HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-06-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

AQUACULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:00): Probably the last of the significant concerns that were raised with us was to do with the flotsam and jetsam, the rubbish that is washed up on coastal beaches as a result of the aquaculture industry. There is no doubt that rubbish is floating up and being washed up onto the beaches as a result of the aquaculture industry, and there is also no doubt that regulations are in place to prevent that from happening. I think it is about enforcement and about responsible action from all of those involved, and I think those coastal landowners, in particular, have raised a very valid point.

We have raised this with the aquaculture industry on a number of occasions and it has undertaken to do what it is doing better, and the NRM board has also been active in the Adopt a Beach program. My expectation is that this will reduce as an issue, that there will not be as much rubbish washed up, and that everybody will take a much more responsible approach to the management of their materials.

The other thing (and I think the member for Hammond talked about this) is the need to rehabilitate those sites which are no longer used. There are just a few, a handful or so, particularly previously used oyster lease sites, that have become disused and have been walked away from, for whatever reason. They sometimes remain unrehabilitated for quite some time. It is important that PIRSA has a process in place to ensure that rehabilitation is done.

I will not keep the house much longer; in fact, I have only another few minutes. I know that the member for Finniss also wants to speak.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: That was a very loud yawn—

An honourable member: And that's your side.

Mr TRELOAR: That's right!

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Late on a Thursday. It is all in jest, I am sure. There will be a few challenges in the management of pests and diseases. We cannot foresee what might come our way with regard to that in the future. I think another challenge will be about finding appropriate stocking rates in all these aquaculture industries. However, I am sure this amendment bill provides the opportunity for effective management to take place, that stocking rates can be found by those involved in the industry to really make best use of our very productive landscape. We have good, clean, productive and temperate waters right around this beautiful coastline of South Australia, and the onus is on us to use that effectively and productively. I think we are beholden to do that and it is imperative that we do, that we make most of our attributes, our environment and our landscape in a productive manner.

In closing, I congratulate the members of the Aquaculture Advisory Committee, who are playing an active role in advising the minister on these very important issues. I know that a number of those committee members come from Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast. I would particularly like to mention a quite recent addition to the committee, one Rachel Lawrie, from Eyre Peninsula. Congratulations to her and to all the members of the committee. With those few words, I commend the amendment bill.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:04): I would like to make some brief comments. Along with my side of the house, I am supportive of the bill. Anything that can actually expedite and speed up the process required to get aquaculture projects up and running in South Australia is good. I sincerely hope it works that way.

I guess I have what you would call embryonic aquaculture projects in my electorate to some extent; however, I do point out that I have a very large land-based abalone farm on the north coast of Kangaroo Island. There was another one, but unfortunately it closed down, went broke. That is another story. I also have oyster leases offshore, and we did have mussel leases, but that fell apart, literally, and I might add that our mussels are here, there and everywhere. I also have land-based marron on both sides of the water.

It is an important and ongoing industry for the future. I guess it is becoming even more important with the demand for seafood and products from the aquaculture industry across the nation and into Asia. Indeed, I think nearly all the abalone from the abalone farm at Smith Bay goes into Asia, to Hong Kong. I am very cognisant of how important the tuna fishing industry is off Port Lincoln for the member for Flinders, and I know other members have elaborated at length on the importance of aquaculture and, indeed, agriculture.

It is going to be of ongoing importance, and it can grow. The figures that have been quoted in this place have been most interesting. I hope that the government seeks to put all of these things in place after the bill has been through the house to speed up the process. It is the way of the future in many respects. Seeing as this government wants to shut down a lot of fisheries through sanctuary zones, we will to have more and more aquaculture. With those few remarks, I support the bill.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:06): Thank you very much; I will be very brief. I thank opposition members for their contribution, and I thank them for their indication of support for this important bill. As they are aware, and as I am acutely aware, the aquaculture industry is keenly awaiting the key amendments to the act. I commend the bill to the house, and again thank the opposition.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PEDERICK: I am just seeking clarity on a few amendments. In regard to the Aquaculture (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012, what access to research facilities and what access to the product of that research will the industry have once these facilities, I believe, will be transferred to the management and ownership of Adelaide University?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am not equipped to answer that question. That does not have a great deal of relevance to the bill that is before us today. This is an amendment to the Aquaculture Act. My limited understanding is that ongoing dialogue is still occurring between SARDI and Adelaide University. I do not believe that arrangements have been agreed to at this point in time, certainly not to my knowledge. Without being disrespectful, that would not be an appropriate question for me to answer in the context of this bill, but it is for the honourable member to ask the relevant minister from another place as to how those discussions are proceeding.

Mr PEDERICK: Is the minister aware of what current applications are before the fisheries department in regards to aquaculture licences and leases?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Could the honourable member clarify what he means by 'applications', and its relationship with fisheries?

Mr PEDERICK: I guess, in regard to aquaculture, whether there are any applications for new operations and, on top of that, are there any proposed new industries in the aquaculture sector?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I remind the honourable member and the committee that this amendment bill is an enabler and, of course, it is particularly focused, amongst other things, on the reduction of red tape. The matter of pending applications at this point in time is an operational matter that, first, has precious little to do with this particular bill but, also, is information of which I am not aware.

Mr PEDERICK: I am just seeking some clarity. Obviously, research is important and what applications are in place and whether there are any new industries looking to get involved in the aquaculture sector. Along this same line of questioning—

The CHAIR: If it is the same line of questioning, I suggest we go to clause 25, which deals with research and licensing.

Mr PEDERICK: No, I do not want to do that. It is a general question about aquaculture, and it will be my last one on this clause. Is there any likely impact on the aquaculture licences and leases with the proposed marine parks?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that applications are on the public register, so the honourable member could look at aquaculture applications that are pending on the public register. Also, the public register includes the site applicable to that particular application.

With respect to the most recent question, commitments were made by the government with respect to marine parks, and marine parks are not an activity that would have a major impact or, indeed, a significant impact: they would have a minor impact on aspects that relate to aquaculture. That was one of the commitments that was made by the government to the aquaculture industry.

Of course, as a former minister for agriculture, food and fisheries, I feel very privileged to be standing here representing the minister in another place on this amendment bill because this is, in fact, an enabling bill that will ensure that, amongst other things, our aquaculture industry continues to thrive and grow in this state. So the answer is: it will have minimal impact on aquaculture; hence, it reflects the commitments that were made to the aquaculture industry. The government made numerous commitments to various sectors of the fishing and aquaculture industry about marine parks.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, minister, but when you say 'minimal impact', can you give us an understanding of how many leases will be affected and what compensation will be payable, in effect, in the enabling of the marine parks?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Quite simply, whilst there has been a significant amount of information promulgated by a lot of people about the impacts that marine parks were perceived to have on existing activity, the commitment that was made by the state was that the zoning of both the marine parks and, importantly, any future sanctuary zones would not impact on aquaculture. So, as a consequence of that, there will not be any displacement of existing activities and there will be no need whatsoever to pay for that displacement because that displacement will not exist.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PEDERICK: This clause relates to the amendment of section 3—Interpretation, and the definition of 'aquaculture emergency zone'; and it has the new definition around 'aquaculture equipment'. Under the management of emergency zones, and I am just seeking this for clarity, what powers will the minister have to enforce compliance with removal and relocation of equipment?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Of course the bill provides for a new and more flexible regime for the granting of emergency leases. They may be granted by the minister in state waters but not within aquaculture exclusion zones. Of course, as I understand it, it is something that has been discussed with the industry, and circumstances have occurred previously where there was an interruption to existing businesses and there was not the opportunity for that existing business to be relocated.

What I am advised is that, within the existing provisions in the bill under division 7, the minister has the power to require or carry out work, and that is on those occasions if, for example, a lessee fails to take action required by a condition of the lessee's aquaculture lease; so those provisions exist or will be existing as a result of this particular bill. There will be the ability for that instruction or direction to be provided by the minister.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PEDERICK: This clause is about the suitability of the person to be granted a licence, and I mentioned in my contribution how various things would be investigated around the person's suitability. If a person is essentially disallowed from having a licence, is there any avenue of appeal for that process?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Section 60 already provides the ability for a person to appeal, but they would be current licence holders as I understand it. This insertion of section 4A under this component identifies specific factors that may be taken into account when considering whether a person is suitable to be granted a licence. This gives the minister guidance as to the relevant considerations. I will not go through these, but part 9 of the Aquaculture Act provides for appeals. Section 60 of part 9 states:

The following appeals may be made to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court:

(a) an applicant for an aquaculture lease may appeal against a decision of the Minister...

(i) that a corresponding licence will not be granted; or

(ii) fixing the conditions of a corresponding licence;

I am advised that a corresponding licence will not be granted, and that would cover that. The opposition spokesperson would be aware of the offences that are taken into account and, of course, the minister would only make a decision not to grant a licence if, indeed, the evidence is provided that there had been breaches as defined within the categories and the criteria that has been provided. There is an appeals section—and, of course, I am presuming and I should not presume anything.

What has been added to this is the financial and other capacity of the person to comply with the obligations under the act. That is very important, because for whatever reason some aquaculture leases have been abandoned. It is about that new section, but there are existing provisions in regard to appeal. When the minister of the day makes a decision in this area he or she will have to be very mindful of the criteria that they are using.

Mr PEDERICK: I just wanted clarification. We support the extra criteria in that part of the bill because, as you rightly stated, leases have been abandoned.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to clause 13, which addresses requirement for lease, subclause (1) provides:

An aquaculture licence may not be granted so as to authorise the carrying on of aquaculture in an area to which this Part applies unless the area is the subject of an aquaculture lease granted by the Minister.

However, subclause (2)(a) provides:

An aquaculture licence may be granted despite the area not being the subject of an aquaculture lease if the aquaculture is to be carried out on a navigable vessel as it operates within the area;

I guess this is appropriate with a foreign vessel fishing in our waters. As far as aquaculture is concerned, with respect to this clause, what conditions and restrictions will be enforced in regards to a navigable vessel operating an aquaculture licence?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that these were formerly in the regulations and have been brought into the bill. We do not have any applications for this activity at this point in time. Of course, the honourable member refers to the Destiny Queen, which was the subject of a great level of concern in a lot of areas with respect to its particular activity. This is about facilitating the ability to conduct aquaculture on a vessel. There are no applications pending at this time. This is reflected in the regulations as they exist being brought into the bill through this amendment. All licence conditions, with respect to any applications made under this provision, will be assessed by the EPA.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 and 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mr PEDERICK: Regarding the cancellation of the lease in new section 25B, the bill provides:

Before the Minister cancels an aquaculture lease under this section, the Minister must give the lessee written notice—

I am just seeking clarity for everyone involved, especially with the new regime. Will registered third parties registered on the lease as a mortgagee be notified of the proposal to cancel a lease?

The Hon. P. CAICA: As the names will be on the lease, the answer is yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Mr PEDERICK: This is in regard to the granting of a corresponding licence for the pilot lease. Subclause (1) states:

The Minister may grant a corresponding licence for a pilot lease containing specified conditions

Subclause (1)(b) provides:

the Minister—

(i) has caused public notice of the application to be published in a newspaper circulating generally in the State and invited interested persons to make written submissions on the application within the period allowed in the notice.

This is another amendment I just want to clarify. What will be the appropriate period allowed in the notice?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I understand this is an existing provision within the act, so I am presuming whatever those provisions are that exist in regard to the appropriate notification will be continued.

Mr PEDERICK: Under those existing provisions, you cannot advise me what the time lines are, whether it is 28 days or 14 days?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised—but will stand corrected upon seeking some extra clarification—that it is a month; if it is not, we will get back to you.

Clause passed.

Clauses 19 and 20 passed.

Clause 21.

Mr PEDERICK: This is in regard to the granting of production leases and corresponding licences in public call areas, and I get all the way through to subclause (10). Just for reference, on top of that I want to talk about subclause (9)(b)(i), which provides that the minister may grant a corresponding licence containing specified conditions on a preferred application if—

(b) the Minister—

(i) has caused public notice of the application to be published in a newspaper circulating generally in the State and invited interested persons to make written submissions on the application within the period allowed in the notice;

Subclause (10) provides:

An aquaculture policy identifying an aquaculture zone may exclude the application of subsection (9)(b) in relation to an application for a lease within the zone in circumstances specified in the policy.

Just for clarity, minister, I would like to know what situations and what policies would cause that to be applied, where (9)(b) was not used and we just used subclause (10)?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that with respect to your specific question, it provides the minister with the ability to grant a production lease when it is inside a zone, but it also allows for the provision that, say, for example, in Lower Eyre Peninsula, where the activity of tuna farming and indeed the effects of tuna farming are well understood, she can take that into account and then fast-track that application.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, minister. I think your example is a good one. When it is extremely obvious to all the players, we just do not have to worry about it. I now go to section 36—The granting of production leases and corresponding licences if public call not required. Subsection (4) states:

An aquaculture policy identifying an aquaculture zone may exclude the application of subsection (3)(b) in relation to an application for a lease within the zone in circumstances specified in the policy.

This is very similar to the last question. Is this subsection being inserted because it is deemed that a public call will not be needed?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am told that you will have areas that are public call and areas that are not, and this is just reflecting the appropriate provisions, the same provisions that we spoke about earlier for those areas that are not areas of public call.

Clause passed.

Clauses 22 to 26 passed.

Clause 27.

Mr PEDERICK: Clause 27 talks about the term and renewal of emergency leases, minister, and subclause (2) states:

—delete '6 months' and substitute: the period reasonably required for response or recovery following the emergency

In relation to the deletion of the six months, there is not a time line. Will there be sufficient consultation with the lessees involved before the bill is enacted?

The Hon. P. CAICA: As expected, I am advised that we will—from the government's perspective, in the context of this bill when it becomes law—be in contact and dialogue with all interested and affected parties.

Clause passed.

Clauses 28 and 29 passed.

Clause 30.

Mr PEDERICK: This clause inserts division 7—Power to require or carry out work. Section 48A(1) states:

(1) If—

(a) a lessee fails to take an action required by a condition of the lessee's aquaculture lease; or

(b) on cancellation or termination of an aquaculture lease, a former lessee fails to remove equipment used to mark-off or indicate the boundaries of a marked-off area of the lease, aquaculture equipment or stock from State waters.

How are these two paragraphs going to work if a lessee or licensee has gone broke or is bankrupt and no money is recoverable?

The Hon. P. CAICA: We have the Lease Rehabilitation Fund, and under each lease there needs to be money contributed to the rehabilitation fund. Also, I am advised, there is a lease obligation to provide a bank guarantee of $10,000 or to be part of an approved industry fund—so it is one or the other—and those funds would then be applied in the circumstances described by the member, and we hope they are far and few between.

Mr PEDERICK: Under section 48A(3), the minister may cause the required action to be taken and may recover the cost as a debt, if the minister has to cause the work to be done with their staff or contractors. What power does the minister have if he is dealing with a bankrupt or someone he cannot locate?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Presumably the existing laws that are in place to deal with matters of bankruptcy would be followed by the minister of the day. This reflects section 58, action on licences. We have changed that and transferred that to this section as well to be a requirement for a lessee. However, I would reinforce the point that they will not get the lease unless they are providing a bank guarantee of up to $10,000 or are part of an approved industry fund.

Clause passed.

Clauses 31 to 40 passed.

Clause 41.

Mr PEDERICK: This clause concerns the guidelines for the Aquaculture Tenure Allocation Board:

60A—Guidelines for ATAB assessment of lease and corresponding licence applications

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, publish guidelines for the assessment by ATAB of applications for leases and corresponding licences under this Act.

(2) The Minister may, by subsequent notice in the Gazette, vary or revoke the guidelines.

In subclause (3), though, the wording is a bit different. In the first two subclauses 'the Minister may, by notice' and 'the Minister may, by subsequent notice', but subclause (3) provides:

(3) The Minister must cause an up-to-date copy of the guidelines to be kept available for members of the public on an Internet site.

I am just wondering why there is not that stronger wording in the first two subclauses. We have 'may' in the first two subclauses 'by notice in the Gazette', and I would have thought, just for correlation, we would have the same wording right through those three subclauses.

The Hon. P. CAICA: They do not exist at the moment but once they exist they must be put on as referred to in subclause (3). They have not been developed as yet. The proposed guidelines are being developed and will be considered by the Aquaculture Advisory Committee. When they are agreed to and formally accepted and adopted by the minister they must then, for the purposes of transparency, be published in the manner described within the act.

Mr PEDERICK: I understand that, minister, and most people have access to the internet. Essentially, we can assume that the minister has an out by not publishing in the Gazette because 'the minister may'. There is no compulsion for the minister to put the notice in the Gazette I suppose is the point I am making, that you must put it on the internet.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Again, that is a far more public way of doing things. That is the way the bill exists there. As I said, once they are developed they must be published in the manner described.

Clause passed.

Clause 42.

Mr PEDERICK: Clause 42 is membership of the Aquaculture Advisory Committee. This will rise from 10 members to 11 members. Will the advice given to the minister from this committee be made available to the public, for example, other people who might be involved close to the lease sites, such as recreational and commercial fishers?

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I understand it, the amendment expands the Aquaculture Advisory Committee by one member, and that is a person engaged in the administration of the Harbors and Navigation Act. That person would be nominated by the minister responsible for the administration of the act. I am told that is to improve to transport consultation input into aquaculture's own policy development. That new representative will ensure that the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure has early knowledge of input into aquaculture planning and development. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Of course, to a very great extent that information would subsequently be made public in the determination of the activities within that particular area. I am further advised that this process also activates a public consultation process, preceding any decisions that are made.

Clause passed.

Clause 43 passed.

Clause 44.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

That clause 44, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

Mr PEDERICK: Clause 44 provides for the establishment of the aquaculture fund. In my speech on the bill I spoke about how some sectors, like oysters, have their own internal fund for the clean-up of leases, and obviously part of the aquaculture fund provides for the removal or clean-up of sites. I framed this question is in my speech: how does this clause work when a sector has its own voluntary fund for clean-up? Does it mean that some sectors are contributing twice? Maybe it is not so much the effort, but are people double dipping on clean-up, and will the effort be duplicated?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that in no way is this about some type of double dipping with respect to money being provided by various sectors. As was noted by the opposition spokesperson, the oyster industry fund does not cover all the oyster sector, only its members. Of course, if this is an approved industry fund the minister could use parts of that fund for the purposes of rehabilitation. However, in essence, this will be about providing clarity and flexibility for the minister to consider the creation of a government-administered fund for the rehabilitation of marine sites should it become necessary in any sector of the aquaculture industry. It is an enabling clause.

Mr PEDERICK: I understand that, but what confidence can you give industry? The question was asked of me directly when I was over at Ceduna. Can you give absolute confidence to the industry that they will not be forced to double dip? Quite frankly, let's hope that not too much of this happens, for everyone's sake. Can you give the industry confidence that it will not be double dipping in regard to the cost of cleaning up or removing material off sites?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I find it very surprising that the view might be that we are actually going to hamstring the industry. This is an enabling provision; it is about making sure that proper arrangements are put in place so that when situations occur the appropriate level of rehabilitation of marine sites can occur in a timely fashion.

Being an enabling bill, there certainly would be the expectation that there will be ongoing dialogue with the various industry sectors because a lot of industry has different levels of equipment, use, and the like. It enables this creation of a government administered fund to be created, should it so be determined, but of course that would only occur after the appropriate level of dialogue and consultation with the very diverse and broad aquaculture industry.

Clause inserted.

Clause 45 passed.

Clause 46.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to the amendment of section 82—Fisheries officers and their powers, this part relates to 'things seized'. What could be involved or included as 'things' under this clause?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that the intent of this particular amendment of section 82 is to allow fisheries officers, who currently have the power to seize items but do not have the power to dispose of them, to be able to dispose of them. Presumably, anything that would be seized would be seized for a reason—for example, collected as evidence against any offence that might be occurring. It could be a variety of things, and it might include equipment, or whatever.

What this allows for are those circumstances where fisheries officers have utilised their power to seize items, that the matter is being resolved to whatever outcome occurs, and they are left with these items that have been seized; this bill will provide the opportunity for those fisheries officers to dispose of those items.

Clause passed.

Clause 47.

Mr PEDERICK: This clause relates to part 10A—Compliance with general environmental duty and environmental protection policies, and the administration of that duty and the policies by the minister and fisheries officers. Is there a particular budget allocation for this compliance procedure?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that this would be conducted under the existing budgetary arrangements that are provided for within the agency. I was speaking to someone the other day who had a long history within fisheries who certainly said that one of the outstanding occurrences here in South Australia that has set South Australia apart from other states was the involvement of the EPA in the very early stages in regard to the development of aquaculture leases; as a result of that, it put us leaps and bounds in front of the rest of Australia to say, 'This is a good place to invest.'

Not only is it a good place to invest, but the environmental provisions that were incorporated were such that, again, it was a clear enabler and provided certainty to the industry as well. I am told—and I just thought I would throw that in for what it is worth—that it would come under the administration of the general environmental duty and the environmental protection policies would be carried out under existing financial arrangements within the organisation.

Clause passed.

Clause 48.

Mr PEDERICK: This involves the death or bankruptcy of the lessee or a licensee. Section 82B states:

(1) If a person holding an aquaculture lease or an aquaculture licence dies, the personal representative of the deceased, or some other person approved by the Minister on application, is to be taken to hold the lease or licence in the place of the deceased as from the date of the death until the expiration of 6 months from that date, or until such later date as may be fixed by the Minister.

(2) If a person holding an aquaculture licence becomes bankrupt or insolvent, the official receiver may carry on aquaculture under the licence as if the official receiver held the licence in place of the person.

(3) If a body corporate holding an aquaculture licence is being wound up or is under administration, receivership or official management, a person vested by law with power to administer the affairs of the body corporate may carry on aquaculture under the licence as if the person held the licence in place of the body corporate.

We are getting to where the lawyers are involved. I had an issue with a fisheries licence, not an aquaculture licence, where the person holding the licence had leased it out and there was an issue where the lessee, tragically, died and there were massive issues for the holder of the licence in resolving who paid for the licence and the winding up of the estate. He was essentially asked by the wife of the lessee to pay for winding up the estate. I hope this clause gives some protection for people who may be involved in the future—and let us hope it does not happen because, obviously, it involves a tragedy. I am asking how this clause will protect the holders of the licence if the person they lease their business to dies managing that lease.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am told that anyone who holds a licence and leases it must give due diligence to the arrangements that are put in place. That is the responsibility of the person who has the licence. These provisions are aimed at improving security for investors and financiers of aquaculture operations. The Australian Bankers' Association has reviewed this provision, I am told, and are supportive of it. It is about making sure that there is a level of protection of what will be very valuable stock, quite often, within these leases. Certainly, it is aimed at improving security for investors and financiers of aquaculture operations. That is the thrust of it.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (49 to 53), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:54): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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