DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, $18,002,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, $2,215,000

Witness:

Departmental Advisers:

Mr I. Nightingale, Chief Executive, Department of Planning and Local Government.

Mr J. Hanlon, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of Planning and Local Government.

Mr A. McKeegan, Acting Manager, Finance, Department of Planning and Local Government.

Mr M. Petrovski, Director, Office for State/Local Government Relations.

Ms P. Archer, Principal Policy Officer, Office for State/Local Government Relations.

Ms H. Shepherd, Chief of Staff, Office of the Minister.

Ms R. Burner, Adviser, Office of the Minister.

The ACTING CHAIR: The estimates committees are relatively informal procedures and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. The committee will determine an approximate time for consideration of proposed payments to facilitate the changeover of departmental advisers. I ask the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to indicate whether they have agreed on a timetable for today's proceedings and, if so, to provide the chair with a copy.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My understanding is that it is as we advised, that is, for two hours.

The ACTING CHAIR: Member for Heysen?

Mrs REDMOND: Yes.

The ACTING CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary no later than Friday 17 July 2009.

This year the Hansard supplement, which contains all estimate committee responses, will be published on 2 October 2009. I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make an opening statement of about 10 minutes each. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member (remember that, member for Schubert) alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may, at the discretion of the chair, ask a question. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may then submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the House of Assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material into Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers, and the minister may refer questions to advisers for a response.

I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, Part 4. Minister, would you like to make an opening statement?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Office for State/Local Government Relations in the Department of Planning and Local Government is a small unit responsible for providing policy and other advice to the Minister for State/Local Government Relations on the constructive relationship between the state government and councils and other associated representative groups, whole of government policy and legislative frameworks as they affect local government, and the constitution and operation of the local government system, including the statutory authorities for which the Minister for State/Local Government Relations is responsible. These statutory authorities are the Local Government Grants Commission, the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel.

At the beginning of the 2008-09 financial year, the government announced its major planning reforms package, and an important element of that was the establishment of the Department of Planning and Local Government. The department aims to be the pre-eminent state government strategic land use agency committed to the sustainable development of South Australia. The department is leading the implementation of a new and progressive planning and development system. The department also leads the state government's relationships with local government and recognises the very important role councils play in delivering local services and infrastructure and in planning for our communities. The formation of this new agency is a significant initiative, which has given us a broader and better coordinated base for working with local government on a whole range of strategies for advancing our state.

I will briefly outline several key priorities that have been progressed in 2008-09, which will be a focus for further action in the coming financial year. In relation to accountability reforms, I will first outline how we have responded to concerns raised in recent times about aspects of councils' administration and financial management.

Clearly, it is important to overcome problems, both real and perceived, that are damaging public confidence in local government. In South Australia, state governments and ministers do not have a general power to overturn lawful and proper decisions that are within councils' discretion to make. However, parliament has delegated to councils (by legislation) power over people's lives and property that are only excisable by governments, such as, powers to tax to make enforced laws, orders and so on.

Councils form part of the system of responsible government and must exercise their power in the manner expected and required of governments. That means councils must meet the high standards of accountability appropriate for public sector administration and management of public funds. The council members and officers must meet the high standards that apply to holders of public office. In my experience if a council fails to meet the appropriate standards, it is much more likely to be the result of lack of knowledge or capacity than deliberate non-compliance.

Legislative improvements made in recent years by this government relating to financial management of councils have already made improvements for the quality and transparency of council decisions, and I am pleased to report that legislation is currently being drafted to amend the Local Government Act to make further improvements to the accountability framework for local government in South Australia.

In relation to elections review, the second area of priority during 2008-09 has been the finalisation of proposals to reform the processes for local government elections. The reforms proposed are designed to increase voter turn out, improve local government representation and improve the election process.

On 28 May I released a draft bill for comment. The bill has been derived from the government's response to the Independent Review of Local Government Elections, which reported in 2008, and extensive consultation with councils, the Local Government Association and other interested parties. I intend to ensure that the framework for local government representation and the election process is as effective as possible and will encourage increased voter participation.

Another significant initiative is the development of a new governance framework for the Outback areas of the state. On 8 April I introduced the Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Bill 2009. This bill revises the existing arrangements for the governance of the Outback under the Outback Areas Community Development Trust. The Outback Areas Community Development Trust has served the Outback extremely well for many years.

The legislation to set up the trust was of course a visionary initiative of the Dunstan government in 1978. However, there are great changes and challenges being faced by Outback communities in the 21st century. Following a thoroughly consultative review of current arrangements in late 2007, our reforms were developed to better support Outback communities and to facilitate a more strategic approach to planning, financial and asset management and service provision.

Two other legislative proposals are also nearing completion. A draft bill for the miscellaneous amendments to the Local Government Act has been subject to consultation with local councils and the Local Government Association and is being finalised following consideration of comments received. The bill proposes a number of changes to amend and tidy up provisions on various matters which have come to our attention and been raised by local government in recent times. I am also finalising a legislative proposal to amend the system for setting local government council elected member allowances, designed to improve public confidence in the process of determining allowances paid to councillors.

In relation to collaboration between the state and local government, they are working closely together to implement key statewide strategies. These deserve a mention as good current examples of our commitment to a cooperative working relationship. The development of the 30-year plan for Greater Adelaide has involved close consultation with councils at several stages in each of the seven regions that the plan will cover. Councils have had the opportunity to have input at a strategic level to shape this very significant plan for the future of Greater Adelaide.

The government is also working closely with local government in the implementation of the Nation Building—Economic Stimulus package. A state/local government working group is facilitating the coordination of local government projects with state sponsored projects and identifying clusters of projects to enable cost benefits for tendering of work in regional South Australia.

Our close relationship and collaborative approach has enabled this state to respond swiftly to make the most of the economic stimulus package from the federal government. As a result many new projects and infrastructure upgrades are in train and will be of great benefit to local communities across the state. I commend these initiatives to the committee as a central part of the very progressive reform now taking place in planning and local government across South Australia.

Mrs REDMOND: I refer, as I do every year, to the stupidity of our system of estimates. I make no complaint that a government that is duly elected has the right to determine its priorities and set its budget, but, equally, it needs to be accountable. I certainly cannot complain that this committee is not making itself accountable, because we have it listed for two hours. The minister's opening sentence was that 'this is a small unit responsible for providing policy and other advice', yet the entire Attorney-General's budget examination is listed for 45 minutes.

I think that there is a problem with the way in which we approach estimates in this state. Indeed, I was speaking in the context of other jurisdictions recently, and this state is widely known around the commonwealth of Australia as being the most useless estimates process. I do not blame any of the advisers who are here, but I say again—as I have said every year—that it is an extraordinary waste of the whole-of-government's money for the amount of time that CEOs, and everyone else, have to put into preparation for budget estimates.

I make no argument that a government is not entitled to set its priorities, but I think we are entitled to an explanation of those priorities and the right to assess them. I shake my head in wonderment every year that we go through this charade to the point, Madam Acting Chair, of your having to notify various people being signed in and out of this committee. Surely, that is an antiquated hangover from days gone by because Hansard is recording, in any event, whoever asks the question, and you have the freedom to allow a question. If we on this side are not organised enough to make sure the right people are asking our questions, well, more fool us. As a general comment I find it extraordinary that we go through this process in this way.

I assume that, since this is the opening of this line, we have not had the omnibus questions, so I will read those into the record first up before I ask the minister a specific question.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of the baseline data that was provided to the Shared Services Reform Office by each department or agency reporting to the minister: including the current total cost of the provision of payroll, finance, human resources, procurement, records management and information technology services in each department or agency reporting to the minister, as well as the full-time equivalent staffing numbers involved?

2. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors in 2008-09 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment? Normally, we have been asking for only those consultants for which over $10,000 was paid for the consult, and I expect that that is the intention of the question. I do not want to put the departmental people to the bother of responding on that question on every consultation, but certainly those over $10,000.

3. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees will there be as at 30 June 2009, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of the employee and the total employment cost (TEC) of the employee?

4. In the financial year 2008-09 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister what underspending on projects and programs was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2009-10; and how much, indeed, was approved by cabinet?

5. (i) What was the total number of employees with a total employment cost of $100,000 or more per employee, and also as a sub-category the total number of employees with a total employment cost of $200,000 or more per employee, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister as at 30 June 2009; and

(ii) Between 30 June 2008 and 30 June 2009, will the minister list job title and total employment cost of each position (with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more):

(a) which has been abolished; and

(b) which has been created?

6. For the year 2008-09, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant and the purpose of the grant, and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction No. 15?

7. For all capital works projects listed in Budget Paper 5 that are the responsibility of the minister, will the minister list the total amounts spent to date on each project?

My first three questions relate to Budget Paper 3, page 4.16, table 4.8: Specific purpose payments from state to local government. Footnote (c) applies to the bottom figure in the right-hand column. In the first column we have the estimated result of those specific purpose payments, which in 2008-09 was basically about $94.25 million, and at the bottom of the budget column for 2009-10 there is a dash. The explanation in footnote (c) states that 'when allocations for all programs are finalised, funding of around $95 million can be expected in 2009-10'. That is the anticipation of that budget.

Given that Treasury estimates are 1.75 per cent CPI over the next year, the figure of $95 million (to which footnote (c) refers) on that basis is about $900,000 less than required to keep pace with CPI increases. The local government price index—that is the real cost of goods and services that councils buy—is running at 4.2 per cent, so in order to maintain funding at the 2008-09 level the figure would need to go up from $94.2 million to $98.2 million. The question is: why is the state government short changing local government as against the 2008-09 budget?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the member for Heysen's opening remarks and her criticism of this process, she suggested that estimates are a waste of time and two hours could be too long for state and local government relations. I did offer members an opportunity to shorten this session to one hour. I think we dealt with the opposition's deputy leader's office, and we were told that that was not approved of by the opposition. So, I find it quite remarkable that we had to listen to that criticism when, in fact, through the opposition's deputy leader's office we were told they did not want to halve the time. Nevertheless, local government is a very interesting area and there is lots to say about it.

In relation to the specific question, my advice is that, for the 2009-10 estimated funding, around $95 million is expected to be made available to local government when allocations for all programs are finalised. Allocations that will be made to councils for some programs in 2009-10 have obviously not been shown on the table because the level of funding has not yet been determined or is dependent on the success of applications under a competitive grants process.

I have been advised that this budgetary process uses the state government's CPI index supplied by Treasury. It is the same process as, I understand, the commonwealth uses. We do not use local government's CPI calculation.

Mrs REDMOND: I will respond to the first comment by the minister. I do not suggest this should be shorter; I am suggesting the other estimates should be longer. I am quite happy to ask questions on local government for two hours. I just think it is a disproportionate amount of time, given the amount of time I am not given to ask about some of the major portfolio areas.

I thank the minister for her explanation, but it still seems to me that, if the local government price index (which is the real cost of the goods and services that they are buying) is running at 4.2 per cent, in real terms, on any reading of it, this is a cut to local government funding. My second question, therefore, is: will this lead to a reduction in jobs and work for contractors and jobs and work undertaken by local government?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that that is not expected to be the outcome in relation to job losses, that local government is expected to supplement its funds through commonwealth and state funding and, in addition to that, can apply for grants, when it needs to, for specific projects.

Mrs REDMOND: I would be interested if the minister could explain a bit more about where they are going to get more funds from state government funding. Can the minister give any guarantee that it will not be necessary for councils to increase their rates to make up the shortfall?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that councils, for this financial year, have already set their rates. They do that based on the work that they set as priorities for the forthcoming year, and on the understanding of both the state funds and commonwealth funds that are available to them.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: My question relates to Portfolio Statement, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.14, which refers to the Office for State/Local Government Relations providing advice to government on the operations of the local government system. What action is the minister currently taking regarding community concerns about the operation of the City of Burnside?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am aware that the CEO, Neil Jacobs, recently tendered his resignation to take effect from late August and that the resignation was recently withdrawn. Media reports have suggested that Mr Jacobs resigned over a harassment case, saying that his 'ability to provide a safe workplace free from harassment and bullying had been compromised', and I am quoting from his resignation letter. I am also aware that there is a defamation action currently being taken by several members of the council's development assessment panel against a member of the council.

As the minister responsible for local government, I am obviously concerned about these matters, particularly as issues such as these tend to reduce public confidence. In my view, there appears to be a continued deterioration in the relationship between various council parties which is unlikely to be conducive or helpful to good decision making. I recently wrote to the mayor and directed officers from my office to meet with her and other relevant officers and to subsequently provide me with advice as to whether there are any grounds for a formal investigation under the Local Government Act. As a result of this direction, officers have advised me that they met with many elected members individually and several senior council employees last week and will now prepare advice for me as to what the appropriate next stage might be.

Currently, under the Local Government Act 1999, I have the power to appoint an investigator where I have reason to believe that a council has contravened or failed to comply with a provision or failed to discharge responsibility under the Local Government Act or another act or where an irregularity has occurred in the conduct of the affairs of the council.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.1: the Outback Areas Community Development Trust. In recent times, the Andamooka community has experienced significant growth. What action is the trust and the government taking to support this community?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for her question. The Andamooka community is experiencing significant development pressure due to population increases associated with Outback tourism and mining-related activities. As in other Outback communities, the provision of town services in Andamooka is managed by a group of volunteers, the Andamooka Progress and Opal Miners Association (APOMA). The pace of change is putting pressure on the provision of these town services. Support is provided to APOMA by the Outback Areas Community Trust, which is continuing to work with APOMA to determine how best to meet their ongoing needs.

The state government, working through the trust, has provided funding to employ an administrative support worker (increased hours for an ongoing position), and a town maintenance worker (a new position) in 2008. Further, the trust agreed to scope out a position to appoint a community manager to be located at Andamooka. It is anticipated that the community manager will play an important part in contributing to APOMA's local direction and advice aiding in the good governance of the region.

It is anticipated that the community manager will be appointed in the near future. The position will become an ongoing Public Service position, reporting to the manager of the trust in Port Augusta. All associated costs of this position are included in the trust's budget, and I am pleased to report that the Outback Areas Community Development Trust is providing grant funding of $41,000 to assist APOMA to continue to provide a free-to-air television service to households in Andamooka. The project is being funded on a 50-50 basis by the trust and APOMA.

The ACTING CHAIR: I know it is out of order, but I have a supplementary question regarding the community manager that you mentioned there. I am interested in that position, and it seems to be taking some time in happening. Is that likely to happen in the very near future?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the temporary position is currently filled and the position will be formally put out for advertisement and filled within the next four weeks, so it is well underway.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer the committee to Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, page 4.6. What action is the government taking to improve the governance arrangements across Outback communities?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for her question, and I thank the Acting Chair for her interest in the issues surrounding the Andamooka and other Outback areas. The Outback is facing many changes and challenges and opportunities, in part due to the mining industry and the boom in tourism. It is vital that we ensure that resident communities in the Outback have sufficient governance structures in place to manage themselves while upholding a strong sense of community spirit.

A review initiated in mid-2007 looked at how the Outback Areas Community Development Trust currently operates and how services are provided to communities in places such as Andamooka, Yunta, Copley, Marla and Leigh Creek. It is clear that each group working with the trust is tackling a diverse range of management issues with regard to both dwindling and surging population numbers and the sustainability of community services.

The Outback Areas Community Development Trust is now in its 31^styear as a statutory authority constituted under the Outback Areas Community Development Trust Act 1978 responsible for community assistance and limited local government functions in the out-of-councils area of the state. There is now increased interest in the operations of the Outback from a whole range of interests and stakeholders. This is fed by a growth in economic opportunities and a new emphasis on financial and legal accountability in particular. This interest across environmental, economic and social sectors has raised questions about volunteer capacity within the communities.

Input into the review was sought from all residents, and significant consultation took place. The results have been incorporated and, with those sorts of things in mind, the government has sought to introduce a bill to replace the existing act. In recognition of the geographical distances involved, the Department of Planning and Local Government also made information available on the trust's website, and it is proposed that the new Outback Communities Authority will develop increased regulatory powers to be able to assist communities to deal with issues such as collecting rubbish and dealing with litter.

There are also considerations of some new levy structures, and that includes the asset sustainability levy and a community contribution. The asset sustainability levy will be similar to local government rates, although it will be a fixed charge across the Outback areas rather than varying across communities. It is proposed to use that to maintain public services and facilities. The amount of the levy will be determined once the quantum of the asset maintenance is known. The community contribution would be much more community-specific. It would involve a fixed charge used for the provision of services for infrastructure to the specific community where it was raised, but it would be created only at the request of individual communities.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: This is a supplementary question to the one I asked before the member for Little Para. The minister has given us a lengthy answer in relation to the Outback Areas Community Development Trust—an organisation which I am particularly interested in, and I have had a great deal of association with it over a long time. In part of the minister's answer, she gave some brief information about the charges that are going to be imposed upon these long-suffering people in this isolated part of South Australia. It is fairly important that we know how much they are going to pay, who is going to pay and how it is going to be assessed. I will give the minister some examples so that she will be under no misapprehension.

The people of Leigh Creek do not own their houses; they are owned by the government of South Australia and leased to Babcock & Brown. But just up the road at Copley, I take it they are going to get walloped because they do happen to own their properties. We need to know who is going to pay. What about the pastoral industry? They already pay a pastoral rent to the government of South Australia in its wisdom; they have to pay NRM levies and they pay the emergency services levy.

We want to know whether they are going to get, Madam Acting Chair—and this is in your electorate, too—a double whammy. There is concern because it is terribly important that, during these budget committees, this information is put on the public record so that people can have an informed debate about it. I have read the legislation and the proposals, but there is no clear definition of how they are going to be affected by these proposed new charges.

I say to the minister that, if she wants to have some consensus about this, it had better be very precise and clear because those long-suffering people are paying pastoral rents and, in many cases, they are providing the emergency services in these isolated areas. They are paying for that and they do not want to get slugged again for a service they may or may not require. I can understand Andamooka very clearly.

The ACTING CHAIR: Member for Stuart, do you have any questions, because this is more of a statement?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No; it is a question. We have listened, Madam Acting Chair, at great length to the minister, and I do not want her to be under any misapprehension about the information.

The ACTING CHAIR: I appreciate your interest in my electorate, member for Stuart.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It is up to you. I am looking at mine.

The ACTING CHAIR: Have you finished your question?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: This is the first one. I have another one after that.

The ACTING CHAIR: That is very good. I am sure you ask questions I would like to.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I will at length. Don't worry.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk further about these new very important proposed initiatives. Let me outline what the levies are about. The asset sustainability levy, as I said, would be similar to a local government rate, although it would be a fixed charge across the Outback areas rather than being across communities. It is proposed that this be used to maintain public services and facilities that impact across Outback communities such as air strips, infrastructure, the UHF repeater network and for things like toilets.

The amount of the levy is yet to be determined, but it will be determined once the quantum of the asset maintenance requirement is known. I understand that work has commenced. This amount will be known following the completion of the asset management plans of both the current trust's assets and those relevant community assets. This figure will be met, in part, by evenly applying a levy across all properties.

In relation to the diversity around the types of properties that are involved, we are aware of that and we are very much committed to working in an ongoing way with these local communities to sort through that level of detail. The community contribution would be much more community specific unlike the asset sustainability levy. The community contribution will be a fixed charge used for the provision of services or infrastructure to the specific community where it is raised, and it will be created—and I emphasise this—only at the request of individual communities.

As part of the consultation process prior to its introduction, explanatory information about the proposed bill was sent to 36 progress associations, the 15 councils sharing the boundaries with the Outback regions, the two councils located within the area (Coober Pedy and Roxby Downs) and the Local Government Association and other key stakeholders.

In recognition of the geographical distances involved, the Department of Planning and Local Government also made the information available on the Outback Areas Community Trust website and the Office for State/Local Government Relations website together with the draft bill. Prior to the release of the draft bill, the chairman and members of the Outback Areas Community Trust were consulted on its key elements. The trust has subsequently passed a resolution to support the bill. The Andamooka Progress Association was also consulted, and it has indicated its in principle support for the new arrangements. The LGA is also in support of this.

So, when the member talks about consensus, we have gone a long way to ensure that we have met with and engaged these Outback communities and the variety of different stakeholders within that community in an ongoing way throughout the development of these proposals, and we are committed to continuing that because there is a level of detail that has not as yet been resolved, but we will continue to work with those communities to resolve all those outstanding matters over the next 12 months.

The ACTING CHAIR: Thank you, minister. I will point out to the member for Stuart that I did a trip through the Outback, including parts of his electorate, and found very little criticism of this act. They were very happy with it. Maybe you talk to different people than I. I certainly found none, including in part of your electorate which was Leigh Creek.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The ones at Leigh Creek will not be paying, because they do not own it. I do not need to be counselled on how to represent my constituents. What my job is—

The ACTING CHAIR: I am not counselling, member for Stuart. Do you have a question?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: My job, Madam Acting Chair, is to get answers for the people. We have been here now for 15 or 20 minutes and we do not have an answer. I say to the minister: very simply, will the pastoralists have to pay on top of what they already pay, and will people at Nepabunna also have to pay because their land is owned by the Aboriginal Lands Trust? You have not answered the questions about whether someone at Leigh Creek will have to pay. You are asking this parliament to vote in the future, and we do not know who will pay how much or how it will be assessed.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his question. As I stated, there is a great deal of detail that is yet to be resolved. We are working with local communities to do that. In relation to pastoralists, it is likely that they will be included in the rate scheme, but, as yet, nothing definitive has been resolved. As I said, we are working through that detail.

Mrs REDMOND: Surely, minister, you have not come this far down the scheme without knowing to whom you are planning to charge levies. My question follows on from the member for Stuart's question. My understanding is that—and correct me if I am wrong—the asset sustainability levy, unlike the local one, where there will be local control of the amount to some degree, is going to be imposed by the minister; it will not be via any elected persons. I do not know whether the minister has heard of the concept of no taxation without representation, but some people held a tea party over that a few years ago, and they had a war over the issue of taxation without representation. Is not the asset sustainability levy taxation without representation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for her question. The sustainability levy will involve fixed rates. The new authority will be required to complete a business plan. Within that plan it will be required to have completed its infrastructure assets plan and also its general overall business plan for the area, which will include the proposed rates that it would be considering. It would then be required to consult with residents throughout the trust areas before being able to adopt that business plan. There are checks and balances in place to ensure that local communities have input into signing off on that business plan, which incorporates proposed new levies.

Mrs REDMOND: At the end of the day, minister, is it not the case that you will set that levy regardless of whether a community has signed off on it and the business plan?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Only after I have been given a recommendation by the outback authority and only after I am assured that due process has been followed, which includes consultation with their local community.

Mrs REDMOND: Given that the Outback Areas Authority is not elected either, what we have is an unelected authority making recommendations to a minister, who will then set the levy. Is that not the case?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is my understanding, yes.

Mrs REDMOND: And you do not see a problem with that in terms of taxation without representation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Within the legislation there is also a requirement for the business plan to be outlined and for community consultation to occur.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, well, I could make my usual comment about what this government means by that term consultation; it bears little resemblance to anything anyone else understands.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.6, which refers to setting the allowances of local government elected members. What action is the government taking to have councillors' allowances set by an independent mechanism?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Earlier this year I released for consultation a draft bill under which the Remuneration Tribunal would have jurisdiction to determine local government elected member allowances. I sought comment on the draft bill, and the comments received were carefully considered. The bill includes some provisions to guide the Remuneration Tribunal in making its determinations and to ensure that the costs of its deliberations are recovered from local government, rather than the state government.

One of the matters that came up during the consultation period on this draft bill was the proposed time frame for setting council member allowances. The draft bill would have required the Remuneration Tribunal to make its determination on allowances early in each four-year local government election cycle, after which allowances would be adjusted for inflation in each of the following three years.

It is clear from the consultation process that most respondents prefer allowances to be set prior to, rather than after, local government elections. This earlier time frame would permit persons who were considering the possibility of nominating as a candidate to determine the extent to which an available allowance might affect their capacity to serve as a councillor or a mayor. I intend to have that bill considered by parliament in the near future.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer to Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, page 4.15. Given the broad areas and responsibilities of local government, what is the minister doing to improve information and the provision of practical advice to councils?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Governance Unit within the Office for State/Local Government Relations provides assistance and guidance to councils on their legislative requirements under the Local Government Act and associated regulations and on good governance practice. This unit works with councils' governance practitioners and the Local Government Association to promote better governance processes and practices across local government.

Two guidance papers on specific governance topics have been circulated in the last six months to all council mayors, chairs, CEOs and governance managers. These papers are intended to ensure that councils are aware of the legislative requirements and also the better practices associated with specific provisions of the Local Government Act 1999.

The first guidance paper covered the significant topic of appointing a CEO. Selecting and appointing a CEO is one of the most important tasks that elected members may undertake during their term of office, and choosing the right person is obviously critical to the success of the council. It is essential that correct processes are followed so that the council can choose the person most suited to the position.

The second guidance paper dealt with the council's powers and, importantly, the responsibilities that go with these powers when an authorised council officer is considering taking action regarding an abandoned vehicle that may lead to its removal and possibly its disposal. Obviously, this is a matter that can have consequences for an individual vehicle owner. It is vital that councils and its authorised officers, in exercising these powers, act lawfully and in a fair, consistent and transparent fashion.

The paper was informed by the findings and recommendations made in a recent report by the Ombudsman. As a result, the local government (accountability framework) bill, which I intend to introduce into parliament later this year, contains an amendment to address that issue. I have also issued two local government matters newsletters, and these publications provide all councils with information and practical advice.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the minister advise what is the estimated cost of establishing the Outback Communities Authority?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am informed that the costs are not anticipated to be any more than the current costs of the trust and that the planned new governance structure should deliver internal efficiency savings, which, in turn, will be returned to the trust to be incorporated into the trust's operations.

Mrs REDMOND: Following on from that, I note that the new authority has increased enforcement and planning responsibilities. If it is not going to cost any more than the current costs, how are those extra activities going to be undertaken?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I have already partially explained, I have been advised that those responsibilities will be able to be achieved through the redistribution of savings, which would be able to assist with a number of things, including the inspectorate services. Also, the new department, incorporating local government with planning, has allowed us to have much better access to a wide range of administrative support services, which can also be utilised to provide assistance. Obviously it is something I will monitor carefully and continue to assess in terms of the trust's ability to do its job, do it well, and meet community needs.

Mrs REDMOND: I have one other question at the moment on the issue that was raised earlier; in fact, Madam Acting Chair, you mentioned this appointment of the Andamooka community manager. I think the minister said that that person was about to be appointed, and that this is an ongoing Public Service position. My first question is: is it a new staff position or is it a transfer of the existing employee of the Andamooka Progress and Opal Miners' Association (as it is known)?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the position is attached to the Outback Areas Trust and that it is an ongoing position. At this point I would also like to put on the record that this Rann Labor government actually doubled the budget to the Outback Areas Trust some four years ago, in terms of showing its commitment to these communities.

The ACTING CHAIR: Thank you, minister. That was a very much needed and exceptional position.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.16, relating to reforms to improve the accountability framework for local government. What is the progress to date?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the honourable member for her question. Amendments to improve the local government accountability framework are currently being drafted. A total of 44 individuals or groups provided submissions or feedback on the local government accountability proposals paper, including the Economic and Finance Committee and other members of parliament, the Local Government Association, the former acting ombudsman (Mr Ken MacPherson), local government auditors, the Australian Services Union, and resident and ratepayer groups.

Those submissions have, as far as possible, been taken into account in the development of the reforms that will be presented to parliament in the future. In particular, I intend to recognise the challenges faced by rural and regional councils by providing them with a longer time frame to implement new audit requirements, and practical support to introduce the internal controls and be assessed under those new requirements.

Another theme that emerged from consultation, which was raised by both local government and resident and ratepayer groups, was the desire to avoid overregulation. While improving accountability necessarily means some additional or changed requirements, there was concern about adding to councils' administrative load in ways that do not produce better results in practice. Obviously, we need to get the balance right. Key reforms will expand the scope of the financial audit of councils, provide the minister with clearer capacity to act and remedy councils' noncompliance, and ensure that the minister can direct a council if that council fails to respond appropriately.

The amendments will also reinforce administrative principles appropriate to key areas, such as councils' prudential management, procurement and internal complaint handling and review. The proactive work now being done by the Office of State/Local Government Relations, the LGA and other local government sector providers will support the understanding of and compliance with the reforms to be introduced.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer to Portfolio Statement 1, page 4.15. Women remain under-represented in local government, both as elected members and in executive positions. What action is the government taking to address this under-representation, particularly women's participation in local government executive positions, as identified in Target 6.23 of South Australia's Strategic Plan?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for her most important question. The state government has supported a number of actions to improve women's representation and participation in local government during 2008-09. These include a range of initiatives such as participating in a joint state/local government Women in Local Government working group, chaired by the Local Government Association. This group was established to examine issues and identify strategies and projects at the local level to improve women's representation and participation in local government.

As the Minister for State/Local Government Relations and the Minister for the Status of Women, I launched a guide, entitled Step this Way, as a leading practice guide for women and for councils, to enable them to become employers of choice for women, at the Local Government Association president's dinner in September 2008. Step this Way was presented as part of South Australia's overall response to the national framework for women in local government 'The Way Forward', and as a showcase of leading practice examples and efforts of South Australian councils.

Through the Local Government Managers' Association, the state government sponsored an award for excellence in advancing the status of women in local government first in April 2008 and again in 2009. This year the award went to the City of Playford, which has embarked on a significant program of management and leadership development of its women employees.

We have also supported the South Australian branch of the Australian Local Government Women's Association in its biennial national conference on women in local government, held in Adelaide in April this year, by becoming a platinum sponsor, shared equally between the Office of the State/Local Government Relations and the Office for Women. This conference provided a networking opportunity for women in local government across Australia, and a focus for addressing issues such as efforts to inspire positive change within local government to attract and retain women elected to or working in local government.

The under-representation of women in local government, both as elected members and in executive positions, is mirrored nationally. The state government has agreed to pursue a cooperative approach with other state and territory governments in order to achieve a better national outcome.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer to Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, page 4.6. What action is the government taking to improve the promotion of local government elections as required by target 5.5 in South Australia's Strategic Plan?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Independent Review of Local Government Elections was established in April 2007, following the completion of the 2006 election process. The former minister acted in cooperation with the then president of the LGA to commission an independent review and made 27 recommendations intended to improve voter participation and representation of local government and the election process.

The government accepted 23 of the review's 27 recommendations. The two major reforms the government accepted were about refocusing local government's expenditure on elections. The review made a series of recommendations to divert resources away unnecessarily from administrative tasks in relation to compiling separate voter rolls and towards activities that heighten the awareness of local government and elected members. Those changes were made and a series of other changes proposed.

Mrs REDMOND: By way of positive feedback, I was a member of local government as a young mum and wish to comment on two matters. The minister made a comment about the payment of allowances. I was in local government before any allowances were introduced. My council voted unanimously against their introduction, but when forced on us we then took the minimum allowance. I have now come to a different view on that issue, as it is too difficult for many people to participate in local government. I was putting in 35 to 40 hours a week as a volunteer. Because of that problem, my husband said, 'You can have a career in local government or a family and a marriage, but you cannot have both'. This was way back and I had one child when I went on to local council and had two more babies while on council.

To its credit, my council did not bat an eyelid at my babies being brought to council meetings, breastfed and changed and all that sort of thing. The only hiccup occurred one night after I had fed and changed my baby, and another young mother on the council sent me over a note asking me to check out the right side of my shirt as I had baby poo all down the side of it. It is possible with the right supports in place. I wanted to give that positive feedback on the issue of women in local government.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I refer to the new concept of the Outback areas trust. How many local people will be on the trust and how does the minister intend to select these people, because I hold the view that local people should be making decisions about local organisations and have to live by the decisions they make? I understand the minister proposes in her new ideas to have three outsiders, which is absolutely unacceptable and she will never get it through this parliament.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the proposed bill states that there will be seven people on the trust, three of whom will be residents of Outback communities and four of whom will be independent. Obviously, those people would be required to have a good understanding of the Outback areas. It was considered that, given the importance of and increasing emphasis on good governance and ever increasing public standards and accountability, ensuring that the three positions held specific skills—some skill sets we thought might be particularly useful include financial and perhaps legal expertise—was deemed necessary. We would be looking to select as many people as possible who were or had been residents in Outback areas, but one cannot always secure a particular skill set, so this bill offers us the ability to select people with the skills and experience required for local community residents.

The process we envisage in the selection of the trust would be through sending out an expression of interest in a broad public way, and a selection process would result from responses to that expression of interest. I would then make recommendations that would go to cabinet. I believe that it must also be approved by the Governor.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Why is the minister requiring people to have more qualifications than a member of parliament? I thought you would employ people with expertise to work in the office, but to impose three outside people on that vast area of South Australia, when for the first time you are going to inflict upon them extra charges—and they will now not have the ability to vote for the people who represent them—and to have bureaucrats and others involved, is conducive to not getting community support for this measure.

Minister, I do not know whether you understand. The Outback areas trust has had bipartisan and community support across the north. If you go down this track, obviously you want a partisan political view and a stoush that you cannot win. That is what will happen because you can't stick three outsiders on the thing and then get carried away with four people scattered across a huge area. It is absolutely unfair and unreasonable.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Indeed, as the honourable member notes, this is not an elected body but, rather, an appointed body, which has the responsibility of managing public funds. I would think that any organisation that has that responsibility requires a certain set of skills in order to do that. I would think that any reasonable person would be supporting a structure of a body that is required to manage public funds and be accountable for it, and to ensure that it has an appropriate skills set to do that. To suggest that it is a higher standard than that of government and parliament is outrageous. We have a whole department that is an audit department. We have a whole department or agency that is the Crown Solicitor's Office. It is outrageous to suggest that there is a higher standard.

As I said, this body is not an elected body but, rather, an appointed board required to be responsible for managing public funds. The honourable member said that we would 'stick three outsiders on' and that is misleading. Already, I have given a commitment that, wherever possible, we would be selecting all seven members from the Outback areas. It would be only where we were not able to gain those skill sets from local residents or recent residents that we would be looking elsewhere. It is simply misleading.

The ACTING CHAIR: Member for Stuart, do you have another question?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I do. Let us go to another subject. It has taken me the whole weekend to work myself up to ask these questions. In relation to the planning framework, which is part of this debate, the objectives of this Portfolio Statement are quite interesting. Is the minister concerned that the new planning controls, which have been put on coastal developments and which have been described in certain circles as Mugabe-like, are taking away people's basic right to reasonably develop particular land and greatly disadvantage people who have an expectation to develop it in the future?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I know that it is in the Department of Planning and Local Government, but I am not the minister responsible for planning. The matters the honourable member has raised come under the purview of the Minister for Urban Development and Planning.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It is a bit misleading because there is a fair bit of information on it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is confusing, but you can get your chance with minister Holloway.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I look forward to it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am sure he does, too.

Mr VENNING: I refer to page 4.5, Objective, and page 4.6, Targets: 'Convert Development Plans to the Better Development Planning format by June 2011.' In relation to planning, we did amend the planning act last year—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Wrong minister. I am the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. We happen to be in the Department of Planning and Local Government. The matters on which you intend to ask questions, rather than waste more of your time, I am the wrong minister.

Mr VENNING: I thought because it was to do with local government it would be there.

Mrs REDMOND: My question follows on from the minister's previous answer on this new Outback areas authority. The minister, as I understand it, said obviously she would put in local people unless there were not people with suitable qualifications. However, is it not the case, minister, that if all the people who were local and presumably had suitable qualifications were male, you would not appoint them? If there were no females, you would have to appoint someone from outside, would you not?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I believe the answer is yes, given that I understand there is a minimum requirement of one woman. We already have four women on the trust, and I just cannot believe the member would suggest that there is a lack of women residents in the Outback areas who do not have appropriate skill and expertise. I cannot imagine for one minute that she is suggesting that.

Mrs REDMOND: I am not suggesting that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Of course not. So, it is unlikely to be a situation that would ever eventuate. It is clutching at straws.

Mrs REDMOND: I am simply pointing out that, the way the bill is drawn, even if you had seven eminently qualified local people who were the most suitable appointees, the act is drawn in such a way that they cannot all be appointed to the authority because you must appoint a female, and you have confirmed that is the case.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have answered that question. As I said, we already have four women on the trust, and it is something that would be highly unlikely to occur, given the incredible level of female talent in the Outback areas. As I said, we are very pleased to currently have four women on the trust and they all make very valuable contributions. I do not think I would expect that we would ever have a problem attracting women onto the trust.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.15. What is the significance for local government of the establishment of the planning and local government department?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In October last year the government announced new administrative arrangements at the state level relating to planning and local government—the formation of the Department of Planning and Local Government. This was a very significant initiative and, as the relatively new Minister for State/Local Government Relations at that time, I was very pleased to be part of the new arrangements, working with my colleague the Minister for Urban Development and Planning.

The new department integrated several agencies working closely with local government in South Australia into a single department. The agencies and authorities incorporated into the department include: former Planning SA, the Office for State/Local Government Relations, SA Local Government Grants Commission, the Outback Areas Community Development Trust, the Office for the Southern Suburbs, and the Office for the Northern Suburbs.

The formation of the new department was an important part of the major planning reform package of the state government. The Department of Planning and Local Government aims to be the pre-eminent state government strategic land use agency, committed to the sustainable development of South Australia. The department is leading the implementation of a new and progressive planning and development system. The department also leads the state government's relationship with local government and recognises the very important role councils play in delivering local services and infrastructure.

I understand that the implementation of the government's planning reforms has involved extensive collaboration and engagement with local government. The Department of Planning and Local Government has worked closely with the Local Government Association and councils to roll out these reforms.

Councils also have had a key role in developing the 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide. This major project is being led by the Department of Planning and Local Government. The office advises on the constitution and operations of the local government system and seeks to ensure the most effective and accountable framework. The amalgamation of the Office of State/Local Government Relations into the new department is a very positive move.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.15. In the roll-out of the government's planning reforms over the past year, how has the local government sector been involved in this process?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Following the government's announcement in June of its package of planning reforms, there has been extensive collaboration and engagement with local government in the implementation of these very significant initiatives. The Department of Planning and Local Government has worked closely with the Local Government Association in seeking feedback from councils on draft legislation on a wide range of implementation issues; and in developing information packages, training and support for council members and staff.

The state government has also provided $500,000 to the LGA to facilitate consultation, implementation and training. The LGA coordinated a very valuable process of road testing a draft residential development code across 10 councils, and a number of significant changes to the proposed draft regulations were subsequently made. The LGA had the opportunity to view and comment on draft legislation provisions for the residential code.

Another key element of the planning reforms is the development of the 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide. This is being prepared at a regional level, and there has been close consultation with local government in each of the Greater Adelaide regions. A series of forums with regional groupings of councils is being held to seek input and feedback as the preparation of the plan progresses. Councils have had the opportunity to input into a strategic level and to shape this very significant plan for the future of Greater Adelaide.

The formation of the Department of Planning and Local Government in 2008 recognises the key role of local government in planning for our communities. The department is supporting the implementation of a new and progressive planning system, and working with local government. The government will continue to work closely with local government on the ongoing roll-out of these reforms.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I refer to Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, page 4.14, which refers to the relationship between the state government and councils. Can the minister provide more information about the schedule of priorities for 2008 and 2009?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for her question. The State-Local Government Relations Agreement was signed by the Premier, the President of the Local Government Association (LGA) and the then minister for local government in 2004. The agreement articulates the aspirations of the two spheres of government with the aim of delivering greater benefits for the South Australian community through more strategic collaboration. It is in two parts: the agreement itself, which sets out the principles of engagement between state and local government, and the schedule, which outlines annual priorities for joint action.

The agreement includes a commitment to undertake a joint review annually to update the priority topics listed in the appended schedule. All state agencies were invited to contribute to the review of the 2007-08 schedule. The revised schedule of priorities for 2008-09 was endorsed in December 2008. All state government chief executives were asked to review the 2007-08 schedule in order to draft the 2008-09 schedule.

The new topics included in the schedule are Shared Services and Workforce Development. Significant changes were made to some existing topics such as Planning and Development, which was rewritten extensively to reflect the substantial work being progressed by the state and local government efforts to implement the planning and development reform program. Under the existing Waste Management topic, a specific action was added to develop a strategy to minimise litter in council-controlled public places.

As in previous years, the LGA managed consultation on the review with the local government sector. This included endorsement of the draft schedule by the LGA state executive prior to its final consideration by the government. The annual joint review of the 2008-09 schedule of priorities will soon commence to create a revised schedule of priorities. The 2009-10 consultation with state agencies will occur over a two month period.

Consistent with the agreement, the LGA manages consultation with local government. The 2009 review will involve revising the text of the topics listed and considering all new topics. Particular attention will be given to creating a revised schedule that is manageable and achievable. The schedule does not list all interaction between state and local government: it is an agreed listing of a prioritised set of topics that require joint action in 2009-10.

Mrs REDMOND: I want to go back to an issue that I did not manage to finish before because the questions swapped over and then we had some others intervening. I return to the topic of this person who is to be an employee of the new authority. I am not very clear on it, but my understanding is that there is a person who has currently been an employee of the Andamooka Progress and Opal Miners Association.

I want to know whether that person or some other person will be an employee of the Outback areas authority. I want to get at who actually directs the person to grade a particular road or do whatever is going to be done in a local area because I have difficulty conceptualising how, if someone is an employee of an authority that only meets intermittently, their work will be directed and governed. How will that structure work?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for her question. I am advised that, in the past, APOMA had employed a person temporarily, and I have been advised that that was for a period of about 12 weeks. APOMA has since been working with the Outback areas trust and, I have been advised, has come to an agreement with the trust that, under new funding arrangements, the Outback areas trust will now fund this person and pay their wage, and that person will be under the direction of the Outback areas trust. This has been agreed to by APOMA, and obviously the Outback areas trust will continue to consult with APOMA in understanding what the local needs around Andamooka in particular are, so that they can be addressed by that employee but they are under the direction of the Outback areas trust.

Mrs REDMOND: So, minister, if there is work on a day-to-day basis that needs to be done, even if that were an emergency job because of a flood, for instance—just to take an unlikely example—who directs that person?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I have said, it is the manager of the Outback areas trust. Clearly, the job description and responsibilities associated with that position will be flexible enough, given the tyranny of distance, for them to be able to make reasonable assessments about day-to-day management and to be flexible around that to meet the needs of the local community. That is just common sense.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: I refer to Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, page 4.6 which, as you know, refers to the framework for local government financial management. Minister, can you comment on what ongoing improvements are being made in local government financial management frameworks?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: An important part of the leadership role of the Office for State/Local Government Relations is to assist councils to improve the quality of their financial management and reporting. Significant improvements have been progressed as a result of the introduction of the legislative requirement for councils to adopt long-term financial plans and infrastructure asset management plans.

At this stage, South Australia is the only state to have the legislative requirement to adopt a 10 year long-term financial plan and infrastructure asset management plans. The purpose of the council's long-term financial plan is to express in financial terms the activities that it proposes to undertake over the medium to longer term to achieve its stated objectives. Together with the council's infrastructure and asset management plan, the long-term financial planning enables councils to address the sustainability of its financial performance and position; the maintenance, replacement and development needs for infrastructure within its area; and proposals with respect to debt levels.

Councils in South Australia are the custodians of $14 billion worth of infrastructure and assets on behalf of their communities. They have an obligation to ensure that current assets are managed efficiently and effectively and that decisions regarding the acquisition of new assets, the sale of current assets and the maintenance of current assets are undertaken in an open and transparent fashion. The requirement to have infrastructure asset management plans has helped to focus the sector to develop the appropriate tools, policies and procedures to meet this challenge.

The other key catalyst for improvement has been the implementation of the annual update of the model financial statements. The model financial statements are consistent with the Australian accounting standards and incorporate the best practice of state and other local government jurisdictions in Australia. There is no doubt that they have materially improved the reliability, comparability and consistency of data on council finances made publicly available.

They have also led to significant improvements in the level of disclosure in notes to councils' financial statements. The annual financial statements of councils must be prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in the model statements. The model financial statements document also guides the preparation of core financial information included in council long-term financial plans and annual budgets. A feature of the model statements is the accounting policy guidance and practical examples included in the explanatory material throughout the document.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: I refer to Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, page 4.15, which mentions the community wastewater management systems. I must say this is particularly of interest to the electorate of Ashford. We are always interested to know about these areas. I should say that we have also enjoyed the purple or lavender pipes (depending on your point of view) going through the electorate. Can the minister provide information on these systems and what processes are in place to maintain and replace them in the future? Part of the interest is that it is actually happening, but also constituents are asking: who will look after the systems and what does the future hold? I would be interested to hear your comments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for her question. The community wastewater management systems (CWMS) are common effluent management systems installed by 45 councils in regional and outer metropolitan areas of South Australia not serviced by SA Water sewerage systems. The CWMS provide approximately 10 per cent of all public waste water management services in South Australia. They are installed mostly in rural and regional areas and are an extremely important form of infrastructure for regional communities. The installation of these systems can assist economic growth and supports greater population levels within the regions.

Where this infrastructure exists, regional communities are better able to protect their existing water and land resources from pollution and reduce their drawdown from existing water supplies, including those from the River Murray. The state government has provided a subsidy for the installation of CWMS since 1972 in order to encourage equity between users of the systems and those who use and pay for SA Water country sewerage schemes.

The Local Government Association manages the distribution of this subsidy as well as the overall coordination of the schemes through the CWMS program. On 1 July 2008, the then minister for state/local government relations (Hon. Jennifer Rankine) and the then president of the Local Government Association (Mayor Joy Baluch) signed a nine year funding agreement for CWMS. The agreement commenced on 1 July 2008 and continues until 30 June 2017.

Funding of $3.368 million was provided for 2008-09, with subsequent years indexed to CPI. This totals approximately $35 million over the nine year period and will be a significant injection into the sector. Funding will be used to install a target of 39 new CWMS schemes over the life of the agreement, as identified by the CWMS Management Committee.

This funding complements the $20 million in commonwealth funding announced in June 2007 for community wastewater management systems in South Australia. Commonwealth funding will bring approximately 56 already existing CWMS schemes in 29 councils up to re-use capacity, thereby improving the environmental and health standards for their communities.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: I refer to Portfolio Statement 4, Volume 1, page 4.15: community land revocations. What is being done to improve revocation processes to ensure that the community is aware of what councils do with public land? In noting the member for Heysen's view on consultations, which is similar to my own, I am particularly interested to hear about this.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The role of the Minister for State/Local Government Relations in the community land revocation process is to review councils' proposals and the processes followed. Ministerial approval gives the council the authority to revoke the classification. I am keen to continue the work of my predecessor, the Hon. Jennifer Rankine, in ensuring that councils take a more inclusive and considered approach to community land revocation processes.

In June 2008 a resource document entitled, 'Revoking Community Land Classification: A Resource for South Australian Councils' was sent to councils. The resource document contains an overview of the legislative framework governing the classification of community land and provides guidance on how to compile an application under the Local Government Act 1999. Importantly, the guide assists councils to effectively engage the community when formulating and pursuing a proposal.

The act provides that councils must consult the community as part of the community land revocation process. To their credit, many councils undertake very thorough consultation on proposals to revoke community land; however, I feel that there is always room for improvement in this area, and I am keen to ensure that councils not only abide by the requirements of the act when undertaking this process but also make a real effort to engage the community in the decision.

To that end, I wrote to all councils in May this year requesting them to review and amend where appropriate their public consultation policies to include the use of signs as part of the community land revocation process. Often, when many are referred, it is very difficult for local community members to recognise where that piece of land is. I have requested that they now place signs on the land proposed for a revocation process in simple English.

The sign, which identifies the land and states the nature of any proposal being considered, should be erected on the subject land, except in circumstances where community land revocation is of a purely technical nature and does not change the existing use of the land, for example, road use.

The ACTING CHAIR: Member for Heysen, do you have some more questions?

Mrs REDMOND: I certainly do; I have lots more questions.

Mr VENNING: You've only got 20 minutes to ask them.

Mrs REDMOND: I've got only 15 minutes. As I said, because of dorothy dixers, most of the time gets taken up. Going back to the previous question from the member for Ashford about community waste water management in Volume 1, page 4.15 (I think there is also a reference in Volume 3, page 4.16), in terms of community waste water management systems (called STEDS in my day), funding will be used to install 39 new CWMS schemes over the life of the agreement, which I understand to be over nine years. Is there a baseline of need across the state? Has the community waste management committee indicated how many CWMS schemes in the 45 councils involved are needed to fully service this state? I want to get an idea of whether the proposed number of 39, over the life of the agreement, meets the need across the state.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I cannot help but respond to the criticism about the length of time that government questions have taken up in this forum. I remind the honourable member that government members also have the right, if not responsibility, to ask questions. I remind the member that we did attempt to negotiate offsetting government questions to reduce the time of this session by one hour so that it would have been devoted wholly to the opposition's questions, but that offer was not taken up; so, I think it is unfair to be criticising the government for undertaking its rights and responsibilities.

In relation to the question whether the 39 projects identified by the CWMS management committee meet current demands, I am advised that the process undertaken identifies the priorities for its council areas and then puts them forward as projects; 39 have been identified as a priority and been put forward.

Mrs REDMOND: Well, if they are the priority, my fundamental question is: how many, overall, need to be established?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have received is that as the population continues to grow so will the number of new systems required; it is an ever-moving feast. I also bring to your attention that a further 56 schemes will be upgraded. As I have already stated, the commonwealth funding will bring approximately 56 of those schemes up to re-use capacity. So, it is an ongoing and evolving matter for which the management committee continues to take oversight management responsibility, as well as identifying needs as they arise.

Mrs REDMOND: Can the minister explain what level of funding is provided under the agreement for 2009-10 and for each of the forward estimate years?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do not have that level of detail with me today, but I am happy to take that question on notice and bring back a response.

Mrs REDMOND: Is the minister able to advise how many new CWMS will be provided in 2009-10?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the government will provide $3.453 million for the 2009-10 financial year, ongoing for nine years and indexed to CPI. In relation to the number of new CWMS projects to be installed in 2009-10, I am happy to take that question on notice and bring back a response.

Mrs REDMOND: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.3. Of the 197.9 full-time equivalents in the Department of Planning and Local Government, how many were deployed to state/local government relations as at June 2009, and how does that compare with the figures for 2008 and the estimate for 2010?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that 22.3 FTEs are employed by the Office for State/Local Government Relations, and I am advised that this is the same figure as for the previous financial year.

Mrs REDMOND: And anticipated to be the same for the next year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes. I am advised it is 22.3 FTEs for the 2009-10 financial year.

Mrs REDMOND: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.14. Before we were sidetracked and went on a detour to Andamooka, my very first questioned concerned the fact that the increase in grants to local government is expected to fall in real terms because the increase of 0.79 per cent is less than half of CPI. However, on page 4.14 of Volume 1, it would appear that the government's own state/local government relations bureaucracy is not suffering that level of cutback. Can you explain how the bureaucracy that runs it all is getting a 3 per cent increase when the actual funding going through to local government is less than half of CPI?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will ask Mr John Hanlon to address that issue.

Mr HANLON: The arrangements with local government for the funding of $95 million is a figure that has been derived from an ongoing, long-term formula arrangement we have for each of those programs, plus the CPI that is set by Treasury. It is not meant to be anything other than a subsidy arrangement of funding, based on a grant funding process. Local government is required to use commonwealth funding and its own funding arrangements through rate-raising efforts. The state government then provides a grant program, with its own Treasury CPI added to that. The arrangement for the office itself is simply the actual costs, plus the CPI arrangements and, like all other government agencies, we need to make savings within our budget to meet our targets.

The ACTING CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to add anything further?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No; I think that covers it.

Mrs REDMOND: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.14. On the issue of supplies and services, the budget for 2008-09 was $1.022 million, yet only $628,000 was the estimated result. So, there was a 39 per cent underspend of $394,000 as against budget. Can the minister please explain why that underspend occurred and why the budget for supplies and services remains at that low level, slightly increased for the next year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that this is, in fact, not an underspend. This amount relates to the Office for State/Local Government Relations' supplies and services, including accommodation, telecommunications, and staff training and development. This amount differs from the 2009-10 budget amount of $1.022 million. This difference is mainly due to the $432,000 budget allocated to minister Rankine's office remaining with PIRSA when the Office for State/Local Government Relations transferred to the Department of Planning and Local Government. So, it was due to agency transfer.

Mrs REDMOND: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.24. Again, this is a question about an apparent underspend, on the basis of the figures. The Local Government Grants Commission appears to have underspent its employee payments budget last year. Could the minister explain the reason for that and for the increase in the budget for the 2009-10 year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that this is not an underspend. The difference between the 2008-09 and 2009-10 budgets is due to the 2008-09 budget including only part of the financial year's transactions and the 2009-10 budget containing a full 12 months. This is because the Department of Planning and Local Government was established part way through the 2008-09 financial year—16 October 2008—and therefore does not contain a full 12 months of transactions.

The ACTING CHAIR: The timetable for this session having now expired, there will be no more questions for the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. I declare the consideration of the proposed payments adjourned to Estimates Committee A.