HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 18 June 2013.)

New clause 11A.

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

Page 6, after line 21—Insert:

11A—Amendment of section 32—Entry and occupation of land

Section 32—after subsection (10) insert:

(11) If an authorised officer exercises a power under this section (other than on the authority of a warrant), the authorised officer must, before leaving the land or premises, leave at the land or premises a notice in the prescribed form setting out the ground for exercising the power.

This amendment is about entry and occupation of land, and what it actually provides is that if an authorised officer exercises a power under this section (other than on the authority of a warrant) the authorised officer must, before leaving the land or premises, leave at the land or premises a notice in the prescribed form setting out the ground for exercising the power.

I know that on the crossbenches we have not had much success with amendments thus far, but I appeal to the government and to the opposition to support this amendment because I think it is a fair and reasonable amendment simply to leave some notification. Without the need for a warrant, you have had an officer go on to a property and inspect the property, possibly take assets or documentation from that property, and I think it is only fair and reasonable that we have a situation where a document is left advising that that officer has attended.

In highlighting the reason for that, I want to say that I personally do not object to the jobs that officers are required to do under law but, in the interest of giving a fair go to both the property owners—and several have come to me over a period of time complaining about some allegedly heavy-handed tactics now and again from an officer—and the officer, I believe this is a fair and reasonable request.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes the amendment, and I will read into the record some concrete reasons for that in a moment. However, I just stipulate at the moment that I think the honourable member, in moving the amendment, has probably confused some of the terminology. Section 32 of the act specifically provides '...board or a person authorised by a...board' yet the honourable member is talking about an 'authorised officer'. They are not necessarily the same thing. For example, a person authorised by the board could well be a contractor authorised by the board to go onto land to do some infrastructure maintenance or installation, so we oppose the amendment.

As I said, section 32 of the act is not relevant to the exercise of powers by authorised officers, rather it applies to the entry and occupation of land by a regional NRM board or a person authorised by a regional NRM board not an authorised officer. Importantly, a regional NRM board or a person authorised by a board must give reasonable notice of his or her intention to enter and occupy land. In accordance with the rules of procedural fairness, the grounds for the exercising of those powers will be made known to the owner or occupier of the land before entering the land. It is also reasonable to do so.

To require a regional NRM board to provide additional written notice to the owners or occupiers of land before leaving the premises imposes an unwarranted and unreasonable additional administrative burden on regional NRM boards, in our view, so we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Absolute nonsense and garbage. Why don't you—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): Order! The Hon. Michelle Lensink has the floor.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. I would like to make some remarks in relation to this particular amendment, but I would like to preface it with some general comments in relation to the debate on this bill itself. I certainly do not appreciate other political parties going on talkback radio and misrepresenting my party's position. In the debate on Tuesday—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: You were on there.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I was on there, and you misrepresented our position on FIVEaa and I will not tolerate it, Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Tell me what I misrepresented.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): Order! You should address the Chair, Ms Lensink.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: At the third reading I will make some comments in relation to that and set the record straight, Mr Brokenshire. My comments in relation to your amendments on Tuesday were fairly gentle, but some of them were absolute nonsense and deserve to be exposed as absolute nonsense that would make this piece of legislation a whole lot worse than it is now, and would make the situation a whole lot worse for the farmers if they were to be included in the act. They would make it unworkable.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): The Hon. Ms Lensink is reminded that she should address her remarks to the Chair.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will now, Mr Acting Chairman. This amendment is another piece of legislation by thought bubble, and we will not be supporting it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am not sure what the origins of this are but I have started to get a few emails from people telling me that, by not supporting certain amendments that are being put forward, somehow I am endorsing a regime where authorised officers can capriciously storm their way onto people's land and effectively have their way with the property. It seems to me, on any reading of the Natural Resources Management Act, that that is not how the system works.

In relation to this specific amendment, it proposes that an authorised officer has to leave behind a prescribed form. The question we have to ask ourselves is: if that was the only communication that an authorised officer had had with a property owner, then that sounds quite reasonable. If it was a note to say, 'Sorry I missed you. I was here today and this is why I was here', that might work, but that is not how the regime under section 32 works.

This is an amendment to section 32. I accept the minister's analysis that, whilst this amendment purports to apply only to authorised officers, section 32 in fact applies to a broader category of persons who would include contractors, as the minister said. Under the regime of section 32(3)—and the minister referred to this—the person who is going to enter the land, being a person authorised by a regional NRM board, must give reasonable notice of his or her intention to enter or to enter and occupy land to the occupier of the land. That reasonable notice would inevitably, I think, include some discussion, not only asking, 'Will next Wednesday be convenient?' but also, 'This is what we want to do; this is why we're turning up.'

The dilemma, of course, that would then be faced is that, if this amendment went through, if a person (being an authorised officer, a small subset of people who are attending the land) failed to leave behind the bit of paper that was set out in the regulations then that could lead, I imagine, to some difficulty in relation to perhaps evidence that they collected during their visit. To a certain extent I am speculating here, but it seems that we are adding a level of bureaucracy and red tape which many members in the debate on this bill have said that they have a desire to reduce rather than increase.

We would have been inclined to support the honourable member's amendment if it was, in fact, the only record of a visit or the only communication that was had between the authorities and the landholder but that is clearly not the case in this situation and, therefore, this is an unnecessary amendment and the Greens will not be supporting it.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will be supporting this amendment, and I will explain why. First, I would like to disagree with the Hon. Michelle Lensink's summary of this amendment as coming from a thought bubble. I will give just three examples of many cases where NRM officers have abused their authority and have entered properties and threatened—literally threatened—elderly farmers.

One case concerned Graeme Fischer. I am sure everybody in here will raise their eyebrows and throw their heads back and say, 'Oh, old Molly.' Let me tell you what happened. I have seen the medical records and the police report that he made after this incident. He was testing a pump on the easement of his land. Molly had been charged with being a water thief but that is another issue.

He was testing a pump which was not working; it was not pumping. Three NRM four-wheel drive cars stormed onto his property without any notice and drove onto the easement. One four-wheel drive picked him up and carried him about 50 metres on the bullbar of the car. Did they call for medical assistance for Molly—74 years old at the time? No, they did not. They left him laying on the easement.

Molly is taking legal action on this and pursuing this on a civil level, because he was not offered any remedy whatsoever. He spent seven days in hospital after that incident, and I have seen the medical reports. He had serious injuries. He was left out in the middle of his easement, about 120 to 150 metres away from his home, to make his way back to the house on his own, unassisted. If these NRM officers were required to leave a visitation notice, he would have some proof that they actually rocked up there, but, as it works now, it is just 'silly old Molly' making accusations.

It is very easy for people who oppose this system or who are in trouble with the system, where officers have overstepped their authority, to be written off as lunatics. Molly is not the brightest spark, but he is a decent, honest man. He is a farmer who wants to get on with his job, but he is having great difficulty understanding all these legislative changes that are coming in. He has been on the land since he was bloody 15 years old, and they were times when he was just able to farm. That is one case.

Another case is that of a 64-year-old woman who runs horses. She had an NRM officer and an RSPCA officer come into her home and threaten to have her animals confiscated because, in their words, they were neglected. She had vet checks. She had all the paperwork in place to show that these animals were fit and healthy and were being looked after, but she was threatened with that. The NRM officer also said that he would be back to inspect her property. He never came back, but the threat was enough to send her off in a bit of a spin and to cause her great concern.

These things are happening. Whether the minister wants to acknowledge it or whether the department wants to admit it, there are some NRM officers out there who are abusing their authority, overstepping their authority, and who are being negligent in the implementation of their job. If everybody was doing the right thing, we would not need this.

In a perfect world, we would not need this kind of an amendment, but we actually do need it because it is not a perfect world and there are people out there who are literally drunk on power. If we do not take some steps to reel this in, it is not going to get better, it is actually going to get worse. So, I would say: thought bubble, no. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire and I, and I believe even the Hon. John Darley, have spoken to many, many farmers who have had concerns with these officers going onto their properties and doing what they do.

It is not all of them. Some NRM officers out there are doing their job and they are doing their job well, but where you have one rotten apple in the barrel, then that is the behaviour that needs to be addressed—not just ignored and brushed under the carpet, and let's all pretend that it is not happening. It is the bad behaviour that needs to be addressed, and it needs to be legislated so that there is a penalty or there is some paper trail to verify the presence of these people on their property.

If these officers are required to leave a notice to say that they were on that property and what the business was about and they do not provide that notice, then they are going to need to be accountable for the time that they are on there. That would at least give some of these people who have been bullied and harassed some slight bit of evidence that this sort of stuff is going on. At the moment, they have nothing.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this motion, and I will give the reason from my past experience as valuer-general. My valuers had authority to enter onto any property in the state. In most cases, they would make appointments to speak to owners. Notwithstanding that fact, even when they turned up to speak to the owners—the owners were very good; they would let them on their properties and show them papers and whatever it might be—inevitably, at the end of the day, some people (particularly elderly people) would ask, 'Was that person really from the Valuer-General's office?' So, we resorted to leaving a calling card which gave details of the officer and the contact telephone number. For that reason, I will be supporting this motion.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Quick comments and the reason why we cannot support it at this point is that it is part 6 of the act that deals with authorised officers, which starts at clause 66. This is clause 32, and I think what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is engaging in is putting amendments to any particular clause that he happens to find throughout the legislation that he can attach something to, and that is not the way that we should be drafting legislation.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is not the way that I have put this through. I have waited for two years to put a democratic case before this house, and I have put significant effort into this. The fact is that the way the synchronisation of this occurs, and we will have a good, interesting debate that will probably have to be debated—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: You might as well chop the act up and throw it in the air.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sorry?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: You might as well chop the act up and throw it in the air, the way that you're going at it.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): The Hon. Rob Brokenshire has the floor.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sir, the Hon. Michelle Lensink says that I might as well chop the bill up and throw it in the air. Well, some people want that, but what I am trying to do is find compromises that are going to actually assist property owners—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: No, you're not.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, I damn well am. You can have your opinion; I've got mine. What I do know is that I have spent a couple of years waiting for this opportunity. We have put a lot of time into it, and the bottom line is that when we get further down we are probably going to have to seek advice from the Clerk as to who comes first with some of the amendments that are so integrated.

I am doing this based on the way I understand parliamentary counsel with the requests that we put forward—and I do not ever blame parliamentary counsel, as they do a great job. This happens to be the sequence of how it all happens. My question to the minister is: why is the minister concerned that there might be some so-called red tape for an authorised officer? Obviously, we do want, as the Hon. Mark Parnell confirmed, an all-encompassing situation where, when someone goes on that property, there is left a notification to the property owner that they were there.

If you look at the NBN, just as one example, they actually subcontract out the NBN. When the NBN come on your property, they actually advise you before they come on the property. They then ring you to confirm that they are still going to be on schedule that day, and you have a right to be there and inspect because there is the potential for bringing in weeds from all over the place because of these contractors. When they go, they advise you that they have been on the property. I can give you heaps of examples—SA Power Networks and their subcontractors, they all do it. What is wrong with leaving some documentation there?

I will put this to you, minister: if the NRM or one of their subordinates happen to come on your property and they do some spraying, for example, as a landowner you want to damn well know they have been there because there may be a withholding period on that spray that could cause you serious issues with respect to your livestock. So, what is wrong with actually leaving a notice?

Property owners do not sit around waiting all day, day in and day out, for these people to finally rock up, but they have a right. They could be legally held responsible if the NRM comes onto that property, puts sprays on it and an animal consumes that pasture and grass and contaminates the product. They could be in all sorts of trouble. It is just a fair and reasonable right—and it is definitely not a thought bubble, I can tell you that.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I come back to the point I raised and the Hon. Michelle Lensink also raised. We are dealing with section 32, not section 69. Section 69, when we get to it, deals with authorised officers. Section 32 deals with a separate case, which I explained in my preamble, and I just wish that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire would pay attention to these explanations. They are written for me for very good reason.

I will repeat it again. Importantly, a regional NRM board or a person authorised by the board must give reasonable notice of his or her intention to enter and occupy land. In accordance with the rules of procedural fairness, the grounds for exercising those powers will be made known to the owner or occupier of the land before entering the land. It is also reasonable to do so. I am advised that authorised officers, which we come to at section 69, do not spray on properties. It is the responsibility of landowners to control pests on their own properties. Authorised officers would not do so unless it was at the request of the landowner or under some sort of court order.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Wrecked—and they still may go on and spray, and I have had them spraying along our road verges in a—

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire needs to understand that we are on section 32 not section 69.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Just to carry on from where the Hon. Robert Brokenshire left off, there are dairy farmers and cattle farmers in the Hills who are required to go through a very strict biosecurity measure to make sure that they are certified Johne's free and, with some of those cattle farms, the property next to them is not certified Johne's free. All it takes is a thumbnail of manure on that property to contaminate the testing that needs to be done, and if that is done and it shows positive then those farmers are required to have those animals slaughtered.

I know of one particular cattle farmer who requires people coming onto his certified Johne's-free property to have their vehicle steam cleaned before they come onto his property because they may well have been on the property to the left of them or the property to the right of them before they drove onto his property. As I said, it is a very strict regime for Johne's, and some of these cattle are worth $3,000 a head. If they test positive, if he tests positive from a blood test, then the animals are tested via a blood test and, if they show positive for Johne's, those cattle are required to be slaughtered.

Farmers are not required to do or the biosecurity people do not insist on a faeces test because nine times out of 10 the test would come back negative. So, a lot of these farmers are at risk of losing valuable breeding stock because we have people who do not understand the measures that need to be taken to make sure that those farmers are biosecure.

As for the calling card, to ring up and make an appointment and let people know that you are coming—great, okay, how do you prove it? If they leave a calling card that they have been there, at least there is something. They can say, 'I rang three times and couldn't get anybody, so here I am.' That happens. So to leave a calling card I would not think is a great impost and no great level of red tape, considering the red tape, the green tape and the regulation our farmers are required to endure.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: From how this debate is going in committee, I appreciate that we are possibly having a debate on an identical amendment that comes later, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, when we get to the clause that deals specifically with authorised officers. The debate has been wide ranging so, rather than have it twice, I want to point out a couple more things.

The Hon. John Darley referred to the practice of leaving calling cards, and I think that that makes absolute sense. I think that when people in authority have attended, especially if they have not managed perhaps to meet the person on site, then, yes, an administrative arrangement whereby communications are put in train and a calling card left all make sense. The questions for us are: does it need to be in legislation and are there unintended consequences of putting it in legislation?

The minister and I have both referred to subsection (3) of section 32, but there is also subsection (6), which requires that any people entering the land 'must cooperate as far as practicable with any owner or occupier of the land', so there is an obligation to try to cooperate. As to some of the issues the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has raised, about where the impact of these people visiting the land might cause difficulty, there is an opportunity to address that. The honourable member's amendment does not because it is a post-facto thing. It does not address behaviour before entering the land; it is basically a note saying, 'We were here and here is the power that we were acting under.'

When we get to the section dealing with authorised officers having to leave this prescribed notice—and as I say, the words of this amendment are identical to the ones we see later—it provides that, if an authorised officer exercises a power, then they must before leaving the land or premises leave at the land or premises a notice in the prescribed form. So, they are not allowed, for example, to leave the paddock that might be some distance from the house and then drop the calling card in the farmer's letterbox. Once they have left the land, they have potentially invalidated all of the evidence that they have collected during that visit because they have breached what will then be part of section 69.

If you are looking at land that did not have a dwelling on it and a person in occupation of that dwelling, presumably you would need to get a laminated sign and a star picket and you would have to attach that notice to the land, and you would have to do that before leaving the land. You cannot go off, get lunch and come back; you would have to do it before you left the land. I am not trying to belittle what the honourable member is putting forward. As the Hon. John Darley said, it can be a sensible practice of having calling cards and communication flow between authorised officers—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Brokenshire says that you could leave it at the main gate but, again, under a rock, on a star picket, how do you do it? Not every gate has a letterbox next to every paddock. The point I am making is that at a practical level, this causes difficulties that are unnecessary, and I think it also causes difficulties for the authorised officers when we get to that section because it is exactly the same form of words. I accept that the honourable member is driven by a desire to have improved communications between the authorities, if you like, and landholders—I accept that—but I do not think this is the method to do it, so we will not be supporting this amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clause 12.

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

Page 6, lines 36 to 38 [clause 12, inserted subsection (4)]—Delete:

'The Chief Executive of the Department must ensure that a copy of any report within the ambit of subsection (3) is published on the Department's' and substitute:

The relevant regional NRM board must ensure that a copy of any report within the ambit of subsection (3) is published on the regional NRM board's

This amendment is partly consequential to clause 8 of the bill which allows the annual reports of the NRM Council to be tabled separately from those of regional NRM boards.

Under the current provisions of the act, once the annual report of the NRM Council is tabled in parliament, it must then be published on the department website. This requirement is reasonable in the context of the current arrangements. It will require the annual report of the NRM Council to include the annual reports of the regional NRM boards and NRM groups and the report by the department on the operation, administration and enforcement of the act. I, therefore, propose that the regional NRM boards reports now be published on the website of the relevant board while the requirement to publish the council's report to the department's website remains unchanged.

Regional NRM boards already publish their annual reports on their websites and readjusting the legislative requirement for this to occur is now appropriate, I would argue. Business stakeholders and members of the community reasonably expect these reports and other board documents be published on the website of the relevant board. It is appropriate for the statutory requirement to reflect reasonable community expectations, and the requirement that currently applies to the forwarding, tabling and publishing of the NRM Council's report will apply to a regional NRM board's annual report.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 12A.

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

Page 7, before line 1—Insert:

12A—Amendment of section 48—Composition of NRM groups

(1) Section 48(2)(a)—delete 'in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the relevant region' and substitute:

on its website, and give such other public notice as the board may determine,

(2) Section 48(3)—delete subsection (3)

(3) Section 48(6)—after 'group' second occurring insert:

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

This amendment to section 48 of the act is in two parts. Subclauses (1) and (2) are the first in a series of five amendments replacing the need for a regional NRM board to publish a notice in the newspaper with a requirement to publish a notice on the relevant board's website and to notify the community in a manner that the board determines.

Boards will then determine the most effective and appropriate means by which to notify and engage those affected by the proposal. Publishing notices in a newspaper is not effective to communicate and engage with the community as newspaper circulation continues to decline across our state. A more flexible approach is required to enable regional NRM boards to use the most effective method to engage the community on important issues. This should be what the board determines to be the most appropriate, in my view. Regional NRM boards should be accountable to decide the most appropriate method for their regions, which may, of course, include newspapers.

The second part of the amendment continues for NRM groups, the principle that restricts a member from serving as presiding member of an NRM group to eight consecutive years. This provides consistency with amendments adopted for the NRM Council and regional NRM boards.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think this amendment is a classic example of where the legislation has been so prescriptive that it has ended up causing additional costs to the system in that currently all of the amendments must be published in a newspaper, which for some boards is extremely expensive in regions where they have a lot of newspapers and so those costs flow through and ultimately are administrative costs on that side of the ledger rather than on-ground work. So, I think this is a sensible amendment and the Liberal Party supports it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister for clarification. Is the minister saying that the main future communication opportunity between the NRM board and landholders will be through electronic versions? Is the minister also saying that, effectively, there will not be any requirement, it will be totally at discretion as to whether or not the NRM boards decide to actually put information in the main local print and other forms of media? That is the first part of the question.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The answer to that is no, there will be no discretion not to communicate with the community. The discretion that we are proposing lies in how that should be done. In some areas it will be completely sensible to continue to communicate with the community through newspapers—I expect in most, probably—but there may be other areas where more effective forms of communication are available and what we are proposing with this amendment is that we allow the NRM boards to make decisions about the most appropriate way of communicating with their own communities.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I put on the public record, from my point of view anyway, that I have serious concerns about this. Here we are, in the global context of talking about potential savings of, possibly, some thousands of dollars in expenditure to print, radio and possibly TV, but on the other hand, we have NRM boards, even with their latest bits, wanting to increase the number of public servants that they employ. We have 320 already that have come in, so we have a burgeoning bureaucracy. I, in my own office, have got so much propaganda from NRM boards. They are very detailed, glossy overviews: 92 per cent of these statistics met, and all those statistics, etc.

So, we are so worried about a small amount of money in the big global budget that, as I see what will happen, a lot of notifications that would be—in the country not everybody has access to emails and websites and all those sorts of things, in fact a lot of people do not have that luxury, but one of the things that they do do, contrary to what is happening with The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail circulations (possibly), is in the country the circulation of print media in particular is still high in use factor. That is how people get their information.

The NRM board wants to try to build a proper conduit between property owners and the NRM board. Farmers and property owners deserve the right to know what is happening, in my opinion. I will display this, sir, and I can be thrown out if you do not want me in here any longer—I am sure some of them do not—but this is the sort of stuff I got just yesterday.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): The member is reminded of standing orders.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: All this beautiful glossy stuff with big photos and all the rest of it. They can spend a fortune on this stuff—I have a box full of it in my office—but we will actually stop the opportunity to inform people about what the requirements may be or what opportunities may exist.

I will finish with this: on the sideline of all this I have seen, since the NRM has come in, the amount of money they spend on tourism promotion. What has that to do with natural resource management? They are happy to do all that, but we will block communication channels on things that could have impacts that people in the country and city deserve to know about. This will also involve messages. It will become a secret society where they so choose. I am opposed to this amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have spent a fair bit of time in this place criticising government communication methods, and in fact I have a bill on a different topic which looks at the validity of newspaper advertising when it comes to people's rights and responsibilities. In fact, I have a bill that basically says that, rather than put it in the newspaper and the Government Gazette, you should tell everyone who is affected by a certain decision, and in that context that makes sense.

We also have to look at the context here, which is people finding out that an NRM group is being formed or where vacancies have arisen, and letting people know that they can apply. The question then becomes: what is the best way to get that through to people? The Hon. Rob Brokenshire says that in the country the newspaper is still a common way to go. We have to ask ourselves whether in legislation we enshrine newspapers and, I guess to a lesser extent, the Government Gazette as primary communication channels, or whether we can do better than that.

A worst case scenario—and this is, I think, perhaps what the Hon. Rob Brokenshire is getting to—is that it will be put on the website, the board will determine no other way of communicating, and it will in fact be a secret process where only those people who happen to visit the website would find out. That is a worst case scenario. He then also, in a very unparliamentary manner, showed us a brochure—and I have plenty of those glossy brochures as well. Those brochures are a pretty good vehicle for letting people know that there are some vacancies on a group to which they may want to belong.

I certainly understand from where the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's objections are coming, but my feeling is that this is a bigger issue than just this section, and governments do need to get serious about how they communicate with people. For the present purposes the Greens are happy to remove the reference to newspapers in this particular provision. We note that the board also needs to advise people in other ways as well.

The words are 'give such other public notices as the board may determine'. I think from the practice to date that they have determined that they want to do an awful lot of communicating with people, much of which is not well received, apparently, but certainly I do not think that removing the legal requirement to put a notice in the paper will disenfranchise people and that people will be thinking, 'I would have loved to have put up my hand for that position, but I didn't know about it.' I think the reality is that people will know about it and they will have an opportunity to apply.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will not support this amendment either for exactly the reasons the Hon. Robert Brokenshire outlined. Some members in this place need to get out to some of these farms and actually see what is their daily practice, what are their habits and the use and support newspapers get in small country towns, which is far different from the situation with we city dwellers. Let's face it, we can get online, we can suss out information, but these guys up there rely on their local newspaper to keep them up to date. Many of them do not have computers, some do not even have mobile phones. I know of at least half a dozen who do not even have a radio, so the newspaper is their only link basically to what is going on, and they trust those local newspapers because there is no politics in them—the ones I am talking about anyway—and these people rely on them for their information.

I think that more and more we are actually losing touch with how real rural communities work, function and talk to each other, and what they rely on. We are basing all this on the view of city dwellers, which is very different from real life in the country.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this motion.

New clause inserted.

Clause 13.

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

Page 7, lines 4 and 5 [clause 13(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) Section 49(1)—Delete 'subject to the qualification that a person cannot act as a member of a particular NRM group for more than 9 consecutive years'

(2a) Section 49—After subsection (1) insert:

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

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

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

This goes to the issues we have already raised in this place. The same principle applies here as to the amendment considered for the NRM Council under clause 7 and for regional NRM boards under clause 11.

The same reasons for extending the term of members from a maximum of three to a maximum of four years applies to NRM groups as it does to the NRM Council and regional NRM boards; that is, to build capacity and improve effectiveness. It also provides for a further term of office for a member appointed as a presiding member in the situation where it would be detrimental for that person's expertise and ability to be lost to the NRM group.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government proposes to remove the amendment from the bill because changes have occurred since that amendment was first put forward. The power of the chief officer in other legislation has now been removed, so there is no longer a need for this amendment.

Clause negatived.

New clause 15A.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Page 7, after line 10—Insert:

15A—Amendment of section 69—Powers of authorised officers

(1) Section 69(1)(d)—Delete paragraph (d) and substitute:

(d) use reasonable force to break into or open any part of, or anything in or on, any place or vehicle, but only if the authorised officer—

(i) is acting under the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate; or

(ii) is acting with the permission of the owner of the relevant land, or the person apparently in charge of the vehicle (as the case requires); or

(iii) believes on reasonable grounds that immediate action is required because a Category 1 or Category 2 animal may be present in the place or vehicle;

(2) Section 69—After subsection (9) insert:

(9a) If an authorised officer causes any damage by digging up any land under this section, the entity that appointed the authorised officer is liable to pay reasonable compensation to any person who has suffered loss on account of that damage.

This amends certain powers of authorised officers. There will be a requirement for a warrant to be issued by a magistrate or the authorised officer is acting in circumstances in which they believe that a category 1 or category 2 animal may be present, or they are operating with the permission of the relevant owner.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government supports this sensible amendment. I am advised that subsection (1) is similar to the current provision, with the additional power that force can be used with an owner's permission. The amendment removes the general power that an authorised officer can use force when he or she reasonably believes that immediate action is required and replaces it with a limited power to use force when an authorised officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a category 1 or category 2 animal may be present. Of course, subsection (2) is supported. It reflects common sense, I believe, and a degree of natural justice.

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

Page 7, after line 10—Insert:

15A—Amendment of section 69—Powers of authorised officers

(1) Section 69—before subsection (1) insert:

(a1) A power under this section may only be exercised by an authorised officer with the approval of either the Chief Officer or the presiding member of the regional NRM board within whose NRM region the power is to be exercised.

(a2) However, subsection (a1) does not apply in circumstances where the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that urgent action is required.

(a3) Despite any other provision of this Act, the function of approving the exercise of a power under this section cannot be delegated.

(2) Section 69(1)—delete 'as may be required in connection with the administration, operation or enforcement of this Act' and substitute:

in the circumstances that apply under subsection (2a)

(3) Section 69—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following circumstances apply:

(a) that the exercise of a power conferred by subsection (1)—

(i) is reasonably necessary because of a serious and immediate threat to a natural resource; or

(ii) is reasonably necessary to prevent or address a contravention of this Act; or

(iii) is reasonably necessary to obtain evidence of a contravention of this Act, or to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence of a contravention of this Act;

(b) that an authorised officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a Category 1 or Category 2 animal may be present in a particular place or vehicle.

(4) Section 69—after subsection (9) insert:

(9a) Without limiting subsection (9), if an authorised officer causes any damage by digging up any land under this section, the entity that appointed the authorised officer is liable to pay reasonable compensation to any person who has suffered loss on an account of that damage.

(5) Section 69—after subsection (10) insert:

(10a) A person who is required to answer a question or to produce a document or record may refuse to do so unless or until he or she is given a reasonable opportunity to seek advice from a legal practitioner.

(6) Section 69—after subsection (16) insert:

(16a) If the exercise of a power under subsection (1) by an authorised officer includes entering land or premises other than under the authority of a warrant, the authorised officer must, before leaving the land or premises, leave at the land or premises a notice in the prescribed form setting out the ground that applies for the purposes of subsection (2a).

In amendment No. 9, I propose new subsections (a1) to (a3) which, with respect to powers of authorised officers, state that a power under this section may only be exercised by an authorised officer with the approval of either the chief officer or the presiding member of the regional NRM board within whose NRM region the power is to be exercised.

Secondly, the amendment states that new subsection (a1) does not apply in circumstances where the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that urgent action is required, so it does have provisions for emergency situations, and new subsection (a3) states that, despite any other provision of this act, the function of approving the exercise of a power under this subsection cannot be delegated.

This group of amendments, proposed new subsections (a1) to (a3), insert a requirement that a senior officer, comparable in the policing context to the priority authority of a senior officer such as an inspector, give a sign-off before powers are exercised. It is a check and balance, if you want to put it that way.

The minister put in the Stock Journal recently, in response to my letter a letter to the editor pointing out that the authorised officers have powers such as these—and that is true. However, first, it is in the NRM field that we have heard the most concerns about the use of these powers. Secondly, we have not begun, as the Legislative Council, to review those acts where those powers could be curtailed. This NRM bill is the first foray for the Legislative Council into settling where police-like and supra police powers can be possessed by persons who are not police officers.

This amendment compels authorised officers, when looking to use their considerable powers without warrant, to have the sign-off of either the chief officer or the local head of the NRM board. There is a practicality aspect, from a regional point of view, in having one or the other, not only for geographical issues but also in case one is on leave and not the other.

Boards should know and be right behind—and by that I mean expressly authorised—what their authorised officers are doing on their behalf, especially considering that under section 211 the board is liable to pay compensation where loss or damage occurs from entry or occupation of private land. I note also that subsection (a2) allows the use of powers in an emergency context but that a later amendment provides the mechanism by which the landholder can be informed as to what the grounds were for the urgent intrusion upon their property.

To me, it is a fair and reasonable and more explanatory way of ensuring that there are chains of command processes and checks and balances.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I would like to ask the mover, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, a question. I am a bit confused about the third point in her amendment, that is, 'where it believes on reasonable grounds that immediate action is required because category 1 or 2 animals may be present in the place or vehicle'. Could you explain that third point for me?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question. The references to category 1 and category 2 animals are a fairly standard provision throughout the Natural Resources Management Act. It is some time since I have had a briefing on it, but I understand that they are the sorts of species that are considered dangerous to indigenous species for various reasons or could become significant feral pests—cane toads are probably a good example.

The one that sticks out in my memory, for some reason, is the water buffalo. If they enter into waterways, they can take over the place, and they are well known in the northern parts of Australia to establish themselves quite readily. It is really to ensure that there is not some sort of animal species that can escape into our environment and become a significant feral pest.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I was wondering if I could now ask the Hon. Robert Brokenshire why he did not see the need to include that specific point in his amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The reason for that is that under subsection (5) in the existing act, it states:

An authorised officer may only use force to enter any place or vehicle—

(a) on the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate; or

(b) if the authorised officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a Category 1 or Category 2 animal may be present in the place or vehicle.

So, in answering the Hon. Ann Bressington, I ask the minister, and/or the Hon. Michelle Lensink, why she has actually moved the clause the way she has moved it, when my reading and understanding of it is that it is covered under the existing subsection (5). We hear the minister telling us everything that we are putting up is already covered; to me, it is already covered.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 7, after line 10—Insert:

15A—Substitution of section 69

Section 69—delete section 69 and substitute:

69—Powers of authorised officers

(1) Subject to this section, an authorised officer may do any 1 or more of the following in connection with the operation of this Act:

(a) enter and inspect any place or vehicle;

(b) take such action or give such directions as may be reasonably required in connection with the operation of this Act;

(c) seize and retain anything that the authorised officer reasonably suspects has been used in, or may constitute evidence of, a contravention of this Act;

(d) seize and remove, or take measures for their destruction or control, any animal or plant that—

(i) is being held or maintained in contravention of this Act; or

(ii) is liable to be destroyed or controlled under this or any other Act; or

(iii) is prohibited from being in the State under any other Act or law;

(e) require a person who the authorised officer reasonably suspects has knowledge of matters in respect of which information is reasonably required in connection with the operation of this Act to answer questions in relation to those matters;

(f) require a person who the authorised officer reasonably suspects has committed, is committing or is about to commit a contravention of this Act to state his or her full name and usual place of residence and produce evidence of his or her identity.

(2) However, an authorised officer cannot do any of the following except with the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate:

(a) exercise a power under this section in relation to residential premises;

(b) use reasonable force to break into or open any part of, or anything in or on, any place or vehicle;

(c) require a person to produce specified documents or documents of a specified kind.

(3) Subsection (2)(a) and (b) do not apply in a case where the authorised officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that immediate action is required because a Category 1 or Category 2 animal may be present on the residential premises, place or vehicle (as the case requires).

(4) An authorised officer must, in exercising a power under this section—

(a) if the exercise of the power includes entering land or premises (other than with the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate or where subsection (3) applies)—give an owner of the land or premises at least 48 hours notice of an intention to enter the land or premises;

(b) have regard to any request made by indigenous peoples that the authorised officer (or authorised officers generally) not enter a specified area;

(c) comply, as far as is reasonably practicable, with any quarantine arrangements (whether or not in place under this or any other Act or law and however described) that may be in place in relation to particular premises or land;

(d) comply, as far as is reasonably practicable, with any occupational health and safety arrangements (however described) that may be in place in relation to particular premises or land;

(e) take such steps as may be reasonably practicable to ensure that any land disturbed in the exercise of the powers is restored to such state as is reasonable in the circumstances;

(f) comply with any guidelines or policy published for the purpose of this section by the Minister or Chief Officer.

(5) An authorised officer may exercise a power under this Act—

(a) in the case where the authorised officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that immediate action is required—at any time; or

(b) in any other case—

(i) if the authorised officer is exercising a power at business premises—during ordinary business hours; or

(ii) in any other case—at any reasonable time.

(6) An authorised officer exercising powers under this section may be accompanied by such assistants as are reasonably required in the circumstances.

(7) An application for the issue of a warrant under this section must be made in accordance with any procedures prescribed by the regulations.

(8) An authorised officer must, before exercising powers under this section in relation to a person, insofar as is reasonably practicable, provide to the person a copy of an information sheet that sets out information about the source and extent of the authorised officer's powers under this section, and about the action that may be taken against the person if the person fails to comply with a requirement or direction of an authorised officer under this section.

(9) Subsection (8) does not apply in circumstances prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(10) In this section—

Category 1 or Category 2 animal means an animal assigned to such a category under Chapter 8;

information sheet means a document approved by the Minister for the purposes of subsection (8).

15B—Amendment of section 70—Provisions relating to seizure

(1) Section 70(1)—delete '(1)(o) or (p)'

(2) Section 70(2)—delete subsection (2)

The proposed amendment replaces the current provisions relating to the powers of authorised officers. Importantly, it aims to limit the very broad-reaching scope of those powers, particularly where they relate to residential premises and the use of force.

The proposed amendment requires an authorised officer to obtain a warrant issued by a magistrate before exercising powers in relation to residential premises, using reasonable force to break into or open any place or vehicle, or requiring a person to produce documents of a specified kind. The only exception to this is where immediate action is required with respect to category 1 or category 2 animals.

Category 1 or category 2 animals are animals assigned to such a category under chapter 8 of the act. Chapter 8 of the act provides for specific controls in relation to animals that fall within those classes, including provisions in relation to the movement, possession, sale and supply of such animals.

The amendment also provides that an authorised officer must give an owner of the land or premises at least 48 hours' notice of an intention to enter the land or premises. It requires that they comply with any quarantine arrangements and any occupational health and safety arrangements that may be in place in relation to particular premises or land and with any guidelines or policy published by the minister or chief officer.

As mentioned in my second reading contribution back in 2011, there is no question that landowners and food producers are particularly concerned about the powers of authorised officers and that this issue has been the subject of intense media scrutiny. Food producers and landowners are concerned about not only the very broad scope of these powers but also the way in which they are being exercised by authorised officers.

Over the two years in particular, my office has personally spoken with a number of farmers in relation to their treatment by authorised officers, and the underlying sentiment expressed by most of them has been one of bullyboy tactics and a total disregard for their livelihoods. Farmers are particularly concerned that authorised officers can march onto their properties without any regard for the fact that they are quality-assured producers and without any regard for the fact that unauthorised entry could result in catastrophic consequences for their livestock.

For instance, I am advised that stud cattle farms which are assessed properties have to confirm with certain contamination and biosecurity requirements under the Australian Johne's Disease Market Assurance Program for Cattle (otherwise known as Cattle MAP). Those requirements are intended to ensure that livestock remains Johne's free. Johne's is a fatal wasting disease which affects cattle, sheep, goats, alpaca and deer. I am advised that a thumbnail of faeces from one infected animal is enough to transmit the deadly disease to all other animals on a property.

Further, I am advised that the requirements under the Cattle MAP include preventing entry onto properties for a period of 21 days by individuals who have been in contact with other non-assessed livestock or rural properties and have not undergone decontamination. The decontamination is not limited just to the footwear and clothing of the individual but also includes the vehicle the individual is travelling in and any equipment that they may wish to bring onto the property.

In financial terms the effects of this can be crippling. For instance, I am advised that in one instance some time ago an individual transmitted a virus from one property to another neighbouring property, and this effectively resulted in a loss of two-thirds of that owner's net income overnight. This amendment seeks to address this particular issue by ensuring that NRM authorised officers be required to comply with any quarantine arrangements in place on a particular property.

Authorised officers may visit a number of properties on any given day or during any given week, so the likelihood of coming into contact with or transmitting a disease is not out of the question. There is no reason why they should not be required to comply with any quarantine arrangements in place, particularly in light of the devastating consequences that this can lead to.

The same can also be said in relation to occupational health and safety requirements, which farmers may require individuals to adhere to for a very good reason. It would be very unfortunate if an authorised officer were to be stampeded by a paddock full of bulls, which can weigh anywhere up to one tonne each, if not more, simply because they failed to adhere to such arrangements.

In relation to the powers of authorised officers more generally, I understand that similar provisions relating to these powers exist under other pieces of legislation and have not been the subject of the same level of criticism. As previously mentioned, this tends to suggest that the problem rests more with the way in which authorised officers have been carrying out their duties than the powers themselves. It is for this reason that the amendment proposes to require authorised officers to comply with any guidelines or policies published by the minister or the chief officer.

Again, there is a lot of discontent among farmers at the moment not only in relation to the powers of authorised officers but also in relation to the way these powers are being exercised. This amendment goes some way towards addressing those concerns, and I urge all honourable members to support it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Just with respect to the amendment of the Hon. John Darley, I understand exactly where he is coming from. You only have to look at the saga we are dealing with with broomrape at the moment, and all the money that was thrown at broomrape, and now, because of budgetary considerations, we have a situation where the policy has changed completely on broomrape. That is one example of where we need to be exceptionally cautious about what happens with any vehicles that travel onto one property, where for example there could be broomrape, and then enter another property and spread those weeds. We do have enough problems with weeds as it stands.

Also, while on my feet, I want to just further answer the Hon. Ann Bressington's question regarding the Hon. Michelle Lensink's amendment as against the Family First amendment. When we had a look at it, our understanding was that the Hon. Michelle Lensink's amendment really only seeks to impose that there be only conditions on entry if it is forced. The argument that we are putting forward with our amendment is that we read that section 69(5) of the act already covers exactly what the Hon. Michelle Lensink is proposing. It is already there under section 69(5) and I would argue is therefore unnecessary.

Whereas, if you look at my amendment, in further answer to the Hon. Ann Bressington, it deals with all entries and other exercises of power under section 69—mainly, that they can only be used in the new (2a) circumstances of emergency, preventing breaches or obtaining evidence of breaches, and with the prior sign-off a senior officer; and for entries into land or premises, that must be followed by leaving a notice there as to the grounds relied upon for the entry onto the land. To answer the Hon. Ann Bressington, that is how I see the differences.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I might go through this step-wise. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire asked a question, and I think he directed it to me, and also, on the Hon. Ms Lensink's amendment (if I can be so bold to make a response) he asked, 'Why did the Hon. Ms Lensink put in that section (iii) about category 1 and category 2 animals?' I understand it is because of consistency issues and it is probably for exactly the same reason that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire included it in his amendment at (3)(2a)(b) where he also talks about category 1 and category 2 animals. I can only presume that that is the case to keep the clauses consistent with the original drafting of the original bill.

If I could then go to the individual amendments that have been moved. As I said, the government will be supporting amendment No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Ms Lensink. We will not be supporting amendment No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire for the following reasons—except, of course, subsection (4) in his amendment is very similar to the amendment that we will be supporting under [Lensink-6] 1, so that part would have been acceptable to us. Proposals under subsections (1), (2) and (3), however, to have either the chief officer or presiding member personally approve every exercise of power without the ability to delegate by an authorised officer is, we believe, unreasonable, unwarranted and probably unworkable, even though it will not apply in some circumstances.

I should also point out that since 2009, I am advised, regional authorised officers have been undertaking their activities based on the requirements set out in the Natural Resources Management compliance operators manual issued by the chief officer. This manual provides standardised tools for use by all the authorities that support the NRM Act and provides detailed operational guidelines to regional authorised officers. The further requirement to leave a notice setting out the grounds that apply to entry to land in every case introduces more administration and preparing and recording those notices without clear benefits, and has the concomitant problems, or could possibly introduce the trouble that the Hon. Mr Parnell entertained when we discussed the matter earlier.

We do not believe that subsection (5) does much more than provide a person who is acting contrary to the act with the ability, or the potential ability, to hide or contaminate or dispose of what otherwise might be valuable evidence, or to perhaps rehearse answers which are designed to defeat the purpose of the direction in the first place. Again, it is worth restating that the aim in the debate on this bill has been to achieve some consistency and powers of authorised officers across various acts in the environment and conservation portfolio, and we believe these amendments would compromise that aim.

I now turn to the amendment No. 3 filed by Hon. Mr Darley. The government will not be supporting that amendment either. Current section 69(1) provides a constraint on the exercise of the powers of all authorised by virtue of the words:

...required in connection with the administration, operation and enforcement of this Act...

The government is opposed to the removal of this practical constraint on the exercise of powers by authorised officers. The government is also concerned to ensure that the operational constraints on the exercise of powers by authorised officers, as currently set out in section 69(1), are retained.

The removal of the specific powers inherent in the proposed amendment has the effect of also removing certainty of both authorised officers and landholders. This level of detail is currently available to landholders through the medium of the NRM information sheet under section 69(14). I would like to repeat that the vast majority of inspections conducted by authorised officers are by arrangement and consent with the landowner, often as part of the process of seeking voluntary compliance as required under the act. A clear distinction must be drawn between inspections which are merely exploratory in respect of a reported potential pest, animal or plant or other problem, for example, and those which result from the need to deduce specific evidence to support investigations for cases such as water theft.

The requirement to give 48 hours notice of potential entry onto land where the owner is engaged in criminal behaviour would allow him or her to remove or destroy all evidence of such behaviour such as, for example, the removal of temporary pipes and pumps placed to illegally extract water. The impracticality of this, I believe, is self-evident. We urge the chamber to reject the two amendments under the name of Darley and Brokenshire and support the amendment under the name of Ms Lensink.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: If I could respond to comments from the Hons Mr Brokenshire and Mr Darley. In response to Mr Brokenshire, subsection (2)(ii) includes acting with permission of the owner of the relevant land. I think that that is the distinction.

The other part of this amendment is subsection (2) which I did not refer to in my opening remarks which was to require some reasonable compensation to be paid for any damage that may occur from digging up of land. That is a clause currently which we took from the Mining Act, and we thought that was a fair and reasonable thing to include, so that is another aspect of this legislation.

I commend the Hon. Mr Darley for his remarks in relation to the general situation and concerns in relation to authorised officers. The Liberal Party has heard about these complaints for a long time and has been very concerned about them for a long time. When this legislation was passed in 2004, it was anticipated that some of these powers would be used as last resort and, if that was the situation, I do not think we would be here spending so much time debating this issue. In many ways, a number of members have come to this place in good faith and tried to find, for want of a better term, a 'pull your heads in' clause for the overuse of authorised officers' powers.

Landcare have taken the view and expressed to me at various times that NRM are like cane toads, and I think we need to revert to the days where NRM was genuinely seen as working with landowners rather than coming on to their properties and telling them what they should do. In the main I think most landowners are really very good stewards of their properties. They are diligent in terms of their fencing, weeds and protecting watercourses, and I think that is something we would like this legislation to recognise and, for that reason, I am a little bit disappointed that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire does not have an amendment that he tabled two years ago which was to establish policies for authorised officers which may have gone to some of the cultural elements that take place. Nevertheless, we are where we are and we are trying to find some sort of way through this, and I think that this issue will need to be revisited in the cold hard light of day.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I take this opportunity to put the Greens' position on the record in relation to these amendments. There are four options before us. We have the status quo. We have the Hon. Michelle Lensink's fairly small amendment which the government is accepting, so that will go through. The Hon. Rob Brokenshire has made a smaller number of amendments than the Hon. John Darley who has rewritten the whole of the authorised officers section.

The Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment fails on a number of accounts, I think, to pass the test of good legislation. I mentioned one earlier in relation to the potential impact on the admissibility of evidence for want of a calling card. If I was a lawyer for someone who has been inspected and charged and evidence was collected and there was no calling card, then I reckon I would be raising that as a lawyer and I would be saying, 'This evidence is inadmissible,' and I think you would have a reasonable case. I think that is a flaw.

The other one, which the minister referred to, is the supposed exception to where urgent action is required. Well, urgent action might not encompass urgent investigation of potential wrongdoing. It might not require action. It might just involve going and having a look and collecting some evidence. I think the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendments do not cut it.

As to the Hon. John Darley's amendments, there are a number of things in here which I think have a deal of merit but it is a package of measures that we are looking at and they will rise or fall as a package. One matter that is in the Hon. John Darley's amendment is the amount of notice that needs to be given (the 48 hours' notice). The minister referred before to the section which requires cooperation and he said that in the vast majority of cases inspectors are seeking to work cooperatively with landholders. But there are a couple of cases that I can think of where giving 48 hours' notice would be entirely counterproductive. The minister mentioned water theft. Having spoken to a number of authorised officers over many years—in fact, I should declare that I think at one stage (about 15 years ago) I was briefly involved in a training course through the University of Adelaide for authorised officers—it has only just occurred to me now that one of the authorised officers used to talk about a water theft technique. Whilst I am loathe to give readers of Hansard ideas, it did involve frozen fish and pumping mechanisms, and I will leave it at that, but there were techniques that were used.

More seriously, I think, when it comes to giving notice of inspections you cannot go past the Coroner's report into the death of four-year-old Nikki Robinson, who was a victim of the Garibaldi contaminated mettwurst case. In fact, I think it was just a year or so ago that they finally resolved the legal actions around that. When you read that Coroner's report, and I have not read it recently but I used to teach it at Flinders University many years ago, one of the main lessons the Coroner had for regulatory authorities in this state was that the practice of giving notice before undertaking inspections, when health might be involved, was the wrong way to go, and in that case it was factory inspectors, health inspectors attending a smallgoods factory.

The idea that you would ring up and say, 'Will next Wednesday afternoon be appropriate for an inspection?' Of course the place is as clean as a whistle when the inspectors come around. There is a case for urgent, unannounced inspections. Having said that, I do not dismiss at all what the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Rob Brokenshire and others have referred to, that you cannot have people willy-nilly storming onto agricultural properties and potentially causing mayhem, spreading disease and all sorts of things.

It is my understanding, and as I said having been involved in some of the training of authorised officers over the years, that it is not the Keystone Cops out there, there is a level of professionalism. I am not denying that things go wrong, things do go wrong. We need to make sure that the quality of training and the quality of supervision of staff is of the highest level. At the end of the day, the Greens will not be supporting either of these two amendments because I think there is enough wrong with them that they will actually make the situation worse than it currently is.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: First of all, I would like to say that I have taken heart from some of the comments the Hon. Michelle Lensink made about the number of complaints that are being received in Liberal Party offices as well as, obviously, the offices of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, the Hon. John Darley and myself. It is good to know that it is not just the wing nuts in this place who are getting these sorts of complaints and pursuing them, that it is actually a major party that is being asked to look into the conduct of authorised officers.

First of all, given the information and the 18 months it has taken me to gather information and look into not just one or two cases but, I would say, about 40 or 50 cases about the abuse of authority of some NRM officers, I would be inclined to support the Hon. John Darley's amendment. In my eyes, it is prescriptive enough to put a halt to some of the stuff that is going on out there and causing our food producers and farmers some great angst.

I would like to make the point, while I am on my feet, that quite often it is not the actual food producers and farmers causing a lot of the problems that NRM officers think they need to crack down on, the problem lies with hobby farmers, and not only hobby farmers but hobby farmers who put managers in to manage those farms. Some are doctors, some are lawyers, they have their little weekend hideaway and they hire a manager to manage that property through the week so that once a month they can go down and enjoy country life, and quite often it is the managers who do not have a clue about looking after a property, maintaining a property, looking after the livestock of that property or the biosecurity issues.

Funnily enough, it is rarely those hobby farmers who are invaded by NRM officers. It is our food producers who are being targeted. I could show you half a dozen properties up in the Hills owned by hobby farmers that are an absolute disgrace. They are a fire hazard to the entire community, they are poorly maintained and, in a couple of cases, I know that real farmers up that way have reported the state of the animals on those properties to the RSPCA. On three different occasions one farmer was actually trucking hay to a horse in his ute to feed the animals on one of these hobby farms. He reported it to the RSPCA and was told, 'Well, if you're feeding it, we can't do anything about it.' It is these sort of issues that NRM officers should be addressing.

I agree with the Hon. Michelle Lensink that we will be revisiting this because these issues will not go away until the culture within some of the branches of NRM are identified, addressed and actually dealt with. That may need not just a change of policy but in the long term we may come to realise that it does take legislative change and penalties to curb that behaviour. As I said earlier, it is the bad behaviour we need to be addressing, and we need to make sure that we do not give them any more power than they have already.

I agree with the comments of the Hon. Mark Parnell about giving 48 hours' notice to a person who is in breach of the law or at risk of causing harm to another person, another property or to the biosecurity of the other farms, thieving water if that happens anymore, or whatever it might be. They are issues where neighbours of that person would expect that immediate action would be taken. I agree with that, but when we are talking about some NRM officers coming on to someone's land and throwing around their muscle and telling them that they could be fined $35,000 for moving a rock or a dead stump because it is now habitat for some fictional lizard or butterfly or whatever, that is just ridiculous and that does happen.

I could tell members a story of an NRM officer who was a next-door neighbour to a property where they were having a road graded to their home, and that NRM person came over to that property, picked up rocks and started throwing them at the grader driver because he was destroying native grass. This element is there, and if we do not take steps to address it it will not get better but will get worse. It will not matter which amendment I choose—I choose to support the Hon. John Darley's amendment because I think it has the detail in it that is needed, but obviously the government and the Liberal Party have agreed on an amendment and I guess we will be back looking at this in maybe another two or three years' time.

The CHAIR: We will be looking at the Hon. Ms Lensink's new clause as somewhat of a test.

New clause inserted.

Clause 16.

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

Page 7, lines 14 to 32 [clause 16, inserted section 72]—Delete section 72 and substitute:

72—Self-incrimination

If a natural person is required to give information, answer a question or produce, or provide a copy of, a document or record and the information, answer, document or record would tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty, the person must nevertheless give the information, answer the question or produce, or provide a copy of, the document or record, but the information, answer, document or record will not be admissible in evidence against the person in proceedings for an offence or for the imposition of a penalty other than proceedings in respect of the making of a false or misleading statement or declaration.

This clause proposes to amend the law relating to self-incrimination under the NRM Act. Currently, section 72 of the act provides that a person is not obliged to answer a question or produce a document or record if to do so might incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty.

The amendment specifies that if the natural person is required to give information, answer a question, or produce or provide a copy of a document or information, and complying with that requirement might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty, the person must nevertheless comply. However, the information, answer, document or record will not be admissible in evidence against the person in proceedings for an offence or for the imposition of a penalty other than for making a false or misleading statement or declaration.

The proposed reform provides for the disclosure of information relating to environmental harm and thus preventing further harm from being caused, while providing that information disclosed is not admissible in evidence against the person, thus protecting the person. This is considered to strike an appropriate balance between the protection of an individual's rights and the need for an effective and encompassing administration of the act and the protection and management of our natural resources.

The amendment will help ensure that threats of immediate harm to natural resources can be prevented or minimised while at the same time maintaining the basis of the common law of privilege. The proposed amendment is similar to the self-incrimination provisions, I am advised, current in the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and the Plant Health Act 2009.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I have a question for the minister on this. This is a matter on which I actually travelled to Victoria to speak with two people who had been in this situation, and I will briefly outline that case.

Two partially disabled elderly people were living on a property on the border of Victoria and Canberra. One had had a stroke and the other had buggered up her knee and they were unable, for a period of time, to maintain or clean up the property they were living on. They had the equivalent of NRM officers come onto the property and deem that their personal possessions, pot plants and herbs and whatever else, were illegal waste. Those NRM officers then brought in a skip, had all that so-called illegal waste removed, and the two people were charged as environmental vandals.

I know that our act is very different to that in Victoria, but these people no longer have access to their land. They were locked off their land because they were deemed to be unfit to look after it environmentally. Is this where this is going? I do not believe that any person should be required to provide documents, give evidence or give up their right not to co-operate until they have legal advice. All these tricky little pieces of legislation are turning common law, our judiciary, our legal system on its head. As with the NRM officers, we have no idea how this will actually be applied on the ground. I think this is very dangerous.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that there is no connection between the amendment that I am moving and the situation as described by the Hon. Ms Bressington.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a straightforward question for the minister: was this clause put forward by your government, minister, or was this a clause that was recommended by the department?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment is a clause that I recommended.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sorry, I just cannot hear the minister all the time. Did the minister say that it is a clause he recommended?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I said that the amendment is an amendment that I recommended.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Was the original proposal for this to be considered within all of the debate something that the government put to parliamentary counsel or was it something the department put up to the government? It is a very important question.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As I said, the amendment that I just moved is an amendment that I initiated.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will be supporting this amended change to the self-incrimination rules. However, I want to make a brief observation about the importance of getting early information where the consequences can be harmful to the environment—and we then have to weigh that up against the right of people to not have to self-incriminate.

I can think of a local example—and the Hon. Ann Bressington's comments reminded me of it—where various orchid fanciers in Adelaide brought in a number of plants from overseas. They became quite invasive in their pot plants and their gardens and so they were dug up, put into the wheelie bin and taken to the old Eden Hills rubbish dump, from where they have spread to vast areas of bushland in South Australia. I am talking about Monadenia, the African weed-orchid.

I wonder whether, if authorities had realised it soon enough and had been able to at least ask one of these orchid fanciers, 'Where did you dispose of your plants?' then it may have been possible to have nipped the invasion of that awful weed species in the bud. It may seem a bit far-fetched but it struck me as an example of where, for the greater good, sometimes we do need to force people to answer questions. The balance that is struck in this clause is that the answers and the documents that result from that forced disclosure will not, of themselves, be used in evidence against a person.

However, at the end of the day, if I am weighing up the potential harm to vast tracts of the environment with a person's common law right to silence, I am choosing the environment in this particular case.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I share the Hon. Ann Bressington's shock because let us remember that the NRM Act is not the only tool to protect the public interest in the event of an NRM or environmental incident. There are examples such as the safe drinking water legislation, the public health legislation and, for that matter, the public emergency legislation. There is a whole range of legislative tools that could be used where an environmental threat becomes a threat to the public.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Not a weed: what other act deals with weeds?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Let us be clear: in some of the most important legal rights that this parliament deals with (that is the criminal law) we preserve the privilege against self-incrimination. When members of the public are threatening other members of the public we still uphold that right. If the Hon. Mark Parnell wants to argue that weeds are more important than public safety threats through crime, through public health, etc., then so be it. Certainly we will be asserting, and the Hon. Michelle Lensink's amendment asserts that this is an important privilege—what the courts have called a 'bulwark of our liberty'. We certainly believe that it should not be abrogated in this case.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: After asking a question of the minister my understanding of the last answer from him was that—just for the public record—the department, when it drafted this documentation, was happy to forgo the democratic rights and to have people self-incriminate. The minister, in his wisdom, had seen that that was a very dangerous move and therefore tried to come to a halfway house between the department—and it really does expose the department for what it is on about with this—and trying to get something that might appease this council. I frankly do not care what might be in the fisheries act or any other act; I actually think they are wrong too, and at some point in time—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —with the next Attorney-General indicating, we may be able to come in here in May or June next year and actually fix them, too. However, in the meantime, we will certainly be opposing this. We have a similar amendment to the Hon. Michelle Lensink, which I will talk about later. This is just outrageous; we have to stop this nonsense. I think the government should have withdrawn this altogether. It is a democratic right that people have had; we have fought wars over this sort of thing. We have the Westminster system, and this is just being undermined by, frankly, dictators.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Page 7, lines 11 to 32—Delete clause 16 and substitute:

16—Repeal of section 72

Section 72—delete the section

Just to place on the record what the Liberal Party's position is: we are very concerned about any undermining of the right to remain silent, as my learned colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade has outlined. We believe it is a common law human right which should not be abrogated, so we will not be supporting the government's amendment; ergo, we are supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire on this point. Subsequent to that, we are actually seeking to delete the clause from the substantive act itself so that it will revert to the common law definition.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I just want to mention that I will be opposing the government's amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chairman, I rise in outrage—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: And shock.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: —and shock, and wish to indicate—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Throw some horror in there.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Not yet—that the government opposes the amendment of the Hon. Ms Lensink. The government considers that a substitution of the self-incrimination provision of the act through my amendment No. 16 is important to effectively respond to major harm to our natural resources. If harm is being caused to our natural resources, we have the responsibility to mitigate or stop that harm as quickly as we possibly can.

By requiring persons to answer questions, we obtain the information to remedy that circumstance for the benefit of the community; but I reiterate that the information given, unless it is false or misleading, cannot be used in proceedings as evidence against that person. What further protections do you need? This provision has existed for some time—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This provision has existed for some time in other environmental-related legislation. Again, I reinforce the point that it attempts to strike a balance between the need to protect our natural resources without abrogating the rights of the individual.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the minister might reflect on his last statement: you are asserting the right to natural resources without abrogating from the rights of individuals. Clearly, this whole provision abrogates from the rights of individuals. Let me just restate that, under English common law, the privilege against self-incrimination (or, more correctly, the privilege against self-exposure to incrimination) is one of the most fundamental rights.

Privilege is regarded as a key protection of individual liberties and a substantive right. Courts have described the privilege as a 'cardinal principle of our system of justice', a 'bulwark of liberty', and 'fundamental to a civilised legal system'.

The Liberal Party has never asserted that it can never be abrogated; we have done that in my parliamentary career in relation to the safe drinking water legislation. However, as I have said time and time again, we will only consider abrogating it if in the circumstances we consider that it is necessary in the context of competing public interests.

On the one hand, the public interest is in upholding an important individual human right—which only yesterday the Greens were demanding this parliament respect. On the other hand, there is a public interest in ensuring that authorities have adequate powers to inquire into and monitor activities that give rise to issues of significant public concern. The Australian Law Reform Commission—hardly the IPA, which the government refuses to listen to—put it in these terms:

The courts have clearly expressed the view that the privilege against self-incrimination is an important human right. Yet the legislature must balance other public interest considerations against the protection of individual human rights...The policy question for the legislature is to decide in what circumstances public interest considerations should overrule human rights protection, and whether the regulation of particular activities mandates different considerations.

In general terms, the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination is justified in circumstances where the public interest in obtaining the information is greater than the public interest in providing protection from compelled self-incrimination.

The Hon. Mark Parnell and the honourable minister have both said that it would be of convenience to the prosecution and enforcement authorities. Well, that is true of the police, surely. It is true of any prosecution authority. Of course it is to their convenience. What we have to ask is: does it justify an abrogation of a basic human right? In relation to the safe drinking water bill before this parliament in 2011, the Liberal opposition decided that the higher public interest was in responding to threats to safe drinking water and that it justified the abrogation in that case.

As I have indicated in response to a previous discussion on this clause, I believe that there are already tools that would be available to government to deal with risks that were threats to both natural resources and the public. I must admit that I do find it hard to conceive of a threat to natural resources alone that would justify the abrogation of individual human rights. Within my value structure that would be to put the environment above humans. Our assessment is that the interests being protected by this bill do not justify abrogation of the privilege.

We have not chosen to propose an alternative amendment because to do so could codify and continue to limit the common law right. We think that the best step this parliament could take would be to oppose the government amendment and to support the amendment of the Hon. Michelle Lensink because by doing so you would remove the clause in the act and therefore refresh the common law rights that South Australians are entitled to.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Far be it from me to argue points of law with the Hon. Mr Wade or the Hon. Mr Parnell: they would beat me every time. However, I must point out that I think the Hon. Mr Wade is confusing the issue; I will leave it at that. My advice about the common law right he was referring to is that the privilege in its modern form is in the nature of a human right designed to protect individuals from oppressive methods of obtaining evidence of their guilt for use against them—for use against them.

I expressly make it very plain that they will be protected from that in my amendment. The confusion of the two, I think, really does no service to this debate. My amendment makes it very plain that the right is to be abrogated to the extent that it provides evidence to the officers so that we can correct a wrong immediately without it being able to be used against the person who surrenders that information.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: What about OMCG? She won't break their code of silence.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could respond briefly to the minister's accusation, I am suffering from no confusion on this matter. It is a consistent view of the Liberal Party, both at the state level and the federal level, that codification of human rights in whatever form runs the severe risk of actually limiting them. That is why we have chosen to delete this clause, not to fiddle with it. You have chosen to fiddle with it. We do not believe that is a good approach.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Stephen Wade has raised the tone of the debate into some moral value judgements about the importance of various issues, including human health, human life, the environment, and also, I hasten to add, billions upon billions of dollars worth of agricultural produce that could be at risk. That is on one side of the ledger; the other side of the ledger is the person's absolute right to remain silent.

What strikes me is that the Hon. Stephen Wade says, 'Well, when it comes to drinking water, yes, someone might have tampered with drinking water and you can make them tell us what they did so that we can deal with it,' but what about being able to say to the person, 'We know you've been releasing cane toads all over the state. Can you tell us where?' Brucellosis—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Bringing in fruit flies.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —fruit flies, the Hon. Gail Gago interjects—and I mentioned an example of an environmental weed, and perhaps I would have been better off to refer to an agricultural weed that costs farmers billions upon billions of dollars. The Hon. Stephen Wade's value judgement is that he values the right of the person to absolute protection from self-incrimination not to be able to—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: By opposing this, if the issues at stake were the release of a feral animal or noxious weeds into the environment that were going to cost farmers billions of dollars, then I think this is a compromise, fairly sensible amendment that recognises that that evidence will not be used against that person in a court of law but that the authorities will have the information they need to potentially protect our economy and our environment from vast harm. That is where I see this amendment falling.

I am normally with the Hon. Stephen Wade on these issues, and we have supported the right for people not to have to incriminate themselves, but sometimes there is a greater good. Those of you who have studied legal studies would want to step it up another level and start talking about the torture of prisoners of war to find out valuable information, and it can go to the whole next level philosophically.

I am saying that at risk here are the livelihoods of thousands of South Australian farmers and the integrity of our natural environment, and we are weighing that up against what is, I think, a quite mild tinkering of the rules in relation to self-incrimination. I sleep quite well at night normally supporting the Hon Stephen Wade's position but, as he said, in relation to drinking water he fell the other side of the line: I am falling the other side of the line in relation to natural resources.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Minister, for absolute clarification, my understanding is that right at this point in time the act states clearly that nobody loses their right to silence. Can the minister confirm that that is actually the situation? That is my understanding.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that I referred to this in section 72 of the act, which currently provides that a person is not obliged to answer a question or to produce a document or record if to do so might incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: The status quo should remain.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not know whether Hansard picked up the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's comment. He was saying that the status quo would—

The CHAIR: The comments were out of order.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, an honourable member may reflect on this and say that perhaps the status quo will remain. That is certainly an option within the amendments before us. The Liberal opposition takes the view that the right existed in common law well before anybody thought of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. We should fall back on common law not on the government that commissioned the bill at that time. We appreciate the point the Hon. Robert Brokenshire makes, that the act is to be preferred to the government's amendment, but we say that common law is to be preferred to both.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Just a final go, Mr Chairman—if the Hon. Mr Brokenshire believes that the status quo should remain, then he should vote against my amendment and vote against the Hon. Ms Lensink's amendment as well.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter's amendment negatived; the Hon. J.M.A. Lensink's amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 16A.

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

Page 7, after line 32—Insert:

16A—Amendment of section 73—Offences by authorised officers

Section 73—after paragraph (b) insert:

or

(c) represents that he or she is authorised (however described) under this or any other Act to exercise a particular power when he or she is not so authorised,

One of the few things that did get through when this bill was being debated after a new government, which at that time allegedly had a significant mandate to bring in this bill in the first instance, was by the Hon. Graham Gunn who put in restrictions in response to claims received from farmers about some attitudes of authorised officers.

Allegedly, farmers have been told the authorised officers have various powers to do this or that but in fact at law it was discovered they did not, so this is designed as a deterrent that the authorised officers' representations to landholders must be true at law. This simply tweaks what the Hon. Graham Gunn was always concerned about and I think it is fair to say that anecdotally at least it has happened on occasions.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On a point of clarity, we are dealing with [Brokenshire-6] 11 only?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Then the government supports this very sensible amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am shocked at the minister's response. My question of the minister is that, in supporting this amendment, it seems to me that this creates a strict liability offence on the part of authorised officers. So, an authorised officer might believe genuinely that he or she had certain powers and then sought to exercise them—and maybe they were misled by superior officers, maybe it was something that had not been tested before. The minister can answer whether, by including this paragraph in section 73, we are creating a strict liability offence where an authorised officer who genuinely and reasonably believes that they have certain powers—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —could be subject to a fine of $5,000?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have already said that I am moving this for the reasons that I highlighted. When you take on a vocation, including that of a police officer or anyone else for that matter, you should be trained and educated correctly. If you have a problem in how you go about your business, you go through your chain of command to protect yourself in the organisation, which has been a consistent theme of debate I have put forward.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that an authorised officer is issued with an instrument of appointment which describes any restrictions on powers as set out in the act. He or she has to exercise powers in accordance with any restrictions thus recorded and, if such an officer was to say that they had powers which they do not, then perhaps they should be subject to this constraint.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Congratulations, minister. Congratulations, Mr Brokenshire. I want to make a very brief comment on what the Hon. Mark Parnell said about protecting the little guy. I would imagine that if there is a breach and an authorised officer had been told by his superior officer that he is actually authorised to undertake a certain action, that the responsibility would fall with the superior for misinforming the authorised officer of the extent of his authority. At the end of the day, are we not all required to know our job and know the rules? If it is an enforcement issue then enforce to the level of authority that we have and fully understand that, and that goes to training.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Having asked that question, I am satisfied with the minister's answer. I always supported the intent, which was to make sure that people do not—I am trying to think of a polite way of saying this—misrepresent who they are and what they are doing. We do not want people to get away with that, and that is the intent of this amendment, so I will be supporting it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Just to reassure honourable members even further, section 218—General defence, of the act states:

It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this Act if the defendant proves that the alleged offence was not committed intentionally and did not result from any failure on the part of the defendant to take reasonable care to avoid the commission of the offence.

That also applies to authorised officers, I understand.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It might be time to sing Kumbaya, but the Liberal Party will also be supporting the amendment. We think that it is important. Misrepresentation is one way to put it, trying it on is another, and we agree with this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 17.

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

Page 8, after line 3—Insert:

(3a) Section 75(3)(h)(ii)—delete 'for the first of those years'

(3b) Section 75(3)(h)(ii)—delete 'year' wherever occurring and substitute in each case:

period

This amendment is the first of three amendments to provide that the business plan component of a regional NRM plan need only be reviewed every three years rather than, as it is currently, annually. The review of a board's business plan must be undertaken annually and boards are concerned at the level of resourcing required to meet this statutory obligation. Updating a business plan relates mainly to programs and funding, with these plans already identifying programs and funding over a period of three financial years. Specifically, this amendment makes it clear that all components of a business plan relate to the next three ensuing financial years and supports the amendments under my amendment No. 20 to clause 22.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On this occasion I commend the minister for this one—it must be getting close to lunch time. He has not been in the chair of this portfolio for that long but has had the wisdom to realise that if you are going to talk about efficiencies and streamlining and giving opportunity to deliver real on-the-ground positive projects for the state with respect to NRM, then you have to stop bogging down so many people, including the Natural Resources Committee, the minister and the minister's office, and let them plan for three years and get on with the job, subject to the standard requirements of probity and due diligence. So, well done, minister, we will support you on this one.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Ditto.

Amendment carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:16]


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