Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $636,641,000

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $9,719,000

Membership:

Mr Griffiths substituted for Mr van Holst Pellekaan.

Minister:

Hon. G.G. Brock, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr D. Hogben, General Manager, Planning and Transport Policy, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr B. Cagialis, Chief Finance Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Ms A. Hart, Manager, Office of Local Government, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

The CHAIR: Welcome back, minister, this time in your capacity as Minister for Local Government. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 3. I now call on the minister to make a statement, if he wishes, and to introduce his new advisers

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Mr Chair, if I could get my assistants to introduce themselves, with Ms Alex Hart being the first one.

Ms HART: Ms Alex Hart, Manager, Office of Local Government, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr CAGIALIS: Bill Cagialis, Chief Finance Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr HOGBEN: Don Hogben, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, General Manager, Planning and Transport Policy.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Office of Local Government is largely a policy unit that sits within the Development Division of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. OLG provides advice to the Minister for Local Government on:

the constitution and operations of the local government system, including the legislative framework that governs councils;

the relationship between the state government and councils and bodies such as the Local Government Association;

whole-of-government policy and legislation as they affect local government; and

the statutory authorities that are responsible to the Minister for Local Government—the Local Government Grants Commission and the Outback Communities Authority.

With regard to the Grants Commission, I draw members' attention to the recent appointment of Mr Rory McEwen as a member of the commission. Mr McEwen is a former local government minister and past mayor of the District Council of Grant. He brings to the commission a wealth of knowledge and experience and he is highly regarded across the local government sector. I would also like to express my gratitude to outgoing commission member, Jane Gascoigne. Ms Gascoigne has made a significant contribution to the work of the commission, notably in reviewing the methodology used by the commission in formulating its recommendations.

I propose to outline the key priorities that have been progressed over the past financial year and those that will be a focus for further action in the year ahead. In July 2015, I introduced the Local Government (Accountability and Governance) Amendment Bill 2015 into parliament, which was assented to in November and proclaimed on 31 March this year. The amendment act has changed the Local Government Act to improve councils' accountability and governance. In addition to priorities that I identified as minister, it has implemented a range of recommendations made by the South Australian Ombudsman and other bodies as a result of investigations and audits of local government matters.

The amendment act included many miscellaneous amendments to achieve a more consistent and contemporary legislative framework for the local government sector and, importantly, strengthened requirements for council accountability and governance. Notably, the amendment act included new provisions allowing council members to more effectively manage the conflicts of interest that may arise as council business is conducted.

Prior to this, the Local Government Act required all conflicts to be declared, but there was only one way to manage these: to leave the meeting room. There was no ability to closely manage serious conflicts of interest that could influence a council members' actions, while also being able to simply acknowledge less direct or perceived interests that would not have the same impact. This is the flexibility that the amendment act provided.

The Office of Local Government worked closely with the Local Government Association to develop these reforms and, at my direction, the proposed legislative reforms were the subject of extensive consultation. Indeed, during the parliamentary debate on the bill, the member for Goyder acknowledged this extensive and thorough consultation. Despite this, the LGA has since expressed concerns about the operation of the new provisions that were not articulated during this consultation. Of course, the implementation of the new legislation often identifies some teething problems, and I am addressing those procedural issues through the relevant regulations, as appropriate.

Ensuring that the legislation guiding the governance of councils is of the highest standard is one of my most important roles as Minister for Local Government. Alongside the implementation of the amendment act, work is continuing on the review of the codes of conduct for council members and council employees.

These codes are an essential tool for ensuring that council members and employees act in the interests of the public they are elected or appointed to serve. As a result of extensive consultation, new codes have been prepared as draft regulations. They will be simpler, avoid duplicating responsibilities under the Local Government Act and other acts and be more contemporary by addressing matters that have been raised over the last two years. Both the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and the Ombudsman have provided detailed comments on the codes, and I thank them for their valuable contributions.

It is intended that the draft regulations will be provided shortly to the sector and to the member for Goyder for consultation. Importantly, until these regulations are made, the existing codes of conduct will remain in force. Continuing my commitment to review and improve the local government legislative framework, the government is also reviewing the provisions in the Local Government Act relating to council boundary changes.

We have an opportunity to put a better process in place, one that deals with minor boundary changes efficiently and enables freer debate and discussion on more significant structural reform opportunities. Following discussion at the Premier's State/Local Government Forum, the government and the LGA have agreed on a proposed new framework that will allow for a more effective way of proposing and considering submissions for council boundary changes. A draft bill on these reforms will be released soon for public consultation and I expect that a bill will be introduced into parliament in the spring session of this year.

In conclusion, I want to briefly touch on the continuing work of the Premier's State/Local government forum. Some of the key issues dealt with by the forum over the past year include local government reform, in particular council boundary changes, potential models for a state/local government infrastructure investment partnership, economic priorities and collaboration on road investment. Discussion has also been held on the schedule of priorities for 2016-17 that forms an important part of the state/local government relations agreement. In concluding my opening remarks, I would like to acknowledge the good work of councils across South Australia over the past 12 months, recognising the importance of the services they deliver for their communities.

The CHAIR: Member for Goyder, do you have an opening statement?

Mr GRIFFITHS: A brief one sir, if I may. Minister, thank you for that. I would like to put on the record my acknowledgement of the former member for Mount Gambier, Mr Rory McEwen's appointment to the grants commission, and I do pay particular respect to Jane Gascoigne in her role, not just as a commissioner in the most recent of times, but as an executive officer in the past. She does possess a significant amount of knowledge about local government across the state. There will be some questions that stem from some of the minister's introductory comments too.

In the last six months, in particular, I have met with many councils that have allowed me to reacquaint some relationships that I had before coming into this place. I have met them about one particular piece of legislation and policy, which I hope there is an opportunity to ask them a question about.

The CHAIR: Which shall not speak its name.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It will, to some degree, Chair.

The CHAIR: I would be very careful about it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I put one clarifying point on this, because the description or objective of the Office of Local Government is: 'The Office of Local Government provides policy and other advice to the Minister for Local Government'. Therefore, I would assume that in the rate capping legislation, that I proposed, which has subsequently lost, that the minister had advice and contact and used the facilities and the expertise available in the Office of Local Government to actually form the opinion that he took when it came to the legislative debate and vote on it, which was in June.

Given that the responsibility of the office is to provide the minister with advice, can the minister outline what advice or policy opportunities he has been provided with when it comes to the level of rates that are charged upon South Australians? Minister, I just need to get from you information of the sort of advice that you have received about rates, as they exist, not about any other effect that might come into it, but I would like this to go to opportunities for efficiency demands to be in place and the potential for what is charged upon people to be reviewed, to be considered and for some form of advice given to councils about what they should be increasing by.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: It is the government's view that councils should determine, with their communities, the right balance between providing services and raising the rates needed to pay for them. Rate capping takes this decision out of the hands of councils and communities. Also, there is evidence from other jurisdictions that capping rates can restrict the level of services that councils can provide for their ratepayers and create large backlogs in both the maintenance and replacement of important infrastructure. The government supports councils continuing to have the power to set their own rates and manage their budgets in consultation with their community.

Councils should be accountable to their communities, not to an external body for their rating decisions. Councils need to have conversations with their communities about the services they demand and their willingness to pay for them. The act already provides ratepayers with a number of opportunities to voice their concerns or perspectives about the rates set by their councils and, ultimately, councils are held accountable to ratepayers for the decisions they make.

Having said that, I think that many councils could do a much better job in engaging their communities in this debate. After all, the decision to set rates is possibly the decision that has the most impact on community members. The act includes quite detailed provisions telling councils what they must do to engage with their communities on their annual business plan. Councils are required to do things such as publicly release a draft plan and hold public meetings to discuss it.

I have made it quite clear to the Local Government Association that while I do not support rate capping, I also expect that councils will make every effort to engage fully with their communities and that the LGA will take a leading role in supporting them to do this. It is very important to remember that councils have a range of measures available to them to provide rate relief to those who need it. These include methods such as the remission of rates or postponement of payments. Of course, the state government has stepped in with the cost-of-living concession. This will provide an annual payment of $200 to pensioners and low-income earners who own their own homes, $100 for pensioners and low-income earners who are tenants, and $100 for self-funded retirees who hold a commonwealth seniors health card.

I have promoted, through the LGA and through my visits to all councils, regional and metropolitan, that this is about the opportunity to become more efficient in their operation, resource sharing, knowledge sharing and whatever they can to do that. While I have stated what I have done in my firm and informed position on the rate capping or other external mechanism that restricts the conversations councils can have with their communities, I believe councils have the opportunity to become more efficient. I have had that discussion with councils and I get plenty of advice from the Office of Local Government.

Mr GRIFFITHS: For the benefit of the record, I indicate that I was nodding my head in agreement with the minister's comments about efficiencies and resource sharing.

The CHAIR: I do not think Hansard picked up you nodding, anyway.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am in a way describing it because on those things, minister, we completely agree. I suppose the difference is that, via a legislative framework, I have proposed the option of the need for this to physically exist and to be implemented, whereas the minister has said he has referred to having words with councils. What is following on from the words, minister? You have said this to many councils, either collectively or individually, but what is occurring within the Office of Local Government and the staff for whom you have responsibility to ensure that actions actually result from it?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As we understand—we have both had experience in local government—local government is a separate sphere of government and should be responsible for their operations and what they have to do for their communities. I have indicated before that I do not think it is right that one form of government should be forcing something on to another part of government, but it is something we all need to do. All councils, everybody, needs to look at more efficient ways of doing things.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, the challenge for me is in accepting part of the argument from you where you talked about what you said to councils about being efficient, but then also saying 'not forcing things' on people. In the legislation that I propose, it is done by a completely autonomous body, it is not a political decision that is made.

The CHAIR: Member for Goyder, I do not want to get bogged down in the policy debate that we have already had ad infinitum, and we had a committee report into it recently. We are just traversing the same ground, I think, and it is barely related to the budget.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will be prepared to move on—

The CHAIR: Do you have questions about the budget?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do, but also questions about the committee report, which has been referred to.

The CHAIR: You can ask me those questions privately, if you like.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, I am actually going to refer it to the minister. The minister would be aware of the Economic and Finance Committee investigation into rate capping, and its report was tabled in the parliament recently. One of those recommendations was about the Auditor-General being involved in the review of the financial transactions of the council. Is that an option that the minister is pursuing? Does he have a position on that recommendation?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Economic and Finance Committee announced an inquiry into rate capping in May 2015. In addition to 21 written submissions, the committee held five public hearings and heard testimony from 23 witnesses. The final report, which was tabled on 6 July 2016, contained four recommendations, including:

Local councils retain full authority to set their own rates and that no rate cap be introduced;

Local councils continue to set rates after full consultation with their communities;

Councils be subject to a thorough auditing process under the auspices of the Auditor-General, consistent with section 30 of the Public Finance and Audit Act;

Councils be required to publish, on an annual basis, these audits.

I will respond to the recommendations identified in the report in accordance of section 19 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991.

In regard to the committee's proposal to require the Auditor-General to audit all councils, I have directed the Office of Local Government to provide me with advice on this proposal and, as noted, will respond to the committee at the appropriate time. So, I am taking that on board.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, minister, for the response. This is a question about some of the decisions that have been made that impact directly upon local government, particularly when it is an issue that has to be covered by them as part of the rates they charge property owners, and where some rather significant policy decisions have been made by government overall, at which you as a minister sit as part of cabinet when decisions are made.

I am interested in, for example, the natural resources management levy and the significant increases over two years, which is a direct cost upon property owners. Do you support that decision, and have you been engaged in conversations with local government, either individually or collectively, about the impacts of that decision?

The CHAIR: The first part of that question, presumably, is answered by the fact that the minister is a member of cabinet, so he does not have to range over whether or not he agrees with a decision of government. As to the second part of your question—

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the member for his question. I am aware that a motion was passed at the LGA's April 2016 ordinary general meeting requesting the LGA to lobby the state government for a cessation of the current collection method of the NRM levy. The state government has partnered with the LGA on several occasions to determine the best way of collecting the NRM levy, and it has been determined that the fairest, or the most cost-effective, method of collecting is through the local councils. The NRM levy is itemised as a separate rate on the council notices, so that it is clear to the ratepayer that they are contributing by way of an NRM levy. The levy is spent in the region in which it is raised to address sustainable land and water management priorities defined within the regional NRM plan.

What I would encourage is for the member to address anything further here for the responsible minister. I said in the previous estimates under regional development that I advocate very strongly for anything to do with the regions. I am not going to go into what was discussed in the cabinet as the Chair has indicated, but I certainly would encourage the member for Goyder to address these questions to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, the Hon. Ian Hunter, in the MLC.

The CHAIR: Member for Goyder, I have been pretty generous, but can we bring questions back to specific budget lines?

Mr GRIFFITHS: It still relates to the Office of Local Government policy and other advice to the Minister from Local Government.

The CHAIR: So the description objective on page 97?

Mr GRIFFITHS: The budget line for this is only two pages.

The CHAIR: That is right.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am grateful for the fact that you are reasonably generous. I appreciate that.

The CHAIR: It is part of my nature.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I ask a question, because it has a direct impact, about the solid waste levy increase, which was announced just prior to the state budget being delivered? For many councils, it was either just before or just after they had made a budget decision for the 2016-17 year. Can the minister outline what he has done to advocate for the local government industry on this matter?

The CHAIR: I make the point again that a lot of these questions about what the minister has done to advocate for various parts of government policy presumably were done in cabinet, or were done as part of some sort of cabinet process and the minister does not have to range over it.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am just going to reinforce that I am not going to divulge what is discussed in cabinet or the outcomes, but I reiterate that I advocate strongly for regions. I have regular meetings, and one just recently, with the president of the Local Government Association, and he had a meeting with the Treasurer. I would again encourage the member to have the discussion with the relevant minister, who is the Treasurer.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This question is about the Office of Local Government and the size of it. I note that it is 7.6 full-time equivalent staff—

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: It is 7.6?

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is under FTEs as at 30 June.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: It is 7.6?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, 2016-17 budget period, 7.6 staff. It has reduced from what the budget estimate for 2015- 6 had been. That was 13; it was actually 8.5. Can the minister provide a reason why it reduced from 13 to 8.5, just for the record?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: If I can, I will get Bill Coglalis from the DPTI to answer because it is about the administrative side.

Mr CAGIALIS: The 13 FTEs is a capped number and the actual FTEs have remained pretty steady over the years at around the 8, 8.5, 7.6 in 2016-17. When the Office of Local Government joined the department a couple of years ago, the cap was just higher than what it should have been, but the actual FTEs have remained steady in the last two or three years.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is an interesting response. I would have thought the cap was closer to what the real needs were, and what the demands of it were, not an inflated figure. I have not heard that one before. Anyway, I appreciate the answer. Thank you for that. I am particularly interested in the opportunity for the Office of Local Government to provide more of an advice active role when it comes to local government across the state, because in years past (which you and I both remember) a lot more staff were involved with it. Is this something that you are interested in doing? Do you believe that there needs to be a very close liaison between the Local Government Association and the OLG to ensure that the resources are there so that councils, given that they manage $22 billion worth of assets, can actually do things as best as they can?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The role of the Office of Local Government has been to assist the Local Government Association and councils with the legislative framework and tools to be able to manage everything. Councils themselves operate as an independent body. We have meetings with the LGA, the president and the CE on a regular basis. We also have the Premier's State/Local Government Forum and everything is discussed there. The assistance from the Office of Local Government is really well received by the LGA.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will follow on from the member for Goyder's good question. I refer to Budget 4, Volume 3, Portfolio Statement, page 87. Could the minister elaborate upon what mechanisms are in place to ensure engagement with the local government sector and to strengthen the relationship between state and local government?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Is that Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 87?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for Goyder for pointing out there are two pages. On 29 January 2015, the Premier, the president of the Local Government Association and I signed the State/Local Government Relations Agreement. The agreement guides strategic planning, policy development, decision-making processes and consultation arrangements between state and local government in South Australia, with a view to achieving better strategic alignment.

The Premier's State/Local Government Forum (the forum) is a key mechanism that assists in achieving the principles and commitments of the agreement. The forum provides advice to the Premier, myself as Minister for Local Government and the Local Government Association on matters of priority to both state and local government that require the cooperation of both sectors of government to reach effective resolution.

The forum meets four times a year to oversee and progress matters. It also endorses a schedule of priorities as an appendix to the State/Local Government Relations Agreement that outlines annual priorities for joint action. A communiqué which provides a summary of outcomes is released after each forum meeting and is available on the Office of Local Government website. The forum last met on Friday 13 May 2016. Further discussion was held on progressing a legislative framework for revising the Local Government Act 1999 on potential council boundary changes and structural reform, potential models for a state-local government infrastructure investment partnership, economic priorities, and the schedule of priorities for 2016-17.

The meeting preceding that, held on 16 December 2015, included discussion on local government reform, collaboration on road investment, local government finances and the cost for public lighting and the potential for innovative uses of that infrastructure. The forum also met on 16 September 2015 to discuss local government's role in the economic growth of the state. The Premier and the Local Government Association president jointly acknowledge the capacity of councils to contribute to new economic activity and new job creation in South Australia.

The forum noted that the benefits of planning reform will be optimised if state and local government work in partnership in the delivery of a new system and discussed the local government elections review and the progress of a number of local government reform matters, including council boundary changes and regional governance models. The next forum meeting is scheduled for this Friday, 5 August, where consideration will be given to endorsing and signing the schedule of priorities for this financial year.

The government remains committed to regular and effective communication, consultation and negotiations with the local government sector on the formulation and implementation of key policies, legislative proposals and significant programs and projects affecting both spheres of government.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a couple of questions arising from that statement, if I may. The minister referred to planning reform as part of the work that the forum has been discussing. Can the minister confirm how many years it is expected that local government will be paying a levy as part of the planning reform implementation costs?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for Goyder. I will answer the question to the best of my ability, but I must encourage the member for Goyder to direct such questions to the relevant minister, which is the Minister for Planning, the Hon. John Rau. However, one of the key components of the planning reform process, underpinned by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, is to change the way South Australians interact with the planning system through the establishment of a single online planning portal with links to council and agency websites.

To fund the implementation program, the South Australian government will meet the entire capital works program up-front and align a cost recovery strategy with the delivery of benefits. The chief executive of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is empowered under section 56 of the act to impose fees and charges with respect to gaining access to information or material held on the e-planning portal. The power to require a contribution from councils requires the chief executive to take reasonable steps to consult with the LGA before setting or varying any such contribution.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just for clarification, do you know how long the levy will be in place? Given that you have that level of answer provided to you for this afternoon, is the advice of your staff able to extend to that information?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Again, I would encourage the member for Goyder to seek further details, including time frames, from minister Rau.

Mr GRIFFITHS: To me this comes back to the portfolio responsibility and the involvement that has to occur. I know what the answer is: it is 13 years. I assume that as part of the—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Point of order, Mr Chair: why ask the question?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Because I want to find out whether the minister knows the answer.

The CHAIR: Hang on, the member for Light has a point of order.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The member has just admitted that he knows the answer, so why ask the question?

The CHAIR: That is not really a point of order.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is the minister able to confirm what advocacy he has undertaken for local government in the negotiations about the levy, about the e-planning portal?

The CHAIR: We have addressed this very point and the minister does not need to answer this question. The member for Wright has a question, though. I hope it is in order.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister would like to say something.

The CHAIR: Yes, minister.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Again, I thank the member. First, what was discussed in the cabinet will not be discussed here. Secondly, I would have thought that the member would have asked these questions of minister Rau when he had the opportunity during the previous estimates.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I refer to the obvious pages in Budget Paper 4 in relation to local government. I am very interested in the turnout for local government elections. Can the minister advise what progress is being made in reviewing local government elections?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for her question. Periodic elections are held every four years for all councils, except Roxby Downs, which is governed by an administrator. The last local government election was held in November 2014, as I am sure we are all aware. The returning officer is the Electoral Commissioner, with voting being voluntary and conducted entirely by postal voting.

The government is looking to make effective and practical changes to the local government elections process in order to meet increasingly high community expectations for transparency and participation in debate on important local issues. The Office of Local Government, with input from the Electoral Commissioner and the Local Government Association, is finalising the review of the 2014 local government elections.

A discussion paper was circulated by the Office of Local Government (OLG) with the assistance of the Local Government Association. The review has focused on particular matters identified by the three agencies with the aim of improving the operation of the elections as well as voter participation.

These matters included electronic voting in local government elections; automatic property franchise entitlements; caretaker provisions; concurrent timing of state and local government elections; access by candidates to electronic copies of the voters' roll; disclosure of candidates' political affiliations and memberships; and disclosure of the residential address of candidates. A number of submissions were received and considered, and it is safe to say that views across local government varied on some issues.

Further detailed work is being undertaken by the Office of Local Government and the Electoral Commission about the implementation of some measures, while the Local Government Association carries out further consultation across the local government sector to determine its position on the issues that I have indicated are under consideration. Any proposed legislative amendments arising out of the review of the 2014 local government elections will be introduced to parliament well ahead of the next local government elections in November 2018.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Again, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 87. In the highlights, there is mention of Leigh Creek. Can you advise the committee what steps are being taken to ensure a smooth transition in the provision of services in Leigh Creek and communities in the northern Flinders region?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Outback Communities Authority (OCA) is responsible for supporting services and infrastructure in areas of South Australia that are not within a council area. Leigh Creek township is within the OCA's area of operations. The Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation (Hon. Kyam Maher MLC) has been leading the government response to the Alinta closures.

Leigh Creek township is the primary service centre for the far north-eastern part of the state. It provides a central location for education, health, police and retail, along with the provision of potable water and waste management for communities in the immediate vicinity. On 30 May 2016, the government announced that it will provide $18 million over five years to support the future management of the Leigh Creek township.

A range of agencies, including the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI), SA Water and the OCA are being funded to ensure that township services transition smoothly to government on 1 January 2017. It is my intention to ensure that Leigh Creek will remain open for business beyond July 2018 and continue to provide essential support to approximately 700 people in the northern Flinders region.

The OCA will assume operational management of the township on 1 January 2017 and provide municipal services in collaboration with DPTI and SA Water. To do this, the OCA will be provided with around about $8.8 million over five years for the provision of council-like services, including maintenance of parks, gardens and township facilities, rubbish collection and management, aerodrome operations, swimming pool operations and care of public buildings and structures.

The OCA has the capacity to employ a town administrator with administrative support, with the administrator being located in Leigh Creek. DPTI appointed a transition manager to oversee and coordinate government agencies to ensure an effective and efficient transition occurs on 1 January 2017. The Leigh Creek transition manager will be employed for a period of 12 months and is being funded from the remaining budget allocation of $1 million for Leigh Creek transition planning, which was approved in January 2016.

The economic opportunities for the region identified by Dr Jane Lomax-Smith in her Leigh Creek Futures paper can also be progressed alongside the transition of township management to the OCA. I am very confident that the government's commitment is such that Leigh Creek and the northern Flinders community will consolidate an economically sustainable future.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I also respect the importance of the question from the member for Wright. It was appropriate that the response be provided, so I commend the government on what it has done there. Can I just ask a question, minister, on community wastewater management schemes? The ongoing funding opportunity for those is rather important to local government, and I am aware that there was an agreement signed by, I believe, the minister and the president of the Local Government Association for a review group to be established. My understanding is that was meant to report by the end of July. Can the minister confirm what stage that is at?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The state government continues to support councils throughout South Australia to construct community wastewater management systems, or CWMS, as they are known. The CWMS agreement provides for an annual allocation, which is currently approximately $4 million per annum, to the Local Government Association to subsidise councils that provide a CWMS, primarily in regional towns and cities where conventional urban sewer systems are not provided by SA Water or other major water industry authorities.

The current agreement commenced on 1 July 2008 and will expire on 30 June 2017. The funding enables councils to provide these services at a cost to users that is equivalent to the cost of SA Water-provided sewerage schemes. The state's subsidy ensures equity between our regional and metropolitan citizens for this essential service. The agreement requires that the funds are allocated by the LGA on the advice of a CWMS management committee and according to conditions and principles set out in the agreement and the state government policy for CWMS. The management committee consists of representatives from local government and a broad range of relevant state government agencies, including the Office of Local Government (OLG), the Environment Protection Authority—

Mr GRIFFITHS: Mr Chair, I am reluctant to be rude, but my question related to the review group, and the minister has not given any reference to the review group so far.

The CHAIR: I think he is contextualising, but we will get there.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I was going to give you a bit of the history of it because, at the end of the day, this goes on Hansard, and, when people read it, they would like to understand what the scheme is doing. However, if the member for Goyder does not want that on there, I am quite happy to answer specifically about the review. The current agreement between the state government and the LGA expires on 30 June 2017.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As you have already said.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Yes, I was getting to all this.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, you have leapt forward to the next page.

The CHAIR: Member for Goyder, please don't distract the minister from his flow.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The government has not yet committed to either continuing the CWMS funding program beyond 30 June 2017 in its current or some revised form or terminating the agreement and the funding program. Therefore, as the existing agreement does not represent a precedent for future funding, and in order to inform my decision-making, I have committed to a joint review of the agreement with the LGA.

I have recently received the progress report that I requested from the LGA and I am pleased to note that the LGA and the relevant state agencies are working together on the important review. At the conclusion of the review, I will be in a position to consider the report findings and the future of the CWMS agreement well before the expiry of the current agreement in June 2017.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Excellent. I am grateful for those words minister. As part of your comments this afternoon you have talked about the boundary adjustments and the legislation that is required. It was my understanding that a draft of that legislation would have been available by now, the intention being to introduce the bill for debate in the spring session of parliament. Where is that legislation at?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: A draft bill will be released for consultation very soon. I am intending, after the consultation, to put the bill before the parliament this Spring.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, can I ask for clarification on 'very soon'? Is that two weeks away, one month away?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Very soon, Mr Chair—and very, very, very soon.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Light might be flippant about it but I am not. On the basis that it is a draft, it goes out for consultation, the feedback has to come back in, a review has to be undertaken and then the legislation gets tabled. I am just trying to make sure that there is an opportunity for this to be legislatively debated through both chambers by the time 2016 finishes. Is that your target also?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The draft bill will be out there very, very, very soon for consultation. I will ensure that there is plenty of time for consultation between councils and the community, and it is my intention to have this bill introduced this year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Excellent. Minister, can I ask a question about the impact upon local government of community housing providers and the rates rebate or remission that is required as part of section 161? It was part of draft legislation that you showed me early last year, but it was not in the legislation that was tabled and debated subsequently. Can the minister confirm, on the basis of his feedback from councils that potentially may be impacted by the transfer of housing stock and the rebate or remission having to be given, what he is doing to try to ensure there is a system in place that gives some surety to councils?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is a relevant question, but I thought this estimates process is about the budget consideration. These are matters that are best prosecuted I would have thought in question time. That is what it is for.

The CHAIR: Yes, you are right member for Light. The member is referring to statements that have been made in the previous 45 minutes. It is in context I, think.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Strangely, he has an answer.

The CHAIR: The minister can answer this in any way he chooses.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for Goyder for his question. This issue was explained in estimates last year, from memory. This issue was raised last year and I was assured by the then minister for housing and urban development that the application for council rate rebates would be considered on a case-by-case basis. I understand that the Minister for Housing and Urban Development (Hon. Stephen Mullighan) recently met with the Local Government Association on this matter and asked Renewal SA to undertake more detailed conversations with the LGA and affected councils in the near future. The Premier also wrote to the LGA in January this year confirming that in future transfers the state government would decide on rebates on a case-by-case basis. This will provide councils with the opportunity to make their own views known well and truly before any decisions are made.

I inform the member, this matter comes under an act of the parliament that is facilitated by another minister, any further questions on this matter should be directed to minister Mullighan.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is just interesting to me, yes.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, the member for Light, the member for Goyder is wasting his own time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: A case-by-case basis provides no surety to anyone; that is just it. That is what my concern has always been.

The CHAIR: Do you have another question?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Light.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That provides surety, too.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, we have 10 minutes to go.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is about advice from the Office of Local Government to the minister. Can the minister confirm what advice he was provided by the Office of Local Government about the street renewal program and how many councils have been provided with that opportunity?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have had no advice from the Office of Local Government on this. Again, this does not come under my portfolio but I would encourage the member to ask that question. However, again, I have had no advice from OLG on this project.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I just asked this question on the basis that when a significant amount of dollars is offered to one council only, if that is an issue that the Office of Local Government is briefed about or the minister is briefed about—but it appears not. The Local Government Association, as part of its budget submission for the 2016-17 state budget, put forward a paper which no doubt the minister has reviewed. There were 12 recommendations or priorities in that which the Local Government Association sought support from. Is the minister able to give an outline, briefly preferably, on the position held in those 12 areas? I am happy for it to be taken on notice.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am quite happy to take that on notice because I do not have it with me at the moment, but I am certainly happy to get back to the member.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can the minister confirm what level of involvement he and the Office of Local Government have had with the Ombudsman audit that was undertaken on section 270 of the act, internal review procedures for local government?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the Office of Local Government has regular meetings with the Ombudsman, and I would get advice from the Office of Local Government when any audit has been completed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As part of that, it is my understanding that there is a 12-month time limit in place for the Ombudsman to undertake an investigation. Is that actually the case? In relation to the number of issues reported to the Ombudsman, how many of them, as a percentage of the total amount, are not able to be considered or resolved within that 12-month time frame?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for Goyder. Pursuant to section 25(3) of the Ombudsman Act 1972, the Ombudsman is required to provide me with a copy of a report or recommendations in relation to an investigation where the Ombudsman has found there has been an administrative error. Section 273 of the Local Government Act 1999 empowers me to take action on the basis of a report of the Ombudsman.

Accordingly, the Ombudsman advises me if a council or a council member does not comply with his or her recommendations. Not only are the reports important to advising me of administrative errors in local government governance but they are also a medium for the Ombudsman to issue recommendations for legislative reform where necessary.

I just have to check, Mr Chairman, because I have some figures here which I want to make certain I am allowed to say in the Hansard. In the 2015-16 financial year, the Ombudsman provided me with approximately 20 such reports. I note these and request further advice on any action that may be appropriate for me to take. Any question regarding the number of complaints investigated and the time in which they are done with should be directed to the Ombudsman direct or to the Attorney-General.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister referred to the work of the Premier's State/Local Government Forum, and public lighting was one of the issues you talked about. Given that there has been some exposure to the Eastern Region Alliance and the tender it had let, has the minister sought an update on the situation there?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for Goyder. As quoted in the media, I think the Eastern Region Alliance had engaged an independent consultant to review their tender process for their street lighting replacement program, which I believe is the one the member is talking about. I understand that this review has been completed and soon will be presented for consideration by the mayors of the constituent councils.

As I have said in the media, if there are concerns about the tender process, these should be directed to the Office for Public Integrity or the Ombudsman. These bodies are the appropriate independent authorities to receive complaints and are empowered to conduct investigations if they consider that this is warranted.

Mr GRIFFITHS: To clarify, if that was your public record statement about referring it to another authority, minister at your own initiative you have not sought a briefing opportunity from anyone from ERA about the issue at all?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Thanks for the question. Not at this stage, but you must remember that under the act the Ombudsman is required to provide me with a copy of a report or recommendations in relation to an investigation where the Ombudsman has found there to be an administrative error. Section 273 of the Local Government Act 1999 empowers me to take appropriate action on the basis of a report from the Ombudsman.

The CHAIR: I think we had best go to the omnibus questions.

Mr KNOLL: I ask the following questions:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2015-16 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?

2. In financial year 2015-16 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2016-17?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a breakdown of attraction, retention and performance allowances, as well as non-salary benefits, paid to public servants and contractors in the years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

4. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, and for 2015-16 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, the purpose of the grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

5. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the corporate overhead costs allocated to each individual program and subprogram administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

6. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, could you detail:

(a) How much was spent on targeted voluntary separation packages in 2015-16?

(b) Which department funded these TVSPs?

(c) What number of TVSPs was funded?

(d) What is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates (by year), and how these packages are to be funded?

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2016, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The CHAIR: Sadly, we are out of time. I thank the minister for coming in and thank his advisers for their hard work, and all members of the committee and staff. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments complete. I lay before the committee a draft report.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I move:

That the draft report be the report of the committee.

Motion carried.

At 17.01 the committee concluded.