Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 7.

Mr GARDNER: Given that the house is lacking both a quorum and, in particular, one member, I fear I have to draw your attention to the state—

The CHAIR: I do not think it is going to be necessary because I think people are aware. I think we just going to start off. I am going to remind everyone—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: It is okay; let's contain ourselves.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: If there could be some goodwill; no-one is going to do anything that is unnecessarily unpleasant. I just remind everyone we are up to clause 7, and the member for Goyder, as I recall, had asked a question, or needed another question. Are we happy with clause 7 now?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I believe my question was about performance reviews, but the minister provided a suitable answer.

The CHAIR: So we are recapping and moving directly to the deputy. I remind the deputy that the Speaker has left me a list of lots of ticks and crosses against your name.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hope more ticks than crosses, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR: Well, it is not looking good. I just do not want you to leave us prematurely this afternoon.

Ms CHAPMAN: No; I am going to be on my very best behaviour—

The CHAIR: I knew you would be if I reminded you.

Ms CHAPMAN: —for the next two hours and 20 minutes.

The CHAIR: For that long? Could we not move a bit faster?

Ms CHAPMAN: Actually, I do not want to promise that far ahead. Perhaps the first 25 minutes.

The CHAIR: Questions?

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the terms and conditions of appointment of the proposed commissioner, my understanding from the briefings is that this person is likely to live in Adelaide, but assurances were given that they will regularly visit Kangaroo Island. Of course, under the previous amendment, as followed, there should be a commercial experience obligation and a knowledge of the workings of government. I was curious to read in the paper this morning that you expressed some concern about the opposition to the bill and that the appointment of the commissioner is not being done for any political reasons.

Minister, you are quoted as saying, 'The last person who voted Labor on Kangaroo Island is in the museum next to the thylacine.' It did concern me because it was reported in the paper, consistent with an article about the opposition of the Liberal Party to this and your championing of the suggestion that the commissioner bill had nothing to do with politics. I was not quite sure why your quote was put in there or why this was the response. I want be clear about it. Assuming that any of the 625 Labor voters on Kangaroo Island at the last election did have commercial qualifications and a knowledge of government, are you saying that they would be excluded from consideration as a candidate for commissioner?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No; I am delighted to hear there are that many Labor voters on the island and that my information about there being none is incorrect. Any Labor voter, any Liberal voter or, indeed, any thylacine that wish to apply would be most welcome, and that would not be a relevant consideration.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not quite sure how a thylacine would actually have the qualifications of commercial experience or a working knowledge of government but, assuming they were able to present a certificate or a curriculum vitae that did accommodate that, I look forward to having the opportunity to observe the interview process; it would be most interesting. I do not have any other questions on terms and conditions of appointment, Madam Chair, you would be pleased to hear.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AG-1]—

Page 4, after line 35—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) to provide appropriate assistance to residents and businesses on Kangaroo Island in dealing with government agencies (with a view to ensuring co-ordinated delivery of infrastructure and services to such residents and businesses);

Mr GRIFFITHS: When I look at the words, I think I can refer back to my original contribution on this where I think fine words have been said about some things. I understand completely the intent of the amendment for the provision and the coordination of services on the island, so I am not about to dispute the words themselves. I suppose for us in opposition there is a wider argument that has been made about the method of delivery, but on that basis I am prepared to indicate that the opposition supports the amendment.

Mr PENGILLY: I am seeking some sort of example from you on the words 'appropriate assistance' and how the commissioner can actually decide what is appropriate, particularly to a private business as opposed to the public entities, which obviously fall under the Public Service. I am wondering if you can give an example or two of how you see this occurring.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a fair enough question.

Mr Pengilly: Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The idea here is that the commissioner should, amongst other things, be a person who attempts to assist residents in negotiating what might otherwise be difficult bureaucratic hurdles or avoiding red tape or whatever the case may be. There are other places in government where you have effectively what is called 'case management' of things to help people go through various processes. To pick on an example—and this is just at random, but it is an example that quite possibly might arise on the island—the island, as you know, member for Finniss, has a large amount of native vegetation. The Native Vegetation Council, I do not think it is any secret, can be quite dogmatic at times and impose or require outcomes which to those of us who are not entirely au fait with it consider to be slightly strange—

Ms Chapman: Doesn't the Mayor of Kangaroo Island sit on the Native Vegetation Council?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just trying to give you a hypothetical example—and if there came to be some conflict there which could be resolved by, for example, the conflict being elevated from a level near the bottom of that bureaucracy to a level higher up, and the commissioner by picking up the phone could ring whoever was higher up and say, 'Look, there's a problem here. Can you please just have a look at it and see whether it needs to be a problem,' I cannot see why that would not be a good thing.

That is basically what was in mind. It could be getting information, it could be drawing the attention of a person, a person might be trying to do something on the island and they are hitting a brick wall with various agencies for whatever reason or their point of view does not appear to be acknowledged or understood. I have discovered that in government sometimes that is because the person who is dealing with the matter is at a level in government where they are risk averse because of their junior standing.

A more senior person is prepared to make a decision. A more junior person confronted with an issue might think, ‘If I make a wrong decision, I’m going to be in trouble,’ so the default position is, ‘Well, I’m going to say no because I can’t get into trouble if I say no.’

An honourable member: Maybe.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Maybe. It is intended to be a facilitative opportunity, and members of the community on the island will take it up and use it as and when they wish and it will either achieve outcomes or it will not. I think it will be useful.

Mr PENGILLY: I raise the issue for the very good reason that those issues are exactly what my office deals with all the time. I will give you a recent example and, as you well know, you have assisted me in Coroner’s matters and so forth. I deal directly on that, but can I give you an example I have currently before me with a constituent. I will give you an example, and I would like to get some feedback from you on how the proposed commissioner would fit into this.

Just recently, a farming family received a visit from the local police officer one night, unannounced. The police officer went in and said, ‘Your firearms licence is out of date; you haven’t renewed it. This is your second offence.’ He seized the firearm and basically terrified the family. It is not the officer so much at fault here; I believe it is the firearms section. He took the weapon and off he went. I wrote to the relevant minister and pointed out what was going on, and the minister wrote back and said, ‘The Police Complaints Authority are dealing with it.’

I would like to see how a commissioner would answer this, or what role you think the commissioner would play as against that of the local MP. The situation is that this lady runs the farm while her husband works to keep the kids in school. She has the firearms licence. She had overlooked it. They are very good people, and she had overlooked it in her busy life. The next thing she knows is that she has the police firearms section sending the police out to seize her weapon.

I find it absolutely ludicrous. She had not committed a previous offence at all. Now she does not know where she is. She rang me again yesterday. She uses that firearm for putting stock down if she needs to. She uses it for snakes around the house and for other things. They are in tears, actually, over this. This is a very good family. How do you see the commissioner coming in on a role such as that, which is already handled by the local MP?

I have not quite finished, if you don’t mind. Quite seriously, we and other MPs get a multitude of inquiries that come through our office, which we deal with directly with ministers and chiefs of staff who are generally speaking always very helpful. I just see that you are trying to duplicate the role, and I wonder why you seek through this legislation to attempt to neuter the role of the local MP. I do not think it will, I might add.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Any suggestion that this is there to neuter the role of the local MP is complete nonsense. In fact, the role of the local MP is quite separate and distinct from this and this does not touch upon it in any way. This particular amendment, you would appreciate, was not in my original bill and it is here because, in community meetings I had on the island, I was requested to make sure that the commissioner would be able to continue to provide the sort of advocacy and assistance from KIFA they had previously enjoyed and still currently enjoy.

That is the only reason this is in there. I was asked by people on the island to insert it in there, and I would assume that in matters such as the one you have just described, there is no way on God’s earth anyone would bother talking to the commissioner about it because it clearly has nothing to do with any of those plans that might be there or anything else.

Having regard to the fact that the commissioner is there to assist in economic development, etc., people are at liberty to ask the commissioner to assist if they wish. If the commissioner can assist, well and good. They are welcome to ask the local member as well or instead of the commissioner. That is fine too—no problem. But it is certainly not intended to cover all manner of things that members of parliament deal with. That has to be read in the context of the objects of the act, and the objects of the act are not about controlling firearms or managing interactions with SAPOL over possible prosecutions, or anything of that sort. That is not what it is about.

For example, somebody might be interested in a tourism development there. There is no reason why they should not be speaking to the local member at a state level or the local member at a federal level, KIFA, or if this gets up, the commissioner—why not? Why not the Minister for Tourism?

Amendment carried.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, whilst I respect the basis upon which you have amended this clause 8 to enhance it by the incorporation of the wishes of the local community, I have to say I think it is important that everyone in your department that you are responsible for—and there are several—would offer assistance to any of the residents of South Australia (we are dealing with Kangaroo Island) if they have difficulty in dealing with government agencies, and you and your fellow ministers would be supportive in ensuring that they would have prompt assistance.

In transport and infrastructure matters, Mr Rod Hook and presumably his successor, Mr Deegan, whom I met the other night, operate particular units within the department to ensure the fast-tracking of applications. They are mostly in government at this point, but nevertheless there are people from time to time who are appointed within departments to make sure things happen and that there is not some unreasonable delay. If it is for the appropriate assistance, as you have described in the context of local residents and businesses in dealing with government agencies to ensure coordinated delivery, etc., then that is a good thing. It might be a rather overpriced person to do it and you might have plenty of others in your department to do it, but I do not take issue with the actual function.

The other functions in this are for the general improvement of management coordination and delivery of infrastructure, and I make the point that it is completely useless unless your government is prepared to improve the infrastructure because there is not much point in coordinating what you do not have. So in principle I do not have any objection to that.

To assist in the improving of the local economy of Kangaroo Island—I have no issue with that objective. How this person is to do it or what the terms are for what they should actually achieve, I do not know. It may be the economy totally of the island, that is, to increase the domestic product coming out of it, I assume, but 'economy' is a very broad area so I would be happy for you to give us some indication as to what is going to be required of the commissioner to do that.

You gave an example about helping with branding and marketing. I do not see any qualifications in your terms and conditions of appointment of the commissioner which suggests that they have capacity to assist with marketing. I would not like, necessarily, to have someone with a commerce background or an understanding of government to be involved in marketing. I just do not understand that example at all.

I appreciate that there are representatives from KIFA involved—I think Ms Kristina Roberts was involved with the branding recently—and I think you made a ministerial statement today about some of the people who have signed up to the KI brand, and I do not have an issue with any of that. But I do not see much point in a commissioner having a role in doing the marketing promotion of an island if they have absolutely no qualifications to do it.

I think all the rest is an overlap and probably unnecessary, but paragraph (c) is really the new element of what it is proposed the commissioner will do, that is, to prepare and to keep under review management plans. I am going to ask a number of questions about that. The detail of the plans and what they are to set out is in clause 17, and I am happy to ask more questions there if you like, but I will ask them here.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can we do them at 17 because we have agreement on 8, and I am very happy to answer your questions on 17 when we get to it?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that. I go to paragraph (d) in 8 and ask you this: firstly, I would like some indication as to what job you think they are going to have to do in respect of the improvement of the local economy. In relation to 'any other functions', I do not understand why that is not disclosed, if you do have in mind any other function of this commissioner in this bill.

You have already proposed that you have a ministerial direction power in clause 10 to ask them to do any specific tasks, which will enable the commissioner to do certain things if there is a particular project you want to advance. Provided it comes under the terms of (a), (b) or (c), it would be sufficient, so I just do not understand why it is necessary to add in here another function which is not available for us to debate today but which you just might give notice of in writing when you already have power to give a ministerial direction.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not have any other particular function in mind, but it might turn out that, over the course of time, something appears to be an additional function. Bear in mind that every other provision in the act has to be read in light of what functions are given to the commissioner, so it is something of a focusing provision.

I am advised that paragraph (d) is there, in effect, to give the functional direction which corresponds with clause 10. In other words, in order to make 10 work, one of the functions as stated in (d) is basically anything that is given in 10. I can say at the moment that I do not have any particular thing in mind presently but, from time to time, there may be the need to put something up. If there is, there is a process set out in 10.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let me put this to you, minister: clause 10 proposes that you will give a direction to do a certain job or give a certain direction to be carried out. I appreciate the functions are within the parameters of what their function is going to be, but you want to add a clause which says anything else that you want to give them.

That is not within the envelope of functions. The ministerial direction power is there quite clearly to give you or whoever is the minister for Kangaroo Island the power to give a specific direction within that envelope. I accept that, but you want the envelope to be open-ended. You want the envelope to be sitting open, so that you can also add in another function and then give them another ministerial direction, or just give them another function and ask them to do something.

I am simply making the point that we are here to discuss what the functions envelope is going to contain. I think it is inappropriate for you to have another open-ended clause. I do not accept for one moment the suggestion that, somehow or other, the ministerial direction power needs to have an extra open-ended function clause—that is a complete nonsense, as far as I am concerned. Nevertheless, what I am unhappy about is that you just want to tack on other functions without coming back to the parliament.

You may press ahead with that—we understand that—but I do not agree with that. I think that is inappropriate, and I think that if you do want this commissioner to have another job in policing or some other role, then we need to know about it here in the parliament, and I think it is incumbent upon you to give us disclosure.

We always give ministers a regulatory power to be able to add on the rules and processes that are necessary for the machinery of operation of what we give in a function, but this is a general catchall so that you can simply give them an expansion. You might give them all sorts of functions without us even knowing about it and that, in that regard—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: No, you would know about it because—

Ms CHAPMAN: I would find out about it eventually, let me tell you that, but I would not know about it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It has to be in the annual report.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is a year later.

The CHAIR: That is actually not a question, that is really a statement, isn't it? Do you have another question?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, I do, on paragraph (d) of that same clause. I concur with what the member for Bragg was saying. The health system operates under health legislation, the education system operates under education legislation, the environment people operate under their legislation, and all are sitting under ministers. What is going to happen if the KI commissioner tries to come down heavy on one of these individual departments that are already sitting under their appropriate minister? I will give you an example. We have just lost one of the best managers of the public sector the island has ever had in Bill Haddrill. He is gone, and one of the reasons he has gone is that he saw this coming and just does not want to hang around South Australia.

Mr Hughes: Is that true?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, it is, and it has come to me from someone I trust. What worries me, and it is not that case so much, is how on earth we are going to maintain decent people in managerial positions within some of those government agencies on the island when they have the threat of someone else hanging over their head all the time quite aside from the minister. That is why I think the member for Bragg has said it is too open-ended. I do not see how a commissioner can tell an agency under another minister and another piece of legislation what they should be doing.

The CHAIR: That is the question: how can they be doing something?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to all these questions, first of all, with many of these it is evident that we just have to agree to disagree. I am not going to persuade the member for Finniss and he is not going to persuade me, but can I make it clear to the house, and particularly to anybody in the other place reading any of these conversations we are having here, that the critical section of the bill, which is the one that people on the other side of this debate conveniently do not seem to pay attention to, is: what is the ultimate sanction for misbehaviour? The ultimate sanctions are in clause 18(4). This is the worst thing that can happen to somebody who does not get with the program:

(4) If the Commissioner is reasonably satisfied that a government agency has failed to act consistently or to cooperate with a management plan or that the actions of any other person or body have frustrated proposals included in a management plan or are otherwise likely to affect the implementation of a management plan—

(a) the Commissioner may make a report on the matter to the Minister and to the Premier—

'may', and it is a report, No. 1, and No. 2 is:

(b) the Commissioner may forward copies of any such report to the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council with a request that they be laid before their respective Houses.

The sanction here is not that the commissioner walks into anybody's office and says, 'Get out of that seat, I am driving now.' The sanction is that the commissioner says, 'Look, I have asked you to cooperate with the plan. You are refusing to cooperate with the plan. The only sanction I have is to take this from whatever level you happen to be at, person I am speaking to, to the level, first of all, of the Premier and the relevant minister,' in other words direct access at cabinet level. Secondly, if I am the commissioner I may also say, 'I am going to make it broader than that. I am going to let the whole parliament know that these people are misbehaving.' That is the sanction.

Ms Chapman: Anybody could do that. They do it daily.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, again, not any Tom, Dick or Harry can actually submit a report to the parliament and have the parliament receive it as a formal document pursuant to statute. That is what this says: not any Tom, Dick or Harry can pick up the phone and say to the Premier or the relevant minister or both of them, 'I have a right pursuant to section 18(4) of this act to sit down around the table and have a chat to you about a problem.'

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, okay, make a report.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, I accept what you are saying with your explanation of the other clause, etc. So, for the life of me, why don't you just delete (d) and leave it out and not further complicate the bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is there for prudence. We did hear, some 30 or 40 minutes ago, that there was going to be support for these provisions anyway, so I am at a loss to know why we are still talking about it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The support I indicated was actually for the amendment, so that was for (ab) solely by itself, but I do have a question here though.

The CHAIR: I am looking at you. What is your question on clause 8?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry, the minister was on his feet still.

The CHAIR: That is alright.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I appreciate the minister's previous response but that related to the management plans. I thought the position was that we would not talk about that until 17, so I do not know why we are talking about sanctions in that context.

The CHAIR: Let us move on with the question.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Looking at (a), amendment (ab) and (b) now, disregard (c) because that is going to be discussed later on, it seems to me that the high level expectations of the commissioner in whatever work they do, management plans, coordination, whatever they do, I am a bit like the member for Finniss, I cannot for the life of me imagine what else could be another function. Do you want them to hose down the penguin feeding area or something? I do not know what you could do beyond what is already detailed. I need some explanation on that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: How about this: if we move briskly through this I will give the undertaking to consider that matter between the houses and see how we go. But it does not matter, you have an alternative: either think about it between here and there or we—

The CHAIR: Camp here for the night.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —have a futile conversation about it. I have explained to you why it is there. There is no menace in it. We have a difference of opinion about it and there is no point in exploring that any further; it is what it is.

The CHAIR: The minister has offered to deliberate on this between houses. Unless there is another really urgent question—

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, there are, Madam Chair—

The CHAIR: What is the urgent question?

Mr PENGILLY: —because the minister has asked us the question, so I say to him: this piece of legislation, when it goes through, is l-a-w, if and when it goes through the upper house. If we cannot sit in the lower house and ask questions and get answers and have—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I am not trying to have a bun fight over this. I am simply saying that, in due course, if and when this goes through, it is there. The common-sense approach to it should be, in my view, if (d) is going to be, to all intents and purposes, dismissed by what you said earlier, which I am quite happy with, minister, then I ask: why would you leave it there? For the life of me, also, I do not know why your advisers sitting up the back are laughing every time I get up, but you might just speak to them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have explained all I can say about (d).

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I ask one other question—

The CHAIR: One other question.

Ms CHAPMAN: —Madam Chair, on (d)? Alright, you want to have it open-ended for you to be able to allocate something else for the commissioner to do, but it is broader than this, minister. You are asking for other functions that can be conferred not only by this act but any other act, or by the minister, which presumably would be you or some other candidate nominated by the Premier, as you say, but it is not just a question of adding onto this but of some other legislation (maybe through that) being asked to deal with something on Kangaroo Island and thinking, 'Oh well, we'll get the commissioner to do it.' How are we going to know about that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You would know that because that bill would come here and it would have a line in it saying 'and the commissioner will do this or that' and you will have a chance then to make that point.

Ms CHAPMAN: But again, you will have already appointed this person with the skill set, you say, to help coordinate infrastructure and services on Kangaroo Island and help local people develop their economy, blah blah blah. What if it is decided that it is to be through another act that this commissioner is supposed to do it? How are we supposed to have any say on whether that is appropriate for the commissioner to undertake?

How do the people of Kangaroo Island know when they are being asked to accept that this commissioner in this mediator/advocacy role, coordination role, moderator role, whatever you want to call it, is suddenly going to be given policing powers or some other role to do? I simply do not understand why that is necessary. I can half cope with other functions that might be determined by the minister under the regulatory power, but to put it through under other acts I find quite inconsistent with what you are uniquely trying to achieve here.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

The CHAIR: First, we want to find out who is proceeding with what amendment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Further to the commitment I gave the minister prior to that, I will not proceed with the amendments that relate to the removal of council, much to my great frustration.

The CHAIR: So those are amendments Nos 5 and 6 in your name?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Within this clause, it is 5 and 6.

The CHAIR: So you are not going on with 5 and 6 in your name. Minister, you are going on with amendment No. 4 in your name?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AG-1]—

Page 5, line 42 [clause 9(6), penalty provision]—Delete '$2,500' and substitute '$10,000'

Very quickly, questions were raised in consultation about how the amount of the fine was actually determined. There was no particular complaint, just a general question as to why this amount and not another amount. We went to the oracle on these matters, which is parliamentary counsel. Parliamentary counsel has this arcane scale somewhere in the building where one offence in one space is related to another offence in another. As a result of that opinion, they suggested that $10,000 was more appropriate than $2,500. That is the complete reason for that.

Amendment carried.

Mr PENGILLY: The commissioner has some very distinct powers under the bill. For example, clause 9(1) gives the commissioner the power to issue a notice to a state authority to give the commissioner information in its possession that the commissioner requires for the performance of the commissioner's functions under the act. I am concerned that this gives the commissioner an unfettered ability to demand information from Kangaroo Island Council which ultimately undermines the council's independence and its ability to govern autonomously.

Under the bill a state authority—which, under clause 3, includes a council—must not enter into a contract unless a copy has been given to the commissioner and the commissioner has been allowed no less than five business days to comment on the proposed contract, as set out in clause 9(2). If the commissioner issues a notice requesting information and the council refuses or fails to comply, the commissioner has the power to do the following:

Under clause 9(3)(a), report the refusal or failure to the responsible minister and to the Premier;

Under clause 9(3)(b), include details of the refusal or failure in the annual report of the commissioner;

Under clause 9(4)(a), report the refusal or failure to the minister responsible for the administration of the Local Government Act 1999; and

Under clause 9(4)(b) the minister responsible for the administration of the Local Government Act may refer the refusal or failure to comply to the Ombudsman for investigation.

In light of the above, can the minister explain how this bill will allow the Kangaroo Island Council to govern autonomously?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I can. It does nothing about how they govern. What it does is say that if the commissioner has a request for information of the council or, indeed, any other government agency, and that request for information relates to a matter required for the performance of the functions of the commissioner, then the commissioner is entitled to request that information and be provided with that information.

Other than to say that there should be a period of five days' notice before entering into a contract of a prescribed kind, it does not say such a contract cannot be entered into and it does not say it must be entered into. It does not say anything at all. All it is saying is that if any agency is in this space and they are asked to provide information, they cannot simply ignore that request, and the ignoring of a request for information is offensive and there are sanctions for ignoring the request for information. There is no sanction here, or anywhere else, except for reporting to the cabinet, about any decision they actually make to do or not to do anything.

Ms Chapman: That is simply not right.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am afraid it is.

Ms Chapman: Clearly, it could action section 272.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: But can I please just explain? Clause 9 states there is a request by the commissioner for information. The commissioner might be requesting a council, a government agency—anybody—for information. If that body cooperates and provides the information, then that is an end to the matter and, whether the commissioner likes the information or agrees with that body or disagrees with that body, the most the commissioner can do is send a note to the Premier, the minister or the parliament saying, 'I don't agree with what these people are doing, and here is why.' That is it. That is the most they can do.

If they ask for the information from somebody and that somebody, whether it be the council or a government agency, or whatever, says, 'Nick off, we are not giving it to you,' then the commissioner is entitled, in the case of a government agency, to take that matter immediately to the level of the Premier, and the parliament if needs be, and, if it is a local government authority, in the first instance it is off to the local government minister and, in the second instance, by reference to 272, it is basically saying that is misbehaviour on the part of the local government authority not to cooperate—in the provision of information, not in doing or not doing anything.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is the basic premise of our argument. It is absolutely and totally encapsulated within this. I respect the ability of a position that you put in place with its authority to give direction to state government departments. I can live with that. I have no problem with that. But this seeks to involve an authority whose policy and primary actions are determined by the people of Kangaroo Island who vote to put them there.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: And will continue to do so.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But that is why the member for Finniss is concerned about the override capacity, that is, completely changing the game for what an elected group deem might be the future in how they want to spend their money and what works they undertake.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: But that is how we have read it and how we interpret it. It can be completely overtaken by the decision that a single person takes, as a commissioner, to put a management plan in place. If he gets it through the system, that is law, it would seem to us. It is that concern that is the basis of the argument that we have been here six hours for.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have tried saying this several different ways and I will try to say it again. The commissioner cannot tell the planning department, DEWNR, the Kangaroo Island Council, or anybody else, how to do their job in the sense of giving a direction to them, except it can ask for information and they have to comply.

Other than that, it cannot tell them to do anything, and it can request they do things through the management plans and, if they do not cooperate with the management plan, the worst it can do is dob them in—dob them in to the Premier, dob them in to the minister, and dob them in to the parliament. That is it, end of story. That is the worst.

How, in some bizarre fashion, being dobbed in by the commissioner for doing something that an elected body wants to do is preventing them doing it if they are determined to do it I do not know. The further point is: this very elected body, about which everyone on the other side appears to be so terribly anxious, has embraced this and said, 'Yep, bring it on, we want it.'

Mr GRIFFITHS: In support of the argument I just put to the minister, I refer to his own amendment No. 8. It provides that if the council is directly affected by the proposal and the proposal is linked to what a management plan proposal is, that is a direction and changes the decisions made by the elected body. It has to because it states that, if that is to occur, there is an opportunity to seek additional or alternative funding. That relates to a cost, that relates to a policy matter, that relates to a budget, and that is what all goes back to the people who own property on the island.

That is the great fear: you are taking away the capacity for an elected group of people to have sole control over the future, to be responsible to the people, to be accountable to the people every four years by the ballot box and seemingly replace it with a single person.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of points. First of all, I think, again we are going to have to agree to disagree about what this means. The second point is that the word 'direction' is not used in the amendment. I assume it is in good faith, but this is being seen, unfortunately, as something that it is not and something that it is not intended to be. I cannot stress this enough. There is a whole range of things I could have brought to the parliament about this. I could have brought to the parliament that I or another minister had control of all government agencies on the island and that they reported to me. That would have been direct control, and that would have been—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —if you want a move it that way I am up for it—but that is not what I brought here. What I brought here is simply that there will be a plan, and the plan will be consulted on in the community and amongst agencies. The agencies are expected to do their level best to perform in accordance with the plan. If they are asked by the commissioner to provide information relevant to the commissioner's functions, they are to be cooperative with the commissioner. They nevertheless can still make decisions which fly in the face of the plan or the wishes of the commissioner but, if they do, they risk at some point the commissioner basically writing a letter to the Premier and/or the minister and/or the parliament saying, 'This particular agency is ignoring what the plan says.'

Mr PENGILLY: Minister—

The CHAIR: There is a question?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, I will get to the question if I can just preface it. Minister, you brought this legislation to the parliament; we did not. There is no point getting tired and cranky and irritated with us, and frustrated—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I'm not.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, it comes across that way, I am sorry. We are simply doing our job. If this commissioner goes through, you are going to have one council out of 68 in South Australia that needs to deal with contracts. It is going to have to go through the commissioner in this case, the commissioner for Kangaroo Island. The other 67 councils continue going as they are. As the member for Goyder said, it is an elected body of Kangaroo Island. It may be, at different times, good, bad, terrible, excellent, whatever, and God help Marion council, I might add. However, my point, minister, is this: why are you singling out one council to have to go to somebody to get contracts approved and the other 67 do not? That is my point.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, that is a complete misunderstanding of what it says. It says 'contracts of a prescribed kind', and 'prescribed kind' is within the scope of the functions of the outfit for a start and subject to something being prescribed, point No. 1. It simply says that a copy of the contract should be given to the commissioner with five business days to comment. That is it. It does not say that it requires the commissioner's permission, it does not say it has to be approved by the commissioner; it does not say anything about that. It just says that the commissioner should get a heads up in five days, full stop, end of story.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have some questions on clause 9. The way I read it, firstly, is that it is obviously the obligation to provide information. I think this is an overpriced, overzealous, unnecessary provision of the appointment of somebody to receive this information or give notice to get it. There seems to be two courses here: if you are a state government agency or operation, you have to provide information and copies of contracts, five days heads-up as you say.

I do not know why, for goodness sake, for no cost of having a commissioner, the minister or anyone who wants to see documents or have information in respect of their portfolio, does not ask for them anyway. If there is a refusal to share information by the state agency, that is, the education department cannot get information from the Department of Environment, why does the minister not go to the next minister and seek that? Nevertheless, you want to have this expensive process which has a name and shame aspect to the end of it, when one minister could pick up the phone and ask the other minister to have it when we are talking about state agencies, so I think that that is a complete waste of time.

I think it is a furphy and it is there to disguise the fact that the real alternate here is to require not only the information but also, as you say, to have the heads-up on the contract and to be able to have a comment. The local council has a paragraph 4 and 5 regime of enforcement, which is really what is the issue here. For goodness sake, why should a public servant, a commissioner or whoever you might dress him or her up as, be there to comment on the reasonable workings of the council?

We have a process of elections every four years, and we have a local government minister. To me that is just an insult. Then you have a process which looks harmless on the face of it, that is, we will have a little name and shame process to start with but then set up a section 272 process which can ultimately go to the Ombudsman, who ultimately brings the notices into the minister, which ultimately could close down the council and put in an administrator.

We know what that process starts, so let's not hide behind this as some kind of little mild smack on the knuckles if you do not do as you are told or give us the information that we want because that is not the case for councils. I just do not accept that, and I have some questions about the process of how it is going to work. I will deal with councils because to me, as I say, it is a complete waste of time in relation to the other government agencies; they have other options and they are a lot quicker, quite frankly.

If a council has signed a contract already, in the myriad documents that it already has, I assume that comes within the notice of any information or any document in the clause of information in No. 1. That is, anything that is in the record emailed across the contract of the council is open for inspection under the notice, because I do not see information defined in your bill as to what that is. However, I assume that it is anything electronic across to written contracts that would be in the possession or control of the council.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having said that, if there is any document in the possession of the council which is subject to a confidentiality clause, is it intended that the council is excused from delivery of that document to the commissioner?

The Hon. J.R. Rau: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is equally unacceptable.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Have a look at subsection (6).

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, yes, but this is a clause to protect the confidentiality of information that the commissioner or his staff have in their possession that they are not allowed to disclose to someone else. I am talking about a contract that is in the council's possession which is with another third party, which has confidentiality clauses in it, and along comes the commissioner and serves a notice and says, 'I want to have a look at contract X with the penguin island society.' If it is subject to confidentiality, is the council obliged to deliver that up to the commissioner in those circumstances?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I thought I had explained this several times. Provided it is relevant to the performance of the functions of the commissioner, the commissioner is entitled to receive information that the commissioner asks to receive, but the commissioner cannot then go off willy-nilly publishing that information to any old third party.

Ms CHAPMAN: That may be so, but it is not quite as simple as that. I accept that if the commissioner came and said, ‘I want to see the employment contract that you’ve got with your CEO,’ arguably the council could say, ‘That's nothing to do with the terms of reference you’ve got and the minister hasn’t used paragraph (d) to give you some extra thing to police the funding of the staff of the council,’ so it is clearly outside the parameter.

However, what if it is to do with any of the operations of the council, all of which are on Kangaroo Island, whether it is to build roads, empty rubbish bins, provide the toilet facilities at the local beaches, clean the streets of Kingscote—all the numerous tasks that relate to the services that they provide and/or enforcement that they are responsible for, such as health or building regulations, etc., which they monitor? I think they even have some weed control back in their charge, although Natural Resources Management have some of that as well. They do all sorts of business every year, and all of those things arguably fit into the economy of Kangaroo Island.

All of those fit into the management, coordination and delivery of infrastructure and services provided by government agencies on Kangaroo Island. That is how broad the parameters are. Just about every other document that I can think of, other than the terms of employment of the direct staff in the council, is going to be within the terms of reference and the functions of this commissioner. There is not going to be any excuse to say, ‘We’re not going to give you the penguin island contract,’ because they will be obliged to produce it even if it has a confidentiality clause, and you say to the parliament, ‘Well, that’s alright because even if it’s confidential, the commissioner can’t say anything without being fined.’

That is just simply not acceptable, from my point of view. I make that very clear. Nevertheless, I ask this question. Assume for the moment that they are obliged to produce it and they say, ‘Well, here it is; it’s confidential,’ etc. If there is any liability arising out of that, or threat of liability towards the council, in the disclosure of that information, is it the government’s intention to ensure that the council in its legal advice or representation in dealing with that matter will be covered financially by this government?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: With due respect, this is getting to the point of being quite absurd. We clearly disagree about everything about this legislation.

Ms Chapman: I don’t know. I’ve just consented to one of your amendments, so don’t mislead the house.

The CHAIR: In any case.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Bragg would be well aware of the fact that, if a person discloses a document under legal compulsion, in doing that, that person is not committing an offence and it is a defence or it is an answer to any complaint about the document having been released. For example, if the police turn up with a subpoena or a search warrant or something and seize documents—

Ms Chapman: This isn’t a search warrant.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I know it isn’t. It is called an analogy.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Analogy—not ‘an allergy’.

The CHAIR: Back to the task.

Mr Pengilly: It could be a combination of both.

The CHAIR: Order! Back to the task.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A person who produces a document under legal compulsion is not in a position where that production of the document is something that can be held against them.

Ms CHAPMAN: So what happens if the FOI officer at the local council says, ‘Well, look, I’m obliged under freedom of information to identify certain circumstances where I don’t produce a document to anyone who asks for it’? Is the commissioner in that situation going to override what would normally be the sensitivities of providing documents to the general public?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Any similarity between this and FOI is purely accidental. This is not about production to the public of anything. It is about production to a government agency of information possessed by another public authority, and, whether or not those opposite see it this way, local government is in fact, as a matter of law, the creature of a statute of the South Australian parliament.

The fact of the matter is that all we are saying is a government agency—the commissioner—is being authorised by the parliament to go to another government agency, which includes by definition local government, which is a creature of a state parliamentary statute, and say to them, 'You, agency of the government, give me, agency of the government, information that I request because the parliament has said you must.' That is it.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is to happen with the documents or information, and that may be electronic, that is received by the commissioner under this process from councils? Where is it to be stored? Who can he or she give it to, and what can it be used for?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not going to be giving handy driving hints to the commissioner on how they should manage their office, but it may be, depending on the nature of the material, that it is simply handed back after it has been looked at. It may be that it is destroyed. It may be that it is kept in an appropriate way having regard to whatever sensitivity might be attached to the material for whatever legitimate purpose the commissioner may have in holding the material, but that would be a matter for the commissioner to work out.

Ms CHAPMAN: If there is any loss or expense incurred by the council as a result of the delay in the implementation of a contract or the production of the information—that is two things. When I say 'the production of the information', I mean the provider of the electronic records, the time involved for the person to actually find the documents, source them or collate them and put them in a folder or whatever has to be done to provide to the minister; who is going to meet that expense? In particular, will the government meet that expense or reimburse the council for any costs incurred in providing that information?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is intended that the commissioner will receive cooperation from each agency the commissioner has to deal with. They will not be wasting their time asking for things they do not require, and each agency should cooperate. Some of these questions are interesting in the hypothetical sense but based on the premise that the commissioner is going to behave in a wholly impractical and, quite frankly, idiotic fashion, I just do not see that that is likely. I am not intending to have this important role filled by somebody who has nothing better to do than annoy government agencies.

The CHAIR: It would be good if we could wrap up clause 9.

Mr PENGILLY: I have some more questions.

The CHAIR: You have had several already.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, but these are different numbers.

The CHAIR: But, moving on, you have had several already on clause 9.

Mr PENGILLY: I have a couple more here.

The CHAIR: Let's be quick.

Mr PENGILLY: I will roll both of them into one and let the minister answer them together.

The CHAIR: That would fabulous, thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have not been insisting on the rules here because I am trying to do this in an intelligent way, and filibustering or whatever is going on is not helpful.

The CHAIR: We are all trying to do the right thing, so I am sure the member for Finniss will roll his questions into one, Let's go.

Mr PENGILLY: When everyone is all over it, this bill happens to be important to me.

The CHAIR: We understand that.

Mr PENGILLY: I represent that area.

The CHAIR: We understand that.

Mr PENGILLY: I am not going to be pushed and shoved and told to speed up when I want to ask questions. Referring to clause 9(2) of the bill, can the minister explain how prohibiting a state authority from entering the contract, unless the commissioner has had time to comment on the contract, will assist with improving the local economy of Kangaroo Island? Following on from that, clause 9(3) provides that if a state authority or local council 'refuses or fails to comply with the notice under subsection 9(1)' the commissioner reports that refusal or failure to comply. Can you expand on the reason for this subsection? You have expanded at length to some degree, but I really want to know how on earth, given that you have a democratically elected body, all this is going to help improve the local economy on Kangaroo Island? I have seen no proof anywhere.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We just do not agree on this. We just do not agree.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have one other question on prescribed contracts. Are there any regulations ready yet? There were not at the time of consultation on this.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The intention would be that nothing in that sort of department would occur until there was a commissioner with whom we could consult.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any other process that we have for any other commissioner? I have not seen one, and I looked at a number of different commissioner's acts on this. Is there a prescribed list of documents such as this available for inspection? Is there any precedent whatsoever that has any regulations?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Frankly, I do not know. This was designed for this purpose.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having been designed for this purpose, I assume someone has asked for it; that is, in particular, contracts—not other documents but contracts—that they want to have five days heads up on. What is the purpose of being able to inspect and make comment on contracts? What do you have in mind? What do you understand is the purpose of having this in this bill, bearing in mind that they can ask for any document at any time?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There could be a contract which would have a certain effect which may be completely contrary to the objects set out in the management plan, and the agency involved in that may have no idea that the contract was inconsistent with the management plan. By providing some small amount of notice, the agency would enable the commissioner to say, 'By the way, there is a concern about whether this complies with the management plan.' The agency can then please itself whether it goes on with it or not.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I refer to the authority for you to give direction to the commissioner. Is it intended to be a direction that is process-based or outcome-based or infrastructure-based? At what level of engagement do you think it is intended that you, on the basis that you would be the responsible minister, would actually look to give a direction?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is my view that in this circumstance the relevant minister, whoever they may be, should be in a position to exercise some discretion or oversight of the commissioner. Ultimately, the commissioner should be answerable to the minister. It is not unusual to have legislation where even a very independent authority, such as the DPP or even the police commissioner, in some circumstances can be the subject of a direction by a minister. I do not see anything remarkable in the notion that the minister may, if the minister deems it appropriate, issue a direction to the commissioner, but in so doing the minister is doing something which has to be in writing and must be contained in the annual report so that everyone finds out about it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I found the response from the minister rather interesting regarding the connection with the police commissioner and the minister, given that the reply to every question that has ever been asked about it has been, 'That's an operational matter and not subject to direction,' which I think is the term I have heard used quite often in this chamber.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Call them 'reserve powers'.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. In regard to the requirement of the minister where a direction is given for it to be included in the annual report—and this is very early on in the process, I understand that, but I am just interested in the details—is it just a five-word dot point or is it some level of descriptive detail that allows review to be undertaken that gives a reasonable amount of information, or is it a paragraph that has to be written on the direction that might be given? It is very early on in the process, but I am interested for future review in the level of detail that is envisaged to be provided.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There would be a direction from the minister, 'I require you to do X, Y and Z or not to do A, B and C.' That literally would have to be reproduced; not a summary, literally exactly what was said.

Mr PENGILLY: Clause 10 provides that a minister, whoever that person may be, may give directions to the commissioner. If the minister consults with the commissioner before giving a direction, is there any requirement for the commissioner to consult with the local council?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to a ministerial direction, no, and should I say had not been asked for either.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr PENGILLY: Clause 11 of the bill allows the minister to appoint a person to act as commissioner; however, there is nothing in the bill that requires the commissioner to possess the relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience required to fulfil the functions as set out in clause 8. Are we to assume that the commissioner will have knowledge, skills and experience of Kangaroo Island?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What was the actual question?

Mr PENGILLY: Clause 11 of the bill allows the minister to appoint a person to act as commissioner under this bill; however, there is nothing in this bill that requires the commissioner to possess the relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience required to fulfil the functions as set out in clause 8. Are we to assume that the commissioner will have the knowledge, skills and experience to serve the role of commissioner of Kangaroo Island?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you read this it is about if the commissioner is either not appointed yet or the commissioner resigns. If there is a period of time during which a new person is being selected, or the commissioner is on annual leave, or the commissioner is not well, then we can put somebody in to do the job. Obviously, common sense suggests that you would try and find somebody who has the best possible aptitude for the position, but this is a temporary fill-in, it is a stop-gap, it is the Polyfilla position, plan B.

Mr PENGILLY: I hear what you are saying; however, if I went around this chamber on both sides you would probably find over the years numerous examples of places where someone had been put into an acting role or a temporary role and completely stuffed the show up, so to speak in colloquial terms, and made it awkward for those who may succeed them.

The CHAIR: That is a comment, so is there another question on clause 11?

Mr GRIFFITHS: On clause 11, the member for Finniss and I are not totally in agreement. Having worked in organisations before where someone assumes a higher level of duties for a short period of time, I understand that occurs, but I do have to seek clarification on whether there is a time limit in place for the appointment of an acting commissioner? If, for whatever reason, there are delays in the appointment of a commissioner or a commissioner is on leave or in ill health or resigns, is there a time limit you envisage would be the limit because then it might be necessary to actually advertise the position more widely to seek someone in a full-time role instead of the acting commissioner continuing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Obviously in the appointment of the actual commissioner one must have regard to the sort of criteria that we talked about a little while ago. In terms of somebody being temporarily there, obviously you would try not to put a dill in the job. You would do your best. The commissioner gets struck down with avian flu and mysteriously does not turn up to work on Monday and then you get a medical certificate on Wednesday saying the commissioner will not be back for 10 days and then 10 days later will not be back for another 10 days. Do you have the whole show grind to a halt during that period or do you move somebody in to at least keep the wheels turning? That is all.

Ms CHAPMAN: You are talking me out of it, minister. I actually think it is a reasonable arrangement to have a power for someone to continue the duties during the temporary absence of a commissioner. I have no problem with that. Most of the other commissioner roles have some kind of process—the highways commissioner and others—to ensure that there is a deputy or someone available to undertake those duties during a temporary absence. I have no problem with that. But this clause is to cover for (under (a)) 'no person is for the time being appointed as the Commissioner'. That is the concern here, is that this is not just a temporary filler, this could be for a permanent acting commissioner without going through the process of consulting with Kangaroo Island people, blah, blah, blah.

This wording is unique in the other commissioner bills I have looked at. It is unique in the sense of senior positions where we have a process to ensure that there is a delegated authority for those duties to be undertaken. So, I am with you until you start pushing for this idea that you are not going to appoint someone. The only way around that is for you to assure us, or to make some provision, it seems to me, or at least agree between the houses to ensure that you do not have a temporary appointment of more than six months, 12 months, or something like that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am very happy to look at that. Can I assure members opposite that the last person in the world who wants to appoint a drongo into this job is me, for obvious reasons, either for a short time or a long time.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 5 [AG–1]—

Page 6, line 35 [clause 15(1)]—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) The Commissioner—

(a) may establish such local advisory boards as the Commissioner thinks fit; and

(b) must consult with a local advisory board in relation to each management plan or proposed management plan.

Amendment No 6 [AG–1]—

Page 7, after line 2—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) The Commissioner must undertake consultation (in such manner as the Commissioner thinks fit) with the Kangaroo Island Council in relation to any proposed appointment under this section.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The amendment reads that the commissioner may establish such local advisory boards as the commissioner thinks fit. I suppose it comes back to some questions I asked in my second reading contribution: is it based on geographical location, particular interest area, financial need, marketing opportunity? Is there any information available for any level of review by the opposition that talks about the numbers and the potential of who might seek to be involved in these advisory boards?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The way I am looking at it is basically this: the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that, where there are advisory boards, in relation to a proposed management plan the minister must consult with them about the plan. That is the first point. The second point is that the 'thinks fit' bit contemplates the fact that management plans may be quite different in their scope. In relation to a particular management plan there might be a whole bunch of people who should be included. It might be quite a diverse group. On the other hand, a management plan might have a very particular focus, either geographically or economically.

For example, and I am always frightened of giving examples for fear of setting off a series of new questions, but if there were to be a management plan about forestry, plantation forestry, you would expect that most people who are particularly interested in that would be on the western end of the island rather than on the other end of the island. I am just giving that as an obvious example of a particular management plan. Common sense would dictate the pool of interested people, and the minister would attempt to get as much breadth of representation as possible in that pool. Exactly how that would be formulated would be a matter for the minister and the commissioner to talk about.

I can just say to members that KIFA, as well as others, and I have been going around the island for some time now meeting frequently with people, having public meetings and all that sort of thing. I would expect the advisory bodies on particular management plans would, for example, include some or many, if not all, of the elected members of the local government authority. They may include some local government staff for all I know; they may include representatives of whatever industry we talking about, if we are talking about an industry. Each one of those things would be worked out in its context.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am interested whether it is by invitation or—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister says yes on that. Is it by invitation to the wider group or is it just to a person the commissioner may see as being a suitable chair? Unless they actually live on the island, how do they know the personalities and the skill sets for all these people to determine who that might be?

I see the local advisory groups as being absolutely critical to the role, just as I saw them as been critical to the role of marine parks where local advisory groups were appointed. Indeed, a chair was appointed as part of that process. We worked diligently on making recommendations but not all the recommendations of those local advisory groups were actually acted upon by the minister in declaring habitat protection zones and sanctuary zones.

That is why there is a level of uncertainty, particularly for the Kangaroo Island community. It has a vast number of marine parks impacting on it, and therefore the Kangaroo Island community has been very heavily involved in local advisory groups. There just needs to be an absolute surety that their opinions are valued, listened to and acted upon.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can assure you that is 100 per cent my intention and I would make that very clear to the commissioner, that the point of this is to have engagement. The idea that this process is going to be some sort of top-down thing is doomed to fail; it just will not work. It has to pick up what people want and what people are concerned about, and it then has to try to put that into some framework—which is the management plan, for want of a better term. That is the way of asking the community, at a fairly grassroots level, how they want to frame the future of the way government relates to the community. That is what it is about. The idea of it being a top-down thing is completely the opposite of what I have in mind.

Mr PENGILLY: Regarding the establishment of a local advisory board, I think the member for Goyder gave a good example. The island people were badly burnt by the local advisory group on marine parks, very badly burnt. The establishment of those parks was something that was taken on board by island residents, and there were people who wanted to go on there who did not, as is always the case with these things. They then set to and worked together as best they could, given their widely opposing views, and came up with an acceptable outcome which they thought was going to be put into place. That also happened with other local advisory groups; they were burnt.

The health advisory council (HAC) is another example. They were appointed by the minister. I have two HACs in my electorate, one at South Coast and the one at Victor. I have representatives on both, and I have multiple comments come back to me that they view the advisory boards as a complete waste of time because they have no role or function, apart from listening to the bureaucrats in that department tell them what is going to happen. They have no power to do anything. I am concerned that your advisory board, as set down in the legislation, will be picked out again. I do not know that they are going to have any authority, either.

We saw the dissolution of local hospital boards and regional health boards and, instead, we have had advisory boards brought in. Will you give me some confidence that the people who are put on the advisory board are a fair and equitable representation of the island, and are not picked through some form of cleansing to make sure that they are going to say and do the right thing? What worries me is you are going to have an advisory board under this act sitting with the commissioner and you are going to have a locally, democratically elected council, and they could be diametrically opposed.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: They both have to be consulted.

Mr PENGILLY: They may be, but this is my problem with the whole thing, minister. You are inserting yet another group in there. We had the Citizens' Jury inserted in there who have—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: They are not in here.

Mr PENGILLY: I am using it as an example. What I am trying to get to, and I think others share it, is that I have suspicions about advisory boards and whether, in effect, they achieve anything. I have had discussions with you over the marine parks issue and the sanctuary zones in the past. They got done over. I am concerned—and it may be you, I presume it will be you, who will be the king of Kangaroo Island, or whatever it is going to be called—who may or may not go on these boards, what they may or may not achieve and the fact that they could well interfere with the democratic running of the island through the democratically elected council. I do not have a lot of confidence. If you can give me confidence, that is okay, but I go back to yesterday and the formation of the KIFA board which I do not believe was done in an appropriate manner. Do you know where I am coming from?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do. Can I explain? These boards are not intended to be standing things like NRM boards and all those sorts of things. They are meant to be project-specific boards. Some projects might be quite broad in their scope, some might be particularly targeted. The board would be assembled having regard to the scope of the particular project at hand and, when that project had been concluded, the board would no longer need to be convened because its work would have been completed.

I point out that in the second of my amendments, amendment No. 6 (which was requested, I think, by the council), I explicitly say that the council must be asked about these things. Again, all I can say to the member for Finniss is that I do understand his point about that process (and I do know, because people have spoken to me on the island about how disappointed they are about that) and it is my sincere wish that these boards do what I want them to do and they engage with the public, they are listened to and they are actually relevant. The sad part about it is, if they do not work that way and we do not get good management plans, this whole approach to try to improve the island will fail and I will be very disappointed, but it will not be any worse than it is now.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, this is what just does not gel with me. Over the years the development board, which has gone, had a series of plans, the council had a series of plans, and the NRM board had a series of plans. Now we are introducing yet another level with another advisory board. What plans are they going to work on that are not already in place? Ag KI has plans, and it goes on and on. I think I said yesterday that I could show you shelves full of plans that can be done for the island—shelves full of the damn things, all covered in dust. I am sure members in this place from other areas have the same thing.

I think Kangaroo Island has been planned to the nth degree and had so much money spent on plans, employing people to create plans, consultants, and God knows what else. I will give you another example. This week $134,000, I think, was allocated to form a plan to employ a person to look at ways to drain the land that was flooded in Macgillivray last year; here is yet another plan. These plans can go on forever. We have a plan for the airport, as you may recall. My concern is that all we are simply doing is perpetuating jobs to draft plans which never come into place. How is the commissioner, with the advisory board, going to achieve the plans, and what are they going to focus on? Are they going to focus on things that are already done, or are they going to sit there and have a cup of tea and all go home? That is my concern.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have explained all of this. We just do not agree.

The CHAIR: Any further questions on amendment 5?

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Do you have a question on amendment 6? Still on clause 15, amendment 6.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes; given that the council is a democratically elected body—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Look, you can throw yourself back in your seat and you can throw your head around, but I want answers. How are they going to consult with the council? It is not an unfair question, minister. I repeat: you are the one who brought in this legislation and we are entitled to ask for answers. You can consider discussions with your advisers, or whatever, I do not care, but I want to know how this is going to be achieved.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Consultation means communication; so the commissioner will communicate with the council. Whether the council wants to communicate through its chief executive, its mayor, or its whole body sitting in full session is entirely a matter for the council and the commissioner to work out. I am sure they are all grown-ups and they will be able to nut it out. I am not assuming that I have to tell grown-up people, elected by the public on Kangaroo Island, and the commissioner how to consult with each other. I am sure they are big enough to work it out for themselves.

Mr GRIFFITHS: We have already had some discussion about consultation in which I flagged my concern about the local member not being included. I understand this amendment has come about because of discussions with Kangaroo Island Council, and I know why it is specific in that way, so fair enough. Given that, I have already flagged the fact that my great desire is to ensure that the local member is consulted. I do not think there is anybody in this chamber who would not say that as an individual the local member of parliament probably understands their district better than any other individual and has a greater and broader range of discussions with people about it. I think it is quite important that further consideration is given to this amendment between the houses for the local member of parliament also to be involved in the consultation about appointment.

Amendment carried.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is a clause to establish local advisory boards—duly amended, as I understand it, as a result of requests of the local council to ensure that they be consulted and that there be an obligation to consult as distinct from an option. Let me say on the record that I totally oppose anybody unelected having a role in establishing or finalising the management plans. Having local advisory bodies is a complete red herring, and to establish them on the basis of a project-specific idea, which is what I now understand them to be, will be time consuming and a complete waste of time because I do not support the commissioner having a role in developing any management plans.

If there is to be consultation, in my view it should be with those who are elected locally, namely, the council and any other body that is duly elected that they might think is relevant. It may be that the local natural resources management board, which is not elected but which is appointed, may be important in a specific project. I think this is a complete furphy. I think it is designed to present to the people of Kangaroo Island that somehow or another they are going to be consulted all the way, which I think is just complete crap, and I think that they are starting to see through it.

The fact is that you have come in here today and said, 'Look, I'm not sure how this is going to operate. I expect these people to act in mature way. They are not juveniles, blah, blah, blah.' You are the minister, for goodness sake. You are putting a proposal to us about how a person is going to be appointed by you or your cabinet who will have a role in setting management plans which, if people do not obey them, will be reported to the top governance of the state in some name and shame annual report process, and you are expecting us to believe that this is going to be genuine in some sort of development of an idea and a plan that the people of Kangaroo Island will be a genuine part of. I do not accept that for one minute.

Your statements to the parliament today evaporate the beginnings of confidence you might have sown. The other thing is this: when we have been asked, historically, as an island to make a contribution, or indeed some other regions of the state have been asked to make a contribution to the development of management plans, they are lucky even to be acknowledged in the front of the report. The contribution they have made to a marine parks exclusion zone process or a bushfire management process or a clearance process for roadside vegetation, has ended up being translated, and with what was implemented in those three plans on Kangaroo Island you could have just saved your time and not wasted your breath in even asking them.

If you think that I have confidence in some envelope out there for some functions for some imaginary person who is going to create a plan that is going to develop the economy of Kangaroo Island, you can forget it. I have absolutely no confidence in that occurring. I do not care who you appoint because it is just completely tantamount to the undermining of what is the essence of every region—that is, to have the right to have those they elect themselves to govern them.

I think this whole thing is fanciful, but I want to ask this question in relation to the advisory boards: what action, minister, did you take in respect of establishing an advisory committee or board for the purposes of deciding that you were going to build a $4½ million walking trail through the Flinders Chase National Park, which you announced in the budget this year? I read the material that came from KIFA, and it was an idea in which they were involved.

I understand that there has been some discussion with the owners of the property on which it is proposed that this occur, namely, the department of parks and wildlife, now within the Department of Environment, and that they were somewhat consulted as to the pathway it would take. The reason I ask is that I telephoned the walking committee on Kangaroo Island, which has been going for decades, as long as I can remember from my childhood—

Mr Pengilly: The walking club.

Ms CHAPMAN: —the walking club—and they know all the different walking trails around Kangaroo Island, some of which traverse the top of the property I have owned and my family has owned on the North Coast, beautiful walks down to Snug Cove, along through the Western Conservation Park and the like. They have helped coordinate them, they have walked on them, they have done reports on them, they have published articles on them and they have advertised for them. They have been going, as I say, for as long as I can remember.

I telephoned them to inquire about two things; one was, ‘Had your group been consulted about where it might be a good place on Kangaroo Island to have a walking trail?’ Answer: ‘No.’ ‘Were you consulted in respect of what trial might occur as to where they would put a walking trail through the Flinders Chase National Park, seeing you have walked most of it?’ ‘No.’ ‘Were you consulted in respect of the obligations there might be and that you found necessary for the purpose of protecting wildlife and the like in relation to what you have identified on the island as good value?’ ‘No.’ ‘Were you consulted as just one of the groups on Kangaroo Island as to what property might be sold off, which was announced in the budget this year, to recover $2 million worth of revenue for the State of South Australia as some sort of offset to the cost of this walking trail?’ ‘No.’

I rang the council. I rang the mayor, in fact, and I asked, ‘Were you consulted about what land on your island, of which you have been the mayor for 15 years, the government is going to be selling off to recover $2 million, which was announced at the same time in the budget, in relation to the $4½ million over two years for a walking trial?’ Answer: ‘No.’

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand it, we have been giving a fair bit of latitude here. Normally, it is a question.

The CHAIR: As it turns out, you will be pleased to know that the desk and I were consulting about whether or not this was a question. We were just going to ask the member for Bragg for the question she was leading up to or whether we could move on.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we have it, and I will give her a very quick answer because I am into brevity.

The CHAIR: We want to move on to clause 15 as amended.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Hang on, he is answering the first bit.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In respect of that long diatribe with all those rhetorical questions, the answer is that the member for Bragg has just made a compelling case as to why we should have a commissioner to deal with those very problems and make sure there is consultation. The second point is that it is quite obvious that the member for Bragg does not agree with clause 15. I acknowledge that and I understand that. The good news is that the council does agree with it, and we obviously agree to disagree yet again about this provision.

The CHAIR: Is there another question?

Ms CHAPMAN: My question (and perhaps it was lost in the lengthy explanation) was: what consultation did your government do before deciding on and announcing the $4½ million walking trail in this year’s budget?

The CHAIR: Nothing to do with the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ask that question in question time through the Minister for Environment. It has nothing to do with this.

The CHAIR: I did not think it did. Are there any more questions on the amended clause 15?

Mr PENGILLY: Under clause 15(2), the commissioner must appoint a member of a local advisory board as the commissioner thinks fit. Given the debacle we have had with other advisory groups and appointments, can you, minister, explain what skills, knowledge or training a person will require to become a member of a local advisory board under this KI commissioner bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thought I had already explained this. These advisory boards are task-specific: if they were looking at forestry, I would assume somebody would have to know something about forestry; if they were about shellfish, I would assume they would have to know something about shellfish; if they were about koalas, they would need to know something about koalas.

Mr PENGILLY: Pardon me if I have got this wrong, but you just said that we will have an advisory board for this, that and everything else. Are you saying—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: No, I didn't.

Mr PENGILLY: You did. You just said that we could have an advisory board for koalas, another one for shellfish and another one for something else. You basically said ‘multiple advisory boards’.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just explain it again because you are proceeding from a misunderstanding.

Mr PENGILLY: I am sorry, minister, I have not finished. The point I reasonably make is that already under the natural resources management board on the island, administered by DEWNR etc., there is a series of advisory committees that operate under the whole NRM board. Are you envisaging that you will have an advisory board and then further committees advising the advisory board which sits in direct competition to the democratically-elected council which will also be doing it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In answer to your question, no.

Mr PENGILLY: Clause 15(4) allows the commissioner to determine who will be the presiding member of a local advisory board. I assume from that that the minister will not be appointing the presiding member. Can the minister then explain why the advisory board cannot appoint its own presiding member of the local advisory board and why this must be a function of the commissioner?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is the way we have drafted it. I think the commissioner would pick people looking for the person most competent to be the presiding member to make sure that the matters the board was dealing with were dealt with properly. It may be yet another matter that we disagree about.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, can I flesh this out a bit?

The Hon. J.R. Rau: There is not much to flesh out, it is only one sentence.

Mr PENGILLY: I do not know whether you have to go off, and I am happy to put all of this off until tomorrow and come back; however, we would like some answers. I am asking you why, in a democratic society with an advisory board, the advisory board cannot elect its own presiding member? Why must it be appointed by the commissioner? It is a perfectly legitimate question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is not unusual for a minister or a commissioner or somebody to appoint a person to chair something and then other people populate the board. That is what is happening here and it is not unusual.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 7 [AG–1]—

Page 7, lines 16 to 22—Delete clause 16 and substitute:

16—Functions of local advisory board

The function of a local advisory board is to provide advice to the Commissioner in relation to any matter referred to the board by the Commissioner (and in particular in relation to any management plan or proposed management plan referred to the board).

Mr GRIFFITHS: The words are very similar to the different version in the bill. I have one great concern and that is that the word 'effectiveness' has been removed which was originally in the bill. I understand that it still refers to management plans that are referred to the board for review. It says that the function of the board is to provide advice to the commissioner in relation to any matter referred to the board. I am particularly interested as to why the word 'effectiveness' is removed from it. To me that seems to remove the people who should be the closest to giving it good scrutiny and to determine its worthiness and who have been put in place by the commissioner and the minister to assist in that process. By removing 'effectiveness' does it lose any teeth that it may have otherwise possessed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have checked with parliamentary counsel and apparently it is a language thing about the fact that, when the committee is first formed, obviously there is nothing about which it can consider the effectiveness.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Don't shoot me, I am just the piano player. All I am saying to you is that is what I am told is the reason for this. I do not have any particular issue about this and, if it will make people feel really good, we can insert the word 'effective' somewhere between the houses as long as it does not mean that when the poor devils turn up at their first meeting they are required to immediately write a report about how effective they are when they have not done anything. That is all.

The CHAIR: Any further questions on amendment No. 7?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I completely agree with the minister's position but I am intrigued about why there is the reference to future activities and taking the word 'effectiveness' out because it is something not in place. Indeed, it mentions regional development assessment panels which do not even legally exist at the moment either. I am just confused by some of the language used in this.

The CHAIR: That is not really a question, that is a statement. Member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Can I ask the minister how often he assumes this advisory board is going to meet? Can I give you an example: currently, the NRM board on the island has a series of advisory committees which I referred to earlier. No doubt there will be some sort of attendance fee or sitting fee or whatever for these advisory committees. Shake your head or tell me I am wrong one way or the other, if that is the case. I am advised that the coast and estuarine committee, for example, under the NRM board, has not met for months and months because they do not have enough money to pay them. That is my advice. Can you help me out?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I can. I am going to repeat what I said before. I am not sure why what I am saying is not clear, but I will try again. The idea of these committees, or these boards, is that they will be established as required having regard to whatever work the commissioner is contemplating doing, and they will continue to work for as long as that work is a project in motion. When that project is concluded, there is no need for that mob to be together.

It is not like a standing mob which will stay there indefinitely. They are brought together, in a sense, as an ad hoc committee, if you like. 'Here is the project. We are going to be dealing with forestry. We are going to be dealing with cows. We are going to be dealing with black cockatoos.' We have a meeting. We work out who the experts on black cockatoos are, we bring them all in together and we get cracking on the management plan. We might meet five times a week for three weeks. We have nutted out all the problems with black cockatoos, and then we say, 'Right, game over; thanks very much.' We have a cup of tea and a scone and we go away, and that is it, finished.

Mr PENGILLY: Minister, at the risk of being repetitive, boring and God knows what else, let me say to you again: you have told us that there is an advisory board. Now, you keep talking about multiple committees.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: No, look, don't throw your head back again. It is not a difficult question. The question is: is the advisory board that goes under this legislation going to be the sole group of people who develop plans, talks or whatever? Are they going to get a sitting fee? You talk about multiple committees. Are you going to have multiple committees, and are they also going to get a sitting fee? It is a simple question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It may be a simple question, but it almost irresistibly comes from a wilful desire not to understand what I am saying.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, ma'am.

The CHAIR: Order! Just hear him out before we get any further. Let me just hear him.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will explain this again. We have already been through this. It is like goldfish: 'Gee, that is a nice bubble. Gee, that is a nice bubble.'

The CHAIR: Okay, so the answer is no sitting fee?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have no understanding of there being any commitment about sitting fees at all at this stage—none, okay? As to the other point, as we have already seen, in making up these plans there has to be a conversation between the commissioner and the council. The commissioner also has to have an advisory board, which I mistakenly called a committee. I call it a board; they are all boards.

There may be, at any given point in time, no boards, one board or maybe three boards, depending on what work is going on. If there is no particular plan being worked on at any point in time, there may be no current board, because there may be nothing about which the commissioner requires particular input pertinent to a management plan because the commissioner is not working on a management plan at that moment.

The CHAIR: The member for Finniss is happy with that, so we are going to put the question.

Mr PENGILLY: Madam Chair, I am not. I am not, in respect of the fact that the minister made some remark about trying to cause wilful damage to the process or whatever.

The CHAIR: I do not think he meant it in that way.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, I am pretty thick-skinned and it really does not worry me; however, it was not necessary to make that comment.

The CHAIR: I do not think he meant it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 8 [AG–1]—

Page 8, lines 7 to 9 [clause 17(3)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) 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; and

(ca) may seek the views of any Minister or other person or body the Commissioner thinks fit; and

Amendment No 9 [AG–1]—

Page 8, line 39 [clause 17(8), definition of relevant local advisory board]—Delete ‘means a’ and substitute:

means the local advisory board consulted by the Commissioner in relation to the management plan and any other

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to put on the record again that it is my understanding that this amendment has been brought about following consultation the minister has had with the council and the request for them to ensure that consultation takes place.

Amendments carried.

Mr PENGILLY: Clause 17 of the bill requires that the commissioner must prepare management plans, ho-hum, whereas clause 17(3)(d) requires the draft management plan to be open to comment from the public. Can the minister guarantee that comments made by the public will be incorporated into future amended draft management plans?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Clearly, the call for public comment is intended to give the public an opportunity to comment. It does not necessarily mean that each and every comment will find its way into the final management or amended management plan because quite conceivably a number of the comments could be completely diametrically opposed.

Mr PENGILLY: I note that if a commissioner fails to comply with a requirement of clause 17, it is not taken to affect the validity of the management plan. So, if there is no penalty in the event of failing to comply with clause 17 of the bill, can the minister advise what action will be taken if the commissioner fails to comply with all the requirements of the bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is part of the reason the minister can issue directions under clause 10.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clause 7, which makes provision for the preparation of management plans and the process for the amendment of them after consultation processes, for me is the most offensive aspect of the bill. It is specifically one of four functions which the minister proposes be the responsibility of the commissioner under clause 8 and it is the one which I see as the most destructive and the most confusing. As I have said before, the others are for a coordination role and may be helpful. I think they are unnecessary and an expense we do not need. I think it is the window-dressing around this part of the bill that are the killer clauses as to what is happening.

What is happening is that the government have decided they have a vision for Kangaroo Island. They have decided what is best for them, and the way of achieving it and ensuring that their vision is implemented is to appoint a commissioner. They will have a structure around him or her that facilitates them doing some fantasy consultation with the local people. They do not have to listen to it at all, they just have to consult with them—they do not have to listen to one word. After consultation, they will draw up their management plans on what they say are the priorities, the strategies, the proposals, etc., they will then implement.

The reason I think the most offensive part of this whole role is tucked away here in the bill is that there is absolutely no basis for the government requiring that anybody draw up another lot of management plans if in fact their current agencies have already done them. Let me give you an example of what I mean. If it is decided, as the minister says, that he wants to have a project specifically for the advancement, nurturing, protection of and tourism opportunities for glossy black cockatoos or sea eagles (either, I do not mind), both of which I have had frequently living on property which I still own, I want to explain to him why it is unnecessary to have another management plan relating to them.

At present, we have a NRM plan in respect of what is to happen with wildlife on Kangaroo Island. In fact, I was recently invited to a public meeting about the future arrangements for sea eagles, two of which nest along the coast where I live and have done for most of my life, to the best of my knowledge (they will probably outlive me), and I was sent a recent report on how they are progressing.

We have marine park plans which relate to land off of which sea eagles, in particular, have their harvesting grounds. We have a Department of Environment plan which relates to the management of wildlife, and they are obviously in charge of prosecution under our protection of native species. We have a bushfire plan which we will have to take into account as well as to whether we get smoke in them, or something. We have a coastal management plan and we have a new DPA, which the minister would be very aware of because he was part of the Unlocking Opportunities documents that were published in January to change the council's DPA, and that has a new charter for what the advance of coastal land on Kangaroo Island is.

They do not actually mention black cockatoos but there is an acknowledgement of the local residents (I assume that is the feathered kind as well) and the opportunity for tourism and so on. In fact, that material, which culminated in the amended DPA, seeks to promote the accommodation and tourism opportunities on a major project basis. They are not exactly the words but I think the minister has the gist of what was there. I have a copy of it here but, in any event, I think he is familiar with it.

We have a myriad of plans which, as a local owner, I have worked through. As a local ratepayer I support most of what is in them. So, why do we need someone else to come in and say, 'When it comes to glossy black cockatoos I am going to have another project, I want another plan, and what's more, if my plan isn't adhered to, notwithstanding all of these others, I am going to report the person who doesn't agree with it or doesn't give me the documents to support it or doesn't prepare contracts to support my plan. I'm going to report them to the Premier or to the parliament.' That is completely unnecessary.

The CHAIR: The question is—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just pointing out, Madam Chair, how offensive and unnecessary this is. This is the crux of the bill.

The CHAIR: That was the question though: do we need another oversight of it?

Ms CHAPMAN: No. This is my question, Madam Chair, and I can assure you I am getting to it. So, in relation to the preparation—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I have another example for you in a minute when we come to—

The CHAIR: Could we just have the question?

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I tell you, it is already confusing enough. I have already asked the people who drafted up the exclusion zones and the new marine parks as to whether the jurisdiction they cover overlaps the three kilometres from the high water mark out into the ocean which is covered by the NRM boards—who actually has jurisdiction? Nobody has been able to give me a straight answer. I have asked the ministers. There has been a myriad Department of Environment ministers and each one, when they come through, would not have a clue. In the meantime we are still looking after our birds and there are plenty of them.

The sad thing is that for some parts of Kangaroo Island, which are under your government's responsibility, they do not look after them properly and they do not look after their habitat properly. They do not properly burn out and make sure the she-oaks regenerate and the glossy blacks have a decent home. There are people on Kangaroo Island who are keen to make sure that these species are given the best home possible and the best opportunity possible, so we will keep working to do that, notwithstanding that I think there has been a dereliction of duty in some areas of some departments of your government.

However, notwithstanding that, we have plenty of plans and we do not need another one. My question is: if a new plan is introduced to cover these birds on Kangaroo Island by your commissioner, who prevails?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is a chicken and egg element to this, isn't there? What came first? I think, in a way, what the member for Bragg is saying, in her eloquent and pithy way, is that we have a number of plans, and perhaps they are not being implemented. If that is the case isn't it refreshing to think that we are now about to pass a bill that will, hopefully, make that happen?

I do not envisage that the commissioner would be so silly as to decide to reinvent the wheel every time there was a topic about which there was already extensive material available. My assumption is—and if I have to make it, I will give a direction—that the commissioner, before actually embarking on the creation of something from the ground up, must have regard to any existing work that has been done. It might well be that the commissioner comes to the view, 'Do you know what? This works fine, but the problem is that a lot of people aren't paying attention to it.' In that case the commissioner's role might conceivably be relatively simple, in saying, 'Rightio. I'll go through the process, but I'll talk to the advisory people and if they all think it's good and the council thinks it's good, okay; we are adopting that now as our official plan, not necessarily reinventing the wheel. And now because we have adopted it, the rest of you characters had better start paying attention instead of ignoring it.'

Ms CHAPMAN: So with the subject matter for any of the management plans that you have in mind, as the basis upon which we need to have a management plan process, are there any areas where you think it necessary for a commissioner to actually do management plans?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I come back to this again. This is trying to meet needs that are growing organically in the community. The framework of the legislation talks about things of an economic benefit, having regard to improving the local economy and so forth. An example that occurs to me is the provision of tourism services on the island. This is personal view, and it is not necessarily what the commissioner might want to do; I am just expressing my view. I think any rational person who thinks about it would have to say that the Southern Ocean Lodge was an outstanding addition to the island—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, exactly. We will come back to that; it is my point exactly. I have not struck anyone, except for a few fanatical people, who has criticised Southern Ocean Lodge. Occasionally on the island I do pick up people saying, 'Look, really they're not helping the island that much because they are sort of like a cocoon. They don't really employ local people that much,' and whatever. Leave that aside; they do put some money into the economy and they are an outstanding asset for Kangaroo Island and for Australia. I think that just in the last day or so they were voted the fourth best hotel on the planet. That is not bad at all.

I believe that high quality tourism facilities of that sort—although not necessarily that expensive, because I cannot afford to go there—on Kangaroo Island would offer a number of opportunities. They would bring money onto the island, they would provide employment, they would add some volume, perhaps, to potential air traffic; a whole bunch of other things. I think it would be useful if a management plan took into account the environmental sensitivities of parts of the island, but also recognised that without completely ruining those environmental assets you can still have a really quality development there, and not destroy it—which is Southern Ocean Lodge basically.

If there were a management plan which explored some of those themes, and it was something that the community had been engaged in and they had had a bit of a think about it and got in behind it and the council was in behind it, wouldn't it be nice if all government departments thereafter, when considering any application of a type relevant to those types of developments, had to have regard to that plan? I am told, and the member for Finniss and the member for Bragg would know better than me, that the people who put up that proposal for the Southern Ocean Lodge had to battle for a very long time to get to the point where they were able to proceed.

Ms Chapman: It was pretty quick, actually.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told it took a couple of years. The fact is that, as we know, the people behind that development have a relative who is not stuck for a quid and it was something they were able to get on with, and good on them.

I just give that as one example. If you are going to try to have a tourism plan for the island which facilitates instead of opposes and blocks good quality, environmentally sensitive, particularly coastal, development (although it could be development elsewhere in more of a woodland environment, whatever it might be), you need to get all the agencies looking at the thing from exactly the same perspective. You cannot have native veg going in one direction, DEWNR going in another direction, DPTI going in another direction, somebody else going in another direction and—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Surely that would never happen.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Surely it won't, but it definitely won't if there is one of these plans in place. The applicant, instead of being drawn and quartered by the four different directions in which these horses are running, is able to have some confidence that there is going to be a unified approach to their project within government.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is the example that is given by the minister to establish why it is necessary to have a management plan, that is, the opportunity to develop modern, appropriate infrastructure into—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I know, I am using the example. Kangaroo Island has been the home of very significant tourism operations over the years, some of which way pre-date even the minister, and I think Southern Ocean Lodge is the most prestigious and contemporary of those. It was developed as a major project under minister Holloway and it proceeded, I think, pretty quickly once all the boxes were ticked in relation to that. There were appropriate public meetings and there was a process that was introduced. The Baillies, who were the sponsors of this major development, came to the island and talked to local people.

There were some issues in relation to clearance of vegetation for bush management purposes, there were some issues about who was going to fix the road from the main South Coast Road out to the proposed site, and some matters such as that in relation to management of detergent and whether they were going to do their laundry off site and all those sorts of things. They were all ticked off and processed, and it all happened. I congratulated minister Holloway at the time for what I thought was a very appropriate process to undertake.

It has been up and running for the last X years and paying a huge amount into the state economy. It is doing a great job, and it is a great asset for Kangaroo Island. It has fairly limited employment directly for Kangaroo Islanders, I accept that, but, nevertheless, it is an important piece of tourism infrastructure which has been privately built and which has gone through the proper process, and it is operating and operating well. It did not need a management plan and it does not have a management plan.

Moreover, since that development, which is the last major tourism development for accommodation purposes on Kangaroo Island, the government—your government, your department, in fact—has assisted the local council to redo its DPA to ensure that there is an opportunity for coastal developments, particularly in tourist accommodation. In fact, to quote from some of the documents supporting that new DPA (which was promulgated under regulation, I think in early February or late January this year), it:

…should allow well designed accommodation for tourism that does not detract from scenic and landscape value of a location. In addition, it should envisage a limited number of resorts of excellence in scenic and landscape areas, located and designed such that scale, height, design and siting is respectful of and does not detract from views of the rural, natural or wilderness landscape, of the ocean and coastline, or the elements of the natural landscape—

etc. You could have been reading from it, minister; it is already there. I make the point that you raised this as an example of what is necessary, you say, to have a tourism accommodation or development plan that you think might be a good idea. The one example you used was handled very well by your government, and I do not give accolades for much—it was obviously a different minister. In any event, the planning rules have changed separately for that type of accommodation, which you do get credit for. I think it was a sneaky way you did it, I might say; nevertheless, it is there, it is in place.

Why do we need another management plan? If you can think of some others where you think there is a deficiency and where we do not have enough plans, I would like to hear about them. I still want to hear the answer if you think of one. Ultimately, if a commissioner is appointed and he or she prepares one, I want to know whether the council, DPA or any of these other plans are going to be subservient to this new master plan by your commissioner.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As is often the case, the member for Bragg is correct.

Mr Pengilly: Can you say that again?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: She is correct that the new DPA my department and I worked on and put into place in January or February this year is very good—that is right—and it does cover off a lot of these issues, and I am pleased that it does. I am not sure, because I am not sufficiently au fait with the history of the matter (others in the room may be), but if it turns out that minister Holloway was obliged to go to the extent of using major project status under the Development Act in order to get the Southern Ocean Lodge moving that might be a little bit more in my corner in terms of an arguing point than in the member for Bragg's corner, although I do note that she congratulates him on having done that.

My view is that as Minister for Planning you should not be, as a matter of course, using that mechanism. It should be not so hard for an ordinary person to negotiate their way through the existing mechanism and to just do it themselves; hopefully, we fix that to some extent. Here is the rub, the bottom line of all this: you can have all the plans in the world, but if nobody pays attention to them they are not worth a cracker. That is really the point.

It is not so much about whether we have a plan or what is the plan, or whatever the case might be. I acknowledge that the member for Bragg is quite right and that the member for Finniss is quite right: there are lots of plans floating around, lots of reports. I get that, but the point is: are people paying attention to them? Are people actually acting on them? Are people, in fact, either just pretending they are not there gathering dust in a corner somewhere, or are they actively operating in such a way that these plans do not gain any traction? What I am saying is that I want to eliminate the possibility of passive resistance or noncooperation with these plans if they have been through this process. That is the point.

The CHAIR: Before we go on, I am keen to remind members that we need to proceed past 6 o'clock, if we are going to do that. Shall we report progress in a few minutes? The deputy leader has a final question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Why then, minister, if it is a situation of trying to have this management structure as a way of covering the field because we have so many other fields—we have a tourism plan incidentally which I am sure you would be aware of because you are probably the part author of it, including for the development of what is needed on Kangaroo Island—and if it is to cover the cracks, why do we not delete having management plans and advisory bodies for management plans? We would not need them in this act.

If you want to appoint a commissioner to crack the whip, get the departments going, including the council, get the material together, make sure things happen and provide an expensive and unnecessary but nevertheless key person, and you are going to give them this mantle of commissioner/auditor to do this job, why do we not just delete clauses 15, 16 and 17 because we do not need them?

We do not need management plans, we do not need any of that. If you are saying that we want to have an action man or woman, I could probably live with that. What I find completely offensive is that they should impose a new set of plans when they consider it appropriate and that they are clearly going to be in the category. No other plan has an imposition that requires somebody to front up to some correspondence they might get from the Premier after they have been reported to the Premier or have the embarrassment, potentially, of being named in the parliament or having a report tabled in the parliament—not that, frankly, the parliament could do much about it, let’s face it.

I think it is a bit of an empty threat myself, but for the general public out there to be named and shamed in that scenario could be very embarrassing and something which they have to answer for and which might be misunderstood in media circles, etc. I think it is a disgraceful process, but why have a management plan at all? Can you come up with something where you think that for this island there is an area which has not been reported on, maps prepared, plans prepared, visionary statements, objective principles? You name it, we have plenty of them. Why do we not get rid of them?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My answer to the question is this: yes, I am after GI Jill or somebody; yes I am.

The CHAIR: Judge Judy.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Judge Judy—somebody who is going to get out there and beat the bushes; absolutely that is what I am after. I also say this: if I had not put some mechanism for consultation with the local community into this, the totally outrageous assertion that I want to be King John or someone might have some vague credibility because it would mean that I was picking everything out. That is not the point.

The CHAIR: Are members happy if we put clause 17 as amended before we report progress?

Mr PENGILLY: I have a question.

The CHAIR: One very quick one.

Mr PENGILLY: Do you want me to leave it until tomorrow because I would like to ask another question?

The CHAIR: On clause 17? We are keen to finish clause 17. We have allowed you a lot of leeway with clause 17 today all through the bill.

Mr PENGILLY: Madam Chair, the member for Goyder has a series of questions on clause 17 as well.

The CHAIR: Still? Okay.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes. With due respect to the Chair, do you want to go ahead now or do you wish to adjourn?

The CHAIR: No, as I said, we gave you a lot of leeway with asking questions backwards and forwards on clause 17 today, but if you have more questions we will need to report progress tonight and reconvene tomorrow.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 17:58 the house adjourned until Thursday 18 September 2014 at 10:30.