Bills

Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Renewable Energy) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 May 2014.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:26): I rise to make some comments in relation to this bill. First, I would like to thank the minister for organising a briefing for us—which the members for Stuart and Chaffey also attended—and also for providing additional information, including a list of frequently asked questions and a map of the transmission lines, which are the most likely locations for renewable energy development on pastoral lands.

I note from preceding government speeches that they have banged on a lot about this government's record on clean energy but they have failed to acknowledge the role that the Howard Liberal government played in kickstarting the initial investment in renewable energy technology, that target being 20 per cent of renewable energy by 2020. I note that South Australia has 28 per cent of its energy coming from the renewable sector.

The Clean Energy Regulator, which the federal government tasked with overseeing the RET, has advised that at the end of 2011 the investment in renewable energy power stations totalled around $10 billion nationally and there were more than 1.3 million installations of solar panels and solar water heaters.

In my view Labor has exploited the climate change agenda for as long as they thought it was popular. Over the last 12 years, particularly under the previous premier, we had numerous media releases promoting solar panels on government buildings, many wind turbines that did not work and broken promises of greener schools. We also had some fairly dubious promises about the carbon neutrality of the desalination plant, and no Labor minister has ever been able to explain that one, and a carbon neutral cabinet.

This particular policy was promulgated by the previous premier, the Hon. Mike Rann, in Cancun, Mexico, in December 2010. He announced a series of ideas. This one is four years in the making, apparently. The other ideas included capping the amount of carbon emitted by new power plants, providing funds for community solar farms, having a target of 10 per cent improvement in air-conditioning, and also helping to part pay the spectacularly unsuccessful vehicle recharging station at the Central Market together with the Adelaide City Council.

The Advertiser ran a headline attached to an article on 9 December 2010, 'Drive for clean energy'. The opening paragraph states:

Huge areas of pastoral land across the state will be opened up to allow faster and easier access for companies wanting to establish solar and wind farms.

So here we are with this bill.

At a state level, the previous Liberal government had a strong record of leadership on greenhouse gas emissions. In 1998, the Liberal government launched South Australia's first government greenhouse target program, wind farm developments were supported, the Osborne cogeneration plant was constructed and the Pelican Point combined cycle power station, which significantly reduced the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during electricity production. We have also (in opposition) consistently supported targeted reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 60 per cent by 2050. During the debate on the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Bill 2007 we inserted an amendment to that bill that would seek independent verification from the CSIRO on the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions targets.

In relation to the details of this bill, we are advised that renewable energy development cannot currently occur on pastoral leases because the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 was drafted prior to it being envisaged. So, while this may be the first legislation of its type in Australia, its uniqueness is not so much in its being innovative, because there are already provisions on other types of land tenure to provide for renewable energy development, however, there are specific obstacles within this act which prevent it.

This particular bill has the effect of allowing the coexistence of pastoral activities, wind farm development and mining. There was a bill that was put out for consultation in 2011, which has been amended, and 21 parties lodged submissions, including pastoral lessees, wind farm developers, peak bodies, legal bodies representing native title holders and defence representatives. I would like to commend the member for Stuart who was very involved in that process. The consultation period had, at that stage, only been two months, but after requests from him on behalf of his constituents that was extended and I acknowledge the amount of work that he put into ensuring that those views were represented.

Under the provisions within the bill, wind farm developers will be able to obtain a licence to build and operate on pastoral land, which will expand the amount of land which is currently available to potential renewable energy development. The most likely location of such developments is in proximity to transmission lines. It is believed that wind farm development cannot operate outside a 30-kilometre radius of these lines.

The minister is to negotiate the lease conditions and payments on behalf of the Crown, the lessee and any other interested parties, which can include pastoralists, native title parties and mining tenement holders. I am advised that this is based on the same principles as the development on freehold land, with the payment generally ranging from $8,000 to $12,000 per turbine, although I note that the bill contains a provision for a discount for the remoteness of it, which I think is probably of some concern to those interested parties.

In the original draft in 2011 there was no specification on the amount of compensation the pastoralists or native title holders would receive, which has been amended to provide those interested parties with 95 per cent of the total payment, with 5 per cent accumulated by the state government for administrative purposes. Prior to a licence being granted the minister can grant the developer access to pastoral land in order to undertake preliminary activities, which includes conducting investigations or tests, temporary installation of devices, taking samples, etc., and 14 days' notice must be given to the pastoralist.

During this process, the developer must satisfy the minister within 2½ years that a clear plan has been developed. If they have satisfied the minister, a further three years will be granted for investigation. During this period, no other developer will be given access to that portion of land. A licence is granted for a minimum of 25 years with an option to extend for a further 25 years, and the licence gives the developer the right to fence off any infrastructure where necessary, and build access roads and other necessary infrastructure. The minister has the authority to impose conditions on the licence.

The wind farm development licensee must reach two milestones in order to keep their licence. Within three years, a developer must demonstrate that they possess adequate financial backing and have executed contracts for the construction of the major components. They must erect the turbines within five years and commence testing. Appeals can be made to the ERD Court if one of the parties is dissatisfied and, when renewable energy development and pastoralism are incompatible, as is the case for solar, the minister can authorise the land to be surrendered by the pastoralist in a process known as redemption. If the lessee agrees, the developer and the lessee have one month to come up with the terms. However, the matter of redemption (or taking back that lease) is amended by this bill from six months to two months.

We have a number of questions which I would like the minister to respond to. A number of these have been put by the member for Stuart, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan. The payment is probably one of the key issues of concern. Firstly, in relation to the negotiations, that is something that the minister does. I note that this Minister for Environment is also the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and one of the prescribed interested parties is Indigenous people through native title declarations, so my first question is: how does the minister manage that process, which has a potential conflict of interest when he is negotiating on behalf of the Crown but also wearing his minister for Indigenous affairs hat for those Indigenous people?

Furthermore, I think the government has a general conflict as the negotiator. I think it is fair to say that they were pretty keen proponents of this proposal. Where does that leave some of the people on whose behalf it is negotiating? I think it is a little bit untidy as far as those processes are concerned and it is certainly of concern for the Liberal Party. The government's 5 per cent will be an annual payment so, for the 25 years plus 25 years, I wonder if they have a particular amount that they think that is going to come to. Perhaps the minister could outline how they arrived at 5 per cent and whether there is any comparable jurisdiction. I understand that they say that this is the first legislation of its type in Australia, but is there any kind of comparison with these sorts of agreements on other types of tenure?

Indeed, in relation to the issue I was talking about with the payment, how does the minister envisage any disputes between it and any of those parties might be managed? For instance, there may be a pastoralist who is against having wind turbines on their lease. What sort of process is the government going to go through to negotiate with them, and what appeal rights will they have beyond just having consultation with the minister?

What is the situation when there is more than one pastoral lease involved in a single development, because various sites may be held by different lessees? Will the payment be made to one lessee or not another? Does it depend on where the actual turbines are located? For instance, if substations or transmission lines have to be constructed on a separate title, will the ones with the infrastructure also receive some sort of payment or compensation? In relation to the 25 years plus 25 years, is there an option to extend past that 50 years? Why did the government arrive at those two particular periods?

If the renewable energy developer goes broke, what happens to the clean-up and removal at the end of the working life of those turbines, etc.? In relation to the resumptions, that is an existing provision in the act. Section 32 of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act states that 'the minister must give written notice of intention'. Within that existing provision, I am just wondering if the minister can provide any details about whether these resumptions have taken place and whether when that has taken place a reason has been given. I assumed that there would have to be a pretty good reason for that to take place if that occurs. However, is there a different situation with resumption under these provisions? Is the minister required to give a reason or do they just gazette it and that is the end of that?

Are the prescribed interested parties entitled to be represented by legal counsel in relation to these negotiations? There is something that parliamentary counsel mentioned to me when I spoke to them, and I would like it if the minister could confirm this is true or not. The prescribed interested parties in the bill include the following:

(a) the lessee;

(b) the holder of a resources tenement—

so mining interests—

(c) if there is a native title declaration for the land—the registered representative of the native title holders and the relevant representative Aboriginal body;

(d) if there no native title declaration for the land—all persons who hold, or may hold, native title in the land;

which is a pretty open ended situation. Parliamentary counsel said that if (d) was not included in the legislation, it was a breach of the commonwealth Native Title Act, and I would like it if the minister could confirm that or not. It does provide a situation where there can be considerable uncertainty about the payment. In relation to the payment, we were advised in the briefing that that potentially could be split between the native title holders—and obviously that is the situation.

However, there is the potential for native title holders who do not yet have a declaration to participate in that process. I think that may impact on pastoral lessees in relation to how they perceive this legislation and whether they are going to be keen on having wind turbines on their property if they are not able to confirm what their portion of the payment is going to be into the future, acknowledging that those payments can be quite useful for them to supplement their income, particularly when the pastoral country can be pretty unreliable.

I was hoping that the minister might be able to clarify new section 49E of the bill—Rights under licence, which states:

A wind farm licence may grant such rights as the Minister considers necessary for the proper functioning of the wind farm to which the licence relates and may include the right to exclude the lessee or any other person from infrastructure associated with the wind farm…

I would like the minister to provide the sorts of circumstances under which that might take place. That section has to be there for a reason, and I wonder whether the minister might be able to provide that to us.

Another question we have is in relation to whether the payments which are made to any of the parties exclude any payments the developer might wish to make directly to any of those parties. New section 49K talks about payments. In brackets, it states:

(and the prescribed interested parties are not entitled to any other payment or compensation under this Act in respect of the wind farm).

For instance, there may be a fence or a shed or some other piece of the pastoralist's infrastructure that is knocked over in the process or, if it is a native title holder's, there would be items they would have some issues with if they were destroyed. Is that the only payment that can be made under section 49K of this bill or are there any other, if you like, side deals which do not come via the fund?

We also have a query about 49F(6) because it talks about, in determining the licence fees payable, the minister must not take into account the value of any other improvements on the land that do not belong to the Crown; there again, there may be stockyards, fences or watering points. Can the minister explain why that subsection is there, because there may be specific issues on certain sites that might mean that that subsection is unfair.

In relation to the period provided for the developer to start the process before the wind turbines need to be erected, the first milestone is for two years and six months, and then there is an additional three years. They seem like awfully long periods of time for a developer to have exclusive access to their potential proposal. If the minister can explain why those periods were chosen, that would be appreciated.

During the initial periods when the payments can be made, we noted that 49K(1)(a) provides that payments can be made during the initial access period. Presumably, licences fees are not being paid at that stage because it is still in the development phase, before it has been completed. So, where is that funding coming from and under what circumstances does the minister envisage that that might actually take place? Also, if there is a tenement, some sort of potential or actual mining interest, is any compensation payable to those interests and under what circumstances? Another issue is 49M—just a query as to why the wind farm licence is exempt from stamp duty.

So that the minister is aware, we are generally supportive of this piece of legislation, but we do have some concerns. We are likely to have some amendments; I have had a couple drafted already, and I thank parliamentary counsel for its advice and assistance. Other amendments are on the way and will be filed at the earliest opportunity. We are generally supportive of the bill but have some concerns.

It is fair to say that, given our representation in the party room, a lot of concern has come from the pastoral sector as to what are their rights during the negotiation process, what are their rights in terms of the minister having so much of the final say on a number of parameters of how this will operate, and just to ensure that their voice will not just be heard adequately but that they might actually have some say about how potentially this may impact on them. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:50): I rise today to speak briefly on the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Renewable Energy) Amendment Bill and to express some concerns with the provisions regarding wind farms. At the outset, I want to make very clear that the importance of renewable energy, and the importance of providing certainty to investors in renewable technologies, is not under question. It is vital that South Australia and Australia as a whole reduce both our carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel technology.

Both wind and solar power are currently the most developed and commercialised forms of renewable energy, but at this stage neither can provide base load power. It is this ability to provide base load power that renewables will have to meet before we can wean ourselves off coal-fired power completely. We need to consider other emerging technologies, such as geothermal or solar thermal, both of which have the potential to create base load power.

My concern with this bill relates to the approval process for wind farm development on pastoral land. In effect, it overrides any appropriate consultation with pastoral lessees and allows too much ministerial discretion. As such, this parliament cannot give the proposed process proper scrutiny. I will move amendments to remove the provisions relating to the wind farm approval process from the bill. Until these issues of due process can be addressed, it is not appropriate to fast-track further developments, which may create significant problems that have to be addressed in future.

What we should understand is that pastoral lessees have 14-year rollover leases, which continue for as long as the conditions on the lease are met, which could, effectively, be in perpetuity. I will support the part of the bill that deals with solar, but I cannot support the part concerning wind farms without appropriate consultation and due process.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:52): The Greens will support this legislation, which provides a regulatory framework for wind farms to be developed in the pastoral areas of South Australia. It is very clear to us that the energy mix of the future will include a far greater proportion of renewable energy and, in fact, we need to be aspiring in this state and in this country to moving to 100 per cent renewable energy. Whatever the mix of renewable sources, it is clear to us that wind energy will be a big part of that mix. So, this bill is welcome.

The federal Liberal government currently has the Renewable Energy Target under review although I think it is probably more accurate to say they have it under attack, and I think it is very clear to renewable energy companies in South Australia and elsewhere that, if that target is watered down, or worse still abolished, then the prospect of new wind farms in South Australia is quite bleak. So we do in this state need to understand that what is happening in Canberra has a big impact on the future economic development of our state because, as we all know, South Australia is the heartland of wind energy in Australia.

I mainly in this contribution want to put on the record a number of questions for the minister to answer when the second reading debate is concluded. The first question I have is whether there is a particular part of the pastoral lands that has already been targeted by wind companies for development. It seems to me that legislation like this rarely comes out of thin air. My expectation is that there has been some discussion. I am interested to know where those areas might be. My understanding of the wind energy is that there are two main factors that they are looking at, and they are the two Ws—wind and wires. Is it windy and are there wires to take the power to market?

Most of the outback areas under the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act do not have great access to the grid. Some areas are better than others but certainly we know that many parts of the outback are windy, so I am curious to know which areas the government believes might be early cabs off the rank when it comes to wind farms on pastoral land. The one aspect of the bill that gives the Greens the most concern is the effective right of veto held by the mining industry. Members might look at the bill and say that there is no real right of veto because if a mining tenement holder objects to a wind farm then there has to be a court process—mediation first and decision later—but my question of the government is what other area of industrial development in South Australia subjects developers to mining company rights of veto?

I cannot think of any other area where a developer is obliged to go to, perhaps, an overseas speculative investor who has acquired access to a few hundred square kilometres of South Australia for the purposes of exploration, and that company can effectively put a halt to a wind farm development. I do not understand why that is required. I think it is unfair and it is unreasonable and, as has been mentioned before, it is certainly not paralleled in any rights attached to the pastoral leaseholders themselves. For example, the person who is living on the land and who is grazing cattle or sheep pursuant to their pastoral licence, does not have any power of veto, yet a mining company with purely exploration rights is able to effectively stop the wind farm going ahead.

Just to put this in perspective, if members are keen to have a look at the map of mining tenements in South Australia, you will find that, if it is not 100 per cent, it is well into the 90s, the percentage of pastoral lands that are covered by mineral exploration licences or mining leases, or also exploration licences under the Petroleum and Geothermal Act. We are talking the whole of the pastoral lands, in effect. I would like the minister to answer the question: why do we have this unique situation where these companies effectively are given a veto over renewable energy going ahead?

Access agreement is the label in this bill that is given to the type of agreement that has to be given by the prescribed interested parties before the minister can proceed to issue a wind farm licence. These prescribed interested parties include the lessee, the holders of mining tenements, and also various native title holders or potential native title holders. Of those four groups of prescribed interested parties it is only the holders of resource tenements who have to negotiate the access agreement, which is also quite odd, because when it comes to access, most of the tracks and roads and things would probably be under the control and management of the pastoral lessee rather than the mining companies.

However, that is the bill as it is. If there is a disagreement, if the mining companies will not sign an access agreement with the wind farm operator, then it goes off to the Environment, Resources and Development Court. It seems that when such a dispute reaches court, there is first of all the mediation process. That makes sense, because it is always good to mediate a dispute if that is possible. If it is not possible then it goes to a decision.

The only thing that gives me some comfort in the way this mining veto regime has been developed is that I would presume the Environment, Resources and Development Court, in considering whether or not a mining company has a valid reason for refusing to sign an access agreement, would be obliged to take into account the objects of the act. The objects of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act now include, pursuant to this bill, under proposed new section 4(f):

to provide for the operation of wind farms on pastoral land, concurrently with the land being used for pastoral purposes

There is no object of the pastoral act to promote mining, so I would hope that if a dispute did reach the ERD Court, and if one of the protagonists in the dispute were a company that merely had an exploration licence, then the court would determine that its refusal to sign an access agreement was unreasonable. It would be different, of course, if it were a mining lease and someone wanted to put turbines in the middle of the works. Clearly that is not compatible. However, I would hope that the court would be very loathe to stand in the way of wind farm developments if the only objector is a mineral exploration company.

The third issue I want to raise is in relation to the rehabilitation of land afterwards. This is an issue that was raised in evidence to the select committee on wind farms, which, I imagine, standing orders precludes us talking about because I am not sure that it ever reported. In any event, it was an issue raised by witnesses, that wind turbines may have a life of 20 years or 30 years or potentially up to 50 years; the fact is that we do not really know, because the industry is too young to know how long these things last. What I find interesting in this legislation is that the minister must include, in a wind farm licence, conditions ensuring that a proper process is put in place for the eventual decommissioning of the wind farm and rehabilitation of the wind farm site. I make the point that a provision such as that does not apply to any other wind farm in South Australia. There is no publicly enforceable, legal obligation to remove a wind farm and associated infrastructure once it has ceased operation.

Now, members might think that those rules exist in the contracts between freehold farmers and the operators, and that is probably right. I would imagine that most of the contracts between farmers and wind farm operators would have a clause in there saying that at the conclusion of operations the wind farm developer would remove the turbines. I also imagine in 20 or 30 years' time the wind farm operator, faced with a million-dollar bill for moving turbines, is likely to go back to the farmer and say, 'Why don't we split the difference? We will give you half a million if they can stay.' I am sure the farmer would probably agree that having a few very large statues on the property is a small price to pay compared to what the wind farm operator would pay them not to have to move those turbines. It seems that that is not the case here. The minister is legally obliged to include some sort of a clause which talks about the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the wind farm site.

My first question is why? I am sure the answer is probably that this is public land rather than private land. It also seems that it could require the rehabilitation of tens or hundreds of kilometres of powerlines as well. Again, that is not an obligation that has ever been imposed on any other energy utility to my knowledge. So I would like the minister to explain that.

All in all, I think that this legislation is a good move forward. If the reason that prospective wind farm areas have not been developed is simply because of land tenure and the legislation and this legislation fixes that then that is a good thing, but I do look forward to the committee stage and the minister responding to the questions that I have put on the record.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:05): I would like to make a few brief comments about this particular bill, which of course is the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Renewable Energy) Amendment Bill. As you would be well aware, sir, you were on a select committee looking at wind farms with the Hon. Mark Parnell and—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You slept out together.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In fact we did have a sleepover one night—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Does he snore?

The PRESIDENT: Immensely.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It was a dark and stormy night, as I recall.

The PRESIDENT: He thought it was the thunder.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Point of order, Mr President. I think the honourable member well knows that he should not be reflecting on matters before a select committee that has either not reported or is still working. Those sorts of stories we just do not want to hear.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I was not really reflecting on the work of the committee, just the sleep of the committee, Mr President. However, I will move on. The catalyst for the select committee being established was the implementation of the statewide development plan amendment, the interim operation, which we saw on the last day that Mike Rann was premier, and that being foisted upon South Australia with the help of the then planning minister—he is still the planning minister—the Hon. John Rau. So we formed the select committee.

The Hon. Mark Parnell referred to a number of points or bits of evidence that we heard during that time. I just want to reiterate some of the points the minister made in his second reading speech. I note that in his speech the minister talked about our target of 20 per cent renewable energy by 2014 and 33 per cent of electricity generation by renewable sources by 2020. We are well down the path for that target, but we also have some of the most expensive energy in the world. I think we have to be mindful of the fact that we have had this honourable goal of trying to reduce our carbon footprint but, as a community, we have paid the price.

The minister also went on to talk about South Australia committing in 2013 to a target of a $10 billion investment in low-carbon generation by 2025. I just query the figures in his second reading speech. He said that since 2003 there has been $5.5 billion of investment in renewable energy, with some $2 billion (or 40 per cent) of this investment in regional areas.

I would like the minister to bring back some information regarding the $3½ billion in renewable energy and what people in South Australia have spent on rooftop solar systems. Or is that a mistake in his figures? Because a bit later on he goes on to say, 'According to the Clean Energy Council almost $3 billion has been invested in wind farms in South Australia,' which I assume would all be in regional areas. So I am not quite sure how you can have $2 billion in renewable energy in regional areas earlier in the minister's speech and then one paragraph later he talks about the Clean Energy Council saying that almost $3 billion has been invested in South Australia. I would appreciate some clarity around the figures he has used because, if they are that inaccurate three paragraphs into his second reading speech, then that does bring into question some of the other figures he has mentioned in his speech.

I also remind members that we have about 1,200 megawatts—according to the minister's speech, 1,203 megawatts—of installed capacity, or 559 turbines. My understanding is that there is about that much already approved again, so we are looking at another 1,200 megawatts or potentially—in fact, the turbines are slightly larger now—around 500 turbines already approved but not yet installed. So, I am interested to know why this government continues its love affair with renewable energy and yet the market seems to have stalled because it has been at about 1,200 megawatts for the last two years and we have not had any new developments take place.

Of course, this is about an amendment to the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act. Some of the concerns raised when I was on the select committee—and I am not going to refer to the proceedings of the select committee—and I am sure my colleague the Hon. Michelle has raised this but I will raise it again, were in relation to the way the fee, or the licence fee, is to be apportioned. The minister, in his second reading explanation, stated:

A pastoral lessee stands to benefit financially from a wind farm licence. The South Australian government will charge a licence fee for use of pastoral lease land that is commensurate with that paid by wind farm developers to owners of freehold land. This fee will take account of the extra costs associated with development in remote areas…

What do they mean by that? That is clearly up to the wind farm developer. If they choose to develop in a remote area then that should not impact on the actual fee they pay to the landowner, or the lessee. My reading of that is that that means: 'Well, it's a long way from the grid so we've got to build a big transmission line, so we're not going to actually pay you anything, or just a token payment for hosting the wind turbine.' It continues:

This fee will take account of the extra costs associated with development in remote areas, and 95 per cent of this fee will be distributed to a pastoral lessee and any other party with an interest in the land, such as, for example, native title holders. An initial amount will be paid during the exploration and construction phases of the project and then an annual amount once the wind farm is operating.

Reading it earlier on, the government will take 5 per cent of the fee for a handling fee, if you like, clip the ticket on the way through. I am interested to know why this could not just be attached to a pastoral lease and the lessee gets the benefit and it is up to the wind farm owner, or proponent, to negotiate whether he wants to offer something to the native title holders and any other interested parties. I do not know why the government has to get involved with, if you like, clipping the ticket on the way through.

Clearly, it would be, I would have thought, no different to a mortgage that a lessee has over their pastoral lease, where they go to the bank. It is a document that they have had with their bank. You would assume that a wind farm developer who has an agreement with somebody who has a privately owned property—not crown land, crown lease, or a pastoral lease, they have an agreement and an arrangement—surely there are some contractual arrangements which would take place between the wind farm developer, or wind farm owner, and the lessee. I am interested to know why we have to have another layer of government, another layer of, if you like, bureaucracy.

The other thing is the 95 per cent—I am sure my colleague mentioned this but I will mention it again—who decides what the ratio is as to who gets what share of the 95 per cent? Clearly, if it is about an inconvenience payment, which it often is in the more closely settled land, then if somebody has, for example, an interest in the land but does not live anywhere near it, does not operate it, does not farm it or graze it, while they might have an interest they are certainly not being inconvenienced by the development of the wind farm.

So, I am interested to know what the break-up is and how that would be determined. It is all very well to say, 'We're going to be fair and reasonable. Everybody gets a little slice of the action,' but if you are a pastoralist and you have a wind farm that causes some concern, whether it is access to water points, whether it is a transmission line, or whether it is a substation, there will be a whole range of developments that may impact on the way that you go about your business and, if you like, run your grazing operation, or your pastoral operation. So, I think it is important that we understand how that is divided up, the way it is determined and why the government has to be involved. Reading further in the minister's second reading explanation, he says:

During this period, no other wind farm developer will be given approval for access to the same portion of a pastoral lease for a period of up to 5½ years in order to protect the developer's investment in the exploration phase.

Why is it 5½ years and not five and not six? It also goes on to say:

During this investigation period, a developer must satisfy the minister after a period of 2½ years that they have developed a plan for a wind farm on the land and are able to fund the completion of that plan. If the minister is satisfied, a further three years for investigations will be granted.

I am just intrigued about the 5½ years, and I would like the minister to give us some clarity as to how they arrived at that particular time frame. I pick up a point the Hon. Mark Parnell raised in relation to the decommissioning and rehabilitation of land. That was certainly an issue that was raised during the select committee as to the end procedure.

We did hear some evidence, I think, where there may have been a suggestion that you could sell the tower to Sims Metal or the scrap people to get rid of all the above-ground infrastructure but that there would be a concrete block left under the soil. With a lot of the ones we saw, the concrete block protruded about a metre above the soil, so I would be interested to know the minister's view on what level of rehabilitation they are talking about and whether that obligation passes on. If it is a 50-year wind farm and it has been sold on to several other owners over that period of time, does that actually still compel the final owner of the property or the asset, and are they liable for the decommissioning and the rehabilitation of the land?

I would also just express some quick concerns. Obviously, these pastoral leases are quite large and a lot of that country is very sparsely settled. At the moment, the statewide DPA has certain setbacks from people's houses, but on some of the flat pastoral country, where we might have properties that are 50, 60, 100 or 200 or 300 square kilometres, has any consideration been given to make sure the setback is of no inconvenience to the neighbours?

I will use the example again where, on the wind farms select committee, we heard evidence about aerial spraying and that if it was 500 metres inside the person's boundary they could still undertake their normal farming practices. Okay, they would still see it but, where we are looking at particularly large properties, I am just wondering whether the minister has any view about the setbacks so that they are, if you like, over the horizon or away from the neighbour's property so there is a significant distance, not just the mandatory distance that we see in the closer settled country. I am interested to know the minister's view there.

Of course, we do have migratory birds, wedge-tailed eagles and a whole range of flora and fauna, but especially the airborne fauna—the birds.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Very big flora!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Big flora—they have giant trees up there. Certainly, from the bird point of view, and of course the migratory birds, we do have periods of time in our outback when we have inundation from water—Lake Eyre and so forth—where we have huge numbers of birds migrate to the area not on a regular basis. I just am interested to make sure that this particular legislation has taken that into consideration.

I thought the President was not observing us at the moment. Both ministers often use their iPhones for points in question time, and I have asked the South Australian chamber of mines for some comments.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: I don't have an iPhone.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You don't have an iPhone. Well, whatever kind of phone you have—it might be an earphone or nose phone or some sort of phone. Some points have been raised by the chamber of mines, and I will read this email. There may be no content that is a question, but I think it is worth doing it now so that if there is a question in this the minister can address it:

As discussed SACOME is reasonably comfortable with the consultation requirements for wind farms in the amendment bill. However, we would like similar requirements for proponents of solar facilities. For solar, land access cannot be issued under the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act, 1989 (PLMC Act). This is because the activity of building a solar facility is not consistent with the objectives of the PLMC Act. Hence the clause relating to resumption of land (Amendment to section 32) is as we understand it transfers the land such that it would be regulated under the Crown Land Management Act,2009 (CLM Act), which is the act under which land access for a solar facility would be granted. Accordingly, we would be seeking amendments to the CLM Act of the nature included as Section 49C in the PLMC Amendment Bill.

We want to ensure there is appropriate consultation and negotiation with resource tenement holders who have a 'property right' where solar facilities are being considered.

That is a question that has been raised by the chamber of mines. I think it is important that we have two different sorts of facilities: obviously, the solar facilities, which take up a bigger footprint, or the bigger ones can, and the wind ones. So, of course the chamber of mines has raised that question.

Also, in relation to the solar facilities, when it comes to water points, land access, stock routes and tracks, I assume that any land that is excised for a solar facility will actually take into consideration the existing land use and the actual pastoralists—some have been there for 100 or 150 years, and that will be taken into consideration if we support this bill and it becomes law. I think it is important to recognise prior landownership and prior land use. While not ruling out any change of land use, it should always be an important consideration going forward. With those few comments, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:21): I rise to conclude the debate. I thank honourable members for their contributions and their questions, which I undertake to attempt to answer in the committee stage, which I will seek to adjourn to a later stage. The bill before the chamber makes it possible for wind farm developers to apply for a licence to build and operate a wind farm on crown land subject to pastoral lease and for that wind farm to coexist with a pastoral leaseholder's activities.

The bill also expedites access to pastoral land for solar energy projects. It is the first of its type of legislation in Australia. The amendments will send a strong message to industry that South Australia is a competitive place for renewable energy investment. The bill has been three years in the making and was released for public consultation in 2011. The government has taken account of issues that were raised during the consultation period, and this package of amendments will benefit developers, pastoral lessees and native title holders, as well as ensuring that the interests of mineral and resource companies are preserved through ensuring strong consultation with these groups at an early stage in the licence application process.

It is important to note that the bill supports multiple land uses over crown land. Before a wind farm licence can be issued, and if there is a mining tenement under the Mining Act 1971 or a petroleum or geothermal tenement under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000 over the area, a wind farm developer will need to negotiate a land access agreement with the tenement holder. A land access agreement will not impact on the rights of existing tenement holders to progress their exploration or in applying for subsequent licences. However, where a wind farm licence holder has existing rights at a particular site, any new mining or petroleum interest over the land will require the wind farm licence holder's consent.

Negotiations for a wind farm licence will occur with my involvement as the responsible minister, in recognition that the land is owned by the Crown and is leased to pastoralists. It is important in this process to take into consideration a pastoral lessee's view, as the person who has the most on-ground knowledge of their leasehold. This bill ensures not only that consultation will occur with pastoral lessees but that I as the responsible minister will be required to have regard to those views during the licence process.

Wind farm developers will pay an amount to the state for a wind farm licence that is commensurate with that paid by developers on freehold land, taking account of the cost of remote development; 95 per cent of this payment will be passed through to pastoral lessees and native title holders. The bill requires that payments be made to prescribed interested parties on an equitable basis. As every case is different, this will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the responsible minister.

Before a wind farm licence can be issued over pastoral land with coexisting native title interests, an Indigenous land use agreement will need to be negotiated between the state and any native title parties. The content of each agreement will be a matter for the parties to negotiate, but it may address any compensation entitlements of the native title parties. Where land is not subject to native title, 95 per cent of the payment will go directly to the pastoral lessee.

The passing of this bill by the South Australian parliament will continue this state's strong role in facilitating development, by ensuring that practical regulatory systems are in place that promote appropriate development. Again, I would like to thank members of the council for their input into this debate, and I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.