This speech indicates that the Liberal Party will be supporting the Crown Land Management Bill 2008.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:42): I will be brief on this particular bill, which the Liberal Party is supporting, as outlined in February by our spokesperson Mitch Williams in another place. I note that it is really a modernisation of the regime for crown lands, given that the original Crown Lands Act was passed in 1929. With all the water that has passed under the bridge since then, a number of things have changed significantly.
I note that the current management of crown lands falls under quite a range of acts: the Irrigation (Land Tenure) Act 1930, the Marginal Lands Act 1940, the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1934, the Port Pirie Laboratory Site Act 1922, the War Service Land Settlement Agreement Act 1945, and the Monarto Legislation Repeal Act 1980. These rather interestingly titled acts will be repealed and replaced by the new act. Clearly, a number of situations have changed since those acts, which are now to be repealed, were enacted. In particular, we would all be aware that the soldier settlement provisions have ceased to be required for some time.
The major changes to the management are as follows: it will be the minister rather than the Governor who will be invested with the power to grant fee simple in unalienated crown Land; lease conditions will be set by a crown conditions agreement; the care and control of crown land can be dedicated by a crown record rather than through gazettal; the Land Board is replaced; offences under the old act are updated; and there is a variety of standardisation, including perpetual leases and the like.
I would like to raise one issue at this stage. In his second reading contribution the member for MacKillop suggested to minister Weatherill that clause 24 be examined between the houses for consideration of further amendment.
He said that we on this side would feel much more comfortable about clause 24 if clause 16, which relates to the delegation of powers, did not apply to clause 24. I think that commitment was given, but I would like to receive some advice before we proceed further with the bill. I note also that the national competition policy review of 2000 recommended that this act be rewritten, so certainly some years have elapsed since then. Generally speaking, these reforms are well overdue and I support the second reading of the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.