OUTBACK COMMUNITIES (ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 19 November 2009. Page 4857.)

Clause 21.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: This particular amendment provides a safety valve for the people who are going to be required to pay these new levies and charges. Currently, we have a situation where, if the NRM local boards are going to impose fees and charges, then the NRM parliamentary committee (chaired by my good friend, the member for Enfield) has the ability to take public evidence, examine and recommend or delay them. I will give the minister an example. The minister may not be aware that, earlier this year, one NRM board proposed to put a fee of $1 million on Prominent Hill for water charges—$1 million! The reason that it could not proceed with it was because, when it came before our committee, there was considerable debate and that board was asked, 'Is the government aware of this proposal?' The government was not, and that was the last we heard about it.

Under these proposals we have before us today the minister can allow these groups to bring in a charge. We do not yet know how the charge will be imposed or the basis of it—whether it will be based on capital value, unimproved value, a service fee or some other measure. It is therefore not unreasonable that these fees have to be laid on the table of both houses of parliament so that the local members and the community in general, if they are unhappy with these regulations, can then go before the subordinate legislation committee, state their case and then this house or the other place will have the ability to disallow them or challenge the government of the day. That seems to me to be fair and reasonable, because we are not dealing with elected people, and that is the problem.

In a democracy, if elected people put on a tax the taxpayers can get rid of them. They can get rid of any of us, but under this system they will have a tax imposed upon them and they will not have the ability to get rid of them. I think that this amendment is not only fair but also reasonable, and certainly it is in the public interest. Notwithstanding what the member for Giles had to say, huge numbers of people are not aware that these proposals are before this parliament. My amendment simply gives this parliament the overriding authority to intervene if they believe people have not been treated fairly. I appeal to the minister to accept my amendment, because I regard it as terribly important.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Basically, the member for Stuart is promoting a five-step process in relation to setting this levy. As I have said before, my experience of the views of the communities when I have been there is that they are very keen for change to occur in the Outback. They are very keen to have a strengthened Outback Areas Trust, they are very keen to see the amenity in their area change, and they accept the fact that a charge will be levied.

If we go down the track the member for Stuart is proposing, every year we would be going through a five-step process. We would have to go through the process of determining the levy, consulting with the community and taking that to cabinet, getting it gazetted and laying it on the table; and, if the house rejects it, we go through it again. What we are talking about here is uncertainty and turmoil on a regular basis rather than getting on with what the people want in the Outback.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I understand what the minister is saying, but what we are talking about here goes to the heart of the democratic process. The minister would not allow the member for Stuart's amendment in relation to having the members of the authority elected. She would not allow elected representatives to form the authority. She knocked that out. That is one blow to the democratic process that we are all meant to hold near and dear.

This next measure seeks to have some tier of government, some elected representative level, overseeing the setting of a levy, a rate, a tax or a charge, whatever you want to call it. We have gone through this process, which the member for Stuart has outlined extremely well, of natural resources management levies. The Economic and Finance Committee has oversight in relation to the emergency services levy. There is a raft of levies of whatever description you want to put on them—charges, fees, taxes—over which the parliament does have oversight.

This goes to the very heart of the democratic process. This is taxation without representation. It is about an unelected body setting a levy after supposed extensive community consultation. This government has an extremely poor track record when it comes to community consultation. We on this side of the house have highlighted time and again what constitutes community consultation by the government, and that is that the government makes a decision in concert with the bureaucrats and goes out and communicates that decision to the community. That is its community consultation process. It is about communicating a decision that has been made behind closed doors. Whether it is a five step process or a 15 step process, it does not matter: you should not sacrifice things for the sake of a democratic outcome.

So it is on the government's head if it does not accept this amendment moved by the member for Stuart, because I think it will suffer the consequences. As we outlined in the second reading debate, the people in these communities are good, honest, reliable folk, who want good, honest, reliable representation by their elected members. It is to the government's peril if it does not support the amendment of the member for Stuart. I certainly support it.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I move, Madam Chair—

The CHAIR: Member for Stuart, in case you have lost track, this is your third contribution on this amendment.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I could easily move another amendment, of course.

The CHAIR: I am expecting that you will.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: At this late stage in my parliamentary career, it still takes a lot to get me on my feet. Can I say to the minister that I am disappointed because, after we debated this matter a fortnight ago, I sent out the proceedings, and people have been ringing me as late as today saying they know nothing about this. They are getting a nasty Christmas present, a nasty surprise. I understand that bureaucrats do not like parliamentary scrutiny. They do not like backbenchers, who are a jolly nuisance, because they ask questions and go and lobby ministers, particularly when the bureaucrats are not present! I understand all that, because it does not make things easy for them. But, at the end of the day, we are not governing for and on behalf of the bureaucracy: we are governing for and on behalf of the people of this state, particularly the people who are going to be clobbered with this tax.

So, again, I ask the minister: how are you going to raise the revenue? What will be the basis of the charge? Who is going to pay, and how often? To this stage, we have not been told. I want to know whether—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: You have been told. You haven't been listening.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Now, minister, don't get stroppy. I have been listening, and I have been paying attention. We have had a lot of discussion but, at the end of the day, will the minister tell me how much extra per year one of my constituents, who lives on a pastoral property between Yunta and Manna Hill, will have to pay? That is all I want to know. How much will someone at Yunta or Parachilna or Copley have to pay?

Also, the minister has not told us if the people at Leigh Creek are included in the net, because they all rent their properties: they do not own them. Who is going to pay? Do you have to pay at Copley or do you have to pay at Leigh Creek? We are entitled to know these things. The government will have its way on this occasion, but I will make sure it pays the price for it. I will make sure of that if people are going to be robbed without representation. The bureaucrats can advise you and they can have their win but, at the end of the day, when people go into a polling booth, they will have a chance, and that is what will happen with this.

I ask the minister to tell me whether the people at Copley and Leigh Creek or the average pastoralist out there will have to pay extra. They already pay pastoral rents, the emergency services levy and the NRM levy, and they have gone through the most difficult circumstances. They cannot even get their roads graded in the north at the moment, because the government says there is no money. However, we have plenty of money to put tramlines down to the Entertainment Centre—and we will talk about that a little later this afternoon. I ask the minister for the third time: can she please answer those questions? This is a financial clause and it is in erased type. It has to go back to the council. Because it is in erased type, it can be inserted only by this chamber.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: When the member for Stuart raised this matter on our last sitting day, I explained to him that we could not tell him how much each person was going to pay because the Outback Areas Trust is doing its asset audit and calculating what it needs to maintain the services in the Outback—such as airstrips, and so on—in order to determine what that levy might be. We went over this on that occasion.

Opposition members talk about consultation. I would be really interested to know what sort of consultation they have undertaken in relation to their views on this. We can outline extensive consultation with all the communities in the Outback. I think it is probably worthwhile sharing with the committee an email that was received last week from the Chairman of the Andamooka Progress Association, Mr Peter Allen. This is one of the communities in the north of our state that is under considerable stress, because the responsibility that is being placed on volunteer members, those people who do such a lot for their communities without any recompense, is becoming extraordinary. The town is expanding rapidly, and the very nature of the community is being threatened by uncontrolled development and a huge influx of residents. The email from Mr Peter Allen (which, I think, went to the minister) states:

I write on behalf of the Andamooka community for your support in assisting the passage of the new Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Bill.

He probably also wrote to the opposition. I hope he did. So, opposition members would be aware of this email. The email continues:

Andamooka, the largest town in the Outback not under any council jurisdiction, has struggled for some years to cope using volunteer effort and very limited funding. Our population is about 800 and will increase with the advent of the Olympic Dam expansion. At this point we represent nearly 20 per cent of the unincorporated area of the state. The passage of this bill will for the main part, give the new authority in conjunction with the community, an ability to raise a levy for the expansion of much needed infrastructure within the town. It would seem likely that other small communities within the area are most likely to benefit in a similar fashion if they choose.

It is recognised that the most disadvantaged group within the Outback is likely to be the pastoralists already paying various levies, though it is probable that they too make use of the government infrastructure throughout the region.

Highly likely I would say. It continues:

Fair and equitable access to this infrastructure should present a similar responsibility to support its maintenance. To resist the passage of a new bill, which will enable the imposition of an Outback infrastructure levy on the grounds that a minority of residents are already paying other levies or taxes would hardly seem fair or equitable. I trust you will give this your serious consideration and thank you for your time.

Yours faithfully, Peter Allen. Chairman.

I think that says it all.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment No. 3, which is an amendment to the minister's amendment that clause 21 be inserted, be agreed to. The minister moved an amendment that clause 21 be inserted, and we are now considering amendments to that amendment. The member for Stuart's amendment No. 3 is an amendment to the minister's original amendment.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: On a point of clarification, we have already passed the amendment moved by the minister to reinstate clause 21.

The CHAIR: If the member checks Hansard, we have not. The way in which clause 21 was considered was by the minister moving an amendment that clause 21 be inserted. We then proceeded to consider amendments to that amendment that clause 21 be inserted, so we will then deal with clause 21 at the end. We are now considering amendment No. 3 moved by the member for Stuart. I will put all the amendments to the minister's original amendment; then we will go back to the minister's original amendment. We are dealing with amendment No. 3.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 13 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Member for Stuart, I am kindly allowing you to consider whether you want to move your next amendment.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, it is consequential.

The CHAIR: You are not proceeding with amendment No. 4.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

Page 12, line 34 [clause 21(4)]—Delete 'as an asset' and substitute: 'for an asset'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

Page 12, line 36 [clause 21(4)]—After 'factor' insert: '(but not one based on a valuation of the land)'

This amendment will ensure that the valuation of land will not be used as a basis for differentiating between rates imposed in the Outback.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

Page 12, after line 36—Insert:

(4a) The minister must not approve a fixed charge for an asset sustainability levy for a financial year that will result in an increase in the levy from the previous financial year (other than a CPI increase) unless—

(a) a notice of the proposed fixed charge has been laid before both houses of parliament, together with an explanation of the reasons for the increase; and

(b) after 6 sitting days (which need not fall within the same parliament or the same session of parliament) no resolution has been passed by either house of parliament prohibiting the approval.

We hope this will go some way to alleviating the concerns of the member for Stuart. While we do not support the amendments that he has put up, we think this might be a workable alternative. This amendment will ensure that, following the rigorous processes undertaken by the new authority, in the first instance for the construction of the levy, the amount will not be able to be increased except by CPI, unless a parliamentary process is followed.

The proposed amendment would ensure that members of this place would be informed of the amount of the levy, together with the reasons for such an increase, and be able to intervene should they wish to do so. If the increase proposed is only CPI—that is, that which applies to ensure that a levy maintains its value—the additional proposed safeguard would not be needed. This amendment will give parliament the confidence that oversight can be provided in subsequent years and it enables the charge to be disallowed. However, if this occurs, the previous year's levy would continue to apply.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We became aware of this amendment fairly recently. I understand what the minister is saying, but it is really a pretty poor attempt at addressing the significant issue raised by the opposition in terms of how the levy is to be dealt with. I think we put some strong arguments forward in relation to how the levy should be dealt with in terms of its coming to the parliament by regulation, or disallowing the regulation. The government is trying to look like it is attempting to address the issue but, on this side of the house, we think it is a very poor attempt to address what is a very important issue: raising moneys from the community, that is, through the levy proposal. So, at this juncture, we are not prepared to support the amendment. I have discussed this with my colleagues—in particular, the member for Stuart—and, as I said, we think it is a half-baked attempt at addressing the serious concerns that we have raised.

As we have highlighted before, the issue of how these processes are managed is a significant one for these communities. I reiterate that it is taxation without representation. We are looking at implementing a pseudo-local government structure in these communities. We all know that local government representatives are democratically elected and that in that process the rates are set. If ratepayers do not like the actual level of rates that are applied, then they have an opportunity to change the profile of their elected representatives at an election every four years. What the government is really pushing through the parliament does not allow any of that democratic process to be instituted in relation to this piece of legislation. In view of that, we are not prepared to support the amendment.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: This is a reasonable compromise that should give the people in this place some confidence that there will be no unreasonable imposts placed on people living in the Outback, confidence that the levy will maintain its value, that the work that the community wants will be undertaken. They wax lyrical about the difference between what occurs with local councils and what is occurring in this legislation. It is a totally different process.

Let us be really clear. We have in this legislation the requirement that at least four people from the Outback have to be appointed to the trust. The legislation as it currently stands would allow four people who are all city-based to be appointed to that trust. What we are doing is ensuring through legislation that the concerns and the views of the people of the Outback are represented on the trust, that there is an extensive consultation process that they need to go through. This amendment should be giving people some confidence that, other than a CPI increase in the levy, it needs to come before the house.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I listened with great interest to the minister's explanation. She just did not completely tell the whole story, because they are going to get the first cut of the cake and no-one can do anything about it. Obviously, there is the potential to have a fairly substantial levy that no-one can do anything about. I say to the minister that when she responded she talked about community consultation but she did not explain to us exactly who is going to be caught in the net.

The other matter is that the government is asking this house to agree to this proposal. It has said that it is still working out how it is going to charge people and on what basis, but give the government the authority to impose it and it will tell you how it is going to go about it. If you went out in the general community and said, 'We want you to give us an open cheque to put a new tax on,' they would laugh at you—they really would.

All I can say is that I understand the process and I understand that this is a slight improvement, but at the end of the day my concern is that, before people are asked to cast a vote at the next election, they are told exactly what is in store for them. I am very familiar with Andamooka, although it is no longer in my electorate, but I did not ask about Andamooka. I asked about the difference between Copley—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I know exactly what the difference is—Copley and Leigh Creek. What we want to know is the difference between Copley and Leigh Creek. Are the people at Leigh Creek going to have to pay and are the people at Copley going to have to pay, because there was a different structure. This is very important to know, because the people at Leigh Creek are given services by the mining company which other people use and it is a very important centre for the Outback of South Australia, but the people of Copley also provide services and it is pretty clear, from what has been said today, that they will have to pay. So, please tell us, minister.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Let me be as clear as I can be about this matter. This legislation is acting upon the wishes of the people in the Outback. This has come about as a result of their representation to government, and this government has consulted with them. As to wanting to know how much people are paying, I have said time and time again that they go through their asset management plan and their business plan to work out what an equitable levy is in relation to sustaining the assets of the Outback. Each town will work out its own community levy, determined on what it wants for its community.

There are some anomalies in the Outback, and we understand that. The member for Stuart has raised the issue of pastoralists. It is expected that they will contribute because, just like someone living in Andamooka, they use the services and the assets that are provided in the Outback—as do, I am sure, the people of Leigh Creek. As the member for Stuart pointed out, it is a different scenario in that Leigh Creek is a company town and a range of services are provided in that town by the company for those people. However, those people also use the services that are provided throughout the Outback. We will be working with the company up there to ascertain how that community may be contributing to the levy.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The member for Stuart has hit the nail on the head in relation to this matter. This amendment is about dealing with things after the event—after an unelected body sets the levy. This amendment deals with what can happen after the levy has been set in relation to CPI increases. If the levy is to increase above CPI, it comes to the parliament and, after six sitting days, it can then be put in place. You have to understand that this amendment is dealing with a matter after the event, minister. This goes to the very point that we have been hammering away at through the whole committee process.

The minister talks about consultation, suggesting that you went out and consulted with these communities and the legislation reflects the feedback from the consultation. Well, if the minister has gone through an extensive consultation process, how is it that the member for Stuart, as he stated earlier this morning, has received calls in his office indicating that people in these communities know nothing about this legislation? So, if the minister's consultation process has been so tremendous and far reaching around these communities—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, you can 't say it was if—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, you can't. You can't put your hand on your heart and say it was because the member for Stuart is receiving representation—

Ms Breuer interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We don't have sub-branches. We have branches, not sub-branches like you union-oriented crew over there have. Don't start me on that, member for Giles. We will be here all afternoon if you want to go down that track. The member for Stuart has had representation in his office, as he said, as recently as yesterday indicating that constituents in his electorate—people who comprise these communities—know nothing about this. So the minister cannot put her hand on her heart and say that an extensive community consultation process has been undertaken, because these people would know about it. News travels fast around these communities and they would certainly be aware of what is going on; but they are not. So there is some problem. Do not screw up your face like that—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: The wind might change.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The wind might change; that is right. There is some obvious flaw in your consultation process in relation to communicating what this bill is about, so how can we have confidence in the community consultation process in relation to setting the levy? It comes back to those basic issues. You have unelected people on this authority—and I do not want to say it, but they may be patsies of the government—making decisions about a financial impost on the members of these communities.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: In the Stock Journal of 12 February 2009, there was an advertisement about the Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Bill; The Advertiser of 7 February had a similar advertisement; the West Coast Sentinel of 12 February, a similar advertisement; the Coober Pedy News, another advertisement; The Transcontinental of 11 February, another advertisement; The Flinders News of 11 February, another advertisement; and the Roxby Downs Sun of 12 February, another advertisement.

What does the advertisement say? It is headlined 'Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Bill', and it reads:

As Minister for State/Local Government Relations I am pleased to release the Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Bill 2009. The key elements of the Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Bill 2009 include:

establishing a new Outback Communities Authority with seven members, to replace the Outback Areas Community Development Trust;

increasing community consultation about infrastructure, service planning and community management;

strengthening powers to regulate matters such as rubbish collection, litter and abandoned vehicles, land hazards including animals causing a nuisance and managing development;

allowing for the creation of an asset sustainability levy and a community contribution where requested by the local community, to better maintain infrastructure in the outback.

An information package is available on the Outback Areas Community Development Trust's website www.oacdt.sa.gov.au or telephone 1800 352 224 (free call) or (08) 8204 8700. It is anticipated that this bill will be introduced into parliament for consideration in the first half of this year.

This is after community meeting after community meeting, after drafts were sent out, and after leaflets were provided. The consultation occurred. The honourable member can sit there and say that it did not, but it did; and I am happy to put my hand on my heart and say that the consultation occurred.

In relation to this amendment, and after receiving the member for Stuart's amendments when we were discussing the bill on the last sitting day, departmental officers went away and had a look at his concerns. They had a think about how this could be managed to give greater confidence and what models might be in place that could be replicated or that could be improved upon. Do you know what model they came up with? The model your government introduced when it brought in the emergency services levy.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The minister just failed to completely tell the full story about the emergency services levy. That particular levy is subject to parliamentary committee scrutiny. It is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so we are happy for you to go down that way.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: So will the increases.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, minister; take the full step, and we will be happy. We will sit down immediately if you are prepared to do that—no more discussion; quite happy. You have to tell the full story, not half the story. It is interesting that the member for Giles worked herself up into a considerable lather over this issue—

Ms Breuer: Yes, I did!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, and I suggest—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. R.J. McEwen): Order!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: —she runs out and has a cold shower, because she appears to be very agitated in relation to this matter. At the end of the day, if you are prepared to put in the same complete process as the emergency services levy, we will put both hands up and say, 'Well done!'

Dr McFETRIDGE: On a point of clarification, does the levy apply to the APY lands at all?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

Page 13, after line 23—Insert:

(9) In this section—

CPI increase means an increase reflecting the all groups consumer price index for Adelaide published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

This amendment simply defines what is meant by CPI increase. The term is used in proposed subsection (4)(a).

Amendment carried; clause as amended inserted.

Remaining clauses (22 to 27), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (12:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I think this is an iconic piece of legislation that will bring about a new era for our unincorporated areas in the Outback. They are expanding at a great rate of knots. I think there is an amazing spirit and uniqueness out there that we have tried very hard to preserve, whilst at the same time supporting those people who do so much work in their local committees and do want to see their committees prosper and develop. It certainly is a new era in the Outback.

In getting to this point, can I also acknowledge and congratulate the very hard working staff in the Office for State/Local Government Relations, Jane Gascoigne in particular, who has worked so hard over a number of years now to get this piece of legislation in this house. Jane was at the forefront of community consultation. Her understanding of the Outback, and the people who are involved out there and their issues, is second to none. She has done a magnificent job, so I think it is important that we pay tribute to her.

I am happy to see the final passage of this bill. It was very interesting for me to have the opportunity to travel the Outback and meet the wonderful people who are out in those communities and hear from them firsthand about their vision for their communities. It is very satisfying to see this legislation finally being passed.

I congratulate minister Gago on making sure that we got this legislation into the house. As I said, I think it is going to herald a new era for our outback communities. Despite our disagreement on one piece of the legislation, I thank the opposition for its support, I am sure its communities will be very happy that the bill has passed.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:51): The bill, as it comes to the third reading, still has some anomalies in it. Let me say from the outset that I congratulate all those people who have been involved in the Outback Areas Community Development Trust since its inception. They have worked very hard and given their best attention to the matters put before them, and they all deserve our praise.

In relation to this particular measure, its success or otherwise is yet to be determined because we do not actually know the amount each person is going to pay, or the basis upon which they are going to pay. When you are going to put your hand in someone's hip pocket they always want to know how deep you are going to dig, and we do not know.

As someone who has, I believe, a close affinity with the people of the Outback and who has spent a great deal of time travelling around that area—and I was up there last week at Innamincka and various places, and those people provide great services to the community—my concern is that they are not unduly taxed to provide services for people who want to enjoy the Outback but do not live there.

Whatever is done has to be fair, reasonable, just, transparent and subject to change and disallowance. I believe that in the not too distant future, if you are going to have a regime which taxes people, you are going to have to have elected people to impose it, and so they are subject to the will of those communities from time to time.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (12:53): Mr Acting Speaker, how magnificent you look in that seat. Perhaps you could reconsider your future and come back here next time as the Speaker. I think it would be very appropriate. It is a shame that it has taken the last two days of your career in this place to be elevated to that great height.

I recommend the passage of this bill. I am extremely pleased that it has gone through. I have great respect for the member for Stuart, but I have not really known where he has been coming from in this whole debate. I spent a week in the Outback, visiting many communities and talking to people about this bill, and everywhere I went people expressed their appreciation for it. They believed that it would resolve a lot of the issues they have about how to run their community, their fundraising, etc. They felt like they were going to get some real support after many years of head-banging business and burnout, etc. I do not know what the member for Stuart's problem was and where he was coming from on this. I know that people in the Outback will be very grateful. There may be a handful who will complain about the levy but they would complain about everything. People on pastoral stations come into communities and use those facilities. All those people I spoke to supported this bill.

I pay tribute to the Andamooka Progress Association which led the charge on a lot of this. They contacted me, and I was very pleased to see that they contacted the members opposite last week about this bill. They are a classic example of how this bill will assist them and help them with their future. Peter Allen did an excellent job with this; I know that he supports the bill. I was very pleased that they took part in the process. I also pay tribute to Jane Gascoigne who supported me when I went on my trip to the Outback. She assisted me before I went and gave me names, etc. She played a major role and she has great respect out there. Whenever anything goes wrong in my communities and I give her a ring, it usually gets sorted, so a big 'thank you' to her and the two ministers involved—ministers Gago and Rankine. This is a great thing for the Outback.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (12:56): I do not know that there is much more to say, other than we look forward to this bill passing in the upper house and the new authority being appointed. It would be remiss of me not to thank the current trust and previous trust members for all their hard work. To a large extent, this bill is also a result of their initiative in coming to see us and saying, 'We need to strengthen our legislative controls and abilities to provide for our community.' So, in closing, I pay tribute to past and present trust members and I look forward to the passage of the bill upstairs.

Bill read a third time and passed.

[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00]