HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-05-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

(Continued from 30 April 2025.)

Mr PATTERSON: Chair, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Amendments Nos 1 to 3:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move:

That amendments Nos 1 to 3 of the Legislative Council be agreed to.

Mr TELFER: I appreciate the consideration of this set of amendments from the upper house and the thoughtfulness with which they have been considered by the other place, and by the Treasurer as well, in getting to a point where this can be a functional piece of legislation which I hope will be a forward-looking one and a proactive one, as we have spoken about in the debate previously.

The amendments that were put forward by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, on behalf of the opposition in the upper house, really were trying to fix a couple of the aspects that came up during the last time this bill was in committee in particular. There was also an aspect which, especially as a regional MP, I thought was especially important, and that was the amendment which considers the changes to the Mining Act which we discussed last time around. Indeed, I think that there is an extra level of responsibility for government in particular when it comes to officials entering onto land to do different aspects within the Mining Act, and especially how the Coordinator-General bill fits in with that.

In my electorate in particular, throughout recent years, and even in the medium term—indeed, across other areas of agricultural land in particular in South Australia—there have been mining exploration activities which have happened. Some have not had a level of accountability, it is fair to say, that met the expectations of landowners, and there was damage done to land. There were aspects of that exploration which were not done efficiently and effectively, and landowners in the end had the repercussions.

The amendment which the Hon. Michelle Lensink put in the other place really was around trying to have a level of accountability which is over and above what I think is existing for exploration companies in the Mining Act. That is especially around the Coordinator-General, or the designated power within that legislation, entering land and the onus for proof of damage, for instance, when the official enters onto the land.

I absolutely respect and understand the government not wanting to reverse that onus, that burden of proof, but I certainly appreciate the Treasurer's consideration of trying to add in some extra assurances, some extra measures, for landowners in particular to make sure that they are not disadvantaged by what is basically going to be a power given through this legislation to the Coordinator-General or an entity which has been given the power by the piece of legislation. In summary, on this side we do appreciate the willingness to be constructive with looking at amendments from both the other place and also the government in this place.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 4:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 4 be disagreed to and that the alternative amendment, as circulated, be made in lieu thereof:

Amendment No 4—

That the House of Assembly disagrees with the amendment made by the Legislative Council and makes the following amendment in lieu thereof

Clause 38, page 28, after line 29—Insert:

(9a) If an owner of land suffers loss or damage as a result of a person entering or temporarily occupying land under this section, the Minister must pay the reasonable costs incurred by the owner for either or both of the following:

(a) the owner obtaining an assessment by a qualified valuer of the loss or damage suffered;

(b) the owner obtaining legal advice for the purposes of making a claim under this section for compensation.

(9b) In subsection (9a)—

qualified valuer means—

(a) a qualified valuer under the Land Valuers Act 1994; or

(b) a valuer with qualifications or experience of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

I will just make some brief remarks. I think the member for Flinders alluded to the point of the amendment, and the government acknowledges the sentiment that motivated the original amendment that was passed by the other place. However, as the member for Flinders has just said, reversing the onus of proof in relation to a situation where the Coordinator-General or their delegate enters onto a private property to undertake one of their statutory functions when it comes to damage and so on is not something the government is prepared to accept.

What we are proposing to do, with an alternative amendment that I am asking the house to consider now, is to recognise the concerns of property owners as they have been articulated by the member for Flinders and the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place, and try to arrive at a regime where we can provide a bit more comfort both to those members and the parliamentary Liberal Party but also to the people they represent given, as the member for Flinders said, the concerns that were raised separately in the amendments we have seen previously in the Mining Act. That is as far as I can go without breaching standing orders referring to a debate on another matter.

What we are really proposing to do here is replicate part of the arrangements we have in the Land Acquisition Act where, in that separate circumstance, the government takes on a responsibility to provide the landowner with some financial resources to enable the landowner to best engage with government in respect to that particular scenario; if we can pick that up out of the Land Acquisition Act and try to replicate a similar regime here. That is, sensibly, where we would provide some financial support to landowners to have a qualified valuer undertake an independent assessment of any damage caused to the property by the Coordinator-General or their delegate in performing that function, and also to obtain some legal advice about how to progress that claim against the Coordinator-General or the state more generally.

I think that is a pretty reasonable way forward, that the state will become responsible for those costs that a landowner might bear if they need to make a claim against the state for any damage that occurs to their property as a result of the Coordinator-General accessing their property. I encourage the house to consider that amendment. Hopefully, it seems a suitable compromise between the original amendment as put by the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the original bill.

Mr TELFER: To continue on with my broad comments about the amendments as a whole, once again I thank the Treasurer for being constructive with this process. The specific amendment that was put by the opposition in the other place was really about making sure that there was not a disadvantage to a landowner. When these things happen there is often not thought given to perhaps take photographs of the areas that are going to be impacted; retrospectively that might be considered, not proactively. That is why the amendment that we put, which the government does not agree to, put the burden of proof, the onus of obligation, onto the body that was coming onto the piece of land, as opposed to the owner of the land. As I said, I understand the reasons that the government does not agree to that.

The wording that has been inserted into this amendment as a replacement for that states that, if there is loss or damage as a result of a person entering or temporarily occupying land under this section, under the CGO act the minister must pay the reasonable cost incurred by the owner for either or both of the following: the owner obtaining an assessment by a qualified valuer of the loss or damage suffered—so that is retrospectively looking back and trying to make an assessment of that loss or damage—or the owner obtaining legal advice for the purposes of making a claim under this section for compensation.

As I have said, there have been cases of mining companies, but also cases of some of the energy expansion that has happened. Often, when there is someone coming into a regional community in particular, they do not have the same awareness of seasonal conditions. There is damage that is done to land, whether that is damage done to crops or whether that is damage done to topsoil because there have been people going through an area that they should not have been, and it was too wet and there are bog marks. That sort of retrospective work is then needed to be done, which could have been proactively avoided.

What we were trying to do is make sure that there are proper protections in place for landowners with no involvement in this and who are maybe inadvertently impacted by the actions of the CGO. This is a middle ground. Like I said, I appreciate that the Treasurer, who has the numbers in this place, did not need to put this in place. I think it is recognising that the goal of this is to make sure that landowners are not disadvantaged, and I think that is what this compromise still manages to put in place: a mechanism for landowners to have those supports, both from a valuer or from the legal advice that may be necessary in such a case.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 5:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move:

That amendment No. 5 of the Legislative Council be agreed to.

Motion carried.

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