Some public servants could soon enter homes without a warrant to “seize documents” including computers, phones, diaries, and bank statements under calls for tough new laws for SA Landscape Boards.

Harsher than laws for Federal Police against terrorists if enacted, “authorised officers” could also make “an information discovery order”, compelling businesses and individuals to provide evidence without a court warrant.

If enacted, public servants employed by councils on behalf of landscape boards could also “seize and retain” declared species of animals passing though farms and private properties.

Landscape Boards are meant to manage soil, water, weeds and pests.

But under the heading Compliance and enforcement, five recommendations sit on page 40 of the Independent Review of the Landscape SA Act 2019. All up there are 65 recommendations.

More power for public servants than police

“When I read it after it was released a couple of months ago, I’m glad I was sitting down,” Naracoorte Lucindale mayor Patrick Ross said.

“To give some (public servants) in the region, or anywhere, powers to enter and seize beyond that of police is not the sort of place I want to live in.

“The recommendations are clear. Landscape boards want more and more power. They already have power.”

Mr Ross said if Federal Police suspected you were a terrorist, they had to go to “a very high authority to get the green light to say you were a threat to national security” so they could enter and seize property.

“Is that the power we wish to give authorised officers in our region and SA – the same power as ASIO officers after they get the green light to enter a suspected terrorist of the Australian mainland or population?”

An “independent” review?

The “independent review” was authored for the State Government by Labor stalwart John Hill.

Mr Hill was a former Environment Minister in 2002 before switching to Health in 2005, retaining that portfolio until 2014 under previous Labor Premiers Rann then Weatherill.

The review received 134 written submissions during the public consultation phase last year, of which 54 were listed as “anonymous”.

Of 80 named submissions, 38 were from publicly funded organisations, and 26 of those organisations were government departments or agencies such as Greening Australia, all landscape boards such as Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape board, Resilient Hills and Coasts and the Premier’s Climate Change Council.

A further four submissions were from three local councils as well as the Local Government Association of SA representing 68 councils. The councils collect levies from their ratepayers for Landscape boards to operate and spend.

Councils not happy

In its submission the LGASA highlighted the lack of transparency and information received from landscape boards about how the levies were collected and spent by boards, along with their planning and management.

It suggested the State Government collect the levies itself.

In further cost shifting, the LGASA was concerned “authorised officers” for landscape boards were to be council employees trained with varying powers and different tiers of responsibility.

Currently the Landscape Board has powers to take out Action Orders against landholders leaving farmers with no rights about how to manage pests and weeds on their land.

“Despite enhancements to certain aspects of the Act, some stakeholders believed that the current enforcement system is inadequate, with low levels of compliance, particularly in relation to the management of pest animals and plants,” Mr Hill said in his review.

He said compliance was broadly considered to be an under-resourced area, resulting in insufficient on-ground support for education and enforcement measures.

Landholder feedback not included

Mr Hill said feedback outlined minimum standards of training for authorised officers was necessary, as well as strengthening their powers to provide:-

“With regard to legal proceedings for offences under the Landscape Act (Section 232), currently the Minister or a person authorised by the Minister, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the DEW Chief Executive can commence proceedings,” Mr Hill said.

“Some stakeholders felt that the Act should include the ability for boards to also commence legal proceedings in ERD Court, given their major role in compliance and enforcement under the Landscape Act.”

Regarding compliance, Mr Hill made no reference to witnesses representing the rights of farmers or landholders.

But he made five compliance-based recommendations including:

SA Deputy Premier’s statement

Deputy Premier and Environment Minister Susan Close said the State Government had received the report from the independent review of the Landscape Act undertaken by former SA health minister John Hill.

“The Department of Environment and Water is now going through the report to respond to each of the 65 recommendations,” Ms Close said.

“This includes those recommendations that deal with compliance with the Act which the review suggests need to be strengthened.

“The State Government will consider DEW’s responses before deciding on any changes.

“Any changes supported by the State Government would increase fair and transparent compliance with the Act.”

This article appeared in the Naracoorte Community News.