill, including having the draft bill available on the department's website.

We received another 33 submissions containing 183 comments, and many of these comments, just like the contributions—without being disrespectful of the opposition—were outside the scope of the review, with many of them requiring further consideration, which will be addressed, as will the issues that the opposition has raised, in the further review of the NRM Act when it occurs.

I have made it clear to the opposition and I have briefed them. In fact, as I understand it, a briefing on the bill was provided to the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Michelle Lensink from another place on or around 7 December. I do not have that here in front of me, but I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will correct me if I am wrong. We have had significant consultation on this draft bill, so it is not legitimate to claim that the community did not have an opportunity to provide input into the statutory review of the NRM.

I guess the other point that I want to make in closing this, so that we do not have to do it again in the committee stage, is about the power of authorised officers under the NRM Act. One of the subjects is part of that, and we will discuss that. In comparison, authorised officers' powers under the NRM Act are very similar to a variety of other acts. Quite simply, those responsibilities are to be discharged not only effectively but appropriate with the act. There is a lot of assertion—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I think that I remained very silent during your very ordinary contribution, and I respectfully request that you not interject whilst I am summing up.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe the minister directly reflected on the member for Hammond, and I ask him to withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would that be the comment 'ordinary'?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And do you think he finds the word—

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, 'the very ordinary contribution'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, let's not repeat it because that makes it worse.

Mr PENGILLY: I ask the minister to withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, would you like to withdraw that scathing comment?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I don't really want to, but if he is offended by it—I notice that he did not get up to move it, but the other member did—I apologise and withdraw if that is what the member for Finniss believes is necessary as a result of what I said.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's very good of you. Thank you, minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Getting back to the point, we talk about the powers of authorised officers. A lot of assertions are being made. I did ask the member for Kavel, who raised a certain issue whether he ever bothered to tell me, whether he ever bothered to raise it with anyone. No, he did not. That is the same with other assertions that are being made.

The point I would make is that the powers of NRM officers are not any more extended than those that apply to fisheries officers, EPA officers or occupational health and safety officers. Comments were made about armed police. The last time I remember, although I might be wrong, police are armed. If they are going to attend a situation, they are armed. Is the member proposing that we disarm our police?

In relation to two issues that have been raised by the member for Hammond, I would say this. I raised one issue with the South Australian Farmers Federation when I had them meet with me last week because I thought, 'This is an issue that has been bubbling along.' It is a reputable organisation that represents a host of farmers—very good farmers across SA—and I asked, 'Can you give me examples of when your organisation has been informed by your membership that NRM officers have acted inappropriately?' And we had the NRM representative, if you like, of SAFF at that meeting. They said, 'No, we had one,' and I will not name this particular person, 'who had a little bit of trouble with interpersonal skills.' It was not that she was using her powers—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: And I will get to that. It was not that she was using her powers inappropriately. To SAFF's credit, it was raised through the proper process and they have helped this person improve her interpersonal skills, and there is not a problem with that. We want our officers to act appropriately at all times.

I will make this point about the example that has been used of Mr Fischer. The member for Hammond raised the issue that in 2006 he was found guilty of thieving water. He is a water thief and was, in fact, fined a significant amount of money, which is quite appropriate, for the theft of water. What the member wants, then, is our officers to not have the powers to catch and deal with water thieves. Is that what he is saying, because that is the indication I am getting? The other thing is—

Mr PEDERICK: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to clarify what I said.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will listen to his point of order first.

Mr PEDERICK: My point of order is that in my contribution I asked the minister to check whether the former minister's reply in 2006 is correct, that is, that the officers entered the property in the appropriate way and showed their identification. That is all I asked.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have consulted with the clerks and there is no point of order, member for Hammond. Minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Quite simply, the issues that have been raised and advanced by the member for Hammond on behalf of his constituent are matters that were not raised by his constituent at the time of the matter being before the courts. The man was found guilty of stealing water, which shows to me that our officers are acting appropriately. What manner of action does the member want from our officers when situations like this arise? If you had your way, we could do away with all the powers, they would knock on the door and say, 'Excuse me, are you stealing water?' Give me an example—

Mr Pederick: No, that's not what I said. I asked: did they act appropriately?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, they did act appropriately in this instance, and the proper result was achieved. He was found guilty of stealing water. The Parker matter is something that I am not as familiar with but, certainly, in the discharge of other areas of responsibility it is not unusual for fisheries inspectors, for example, to have police attend with them—

Mr Pederick: So the means justifies the end. If the storm troopers come in, that's it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Hammond. If you have a point to make you may make a point.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —at certain investigations. My understanding is this, and there are still some matters that are being dealt with. Quite simply, the attendance of police under those circumstances was on the basis that the person whose premises it was was a person of interest to the police because of previous circumstances. That is my understanding of it. It is not unusual for police to attend under those particular circumstances.

Quite frankly, I think it is time for us to get a bit of rationality into this argument. We have the ability—and we need the ability—to be able to manage our natural resources in an appropriate way, and part of that is the enforcement and compliance of those people who breach, if you like, the provisions of how we manage that.

A couple of issues have been raised. To me they do not have a great deal of substance. Again, I call on the opposition to provide me with examples—because I am a hands-on minister—where I can be far more involved, if you like, in the process of clarifying these matters with not only my department but also with NRM officers.

Again, I do thank the opposition members for their contributions. I would remind members that the amendments here are not about water allocation plans and they are not about the alleged actions of authorised officers. Other issues I am quite pleased to discuss, but I think that our time could be best spent in dealing with the amendments that are proposed, the amendments that are as a result of the review which occurred sometime ago and which have taken a long time to get here and which, in turn, are about tightening up and making more efficient the act under which we operate, that being the Natural Resources Management Act 2004.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, I have a number of questions on this clause in relation to the changes of definitions. 'Designated draining infrastructure', I presume, principally refers to the South-East drains, both the Lower South-East and the Upper South-East. What is the intent of prescribing or bringing the drainage infrastructure into the act, and I guess prescribing the waters within those drains?

Also, is it the intent of the government to then allocate that water, because, as the local member for the whole of the area where the drains are in the South-East, I am of the opinion that we have some pressures on water allocations in the South-East, and that it would be premature to allocate any new water resource or newly-proclaimed water resource in the region before we have finalised the local debate and come to a landing on those other pressures on various parts of the water resource in the region?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question, and to a very great extent he has answered it himself. The amendment defines the term 'designated draining infrastructure'. It is used throughout the act. In particular, section 127 allows prescription of water resources in drainage infrastructure in the South-East in the state thereby allowing what is the management of water taken from that resource.

I recall in one of my many visits to the South-East discussing amongst other things the drainage system down there. Historically, it was to get water away from the land to make it useable, arable land or fit for primary industry production of one form or another. Of course, as we go through processes that we have, and through the unprecedented drought that we experienced in the South-East as we did everywhere else, there is now a different perception about this water. If it is able to be used in the future, in the first instance it needs to be ascribed as a resource and then subsequently be able to be used.

Now, no determinations have been made at this point in time about that specific matter, but it allows the provision for that. As I understand it, that is something that has been requested by a significant number of people in the South-East. Here is a resource that, historically, it was all right to let go out to sea, but why don't we look at ways in which that water could be more effectively used—part of it environmental, part of it for furthering, if you like, or supplementing, adding to and increasing the level of the resource in the region? So, that is the thrust behind it, Mitch.

Mr WILLIAMS: Just on that, before I ask the next question, the minister erroneously claimed that the drainage infrastructure in the South-East is totally there for agricultural purposes. I will make this comment because I know that the minister has another draft bill out for public consultation about changing the way we manage the drains in the South-East.

The drains in the South-East were first created as a move to stop the South-East from seeking to secede from South Australia. It was about transport: it was not about agriculture. The minister might reflect on this and take some advice on it about the difference between public good and private good, because there will be a debate on that as he brings that other matter forward. So, I respectfully advise the minister that there is some homework for him to do there. He might certainly reflect on the work George Goyder did in that matter.

This brings me to clause 4, subclause (5)—the changes to the definition of intensive farming. Now, the clause deletes the existing definition and replaces it. The first part, paragraph (a), of the new definition is very similar to the existing definition. The definition hinges, in my opinion, on the word 'usually'. It is about where 'animals are usually confined to a small space', because it has become, in recent years, common farming practice—particularly in the times of drought, but sometimes just as a part of normal practice—to confine animals on a farm to a very small part of the farm if supplementary feeding is being used. It is not intensive farming in the sense that you are running a feedlot, you run your normal herd in a feedlot type situation for a short period, maybe four to six weeks, particularly if there is a late break in the season.

So, I think the legislation needs to be cognisant of that quite modern farming practice. It has only been utilised probably in the last 10 or 15 years in the South-East; it has probably been used for longer in other parts of the state, particularly in those cropping areas. I also acknowledge that the number of livestock in those areas is considerably less today than what it has been historically.

The part that does, I guess, excite my curiosity, for want of a better way of putting it, is the new paragraph (b), which says, 'any other form of farming designated as intensive farming by an NRM plan'. So, we have an act with a clause which gives a definition to terms used in the act, yet we are going to then have the NRM plan itself develop new definitions. I cannot for the life of me understand the necessity for that particular clause and what sort of definitions, or what other forms of farming, might be contemplated by an NRM plan.

The next part—the last part of the proposed new clause, starting after paragraph (b), where it says, 'but does not include' and goes on—runs completely counter to paragraph (b). So, you have got the positive and negative expressing the same thing in two different ways, to my reading, and I am wondering why that is.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the member for his question and I also acknowledge that the information that I received whilst I was with him in the South-East might not have been as accurate as what I had been told. I acknowledge that and will certainly be more careful when referring to the drainage system and its relationship with productivity of land, which happens to be a consequence of, if you like, another matter as to what was determining it. I thank the honourable member for helping me with my education in these matters.

The current definition of 'intensive farming' through this process and through the review was determined to be inadequate and difficult to apply in the many and varied situations within the NRM regions. It is, as was mentioned, common practice for stock that are normally free range, for want of a better term, to occasionally be kept in a temporary feedlot for drought, finishing or quarantine requirements. This can vary from region to region and, currently, it is not clear whether that component of it constitutes intensive farming.

This amendment alters that definition of intensive farming to allow NRM plans to include or exclude various forms of farming and therefore further define what constitutes intensive farming in the particular NRM region. In such situations, the community have the opportunity to comment on any inclusions or exclusions through the consultation on the particular plan.

It is also important to remember, in the context of this clause, that it actually refers only to stock. You then need to refer to sections 101, 106 and 124 of the main act where intensive farming is referred to and that deal specifically with, and only with, stock. It is really about clarifying what the situation is. I think this is probably a very good amendment, because it will make things a lot clearer for all people in the administration of the act.

The CHAIR: Member for MacKillop, does that answer your questions?

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister has almost answered my question and the information he has put on the record is of use in my understanding of what is trying to be achieved here. He acknowledges the points that I was making with regard to modern farming practices and I was keen to get that on the record.

Minister, I refer to subclause (7), deleting the definition of 'residential premises'. I also find it curious why we would delete a definition of residential premises. I understand the current definition includes not just the physical house but also the curtilage. I suspect that the definition of curtilage in the act would include the house and the house yard. I think the dictionary definition of curtilage is basically a courtyard enclosed by a wall or other buildings, but I think in the context of the act it probably includes the house and the yard or the garden surrounding the house. I am wondering why it is deemed necessary to remove that definition from the act.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do thank the honourable member for his question. He is aware that the current definition of residential premises includes both a building occupied as a place of residence and the curtilage of such a building. It is fact that authorised officers cannot enter residential premises unless they are state authorised officers or have a warrant issued by a magistrate, and this requirement remains unchanged.

The inclusion of the term curtilage in the definition of residential premises under the act is actually causing confusion. I do not know your property, Mitch, but you probably have a driveway of a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand metres, tree-lined and looking very nice and stuff like that. You would say, 'Is that actually your property or your place of residence?', even though your house is about 300 or 400 metres down the track.

The term curtilage in the definition of residential premises under the act has caused and is causing confusion for both authorised officers and landowners alike as there is no standard legal definition for the term as it can vary from premise to premise and property to property. It was first proposed to remove the term curtilage from the definition of residential premises; however, it is proposed to remove the definition altogether and from here on rely on what is the common law interpretation of premises, and that seems to make a lot of sense.

This would, in turn, then conform with other legislation in the portfolio, such as the Animal Welfare Act 1985, the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995, the Environment Protection Act 1993, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and, indeed, the Native Vegetation Act 1991, where 'residential premises' is not defined and the common law definition of residential premises is used for the purposes of that legislation. In turn, that would provide not only a consistency but, through that consistency, we will then be able to avoid confusion for authorised officers, those people who occupy those residences, and officers occupying across multiple acts.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr WILLIAMS: The amendment proposes to delete section 11(4)(b) from the act. The effect of deleting this paragraph would be that the minister could then delegate powers under chapter 5. Paragraph (b) denies the minister delegating powers under chapter 5. I accept, minister, that delegating powers to officers within the agency makes life very easy for the minister, but it also dilutes the flow of accountability.

I think there are certain things for which the minister or the executive arm of government should be responsible and accountable. I would contend that a number of things, particularly within chapter 5, are those very types of things. Chapter 5 contains the financial provisions to which it refers. Some of the powers—section 92(3) allows the minister to determine that differentiating factors could be applied in determining the respective shares to be contributed by various constituent councils within an NRM region.

I am not too sure that the parliament should be happy that that sort of determination ought to be made by a bureaucrat. I think that sort of determination should, indeed, be the responsibility of the minister. Section 93(8) means that the minister has to notify the Local Government Association prior to making such regulations under this section, which is, again, something that I think should remain with the minister.

Section 95(3)(c) is where the minister may give dispensations from a council from section154(6) of the Local Government Act. That is where the council cannot declare a levy more than one month before the beginning of a financial year. Again, I am not too sure that there was an intent in the parliament—particularly when the Local Government Act went through the parliament—that that sort of power be held by a bureaucrat rather than the minister. I would make the same comments about section 95(9).

Section 97 gives the minister power to declare levies in unincorporated areas, including differential and minimum levies. Again, I think that power should be held and the accountability for those declarations should be a part of the function of the minister.

Section 101 refers to the declaration of water levies. Minister, these levies are, for want of a better word, taxes. I am not too sure that we should be delegating the power to impose taxes to bureaucrats. That is the role of policymakers—that is, the executive government, the minister. That is where the accountability should lie and that is where the decision should lie. It is the same for special purpose levies in section 103. Section 106 gives the minister the power to determine how much water has been taken in an instance where there is no meter. Again, I think that should be a determination made by the minister.

Section 113 gives the minister the power to sell land to recover unpaid levies and, again, I think that should remain a function of the minister and not be delegated to some underling within the department. More importantly, I think section 115 gives the minister the power to declare the penalty to apply for various transgressions of the act. I would be very deeply disturbed to find that power being delegated to some underling, goodness knows how far down the pecking order, within the agency. My question is: on what basis would the minister have the parliament delete this particular section and allow him to delegate those powers that I have put on the record? There are other powers (which I do not have quite as many problems with) within chapter 5 which might be of concern for other members.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question about these particular areas. In the first instance, we already have a significant amount of delegation across the NRM Act anyway but not all those responsibilities within those delegations are delegated. Really, it is a matter of who we delegate to and what powers that person will be responsible for through that delegation. That is yet to be determined. The power to delegate certain functions already exists but currently we cannot delegate any of my functions and powers under chapter 5. Even in other areas where we do delegate it is not carte blanche for that person to go out and make a decision, if you like, unilaterally without having some type of feedback to the minister about what is going on. The parameters of the delegation are very important, as well, in relation to it. That is done through policy setting and a clear understanding of the person who has the delegated responsibilities.

I know that in a time, far, far away, when you will be a minister, from time to time you will be very thankful for certain delegations that you, as the minister, have. There is a degree of minutiae (and I am not suggesting this it is not important) involved with some of those delegations and they cannot necessarily be handled by the minister on a daily or hourly basis. Really, it is still a matter of who and what and the parameters of the delegations.

This chapter, as mentioned by the deputy leader, relates to financial provisions and includes provisions on the statutory funds—the Natural Resources Management Fund, the separate account kept at Treasury, and the regional NRM boards. This has caused difficulties in the practical use of the NRM Fund because it has had to come back to the minister because it could not be delegated.

I like to be busy, and I can sincerely say that I am gainfully employed, but there are other things that can be administered and done by the department and agencies and I feel very comfortable with that particular aspect of delegation. It is quite inefficient for me to be personally required to administer the Natural Resources Management Fund—for example, the refund of levies and single-farm enterprises for levy collection purposes and, of course, other financial aspects of the administration of the NRM Act. I consider it appropriate, for relevant functions and powers contained in chapter 5 of the NRM Act, to be delegated to appropriate departmental officers. It will achieve, I believe, a more efficient administration of the act.

Again, I reinforce the point made earlier that we have a variety of delegations across the act and not all of them are utilised in all aspects of those areas in which delegations are made. It is about who is provided that delegation and also what powers that person will have. This is just providing the provision for that section of the act (should I so determine) to be delegated in certain aspects or sections.

Mr WILLIAMS: I accept your point, minister, and I did say that there are other matters there that did not concern me if they were delegated. However, I have highlighted a number of matters with which I would have a problem. What you are asking the parliament to do is give you a blank slate, and you are saying, 'Trust me.' I think you acknowledge that there are some things that not even you would delegate. I am sure, minister, you have heard this, and if you had spent a little bit of time in opposition you would have said it a number of times.

The Hon. P. Caica: I had a day in opposition.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes; if you had a little bit more time I am sure you would have said it. The comment I make, and it has been made many times in this place, is that, notwithstanding that we might trust you as the minister and the way you administer this act, once we sign away this provision any minister in the future, and that could be anybody—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: And we have just seen some pretty amazing changes—it could be anybody. I do not think that the parliament should at any time give away those sorts of powers for some unknown minister in the future to administer.

Minister, I recall that one of your colleagues made a comment not long after coming to government back in 2002. With quite a surprise your colleague made a comment—I will paraphrase it—and it went something along the lines of this, 'I've just discovered that you Liberals and we in the Labor Party have a common enemy. It is called the bureaucracy. We have issues with things that happen in the bureaucracy that we can't control just the same as you did.' This is what I think the parliament needs to guard against.

I am not saying that the bureaucracy is doing things in an evil manner; I am saying that when we pass on powers to the bureaucracy it is very rare that we will ever get them back. It is very rare that they will come back to be a power exercised by the executive. The parliament, I think, has failed itself over the years by giving too many powers to the executive, and I think it has failed itself even further by allowing the executive to give too many powers to the bureaucracy.

If you made the case that there are certain issues within chapter 5 that you think should be delegated, and you brought an amendment to the house to seek the authority to delegate those particular matters, which you refer to as the minutiae of the administration, I am sure parliament would take a different view. Can I suggest to you that, in this form, I suspect the opposition will seek to reject this particular amendment in the other place.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his very considered view on this particular matter. I remind the committee that it is inefficient for me to administer certain aspects of the Natural Resources Management fund, for example, a fund for levies. There is scope within chapter 5 to delegate.

We know we are going to win the amendment here in this house. I will give an undertaking to listen to the debate in the other place. I acknowledge that not all of it is minutiae. I did not mean to say that we are only delegating responsibilities that were of a very minor nature, because we will still have the ability within this to delegate within the parameters, or we can even put conditions on the form of delegation. We delegate certain aspects of that responsibility and hold back the responsibility for other aspects as well.

The undertaking I will give is to listen very carefully to what is said in the other place and see how it goes up there. If there needs to be further discussion as a result of what occurs up there, and the fact that it will come back to me, I am willing to do that. However, from my perspective I am very comfortable with this, and I have more faith that, in a time far, far away, when you will be the minister, you will be able to handle in an appropriate way the delegations that others have provided and you yourself will provide to people in the bureaucracy.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr WILLIAMS: For expediency we might as well handle clause 7 and clause 11 together, because they basically do the same thing. Clause 7 is about the NRM Council, and clause 11 is about NRM boards. Both clauses seek to extend the term in the respective areas of the NRM management of board members from three years to four years. Listening to my colleagues speaking, I think more than one of them raised the issue that we are getting to the point where seemingly it is becoming difficult to actually get people to fill these positions. I am not too sure whether that is the case with the council, but certainly with the boards I suspect that that might be the case, and I am wondering whether part of the reason for extending the term by another year is that it will make it easier to say to people, 'Look, we'll extend and you'll get four years, and we will give you a second term and you will do eight years,' as a way of trying to get fewer people to fill the positions, for a longer time, because a lessening interest has been shown in serving on these boards.

To my mind, extending the time of service on the boards to four years, and, with a second term, out to eight years, I think is working against what we are trying to achieve with natural resource management. I do not see the service on the board, particularly at the local level, as a career. I see it as something where somebody can contribute, and contribute fully, and if they can do that in a short term I think they will be more active in their contribution and make a better contribution, rather than being expected to hang around for an extended period. So, I would like to hear the minister's rationale for this particular move, and the opposition, when coming to a final decision on this particular clause, I guess will take on board the comments that the minister makes.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the member for his question here. He is right to acknowledge that the amendment will change the term of members of the NRM Council from up to three years to four years, and that, in turn, builds the capacity to allow members, should they so choose, to serve a maximum of eight years rather than six. The thrust behind it is actually to build some capacity and, in turn, reduce administrative costs. However, it is not so much about the administrative costs but more importantly the ability to build capacity.

You would know that in this job I am taking an abiding interest in all aspects of NRM, and certainly I had that interest well before I became the environment minister, in my role as the agriculture minister. That is why we are progressing what is the next logical phase of NRM reform, and that is to integrate natural resource management across the entire community, and indeed government as well.

But what came to my attention as much as anything else is that people did not necessarily want to serve six years. There were those who did, but, with others, by the time they finally got their teeth into what they were doing the three-year term was up and then they had to make a commitment as to whether or not they would do another full three years. There are those who will do that, and there will be those who do eight years.

In fact, what we found is that—and I think it was one of the flaws in the first piece of legislation, without being disrespectful—we had the three-year term but we did not stagger the appointments, and we now have a great number of people leaving NRM. We need to make sure that we have continuity of experience while still refreshing the NRM boards.

So, it is certainly not about, as might have been suggested, proposing this amendment in such a way that we actually reduce the number of people who might want to apply for these jobs. Far from that, and quite to the contrary, it is about working with the local communities, and I look forward to working with local members, and I have asked local members in some regions. We want quality people who are not only fine, outstanding representatives of the community but who can bring a level of expertise to these NRM boards that have an extremely important role within our communities.

So what I found in discussions is that it has been considered that the three-year terms for NRM Council members are too short. The membership does entail a bit of a steep learning curve—a bit steeper for some than others—and new members tend to reach their highest level of effectiveness after a period of time. As I mentioned, they might want to do the next three years but they may want to ensure that they complete their first term and achieve some work at the end of the fourth. So, it allows that flexibility.

The other thing that we want to do, and this change is very important, is avoid the circumstance where we now find ourselves in where there is almost a wholesale departure of very talented people from the NRM boards. This change will also facilitate a two-year staggered membership for half the members.

Mr Venning: Why is that, Paul? Why are they leaving suddenly?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Because the legislation that you passed back in 2004 allowed only for a maximum of two three-year terms to be served. So they have served their time.

Mr VENNING: You're in government, not us.

The Hon. P. CAICA: But these, as I understand it, were again—and I knew you were going to check on it—amongst the—

Mr Venning: I am asking the question genuinely. I really am.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, I know you are, because you are a very genuine person. My understanding is that they were the Venning amendments, three versus four. Notwithstanding that, I think that we have had time to reflect on what was a very large piece of legislation. The debate went for some 50 or 80 hours, or something like that, and I can remember on occasions going home when you could hear the birds singing in the morning after very long nights here.

An honourable member: You took the long way home.

Mr VENNING: No, I didn't. Anyway, we think this is appropriate. Not only do I think it is appropriate, but the people who have already served on the NRM boards and are now leaving think this would be a far more satisfactory situation than the two three-year terms. We are having people leave at the moment, and the member has probably been contacted by some people within his region who would have liked to have continued but, because of the provisions in the act, they cannot. We want to make sure that we not only create an environment that attracts people to put their hand up for NRM responsibilities but we also give them enough time during their tenure to do the work that they are committed to doing.

Mr Venning: So, it is four years and no right of renewal?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, it will be two four-years. When you retire, Ivan, and you want to serve on the NRM board, which I hope you will consider, if you do two four-year terms, a bit like the presidency of the United States, you cannot do another term.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr WILLIAMS: I strongly suspect that when the opposition formalises its position on the individual clauses it will reject this clause. The reporting date in the current act is 31 October and the amendment seeks to push that out to 30 November. I mentioned in my second reading contribution that it will mean, effectively, that the tabling of the annual reports under this legislation will not happen in this house, or the other place, until the New Year.

In the last couple of years this parliament has not sat in December and, in any case, if we sat for one week in December the minister would not be obliged to table the annual reports at that point. So, again, I question why parliament would seek to lessen accountability by allowing there to be no scrutiny of the annual report until at least February following the 30 June reporting date. I really think that this is pushing it, minister. I am not quite sure who we are trying to satisfy and to whom we are trying to give an extra 30 days to meet their obligations to get the annual report in order and presented to the minister.

I would have thought that, if an organisation—whether it be the NRM Council or an NRM board—cannot fulfil its obligations to complete its report to 30 June by the end of October, there is something wrong with the organisation, and the question should be: what can we do to fix that problem rather than give it another 30 days to fulfil its obligations?

In fact, I would have thought that most bodies should be able to report. A number of agencies are obliged by statute to report by the end of September, and I would have thought that that should give enough time in any case, but in this case we are wanting to extend from October to November. What is the explanation for that?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the deputy leader for his question. To put it in the simplest terms, the reports must be audited by the Auditor-General, and, without being disrespectful to the prioritisation of the Auditor-General, quite often some of those auditing priorities are associated with some of the larger agencies, corporations and authorities within government than the natural resource management boards.

Really, as much as anything else, this is about taking into account that historically we have had to table them very, very late. In fact, they have been late being tabled because of the delay in getting them audited. They have to be audited, then they come to me and then they have to be tabled. This is allowing, I guess, an acceptance of the reality of the situation in regard to the requirement to get them audited via the Auditor-General and what have been the delays over a period of time in actually tabling them in the parliament.

It is not through any grand design to try to circumvent any process of tabling. It is about being accepting of the fact that historically it has been delayed, and delayed for a variety of reasons that are outside the control of the NRM boards, and, indeed, to a very great extent out of the control of the minister of the day.

Mr WILLIAMS: I hear what you say, minister, and I accept what you have put to the committee, but what I do not accept is that, as a parliament, we are going to put up with having a reporting date of 30 June but not get the report tabled in this parliament until February. I think that there is a serious problem there.

I can think of a number of remedies to that problem—maybe, minister, if you changed the reporting date under the act of the various bodies within this act. I see at least two remedies: one is to ensure that the Auditor-General's office is resourced such that it can work in a timely fashion on all its responsibilities, that is, audit all the bodies that are within its functionality within a time frame which brings a high level of accountability to the parliament; or has there been any consideration to changing the reporting date of these NRM bodies—maybe make their annual report as of the end of the calendar year and change their reporting date to, say, the end of March?

The point I want to make is that I think the ultimate scrutiny of these organisations is by this parliament, and I do not think that we can do that effectively when we are looking basically at historic figures, the historic reporting, which is what it becomes when we do not get the annual report tabled in the parliament for more than six months after the close-off date of the reporting period, and I think that is a problem.

I think that the parliament would be more than willing to look at changing the reporting date to accommodate the Auditor-General. I fully appreciate the issues with the Auditor-General. He is busy. He is like any accountant—he becomes extremely busy at one period of the year and possibly nowhere near as busy in another period of the year. We might be able to accommodate and help the Auditor-General out as well.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Again, I thank the deputy leader. I guess I would reinforce his point, and again, I know that, just as is the case with the deputy leader, none of this is reflecting at all on the workload and the ability of the Auditor-General—we have both made that clear.

The annual reports of the regional NRM boards need to include the activities of the NRM groups as well, which adds more complexity to it. I am happy to look at ways by which we can ensure that there is a better relationship, if you like, between the end of the reporting period and the time in which the report comes to parliament. I am happy to work on that.

This amendment, as I said earlier, was allowing for the situation as it exists. Are we accepting, and should we be accepting, of the situation as it exists? I am happy to look at those, Mitch. We also know too, that there is a part of this section you have raised which allows the annual reports of the NRM councils to be tabled separately as well so that they do not all have to come at the same time.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, that's right; but I wanted to reinforce that particular point as well. I am happy to look at other aspects as we continue. As I said, the next logical step of NRM reform is being undertaken now, as we speak, and we are going to be coming back on NRM issues. Other matters, that we would say are the nuts and bolts issues that are the subject of this series of amendments, will not be excluded from being reviewed as part of future legislative changes, but I am also happy to have a look at it between now and the time it comes back from the other place, if indeed it comes back.

Mr PEGLER: Can I just have some clarification here? If they took the date those reports have to come to you back to 30 October, you would still have 12 sitting days before they were presented to both houses of parliament, so it would not happen until at least February anyway.

Ms Chapman: It would if they sat in December.

Mr PEGLER: Yes, but there have never been 12 sitting days between 1 November and 25 December, have there?

Ms Chapman: Yes, there have been.

Mr PEGLER: I am asking the minister what would happen in reality.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member but, in essence, a part of this relates to the NRM Council. I am advised, with respect to this particular aspect, that what we are changing here is the date by which the annual reports need to be tabled or received by the NRM Council. The date that I receive them through this process has not been altered or rectified.

Mr PEGLER: So what is the policy of the days between when you receive it and—

The Hon. P. CAICA: I apologise if I have confused you. It will still be 12 sitting days from the time that I receive it, but this component that we were talking about there, and the date that we are changing, is the date at which the NRM Council receives the reports. The date that I receive it is still the same. My requirement, if you like, on receiving that is still the same as you have identified.

The CHAIR: Does that answer your question, member for Mount Gambier?

Mr PEGLER: As clear as mud!

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister has now confused me in that answer. It says in section 38, yes, 'By 31 October provide to the NRM Council a report.' Now the amendment, which will be the new section 38, provides, 'The regional NRM board must, on or before 30 November in every year, provide to the minister a report.'

The Hon. P. CAICA: I may have contributed to this particular confusion, but we have changed the process. What will happen is that the reports will come directly to me.

Mr WILLIAMS: Directly to you.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, as I think you assumed.

Mr WILLIAMS: We may have stumbled across something that is already occurring, but in any case I still repeat the point that I think that the parliament should insist that it receives annual reports a little earlier than more than six months after the end of the reporting period. If we are going to accept that sort of delay before annual reports are tabled in the parliament, it means that we are going to accept that we are always working on historic reports rather than contemporary reports, in the sense that, if there is something that a member has issue with in the report, often it will be too late to actually address it. Too much time will have transpired for a serious level of accountability to be achieved through that length of delay between the end of the reporting period and the time when the parliament receives the report. That is something that I think should be seriously looked at.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I think I answered the question earlier about severing that and it will come straight to me. Notwithstanding that, you have reinforced the point you made earlier about the reporting time frames and I said I am happy to revisit those, and that would include discussion with yourself, amongst others.

Clause passed.

Clauses 13 and 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr WILLIAMS: This particular amendment just inserts the words 'or any other' to section 65 subsection (1) of the principal act, which provides:

The Chief Officer may delegate to a body or person (including a person for the time being holding or acting in a specified office or position) a function or power of the Chief Officer under this Act.

This amendment proposes to add the words 'or any other' after that. Does that mean that, via this instrument, we would give the power of the chief officer administering this act the power to delegate any function or authority that that chief officer had under any other act within that chief officer's purview?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Section 65 of the NRM Act enables the chief officer to delegate a power or function 'under this act', and he can only delegate the powers he has got; he cannot delegate powers he has not got, so it needs to be in the context of this particular act. However, the chief officer is empowered under the Controlled Substances (Poisons) Regulations 1996 to approve supplies of bait and impose conditions on the granting of approval to acquire and possess baits.

This amendment is necessary to expand the chief officer's power of delegation to a function or power conferred on the chief officer under those other acts. So, he is responsible for the example I gave there, and this is about facilitating that particular provision for him to be able to delegate that responsibility.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you for the explanation. On the surface, it probably makes sense. You have no doubt consulted with your colleagues and other agencies under which those acts, or the administration of those acts, rightfully fall. Certainly, from the opposition's perspective, I am sure that we will do the same and consult with shadows in those other areas of responsibility. I cannot really comment, other than I find it a strange way to legislate. Rather, a statutes amendment bill would put those powers in those specific acts.

I am not a lawyer and I am obviously not a parliamentary draftsperson, but it seems odd to me—and I am not sure that I have ever come across it before—that we give a power to an officer to delegate an authority which is derived in another act. I will take advice on that. Having made that comment, Madam Chair, we can move on to the next clause.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Just before we do, I would like to respond to that. We, as a government, determine what it is that we want to change through legislation and then we take the advice of the very expert parliamentary counsel that exists in this state. They provided us with this provision, which is the best mechanism by which it can be done.

I reinforce the point that was made by the member for MacKillop, the deputy leader, in relation to dialogue with my colleagues. It is ongoing. Of course, he would be very aware of the circumstances that prevailed with respect to the mice in most recent times. We look at ways by which we can manage those things most effectively, given that some of the responsibilities cross over. You understand that.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr WILLIAMS: I can quite confidently say that the opposition will seriously consider this clause and, I suspect, might oppose it. I bring the minister's attention back to comments that my colleagues and I made during the second reading contribution. I think there is a feeling—certainly on this side of the house—that, in administering the act at the grassroots level out in the field, members of the opposition, through contact with constituents, are of the belief that there is a degree of over-zealousness in the way that some of this environmental law is managed. It is not just this act.

The Native Vegetation Act has been mentioned, as have the various drainage acts which relate to my part of the state, as well as a couple of other pieces of environmental legislation. We believe that the heavy hand of the authority seems to be much heavier than it is in other areas of the administration of the law within this state. I am fairly confident that the minister is going to argue that the changes proposed to section 72 only reflect similar wording in other pieces of legislation.

That may well be the case. I do not think that excuses us for taking this giant step. In my understanding of the law (and, again, I profess that I am only an amateur when it comes to my understanding of the law) there is a common law principle that you have the right to remain silent. This right certainly would be taken away in this circumstance.

One of the curious things that I noted when I was reading through some of the briefing notes, which I suspect were supplied either from the minister's office or from the agency, suggested that this applied to bodies corporate. My reading of it is that it certainly applies to individuals as well as to bodies corporate. I cannot explain why I got that impression from the briefing notes but my reading of it is that this applies to individuals. I have grave and serious concerns about it, particularly in light of the experiences that I have had vicariously through my constituents—and those experiences seem to be very similar to experiences had by a number of my colleagues.

I would like the minister's explanation as to why he wants the parliament to accept this amendment. He asked us for some examples with regard to the implementation of environmental law and why we felt the way we did about the actions of officers. He might give some examples as to why he needs this particular change to be able to administer this act in a practical sense at the coalface.

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert, are you working on the same question?

Mr VENNING: I support my colleague, so the minister might like to answer them both at the same time. This one seems very strange to me. The member for MacKillop asked why one would want this power because I think it is quite Draconian to force a person to talk. We have always had the right to remain quiet. Minister, you must have some examples, particularly as you have an experienced officer with you today. You might like to give us some instances of where the act is advantaged by having this clause in it, particularly when you read down at the bottom in section 16(72) where it says it is not admissible in evidence against a person in proceedings. In other words, you cannot use this in the proceedings against a person. Why then would you want this power? I cannot work it out. If you look down the bottom it says you cannot use the evidence, so why do you want it?

The Hon. P. CAICA: The clause proposes to amend the law relating to self-incrimination under the NRM Act. Currently, section 72 of the act provides that a person is not obliged to answer a question or produce a document or record if, to do so, might incriminate the person or make the person liable for a penalty. The amendment specifies that it is not an excuse for a person to refuse or fail to answer a question or to produce or provide a copy of a document or information on the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty.

However—and it was identified—the amendment also provides that any material supplied in these circumstances cannot be used to prosecute that natural person, other than in respect of making a false or, indeed, a misleading statement or declaration. This amendment is as a result of a recent High Court decision which determined that the privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to a corporation. The High Court determined that the rationale for the availability of the privilege against self-incrimination to natural persons, both historical and modern, does not support the extension of the privilege to artificial legal entities such as corporations. I do not know the circumstances, Ivan, with respect to how your massive portfolio and property are structured, but it might well be likely that it is—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I'll finish. The privilege in its modern form is the nature of a human right designed to protect individuals from oppressive methods of obtaining evidence of their guilt for use against them. The proposed reform provides for the disclosure of information relating to the environmental harm, while providing that the information disclosed is not admissible in evidence against the natural person. It seeks to strike a balance between the need to protect the environment without abrogating the rights of the individual. That is the point I want to make. Given the assertions that have been made by certain members of the opposition today, I am very confident that this will be a provision that will not be used often—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No. Let me make this point, and it was the last point I just talked about. If environmental harm is being caused it is the responsibility of the officers and the department to militate against and stop that environmental harm as quickly as we possibly can. Therefore, by asking questions we get the information to remedy, in a more timely fashion, that circumstance that otherwise would be the case. The thrust behind this is to make sure, unless it is false or misleading, that the information that is given allows further action to be then be activated in such a way that we militate against or minimise the environmental harm that is being caused at that particular time. That is the genesis of it and the thrust behind it.

Mr WILLIAMS: You just made a compelling case for the use of torture, minister. The sooner you get information the sooner you can act on it and stop the harm. That is what you said, minister. Notwithstanding what you did say to the committee, Clause 72(2)(a) provides that in the case of a person who is required to produce or provide a copy of a document or information, the fact of production or provision of a copy of the document or the information (as distinct from the contents of the document or the information) is not admissible. So, the fact of the production is not admissible, but the bit in the brackets—as distinct from the contents—the contents of the document or the information is admissible, on my reading of that.

I still have very grave concern. I accept that the sooner you can get the information the sooner you can react to it; but, I do not accept torture, irrespective of the benefits that might provide. I do not accept that we should have environmental officers knocking on people's doors and telling them that they have no right to remain silent, that they have to produce the information, being backed up by armed police officers, and these people have the living daylights scared out of them, they really do.

You asked for some cases. I had a distraught constituent ring me a few years ago, who experienced this type of behaviour by an environmental officer who entered her and her husband's home and put a recorder on the table and basically said to this couple that they had to answer questions; they refused to. The husband was recently recovering from a stroke.

The environmental officers then said that they would come back at a different time. The wife said to them, 'Well, don't come on Tuesday, because on Tuesdays I actually work in the local town. I have employment commitments, and because my husband is still recovering from a stroke I don't want him to be put under this pressure without me being here.' I will not say it was the following Tuesday, but very soon after that on a Tuesday these people arrived at this family's home, knowing that the wife was not there, pulled out their tape recorder and started to question the husband. I got involved in that with one of your predecessors and eventually we got the matter resolved. If these things were not happening, we may not have the reservations that we do about the sort of proposals that you have brought to us.

I have very severe concerns about an environmental officer from one of your whole suite of agencies having the power to walk onto a property and tell the owner/operator of the property that they have no right to remain silent, that they have to answer a question. I think it is fundamental that what they should be saying to the people they want to interview is that they do have some rights. I think they should be told that they have the right to remain silent. I think they should be told that they have the right to consult a lawyer before they answer any questions.

If you and your government do not think that is the sort of society that we should be living in, I feel sorry for you because I think most of the people out there in voter land do expect that that is the sort of society that we have in South Australia.

Mr VENNING: I want to support the shadow minister in relation to this. I want to go through a scenario with the minister because I find this rather impossible. I cannot believe we are considering legislation like this.

Take a scenario. We are back on the farm and working away quietly, doing what a farmer does, and all of a sudden an officious car pulls up, two officials get out and they say, 'Mr Venning, we are here on natural resource management business; in fact, about the accusation of you abusing your water licence'—and/or whatever—'and you have to answer these questions and we want the documentation and we have the right of entry.'

Hang on. I am standing there thinking, 'I need some advice. You have given me 2½ seconds to think about this. I am not saying anything. I need my lawyer present.' You say, 'No, you've got to answer this now.' Surely everybody has the right to say, 'Let me at least ring my lawyer and see where I am with this.' It would be nice to say, 'Look, come back in 24 hours and I will have my lawyer present and we can address this,' but you are saying, 'No, you have to answer these questions instantly and we have right of entry at the same time.'

I cannot believe it, and you still have not actually told us. I understand you need to have powers to address the people who do not do the right thing—and there are people who do that, we know that—but I think this is going far too far.

Mr PEDERICK: I, too, want to speak against this amendment. I think it is draconian and I think it exemplifies the jackboot brigade that this government oversees. There is enough trouble happening out there now on the land with people turning up and over-exerting their powers, and under this power they will basically be able to turn up and, as the member for Schubert and the member for MacKillop have rightly said, just demand information. It is outrageous in this day and age.

This is the sort of stuff that happened in Nazi Germany in the forties. This is absolutely outrageous. People have the right to remain silent. They have the right to remain silent. I know the minister did not like my speech before when I talked about examples of people who have had heavy-handed tactics—a good, hardworking taxpayer of this state who can't get a mortgage over his farm and can't upgrade his harvesting equipment to keep his business going because he has a work order over his property. This is totally outrageous and the minister wants to preside over a bill that gives more powers to officers who are out of control, and he needs to remedy it.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Again, I reinforce the point that I am not quite sure of the quality of the contribution that was made, and that is not a reflection. I tell you what I was impressed by, though: the quality of the person who was your candidate at preselection who I met through the Farmers Federation—Paul. A very nice man. I think that he would have made a very fine member for Hammond. That is not reflecting on the current member, just saying that there are some quality people out there. Of course, I understand what it is like to be factionally aligned and how—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, you get back to the point too when we are talking about this.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Gee, you are a nasty big person. Madam Chair—

The CHAIR: Order! I do not think we need that kind of reflection and, frankly, looking at the other side, I do not think we really needed the references to Nazi Germany. I think that was a little inappropriate. Carry on, minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA: In doing so, I apologise again and withdraw.

The CHAIR: That is the way.

The Hon. P. CAICA: And you didn't even need to ask, Madam Chair. Again, I apologise for that. Quite frankly, and it was mentioned by the chair earlier, this provision has been in section 91 of the EPA act for some time and has not created a lot of problems—the simple fact is that problems have not been brought to my attention. I acknowledge the fact that you had said that I might say that it is consistent with other provisions, but I can only go on the way it has been administered in another jurisdiction. Again, I reinforce the point that I made that it attempts to strike a balance between the need to protect the environment without abrogating the rights of the individual.

If there is environmental degradation going on that is in need of immediate rectification, we would like to know about that and say to that person, 'You need to tell us because we need to fix the damage.' Having said that, I am willing to have a closer look at this particular provision in the time between its passage through this chamber and the other place.

Mr WILLIAMS: Without inflaming the debate, I would simply ask the minister to reflect on the legislation that has been brought to this parliament to try to control so-called outlawed motorcycle gangs and the fact that we can never seem to get convictions against them because they will not talk and they will not answer questions. Yet, the minister would have the parliament seemingly have a different level of accountability for, by and large, the farming community. By and large, the farming community is made up of good, solid, law-abiding citizens and I think we should treat them appropriately.

The minister might also give us some information as to what would be the penalty, because it does not appear in the amendment, if somebody did refuse to answer the questions under this proposed amendment.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I reinforce the point that we do wish to revisit this during the time between this place and the other place. Again, one of the points I made earlier is that authorised officers have to act according to the act that binds them and, just like the majority of farmers, operate appropriately, and the majority of them are decent, law-abiding people. The significant majority of authorised officers, if not all, act within the appropriate mechanisms and parameters of the law.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 18:00 the house adjourned until Thursday 10 February 2011 at 10:30.


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