Bills

Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:49): The sad thing is I have had to rise three times, now, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There you go!

Mr GRIFFITHS: It just ruins your thought processes: that is all. I think I have been quite fair in the one hour and 40 minutes that I have contributed to the bill so far by putting on the record some of the supportive comments that have come through from some organisations, but in my closing comments I want to put some of the negatives that I have also received. Otherwise, I am sure there will people on my side who will have a go at me for not recognising all sides of it.

I will not identify the people who have contacted me. I think it is fair that I preserve that confidence but I do want to highlight, in a few dot points from each them, the issues that they raised as part of the consultation. The first person's position was:

Unsure

Concerns if the KI community has been properly consulted

Decisions must be timely and made close to the heart of the KI community—above personal interest and political bias

The next person, who is a representative of one of the community associations on the island, noted that that community association was indifferent to it, that public consultation had been poor and was 'a waste of resources'. A lady I met when I was on the island was vehemently opposed, I must admit, in the conversation I had with her. Her position was stated as:

concerns with impact it may have on democratic representative form of government and the consequent erosion of rights

That is an issue that I have put quite strongly also, where the concern is that people who are elected for four years are put in place to make decisions on behalf of the community and provided with revenue-raising power. To appoint a person to act as an authority above them to give direction but provide a vagueness of ability to consult for alternative funding sources if they need more money is poor to me, so I totally understand that person's frustrations.

Another person, also known to me, and who I know has taken on a community leadership role in past years on the island, was quite strongly opposed and was concerned that local government may be hindered, as others have stated. This person attended a special meeting conducted by council and listened to the concerns. It is not just a person who has made this stance in isolation but someone who has attended meetings and heard others speak to it.

A representative of another community association on the island was quite strongly opposed and said it was 'passing the buck by bureaucrats and governments'. That is an interesting one. It was also said to be 'another level of bureaucracy', which is also a sound argument. Some concerns were raised about transport issues as they relate to the island. Another community association was opposed and its position was:

Commissioner is an 'easy way out for government'

Another layer of administration

Doubtful that the right person would be appointed as Commissioner—needs to have Islanders at heart, not government

That is a point that I have made and I am sure that others will make, too. They raised some very serious concerns about the cost of freight—that is one of the key issues—and transport to and from the island.

It was pointed out that the island's economy remains at global financial crisis level with very little activity. They said the state government did not take up a recommendation in the Girt By Sea report, as I understand it (and I know the member for Flinders has referred to that in the past), to place a moratorium on real estate purchasing fees. That is an interesting one. Their final point is that they cannot see what a commissioner would achieve that a minister could not. I think that raises a really valid point.

Why can't a strong minister—giving good direction to staff, understanding the issues in a community, being part of the process of the Westminster system that is well understood, responsible to the people and who stands for election every four years—do what a commissioner is intended to do?

Another person who works within a service provider area on the island is opposed, concerned that the commissioner and advisory boards will be funded from the three main agencies on the island of health, education and the Department of Environment, and does not want another level of bureaucracy to have to answer to. There are concerns that the commissioner and advisory board will have power of decision-making over the principal and governing council. In this case it might be an education area but it could be in other areas, too—in finance, facilities and resources, be they human or physical.

This person also made the statement that the Citizens' Jury was a kangaroo court in that the decisions had already been made. I know others have given me similar feedback where it was thought that resolutions were predetermined and those who facilitated it had determined what they wanted to see, and that is what the end result was for the Citizens' Jury. We all have different opinions but they were the ones that were put to me. This person also pointed out that union members in that workplace were opposed to the bill also.

Another individual resident was opposed, concerned that the proposed legislation may take away the autonomy of the Kangaroo Island community. Again, it comes back to the credibility, the skill set, the knowledge and the time spent on the island of the person who may be appointed under the minister's plans to make decisions. The following questions have to be posed. Do they truly understand it? Do they know the people? Do they know the issues? Do they know the history? Are they involved in developing a strong future? This person was concerned that the Kangaroo Island Council is supportive of the bill, particularly as council makes up a small component of the KI community. For the record, I recognise that they are elected to represent the community, but this individual has raised the point of the Kangaroo Island Council being dysfunctional.

This person also pointed out that, at that time, which was late May, when the consultation had been happening and the Citizens' Jury had occurred well and truly before that and there had been some good levels of letters to the editor in The Islander newspaper about things, most people on the island were not aware of the proposal to establish a commissioner. A little bit after that person, another one who was opposed linked the Citizens' Jury to green thinking, considered the impact on future development proposals and was not aware of management plans overriding government departments. That is one of the basic premises of it: a single person can override not just local government, as I have stated many times, but indeed government departments.

I did receive letters in support of that. On reviewing them, it is interesting that eight of those in support of it were in a template response. There were some other people who, as individuals, indicated their support for it. I have confirmed the exact words of the Kangaroo Island Council and the Local Government Association and I think it was quite generous of me to actually put that on the record but, as an elected member body, they also have to be held accountable for their words and actions and I think the Hansard provides opportunity for all to review that.

We now come to a completion from me, finally. I hope that all members of this place actually consider the implications of this bill and not look just at the local perspective of Kangaroo Island but the potential for wider application. My understanding is that the minister, as part of his Adelaide-based consultation, referred to it as being a principle able to be rolled out in other areas.

A lot of sections of the community should be concerned that all of a sudden we are going to have this autocratic society in which one person deems what is to occur and manages to convince the minister, and if those who are charged with responsibility to provide what is in the management plan, they can be fined as a result. That is not necessarily the way I want to live. The way I want to live is in a government that is focused on absolute best positive outcomes at all times and works with the community to understand what it needs.

Yes, I understand that it has priorities in where dollars are to be spent. I absolutely appreciate that and it has to make hard decisions on that, but it has to ensure efficiency of delivery in the best possible way. That is where I think a whole of government responsibility and a change to this is important, not just an action instigated by the minister in proposing a Kangaroo Island commissioner bill. I do look forward to contributions from others, and I am sure we will have some robust debate about it.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:57): I rise to speak on the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill 2014. Let me first disclose that I was born and raised on Kangaroo Island, the beneficiary of 11 years of education at the Parndana Area School. I continue to be a ratepayer, one of the 40 per cent who live off island. I am a patron of the KI Pioneers Association and the Parndana Show. I remain a passionate advocate of Kangaroo Island and its people.

The peak governing body for islanders is their elected Kangaroo Island Council, complemented by appointed and elected boards, committees and councils representing the schools, the hospital, volunteer associations and organisations, the environment forums, transport operators and the like, including farmers. The funding, advocacy and influence of these vary. The state and federal governments contribute funding and services, as applies across South Australia, in consultation with local governance.

The bill before us proposes the establishment of a commissioner to be appointed and paid for by the state government. The commissioner can be a public servant. He or she has a role to prepare management plans and principally to provide better coordination and delivery of infrastructure on Kangaroo Island and for other purposes. The Minister for Planning claims this is necessary to support him, the proposed minister for Kangaroo Island, to be the new king of Kangaroo Island, with an advocate to present priority positions in cabinet.

The bill will operate, he says, by compelling state authorities, including public servants, public corporations and the local council, to provide information and prescribe contracts to the commissioner. Refusal or failure to comply can result in a name-and-shame listing in the commissioner’s report to the minister and Premier for most state authorities.

For councils, their penalty is to be reported to the Minister for Local Government, and he or she then has the power to take action under section 272 of the Local Government Act. That act allows for the minister to refer the breach to the Ombudsman for investigation. Action on that report can result in a declaration that the council is in default and, subject to the process allowing the council to plead its case for mercy, it may find itself and/or its members under suspension and subject to an administrator being appointed.

Management plans are to be developed after consultation with the local community by the commissioner, and once in place he or she maintains them. The commissioner must provide an annual report to parliament. Commissioners operate in South Australia in varying roles, representing the police, victims of crime, health and community service, corruption, legal services, public employment, industrial relations, equal opportunity, liquor and gambling, small business and highways, to name just a sample. There are varying levels of independence in their operation and powers of enforcement. To my knowledge, South Australia has no other commissioner of a geographical area, and across Australia no other island is subject to a commissioner in their governance structure.

In recent years, the state government appointed a KI Futures Authority with a small executive to prepare a report for the government. It published the Paradise Girt by Sea report outlining priorities for Kangaroo Island in infrastructure planning and services to advance the industry and economy of the island, recognising the environment, lifestyle, primary industry, tourism, transport challenges and other pursuits and aspirations. I recall numerous reports over my lifetime, most identifying common challenges, but this was a useful contemporary assessment. From there, the authority has promoted planning reform, marketing ideas, energy, water and transport options and supported selected projects and enterprises. This work is not without merit, but it does not address the core infrastructure prerequisites for the island, including its economy, water, roads, transport and energy.

Historically, state government has provided its usual services to country regions and, in recognition of the unique isolation of being an island, included a sea transport service (the latter was discontinued under the last Liberal government) and consideration of the sealing of the South Coast road and subsequent contribution to road maintenance, currently around $2 million a year. With an increased burden of waste disposal, environmental laws, deteriorating infrastructure, stagnant ratepayer revenue and increased regulatory compliance obligations, the local council has floundered and plunged into debt to cover repeated annual deficits, borrowing around another $1.8 million in the previous financial year (I do not know how much it was to the financial year just completed) to meet its expenses.

Whilst I have expressed my views as a ratepayer on some of the management and project decisions of the council, I do not reflect on the efforts of the council and staff, but the position is clear: the council is in a financial mess and its back is against the wall. To date, I suggest the government has not helped, but it has in fact taken advantage of this dilemma by failing to provide or subsidise infrastructure obviously needed and opting to just prepare more reports.

Secondly, it has bought up more land on Kangaroo Island, reducing the revenue base of the council. Thirdly, it has improved its own assets—that is, the government's assets—with boardwalks and walking trails, primarily supporting income from tourists for government and not for the local people. Fourthly, it has imposed regulation resulting in costly compliance to islanders. Fifthly, it has sponsored planning reform, with a new DPA, carving out the coastline to further advantage the government in control and income and depleting the council's future role. Sixthly, it has increased levies, taxes and charges, adding to the already high cost of living. Seventhly, it has reduced education and health services, making it even harder and more expensive for families. The list goes on and on.

Unsurprisingly, the council supports this bill. They are desperate. Amongst individual islanders, however, submissions are split. Some support and some oppose, but most, I suggest, do not even know what is going on or have any clue about what is actually being proposed by the government. The Local Government Association has assisted the council (as a member of that, that is to be expected), most particularly with the amendments re the strengthening of consultation clauses the government will apparently present.

In a meeting with the chief executive officer, and from some subsequent correspondence from the LGA's chief executive officer, it is clear to me that the LGA has not considered the broader legal issue of the implication of this bill, including the cost to council in compliance with the legal expense and representation when there are disputes, and we understand what a hefty imposition could be imposed on the council as a result of getting through that consequence. Secondly, there is the extension to other council's jurisdiction in South Australia, as has been flagged by the minister at the Adelaide public meeting. Thirdly, there are the difficulties of council's power under the Development Act.

As independent legal advice has confirmed to me, the minister already has the power, pursuant to the Development Act under section 57, to enter into land management agreements with the owners in relation to development, management and preservation and conservation, as has been outlined by our lead speaker. Here is where the current position is clear: in those circumstances, the minister must—must—have regard to the appropriate development plan, not 'maybe' or 'think about it' or 'tinker with it', but 'must'.

To avoid that, the appointment of a commissioner with the proposed powers will circumvent this and consequently derogate the council's powers. That is the real consequence of what this bill presents for the people of Kangaroo Island. I will not support this bill because it will:

undermine the elected council as the people's voice;

not help the council with its financial predicament;

dilute the council's principal role in planning;

add another level of costly bureaucracy of over $1 million a year; $6 million has been allocated over the next four years from an Adelaide-based commissioner;

not bind the government to do anything about the infrastructure challenges that the island currently faces; and

waste valuable time to consult and prepare more plans when the council's strategic plan, the RDA reports, and the countless management plans that are already there for action identify those priorities.

With this bill, the minister is a wolf in sheep's clothing and nothing less than that. It is a disgraceful attempt to undermine the independent governance for the people of Kangaroo Island. He has an army of qualified public servants and administrators to advise him. If he were genuine about the belief that there is any commitment by his government and that there is any waste already in government services, he would call a meeting with the relevant ministers and sort it out.

If there is an overlap, if there is an inadequate provision of service. if there is a circumstance where there has been a waste of government services—I have heard the minister come along to public meetings and talk about giving inappropriate subjects at the local school. What piffle, what absolute piffle!—if he has any problem with this, he can go and speak to the other ministers. He has a whole army of people in his department who could sort that out. He has to have the courage himself as the planning minister, as the minister who allegedly gives a toss about the people on Kangaroo Island, to go into his own cabinet and make the decision on infrastructure they are seeking.

Islanders do not expect it all at once, but if the minister is bona fide in his commitment to Kangaroo Island as being unique, as being an important part of South Australia, he would confirm that if he went into this cabinet and started the list. Stop spending any more money on bureaucracy, more reports, more plans and start delivering projects that support island development and not government enterprise. I oppose the bill.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:09): It will come as no surprise to the house to learn that I strongly object to this ridiculous bill and say: minister, if this is the answer, it is a damn-fool question quite frankly. Where on earth is this going to finish? Are we going to have a commissioner for Mount Barker? That could come. Are we going to have a commissioner for the Barossa Valley or for Port Augusta? What a load of crock!

I have listened at length to what the member for Goyder and the member for Bragg said, and I would add to that. I am a lifelong islander. My wife is a sixth generation islander. I served 17 years in local government over there then I came into this place. I shake my head in disbelief at the bill that has come before the house. How the Labor caucus supported this is beyond me. I understand that it went through cabinet many months ago and finally we have got it.

Unfortunately, we have had 12 years of lost opportunity with this Labor government. The only person who recognised that a few dollars needed to be put in there was the former minister Patrick Conlon. At least he had a grip of what had to happen. Instead of putting in place more bureaucrats, you put a couple of million dollars a year into B grade roads. Thank heavens for Pat. In direct contrast, nothing has happened apart from that, in essence. I spoke earlier today about the efforts made by Allan Holmes on the Southern Ocean Lodge. We have had 12 years where nothing has happened, in direct contrast to the years before, particularly when Dean Brown was premier, when he put infrastructure in.

What the island needs is infrastructure. It does not need another bureaucrat sitting over the top of government agencies telling them what they can or cannot do. I will come back to the council a little bit later in my contribution. Much has been said about KIFA. I pulled out the local Islander from 2011 when the cabinet came to the island under Mike Rann of blessed memory as premier, before he was slotted, and I looked at what this was going to achieve and what was going to come out of it. I went through—and I do not have it with me today, it is in my office at Kingscote—what they proposed to do, then I looked at what should have been done and then I looked at what had actually been done and it is very, very little.

They have produced a glossy report called Paradise Girt by Sea. It is a wonderful brochure, but what has come out of it? They were going to play merry hell with the airport, but nothing has really happened there apart from a plan, and I repeat to the house that the recommendations from Phil Baker, former airport CEO, were that it did not make economic sense to do anything to the airport at this time, yet they are still pushing the case for that. I put on the record again that I have no objection, and never have had, to doing something with the airport, lengthening the strip or whatever, but why on earth would you want to bring large jets or bigger turbine-powered aircraft into Kingscote when you have one of Australia's best airports 20 minutes away?

You have a regional airline that is struggling on the service to Kangaroo Island. Yes, it is expensive if you do not get discount seats and yes, local people get cranky about that. I completely understand that. I am fortunate that, as part of my job, I am able to fly back and forwards. I regularly see the KIFA chief executive officer on there as well and I can understand that: it is the quickest way to get there. However, 20 minutes away from a large successful airport, why on earth would you go to the extreme? I know that has been pushed for by a few people.

In my view, what has happened in the push for this Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill has been a litany of orchestrated manipulation and nonsense and, quite probably, lies—lies. I turn to that: I think the citizens jury was a joke. That is absolutely no criticism of who put their hand up to go on it, however, there were people who put their hand up who were dismissed, probably because they were ethically not suitable or something—I do not know; I do not know why that happened.

I will go back to the formation of KIFA. I used to have a bit of time for the Attorney. I thought he was quite a decent sort of fellow and I used to have quite a number of discussions with him. Simply, I do not trust him anymore. I do not trust him at all. When this KIFA thing was put together for the board he asked me did I have any suggestions about who may go on it and I said, 'Yes, I'll think about that.' I was quite happy to put forward a few names, which I did, and then, when it came out, no-one that I had suggested was on there. So, I did a bit of homework and I did some FOIs to find out. I might add that I did suggest, at the time, that the mayor might be on there. I did some FOIs and what I found out was that, in my view, it was a manipulated outcome.

Just on the subject of KIFA, I put FOIs in well over 30 days ago and have had no answer. Is this the way they want to operate? Is this the way the minister's people want to operate? I do not like it. In fact, I think it is dreadfully wrong. The freedom of information legislation is there for a very good reason. They have failed to come up with the responses to the FOIs that I put lodged in early August, quite frankly.

Let me go on with the Citizens' Jury. If I am wrong, I can be corrected, but my understanding was that anything that is to be decided by way of this commissioner bill or whatever was to be put to a referendum of island people. I think if you go back and check, that was the suggestion that was floated around. It was going to be put to a referendum; nothing happened—absolutely nothing happened. The next thing we heard was about the Citizens' Jury 'blah, blah, blah', all funded by KIFA through the Attorney's office, and the outcomes were displayed in the local paper. There was much money spent on advertising.

A lack of trust has developed. The Attorney, the Minister for Planning, Deputy Premier—call him what you like—has an army of people, as the member for Bragg suggested, who can go out and push his case, which is what has been happening. There have been a number of people, some who should know better, who have gone out and pushed the case for the KI commissioner.

As the member for Goyder mentioned earlier, he and I attended a meeting of the Kangaroo Island Council and had a few words to say. Indecent haste followed the next day and they rushed through a meeting to push the case to let the government know that we are all in favour of the commissioner for KI. They forgot to mention that there was a handful of councillors there. The bare minimum—I think, from memory, five or whatever out of eight—pushed through this motion and then rushed out to sell it. They have been completely conned. The KI Council has been completely conned.

If the minister for local government had done his or her work—there have been a succession of local government ministers over the last few years—they would have moved in and that council would have been removed, quite frankly. I do not think we need a commissioner for Kangaroo Island. In my view, we need an administrator put into the Kangaroo Island Council. It has been completely dysfunctional for a number of years. It has been subject to intimidation, bullying and all sorts of things which I am not going to go into now.

The ministers and the government will not listen to me because I do not know anything. Well, I do know something. I know that the vast majority of islanders could not even be interested in what was taking place with the Citizens' Jury or whatever. I work on the gates at the football every now and then when I am on the island, and I had person after person coming through the gates telling me that the commissioner idea was a load of rubbish. They did not want it.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, after seeing the full page I took out in The Islander. I will tell the house, and the minister knows this, that if I thought this bill was going to do something for Kangaroo Island, I would wholeheartedly support it. I would get behind it and sell it. I do not think it will. In fact, I am sure it will not. I think it is a complete waste of public money to put in another level of bureaucracy. I think it is even sadder, as the member for Bragg put it, that they have brought in the local council under this commissioner's bill.

There is one thing over and above everything else that Kangaroo Island needs to get sorted, and that is the cost of travel and doing business across the water. That is the single biggest issue. The government will not touch it. KIFA have refused to touch it. They have fluffed around the edges and made a few well-meaning statements but done completely nothing on it. I have raised it time after time in this place and I will continue to. It is the cost of getting there. You can talk about doubling the primary industry sector. Meanwhile, you are putting in sanctuary zones which are going to do enormous damage to the fishing industry, and the tourism industry I might add.

Mr Pederick: The ESL.

Mr PENGILLY: The ESL, yes. However, if you want to increase the number of tourists and visitors going to Kangaroo Island and if you want to increase the economy of Kangaroo Island, which are worthy ideals, you have to do something about the cost of getting across the water. We simply have to. I am not suggesting for one moment that we go back to the fully subsidised service that was operated by the Troubridge and then the Island Seaway, which I think at the time it finished cost something like $5 million a year.

When the Liberal government got rid of that and the service went through to Cape Jervis-Penneshaw they at least spent over $18 million on infrastructure on the island. They did something with the roads. They did something in the national parks down through Flinders Chase—sealed the roads down there. They did something with the filtration plant. They did something with the hospital, and the list goes on. They built the first desalination plant in South Australia at Penneshaw. They did those things. That was the infrastructure that was needed.

After 12 years of Labor we still have nothing more than single wire earth return (SWER) lines across much of the island, once you get past the three-phase line. Have KIFA pushed for that? I have not heard. I get very little information out of what is going on in KIFA. Perhaps I give them a bit of a dust-up every now and then and they do not like it. I do not care, quite frankly. If they want to talk to me, they can; if they do not, they do not. You are battling to get answers to questions. I sent an email probably two months ago and I am still waiting for an answer on that.

Let me tell you, the owners of the abattoirs asked KIFA to do some work on power and water, sheep numbers, etc. The owner rang me up to have a chat and I talked to him about it. I said, 'Well, how are you going?' He said, 'Well, I have put in questions and asked for some support there and I have got absolutely nothing.' Within 24 hours I had the details on the stock numbers, some issues to do with water, power, etc. One of the abalone farms was concerned about power. Then KIFA got active and did a few things about it.

I wonder what on earth this commissioner is going to do. It is the beginning of the end of Kangaroo Island Council as far as I am concerned—it is the beginning of the end. We will seek to have that matter addressed, and when we get into committee I think you can look forward to hours more of discussion, debate and comments. You can look forward to hours of it because I think that needs to happen.

The island's economy has always struggled to some degree, and it has a lot to do with the cost of getting across that water. There are very few people on the island who have much money to play with. I am well paid, as is everyone else in here, and I have the opportunity to spend a few dollars. There are very few people who have that, apart from people on good incomes in the public sector, whether that be at the hospital, the national parks, the schools or whatever. Most people do not have much money.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I could take you to one home on Kangaroo Island which still has dirt floors—they are clean. The member for Bragg's great-grandparents had a dirt floor in their place. I am talking in the year 2014 and I could take you to a home on Kangaroo Island that has dirt floors. You think about that. There is very little money. I go to sport (football), and the big social occasion, as it is in much of the country, is to go to football or netball. You pay $7 to get in, or $3 if you are a pensioner. You buy a pie and a pasty, watch the sport and have a good day. That is really important.

What really worries me is that, although the KI commissioner is lauded in the bill 'to assist with improving the local economy', KIFA have not done that. The minister can look down his nose at me, I do not care; they just have not done it. They have not addressed the issue of getting across the water. Have they raised it with the current federal government? I do not know. They have not done it. I view the whole thing with a whole lot of scepticism.

As I said before, if I thought that this bill was going to be useful to the island, I would support it. I do not think it will; I do not think that it is going to do anything whatsoever. We cannot stop it down here, and heaven knows what will happen to it in another place. At the end of the day, it is out of my control. It is the government's right to put forward such legislation.

In relation to the government agencies, in my view the ministers have failed to do their job. If there is a problem with the agency, whatever that agency might be—Families SA, schools, health, whatever—the ministers, who are paid a huge salary to administer their departments, under the CEO, have failed to act. They simply have not done what they are there for. For the Attorney to rush in here with a bill to make him the king, lord supremo of Kangaroo Island and minister for everything I find quite a joke, quite frankly.

The minister has told me ad infinitum, 'I want to do something for the place; I like it.' Well, good. I say to you, minister, 'You better get busy because you haven't done much yet, and the government hasn't done much, apart from Patrick Conlon's $2 million a year and a few bits of money thrown around the place and support to do reports.' On the subject of reports, I have shelves full of reports that have been done on what is needed on the island. I invite you to come home and look at them. You can go back to the original one done on the Troubridge service 100 years ago.

I will give you a more recent example of what has not been done, and that is the Kingscote Wharf precinct. That has had more plans put up for it than anything I know of. In the latest effort, when they called tenders and whatnot, I said to the government officers involved, 'You're not going to get any expressions of interest. No-one is going to put anything in,' and they didn't. They would not be told.

When I took Mike Rann of blessed memory and showed him what had been put up by Howard Young for a marina in Kingscote back around 2004 or 2005, they thought it was a wonderful idea, but they did not pursue it. Howard Young has probably gone off and retired; I do not know, I have not heard anything. Now we have plans for a ferry into Kingscote, and we have other things floating around the place that may or may not be of some use.

We have the money allocated for the walking trail that I think the member for Bragg talked about. I am perfectly happy with a walking trail through Flinders Chase and down the western end of the island; I have no problem whatsoever with it. They are great walks. I have walked most of the coastline, and I think that will be terrific. But the problem is, and the problem is going to be, that the department is so scared of its own shadow and so scared of fires and what might happen that, for four, five or six months of the year, when it is hot and dry, you will not be able to walk through it.

When the weather is good to walk through it, you will not be able to walk through it because they will be terrified that someone is going to be burnt. Just remember, that whole place, that whole area of Flinders Chase (100,000 hectares), went up in smoke in 2007, and it is ready to go again. The departmental officers are so full of paranoia that they will just shut it down. Perhaps the minister might be in the middle, but they will get a helicopter in to get him out, I suppose. There may well be people walking on that track for a number of days, but they will not be able to walk in it. I have no problem with it. It will aid and abet the government's own business enterprises.

In the short time left to me, I indicate that I am looking forward to the committee stage. I repeat again ad infinitum that, if this bill were useful for Kangaroo Island, I would support it. It is just another level of bureaucracy that is going to be put in by the Deputy Premier, if and when it goes through, for no useful purpose.

Fix up the cost of sea transport, give people a chance over there, get off their back with overwhelming bureaucracy, fix up the ridiculous situation to do with sanctuary zones, which is going to cripple a large section of the fishing industry and the recreation industry and tourism, with respect to visiting fishermen. I find it a sad indictment on a pathetically inadequate government that has run out of ideas, and it is just stupid.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:29): From the outset, can I say that I will be brief, not using my entire 20 minutes, and I am sure Hansard will be quite appreciative of that. I think that brevity is something that is lost in this place sometimes, depending on the quality of the contribution.

Can I say in regard to the KI commissioner bill that, obviously, I have not been involved in the history of the process to get to where we are, and I want to talk later about what would happen in my area if this same discussion came to the Barossa and the Murraylands. The first point I want to make about this bill is that, in my estimation and my party's estimation, this is a bandaid measure.

The government is finally admitting that they have failed regional South Australia and they are finally admitting that there are issues outside metropolitan Adelaide that they need to deal with, and this is one of them. Why, of course, Kangaroo Island specifically I do not know, but there you have it; maybe somebody has a shack somewhere that means they have a greater understanding of the area.

To me, this smacks of a bandaid measure. As somebody who does not come from a political background but from a business background, I am used to dealing with complex issues. Oftentimes, as the manager of a business the issues that came across my desk were ones where an easy answer was not able to be found. Indeed, all the fun, easy decisions were made by somebody else and, by the time things got to my desk, it was because decisions were very difficult and nigh on unsolvable.

Whenever dealing with complex issues, I found the best thing I could do—the way to deal with an issue permanently and properly—was to go to the core of the issue and find out what was really wrong and fix that fundamental issue. So often it would have been easier for me to make a decision that would have stuck a bandaid over the problem, and the issue would have come back and we would be having the same discussion over and over again. I believe the KI commissioner bill is an example of trying to put a bandaid over a sore when the treating of the sore itself is what is needed here.

I think the core issue we are talking about is a breakdown of the bureaucracy. The comments from the Attorney in regard to this bill were that a KI commissioner is needed to be able to more adequately supply services to Kangaroo Island. What I would say is that, if there are issues in supplying those base services to Kangaroo Island, we need to look at those base services and the delivery of those base services, as opposed to creating more bureaucracy to fix the bureaucracy that is already there. If the bureaucracy that is already there were working to its best extent, there would not be a need for a Kangaroo Island commissioner.

Indeed, I think this bill is very much about creating the perception that things are being done to help the island instead of actually doing things to help the island. What we are going to have, and what we have had, is more talk. What we are going to have is more public servants. But what we are not going to see is any increase in real investment or any increase in capital. The member for Finniss' speech, directly before mine, highlights some of the ways that real investment could be made into Kangaroo Island, but this bill does not deal with any of those issues. All it says is, 'We have failed Kangaroo Island and what we are going to do is try to use more of the same to fix the problems we already have.' I think that is a fundamentally flawed argument, and I would encourage the government to go and fix the issues as they exist currently and deal with the core issues of the failure of public service provision as opposed to this bandaid measure.

On Kangaroo Island, there are strong structures that the government could work within to try to improve services. Members previously have talked about KIFA, and there is, obviously, the local council. There is also the Kangaroo Island Tourism association. The Kangaroo Island Tourism association has an extremely high membership, and when I was on the board of Tourism Barossa we looked at KI Tourism with envy at the way they were able to pull together their community to work in a coordinated way to improve the tourism offer and the level of visitation to the island. There are strong structures in place that the government could work with currently.

The other point I would like to make in regard to this bill is that it does seem to be a random cracking of the whip. Fair enough, there are genuine issues on Kangaroo Island, and I do not dispute that at all. It does have some unique challenges as an island, as opposed to mainland South Australia.

The case as to why Kangaroo Island needs a commissioner versus the rest of South Australia has not been made clear. I think of this as the thin end of the wedge. Again, as the member for Finniss talked about previously, there are many on the island who are in favour of this because they are in favour of the focus and the attention that this bill and the process has brought to the island. I can see many rural communities across South Australia wanting the same level of attention and wanting the same level of focus. I think, naïvely, they believe that it would lead to outcomes and greater investment but, alas, I do not think that is the case. However, they would certainly look at this idea and say, 'Well, if Kangaroo Island can have a focus, certainly my region can have a focus.'

The Hon. J.R. Rau: What's wrong with that?

Mr KNOLL: If the Attorney is suggesting that every region in South Australia is lining up for a commissioner then he is welcome to make those remarks. I am worried that the passage of this bill into law will see an argument created for further and further bureaucracy and talk, and action plans and the like and, over my short life, I have seen many of these within government departments as a proxy for real action—and that does worry me a lot.

Also, in looking at this bill, I turned my mind to what would happen if this debate came to the beautiful Barossa Valley. In the South Australian Tourism Commission's campaigns for regional South Australia, Kangaroo Island came first and the Barossa came second. I would hope in this case that the passage of this bill for Kangaroo Island coming first and the Barossa coming second that that progression does not follow.

In trying to understand whether or not a Kangaroo Island commissioner would work for Kangaroo Island I looked at what would happen if this debate came to the Barossa. First of all I would say that, like Kangaroo Island, the Barossa has strong structures. I am referring to Regional Development Australia Barossa, Tourism Barossa, the local councils of the Barossa, Light and Mid Murray, Barossa Food (which is a food industry association), the Barossa Grape & Wine Association, and the numerous service groups and town committees. There are strong structures within the Barossa as there are strong structures within Kangaroo Island. If government wanted to come and talk about the issues, wanted to learn where to invest or where to improve services to particular regions, it would be able to find those people to talk to and structures that they can deal with and work through to provide those services.

What I am trying to get at here is that there is an alternative model and not simply, in the words of the government today on another topic, just throwing more public money at this issue. There are structures on the island and structures within my region where the government could work through to provide services on a much more efficient basis, as opposed to just adding more bureaucracy to the bureaucracy that already exists.

The other thing that I know about my region is—and I refer again to the speech of the member for Finniss about Kangaroo Island where it is the same—that if the government really wanted to know what the issues were in my region and to understand where they need to improve I have a whole host of people who would be willing to sit down and talk. We know the issues. In fact, Regional Development Australia Barossa has a road map of 10 priorities for the region that anyone could pick up and ask, 'Where is the Barossa at? Where do they need to improve?' It is there in black and white. It is something that the entire community is signed on to. We have a plan. All it requires is real investment and real capital and real money being put into the region.

One way we can improve the Barossa first and foremost is around improved local health services. Yes, I am going to jump on this bandwagon again. The 20-year campaign to secure better health services in the Barossa in the form of a new facility to replace a facility built in 1955 and a facility built in 1910 is still ongoing. That is a priority that is clear. The entire community signed on. We would not need a Barossa Valley commissioner to tell us that. There have been numerous studies. It is ready to go; all it requires is the investment.

The local council and I have developed a list of roads that the government could invest in. I have a whole host of deficient roads that the government could invest in and provide real capital and real investment, as opposed to providing more bureaucracy. The government could also provide more support for existing institutions and I think there is a lesson and a parallel there for Kangaroo Island as well. There are existing institutions, and if the government is not happy with the way those institutions work, I think that it should look to help improve those institutions as opposed to simply creating another one. I think that message is made clear.

The fourth thing that I think the government could do, especially in my region, and this is something that I have been pushing for over my six months in this place, concerns disused school land which could be gifted back to the community which the community could use as a local asset, especially in Moculta and Mannum, two areas that have disused school land that could very easily and effectively and productively be used by the communities.

If this bill does turn into law and the Attorney, in his infinite wisdom, decides that this is a model that needs to be rolled out, I can say that in the Barossa we can save ourselves a lot of time and effort and the roundtable discussions and all those sorts of things. I have the people there and we have the plans already in place and there is no need for a commissioner in my region as, indeed, I do not believe there is a need on Kangaroo Island for a commissioner. What we really need to do is start talking about real investment in infrastructure and capital.

The last point that I would like to make here is this. Not wanting to put words into the Attorney’s mouth, I wonder whether or not this process is being used as a Trojan horse to bypass councils, as a way that we can get around local governments. On Kangaroo Island, there is strong local government. In my region there is strong local government and certainly those institutions and organisations for local service provision are already there to be able to be worked with, but on the flip side if there is an intention that way—and there are detractors of council and they are many and varied and all over the place—if the government wants to have that discussion, then let us have that discussion.

I would hate to see this bill as a proxy for having a proper discussion about the role of local government in our state, especially in regional South Australia where local government tends to be more the primary form of service provision, where local governments in regional areas tend to pick up the pieces and fill in the gaps where other forms of government fail. If we want to have that discussion, let us have that discussion but the idea that this commissioner is to be put in place for local service provision somehow in competition with, or to move away from, local councils, is a very sad thing and we need to call it out.

In closing, what is happening on Kangaroo Island and what is happening in regional South Australia is fairly clear. There are a large number of issues and I and many country members have spoken about the issues that regional South Australia faces and whilst it may look pretty and it may look sexy to talk about a commissioner for Kangaroo Island as a way to solve the problems, I fear that it is more bureaucracy. It is more talk and spin, as opposed to real investment and real capital and real substance. I think that is sad because, certainly, there would have been hope throughout this process that it could have been more than that, but on the readings we have been able to make of it, we do not think it is and on that basis, we are not going to support the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:43): I rise today to speak to the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill 2014 which was introduced on 8 May 2014 by the Attorney-General, and I note that we certainly will not be supporting this bill in this place. This bill seeks to establish a commissioner to provide for the development of management plans in relation to the coordination and delivery of infrastructure and services on Kangaroo Island and other matters relating to Kangaroo Island and for other purposes.

What the minister believes is already happening is that matters concerning Kangaroo Island—and the rest of the state just misses out—do not reach the relevant ministers, and government departments do not consider the needs of Kangaroo Island residents and visitors when making decisions. I would say that is a pretty big failing of government departments and ministers alike.

The objective of the bill is to provide Kangaroo Island with a voice in cabinet via a responsible minister and supposedly to assist in streamlining infrastructure and service projects. Certainly, as a member in this house who has a regional electorate, I know these are problems faced right across country electorates. As I indicated earlier, it is interesting that the Attorney-General has singled out Kangaroo Island to establish a commissioner instead of working to fix the management of government so that all regions are better serviced. I note that we have not heard from the regional development minister on this bill.

Challenges obviously exist in the delivery of infrastructure and services to grow the economy. I note that Kangaroo Island has a small population of around 4,600 and a small ratepayer base of approximately 1,400. The Kangaroo Island Council struggles financially to deliver the necessary services and some 40 per cent of ratepayers do not live on Kangaroo Island. I note from my trips over to the island as a member in this place that the roads are in constant need of repair. There are many kilometres of roads and so much other work that can be done. I also note that in 2012-13, in regard to their rate base and their ability to raise funds, the Kangaroo Island Council recorded a net loss of $1.8 million. I also note that one-third of Kangaroo Island consists of government owned land, which is non-rateable and does not contribute to council revenue.

In his second reading speech, the minister talked about the delivery of state government services and the fact that they suffer from three interrelated major problems from the Kangaroo Island perspective. Firstly, there is a lack of critical mass in any of these agencies that can be devoted to Kangaroo Island issues. Secondly, the delivery of services tends to be Adelaide or mainland focused. (We all find out that they are Adelaide focused if we live in a regional electorate; there is nothing surer.) Thirdly, there is a lack of any one or more networks joining up services with a Kangaroo Island focus.

I really struggle that agencies, ministers and departments cannot reach out to Kangaroo Island. You can fly there in a plane quicker than you can drive from here to Mount Barker, way out in the regions of South Australia, where as we have heard cabinet had one of their country cabinet meetings the other day. It is just incredible. Whether it is a departmental head, working groups in departments or a minister and their staff, there is no issue with the time to get to Kangaroo Island.

The minister considers that establishing this commissioner for Kangaroo Island will better deliver for Kangaroo Island. What has the government been doing for the last 12 years? Not much. This bill will create a single Kangaroo Island authority that sits above the various state government bodies responsible for service delivery and is not answerable to them but rather to a minister. The stated position is that the commissioner would not replace local government but would sit alongside it. I think the local government has been sold a pup. They really need to rethink their position where they have been supporting the idea of a commissioner for Kangaroo Island.

I know local government is up for election and I know nominations have to be in by today, but talk about forecasting your own destiny. I think the Kangaroo Island Council, in endorsing this position, is forecasting its own destiny, in that it may not exist very long into the future at all. Why would you talk about supporting a commissioner when, if the council was doing its job and the government was doing its job, all the issues in focus on Kangaroo Island could be dealt with?

We also have the Regional Development Authority Board which is another body that is involved in decision-making and has plans for all the regions around the state. Certainly, the board in charge of Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island has plans in place. Why isn't the government already working with local government and the RDA to make sure that the infrastructure is in place, that the plans are put in place, and that there is action happening rather than just setting up another bureaucracy? With regard to the commissioner, the proposed role will supposedly:

improve the management, coordination and delivery of infrastructure and services provided by government agencies on Kangaroo Island;

assist improve the local economy, including the marketing of products and the development of the tourism economy;

prepare and review management plans dealing with the delivery of government projects and services to the island; and

have responsibility for coordinating and using existing public servants and programs to deliver outcomes in line with a regionalisation of policy formation.

I reckon that last one is a long way of saying, 'Get the public servants over there and have a look,' which they could be doing now without having to refer to a commissioner for Kangaroo Island. We also see that the role of the commissioner would have the power to establish local advisory boards. How much more bureaucracy do we need? The role will also prepare and deliver to the minister an annual report on the operations of the commissioner and any local advisory boards in the implementation of the management plans.

It is noted from the briefings given to the opposition that it is anticipated that the commissioner and any local advisory boards would have two full-time equivalent support staff based within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and at the time of the announcement the cost of having a commissioner was expected to be $860,000 over four years, as outlined in a media release dated February 2014. That cost now appears to be far greater because the 2014-15 budget outlines $5.6 million over four years for the Kangaroo Island commissioner and the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority.

Mr Pengilly: That would seal a few kilometres.

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely right! The development and implementation of management plans is a key component of the bill, and the legislation supposedly provides the framework to enable the commissioner to prepare and implement management plans which take precedence over other state authority management plans. Management plans must be approved by cabinet and, if there are conflicting positions between two separate agencies in relation to a management plan, the commissioner will make the final recommendation to the minister/cabinet. What we are setting up is a little dictatorship, a little dictator, to take over Kangaroo Island and this person will have the ultimate say in the end on—

Mr Knoll: Is there a former Labor minister that you know of?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes—on what goes on. This is a bit of a ridiculous statement but if we considered the equivalent population density across the state of one commissioner for 4,600 people, we would need 304 commissioners. We would have one for every 4,600 people. I know that is ridiculous, but that is how ridiculous this is because that is what is happening. The government is setting up a grand bureaucracy to oversee Kangaroo Island. Kangaroo Island is a great place. I visited there as a kid and had friends go over there who used to be at Coomandook. Mr Harrison was the principal at Kingscote.

Mr Pengilly: You have been to the odd fire.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I went to help clean up after the fires in 2007. I sought advice from the local member, the member for Finniss, while I was over there trying to sort out a few issues on where we were actually going on the Sunday—but that is another matter that we do not need to go into here today! It is a great place. I have gone over there for meetings on issues regarding the sawmill and plantation forestry and there are a lot of issues involved with that. I have met with the Fryars and others with regard to free-range eggs and the great work they do and the great opportunity they have over there because of the lack of foxes.

Mr Pengilly: I do not think the commissioner will unscramble that.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. As the member for Finniss rightly said: fix the transport issues and the access to Kangaroo Island. So many people who I know, and even I myself think that if I want to take my family to the island it will cost so much and so you do not go.

There is so much opportunity, so many hundreds of kilometres of roads where this money could be spent. There needs to be work done on the power connection for the island to make sure that the infrastructure is kept up to speed. As the member for Finniss said, some of these people are living in almost third world conditions, yet we have a minister endorsing another level of bureaucracy to set up advisory boards under that, citizens juries and whatever else, when all of these matters could be sorted out through the bodies that are in place.

Time and time again, we hear in this great state and this great country of ours that some people think we are overgoverned because we have the three levels of government: local, state and federal, and here we are setting up another one under this bill. It is just crazy stuff. You would have thought that with 12 ministers and the couple of hangers on that they have employed, in ministers Brock and Hamilton-Smith, that we would get some decent outcomes and not just through those ministers and their ministerial staff, of which they have at least 10 each, but their departments, some with well over 1,000 people in the department (many departments) through the Public Service. But no, none of that seems to work. None of that has seemed to work for the last 12 years that this Labor government has been in power. So, we are going to set up one little dictator who can override everything and decide that, 'If these plans don't look like they're going to merge I'm going to settle on the recommendation to the minister and cabinet.' It just does not add up.

In times when things are tough we see the government reaching out with its land tax, the emergency services levy. This is a government that makes out that it is recognising the role that farmers and primary producers make in this great state and yet here it is raising this land tax, because that is what the emergency services levy is. We talked about it earlier today in question time: we have seen rises of 600 and 700 per cent, and I know there have been other rises of over 1,000 per cent, and it is going to kill off people's ability to grow food.

This government decided it was going to recognise growing food from our clean green environment because the Olympic Dam expansion did not go on but then all it wants to do is hurt the people who are growing this food. Today, we had the Treasurer, who has absolutely no idea, looking up the emergency services levy brackets for people who might have property worth over $5 million or $10 million and then saying, 'We are hitting the wealthy.' Obviously, he has not heard of asset rich, cash poor, which many people are, especially with regard to the primary production sector.

Many people do not have any spare cash to do anything else, or for any extra things or any niceties in life. Yes, they might have properties worth $1 million or they might have properties worth $10 million, but they all live their lifestyles in line with what they can earn off of those properties and the investment they have made to grow food for this great state and country. When you have people say, 'We're just taxing the rich'—basically it is a Robin Hood idea they have taken: tax the rich to help the poor—I do not take to that. Essentially, what it is doing is putting a land tax on our farmers so that they cannot do well what they are already doing well into the future.

I am more than intrigued, I am a bit stunned that this bill has even come into this place. It seems extremely Mickey Mouse. I cannot understand, with all the bureaucracies that are in place, whether it be through local government, Regional Development Australia, the state government or federal government, how this is the best the state Labor government can come up with in 12 years.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (16:59): I will respond to a few of the remarks that have been made because I think a response is probably called for. I gather we are going into committee at some point and will be debating bits and pieces there, so I will not go too far with all this.

Can I just start off with a very simple proposition: if there was one thing about South Australia that I would like to change, just one thing, it would be that South Australians looked at the opportunity for change with enthusiasm and optimism rather than being frightened, huddling in a corner in the foetal position, waiting until it has occurred and then, at the end of that, suddenly waking up and saying, 'Actually, Adelaide Oval is not bad,' or, 'The tram isn't bad. Goodness me, I wonder when that happened. Who did that, I wonder?' The answer is: somebody who does not go into the foetal position every time a question is raised and an answer is offered to a question which is not something that has been done a million times before and failed. That is my wish, if anyone is listening.

Therefore, the people I dislike out there are the knockers, the people who say, 'You can't do this, you can't do that. It is all too hard. Don't do it this way, don't do it that way.' These are the sorts of people who often write in the media, 'This business has closed. This person doesn't feel very well. This person hurt their leg. This dog got run over.' There are no happy stories. Where is the noodle salad? Never. It is all just the unhappy, miserable stuff: 'You can't do that. Somebody doesn't feel well. I'm in the paper. I'm not happy.' What about the people who are doing really great things? Who wants to read about them? Answer: everybody. Do they get to read about them? No, because everyone is interested in having this big downer about everything.

Why are we doing this on Kangaroo Island? There are a number of reasons. First of all, we decided that Kangaroo Island was a region of South Australia which was particularly disadvantaged for a whole range of reasons, many of which we have heard today from speakers: lacking infrastructure, lacking population, lacking resources, lacking investment, etc. We get that, and that is why the KIFA was set up. The KIFA was never set up to be a permanent outfit. It was set up to be something which would try to look at the problems on Kangaroo Island, try to get up-to-date information about what those problems might be, turn its mind to what solutions might be possible and try to help people along the way.

We have helped people along the way on various things. Free-range eggs, for example, have come out of this. We have done work on that with Mr Fryar and other people, and that has been a positive thing. I think that if you spoke to Mr Fryar he might tell you that KIFA is okay. We have done a complete rezone of the island, which was something that needed to be done years ago; that has been completed. There are various other things we have done which have been helpful to individual businesses and so on, and it is not my job in this room to talk about those in particular.

The point is this: one thing that became very clear is that if we are going to actually continue to do anything for Kangaroo Island there has to be a continued focus on Kangaroo Island. At the moment, Kangaroo Island, by reason of KIFA being in existence, effectively has a ministerial presence in the cabinet, but that is only because KIFA is there, and KIFA was never designed to be there forever.

So, what we decided to do was actually put in place a person whose sole job it would be to consult with the community, come up with management plans for the island which were directed towards economic growth, investment, tourism, etc., and say to government agencies, 'If you are doing anything on Kangaroo Island, you have to turn your mind to these things.' The sanction if you do not is not that somebody is going to come around and punish you but that the commissioner will write a report, notify the relevant minister, and it will be elevated immediately to ministerial level that some agency is not getting with the program.

At that point, it is up to the minister to do something about it or not. Not only will it be elevated to the cabinet table level by a minister responsible but there will also be a report brought to this place. That report brought to this place by the commissioner will tell every member of parliament that here are the management plans, here is what is supposed to be happening and here are the agencies that are not getting with the program, and everybody in this place can start asking questions: why is that agency not doing that? It is putting a spotlight on noncompliance by government agencies.

The idea that it ignores the council is, quite frankly, ludicrous, because the council, if you read it, is a partner. There is a completely separate conversation going on on the island right now about island governance: whether they should have a council, whether they should merge the development board and the tourism people, and whether they should have a different governance model. That conversation is going on at its own pace on the island and it will get to wherever it is going to get to in its own good time.

That has nothing to do with this bill, because this is predicated on the assumption that for the time being the council will continue. If it turned out that some new governance arrangement came up there would need to be an amendment to this bill to reflect the change in governance there, but at the moment there is nothing happening in that space and it will not happen unless the community wants it. If it does happen, we can accommodate it by tweaking this legislation later on.

Some of the comments that have come from the opposition are quite frankly puzzling. On the one hand, they say, 'Why are you picking on Kangaroo Island? Why not all the regional parts of South Australia?' Then in the next sentence, they say, 'What a terrible thing you are doing to Kangaroo Island.' Make up your mind: you either want it everywhere because it is really good or you do not want it everywhere because it is really bad, but it is a bit odd to ask: what about Moonta, what about Wallaroo or somewhere? You cannot have a bob each way.

The Hon. S.W. Key: What about Ashford?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Why not Ashford? Why not Enfield? Why not Bright? While I am mentioning Bright, to those people who condemned that Citizens' Jury, they should think on the member for Bright who did an excellent job on the Citizens' Jury, and I congratulate him. I am sorry some of you people do not appreciate him as much as I do.

I might mention a couple of other things as well. This has been extensively consulted on. I have been to the island countless times. The council has spoken to people about this. There has been a genuine attempt to engage with the community on the island, and the original bill was amended at the specific request of the council in coordination with the LGA. We are at the point now where, for reasons that I can speculate upon (and might in due course speculate on, but at the moment I will not) the opposition has decided that they are going to oppose this bill.

I think they started from the proposition, 'We will oppose it,' and then started garnering the arguments to meet that proposition. It did not evolve on the basis of, 'Let's consider this,' and eventually a decision is made. I think it started as, 'This is definitely no, or else,' and then from that proposition a bunch of pretty unsophisticated straws in the wind were drawn together, but never mind.

Mr Griffiths: No predetermined position.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Perhaps not by the member for Goyder. In any event, this has been the subject of extensive consultation and it has the support of the local community. It has been extensively consulted upon in that community, unlike the proposition that is being advanced by the opposition, or even more unlike the proposition they have not advanced anywhere except here today, which has not been the subject of consultation with anybody, although I am glad we found out about it today.

The other thing I want to say is that this is not about controlling anything. This is about making sure that government agencies are required to turn their minds to the needs of this very small community when they are making decisions. If they do not, a minister finds out about it and a minister is sitting in the cabinet room and can actually ask questions and say stuff about that, and this parliament finds out about it. What in the world is wrong with that? It seems to me that this thing is a no regrets move really. At very worst, if it is everything those opposite have speculated upon and it is a 'do nothing' bunch of nothing, nothing will come from nothing—even Shakespeare said that, I think. 'Nothing comes from nothing,' might have been from King Lear.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a song: 'nothing comes from nothing' is from The Sound of Music.

The Hon. J.R. RAU:The Sound of Music. There you are: it was Julie Anthony. It's easy to confuse Julie Anthony with the bard.

An honourable member: Andrews.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, Julie Andrews. I know—Julie Anthony is the girl from Galga.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: See, I do know my girls from Galga.

Mr Pederick: The girl from Galga. At last, you've got it right.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. Anyway, back to the story because it's developing quite well, I think. Where was I up to?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Julie Andrews. Nothing comes from nothing.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Nothing comes from nothing, exactly. The 'no regrets' point. We put this in and it turns out to be a complete dud, and it does not do anything: tell me how Kangaroo Island is worse off because everybody will say, including the member for Finniss, that it could be doing a lot better than it is now? Everyone agrees with that. So, if this idea turns out to be dud, you can all say to me, 'You're an idiot, you put up a dud.' But you cannot say, 'You didn't try.' But what if it actually works? What about that? Hey, that is scary. It could be like Adelaide Oval. It could be like a tram. It might actually do something. Wouldn't that be scary?

Can I make another couple of points. We have unashamedly been trying to get infrastructure investment on the island. In fact, in the lead-up to the last state election, unlike those opposite, the government promised an amount of some millions of dollars, in a partnership with the commonwealth, to upgrade the airport at Kangaroo Island.

We believe, and the transport economics people believe, and Mr Drummond, to whom I think the member for Finniss might have spoken many times, who was up until recently, and perhaps still now, the owner of the Kingscote Hotel, was an absolutely fierce advocate of improving air access because one of the problems getting into that place is how much it costs to get there and how hard it is to get there.

If you could have bigger planes going there, it would change the transport economics. It would also mean, for instance, that people from Melbourne who wanted to go there could go there directly in a decent-sized aircraft. My understanding is, and the member for Finniss can correct me later if this is wrong, that the member for Finniss actually told Mr Briggs, 'Don't do that, it's a waste of money.'

Mr Pengilly: That's a complete lie.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, did you support it? No.

Mr Pengilly: I haven't even spoken to him about it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Finniss has said in here that 'it was a waste of money'. He said that not more than an hour ago.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss has a point of order.

Mr PENGILLY: Ma'am, that is completely untrue in relation to what the Deputy Premier said about any discussions or whatever I have had with the member for Mayo. It is completely untrue. He is making it up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I have just had reinforced with me, that is not a point of order. If you feel that you have been misrepresented, you can take that up later on. Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If the member for Finniss assures me that he has not spoken to the member for Mayo about these matters, I accept that. But I do also know that he has said in this place and other places several times, 'It is a waste of money. The airport is a waste of money.' He said it a little while ago in this room. I do not know of a single regional member here who would not want $17 million invested in their electorate, bringing with it the prospect of increased turnover, easier movement of perishable goods, more tourism opportunities, etc. Quite strange!

All this conspiracy stuff about 'Why are we doing this?' The only way I can try to explain this, and I have been thinking about this, and I have been listening to the other speakers quite a bit, is that it is like it is Christmas Eve and somebody has persuaded the opposition that Santa is going to rob their house, and they are sitting at the bottom of the chimney with a Tommy gun waiting for him to come down. That is what we are looking at, that degree of paranoia. It is just ridiculous.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the gun loaded?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Possibly not. This paranoia about what are we up to. We are not up to anything other than what we say we are up to. I make the point that Kangaroo Island, I do not believe, has ever returned a Labor member of parliament. I am not sure but I believe that the last person who voted Labor on Kangaroo Island is in the museum next to the thylacine!

You can accuse the government of any sort of base motive you want, but currying favour and pork-barrelling with Labor supporters or would-be Labor voters is the most ludicrous, paranoid thing I can possibly imagine. If the government is not trying to lure the good burghers of Kangaroo Island into the dark side—and that is not the motive, and I am glad that is accepted—is the other alternative that the government so dislikes the people of Kangaroo Island that they want to vex them with something horrible? Why would we bother with that?

Whether or not you accept it, the motives for this are absolutely as stated, and they are absolutely about trying to do something for a very small, isolated regional part of South Australia which needs help. That is what it is about. That is all it is about. It is not about anything else.

If it works, I think that is really good for Kangaroo Island and it will mean that the chances of the power issues there being dealt with appropriately and expertly will improve. It will mean the roads issue can be examined at a cabinet level rather than the Kangaroo Island Council struggling with this by itself. I appreciate the member for Finniss acknowledging the member for Elder's contribution towards $2 million a year for the roads. That was a good thing and I agree with him. That is what this is all about. It is about the government sincerely trying to do something for this part of the country. Why the island? There is something about an island, and that is it is surrounded by water.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, it is official. An island is surrounded by water.

Ms Digance interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, it is. And that means what happens on that island is, to some degree, quarantined from anything on the other side of the water.

Mr Pengilly: So is Australia.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Australia is a little bit bigger. Let us assume all the paranoid fear that has been unearthed over there was to be realised. The contagion will be quarantined on this island of experimental horrible bureaucracy. I am paraphrasing the opposition a bit. At least there can be a quarantining of this menace. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be really good, maybe in a few years' time we can have a conversation about whether there is anything we have learned there that might usefully be rolled out somewhere else. Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? I do not know. What are we actually frightened of here? Where is the downside of doing this? Why is the island going to suffer for having a crack at this? I honestly do not get it.

For all those reasons, I would urge the opposition to put the paranoia aside and get out of that South Australian mindset which is, 'That's a bit different, let's curl up in a corner and not do anything.' For goodness sake, have a go. If it does not deliver what I hope it would deliver, I will be very disappointed, but at least I will have had a go—at least.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 22

Noes 19

Majority 3

Second reading thus carried.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If my perusal of the amendments is correct, the member for Goyder’s amendments begin before mine and I think it is probably fair to say that a fair number of the member for Goyder’s amendments are basically the same thing.

The CHAIR: Consequential?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Chair, the minister is correct. The first seven of my eight amendments are consequential and deal with the one singular issue, so I am prepared to indicate that if the vote taken on the first of those amendments is lost I will not move the other individual amendments.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Before I get to the amendments, I have a question that relates to clause 3—Interpretation. It provides that ‘a government agency means (a) a state authority’, and I completely understand that, but also ‘(b) an agency or instrumentality of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth’. I have had some answers provided during the briefing on this, but I am wondering whether the minister can clarify it for the record because when I first read this I was rather intrigued by how a state act could actually bind the commonwealth.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that, as the agency's job is to facilitate cooperative behaviour, it is simply stating that, where possible, if all the state instrumentalities and agencies can be brought into harmonious cooperation with the commonwealth, then that is something it should seek to achieve, but it has no capacity to require the commonwealth to do anything, obviously. Clearly, if there were a commonwealth matter which touched upon the island and it was important from the point of view of the management plan, it would be sensible for engagement with that commonwealth agency to occur. One example that springs to mind is that the acronym, which I always get wrong, the EPBBCC or—

Mr Pengilly: EBPC.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. There is a commonwealth piece of legislation and there is a state piece of legislation and given that there is so much environment on Kangaroo Island, it might be from time to time that matters which are of interest both to the commonwealth and the state bob up. There is no capability for this commissioner to tell anybody specifically what to do, but they can turn their mind to making sure that there is some cooperative arrangement.

Indeed, on the point about telling people what to do, the commissioner cannot tell anybody what to do. All the commissioner can do is formulate plans in conjunction with the community and if those plans are being ignored by agencies actually say to the relevant minister, 'Look, these agencies are ignoring these plans.' That is the extent of it. They do not then step in and become chief executive.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I appreciate the response from the minister in regard to the commonwealth. As part of his second reading wind-up contribution he mentioned the member for Mayo and some words in relation to the member for Finniss, which I believe, subject to the comment made by the member for Finniss, you have acknowledged as being truthful and you accepted those. As part of the consultation therefore in the bill, given the linkage with the commonwealth, was consultation between your department and the member for Mayo personally or with his office undertaken?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that I am aware of. That the commonwealth is in here is incidental; it has no jurisdiction over most of this and it does not have to be bound by any of this. It is simply saying to the commissioner, 'You should try to engage with the commonwealth.'

Ms CHAPMAN: The Regional Development Authority is an entity that is funded by commonwealth and state, as I understand it. Is it proposed that on the establishment of a commissioner there will be a withdrawal of funding from the state as far as the Regional Development Authority goes, or will that continue exactly as it is as far as the state is concerned?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As far as I am concerned, there is no intention to disturb any of those other arrangements by reason of this bill, but I did say before (and the member for Bragg may or may not have been listening when I said it) that quite separate to this bill there is a conversation going on on Kangaroo Island—and indeed has been for some time—as to whether an island with 4,600 people and 1,200 ratepayers is best served by having a stand-alone council, a stand-alone RDA, a stand-alone this and a stand-alone that, and whether some better form of governance, which is still consistent with that part of the country receiving direct commonwealth funding, which obviously is very important, would be beneficial. That conversation is ongoing on the island, as I understand it. As I understand it, it has come to no conclusion as yet and that conversation has absolutely nothing to do with this; the two are not linked.

Mr PENGILLY: I am intrigued by this, because I want to know who is conducting this conversation. I have never heard of it. None of the progress associations have talked to me about it. It is not in the council minutes. Where is it happening? I have not heard a thing about it, and I talk to lots of people.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The good news for the member for Finniss is that it does not matter in the sense that it has nothing to do with this bill—absolutely nothing to do with this bill. I was just giving that by way of background because people keep raising this issue about governance, and this is not about governance. I was just providing information to the house. My understanding is that conversations are taking place on the island. I gather that there is a citizens' jury-type process going on and am just telling the parliament what I know.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just finish? All I know is that this has been raised with me for years by various people about whether or not you needed a tourism board, an RDA, a council or a whatever given the size of the place and whether you could not get some greater bang for your buck by having some consolidated thing.

As I understand it there is a conversation going on on the island about that. That is all. Just so it is clear, I do not know where that conversation is up to and I do not know where it is going to end. I do not even know whether it is going to end, and that has nothing to do with this.

Mr PENGILLY: I understand that it has nothing to do with it. The point I make is that you are making the statement, minister, but you have to substantiate it. Surely, with the hundreds of people you have working for you, whoever is around the chamber now—I do not know—you have to be able to substantiate it. You cannot just make the statement that a conversation is going on without having some knowledge of who is doing it. I simply want to know where on earth are you getting that information because I do not know. Is it from within your department? I appreciate the fact that it is not to do with this, but it is in a way because you cannot tell me where it is coming from, and I just want to know.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are literally off at a total tangent to this bill. I take full responsibility for having provided too much information in an answer, but we are going off in a completely different direction. I will make an effort to find out from KIFA where the latest situation with that is and let the member for Finniss know. But it has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The CHAIR: We are talking about the amendment to clause 3 which is about definitions. We are not anywhere near the subject of definitions so can we come back to definitions. I do not know where you are going to talk about what you are talking about later on but it is not at clause 3.

Ms Chapman: Yes, it is.

The CHAIR: No, it is not because clause 3 is about definitions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: We are asking questions about interpretations at the moment and therefore comments provided by the minister, which the member for Finniss seeks clarification on.

The CHAIR: There is nothing in here about that.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: We still do not think it is relevant to this particular part—sorry. Can we talk about—

Ms CHAPMAN: So that we might be clear about this, this is a bill to establish a commissioner and all of the powers and aspects that go with it.

The CHAIR: Can you show us where in this—

Ms CHAPMAN: If I may just put this to you: in the second reading contribution of the minister he outlines the level of governance that currently operates in the subject area, which is Kangaroo Island, and he outlines what other structures exist. He outlines the history and significance of the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority (KIFA) that has been referred to in the debate, and he outlines, essentially, what is to happen to that in the next extension of the establishment of a commissioner.

Questions are being asked about what is within the definition of 'government agency' and what state authority (which is in the definitions) is to be there which, for example, includes a council, an administrative unit. These are all the governance levels which are not only being referred to as part of the process which is developing towards the establishment of the commissioner but also who is going to be responsible to the commissioner and what jurisdiction he or she is going to have. We are in the definitions clause because we have certain governance structures.

The Attorney has volunteered in his answers to date conversations independently, apparently, going on in relation to change of governance. We already know, from the reports that have been referred to, that the KI Futures Authority, as one of its strong recommendations, has put that there be a change of governance to deal with that aspect on Kangaroo Island. It is one of, I think, seven or eight strategic directions outlined in the reports that have been referred to. I do not—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Excuse me, you have referred to Paradise Girt by Sea.

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sorry, I will refer to you.

The CHAIR: You will refer to me alright. In a minute you will be referring to me.

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Chair, I did say—

The CHAIR: Looking here; forget him.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to refer it to you.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister has made it clear in his contribution that the KI Futures Authority is part of the current governance structure which is to go. That governance structure has been referred to in its publication Girt by Sea. I mean, it is all in the second reading speech as to what it is doing. We know the operations of that have been referred to in the contributions to date in this debate of the strategic directions of that, including governance, which is one of its priorities, apart from a list of others, and I went through them in my contribution.

The minister is now telling us that he is aware, I am not quite sure where from or what the detail is, of conversations that are going on in relation to that governance. He has certainly presented to the committee and the parliament that he does not see his appointment of the proposed commissioner undermining the governance structure that is in existence, particularly with council and others. All of this relates to us asking questions about what the commissioner is actually going to be doing, and that is what we are getting to, that under the definitions we are asking questions about who this applies to because that directly affects what powers the commissioner has over them. It is a perfectly legitimate question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I—

The CHAIR: Are you going to give us the solution because we need to get back to interpretations?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I am. Some members opposite are either misunderstanding this deliberately or have not carefully looked at it, but it is as simple as this: the commissioner does not have the power to direct anybody. The commissioner is not—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Please, you have had your go. The commissioner is not a chief executive of a government agency. The commissioner has no delegated authority to give direction to a government agency—none. All the commissioner does is, after due engagement with the community, formulate management plans around key areas which are described in the legislation and government agencies and other people involved in activities on the island are to have regard to those when formulating their policies and undertaking their activities. If the commissioner forms the view that people are ignoring that, the sanction is simply that the commissioner notifies the relevant minister that department X, or whatever, is not complying with what is required under the management plan, full stop, end of it. He or she also provides a report to the parliament which would also identify that failure.

In some respects it is a little bit like the Auditor-General, who has a look at the way a government agency works over the course of a year. There is a basic expectation of financial performance from an agency where, at the end of the year, the Auditor-General says, 'Well, this agency has either complied or it has not,' and they make suggestions as to how things might improve. That is it. Maybe we should have called it the KI auditor, maybe that would have helped. In fact, I will make that as an offer. If that will solve this problem through both houses then I will think about that. How is that? You cannot do better than that.

Mr PENGILLY: I heard everything the minister said then and I understand everything he said; however, the debate has been made somewhat more confusing by the minister's earlier alluding to conversations regarding where the council goes. If he can say to me there are no conversations or there are conversations, I want to know why he made the statement. If they are having conversations, that is fine, that does not worry me in the slightest, but I would know about it. I have a pretty good network over there; I have a very good network over there. I know what is going on. Minister, with all sincerity, I have heard absolutely nothing. I was with 1,500 people on Saturday, from all walks of life, from NRM members, people to do with progress associations, sports clubs, you name it—the Sunday walking club. No-one has mentioned it. All I am asking is why did you bring that into the discussion on this bill? I cannot understand your reasoning.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will try to explain this again. I was saying that this particular bill has nothing to do with governance structures on the island. It has nothing to do with it. I added by way of information, which as it turns out was unwise—anyone here who is wanting to be a minister at some stage remember that; do not volunteer information. This is now taking us off somewhere else. The point is this, and this is what I can tell you: first of all, I am happy to arrange for KIFA to give you any information at all that they have about this. That is number one, no problem.

Second, I am of the understanding that there is a citizens’ jury process going on on the island. I understand that that has been going on for a while. If that is not a fact that is known to the member for Finniss, I do not know why that is not known, but that is my understanding. I understand that that citizens’ jury process is ongoing; it has not finished. It has not got to an endpoint. It has no outcome. The Citizens’ Jury outcome, if and when it ever arrives, would be that the Citizens’ Jury thinks that something like this would be a good idea, and at that point the idea would be tossed up in the air and some conversation about that idea could be had. But we have not got there yet, and that has nothing to do with this.

The CHAIR: Member for Finniss, you have had three questions, unless you have a different sort of question. You have asked the same question three times really.

Mr PENGILLY: It is different.

The CHAIR: I do not know how it will be.

Mr PENGILLY: It is different.

The CHAIR: Let me hear it and, if it is not, we will move on.

Mr PENGILLY: It alludes to comments that were just made by—

The CHAIR: Oh no.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, he referred to something different. He said, ‘getting information from KIFA’. That is fine. Could he please ensure that my FOIs, which are outstanding, are answered?

The CHAIR: That has nothing to do with this debate.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, it has.

The CHAIR: That is being really naughty now. Deputy.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, you have indicated that this new commissioner cannot direct anybody to do anything. That is what your understanding is. I will be asking some questions on clause 9, but my understanding is that what is proposed is that in fact the commissioner, once they have gone through and done the plans that are to be provided and developed, and consultation, etc., can serve a written notice on any of the state authorities, and they are defined, and they—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Just a minute; if I might just finish. They have to deliver up information that they have in their possession. There are certain consequences in relation to—and provision of contracts, that is also there. If you are a state authority, other than a council, you go through a name and shame process. That is, the commissioner reports to you, minister, and they can put it in the annual report to parliament.

If you are a council, it is a different set of rules. They start the process, which I referred to in the contribution I made, under section 272 of the Local Government Act, which ultimately goes to the Ombudsman, ultimately moves on under those processes. Yes, the commissioner is designed to specifically have a function and a power, and that power includes the provision of information. If you disobey, there are certain consequences. One of the categories which is specifically in the definition, which does have a consequence to it, can trigger all of the powers under the Local Government Act, which currently Mr Brock would be empowered to consider and to effect, if he wished to do so. Local councils certainly are in that category, and in this case the one local council that is on the island.

I understand you are going to make some amendment in relation to what is going to happen with the contract obligation, because that in itself seems completely absurd, but, in any event, clearly, there is a power to direct and councils are in it. Councils are almost the only elected body left on Kangaroo Island under the government's structure so, yes, it is relevant, and we are keen to know why the council is included as a state authority within the definition of this proposal.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is as simple as this. There is a management plan that is sitting out there. The commissioner wants to know whether all agencies, including the council, are getting with the program and cooperating with the plan. The commissioner cannot override the council and direct the council to do what the plan says, but nor can the commissioner be stonewalled by the council saying, 'Buzz off. We do not want to give you the information.' Nor can the commissioner be stonewalled by a government department that says, 'We do not have to listen to you; go away.'

That is all that says. It is so that this person, in doing their duty to actually evaluate whether people are performing according to the management plans, cannot be frustrated by an uncooperative council or an uncooperative government agency that just says, 'Go away. We do not have to talk to you.' That is all that deals with.

Ms Chapman: Yes, and it is very significant.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Do you want to make the thing—

Ms Chapman: You could end up with an administrator in the council.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Look, I do not know if all members here actually understand what the member for Bragg is presently saying, but what the member for Bragg is saying is this: if a council is asked by the commissioner to provide information, and the council says to the commissioner, 'No, go away. We are not going to listen to you. Nick off,' then the commissioner can go to the Minister for Local Government, under the provisions of the Local Government Act which deal with misbehaviour, and report to the Minister for Local Government that there is this misbehaviour going on—in other words, no cooperation. The Minister for Local Government then may, if the minister so wishes, start the disciplinary proceedings under the Local Government Act because the local government agency is failing to cooperate.

That is the sanction. You have to go through a whole process and, at any time, if the local government authority or government agency wants to cure their default by actually providing cooperation, it ends. It is a wholly unremarkable provision. It basically says: if you ignore a legitimate request for information and thumb your nose at what the law says, ultimately, there is a disciplinary consequence—that is all. It does not interfere with the government agency, it does not override the government agency's decision-making process, nor does it override the council's decision-making process.

Mr GRIFFITHS: From the minister's response to that, I refer him to his own amendment No. 8, which states:

if a council is directly affected by the proposal—

so not just a request for information but an expectation from a management plan as to what is to occur, they—

must seek the views of the council in relation to the proposal and, if the proposal has the potential to create additional costs for the council, must consult with the council in relation to options for funding such additional costs;

If that is not a direction, I do not know what is, because that is a specific decision being made that, even though a group of elected people have made a decision on what they are going to do, the commissioner's management plan overrides that. If there are additional costs, they can go out and get some more money for it then, potentially, if they can find a funding source for it—but that is clearly a direction.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And what is the sanction?

Ms CHAPMAN: Potentially, an administrator in their council.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this. I just do not see it that way.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Griffiths–1]—

Page 3, lines 12 to 14 [clause 3, definition of responsible Minister, (c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

I recognise that, of the eight amendments I am putting forward, four are contained within clause 3 and they relate to the removal of local government from being bound by this act. The first amendment is under 'responsible minister' for the complete removal of paragraph (c). I will have some questions about it later on. My amendment is for the removal of paragraph (c), which provides:

(c) if the authority is a regional development assessment panel or a council development assessment panel—the Minister responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993…

My request is that, on the basis of the seven amendments that we are proposing about removing local government from being under the control of the management plans and the commissioner, we delete paragraph (c).

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 17

Noes 20

Majority 3

Amendment thus negatived.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 18:02 the house adjourned until Wednesday 17 September 2014 at 11:00.