HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-02-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 7 February 2024.)

Clause 7.

Mr WHETSTONE: With the establishment of the Pastoral Board, there are a number of questions with the make-up. Will the Pastoral Board be equipped or formally trained to now provide oversight of pastoral leases that are used for conservation purposes?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question. I am advised that with the various members bringing their own skill sets and in addition to the expertise and experience of the Pastoral Unit, that experience and ongoing work is sufficiently done inhouse.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just on that, obviously there will be a change of land use, ongoing skills within the board. I look at the criteria. The question is: does the current composition of the board provide appropriate representation for pastoralists, given that 90 per cent of the leases in South Australia are used for pastoral purposes?

For the establishment of the board, there are six criteria there for the make-up of the board. I am looking at (a) down to (f). Really, it could be that the minister will use her discretion by putting in departmental people or public servants. They could be overwhelmingly represented in the six-member appointment. Looking at the first four members, they could be appointed by the minister being public servants, not pastoralists. Is there a better understanding of just how the establishment of the board will be considered?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that there are already provisions in the pastoral act, section 12 specifically, for five of the six positions on the board to be for people with experience in managing pastoral leases, including three of the members being nominated by the Minister for Primary Industries, Livestock SA and Primary Producers SA. As the member would note from the amending bill, in response to part of his question, the minister responsible is charged with selecting from a list of three persons, those three persons having been submitted by the various organisations contained within section 12.

Mr WHETSTONE: I understand that. I guess if I lay it out a little more clearly, the composition of the board is:

(a) one, being a person who has, in the opinion of the Minister, wide experience in administration of pastoral leases; and

(b) one, being a person who has, in the opinion of the Minister for Environment and Heritage, a wide knowledge of the ecology…

(c) one, being a person who, in the opinion of the Minister for Primary Industries, Natural Resources and Regional Development, has had wide experience in…soil conservation…

(d) one will be selected by the Minister from a list of 3 persons…submitted by Livestock SA…

and that would sit as a pastoralist—

(e) one will be selected by the Minister from a list of 3 persons…submitted by the South Australian Farmers Federation…

and that would, ideally, be a pastoralist. When we get down to:

(f) one will be selected by the Minister from a list of 3 persons submitted by the Conservation Council—

where is the expertise by the Conservation Council on pastoral lands? The question should be: why is it submitted by the Conservation Council? There are a number of representative organisations, one being the Nature Foundation. Are they going to be considered as one of those three people submitted for selection as a board member?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Further to the member's question, I am advised that in addition to the prescriptions contained within the bill and the current act regarding the nominating organisations—particularly those organisations which the member has listed and the skill sets or expertise contained therein—on balance, the government's consideration that the Conservation Council now be required to nominate a person who has experience in conservation of the rangelands environment is an appropriate mix, considering the other skills and other expertise brought to the board.

Mr WHETSTONE: On that point, the reason I am looking for clarification is that the minister funds the Conservation Council as a lobby group. That is my concern. Will there be anyone else, other than from the Conservation Council, from a lobby group that could be appointed to the Pastoral Board?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That would be subject to the nominations provided to the minister, as contained within both the act and the amending bill. The premise of the member's question regarding defining any organisation as a lobby group I think is a matter of interpretation, conjecture and relativity, considering that the organisations that are nominating to the board, including those that the member has listed—and the very good work they do—also undertake considerable lobbying on behalf of their members.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have a final question. Will any of the appointed board members have a level of expertise in pastoralism, or will they be specifically appointed having a direct skill base in conservation more so than pastoralism? Will there be a skill base directly in conservation, or will there be a broad skill base for pastoralism and for conservation?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am not sure I can distil it down into an easy answer to the member's question, other than my previous answer regarding broad-based skills and expertise brought to the board. But, absolutely, in the portion of the member's question regarding whether there will be members with experience in pastoralism on the board, the answer is yes.

Mr WHETSTONE: And a final question again, Chair.

The CHAIR: This is the final final?

Mr WHETSTONE: Of course. In the establishment of the board it states that at least one member must be a woman, and one must be a man. Will a deputy have to be a man if the member is a woman? As a deputy, will there be a man and a woman in combination, or will there be a woman-woman combination? What is the make-up of a pastoral board member and a deputy? How is that made up? How is that relevant?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The act does not provide any specificity in respect of the appointments of the deputies and substantive members. The one male and one female is in respect of the substantive six members.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to provide those who are following more closely the make-up of the Pastoral Board as it will be constituted post-implementation of these changes, is there not an overarching sense that there is some housekeeping in relation to subclause (1) regarding section 12(2)(b) relevantly referring to the minister responsible for the Native Vegetation Act, as opposed to the minister for environment and heritage? It retains various references to the minister—the minister responsible under the act generally—and we see changes such as that in subclause (3), changing, for example, the relevant stakeholder, in that case from the SA Farmers Federation to PPSA.

That might lead to two questions wrapped up in one. The first is: is the minister able to explain to the committee the overarching purpose here in terms of the identification of relevant ministers It is possible, for example, that it might end up, under certain administrations, that that minister happens to be one and the same for all purposes. Is there any particular advice about where that sits presently and the reason for making those particular changes, so that we might have two or three or one, as I read it?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his double-barrelled question. I am advised that the current act is drafted in such a way that it obviously defines the minister or the portfolio, subject to the advice having been received by parliamentary counsel in a modern form of drafting that it is now more prudent to purport to list the act which a minister is administering, as opposed to the minister who is in that portfolio. That is effectively futureproofing, subject to the machinations of government, portfolio responsibility, etc., across the future.

Mr TEAGUE: And so, for explanation, the Minister for Primary Industries being the minister for the purpose of the act, unless otherwise described, means that the Minister for Primary Industries might, under certain circumstances, be the minister who is responsible for the native veg act, but it might be the Minister for Environment, for example, so you have flexibility. As I understand it, that is what that provides for.

The second of the—as the minister describes it—double-barrelled question was going to the substitution of relevant stakeholders to be consulted. To take the first of those examples, in subclause (3) we are substituting out the SA Farmers' Federation in favour of PPSA. Is there—and it goes to the concern raised by the member for Chaffey—consistency in relation to the status of those stakeholder bodies that are to be consulted?

Given that this has shown that it might desirably, for good reasons, change over time, is there a mechanism for review in relation to the relevant body to be consulted? I think the member for Chaffey has given the example relevantly that on the conservation side there are all kinds of bodies that have credible contributions to be made on behalf of their relevant stakeholders.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that obviously as far as the parliament can, and we can as government, we can draft a futureproof machinations of government. There is only a certain extent that we can do that for civil society. To answer part of the question, should there be the dissolving of an organisation without a successor, then it may be a matter the parliament needs to contemplate, but I can point to the example here that the successor organisation to SAFA being Primary Producers SA that is precisely what the act has done.

I do not like to give this example, because I have no reason to suggest that it will be, but should Primary Producers SA dissolve and there be a successor organisation then the act would administratively contemplate that in an easy way. But it may be the case, under the same circumstances, that the government of the day may need to return to parliament should there be a revolutionary change to the organisation itself or the successor organisation.

The CHAIR: You have one more question.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, well, I was hoping I might have a more fulsome answer to question 2, but here we are, we will absorb it into question 3. The other substantive part of that question was about commonality of status of the stakeholder bodies. Is there a commonality of status of those bodies to be consulted and, if not, is there any light that the minister can shed on the means by which those bodies have been determined? I think the minister said a bit about PPSA's status. There might be something more to say about the Conservation Council. I note that the Conservation Council is in the present act.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: With respect to the member's question on commonality, if I can try to deduce what he is seeking on that one, all the organisations contained within the act and the amending bill have a commonality across purpose, across recognition in legislation or otherwise and, of course, within the forward-looking bill, should it pass the parliament. But in respect to the second part, which is the consultation, I think the way ministers will consult is well established, particularly on appointments, with organisations contained within an act by way of written correspondence seeking nominations or otherwise.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 8 provides an opportunity, perhaps, to reflect also on the change of words at clause 5, which is a simple change from the singular to the plural. Clause 8 relevantly changes 'pastoral purposes' to purposes 'under this Act'. My curiosity, given that we are now introducing an extended range of permitted activities that are consistent with a pastoral lease, is really what the need is to introduce the plural at clause 5 and, in the same way, what the need is to describe the activities as being activities under the act where the object of the bill and the defined uses that are now set out to be subject to clause 3 are broadening those permitted uses. Is there a relevant distinction now between pastoral uses on the one hand and those other uses that are permitted in accord with a pastoral lease?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: In respect to the why, I am advised that it was on balance, and it was a preference within the drafting to prefer that use of language, particularly with the substantive bill, that will extend from just pastoral leases to consider conservation purposes. The drafting contained within the bill was the preference that was arrived at.

Mr TEAGUE: I thank the minister for that answer. I suppose what we are left with, therefore, is a contemplation of multiple enterprises, and we have seen that already in clause 5. Clause 8 then really makes it clear about carbon farming and conservation purposes and I think we had this debate with the minister yesterday.

I put it in terms to the minister yesterday that carbon farming might be seen as more connected directly with the pastoral purposes in that it is an adjustment to the use of the land that would otherwise be wholly for the running of stock in order to have some component of carbon farming as an adjustment to that use, whereas conservation purposes are entirely separated.

We are now going to contemplate, therefore, distinctly multiple enterprises on pastoral country that are to be consistent with a pastoral lease. Can the minister perhaps therefore make clear that it is to be contemplated—in terms of the use of the language that is used at clause 5, spoken to at clause 8—that carbon farming might be regarded as one enterprise, pastoral use might be regarded as another enterprise and conservation purposes might be regarded as another enterprise, all of those enterprises then being contemplated as expressly permitted under the bill?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: In respect of those questions regarding clause 5 and any interpretation of those questions asked of the Deputy Premier, I would refer to her answers in respect of the member's questions regarding clause 5 and the way that they would apply.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr WHETSTONE: As to clause 9—Assessment of land prior to grant of lease, minister, will the government expect lessees who use the land for conservation purposes to meet a different standard than lessees who are currently using the land for pastoral purposes?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that for lessees the current conditions will continue unless otherwise approved or amended by the board.

Mr WHETSTONE: I understand, but obviously we will see a conversion from pastoral purposes to conservation purposes. Will there be a change in standard? Obviously the land will be used differently for different purposes. Will there be different criteria on assessment? Will there be different criteria on the condition where sometimes conservation purposes mean locking the gate? Sometimes they do not, but if they do there will have to be a consideration for the different outcomes on those lands. We know that pastoralism has been around for many, many decades but converting what was a pastoral piece of land to a conservation purpose now will have different impacts on that landscape.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the board will continue to have the ability to assess and apply conditions. I am also advised that, subject to the parliament's passing of this bill, or otherwise, that the board has committed to reviewing the application and decision-making around conditions for the new categories. I am advised that that work will be undertaken upon the passing of this bill, or otherwise.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will the government continue to prioritise equally those lands that are used for conservation purposes with those lands that are used for pastoral purposes? Will there be an equal assessment of pastoralism—I will not say versus conservation, but obviously there will be different outcomes with a property that is there for conservation purposes as opposed to a property that is there for pastoralism. Will the government continue to equally prioritise the different land uses?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that ultimately that is a matter for the board. They will continue to assess, based upon the principles and the obligations under the act and with that window of every 14 years.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to take up where the member for Chaffey left off, this is really a very important piece in the bill. It is potentially quite a fundamental change, and there will be plenty of those interested in the bill looking closely at the minister's answers to the member for Chaffey just now. I hope that this is an opportunity for making particularly clear what is to happen now under section 20 of the act. I will just indicate to the committee that, at present, the minister cannot go ahead and grant a pastoral lease over Crown land:

(a) if the Governor has determined that the land should be set aside or used for some other more appropriate purpose; or—

and here is where we see the amendment in the bill:

(b) unless—

(i) the Board is satisfied that the land is suitable for pastoral purposes; and

(ii) an assessment has been made of the condition of the land.

Then we see the proviso in subsection (2) that the minister can go ahead if there has been such an assessment within the last 14 years.

So the amendment would, on its face, now provide that the minister cannot go ahead and grant a pastoral lease over Crown land unless the board is satisfied that the land is suitable for—no longer pastoral purposes but now the purposes for which the pastoral lease would be granted. So on its face, now, it is a kind of elliptical reference to purposes that must be purposes consistent with the pastoral act incorporating these new permitted uses. But, as the member for Chaffey has identified, and as I would ask, are we now going to see the granting of a pastoral lease that is wholly and solely granted for purposes that meet the new defined permitted purposes? That is what would seem to be on the face of this.

Therefore, the minister cannot go ahead and grant a pastoral lease until the minister is satisfied that it is suitable for carbon farming or that it is suitable for conservation purposes, and may grant the pastoral lease for those purposes exclusively so that it is a pastoral lease really in name only, and we are now talking about really a conservation purposes lease or a carbon farming lease. That would appear to be the case on the face of it.

There might be an alternative, more benign set of circumstances that might include bodies such as Nature Foundation that have acquired a pastoral lease with the objective of conducting that range of purposes, primarily conservation purposes, and they are then granted a new lease when the time comes up, but that is not always going to be the case. So the concern is: is there to be any proactive granting of leases that are constraining the use to the new broadened criteria of permitted use?

Until now, we have been talking about expanding permitted use on pastoral land. Here we are talking about now a minister being satisfied that the land is suitable for any of those permitted uses, and on its face would appear to permit the granting of a pastoral lease that excludes pastoral uses.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Within the many hypotheticals the member was rightfully musing over, I am advised that none of those contemplations are being considered, but I am advised that the primary hierarchy will be conservation purposes and pastoral purposes, and then following that, a number of other uses could be applied in addition to that, but the two primary being conservation and pastoral.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, have there been any pastoral leases not had their leases renewed or any conservation leases that have not had their leases renewed?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Perhaps for the purposes of me seeking information for the member, does he have a period of which he would seek that information? It may not be surprising that I do not have that to hand with my adviser's 30 years of history.

Mr WHETSTONE: I do not want a historical document of many decades, but just to have an understanding of over the last decade. Have there been pastoral leases that have not been renewed? Obviously, there is I think a 42-year lease tenure. Have pastoralists or pastoral lands for conservation reasons not had their leases renewed or had their leases terminated, and understanding why?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his clarification on that. I am advised there is a small number of circumstances where, upon review, the board has made a decision to offer an extension with conditions, or with a change of conditions. There is a small proportion of those where a pastoralist has declined those conditions, and therefore the extension has not proceeded. I am not advised there have been circumstances where there have been cancellations.

Mr WHETSTONE: Through a pastoral or conservation lease period, can a lessee sublease that pastoral or conservation lease? Can they sublease it for other purposes? If a pastoral lease has been granted and there is then an application made to convert that pastoral lease, or part of that pastoral lease, for a conservation purpose or, vice versa, a conservation lease where an application has been made to sublease it for pastoral purposes, is there that flexibility? Is there an opportunity for lessees to change the purpose of the lease agreement?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The short answer is yes; there are no restrictions on subleasing. If there is a subleasing that is consistent with the substantive approval, then that could be made directly to the minister, and the minister, subject to the act, can make that approval. If the sublease intends to change the use, that is a matter that is then considered by the board through the usual processes under the act. But the substantive answer is that yes, subleasing does and can occur.

Mr WHETSTONE: With the determination of that, is the determination made by the board or is it a recommendation made to the minister?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that if there is no change of use then it is simply a matter for the lessee and the minister.

Mr BASHAM: My question is in relation to the change in management that is likely to occur with carbon farming, in particular, and what that will do to the operation going forward. My understanding of carbon farming in pastoral country is that it would require maybe some destocking for periods of time to allow the carbon bank to build up to be able to claim those credits over a period of time, and 25 years is the length of these agreements that pastoralists can enter into.

If the pastoralist chooses to exclude stock from a particular area of his pastoral lease for a period of time and that period of time is greater than 20 years—when, under the Native Vegetation Act, it reverts back to native vegetation—in this regard is grazing or not grazing considered a proactive human intervention, therefore stopping the Native Vegetation Act coming into play and causing that land to no longer be allowed to be grazed going forward?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I think the member is probably underplaying his understanding of carbon farming. It is certainly just a tad more than mine at this stage. I am advised that returning land use from other purposes to pastoralism may require the lessee to obtain approval from the Pastoral Board and potentially other approvals.

An example of this occurs where stock have been excluded from pastoral land for a period of greater than 10 years. The reintroduction of stock would require the approval of the Native Vegetation Council under the Native Vegetation Act 1991. I am further advised that this is an existing requirement that is unaffected by this current bill.

Mr BASHAM: So it is unaffected. So that is still required but, if they enter an agreement, can they get it prior to the 10 years lapsing or do they actually have to have it so that on the last day of the nine years, the 364th day, they have put the stock in so they do not have to trigger it? Or can it be prearranged so that they can actually get the ability to do the 25 years and know that they can come back in when circumstances allow the regrazing of that area because the bank has been built up to where it needs to be?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for the question. I will take that on notice and get some detail for you between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just for clarification—and I hope it does not seem a silly question—I would like you to give me a clear understanding of the following. Obviously, a pastoral lease can be grazed, it can be used for carbon farming, and it can be used for tourism. Can a conversation lease also be used for grazing, can it be used for carbon farming and can it be used for tourism?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that yes, the board can do that. Upon application, the board can approve that.

Mr WHETSTONE: For clarification, what is the criteria for a pastoral lease—I do not like saying 'versus'—versus a conservation lease? What are the characteristics that cannot be undertaken from one lease agreement to the other? Pastoralism versus conservation?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that a pastoral lease for approved pastoral purposes must exclude a majority of use for conservation purposes and, vice versa, a lease that is approved for conservation purposes would exclude use for a majority of pastoral purposes.

Mr WHETSTONE: I am trying to get some clarification. Does that come down to a stock assessment for pastoralism versus use for conservation purposes? I am still trying to understand what the stocking ratios are from a pastoral lease to a conservation lease. Could you give me a clearer understanding of what the difference will be, or will it be a determination made by the board?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It would be a determination made by the board.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr WHETSTONE: For some clarification on the stock assessment or the stock levels, is there a different verification or stock assessment ratio? First of all, how often is that stock assessment undertaken? Obviously, we have varying seasons, so we have variable feed rates. Is there a different assessment done on a conservation lease as opposed to a pastoral lease?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that clause 13 may answer the member's question. This is a clause which is about the reporting of the lessee to the board; it is not around a different process.

Clause passed.

Schedule.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have some questions on the transitional provisions. If a pastoral lease has a grace period, I need to understand what that period of time is. If there is a pastoral lease given for a certain period of time, and if it is a full term, can the pastoral lease be converted to conservation if it is not used for pastoral purposes? What is the time period? Vice versa, can a conservation lease be converted back to a pastoral lease?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the transitional provisions only provide for existing approvals or approvals that have already been made by the board. That is the cohort to which the transitional provisions apply.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have a question on abandonment of pastoral lands. If the land is subject to a pastoral lease and it has been abandoned, the board may cancel that lease. Does that also apply to leases for conservation purposes If it is a conservation lease and it has been abandoned, can the board cancel the conservation lease and, in turn, allow it to be converted back to a pastoral lease through abandonment?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the same provisions apply to all pastoral leases under the act.

Mr WHETSTONE: If there is abandonment of a conservation lease—I guess a blunt way of putting that is the gate has been locked or it has been abandoned—can that be converted back to a pastoral lease?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised yes.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (12:56): I move:

That this 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