Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 August 2014.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:25): I confirm that this is our second day on this bill. We debated it for an hour on Thursday 7 August, at which time I was part way through my contribution, so this will be interesting for me. I have only ever had 54 minutes in the past, now I am up to an hour, so we will see how we go.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before you continue, member for Goyder, you are the lead speaker on this bill?

Mr GRIFFITHS: As I confirmed the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to go for a little bit longer. Before I continue, I want to reflect a bit on what occurred on that Thursday afternoon. There has been some concern expressed about the question of whether the bill was or was not going to be debated and the fact that it was brought on, as I understand it, at quarter past four or thereabouts, when the Government Whip approached the Opposition Whip about bringing it forward when two other bills were debated rather more quickly than initially anticipated. The member for Finniss had sent out an email that afternoon confirming that the debate was not going to occur and then, after he left the parliament to travel home via plane to Kangaroo Island, it was brought on.

In talking to mayor Jayne Bates that very afternoon, I confirmed that the opposition had been ready for the debate from very early in the week following a very thorough review of the merits, the concerns, the issues and the consultation undertaken on the Kangaroo Island commissioner bill and that the fact that the debate had not occurred was not the fault of the opposition but, I quite sincerely believe, was the fault of the government for not ensuring that the parliament sat into the evening of Tuesday or Wednesday of that week to actually ensure that there was sufficient time for it to occur.

We had originally been advised the previous week that it was going to be in the program on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and then on Monday, as I understand it, the program was altered to remove it from the Wednesday. I think that was due to the unavailability of an adviser to the minister, so I respect that and I have no concerns about that, but then on Tuesday it was listed with others but did not come about, and on Thursday it was listed with others but did not come about.

The comment from mayor Jayne Bates, as I have read it, was that it was listed to be debated at 3pm on that Thursday, and that was just not physically possible; that is not how the parliament is structured. Those in here would know that question time occurs until 3 o’clock and then there are the grievance debates, so at best it is 3.30 before debate on legislation takes place. I do thank the Opposition Whip for putting via email to mayor Jayne Bates the accurate record of what occurred that day, but I want to reinforce the fact that the opposition had been ready for the debate at any time that week and it was not our choice for it to occur at 5 o’clock on Thursday.

In continuing my initial contribution, I just want to put on the record all the things that have occurred on this because it is quite important. On Wednesday 23 May, a briefing was held to discuss the bill, and the minister was good enough to provide that to me, the deputy leader and the member for Finniss. In attendance with us was Ms Kristina Roberts from the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority (KIFA) and those who drafted the bill.

The minister relayed that the purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Kangaroo Island community continues to have a direct voice in the cabinet once KIFA is non-operational. My recollection is that the minister made the comment ‘shackling state government to Kangaroo Island’. I cannot disagree with the principle of that; indeed, I think it should be shackling any region or any community in South Australia to government and the cabinet, so that is interesting.

The legislation would require government agencies to refer to Kangaroo Island management plans. These government agencies are bound by the plans, and the commissioner has a duty to refer noncompliance with those requirements to the minister. It was argued that the bill, as I put in my previous contribution, could be seen as a remedy for a level of non-performance, and my great frustration is that I am interested in an overall solution to the way in which services are provided and the investment that takes place.

As we put six weeks or so ago, I had a concern that the proposal from the minister achieves that in a very different way for a particular locality that does not necessarily improve the situation for all areas. That is why we have had a bit of a difference of opinion on how to do this. I think the absolute focus of a government—especially one elected for a fourth term—should be to ensure efficiency in how it manages, to ensure that those who work under the ministers are reporting issues, that the minister has an observational point of view on issues that communities are dealing with and is able to influence the decision, because they are the person whose head is on the chopping block. They are the ones who make the decisions; they are the ones who are the public voice of it. That is why we have had this big philosophical debate for some time.

My belief is that the minister said he previously suggested that the heads of departments would be responsible for complying with the Kangaroo Island plans. I am going to use quote unquote, but I think that the minister's response to this was that the feedback he received was 'universal horror', which I find interesting because that is within a government departmental process itself. They have also, seemingly, if I can take those words as being accurate and indeed reflecting upon the feedback that the minister had received, a great level of concern that somebody else was going to come in and tell government departments what they had to do. Now we are still driven for this amendment and this bill

Within five days, the deputy leader and I had a briefing with Mr Raymond Spencer, who is the chair of the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority. During that meeting, Mr Spencer provided examples where government departments had been making unilateral decisions on the island without necessarily considering the impact on other sectors and the entire economy, being unintended consequences. He reiterated that the use of state government funds delivered to the island via each separate department or agency is not necessarily efficient and that there is duplication of the delivery of services in many areas. That frustrates me, because coordination is an absolute key, and I would have thought that with all the levels of review of budgets undertaken in the last decade this level of duplication would have been taken care of and there would be far greater efficiency.

Other comments from Mr Spencer at that meeting on the 26 May included:

A Commissioner will provide a level of transparency to decision making processes on the Island and will give residents a much needed voice.

I am not sure about that. They do create local advisory groups. We are not sure about who will be appointed to those, how many it will be, whether they will be skill based, locality based or particular issue based.

He went on to say that local government would not be impacted. He has acknowledged that the Kangaroo Island council plays a key role in the delivery of services and administration or distribution of funding, i.e. commonwealth grants and services they provide to the community. He went on to say that the three major issues facing the island are governance, access—certainly the member for Finniss has spoken about this quite often, about the need to ensure that some improvements take there, but it is basically around SeaLink opportunities and the airport—and the importance of agriculture and its export ability to markets.

The Kangaroo Island Futures Authority considered a range of options before determining that a commissioner would best deliver a solution, including the concept of machinery of government change—which is a bit what I have been talking about under the position that we hold—abolishing the council (which I find interesting) and establishing a replacement authority.

In regard to management plans, the futures authority has been working on a draft management plan for the past two years. It is envisaged that community consultation would occur within three months of the commissioner being established. He also went on to say that KIFA would stay on for a few months after a commissioner is established, to ensure information is transferred, and I believe that the executive officer is contracted until a period in 2015; she could presumably be doing other things after that. Mr Spencer supports the idea of a minister for Kangaroo Island, with his preference for the responsible minister to be the planning minister as he has a broader view on issues; he would be a better facilitator. Minister, it is interesting that a person that you have appointed obviously has a very high regard for you by putting that to you.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Very interesting. The deputy leader and I sought confirmation from Mr Spencer about the delivery of any level of state government funding for infrastructure projects. It is interesting, and I am sure we were patient in waiting for this, but Mr Spencer was unable to provide a detailed explanation on that and referred back to the targets for enhanced tourism, farm gate productivity and things like that. He referred to the government needing to give budgetary consideration to the airport, roads, SeaLink negotiations and electrical infrastructure via the new cable and electricity supply issues that the island faces.

I am aware that within the 2014-15 state budget there is a commitment, I believe, of $5.6 million over five years for the Kangaroo Island authority and support for the commissioner. There is also a proposed expenditure in the 2014-15 year of $2.25 million for the Kangaroo Island multi-day walking trail and some $565,000 for the upgrade of the Seal Bay Conservation Park facilities.

The delivery of funding for key infrastructure projects on Kangaroo Island and regional South Australia should be a priority for any state government. The proposed bill is considered by some as a strategy making it appear as if the government is taking action to boost the local economy without necessarily delivering upon those things. So, that is some of the feedback that we have received.

In the consultation that the opposition has undertaken we tried to be as wide as possible and as inclusive as possible. I will report on who was for and against, and I think in my early contributions I noted that no matter what we say on this not everyone will be supportive of us. We do have those who are for it and those who are against it of the 32 consultation feedbacks that I received.

A copy of the draft bill in the minister's second reading speech was sent to a broad range of stakeholders seeking comment. They included: the Kangaroo Island Council, SeaLink, the PSA, the AEU, the SA nursing federation, the department of national parks regional manager, the Kangaroo Island Health Advisory Council, the head of the Kangaroo Island Community Education, the Kangaroo Island health service, the chair of Agriculture Kangaroo Island, the chair of Tourism Kangaroo Island, the state chair of SATAC, and the LGA.

On Wednesday 14 May, I flew to Kangaroo Island at the request of the member for Finniss very early in the process—I do understand that—to attend a meeting of the Kangaroo Island Council. I know that the minister, and I believe Mr Spencer, attended later that week. At the meeting I attended it is fair to say there was good attendance. We were late in being put on the Notice Paper, but there are a lot of people who attend council meetings, and I was quite impressed to see the gallery of those who were in attendance for the business they were discussing.

The member for Finniss took the microphone first and put his position and concerns that he has, rather strongly. In my address to the councillors I said to them that I was interested in feedback. I wanted to know what the position is: what areas they might support and what areas they have concern with. I do respect that because it was so early in the process for the majority of the members present at that council meeting other than a core group who have been involved with the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority who had quite a detailed knowledge of the proposal, that for most there was not a lot of information flow that had occurred through to them yet. But most were good enough to give me some level of feedback.

I do note and put on the record that the Kangaroo Island Council has formally resolved several times, as it does now, to support the bill. It has worked through a series of amendment requests, and I believe there are 11 amendments that the minister tabled on 2 July.

As a further example of our willingness to put on the record the level of feedback that we have received I am quite happy to put on the record some direct feedback from those who I consider to be important players. In a letter from mayor Jayne Bates, dated 25 June, she said on behalf of the council:

The level of consultation with Council and our community has been exemplary and both Council and the community have been able to seek clarification on elements of the legislation and suggest amendments. We have been in receipt of two lots of amendments to date and Council considered all of these at a Special Council meeting held on 24 June where the following resolution was passed:

Moved Cr. Wilson, seconded Cr. Clements

That Council:

1) Thank the Minister for his comprehensive, consultative approach to explaining and refining the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill legislation and for allowing the Council to review and suggest changes which have been incorporated as formal amendments. Council are content with the explanations, planned clarifications in Hansard—

I presume that will also come—

and formal amendments proposed with one additional suggested inclusion into Amendment 10, section 19! Whereby the words '…and conduct this review every four years thereafter' may be added to the end of the paragraph.

Point 2 of the letter from Kangaroo Island Council states:

Council writes to all members of parliament reiterating council’s support for the bill, the amendments proposed, incorporated and the consultative feedback process that has resulted in our community’s feedback being incorporated as amendments (independent of council’s input). Council will also seek the members’ active support for the passage of this bill through parliament.

The letter goes on to say in the final paragraph:

There is clear intent with this legislation to challenge the status quo that exists around delivery of government services for our community. It is not about seeking or spending more money, rather more around ensuring actual delivery of services we are supposed to be getting in a more cost efficient ‘joined up’ manner, as well as designing and implementing policy and plans for the island that are fit for purpose and recognise the unique nature of being an island community. This is an excellent opportunity for governance of the island to improve and we seek your support for this bill in its passage through the parliament.

The minister nods his head in appreciation of those words signed off by the mayor, and I must admit that when you read them in isolation it is rather difficult to stand before you, minister, and say, ‘No, we do not support it,’ but it is because of the wider ranging issues associated with it all that we formed our position not to support the bill.

I do not knock at a personal level mayor Jayne Bates’s commitment to the Kangaroo Island community and all those who serve on council and community groups, but I do come from the basic premise of the flaw that exists within it because it does not ensure that the problem that exists and the problem that exists within government is actually fixed. There is an isolated approach to it which I do not believe is the right way to do it. A communication from the president of the Local Government Association dated 26 June was forwarded to all Liberal MPs and, I believe, non-Labor members of the Legislative Council, and that stated:

The LGA has been supporting the Kangaroo Island Council in considering the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill, including advising on various amendments and enhancements to negotiate with the government. The LGA will continue to support the council during the passage of the bill through the parliament.

They are not here, but they are here in spirit, no doubt, it would seem.

At the LGA Management Group meeting on Thursday 19 June it was resolved that on behalf of the LGA Board and their response to the Kangaroo Island Council’s request, I advise the key state members of parliament that the LGA supports the passage of this bill through the parliament.

I am really shocked, and I think I enforced that in my first contribution where the LGA had put in a two-paragraph summary of the position they hold on that, that there is not a wide ranging review. The note from the president, David O’Loughlin, does not identify to me that they have considered the implications of it. I suppose yes, it does consider the implications, but what are the practical examples of that?

Are they worried, as I have been ever since this process commenced, about a person who is appointed to a very authoritative role and who has the ability to put in place plans that can suppress those visions that might be held by an elected group of people, such as Kangaroo Island Council, for an alternative vision? I understand this feedback, I understand this input, but it still relies upon that one person.

As I understand it, unless the minister corrects me in his contribution, there are changes or an absolute commitment to reviewing input that comes in; an absolute commitment to ensuring that, where an elected group has developed a budget that sets out a 12-month plan or alternatively a full year vision on how they intend to spend funds, the commissioner’s proposal for management plans will not completely say something different to that, and that is what I have great fears about.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: The council does?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have personal fears about it. The deputy leader also sought advice from a person known to her in the legal fraternity about the bill, and the feedback from that person was:

I would query why this bill is necessary other than to derogate council’s authority.

We have talked about this.

The minister already has power pursuant to the Development Act. Section 57 provides for land management agreements that the minister may enter with owners relating to development, management, preservation or conservation of land but, in doing so, section 57 (2a)(a) provides that the provisions of the appropriate Development Plan must be had regard to.

A final comment was:

In my view the bill appears to be designed to dilute council’s power in relation to its Development Plans and development plan consent as the commissioner has overriding powers in his functions, which also he has the right to delegate.

That is from a legal person who is worried about it. I know the minister asked about our alternative vision for this from the start. I would love to have been in a position as the government to have an alternative vision for it, but that has been taken away from us. During consultation on the bill I was asked questions by a number of elected members. It is interesting that a number of people who spoke to me on the telephone used very similar words in asking this. I think there had been discussion amongst others.

Ms Redmond: Really? I can't believe that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. I was asked by a number of elected members, a board member of KIFA and members of the community: if the Liberal Party does not support the idea of a commissioner for Kangaroo Island, then, what is its own plan?

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Isn't that a fair enough question?

Ms Chapman: Get a decent minister, for a start.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, it is. The minister asked, 'Isn't that a fair enough question?' The deputy leader said, 'Get a decent minister.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary to respond to interjections like that, and it is unparliamentary to interject, of course.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I actually think it is nice for the repartee and the wit that exists between the chamber to be recorded sometimes, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you do; that is why I am drawing your attention to it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay.

Ms Redmond: He's just making a comment anyway.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True; I'm just making a comment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is you plural, not just you singular.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I appreciate the correction. A clear Liberal alternative is the fact that in government we would ensure that the process of government is focused on the delivery of policy, infrastructure and services for people in the way that they need them. In government we would not just give up on improving government departments, as I am concerned the minister appears to have done. We would create an attitudinal change that would ensure that all South Australians are serviced by the public service in the way they should be, thus removing the need for commissioners to be appointed.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I can hear a violin playing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, it might be tugging at the emotional heartstrings, but it's absolutely true, minister, you have to understand. It is what we believe an opportunity in government represents for us, and that is what we intend to do. As it is 3½ years until the next election, our suggestion—and it is not subject to amendments because it is a rather difficult thing to amend a bill in this way—is to have a Kangaroo Island committee, which we consider to be similar to the capital city committee, which the government has established and has representatives on. The member for Adelaide, unfortunately, is not a member of the government and is not a member of that committee.

Ms Redmond: No bias there.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It is unspeakable. You think about it, Deputy Speaker.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay; I don't want to run the risk of having you removed from the place by speaking about how the committee functions. That is what our alternative is, where there is a level of elected member representation by the council, there is ministerial representation to the group, and then there is an ability to do things. In our case, the member for Finniss, no matter what political party they are part of, would be part of that committee, as long as Kangaroo Island continues to be part of Finniss—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes—because we think local representation is important in the decision-making process. That is what our response to it is and that is what we would like to see occur. A Kangaroo Island committee could be established under the new Kangaroo Island act. It would bind the ministers and the local member of parliament to membership and ensure the needs of Kangaroo Island residents and visitors are addressed.

As a foundation, the Kangaroo Island committee may be involved in things such as enhancing and promoting the development of Kangaroo Island, including identifying and promoting key strategic requirements for economic, social, physical, and environmental growth, which is, I think, quite similar to the intended role via the commissioner. Our position is that it would consist of the premier or a nominated minister and two other ministers nominated by the premier, the local member of the parliament and probably two members of the council.

It would meet at least four times per year; utilise the services, facilities and staff of existing resources and departments; and prepare and deliver annual reports. Importantly, it would make a difference on the ground. It would make decisions that cannot be refuted because of the authority provided to it, and it would ensure that, within a cabinet, no matter what colour or persuasion it is, actions take place. That, minister, is what our alternative position on this is.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Do you keep the council as well?

Mr GRIFFITHS: We do.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It would be the most overgoverned area.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister asked me, 'Do you keep the council as well?' to which I replied yes. The minister goes on to say that it would be the most over governed area. I think the ability of people to vote for more than one person and via a collective of people who actually collect rates is fairly important. If the minister has flagged his intention to remove Kangaroo Island Council I would be rather interested to hear that.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister puts on the record that it was not his position but he was just seeking clarification on my thoughts on that, so I am generous enough to correct that fact. The council is not bound under the proposed legislation and, as such, the commissioner would focus on the services provided by government departments. I make that comment because, as I understand it in the Kangaroo Island commissioner bill, local government is bound by that.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister is shaking his head so that is a rather important point for us and, given that seven of our eight amendments refer to removal of local government as being bound by that, we might have some interesting discussions at the committee stage about this.

It is important to note that, as Kangaroo Island Council and the Local Government Association have supported the bill, I have not flagged the option of these amendments with them. In my conversation with mayor Jayne Bates on the last sitting Thursday, early in the afternoon before the debate occurred, I told her we had amendments. She said, 'Well, have you consulted the community on that?' and I said no. I think I mentioned that on Thursday 7 August to the minister too and he reacted in a similar way, 'Oh you naughty boy,' but it was rather difficult given the very strongly stated position of Kangaroo Island Council, flawed or unflawed, of supporting the bill, to actually consult with them on that, so that is why we have chosen not to.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: The opposition knows better than the council what is good for the council.

Mr GRIFFITHS: We do consider many things, minister. The minister tabled 11 amendments to the bill on 2 July, but he has been fully supportive of the Kangaroo Island Council, as I understand it, based on the feedback from consultation undertaken post the introduction of the bill. In reviewing these, I note the theme of consultation, but in no area is the inclusion of the local MP detailed. For example, one amendment states:

…if a council is directly affected by the proposal—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;…

That is an amendment that concerns me straightaway. In reviewing this it is still not clear to me that a management plan determined by the commissioner does not override a decision made by the council—just that it may consult—while a reference to additional cost provides no clear direction. I do not believe it and I think a level of ambiguity exists that will probably result in a lot of questions at the committee stage.

It is not necessary to provide examples because there are hundreds of those but to ask for some clarification on how that will work. The Kangaroo Island Council supports this and I question how they can support it. I do not know because it leaves open so many unknowns that it worries the life out of me. They must be focusing, as stated in the letter from Kangaroo Island Council, on clarification provided on the debate to clear this up, but I am concerned because I feel the legislation is rather poorer in giving a direction in that area.

The government amendments provide for the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the parliament to undertake an inquiry two years after the operation of the act and at the end of each four-year period thereafter. In one of the amendments we have submitted for the minister's consideration, we are requesting the inclusion of a sunset clause whereby the role of the commissioner ceases four years after commencement of its operations.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister shakes his head, but I put on the record that that is the intent of amendment No. 8. In relation to additional issues, during consultation on the bill in Adelaide, given the high number of non-resident property owners, (I think I quoted earlier it is in the range of 40 per cent or thereabouts), I am advised that the minister made the statement that the principle of a commissioner could be rolled out to other parts of regional South Australia.

The minister no doubt will clarify that, but these comments give rise to the concerns that I and others have about the impact on local government and they should, I believe, concern the Local Government Association. I mentioned this comment to the LGA executive director, Wendy Campana, and she committed to checking it, but I have not received any feedback even now, which is a good eight weeks or so after my conversation with Ms Campana.

I do respect that by voting against the bill, even with all the concerns we have raised in second reading contributions, we run the risk of providing opportunities on a weekly basis for the party to actually be criticised, and I use the word 'unjustly'. I do believe it is very unjust. I am not supporting government attempts to improve delivery of services and infrastructure to the people of Kangaroo Island and by association to regional South Australia. I understand we need to have broad shoulders in putting this position on the record. We do so, and that is why I have tried to reiterate so many times during this contribution the fact that the position we have taken is based on feedback from people who have lived in regional communities all their lives and from talking to people constantly—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It sounds like this feedback is from somebody who sits behind you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: He is one of those. The member for Finniss is one of the people who has given me feedback, but the real concern comes from the communities which we are lucky enough to represent. This bill seems to have a total focus on a particular area, but it is the wideranging issues across the whole of state government and the way that it manages itself that bring us to this point.

It is interesting that, not long ago, I met with four different councils in one day, and as a parting question I asked them, 'Have you heard about the Kangaroo Island commissioner bill?' I gave them my brief summary, trying to be respectful of the government's position but also outlining personal thoughts I hold—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is my great fault, member for Newland. Some of them looked at me and said 'Yes, we have heard a little bit about that; don't know very much about it.' Some said, 'No, we think what does it do for us? It doesn't help our area. We still have the wideranging issues.'

The minister has put an interesting process before us. There will be, I think, a good half a dozen people or so who will stand up to speak on the bill. Some will have some personal reflections to add, no doubt about that. I think the parliament works best when not only the real detail is debated but also when personal reflections are provided, because sometimes the only thing that keeps you sane is when you hear those sorts of things in the chamber. It is quite likely that the numbers will be reasonably large and I look forward to the committee stage, because we will be going for some time. Deputy Speaker, if I was to sit down now—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is your moment of power. Are you going to seek leave or are you going to sit down?

Mr GRIFFITHS: It's interesting. I would rather seek leave about 10 seconds before the bells ring.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we are all looking and we are all waiting.

An honourable member: Say what you've said again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Reminding everybody that parliament's time is very valuable.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Absolutely. Repetition frustrates the life out of us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You asked him to repeat something did you say?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No. We are being flippant.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: The first few times he has made these contributions over the space of 1½ hours or so they have been quite good and I am wondering if he wouldn't mind telling us again.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think I might be affected by short-term memory loss, minister, it might be hard to repeat it. I am actually surprised that there is no-one in the gallery. It disappoints me a bit.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: They are all listening, I am sure, in their rooms.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And indeed in the visitors' gallery, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are going to seek leave now, are you?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will, Deputy Speaker. I will seek leave.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.