HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 3, lines 13 to 21 [clause 4(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

I advise the council that this is a series of amendments to remove the term designated drainage infrastructure and the term drainage infrastructure from the bill. Its original intent, as I understand it, was to clarify that rights to access the use of water contained in drainage infrastructure can be managed under the NRM Act. I am advised that current arrangements for the management of water in the drainage system under the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act allow flexibility for the minister to determine where water is directed in the drainage system.

In developing the South East Drainage System Operation and Management Bill 2012 it was considered that managing the taking of water in the drains was more appropriate under that proposed legislation, rather than under the NRM Act. I therefore proposed to remove the designated drainage infrastructure and drainage infrastructure provisions from the NRM (Review) Amendment Bill through this and a series of future amendments.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I rise to indicate that the Liberal Party supports this series of amendments. We were very suspicious when we saw some of these clauses in the government's bill and were very concerned that the government was going to seek to prescribe the waters in the drainage scheme and charge that to landholders. We believe that they have made a contribution already through existing levies and that they should not be levied again, particularly given that some of the proposals are to redirect water to the Coorong for environmental flows. We do not think it would have been appropriate to levy that to landholders. We believe that that should be paid for by a government source as it is an environmental measure.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens are supporting these amendments.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just want clarification that this is the minister withdrawing a subclause dealing with the South-East drainage scheme. Can I have confirmation of that, for a start?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think that is exactly what I said during my introductory remarks in relation to this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will speak briefly to the amendment because I am delighted to see that the government, whilst it has been under duress, is withdrawing this subclause. I put on the public record that Family First has been categorically opposed to farmers being belted left, right and centre when it comes to the proposal of this subclause to subsequently rip millions of dollars out of maintenance of a drainage scheme in the South-East that is primarily for the public good. I am pleased that, thanks to the pressure of this Legislative Council, the government is now withdrawing the relevant aspects of this clause that were going to hurt farmers' pockets.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Yesterday I filed set No. 4 of my amendments. That set is a consolidated list of all my amendments and as such I will withdraw sets Nos 1, 2 and 3. We will deal with set No. 4 only. Therefore, I move:

Page 3, line 27 [clause 4(2)]—Delete '0.4' and substitute '0.8'

The government bill amends the definition of 'domestic purpose' in relation to the taking of water. It broadens the current provision in the act by providing that 'domestic purpose' in relation to the taking of water does not include taking of water for the purpose of watering or irrigating land other than land used solely in connection with a dwelling or taking water for the purpose of watering or irrigating more than 0.4 of a hectare of land, or taking water used to be carrying on a business except for the personal use of persons employed in the business.

The amendment seeks to increase the size limit of a hectare of land in paragraph (ab) from 0.4 to 0.8 of a hectare. In the past farmers have expressed concern over the 0.4 hectare size limit and have indicated that an increase in size would better reflect the varying sizes of properties. The 0.4 of a hectare (or one acre) of land is not considered sufficient where you have extensive domestic buildings, including sheds.

For instance, if you have a house that sits on one acre of land, and you have sheds that sit on another acre of land collectively, those areas would equate to more than 0.4 of a hectare, but could still require domestic purpose water. The government's proposal of 0.4 of a hectare is inadequate compared with the size of some of the properties that will be affected by this definition, particularly in the Mount Lofty Ranges. I urge all members to support the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes the amendment, which proposes that the area of land, as the Hon. Mr Darley has said, that could be watered by a person with the right to take water for domestic, non-commercial purposes would double from 0.4 to 0.8 hectares. Doubling the area that can be watered for domestic purposes to 0.8 hectares will, in our view, increase the amount of water that needs to be set aside for domestic use. On one reading that might be a good thing, until you join up the dots and understand that introducing this measure would reduce the amount of water available for licensed water users in areas where the water has already been allocated, would threaten the security of current water licences and result, we feel, in degraded water resources. It may very well be, I suspect, that this is a retrospective issue that could cause problems down the track from a legal perspective. For all those reasons we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party has some sympathy for this particular amendment. However, we have actually not been lobbied by any persons or organisations in relation to this, so on those grounds we will not support the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will not support this amendment either, but I understand from where the honourable mover is coming. I am not sure that his analysis is quite right in terms of an area of land that has substantial buildings on it. I understand that he is proposing to increase the area of land that can be watered or irrigated from, in the old language, one acre to two acres, but I think the words 'taking water for the purpose of watering or irrigating' would not really cover a situation where the land was covered in sheds, buildings and structures. I think it really is talking about the irrigation of perhaps fruit trees or vegetables and, once we start getting into two acres of land, I think we are getting beyond the definition of 'non-commercial domestic'. I think that the current definition proposed in the government's bill, of 0.4 hectare, will be sufficient to make sure that most genuine non-commercial irrigation exercises are covered by the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I understand where the honourable member's amendment is coming from because 0.4 of a hectare is one acre and 0.8 of a hectare is two acres. It is fair to say that a number of people in the country would (for domestic purposes) utilise up to two acres because they may have 0.4 of a hectare of intensive garden, which they are allowed to have now, and that comes into a non-licensed domestic situation. They may then have, as part of their stock and domestic intent of the property, some free range chickens and they may have a couple of sheep as additional fire protection animals that do from time to time need supplementary irrigation. So, I do not think you can argue at all that two acres comes into the realms of irrigation and sustainability because the reality is that even if you were growing two acres of gherkins, you would struggle to make a living—you need more than that.

So, I have some sympathy with the mover's amendment, but I ask the minister, before we make a final decision on this, if, as the Hon. Mark Parnell mentioned, there may be extensive shedding, etc., and that person is actually harvesting water off of all of those sheds, can the minister assure the council that they would be able to utilise all of the water they harvest off of those sheds for additional watering over and above 0.4 of a hectare?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Without calling for many details from my other advisers, I understand that the legislation allows for landholders to take 1.5 megalitres of water from shedding and other outbuildings. That is quite a lot of water.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a further question on that. In the scenario of a winery which is also a residence where they are catching water off of their residential domestic shedding and also off of their winery shedding and then utilising that to go over 0.4 of a hectare of grassed and irrigated areas, can the minister advise the council whether they would then be subject to utilising all of the water they harvest off those sheds without having to be licensed?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the legislation allows for 1.5 megalitres from roof run-off without the need for a licence—1.5 megalitres; you would need an awful lot of shedding.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 4, lines 1 to 19 [clause 4(3), (4) and (5)]—Delete subclauses (3), (4) and (5)

This is one of those series of amendments I alluded to earlier which removes the term 'designated drainage infrastructure' and 'drainage infrastructure' from the bill. Its removal from the bill is linked to a decision made under clause 4(1). In relation to subclause (5), I have noted members' concerns on this issue and that means that we will not be proceeding with the earlier amendment from the bill. This will allow further consideration and consultation around this issue about the definition of 'intensive farming'.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4, lines 8 to 19 [clause 4(5)]—Delete subclause (5) and substitute:

(5) Section 3(1), definition of intensive farming—delete the definition

This is a test clause on deleting the definition of 'intensive farming' in the NRM Act. The definition relates, throughout the act, to excluding a farmer's rights to take water for stock use when it is considered to be intensive farming. From the point of view of the definition, I believe that becomes a serious impost on farming and on the intent of farmers to be able to extract water for stock and domestic purposes per se.

I am not sure where you start and stop with the definition of intensive farming. I am sure, for example, that if you had 50,000 chicken meat birds the government would say that was intensive farming, but if you had 150 head of cattle running over 150 acres what would the government say there with intensive farming? What would the government say with water for a dairy of 200 or 300 cows? Is that intensive farming? Then there are piggeries; and the list goes on.

As I said, this is a test clause on deleting the definition of intensive farming, and the reason I have moved this amendment is that I propose that a farmer—who has paid good money for that land to have that water availability there—needs that water availability, without impost from governments, to be able to water the stock, whatever the carrying capacity of the stock is on that farm and irrelevant to what type of animal husbandry the farmer may be farming on that property.

I think we should flick this altogether and just allow farmers to be able to water their stock without being subjected, back door, to another form of tax. That is what this will be, because they will be licensed depending on numbers, breeds, etc.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment on the basis that it is a consequential clause on the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment No. 22, so I will just speak to that briefly. The honourable member did say that this would be his test clause on this.

The amendment extends basic rights to water for the taking of water for intensively farmed stock. The government believes that domestic use and stock drinking water are considered to be basic needs for a rural property; however, intensive animal farming practices—for example, piggeries, feed lots and poultry—can involve large numbers of animals which require large amounts of water, and are generally associated with a commercial business. This amendment of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire would intrude on people's basic water needs.

Again, it is one of those situations where you make a change without talking about the repercussions on other water users. If this major change was made there would be serious and ongoing repercussions for those other water users who take water for their domestic water purposes, and so we oppose this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: With this particular clause, I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has duplicated an amendment that we had in 2011 in my initial range of amendments. However, we are mindful that there is an issue in relation to the Natural Resources Management Act in that the impetus for the bill we have before us was the review from 2007, which sought to streamline a range of operations.

The government has indicated to us that there are a number of amendments before this chamber which are 'deal breakers', I suppose, if I can use those words. If they are to be included in this legislation the process of amending the bill will cease, as far as the government is concerned. That is regrettable.

However, we have spoken to a number of people who are involved in this field—not least being some of the presiding members—and who are incredibly frustrated at the current processes they have to go through in the day-to-day operations of natural resources management. Regrettably, we will be unable to support this particular amendment, but flag that it is one that certainly deserves consideration in future reviews. If elected it is one that we would certainly look at very closely; indeed, there would be many clauses within the existing legislation which would be subject to review. The whole thing, I think, needs to be looked at again. This bill needs to have some sensible changes included in it, and I think we should be able to reach consensus at least on those.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister explain to the committee: when is 'intensive farming' intensive farming? Is it 2,000 chickens or 20,000 chickens? Is it 20 head of beef cattle or 200 head of beef cattle? Is it 300 sheep or 3,000 sheep? When, who and how decides what is intensive, and then who gets hit with a licence and therefore another tax and who does not? I have seen nothing whatsoever that defines this. Someone could be prosecuted because there is a line drawn somewhere by the NRM board or the government that says, 'This is where you have a licence and this is where you don't.' How can you farm under all of this red tape, when all you really want is enough water for your stock?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As I indicated to the chamber, I am not proceeding with any amendments we had to the definition of 'intensive farming'. We are leaving it for now, and we will come back, having had discussions with the affected communities, and have a look at it again. I remind the honourable member, though, just an example that has been pointed out to me: if you are talking about, for example, an intensive poultry farm of roughly 65,000 birds, I am told that that farm requires 8.4 megalitres for 65,000 birds. That will have a massive impact. If you take that water out of domestic supplies and you say that intensive farmers can have that as a right, that has a massive impact on the water that is available for every other user. You need to factor that into your thinking.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As I understand the way in which these amendments are proceeding, the government has decided not to redefine 'intensive farming', and we have dealt with that; the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment is to delete the definition of 'intensive farming' that appears to me at least to have operated fairly successfully and without that much controversy over the last nine years, so I cannot see that a case has been made for deleting the current definition. I do accept what the minister says, that is, that intensive farming can be of a massive scale and can use massive quantities of water. The suggestion that, because of the particular farming method chosen, it is somehow exempted from a licensing requirement makes no sense.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I very quickly want to pick up on what the minister said about the number of chickens that someone may be farming and how much water it uses. If we take the case of chickens, these farmers have had contracts for their birds with Inghams and other distributors for many years. They have increased their capacity because, under old legislation, they were able to so. Now here we have something that is going to cause them to be licensed and cause them extra costs.

If everybody starts destocking now so that they do not require a licence, what will we do for food? It is one thing to say that this is going to be a drain on our domestic water supplies, but we do not only drink water, we eat food as well. These people run these farms as a business for a good reason. We are always banging on about our being the food bowl of Australia, clean, green food and whatever.

Well, at every single turn, our farmers are being restricted in how they undertake best practice by a bunch of bureaucrats and a minister who, I guarantee, has not been to one of these properties to hear one of these farmer's point of view on how these changes are going to affect the way in which they run their farm, how they earn their money and what their alternatives are going to be.

I heard Bob Katter on radio this morning talking about farmers being forced off the land because of overregulation and red tape. We have seen it happen with our dairy industry, we have seen it happen with the beef cattle industry, and we are seeing it happen now with our potato industry. When does this stop and when will this government understand that having to be in control of the micromanagement of farming is not its job?

We can talk about a finite resource of water and farmers having to pay for every drop that they use. They have paid for the infrastructure for their dams. These chicken farms, I might add, also have dams on their properties; some of them have 30 dams. They pay $159 for an application for a licence and then $260 for each dam for a licence. When does it stop? When do we say, 'Just let farmers get on and do what they do?' They do it very well.

We have the best reputation for the food that we produce, and we could actually feed this nation instead of being very close to being a net food importer, which we almost are now for fruit and vegetables, according to Bob Katter on the radio this morning. How far do we want to run this agricultural industry into the ground?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chairman, I am not sure whether or not there was a question in that, but let me just say this: the honourable member came very, very close to being right, but not exactly right, because she did touch on the very key to this: water is a finite resource.

The Hon. A. Bressington: I didn't say that.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Yes, you did.

The Hon. A. Bressington: No, I didn't; I said you say that.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Check your Hansard tomorrow. It is a finite resource, and we must manage that resource for the benefit and ongoing sustainability of our agricultural community. If we do not do that—if we allow to happen what the Hon. Ms Bressington seems to be advocating, and we allow ongoing increase in terms of water take, ongoing increases in terms of what industry can do—you will find yourself in a position where you run out of water and then you will have an agricultural industry that just cannot keep delivering sustainably for our future food needs.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I have some sympathy for this amendment, and therefore I will be supporting the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just have another question to the minister based on the minister's last answer or two. As I always have to do, I declare my interest on behalf of my family as dairy farmers. My understanding with respect to this act and associated water allocation plans, using dairy as an example of what may or may not be debated as intensive animal husbandry, was that over and above your irrigation licence you were going to actually have a stock and domestic licence, which included the ability to be able to water your livestock from your domestic licence and hose down your dairy yard and wash your machine, etc.

Is that still the way it is going to be, or is the minister, using some form of code, saying to the committee this afternoon that there will actually be water allocation taken off of the irrigation licence to offset the watering of the stock and cattle, and also the hosing down of the yard, etc.? I think this is a pretty important point which is fundamental to all other aspects of animal husbandry farming.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I come back to the point that water for stock and domestic use is unlicensed and exempt from any levy taking. That is the crucial part: water taken for stock and domestic use is unlicensed and exempt from levies.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Just for my own clarification, if a sheep farmer is running sheep on his property and he obviously sells those sheep, I cannot distinguish the difference between 'stock and domestic' and 'commercial use' because people do not usually keep cattle and sheep on their farms as pets. So, is it 'stock and domestic' for people who continue to breed cattle and do not do anything with them? That is basically how it would work on a farm; you cannot sell it for meat, for income, so therefore it is commercial.

When is it 'stock and domestic' and when is it 'commercial'? When is that line crossed, so that people out there actually know exactly what is going on with this? Farmers are very confused. They run stock and they use it for domestic, but then they are going to come under a commercial licence if they ever sell any of their cattle or sheep. It is just very confusing.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We are getting a little confused here. The honourable member needs to understand that there is no correlation between the two points. Yes, stock is commercial, but it is exempt. Stock is commercial, but it is exempt during this process.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As a further point of clarification, can the minister advise whether the act at present, as I understand it, defines taking water as including watering stock? Section 223 says that the evidentiary burden is reversed on a farmer to prove his stock did not drink the water. Is that accurate?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We are seeking some advice, but really this does not relate to the clause that we are on at the moment, and I suggest we deal with that and come back to the honourable member's question when we get to the appropriate clause.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter's amendment carried; the Hon. R.L. Brokenshire's amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4, line 23 [clause 4(5)]—Delete subclause (7)

What this amendment restores is curtilages to premises as being relevant considerations on whether an authorised NRM officer has a right of access to curtilages, for example, sheds and other outbuildings to residential premises. As I understand it, if the government's clause stands as is, they are excised from the residential premises and can be accessed, whereas the act currently and for some time has allowed those outbuildings to be exempt from rights of entry under the act.

We have real concerns if our interpretation is as I have just outlined, because we believe that it is the property owner who needs some rights, rather than additional rights to NRM officers, notwithstanding how generally NRM officers might access buildings and residential premises. We believe that the government is allowing access in a format that we do not believe is democratic, which is why we want to delete subclause (7).

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government will be opposing the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to provide certainty to authorised officers in relation to the exercise of their powers under the act. An authorised officer cannot enter residential premises unless the authorised officer is a state authorised officer and is acting on the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate.

The act currently defines residential premises to mean a building occupied as a place of residence and includes the curtilage of such a building. The curtilage of a building therefore needs to be ascertained so that the functions and powers of authorised officers are exercised in accordance with the act and that the basic rights of occupiers of land are upheld. However, the act does not define what is meant by the curtilage of a building. The question of what constitutes the curtilage of a building will therefore be a question of fact in each case and may vary according to the character and circumstance of the land under consideration.

This does not provide sufficient certainty for authorised officers who may operate across different acts and, in cases where urgent action is required, to respond to imminent harm to a natural resource. Deleting the definition of residential premises will remove this ambiguity and assure that the term is applied consistently with the common law definition. This is consistent with the approach taken in other acts within our portfolios.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have some comments and a question for the minister and the mover so they may both choose to reply. I refer to clause 4(7) and curtilage. The NRM Act is the only act on our statute book which defines residential premises and therefore the rationale for removing the definition from the act was to revert to the common law definition. I understand that there is certainly a difference between metropolitan properties and rural properties in relation to what would constitute curtilage.

My question to both the minister and the mover is whether they are aware of any particular court cases where this has been an issue. Where I am coming from is that I have concerns where the common law is at odds with statute and that is, indeed, why we are moving a subsequent amendment in relation to the right to remain silent. I think it can lead to ambiguity where the definitions are different, so perhaps both gentlemen might like to provide further detail as to their positions.

The CHAIR: Is the question about the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes. In relation to the honourable mover's position and the minister's opposition to his amendment, have there been legal cases where this has come up as a particular issue?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the shadow minister for her question. I am not aware if there have been court cases on this thus far. However, I have been given anecdotal evidence from some landholders that officers have been what I would describe as allegedly 'way over the top' when it comes to the way they enter premises and go about inspections, particularly based on common law rights as I understand them, and that was the reason for moving this.

I advise the house that there are emergency provisions—the minister talked about matters of emergency—and further down a clause states that if there is an emergency (such as a chemical spill in a shed that could run into a catchment and then into a reservoir, or something like that) that would override. However, the general intent would be that they have to have proper authority before they can enter sheds and buildings over and above a residence.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that it is not the only act that defines residential premises, but the acts that do are restricted to residential tenancy acts and similar acts. There are no acts in our portfolios that refer to residential premises and define it, other than here. We are not aware of any court cases involving us, but we are aware of a number of court cases where curtilage has been a question raised in the court case as an issue.

We are aware of situations where authorised officers are not allowed to go onto, for example, residential premises in the metropolitan area where they may be keeping up to 50 rabbits in their backyard, for example, or water hyacinths in their ponds, both of which are, of course, restricted species.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, I am told that there are a number of situations where that has been raised from time to time, so there are reasons why we would want to do that. The reasons are particularly related to residential premises within the metropolitan area or townships where the whole yard of the premise could be considered to be curtilage.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I understand the effect of what the Hon. Rob Brokenshire is seeking to do. Under the bill, an authorised officer is not allowed to go onto residential premises without a warrant. Currently, the act defines residential premises as including the curtilage, and people do not know what the curtilage might mean. In the context of a residential property, it could be a shed several hundred metres away from the house in which are intensively kept animals.

So, the question would be: where do you draw the line? When should an inspector need to get a warrant? I think if we were to say that it is where the person lives, then clearly a warrant is required for going into their house, but should they need a warrant to go into the chicken shed, rabbit shed or whatever shed is 100 metres or more from the house? Probably not.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Why not?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Ann Bressington says, 'Well, why not?' Because that is effectively the business operation of that particular farm and, if we are separating the residential component from the business component, then curtilage, I think, just adds difficulty. I am aware that the Environment, Resources and Development Court has had to think about that term in the context of the Development Act when trying to work out where this curtilage is.

If we take it out of the act and leave the word 'residential', it would be a matter of interpretation, and I think it is more likely that it would be interpreted to mean the place where people live and would probably include their immediate gardens but not what are effectively commercial operations that just happen to be on the same parcel of land. I think that this is a sensible approach that does take the ambiguity out of the legislation.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have another question for the minister, and I preface it by asking with respect to curtilage: how much is enough? I will put on the public record a couple of examples. The High Court of Australia defined curtilage as:

Any building, whether it is a habitation or has some other use, may stand within a larger area of land which subserves the purposes of the building. The land surrounds the building because it actually or supposedly contributes to the enjoyment of the building or the fulfilment of its purposes.

That was a High Court decision between the Royal Sydney Golf Club v Federal Commissioner of Taxation. In another case, Grasso & Anor v Stanthorpe Shire Council, the Queensland Court of Appeal held that, in defining the curtilage of a building, the question is:

...what land actually or supposedly contributes to the enjoyment of the building for the fulfilment of its purposes? The answer to that question would always be dependent upon the particular facts of the case; what constitutes the curtilage of a building would normally be a question of fact to be determined upon the evidence in the particular case. The relevant evidence may well include the nature of the use of the building, and any visual or physical separation of the building and the land immediately and otherwise surrounding it.

I add that you can have a residence, particularly on an agricultural property, and you can actually have an office attached to that residence. Does this that mean the NRM officer—whilst they actually have to get authorisation to go to the residence, but because attached to the residence is the office—can just walk in there without any authorisation? Even police officers cannot do that without warrants.

I think there is so much ambiguity and potential threat the way this is that the best way is to take it out, have an emergency clause, which we have further down the track, and the NRM officer has to go and get the equivalent of a warrant through approval from superiors. That at least is a check and balance because, whether the landowner is right or wrong with respect to what may be a festering problem, or whether the NRM officer is right or wrong, we are giving, in my opinion, powers to those NRM officers that are far too great and far broader than the powers of the South Australian police.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I did not put a position in my contribution before, but I think the honourable member may have just argued against his amendment in that I think ambiguity is a bad thing at law, and I think the courts would probably be in the best position to determine what is and is not curtilage. A general comment in relation to the NRM Act is that there are a lot of attempts to try to define what should be the appropriate thing at all times. It is often a matter for policy in that the officers ought to be advised by their senior people, that being within their department and also by the minister about appropriate behaviour. I note that we will amend the powers of authorised officers further in the bill, but at times the over-prescriptiveness of the legislation has led to some unintended consequences, and they are the issues we also need to consider.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In response to the shadow minister, I totally agree, and that is why I said that there is no ambiguity with what I put up and why I highlighted two court cases. By deleting this, it takes out all the ambiguity and actually then makes a process through chain of command that officers have to go through before entering those premises, unless of course it is an emergency.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (4)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. (teller) Darley, J.A.
Hood, D.G.E.
NOES (16)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Hunter, I.K. (teller) Kandelaars, G.A. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Maher, K.J.
Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Vincent, K.L. Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.

Majority of 12 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 4, lines 25 and 26 [clause 4(8), inserted paragraph (d)]—Delete paragraph (d)

This amendment continues a series of amendments to remove 'designated drainage infrastructure' and 'drainage infrastructure' from the bill. Its removal from the bill is linked to the decision made under clause 4(1). Just to recap, it is one of the linked amendments to a clause we have already passed about removing the 'drainage infrastructure' and 'designated drainage infrastructure' terminology from the bill.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4, lines 28 and 29 [clause 4(8), inserted paragraph (e)]—

Delete 'proclamation under subsection (13)' and substitute 'the regulations'

At the moment, the way the bill is tabled before the chamber, as I understand it the minister proposes that he can now declare certain water in a watercourse to be surface water by proclamation rather than by regulation.

Family First believes that the parliament should have the opportunity to review such a declaration via regulation, with the disallowance period, as there can be significant ramifications, including the possibility of the imposition of a water levy, for taking surface water from that watercourse. I also advise, at this point, that my next amendment, No. 4, is consequential to this amendment.

We think it would be democratically right for the parliament to at least have the right to move the disallowance of a regulation. There are too many times now where governments, irrespective of their colour, proclaim things and then, if people are unhappy or disadvantaged, there is no chance of any democratic opportunity to change that, unlike the movement of a disallowance of the regulation.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment. The amendment will require regulation, as opposed to proclamation, to be made to allow a watercourse to be managed as surface water. In our view, there is no useful purpose to be served by requiring this matter, which will benefit water users, to be addressed in a regulation.

The purpose of the government's amendment is to make it possible for interconnected water resources to be managed together in appropriate cases. This will give added flexibility to water users to take their water allocation from multiple water sources. A regulation is required to prescribe water resources and remains unchanged. The community is consulted extensively on a proposal to prescribe water resources. The government's proposal does not change the prescription process; rather, it is a commonsense approach to managing water resources and, in our view, does not need to be the subject of a regulation.

This amendment is linked, as the honourable member said, to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment No. 4 and proposes that surface water be designated by regulation rather than proclamation by the Governor. It is considered that the designation of surface water is a management activity to achieve the optimal management of a natural resource and that it is best done by proclamation.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The way I understand the minister's amendments—and I will get to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment to the bill in a moment—is that both surface water and watercourse water are able to be prescribed in the act but are treated separately, even though they often form part of the same resource. That has implications for calculation and reporting. I note that the review report from 2007 made the following comments:

The current separation of surface water and watercourse water in the act creates significant problems for the licensing administration and the technical investigation and assessment of the individual resources capacity, particularly in areas where the watercourses are ephemeral and are very closely linked and dependent on surface water runoff. These issues have become increasingly evident with the prescriptions of the surface water and watercourse water in the Barossa Valley, Clare Valley, Marne Saunders, Eastern and Western Mount Lofty Ranges and the expectation that these resources be managed conjunctively, while they must be allocated and accounted for separately.

My understanding is that this amendment is a technical amendment so that those can be treated together, rather than be managed and accounted for separately. We support that.

In relation to the honourable member's amendment, which I think is a new one from previously—I note, for the record, that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is nodding—I do not think I would agree to all prescription being subject to disallowance in any case because I think it makes the situation very political. I do not know if the South-East water would have ever been prescribed if it had been subject to the disallowance of this place.

These decisions, on water in particular, are very difficult and involve a great deal of work, and I think sometimes that we have to just get on with the process, rather than allow it to be endlessly subject to debate. For those reasons, we will not be supporting the honourable member's amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister: what was the reason for him putting in his clause with respect to this matter? Did the government have any problems that were put forward that made it do this drafting? Also, my other question is: what right does anybody have, through proclamation, to object, given that water allocation plans, as I understand it, are not able to be disallowed? Water allocation plans are consulted over a period of time. They can have huge imposts on an individual or community. The way in which that is all set up, you have no right to appeal, nor has the parliament, so why is the minister doing it this way?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that, in fact, the answer to the honourable member's question was in the explanation from the Hon. Ms Lensink in terms of referring to the statutory review of the NRM Act. You have to have a regulation for surface water, you have to have a regulation for watercourses, and this is bringing the two together. It is to reduce the red tape involved, and it is to make the whole process a lot easier for those people working in the water industries.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 4, lines 30 to 40 [clause 4(9), (10) and (11)]—Delete subclauses (9), (10) and (11)

This is one of the ongoing amendments which the Hon. Mr Brokenshire likes and which deletes the terms 'designated drainage infrastructure' and 'drainage infrastructure'.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise the committee that my next amendment is a consequential amendment and therefore I withdraw the amendment. I move:

Page 4, after line 32—Insert:

(9a) Section 3(1)—after the definition of surface water prescribed area insert:

sustainability, in relation to farming, means the use of farming practices and systems which maintain and enhance the economic viability of agricultural production, the natural resource base and other ecosystems which are influenced by farming activities;

The reason for moving this amendment is that this amendment seeks to define an important issue to farmers, namely, what the parliament means by 'sustainable' in the farming context. There are some farmers who are concerned about the continuing effect of Agenda 21 and their ability to continue farming in a way which sees them capable of making a living from farming into the future.

Sustainability is not just about ecology; it is about balancing the triple bottom line of the economic, the social and the environmental. All three factors need to be considered for true sustainability. The purpose of this definition is to ensure that the economic viability of agricultural production is included as a relevant consideration in the definition of 'sustainability'.

I remind my colleagues that section 7, which is the objects of the act, states that ecological sustainability is to be interpreted having regard to six principles, item 4 of which, marked subsection (1)(d) states that one relevant principle 'seeks to support sustainable primary and other economic production systems with particular reference to the value of agriculture and mining activities to the economy of the state'. Family First believes this is too vague as to what 'sustainable' means in this context. Arguably, a farm is more sustainable from an ecological point of view if the farmer stays on the land to keep the weeds down, mainly removes feral animals, but otherwise does very little to earn a living from the property. Therefore, I move the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I rise to oppose the amendment. I am at a bit of a loss to understand the purpose of the amendment because I am advised there are no references to the term 'sustainability' in the act, so the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment would have no affect other than to perhaps cause some confusion over the terminology that is actually in the act. But, I am advised there is no term 'sustainability' in the act for it to be operated on.

The other point I need to make is that the objects of the act already set out in detail the principles that should be taken into account in connection with achieving ecologically sustainable development. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire read out the definition, but I am advised he did not get it quite right. The act provides:

The objects of [the] Act include to assist in the achievement of ecologically sustainable development...by establishing...a scheme to promote the use and management of natural resources in a manner that...seeks to support sustainable primary and other economic production systems with particular reference to the value of agriculture and mining activities to the economy of the State.

So, I would say to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire that his amendment could introduce confusion into the amendment bill, and his concerns are already adequately addressed under the objects.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have a lot of sympathy for where the honourable member is coming from. I will not go into any lengthy discussion about going back to the Landcare movement and how, 30 or 40 years ago, landowners and environmentalists worked together for a common good. I think that what the honourable member has tapped into is the concern that exists within the farming community that NRM has had more of a focus perhaps on the environmental aspects and probably some of the compliance from the NRM's point of view than it has on working in partnership with landholders.

That is certainly something that I think needs to be addressed, but I take the minister's point that the inclusion of a new definition may cause some technical difficulties with the bill, and therefore I am regrettably unable to support the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I was going to make the same point that the minister made; that is, I hunted for the term 'sustainability' in the act and could not find it. If you have a definition that has no work to do, then it is unhelpful, I think, in legislation. Certainly, the words 'sustaining' and 'sustainable' are used. In any event, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink (who has some background in this area) said, the debate over the meaning of 'ecologically sustainable development' right through the Bob Hawke years, when they had big talkfests between farmers, conservationists and others, is a massive debate.

I think that a definition like the one the Hon. Rob Brokenshire has put in would add confusion rather than certainty. Of course, all the elements are already reflected in the decision-making process, in relation to needing to look after the resource base but also having an eye to the sustainability (using his words) of the economic base as well. I think that a definition that is in relation to a term that does not exist in the bill is only going to add confusion, and so we will not be supporting this insertion.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I hear what colleagues are saying, but I think the minister was splitting hairs with part of his debate, and I thank the shadow minister for her general understanding of what we are doing. The reason it says 'sustainability' and not 'sustainable' is because that was the advice that parliamentary counsel gave us when we were talking about considerations of being sustainable.

I will put on the public record, even though I can count and know that I am not going to have the numbers for this one, that I am becoming increasingly concerned about the right to farm and about considerations for food production being reduced as to the focus on the environment. This world is getting hungrier and hungrier, and there are all these other left-field issues coming in. You only had to look at Landline on the weekend and see the move, or watch some of the ads that are going to be put on the television with respect to intensive animal husbandry in the near future and other propaganda and proposals that are around. I just fear that the understanding of having to ensure that there are some sustainable opportunities there for farmers in decision-making with respect to natural resource management is going to be pushed further down.

That is the reason I am moving this amendment—because we have to have some balance, as I have already said. I am not sure how this state is actually going to prosper, but I do know that it can prosper if we grow our food industry, and I know that in order to grow the food industry you need an even break, and that is not occurring in South Australia at the moment. If we are not careful, the overemphasis on ecology and protection of the environment will just run right over the top of the farmers.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am rising to put on the record that I would be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment if it had the numbers. I would also just like to make the point that I was watching a documentary on ABC on Saturday night and that I concur that everything the Hon. Rob Brokenshire has said: there is a need to define sustainability for farming and the right to farm.

In the documentary they were talking about climate change and all the rest of it and some of the steps that needed to be taken. I know this sounds ridiculous, but one of them was to start making sure that people would be bred to be smaller, skinnier and to be vegetarians so that we did not need the sheep and cattle industry in Australia and all those animals producing methane.

So, that is the attitude out there. That is where this legislation is heading, whether or not the minister or the government would like to admit it. This is reducing our food bowl, not enhancing our food bowl, and certainly not allowing farmers the right to farm in the tradition of Australia—and, remember, it was this industry in South Australia that saved this country's backside after World War II.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I think the readers of Hansard, who will no doubt be studying this transcript carefully, might believe, as a result of the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment, that without it somehow the economic value of agriculture will not be recognised in the legislation. I just need to put on the record that—

The Hon. A. Bressington: It's not recognised in practice now.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —when you look at the objects of this act, section 7(1)(d) provides:

...seeks to support sustainable primary and other economic production systems with particular reference to the value of agriculture and mining activities to the economy of the State.

I think there is a high level objective that takes into account the fact that agriculture is valuable, and we need it, and we need food. My point is not so much to disagree with the analysis of the Hon. Rob Brokenshire, that we need to take these things into account: my point is that they are in here already.

The Hon. Ann Bressington interjects that it might be in the legislation, and I am paraphrasing, but that that is not what happens in practice. That is a different matter, and I think that the act itself provides the guidance to decision-makers under this legislation that they do need to take into account the economic value of farming, as well. I think the honourable member's amendment is unnecessary and would add to confusion.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Just in response, if the Hon. Mark Parnell believes that a definition for the right to farm for farmers being sustainable development is not necessary, perhaps he should get out there and talk to some of the farmers who are being affected by the restrictions in the regulations this particular act, prior to this debate, have inflicted on them. It is very clear to see that agriculture is not a main consideration and not a main concern.

We are saying all the fluffy things, and we are fluffing around the edges with it, but in the meantime you cannot deny that our food bowl is shrinking—and that is happening for a reason. Farmers are walking off their land for a reason: because it has become too hard to farm. They are facts.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing this clause which would allow the minister to delegate his or her powers under chapter 5 of the act. Chapter 5 contains all the financial provisions, including those related to levies in respect of water and land, as well as NRM funds. It is inappropriate for these particular powers to be delegated by the minister particularly given their very broad scope.

The government has indicated that the reason for this amendment is to allow powers in relation to administrative type decisions to be delegated by the minister; however, chapter 5 is not limited to administrative type decisions and there is the real danger that this provision could result in the loss of adequate ministerial oversight as required in relation to financial matters. In short, these powers should remain the responsibility of the minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The minister under the act has power to delegate certain functions and powers but currently cannot delegate the minister's functions or powers under chapter 5. This chapter relates to financial provisions. Currently the minister is required to personally administer the natural resources management fund, refund of levies and single farm enterprises for levy collection purposes as these functions cannot be delegated currently.

I consider it appropriate for relevant functions and powers contained in chapter 5 of the NRM Act to be delegated to the appropriate departmental officers in the context of the government's model that has appropriate and sufficient internal controls designed and built into it. This amendment will result in a more efficient administration of the act and facilitate improved accountability arrangements in respect of the NRM fund.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In 2011 I had an identical position, as did the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. In discussions with the minister's office we have advised that we continue to have concerns with delegation of powers from chapter 5. My understanding is that the minister has some amendments of his own which would limit it to things such as releasing a person suffering from financial hardship from paying interest, the power to discount a levy in accordance with regulations, the power to refund or exempt from levies an NRM fund payment to boards, and that the minister would retain the right to determine the levies. On that basis we would not be supporting it because we are of the understanding that this was to be amended by the minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I was advised—and I stand to be corrected—that if there were amendments to chapter 5 to be moved they would be moved from the floor by interested members but not from me. We might just take a moment to clarify the position.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There has been a misunderstanding and I am happy to take full responsibility if that makes life easier for everyone. We may wish to deal with the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, but parliamentary counsel are rapidly drafting as we speak the amendments that I just referred to in my contribution.

They concern sections 110, 111, 114 and 117. Those areas will be able to be delegated from the chapter 5 powers, but the decisions on levies would be retained by the minister. On the basis that parliamentary counsel will draft those specific amendments, we will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Darley's position, but I will be moving an amendment shortly to the minister's bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): So you are not supporting the Hon. Mr Darley, you are actually supporting the clause as printed, but you will be amending it subsequently?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will be amending it very soon.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: What I suggest to the chamber is that we postpone consideration of this matter until the final clause, clause 46, which allows us time to have the Hon. Ms Lensink's amendment drafted and presented.

Consideration of clause 5 deferred.

Clause 6.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 5, after line 12—Insert:

(a1) Section 13(2)(a)—delete '(who will be the presiding member)'

This amendment is the first of a series of amendments to provide that a person who has been a presiding member of the NRM council cannot serve for more than 12 consecutive years. To achieve this it is first necessary, I am advised, to discount the presiding member's position from the appointment under section 13(2)(a). My subsequent amendments 7 and 8 provide for the Governor to appoint a suitable member of the NRM council as presiding member and set out the maximum consecutive years of appointment.

Just to give the council the benefit of the discussion on this issue, essentially I have been told that currently under the act presiding members can only do two terms of three years. We find that members coming onto an NRM board take on the role of presiding member, do their terms and then are ushered off the board and cannot stay on the board (not as presiding member) for another term to mentor, if you like, the incoming presiding member.

Alternatively, someone who has been on the board for a term and then steps up to be a presiding member cannot do two terms. They can only do one further term and then they are ushered off the board.

This amendment, which we have discussed extensively with the boards, allows for that transition of knowledge and mentoring to happen. It gives presiding members—if the board wishes, they do not have to—that extra ability to stay on (not as a presiding member) and mentor or to accept the presiding member's position at the end of their second period and stay on and provide the balance of their experience to the board for a further term.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Will the minister advise whether this is all chairs of NRM boards per se across the state and/or the actual chair of the state's central board? Is this being done to assist someone who is currently a chair or the chair of the actual main NRM at the moment? What is the background to this? I find it interesting who drove this.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): For the clarification of the table, do you mean the NRM Council?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, sir, the council, thank you. I need an explanation as to reasons behind all this.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think I just gave an explanation, but I will attempt to clarify it. This amendment applies to the council. Subsequent amendments will apply to the boards. We are trying to have the amendments apply equally to council and boards. This amendment was brought up with me by presiding members and boards. I think it may have been a position adopted by the presiding members forum, but I cannot swear to that, so I will not say that, but it has the very broad and wide support of NRM boards and presiding members.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I rise to indicate support for this series of amendments. The Liberal Party has had a longstanding view of the board, council and group positions that they should be three years and not four, and that was because we thought that the commitment of four years was too long—a little bit like council, it tends to put people off from putting up their hands.

However, the advice we are getting back from a number of board members is that NRM is such a complex area that it actually takes a certain number of years before you can even get your head around it. By the time a lot of members are starting to be across things, they are finding that they are coming to the end of one term or, in the case of the presiding members, they may be coming to the end of their six years when they are just really hitting their straps in terms of having the experience and skills.

I am speaking to a number of clauses because we will be dealing with councils, boards and groups, so the Liberal Party has changed its position in terms of supporting three years instead of four; that is one issue. We are also supporting the subsequent ability for presiding members to have an extra term, which will enable them to complete their chairmanship of those boards.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens similarly will support these amendments. There is always a balance to be struck between ensuring that experience is able to be retained on bodies, especially decision-making bodies, and also ensuring that there is a level of turnover and fresh blood. This series of amendments strikes a reasonable balance and we will support them.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 5, after line 23 [clause 6, inserted subsection (4a)]—Insert:

and

(d) the Minister has consulted with the presiding member of the Council in respect of filling the vacant position.

This amendment relates to the filling of casual vacancies and ensures that the minister must first consult with the presiding member of the NRM Council prior to filling a casual vacancy. A similar amendment will be moved later applying to boards also.

The current process for filling a vacancy on the NRM Council may take several months to finalise. This amendment is expected to improve efficiency and reduce delays in filling short-term vacancies on the NRM Council. It is proposed that expressions of interest would not be required if the minister is seeking to fill a casual vacancy that is less than half the term of office (being two years), given that a further amendment in clause 7 proposes to increase the maximum term to four years.

This improved process is needed to ensure the NRM Council has, on an ongoing basis, the full range of skills to discharge its responsibilities, and it should be noted that knowledge, skills and experience requirements will still need to be satisfied, as is currently the case. Candidates who were nominated previously but where insufficient positions were available on the council at the time would probably be considered as suitable in this circumstance, I would imagine.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party supports this amendment. It is a good example, I think, in terms of the filling of casual vacancies, in that it is quite an onerous process to go through when one considers that it is for a portion of a term and to go back through the whole process of readvertising and so forth can really slow the whole process down, and there are plenty of examples of that within the rest of the act. So, we support this. We also support, in relation to this specific clause, that the minister can touch base with the presiding member. We think that is a sensible thing to have included.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 5, after line 25—Insert:

(3) Section 13—after subsection (7) insert:

(7a) The Governor must appoint a suitable member of the NRM Council to be the presiding member of the NRM Council (however a member cannot serve as presiding member of the NRM Council for more than 8 consecutive years).

Following the passage of amendment No. 6, which changes the method of appointing the presiding member under section 32A, I now propose to provide for that appointment by the Governor. This appointment mechanism reflects what is current for the presiding member of a regional NRM board under section 25 of the act and restricts a member from serving as a presiding member of the NRM Council to eight consecutive years.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 5, lines 29 and 30 [clause 7(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) Section 14(1)—delete 'subject to the qualification that a person cannot serve as a member of the NRM Council for more than 6 consecutive years'

(3) Section 14—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) However, a person cannot serve as a member of the NRM Council—

(a) if the person has at any point been a presiding member of the NRM Council—for more than 12 consecutive years; or

(b) in any other case—for more than 8 consecutive years.

The original clause in the bill proposed to change the term of members of the NRM Council from a maximum of three years to a maximum of four years. This is to build capacity and reduce administrative costs and to allow members to serve a maximum of eight years rather than six.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 5, after line 34—Insert:

(2a) The report must, in respect of each NRM region, include statistical information as to the number of times that land or premises in the NRM region have been entered under the Act without the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or premises.

Members of the parliament have received allegations for several years now of NRM officers allegedly overstepping their authority, and this will be picked up in later amendments that Family First, the Liberal Party and the Hon. John Darley have tabled to section 69 of the act. However, Family First does feel that it will be useful for transparency and fact checking if from now on the annual report lists the number of occasions and circumstances of forced entries into lands or premises by NRM officers.

I think the government would accept that no amount of denials has appeased landholders in this regard and to have reporting in the annual report builds confidence in how that power is or is not being used and also, from the other side of it, through allowing that transparency puts a bit more pressure on the officers to be careful about how they go about dealing with landholders.

I am not saying that landholders are always right, but there have certainly been a lot of issues brought to our attention and I think that transparency and statistical reporting is not going to cost anything and may alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised. I have advocated this with other bills, too.

We do not get enough detail with annual reports generally, so I do not see how this is detrimental to officers doing their work, but I think it would be good from the point of view of confidence of landholders that there was some transparency through reporting processes in the annual report.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment. The whole concept of this amendment bill is to try to streamline the processes around NRM boards and the way they go about their work. This amendment essentially imposes another layer of bureaucracy on top of what already exists—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has had his contribution. He can have another one if he wishes to.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Requiring NRM boards to keep this number of records and to provide them in their reports is, we think, overly onerous and unnecessary. Those sorts of records are kept, obviously, but collating them would be another layer of difficulty for the boards. What we are trying to do with this bill is to actually streamline their work and allow them to get on with the serious and important work they are elected to do, not hobble them with further record keeping and bureaucracy. We oppose this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The intent of this amendment is to ensure that the entering of premises is done in a fairer and more transparent way. I think the amendments we have subsequent to this address that, and I understand that the government will agree to a number of those that relate to powers of authorised officers. I think they are the appropriate way to address the sentiment that the honourable member is aiming at.

I remember keeping log books for the Tax Office—and thank goodness I do not have to do that anymore—and I cannot imagine any officer having to keep some sort of clipboard in their car all the time for the purpose of reporting in the annual report; having to tick a box in there, and then, maybe, that does not belong in that box. I think that really is tying up their time and takes away from what we are aiming to do with this bill, which is to try to untie some of the processes that are keeping this legislation from doing its job more effectively.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will not support this amendment, and there are two main reasons. The Hon. Michelle Lensink has touched on the first one, and that is the difficulty of application and the level of red tape that is involved. It does not take too much to imagine the difficulty in someone trying to record whether or not the person was 'happy' that they had attended their premises.

Is happiness the same as consent? If someone says, 'Look, I'm not that happy that you're here, but you've got a right to be here, so be it,' how does that fit in with a regime that invites someone to identify whether premises had been entered with consent or without consent? There would be so much grey area that the statistics would be meaningless.

In many ways I guess it is the use to which statistics are put that is at the heart of this. If this amendment got up, the Hon. Rob Brokenshire might be able to identify that X percentage of people were 'unhappy' that their premises had been inspected, but I am not sure whether that gets us very far. It does not tell us whether the inspections were a worthwhile exercise, or a valid one.

I invite members to think about all the different inspection regimes that exist under state law. We have SafeWork inspectors attending premises, EPA officers, the police, Biosecurity SA, local councillors under food hygiene regulations; all these people, who are presumably, and hopefully, acting lawfully under the legislation that gives them the power to attend premises and inspect them. NRM officers should be no different. They should be complying with the law.

Whether or not they have been invited onto premises or whether the owner has specifically consented to them being on premises is really neither here nor there. It is information that would be difficult to collect and also of dubious value in any public policy sense. I think the emphasis needs to be on clarifying what are the powers of authorised officers and for the government to make sure that those powers are exercised in a fair manner and that they are not exercised capriciously or in any manner that might be seen as being against the legislation.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: All I will say in response to the last few comments is that, if this amendment gets up, it will be a reminder in the act of cautious actions with respect to NRM officers. I do not think that it is a burden, and I will tell you why: police officers have statistical data kept on every time they enter a premises, and so do Fisheries and others keep records.

The minister says that this is another layer of bureaucratic red tape in terms of the NRM officers. Let's stop this nonsense of the NRM boards having to do plans and having to revisit them every year and submit them to the NRM committee. Let's get some serious reform into this so that they can get on and deliver on the ground.

At the moment, if you look at those reports, they have statistical data on the number of times that farmers contact them, when they visit schools, when they plant trees and when people come into their office. There is so much collection by NRM, a lot of it just to justify the existence, I think, of the numbers we continue to see building up. There are now way over 300 extra public servants in the minister's department.

The Hon. J.A. Darley: It's 320.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Three hundred and twenty, the Hon. John Darley says. They are happy to have statistics to justify more positions. If you look at the latest NRM bids, some of them want more staff again. I do not think this is a difficult one for them to keep a record on. I am not frightened to want to see some more checks and balances and pressure, wherever I can, on the act to alleviate some of the concerns that landholders are raising with some members of the Legislative Council.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 6, after line 12 [clause 10, inserted subsection (3a)]—Insert:

and

(d) the Minister has consulted with the presiding member of the regional NRM board in respect of filling the vacant position.

This amendment is a similar amendment to the one we have just passed in relation to NRM councils, and this amendment would apply the same provision to boards.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 6, after line 14—Insert:

(3) Section 25(8)—after 'board' second occurring insert:

(however a member cannot serve as presiding member of a particular regional NRM board for more than 8 consecutive years)

Again, this is a similar provision to the one we have just passed in relation to councils, and it applies the same provisions to boards.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Page 6, lines 18 and 19 [clause 11(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) Section 26(1)—delete 'subject to the qualification that a person cannot serve as a member of a particular regional NRM board for more than 6 consecutive years'

(2a) Section 26—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) However, a person cannot serve as a member of a particular regional NRM board—

(a) if the person has at any point been a presiding member of the regional NRM board—for more than 12 consecutive years; or

(b) in any other case—for more than 8 consecutive years.

The same principle applies here as to the amendment considered for the NRM Council under clause 7 of the bill and my amendment No. 8.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 6, after line 21—Insert:

11A—Amendment of section 29—Functions of boards

Section 29—after subsection (4) insert:

(4a) In performing its functions, a regional NRM board must, insofar as is relevant, give special recognition to the importance of community organisations contributing to the management and conservation of natural resources within its region.

This is an important and lead amendment about respecting what I believe are community organisations that really deliver NRM outcomes around South Australia. I have seen a number of local action planning groups, and one that is a shining example, in my opinion, is that on the River Murray in the Riverland.

None of the amendments in my set are consequential upon one another, but I hope the parliament will accept all of them as a suite to improve respect, funding and support for community organisations. This amendment requires boards to acknowledge the contribution these groups make, and involve them in the planning of the board's work in its NRM region.

The minister and the department may say, 'Oh, well, we do that as a matter of course anyway.' Volunteers are vital. We have seen a lot of growth and a lot of money from NRM levies going into paid staff, and I just think that to actually enshrine this in legislation would be a huge step to assist volunteer support within NRM activities.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment, but in doing so we continue to express our support for the important role of community organisations and the role they undertake in contributing to the management of our natural resources. We have already done what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has expressed as his will; that is, enshrined into the act under sections 29(4)(e), 42(1)(a) and 75(3)(d)(ii) these recognitions.

These provisions require that a regional NRM board, in performing its functions: seeks to work collaboratively with relevant industry, environment and community groups and organisations; may provide financial or any other form of assistance to community or volunteer groups if the group is engaged in an activity that will improve the state of any natural resources; and must set out its regional NRM plan, a scheme for the implementation of natural resources management programs and policies in the areas in which the board has an interest, including by working with or engaging other bodies or groups, including community groups and volunteers.

We say this provision is already in the act; we do not need another provision to further complicate the bill.

New clause negatived.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 18:29 the council adjourned until Wednesday 19 June 2013 at 14:15.


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