David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Such an approach would effectively preclude the sale or transfer of pastoral leases in this zone—you do not want to do that, Senator, I am sure—to the detriment of both economic activity and the important land management services provided by pastoralists, including maintenance of access roads, water infrastructure, fences, weed control, culling of feral animals, monitoring and fighting of fires et cetera. The South Australian government required that Defence consider whether existing pastoral leases could be maintained under current arrangements as existing users, including in cases where a pastoral lease is acquired or extended. The government is considering that request. These are important issues, Senator, which, may I suggest, need to be ventilated such that the Senate can do its job well and properly and get the right answer in the legislation.

The other important aspect, of course, is the Indigenous people on the land, particularly on the western extremities of the range. Defence has continued consultation with those Indigenous groups. As identified as an existing user, the bill does not apply to Indigenous groups. I should pause to say that the South Australian native title regime grants freehold title to Aboriginal people. That is a very important consideration that must be respected and recognised in the bill. I would suggest to the learned senator that consultation over that is an important consideration. We must have a hearing so that they can express their attitudes and opinions with respect to this legislation. I think that is only fair and reasonable. Indigenous groups sought formal written confirmation of their existing access permission under the Defence Force Regulations 1952, and Defence have provided that confirmation.

In closing, I share the senator's concerns. I want mining in South Australia. I do not want to see one-sixth of the state sterilised by a Defence rocket range without proper protocols, rules and regulations. But the bill put up, after a two-year delay by the previous government, is a flawed bill. I want the Senate committee to discuss the bill to understand all of the parameters, and it will be greatly different to the bill that the senator has copied from the previous government. He is in error here. I share his concerns. I do not castigate him; I am with him 100 per cent on the urgency required here. But this is a complex piece of legislation with a number of land users whose opinions need to be consulted so that we can get the right answer in this legislation and we can go forward with confidence that we have done our job in the Senate properly.