Bills

Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees - Abolition and Reform) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 November 2014.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:58): I rise to speak on Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees—Abolition and Reform) Bill 2014. This was introduced by the Premier recently and purports to outline a number of abolition, restructuring or merging of boards and committees which service principally the government, although some have a dual role to the parliament.

In July this year, the Premier announced that he would conduct a review of all of the boards and committees of the government, and a draft was issued. The final report resulted in confirmation by Mr Weatherill that there would be an abolition of 107 boards and committees, 17 would be merged, 62 would have other reforms, 33 would be subject to further investigation, 120 would be reclassified and 90 would be retained.

It is interesting in the exercise that was undertaken and, indeed, at the time of the submission, that although there were some 429 boards in existence that were the subject of this review, the Premier outlined in his second reading that, in 2003, the commonwealth review had been undertaken by Mr John Uhrig. I think he has an Order of Australia although it is not recognised in the second reading. In any event, the Premier points out that Mr Uhrig found that, in circumstances where a minister retains powers and responsibilities, 'a board may add a layer of obstruction to a minister seeking to ensure that the CEO is acting in a way that is consistent with government policy'.

I found that statement particularly telling for two reasons: one is that, for the last 11 years since that report, the government has done nothing but add more boards and committees. In fact, they have expanded at an incredible scale, along with commissioners and advocates and the like. We have actually had an explosion of personnel or positions that sit either on boards or committees or just outside of the Public Service, some with varying degrees of independent status that would clearly be in this category; that is, that would impede a minister, as the Premier says, 'to obstruct' a minister seeking to ensure that a CEO acts in a way consistent with government policy.

I think that that is a damning indictment of the Premier on the chiefs of staff of departments in his government. It is particularly telling because he is the one who is actually responsible for the appointment and, in fact, signs contracts and has the exclusive, as I understand it, veto in respect of who are the chief executives and their contracts, and the terms of those contracts which are entered into between the Premier and the chief executive officer.

So I find it extraordinary that he refers to a report which issues a warning which this government has completely ignored. They have had an explosion of these boards and committees and, as I say, advocates and commissioners and the like, yet Mr Weatherill is indicating to us as a parliament that he needs to have this review and this reform because, after all, people like Mr Uhrig point out how obstructive those processes can be. As I say, in fact all they have done in the last 11 years is breed them like flies.

In any event, clearly, some of the boards have come into existence, they have had a specific purpose, and I think, on the face of it, they need to go, particularly in areas of urban development which I cover where there has been a committee or a board established for the purposes of a particular development. It has been developed, the land sold off, or at least it is on its way to being sold, it is transferred to the various agencies or the private sector for them to continue and so the actual role of managing the development has finished or nearly finished—Playford Alive, and I think of one in the seat of Hartley which seemed to go on forever.

I am sure the member for Heysen probably remembers but I cannot think of it offhand but it is in the seat of Hartley. We had a housing development there which took about 10 years, I think, before they sold off all the housing. I am not sure they have even sold any of them off completely now, and I will think of the name of it in a minute.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Lochiel Park.

Ms CHAPMAN: Lochiel Park indeed, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Am I allowed to help like that?

Ms CHAPMAN: Most helpful—Lochiel Park. The Urban Renewal Authority, in its role, developed Lochiel Park and they set up a whole lot of initiatives which were taxpayer funded. I have said before that I do not have a problem with governments picking up some of the cost of new initiatives in developments. This one turned out to be very expensive; I am not sure that they have even sold all the houses yet.

It is not unusual for the government to use a body such as the Urban Renewal Authority—now trading as Renewal SA under the urban renewal authority act—but, separate to that, to set up various boards and committees to do specific projects. As I say, their purpose comes and goes, so it is appropriate that they be wound up. I am just a little bit surprised that it has not occurred in the meantime, that this has not been dealt with, but it appears, in looking through the review, that the government has, by regulation, resolved and dissolved a number of those entities that do not require legislative reform.

There has been a culling of things, a lot of which frankly should have gone in any event, but it just seems the government has lost its way a bit and not attended to it. In relation to the actual boards themselves, there are a number that we are being asked to consider in this bill that do need legislative attention. I am just going to go through these.

Before I commence on those that are going to be affected, can I just say that I had two briefings from various members of the department and officers from the minister's office on these matters. I want to particularly acknowledge Mr Kevin Gogler, who is the Principal Policy & Legislative Officer from the Department for Environment and Natural Resources, Sandy Pitcher, the Deputy Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and, at a second briefing, Ms Catherine Blaikie from the Department for Health and Mr Rick Janssen from the Department of State Development.

There were a couple of other representatives from the department of environment and water and resources or whatever it is called these days. It changes regularly. I must say, at the second briefing, there seemed to be an army of people in attendance and I wondered how the rest of the government was still functioning with the number of public servants who had come to brief me on this but, in any event, I thank them for their time and advice to provide some background to why these certain boards were either redundant or in need of reform.

Running through the bill, I will not spend a lot of time on the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act. The board under that act is to be amalgamated into one environmental board, which will be the parks and wilderness council, so that will be merged. I cannot say I see that that has great merit in the sense of having a completely merged board with all of the responsibilities. I think what will happen is that it will be very generalist and it will be difficult to see how that will work but, at this point, the minister will just have one council and there are certain representatives with different areas of responsibility who will be involved in that.

Mr John Schulz, who is with the Department of Environment, will have a role in that. I hope so. Certainly Mr Schulz has been very helpful in advising me and, I know, other members of the parliament across the political divide. He is very committed in his role and has certainly provided excellent advice particularly in respect of parks matters covering my electorate and, I am sure, others. So, if he is going to have a senior role in this new amalgamated body, it does fill me with some confidence.

The Animal Welfare Act: I will briefly touch on that to say that it seems that we are now going to no longer have the board as such but there will be these animal ethics committees. I am not certain how that is going to work. It is not clear from the legislation. I may have some questions about that. Then there is the ANZAC Day Commemoration Council, which I note the Premier tabled the annual report for that body today in the parliament. That is to be reformed to the extent that it is still to continue, but this is one of the first of the boards which is going from cabinet appointment to ministerial appointment.

One thing I will say is that if we have a situation where, whatever the replacement structure is and that it is appointed by the minister and that the broader cabinet does not even get a say in the contribution that is made as to the constitution of the replacement body and it is limited in the membership from the point of view of not having a broad representation on it, then we end up with a situation where the replacement body or the model of replacement for consultation, advice and the like, is likely to be deficient and so it is not one that I would be supportive of. However, I say that as a general statement, that whoever is the minister will now pick the council and, presumably, then receive their advice for functions to be undertaken in the commemoration of ANZAC.

The Aquaculture Act: the board is to be abolished. This I find most concerning. We had significant Aquaculture Act reform some years ago. The value of the board in this regard was considered to be very important. Having an advisory committee when there are new and embryonic aquaculture industries developing, I think, was of great benefit to the government and indeed to the parliament. To now go to a model where the chief executive officer of, presumably, the Department of Primary Industries, or agriculture, will now directly relate to the minister—there is no formal external advisory committee—I think will be seen as a deficiency.

The Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium Act: they have a board. Again, the members of it will be appointed from cabinet to the minister, who will then have responsibility for that. I declare that I am a member of the Friends of the Botanic Gardens. I will say that recently I read a document, on which I did not appear even as a person who had some interest in this area—I had no notice whatsoever and I asked some other people who are in the Friends of the Botanic Gardens—where they had changed the name from Botanic Gardens of South Australia to Botanic Gardens of Adelaide, or the other way around, I cannot remember now what it was, but there was a complete change of name without there being any consultation with us about what was happening there.

One problem is, and I mention this because we have the Botanic Gardens on North Terrace, the Wittunga Gardens and the Mount Lofty Gardens, which is in my electorate, and every year, with budget cuts, more and more gets squeezed out of the two little gardens and more and more is centralised into the Adelaide Botanic Gardens. Not to say that the North Terrace gardens are not magnificent and need significant resources, but I see this time and time again and it does concern me, if there is going to be a restructure there, as to how that model is going to work.

The classification of theatrical performances into the South Australian Classification Council I think is probably a sensible move. I am not sure what the Speaker would say about it. He seemed to have a particular penchant for little special bodies to deal with the classification of things, whether they be at a state level, irrespective of what they did in Canberra, and insisted on having them in South Australia. Nevertheless, that seems to be a reasonable move.

There is to be reform of the Coast Protection Act and the board that was specifically developed to support coastal protection, in particular to make determinations about what developments should occur. Again, this board will be retained but the cabinet will no longer be appointing it. That will now be up to the minister.

I wrote to the minister—in this case, we are talking about the Minister for Planning, minister Rau—about a coastal protection matter, particularly as there had been an impediment to a proposed development on property on Yorke Peninsula, and I asked to have some questions clarified in respect of how the Coast Protection Act is being applied, and not just by the board in its determinations. If we are going to move from a board and move out the regional consultative committees, again I see some deficiency and weaknesses in that system.

Apparently the amendments make provision for advisory committees to be established. We know that does not happen in a similar circumstance in respect of the coastal protection uniqueness of any developments in those areas and the importance of having the board, particularly for as it is required for various processes under the Development Act.

I remember when several years ago the Minister for Environment cancelled all the consultative committees for parks in South Australia. As some members would probably be aware, there are large tracts of parks, wilderness and reserves across the state, many of which came from particular communities, local government and private family-owned land which was donated and contributed to the public asset, and they often continue to have a role as a local community board as to the activities in the park.

I can recall a number of those as I grew up on Kangaroo Island, and there was a lot of local involvement in the operations of those parks. If there was a decision to be made about whether there would be bees harvested and operating in the parks on a commercial basis, that would be something that the local community would have a say on.

It was an acknowledgement of two things. One is that these lands and reserves were very often from the community and were not designed to be some sort of tourist resort. They were actually designed to be a protected area at various levels to the extent of making sure that they would be kept in some perpetuity. Sometimes it was actually to operate bees within it, for example, so that it would support a primary industry outside. Sometimes it was land that if the native vegetation on it was cleared, it would result in such degradation of the land that it was better to keep the tract of land intact and ensure that it was not subject to erosion and the like.

There was a genuine and continuing involvement in the parks, but the government decided that it would just get rid of these consultative committees. When the government says we are going to make provision for a minister to say that they can establish an advisory committee, I am not filled with confidence as to how that is going to operate.

On coastal protection, let me give you another example. Mr Kerry Stokes owns a property near the south coast near Tungkillo Beach, I think. Tungkillo Beach is one which I wrote to the minister about, because it appeared that Mr Stokes was going to be able to purchase land around this beach, which was in the coastal protection region. It came to my attention because other people who had property around it said, 'Well, if this land is suddenly going to be available and this beach is going to be under the control of private hands, why aren't we allowed to have the chance to acquire the whole of part of this land? Why is it just going off to Mr Stokes?'

The answer is: 'Well, it is, because we can do it and we are going to do it; he is going to buy it and it is going to help us develop one of the walking trails and the like.' That is not a rational or acceptable explanation. I have nothing against Mr Stokes personally, or against him wanting to buy this property—he is probably one of the few people who has the money to do it—but I make this point: there is not much relevance in having a charter in our laws to protect coastlines if it can be breached at will so that other people are left with strict rules against development, and where property is acquired by government hands, believed to be for the importance of protection of a natural resource, and is then on-sold without others having an opportunity to buy it. I see that as totally inconsistent.

The more we remove the role of boards and other watchdogs in relation to some of these things, the more concerned I get. We are moving to a board that is going to be appointed by the minister. That will be in house; it will not have the flavour of the cabinet casting their eye over it, and there will be a removal of the regional consultative committee. I do not see that as auguring well, particularly as the coast goes for thousands of kilometres along South Australia and is going to be run by a minister in Adelaide.

I do not have any comment on the Correctional Services Act reform. I do not have any particular concern with Dog and Cat Management Act. I suspect going from a cabinet appointment to a ministerial appointment will just give more headaches to the minister. It is never an easy thing. There is always one group in the cat and dog owner community that think one way and the other half think another, so that is never an easy task. There is to be reform under the Dog Fence Act, which is to have appointments made by the minister instead of the cabinet. I think that is an unnecessary narrowing, but nevertheless, I do not raise a significant issue about it.

There is a reclassification of the Emergency Management Act to essentially cover, apart from the appointment moving from the cabinet to the Premier, the positions that people hold (chief executives and the like) of various state emergency agencies or departments. They will be reformed so that the position that is held can continue in perpetuity, as I understand it.

There is to be reform of the Fire and Emergency Services Act, in particular the State Bushfire Coordination Committee and the State Bushfire Management Plan. I am assured that South Australia Police are still going to be in charge of those. I found it rather curious that the last time we had a major event here and we asked questions in the parliament about the operation of this coordination committee, there seemed to be very slim consultation with the State Bushfire Coordination Committee at the time. I remember the Premier giving what I think were rather superficial answers in that regard.

I am a bit concerned about how some of this operates. I think, at the end of the day, when there is a major emergency and/or bushfire which is envisaged by this type of legislation—whether it is a plague, major bushfire or flood—we need to have somebody in charge. I think, on balance, that should remain with the Commissioner of Police, and I understand that it will.

We come to the Fisheries Management Act. Now that the boards are going, there is going to be just a direct level of engagement, whatever that means. Essentially, it means the abolition of the boards for various industries, bearing in mind that outside aquaculture the fishery industries rely on mostly natural stock and that the capture of wild fish is in various forms—so of course we have everything from the prawns in Gulf St Vincent, some in Spencer Gulf, scale fishing, abalone, to rock lobster, etc.

Unsurprisingly, it works quite well because, instead of just having one board or one group that is in charge across all fisheries, if you have a particular interest in a specific fishery, the meetings in respect of that and the decisions to be made are targeted to the area of interest and you are not wasting three-quarters of the agenda on items that are of no interest to the person who is attending. I think it has been a very good working arrangement, and on top of that sat a fisheries council to advise the minister on a general level.

I think that structure has worked quite well, so I am a bit concerned that we are now going to move to a situation where, if the minister is making a decision about the threat of wild stock fishery numbers and wants to introduce a quota restriction increase (for example, on rock lobster) or increase the size of an allowable catch for a scale fishery species (garfish or something of that nature), undertaking direct access to people he or she thinks ought to be consulted is a dangerous path to go down and inevitably will result in cries of foul play and of people being eliminated from the consultation.

Frankly, I think it is lunacy on the part of the government to try to proceed on that basis. If, in fact, there is going to be a structure that replaces it that is more formalised than getting together a group of interested people they think is appropriate, I am happy to have a look at it, but on the face of it I think the government is going down the wrong path in that regard.

Apparently, under the Gaming Machines Act we are going to allow for voting online. I am not sure what is happening with that, and I will ask some questions of the government about that. Under the Gas Act, there will be technical advisory committees merging with electricity, which probably sounds logical as they are both energy providers and it is the service of energy provision.

We are going to have reform of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act. I think we still have an embargo on being able to progress anything along those lines for another couple of years, so I am not sure if the advisory committee reforms even need to be there, but I suppose there are still trials around and new initiatives need to be put before the committee.

An excellent report was prepared by the Hon. Anne Levy, a former president in the other place, and her committee on GM crops for South Australia. That report must be at least seven or eight years old now, and it is just sitting somewhere collecting dust. I am not sure what the committee does at the moment, but if it is continuing to receive information in respect of new initiatives, whether it is a question of whether Monsanto still has exclusive control over seed or whatever the issue is that is contemporary in that space, I suppose it will have some value.

There is to be abolition of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act, and I remember dealing with this legislation in 2004. It was essentially setting up an ombudsman for health complaints but, instead of just taking out the role of health complaints under public hospital complaints, it was to be more than that that the ombudsman had jurisdiction over. It was to set up a separate health and community services complaints person to deal with private health services and community services.

It was a much more expansive area and role to undertake. Unlike the state Ombudsman, who deals with all administrations in respect of the Public Service, this was to have its own but would move into the independent sector. A number of concerns were raised about it at the time, and one of the ways of managing some of those concerns was to ensure that there was a board and that there could be some representation on that, so I am a bit concerned that that is going. It is all very well to say that the commissioner will be retained because she (I think it is still a she) will still do her job and run her office—she is a bit like a chief executive or the Ombudsman—but I think the board had an important role.

Now we come to the Health Care Act 2008. This was a long and weary debate—I know because I was in it for a long time. Mr John Menadue (he also has an AO, from memory) prepared a report recommending that a number of things be changed in the structure of how we operate the public health system, one of which was that we abolish some regional boards on the basis that we did not need to have regional representation; we would just have the boards retained in our local hospitals.

In fact, what the government did in this legislation, after they pretended to have this enormous consultation, was abolish the boards completely and then initiate health advisory councils (HACs). Of course, during the time of Mr Foley's role as treasurer, they decided that they wanted to be able to take control of the assets. After months and months of debate and conflict, really, certainly on our side of the house, about the attempt of the government to take control over these assets, it was agreed that the HACs would retain a certain role and the capacity to hold assets, such as money they had raised, and that there would be some protection of that.

However, it was not without a huge fight because the government, which even had advice from their special adviser, decided that they were going to do what they wanted, and what they wanted to do was extinguish local content and take control. They got rid of the boards that were dealing with the—I cannot even remember what they are called now, but we had a northern board, which related to hospitals for the Royal Adelaide Hospital, I think, and the children's hospital.

We had a southern district board, which I think covered the Repat hospital, Flinders Medical Centre and Noarlunga. From memory, I think the northern board covered the Lyell McEwin, Queen Elizabeth and Modbury hospitals. However, the Women's and Children's Health Network was in a separate one. So, we had these metropolitan regional boards and they all got sacked. In fact, I think the chairman of the one covering the Royal Adelaide Hospital was overseas at the time. He probably just got some sort email saying, 'Look, you're gone. You're not going to be here.'

The way that we had a structured administration of boards which had clinical representation, consumer representation, nursing representation, other allied health services and people with administrative skills, was absolutely disgusting by this government. One of the placating aspects to our pleas about how obscene this whole process was was the government's announcement that they would have clinical committees so that there would be a recognition of the clinical expertise, that they would be retained and that they would be able to continue to advise the minister, minister Hill as it was at the time.

Secondly, they would have a Health Performance Council which would do a number of things: it would report regularly to the minister about what was happening in the operation of health services in South Australia, and obviously that largely related to hospitals, and it would provide not only annual reports but also four-yearly reports. We had a report in the last week or so. On 13 November, we got the Health Performance Council annual report for 2013-14, and that tells us the next due date for the reporting of the four-yearly report.

At the time we debated this, it was not just a matter of having an annual report which comes in saying what a great job everybody is doing, how many times everyone goes to meetings, etc., but every four years they had to do an assessment of the performance of our health services and hospitals in South Australia and they had to report to us. Guess when the next one is due: 31 December 2014. That is when it is due to be handed up to the minister. If we pass this legislation, do you think that will ever see the light of day? No, of course not.

I thank the board for letting us know in the annual report that this is due and, whether they are sacked or dismissed or told, 'Don't come next year', or whatever, under this legislation, because it is proposed that they be abolished, I for one will want to see that report. If it is in draft form, keep it there, because I will FOI it and we will have a look at it another time. The point is it does play a very important role. Ms Anne Dunn currently is the chairperson of the council, and I want to thank her and her board for at least being the one scintilla of protection for South Australians having any clue of independent assessment about what is happening with our health services.

We do not get any answers in this parliament. We do not get a true reflection in the annual reports that come through from the HACs, which are all completely sanitised because they do not have access to a lot of the material anymore. We do not have any boards across the department. All we get is the annual report of the department of health—usually late. They are usually months late, actually, each year, and they are pretty sanitised, let me tell you. The Health Performance Council is one body which is able to make some assessment and give, they say, frank and fearless advice.

In fact, interestingly, in this year's report is a quote from Professor Michael Kidd AM, the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Flinders University, and he said:

The Health Performance Council has provided an invaluable service to the people of South Australia throughout its existence. The HPC has proven its value as an independent, evidence-based monitor of the performance of our health system and has been empowered to analyse, evaluate and provide advice about improvements that continue to result in real benefits to health consumers and health service providers.

Their job is to, obviously, analyse a whole lot of system performance data and provide that information to the minister and, ultimately, reports that come to us as a parliament. They can review the adequacy and appropriateness of a number of services; more recently, they dealt with the end-of-life care for South Australians; and they maintain a focus on monitoring our Aboriginal health care and outcomes.

That is also important because members may not all be aware that if you look at the Nganampa Health Council, for example, which is the body that has responsibility over the APY lands and the health services there, that body is exempt from freedom of information. They provide an annual report. Over the years, I have usually had a look at it. It is a little colourful brochure that sometimes goes up on the website. It is very scant in its financial information. Over the years, it has got thinner and thinner on content and more and more on pictures.

So, now, if we are to have details, as members of parliament, on the transmission of sexual diseases in children on the APY lands, the incidence of petrol sniffing or marijuana or alcohol abuse or incidents of child sexual abuse and notifications of the same, guess what: we cannot see that. We have come into parliament and asked various ministers over time for answers to these questions and they say, 'We don't keep that detail. Ask the Nganampa Health Council. We don't have to give that to you.'

Who else is there, except the Health Performance Council, that can have any power to ensure that we have health services that are working and the money that is paid in is not just accountable but also effective, and we ensure that we are giving, in this instance, our most remote and most impoverished South Australians a chance to have a decent standard of health service?

I despair at the proposed abolition of the Health Performance Council. I would like to know from the government why it is necessary, and I particularly want their reassurance that we are going to get the second, four-yearly annual report from the Health Performance Council before it is disbanded or dissolved.

The Health Services Charitable Gifts Act, as I understand it, relates to medical research, and it is an advisory board. I am not sure what assets it owns, but I certainly want to know what is happening with them, who they are going to be transferred to, if anyone, and what the structure will be in that respect. In terms of the Heritage Places Act 1993, the minister rather than cabinet will now take responsibility for their appointment on the council.

I despair. I think this government has shown its complete disdain for heritage places in South Australia both in built and natural environments, and it continues to be of concern to me. I am a great supporter of built heritage being utilised and continuing to be occupied and not left to rot. Even though I was critical of the government selling off the Glenside site, the old sanatorium could be refurbished and reused. In this instance, the then premier wanted a cultural precinct, and the Film Corporation went in to occupy it.

I was very critical of the government's plans to use it for anything other than mental health services, but I do accept that if you are going to keep an asset you have to have someone in it so that it can be properly maintained. It just about breaks my heart to drive past the Glenside Hospital now where there is a new part in the back right-hand south-eastern corner of the hospital, with inadequate services, given that there was supposed to be some other development, which has now failed, that was going to accommodate some extra provision for drug and alcohol outpatients. In the front wall, where Renewal SA, on behalf of the government, recently demolished the nurses' quarters adjacent to Fullarton Road, there is still a gouging hole that has not been repaired, and this is a couple of years later, along the front fence.

Every member in here, I am sure, would have examples of where there has been an act or a mission which has left some part of our heritage in disrepair. In this case, Royal Salvage came in, bulldozed the facility, knocked a hole in the wall, and, guess what? It is still there, not to mention the oval across the road, which is devoid of any children playing on it anymore because, of course, the government dug it up and used it to stockpile dirt during the build and has now left it full of weeds. I despair at what has happened there, and any diminution of any kind of watchdog or board in that area I think would be retrograde.

In terms of the Local Government Act, they are going to move the boundary's panel, but that does not really raise a lot of concern for me. I will say that somewhere in there, in the boundary's panel, someone is still dealing with whether Heathpool goes into the Burnside council or the Norwood council. It is in the Norwood council at the moment, and I think they want to keep it. I think that they think the ratepayers of Heathpool have got a pretty good revenue base, and they want to keep the revenue, whereas I think they want it to go into the Burnside council. It has been going on for years. I am not sure what is going to happen to the pending applications.

It is a bit of a quirk of history. Probably, geographically it should have been in the Burnside council, but I understand that somebody who was on the Norwood council at the original drawing up of the boundaries lived in that little area, so the boundary was drawn around Heathpool, but it is in Norwood, in any event. As I have my leader in my adjoining state seat in Dunstan, if he wants to have it, then he can keep it for the moment. I will not be challenging him.

In relation to marine parks, the whole establishment of councils and boards under that legislation is a disappointment at best. It has been an alarming process of non-consultation, particularly of a model where endless meetings occurred, information was presented, submissions were made—all completely ignored. Then local advisory boards were given responses, and decisions were made by government in complete ignorance of what impact they would have on regional communities, fishing industries and recreational activities.

I think that whole process has been a disgrace. People have been dismissed and their ideas and proposals ignored. Merging marine parks in with land parks, when it is already a dysfunctional mess, I think is most concerning. It will raise questions about who is actually going to have the best interests of the marine park environment in a protective sense, when the council is going to be responsible for all the land-based parks, not to mention the Dolphin Sanctuary, and then still has to deal with the marine parks. Already there is negligible provision of funding for its monitoring and enforcement, so I see that that will be of concern.

There is a new process of review of the decisions made and administrative appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act. Usually, a decision is made by a subordinate of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. There will be an internal person at a higher rank who will review their matter and there will still be, ultimately, an appeal to the District Court.

I am not sure why we have to have that extra level but we do have it in some other legislation, for example, on valuation disputes. If you do not agree with what the Valuer-General has put on a piece of property that you own, you can lodge a review by an internal panel and then you have rights to go on to the Supreme Court or ultimately, if the SACAT bill ever passes, to the SACAT, which is the new tribunal proposed. As long as there is a proper form of review, I do not have an issue about that.

In terms of national parks and wildlife, as I say, we are going to have this new parks and wilderness council. I think I have said enough about that. It is going to be swamped, it is going to be ignored and there is going to be no accountability. I feel quite concerned about that for those areas. The Native Vegetation Act will be reformed again from cabinet to minister. I think there is a disappointment about this and it also relates to natural resources and Pastoral Board matters under this bill. The Minister for Environment is effectively going to have control of a whole lot of things that historically he or she did not.

The Native Vegetation Act is a statewide issue. It should be important to all regions of South Australia, and I think it is important that, even if the Minister for Environment is the identified minister to whom this council, or whatever we are going to have under it, is accountable, it should still be appointed by members of the cabinet and they should have a review and at least have the breadth in the appointment of those members, because native vegetation is important not just for natural resources but also for other purposes.

Similarly, under the Natural Resources Management Act, the regional boards effectively are going to stay. The council is going to be abolished. Frankly, we are back here under the Natural Resources Management Act and this is a classic example of what was set up to be independent of government and is now almost totally absorbed into the Department of Environment. It was set up as a structure to deal with the management of natural resources independent of all the different agencies—the Department of Environment, the department of primary industry as it was, local council, local government. People have a vested interest in a number of these things, but it was important to have some independence so the boards were set up. Sure, they had to be accountable to a minister, but they were set up on the appointment by cabinet and they were able to operate independently.

Now, for example, if I want to have a meeting with the natural resource management board for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty area, not only do I have to have the permission of the minister to go and see them (because they are now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Department of Environment) but when I wrote, for example, as the local member, to my own Adelaide and Mount Lofty board asking how they saw the significance of their continuing to operate, whether they thought that was meritorious and what their view was under this review, they wrote back to me words to the effect that it was not appropriate for me to have that information, that it was a matter they were reporting on to the government. As it turned out, the government ultimately put a number of the submissions it received from all of these boards on the website, so we would get to read it anyway.

Interestingly, when I did read it, the extraordinary thing about it, to me anyway, was that they were proud of their independence of government, that they were able to give free and independent advice to government and that was one of the reasons they should be continued. Anyway, the government has decided that it is going to continue with none of the boards. The committees within the Adelaide and Mount Lofty board geographical area, which covers about a million people of our state's population, so from Gawler down to the tip of the Fleurieu, is a large area and most of the population of South Australia is in it. It used to be broken up into four regions, but the committees have now gone and we have this one big group left again. I am not sure how that is going to work but, in any event, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Department of Environment.

The board of the Office for the Ageing is to be abolished. They are going to have a consultative panel. I was interested to learn that this is going to be one of those alternate consultation model approaches where the minister goes out, as they see fit, to get advice on various matters and that they are looking at an online survey model and the flexibility of that. Well, good luck. We are talking about the ageing community. I do not know how many of them are going to have online access, to be honest.

That is fine for the youth community or for those who are in employment, but it seemed to me, again, this stupidity of trying to have a situation where you have this ad hoc consultation. If people know they have a responsibility to be a point of contact for a minister on an advisory council or a board, that they have a responsibility to turn up to meetings and that they have a responsibility to give advice when asked, etc., then it works. So, if they think they are going to have some website that any person who is over 65 in South Australia can plug into as some sort of substitute consultation, then they can think again because I for one would have a lot of concerns about that.

On the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act, there are very significant amendments in this area. What I want to say about this, and I am sure other members will refer to it, is that it is to abolish the Pastoral Board and essentially transfer the responsibility and the decision-making to the minister in respect of very serious matters, including the granting of leases.

Remember this is a large tract of South Australia that comes under the jurisdiction of the current Pastoral Board which will transfer over to the minister, he or she will decide what the term of the pastoral leases will be, make decisions about boundaries and the alteration of them, of course, make decisions about land that is to be protected and make decisions about stock levels.

There are often sheep per acre levels and the like that are set out as conditions of lease, etc. In the early days, sometimes there were stock levels that had to be kept up to be able to justify the Crown having issued the right to have a lease, and you had to do something with it. Probably more likely now it is used as a monitor to ensure that there is a balance between stock production and environmental protection, ensuring there is no long-term degradation of the area that is under stock.

The other thing is they do such practical things in respect of dealing with mustering cattle and traversing boundaries, these sorts of things which are dealt with and many of which would be dealt with by a local council if they had one, but they do not have a local council. Unlike where I live in Tusmore, their nearest neighbour can be 100 miles away and the precinct where there is some management by the Pastoral Board is massive and extensive and even local councils do not survive up there in the sense of not having the numbers.

We have thousands of square miles, probably millions of square miles, under this area. They do not have a local government, so the Pastoral Board is responsible for this. Sure, they give advice to the minister to provide authority on a number of things or ultimately to issue the leases, but you have an independent panel and they act, in many ways as a land management body or local council to deal with a number of those things.

I have asked for (and I hope I get it before the end of this debate) a copy of a District Court appeal apparently from the Pastoral Board. I am assured that the District Court will remain in the structure as a right of appeal from what will now become a minister's decision if this bill is passed. As I said, that still gives appeal rights, but I had asked that there be a copy of the most recent case of appeal which apparently, as was indicated in the briefing, is available. The transparency that will be lost as a result of this new regime is obvious, so I will let other members talk about that in more detail, but I for one am most concerned about it.

I will not deal with the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Act. I think it has been indicated that there will just be a change from the board to a minister under its abolition and it may be past its use-by date. Under the Public Employees Housing Act, the advisory committee is to be abolished and they are taking the assets in-house. I have asked, and I would ask this be made available by the minister in response, how many houses are left in the public employees housing stock? These are not Housing Trust houses; they are houses that are owned by the government, often sprinkled out in country and remote areas. They used to accommodate teachers and nurses and so on who were living in towns. Over the years, a number of them have been sold, and I am not sure there are many left, but I would like to know how many there are and where they are.

As to the SACE Board, again, I would like to know in this area what the government plans as their alternative model. This is part of the consequential amendments to the Ministerial Youth Council being abolished, but if there is anything more substantive on that I would like to know what the board itself has said about it.

Then we have the South Australian Forestry Corporation. There are amendments here where there will be a cabinet to minister. I am not sure what they are left with. I have asked for a list of what the board are left with under their watch, and I would ask that it be provided. It may be that they have an ongoing role in relation to the South-East forests, of which I think three rounds have been sold. They may have some monitoring role in respect of that, but I would like to know what else they are left with. I think that one of the forests up in the member for Stuart's electorate has all been burnt to pieces, not Bundaleer but—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Wirrabara; Bundaleer was burnt two years ago.

Ms CHAPMAN: Bundaleer was burnt two years ago; that's right—and we have some forest in the Adelaide Hills. We have some forests on Kangaroo Island; I think everyone is ready to dig them up now, so they are not much use. I would be interested to know what is left for this board to continue a role in.

The South Australian Housing Trust Board will continue, but not the Affordable Housing initiative, which I think was announced by the Premier, when he was the housing minister, in some great speech about how important it was to have advice from this board in respect of affordable housing. It was the new initiative of the government when we did the Affordable Housing Bill. Members will know that I spoke for around 7½ hours on that one. For new members, I do not plan to repeat it, but I will say this: again, like the Health Care Act, we were given assurances about these bodies being there as some watchdog, some adviser to the minister, to make sure that there was some check on these things, so their removal is concerning.

The South Australian Motor Sport Board is to be tipped in with the South Australian Tourism Commission, but the Tourism Commission itself is to be abolished and have an amalgamated internal arrangement for the supervision of that. I think that is a huge mistake. I recently met with the Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF), which is headquartered in New South Wales (in fact, the Chair, Mr Bruce Baird, has just retired) and provides a valuable summary of infrastructure that is identified as being a priority within all the regions around Australia.

I find that South Australia's content by this body is impressive. It is well researched and usually coordinates a number of pieces of infrastructure which need some priority attention if, in fact, we are going to promote tourism in this state. The transport infrastructure to go with it is critical. They have recognised, and certainly submitted to me and, I am sure, to others in the house, the importance of maintaining the tourism board. I think the government's decision to abolish this is most concerning. I do not know where the Minister for Tourism is—

Mr Gardner: That would explain the regular pair requests.

Ms CHAPMAN: That must be. Being the Minister for Tourism is not all about going along to fun activities such as football matches; you actually have to do something. You have to make sure that South Australia's regions do have the right infrastructure. I do not know whether he just missed the cabinet meeting when they made the decision on this or whether he thinks it is a good idea. If he does think it is a good idea, he needs to come into this house and explain to us why he thinks abolishing the tourism board and just lopping in the motorsport group is some advantage that is going to help the industry.

We keep hearing minister after minister, and even the Premier, talk about how critical this is to our state, and why you would just dismiss people who have experience, knowledge and expertise in this area is completely beyond me. I know that many people in the opposition are very concerned about this, and we certainly want some answers from the Minister for Tourism.

I am coming near the end. The South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act relates to a matter at Eight Mile Creek, I am told, so I do not have concerns about that. In relation to the State Lotteries Act, apparently we will still have a commissioner to oversee the scrutiny of the lottery industry. I am not sure what is left of it because the government has sold the big bits.

Mr Knoll: Did we take that to an election? I don't remember taking that to an election.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, so I am not sure what he or she is going to do as a commissioner, whether they are going to be in charge of the lotteries at the Burnside RSL Club or some raffle prizes for which we need to apply a licence. I do not know what they will be doing, but apparently we still have some lotteries that occur and therefore we need to have a commissioner to do it.

In regard to supported residential facilities, the advisory committee is to abolished. We are yet to see what happens with any other support there. One issue that is concerning to me is that we have community visitations through the community visitors program. Although local governments have the licensing arrangements for SRFs, many members in Adelaide will find that they have SRFs within their local area and their local council usually licenses and manages them, but it has been an area of tension between government and local government over a number of years as to who should really be taking responsibility because these are no longer single men's quarters, if I can put them as simply as that. They are, in fact, people with high levels of need, sometimes mental health and multiple needs, who require a lot of support, and I would like to know that the community visitor program is going to continue, whoever is going to be in charge of it.

The Urban Renewal Act will get rid of the Housing and Urban Development Industry Advisory Committee and I think there is a residential consultative committee. They have no members and probably should have gone when we dealt with the Urban Renewal Act last time we had it open, but that is just to cover that, and as shadow minister I have not been made aware of any complaints or concerns about that.

In relation to wilderness protection, for all the reasons I have said before, I think it is a mistake to wrap all these parks and wilderness areas into one and extinguish local content. That, to me, will not serve us well. There are a number of other boards and committees that have gone by regulation and they have already disappeared, so I will not be making any comment about those, but it is a long list.

There are some questions that we still have on a number of these. We will not be holding up the passage of this bill in this house. Obviously there are a number of concerns that I am sure members in this house will have about this bill, but we do need to have some answers before we are simply going to sign up to the passage of this bill, with or without amendment, in another place.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (17:08): I thank the member for Bragg for her comments. Instead of seeking to go through each of the boards, I would like to concentrate on two parts of the reform package—one that is part of these bills and one that is part of the wider reform process that the government has talked about. The first of those is the South Australian Tourism Commission board which the government is seeking to get rid of through this bill.

Firstly, I would like to highlight some of the good work that the SATC has done to date because it is quite extensive. For the uninitiated, the purpose of the SATC is to work with industry to jointly deliver marketing events, development programs that support tourism growth, and to help the government achieve its target of $8 billion in tourism expenditure in South Australia by 2020.

We have seen the mucking around of these figures and during estimates we did discuss whether or not this figure is ever going to get reached in light of previous targets, but that is okay. We will accept that and we will move on. The first real highlight achieved in the last 18 months by the SATC, especially with input from the board, is the Barossa. Be Consumed campaign.

On that score, I would like to commend the SATC and the work of the board on that campaign, and the good that it has done not only in bringing about a 16 per cent increase in tourism numbers to the Barossa over the past 12 months but also for the awards that it has won. I know that ad campaigns should not necessarily be judged on their awards, but every time one of these awards comes out it does reinforce the attention back on the Barossa and the Be Consumed campaign.

The ad won the Festival of Festivals Award for the world's best tourism film of 2014; the Cannes Corporate Media & TV Awards, grand prix and gold for best tourism marketing; the Berlin Golden City Gate tourism awards master award; the Warsaw Film, Art & Tourism Festival special award; the Riga Tourfilm Festival, first place in the category of commercial tourism; the International Festival of Tourism Films, Bulgaria, winner of the corporate film category; the Zagreb Tourfilm Festival, grand prix, best film and best director; the Baku International Tourism Film Festival, grand prix and best director. That list is extremely international and would certainly test anybody's European linguistic skills, but it goes to show how successful and internationally acclaimed is the work that the SATC has done here in South Australia.

Some other key achievements mentioned in their annual report talk about supporting the development of premium tourism experiences across the state. I do know that they have done some work in the Barossa around premium tourism experiences and it is something that we are very much taking on board in the Barossa and the Murraylands to try to attract those high-end visitors to South Australia, and the SATC has been very good in helping us to achieve that.

The SATC has also invested in tourism infrastructure critical to attracting high-yield travellers, and that has been fantastic, and has also continued to build partnerships and opportunities for South Australia's tourism operators, with Tourism Australia's Best of Programs, including the ultimate winery experience—if you want to experience that, please come to the Barossa—Indigenous tourism, great walks and golfing experiences. The SATC has long been lauded as a great organisation that has done much to help bring about investment and positive attitude towards our local tourism industry. Indeed, it is a hugely important industry, employing 18,000 people and has an annual expenditure of $5.2 billion, and is a significant contributor to South Australia.

I have had discussions with the minister on and off on a reasonably informal basis, and maybe I can give some answers to the member for Bragg. The minister stated to me in broad terms that the reason he wants to get rid of the SATC board is that 'other ministers don't have to report to boards, so why should I have to?' That was genuinely as nuanced an answer as I got: 'for instance, the Minister for Infrastructure doesn't have a board that he has to report to and the Minister for Minerals and Energy doesn't have a board he has to report to, so why should I?'

Can I say that there is something fundamentally different about the SATC board and about the tourism industry. First of all, it is an industry of 18,000 small operators from across the state, but those 18,000 small operators need to come together to collectively market South Australia to Australia and the world, and indeed even in South Australia, where we saw the government spend $130,000 advertising Adelaide to Adelaideans in February, a month before the election, during the busiest month of the year, but that is a separate issue.

This industry needs to come together to have a collective voice in order to market its experiences to the world, and the best way to do that is having an industry-led body, a body that has industry buy-in, to oversee that collective voice so that we get the best bang for our buck and the best return for our money. If government was to input into this role, as I do think government has a responsibility to do, it would come under the auspices of something we could call the South Australian Tourism Commission. If we genuinely wanted buy-in from the industry, we should have a board that helps to oversee that money so that they are actually able to make real decisions for the tourism industry and bring their collective real-world industry experience to bear on the more than $50 million worth of funding that the SATC administers.

Having said that, what the minister is seeking to do is to abolish this board and replace it with a voluntary advisory panel that will meet not monthly but every eight or 10 weeks. It will be a voluntary panel that advises the minister. This is something that the minister can ignore, if he or she so desires, and turn what is otherwise a board with strong oversight and power into something toothless like so many other government boards and committees that will probably be swept away in the next reform package when it comes up.

There has been a lot of support in my region for keeping the SATC board. The one comment I have had is that it would be good for it to have increased rural representation, and that is something I think the minister should take on board, but, certainly, the SATC has a lot of support for being kept in my region. The SATC board exists under the SATC Act and provides expert advice to the minister and chief executive. It meets monthly and enters into an annual performance agreement with the minister. It produces an annual report. From all our evidence, the board has consistently satisfied its agreed performance. There are no performance issues that we are dealing with of the current SATC board.

This board does cost $168,000 per year but, apart from what is otherwise a negligible saving (and I will come to why shortly), there is no other reason to abolish this board. At present, the board provides strategic direction for the tourism industry (and I think that is a hugely important role) with a reasonable degree of autonomy. Under the current structure, there is far less opportunity for political interference, and I think that is fantastic because it gives the tourism industry confidence that the money is being spent properly and appropriately for the best interests of the South Australian tourism industry, as opposed to government objectives.

The proposed model would see the minister and the chief executive gain complete control over the SATC, with no effective independent oversight. Basically, the minister would be able to get what he has told me he has always wanted, and that is complete and unfettered control over the more than $50 million worth of funds that the SATC administers.

If we travel around the country, we can look at experiences and ask, 'Is this the norm in the rest of the country?' No, Deputy Speaker. Apart from ACT, I understand, all other states have a tourism board reporting to the relevant minister. The South Australian tourism industry is worth, as I said before, $5.2 billion and they want to get to $8 billion by 2020. If we see a weakening of industry engagement within this very important sector, we will see us stray from being able to achieve this target. While the government may argue that portfolios of greater value have operated without a board, the tourism portfolio's objective is to deliver products and services, those services to be delivered by the 18,000 diverse operators. Those operators need to be engaged in the process, and a toothless voluntary advisory panel is simply not going to be able to do that.

In the minister's push to get rid of the board, he cited, in an open letter, the support of the chair of the South Australian branch of the Australian Tourism Export Council, Mr Paul Brown, who, he says in the letter, 'was included in this process and is supportive of the government decision'. It says that, 'Mr Brown has accepted a position on the new industry panel', along with other organisations, basically saying that Paul Brown from ATEC is on board with the process. We have received an open letter to all South Australian MPs from ATEC in which ATEC and Paul Brown, the chair, say the following:

We are writing to you as an industry organisation that is highly troubled by government decisions that will negatively affect the future prosperity of tourism in South Australia. The South Australian government has recognised the significant contribution in its Tourism Plan 2020 and identifies tourism as a key driver of the South Australian economy.

With this in mind, we believe the Weatherill government has made the wrong decision in disbanding the advisory board to its tourism marketing organisation, the SATC. The SATC consists of skills-based positions from a range of areas, including industry and non-industry experts. This board has been responsible for building the current tourism strategy to take the industry through to 2020. We are highly concerned that this decision will take responsibility away from a skilled and independent board and deliver full oversight to the tourism minister.

That does not sound like a ringing endorsement of the government's strategy in regard to the SATC board. In fact, I would contend that it is fairly well the opposite, and I think the minister has it absolutely and completely wrong.

The minister could argue that this is an isolated case but, unfortunately, I do not think it is. I refer to comments made by the president of the AHA who, I understand, had a successful lunch today. The president of the AHA, Peter Hurley, said the following in his president's report. He states:

The idea is a result of Premier Jay Weatherill promising to scrap all government boards and committees unless they can make a compelling argument for their continued existence. There are some 440 such structures. No doubt there would be waste and duplication in many such committees and boards. However, very few oversee a $50 million budget. An independent board provides a clear separation from government and the right balance between the political element inherent in government and the focused objective view that only a board can bring to the commerciality and complexity of the tourism industry.

That again does not seem like a ringing endorsement. I go on then to read a letter from Margie Osmond of the Tourism and Transport Forum. Her letter to members states the following:

The decision to abolish the SATC board threatens to stall the momentum of increasing the tourism industry and with it the economic growth and jobs that a strong tourism industry brings. TTF has long supported the presence of an independent commercially oriented and expert board to oversee the strategic direction of the SATC and we strongly oppose any proposal to abolish it. For a relatively small amount of money the state is able to leverage the expertise of some of the industry's most recognised contributors. We also believe there are questions around whether or not it is appropriate to force the SATC board to merge with other agencies or facilities that in fact may be competitors.

So, Margie Osmond and the Tourism and Transport Forum certainly do not support the government's position on this. That is in addition to the many voices that I have heard locally on this issue. I would like to think that maybe the minister needs to get out there and open his ears, genuinely for once, to understand what the industry is saying about this issue.

The minister has form on this in not wanting to hear independent voices, not wanting to hear dissenting voices to his otherwise august and wise counsel and wise decision-making, and that comes in the form of his disagreements with the South Australian Tourism Industry Council. In particular, SATIC has had much of its funding cut this year, and there has been some discussion about why. We did tease out some of this in estimates, and minister Bignell did try to give us some of the reasons. However, it is becoming more and more clear that SATIC's voice of criticism about the South Australian government is one of the reasons why its funding has been pulled back. We have a minister who does not want scrutiny, does not want dissenting voices, does not want to hear anybody's opinion but his own. To that end, SATIC, which has been quite vocal about this, said in relation to comments by the minister:

The board was surprised at the insinuation that the future funding of the South Australian Tourism Industry Council was dependent on the tenure of their CEO.

The idea is that, if Ward Tilbrook stays, the money goes. Can I say that it is absolutely disgraceful of the minister who has form on this issue. The longer we go on with this process the more apparent it becomes to members of the opposition that this is a man who merely seeks to hear no voices other than those who say yes and applause when he dares to speak.

In the bill that we are discussing there is a section to remove division 2, section 6(2) of the South Australian Tourism Commission Act 1993. The section that I think the minister really would love to get rid of provides:

Anything done by the board in the administration of the Commission's affairs is binding on the Commission.

The idea is: how dare someone other than the minister himself actually have responsibility for something, that somebody else's voice could dare have wisdom, courage and strong direction, other than his own? And this is the part about which I really think he grinds his teeth, the part that he would really love to get rid of.

On this side of the house that is not something we accept. On this side of the house we do believe in industry buy-in in a real and genuine way. On this side of the house we understand that, if you want an industry to commit, buy-in and work with a strategy that the government sets down, you need to give it real powers in order to have influence over that strategy, and everything that the minister is seeking to do, with the abolition of the board, is in countenance to that fact.

I would like to move on to a second set of committees that will be subject to reform under this process—the hospital advisory councils. I will not go back over old ground and discuss hospital boards and their diminution and the powers that were taken away from very well-meaning, dedicated, local volunteers who gave of themselves to try to improve local health services in their area. We will leave that aside for the moment.

I actually sit on one of my hospital advisory councils, and I think at the time they thought it was quite novel. The local member gets a representative on the HAC and when they asked who I wanted my representative to be, I said, 'I'll do it. I'll do it because I think it's a great forum to get involved with, and also it may be one further step in the process to seeing a fantastic new health facility in the Barossa.'

I would like to commend the presiding member of the Barossa and Districts HAC, Kimberley Casey, who is a senior nurse at Angaston Hospital. She is a woman who takes so much of her own time to give back to her industry in a voluntary capacity. She cares, she is committed, she is diligent in running the organisation and she has no ulterior motive. She is there merely to try to get better outcomes for health services in the Barossa, and for that, I commend her.

My HAC was very concerned about being part of this process. We have been reclassified. We are not a hundred per cent sure what that means. We understand that it may just remove some of the reporting requirements to give annual reports to the parliament, but that has not been made clear in any formal way.

I really want to put something on the record in my last couple of minutes, and that is this. The main concerns that my HAC has, that I have and, I am sure, that other HACs have, are around the money that we administer. This is money that has been hard earned by my community. This is money that has been fundraised, bequeathed and given to the HAC and most of it has been given in the hope—and maybe it is a vain hope, but I am certainly young and optimistic enough to think that that hope is genuine—that one day we will get a new health facility in the Barossa.

The Barossa stands ready to commit many hundreds of thousands of dollars—in fact, millions of dollars—towards a new health facility. The community itself will buy in and give of its own funds to the construction of a new facility, and my message to the minister is this: do not touch it. If there is any move through this HAC process to get at the funds that my community has worked hard to painstakingly raise, the minister will have a fight on his hands the likes of which he has not seen. The level of feeling and the level of angst in the community over this issue cannot be overstated.

Indeed, I had a conversation with a woman whose relative has passed away and who is in the process of donating a significant sum of money to the HAC. Her major and only concern was that she did not want to see the money taken away. He wanted to make sure that the money he had accumulated over his lifetime, which he was willing to bequeath to the HAC on his passing, was going towards that health facility the Barossa community has waited for for so long. I have put that message on Hansard. I have given that message very clearly to the minister, and we will wait with earnest anticipation to hear his response.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:28): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees—Abolition and Reform) Bill on behalf of the people of Stuart. I will just touch on a few issues because our deputy leader (member for Bragg) has gone into good detail with great clarity in regard to the arguments the opposition will put for keeping some of the boards that the government would like to do away with—boards we think it would be important to keep. It has also been a pleasure to listen to the member for Schubert and to hear him speak so well on behalf of his community in the Barossa Valley.

Let me just start by saying that I think there is merit in what the government wants to do in terms of getting rid of some of these government boards and committees. From an opposition perspective, we are not philosophically opposed to that at all. We agree, in fact, that there is significant waste that could be reined in and there is significant efficiency that could be gained by much of what the government wants to do. I think that is a very positive step, but to say, as the Premier did, that he intended to get rid of all of them unless the relevant ministers could make a case to him for keeping them, I think, is fairly short-sighted.

Yes, by all means pursue the efficiencies, and I do not know whether it is one-quarter, one-half or three-quarters that should disappear, but certainly the principle of improving government, saving money and having a far more efficient system and, quite likely, taking a lot of red tape out of the system is very good, but to say, 'They all go unless I can be convinced otherwise,' is probably going a bit too far. That is why there are only 105 or so which are going to go out of the 430-odd boards that actually exist because I think, between making that announcement and talking with staff, agencies, ministers, departments, the Premier realised that was probably a bit far-fetched, the reach that he hopes to have to begin with.

Another thing that needs to be considered in this argument, in addition to efficiency and savings, is the need to make sure that people do still get to have a voice and that the government does still get good positive general feedback, whether it be from a highly paid board full of experts as exists quite regularly in metropolitan Adelaide. I support that principle. They might be highly paid compared to the average wage but in many ways the advice that is given is almost priceless to the government, so there are times where that is money that is very well spent, not necessarily every single time but certainly there are times where that money is well spent.

It is also important to give people a voice in regional areas. It is not as easy for a regional person to communicate with the government or with a government department as it is for a city person. Of course, telephones work wherever you are and emails work wherever you are, but if you do have something good to contribute and you pick up the phone or you send an email and the person at the other end says, 'That's great. We would welcome your contribution and your feedback,' as I hope the government would do quite regularly, 'come in and have a chat to us,' that is when it starts to get more difficult

To actually feed the valuable information that rural communities have into government processes and government decisions requires a little bit more organisation and often requires regional meetings, and there are a quite a few organisations that contribute very positively. If their group, their organisation, their board or their committee was disbanded there would not be that structure for them to come together to contribute the value that they do have to contribute. So, I would caution the government on assuming that one size fits all or one assessment process will suit every board or committee that already exists. There is certainly great value in regional people coming together to discuss issues and to put together a united representative voice, which then can be sent down to Adelaide, and I would object to removing that.

The deputy leader mentioned the boards and committees about which the opposition intends to put forward amendments to this bill, but I will just talk on two of them specifically that are very relevant. They are not the only ones but probably most relevant to my electorate. One area is health and the health advisory councils, and the member for Bragg talked about the history of that. I became a candidate for the electorate of Stuart in May 2008, nearly two years (22-odd months) out from the 2010 election. That was at the height of the rural community's furore across South Australia at what the government wanted to do to country health. Former minister for health, minister Hill, was front and centre in that. He was leading the charge on behalf of the government. I can tell you that it is burned into my brain and will be forever, for as long as I work as a member of parliament, how critically important and how highly valued country hospitals are. It has been a real victory for country people in that the government did not get to do nearly as much as it announced it wanted to do, but we have lost a lot as well.

One of the things that was a real slap in the face to rural communities all across South Australia was the removal of hospital boards. Hospital boards were not perfect and, if I had my way I would have looked to improve them, but to remove them was completely wrong and to replace them with health advisory councils was a big mistake—and keep in mind it is not about the name. Who cares what you call it? That does not really matter. What went with that replacement was a significant amount of local capacity to contribute genuinely to real decisions that were happening in the health space in regional South Australia. I am not talking about specific medical decisions; of course, you leave those to the health professionals.

The people who represented their communities on the hospital boards were doing so as a conduit, essentially, between the medical professionals and the community, and that conduit has been taken away by the introduction of the HACs. It is very hard to get good, capable and responsible people to even want to be on HACs these days because they are a bit fed up with the process. They just think they are going along, paid a bit of lip service, but they have not really got the capacity to contribute genuinely. It is still a centralised process. They say what they think should be said, they suggest what they think should be suggested, and then they get a message back from Adelaide that Adelaide is going to do to country health what Adelaide thinks should happen regardless.

I am privileged, as are other country members of parliament, to be able to nominate people to be on HACs. I thank enormously the people who do that, but I can tell you it is not even possible to get people who want to do that in every part of my electorate, let alone every part of the state, because that decision-making authority has been taken away.

The Minister for Health has said that HACs will remain which is a lot better than nothing. I thank him for that decision, but I am concerned by something which was in the letter from the Minister for Health to HAC presiding members which was they would remain but they would no longer be government boards. I do not know what that means and I offer the Minister for Health the opportunity to answer that question and, if he is not able to do so for one reason or another, I am more than happy to take that up at the committee stage of the bill.

What does that mean, that they will remain but they will not be government boards anymore? Does that mean that they have to book their own meetings, buy their own tea and coffee? I mean, these are volunteer groups, they are not paid people. Does that mean that they are completely outside the health system now and essentially they can organise themselves any way they like? I do not know and I seek an answer on that.

I am also firm on the retention of the Health Performance Council, as are my colleagues, because that is a very important council, in my opinion, because it brings together an overview as the name suggests of health performance. It gets to point out some things, not in a political way, far from it, but it gets to point out some things that link to the community. Perhaps if you are working deep inside the health system—and we can all understand that when you work deep inside a system sometimes you do not see the wood for the trees. The recommendations of the Health Performance Council and their observations have been very useful in the last few years. They are not scathing attacks of the government or anything like that, but they are very useful observations, so I think it is very important the Health Performance Council stays.

Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the Pastoral Board and, as you would know, I have spoken perhaps a month or so ago, maybe six weeks ago, in parliament about my very strong views about the fact that the Pastoral Board should not be removed. It is one of the boards on the list that the government has said it will remove, and I will fight very hard with my colleagues to prevent that from happening.

The Pastoral Board is not perfect; in fact, my criticism of the Pastoral Board in this place and in broader discussions is that, over the past several years, it has not actually used the authority that it has. I have been very frustrated that, when it has come to fencing issues, it has not used the authority that it has to actively resolve disputes between neighbours. When it comes to issues regarding wool-shedding sheep not staying on properties, or the issue of wild dog eradication, the Pastoral Board, in my opinion, has not contributed enough to those debates. That is not to say that it has not done anything, but I believe it should have done more, and should continue to do more towards those problems for the benefit of all pastoralists.

It is a difficult situation. You get a small group of pastoralists who have an issue that needs to be resolved, and the Pastoral Board has to take the side of what is best for all pastoralists. It is not about figuring out who your best friend is on which side of the fence; it has nothing to do with that at all. While I have at times been disappointed in the Pastoral Board in that way, I do think it should stay because to remove it and replace it with nothing is completely unacceptable. There are very real, very genuine issues with regard to the oversight of pastoral leases across the arid parts of South Australia which must continue.

I have had very productive and cordial discussions with minister Hunter from the other place on this topic, and I thank him for that. I do not get the sense that he is trying to take over the Pastoral Board, or the pastoral world, or anything like that. Minister Hunter has met with me on a couple of occasions and we have had other chats in the corridors. He has discussed this issue with some pastoralist constituents of mine, and he has invited me to bring a very small representative group of pastoralists to come to talk with him on another occasion as well, and I put on record my thanks to him for that.

It is also very clearly on record that I oppose the takeover of the Pastoral Board's current responsibilities by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, because the Pastoral Board is not just there to only look after the land. That is an absolutely critical, super high priority that I support entirely, but it is actually about trying to determine how best to support pastoral lessees in their primary production and small business capacity to use the pastoral land responsibly.

It is not about doing everything necessary to protect the pastoral land, and then if there is any capacity left over for people to make a living in the pastoral industry, then that is okay. In my view, it is actually the other way around: it is actually about how we can give pastoralists the greatest capacity and the most opportunity to run their small businesses on pastoral land and at the same time require of them that they manage that land responsibly.

If we did not have pastoralists in the pastoral areas of the arid lands of South Australia, they would very quickly become an environmental nightmare. They would become an environmental nightmare were it not for the good work that the vast, overwhelming majority of the pastoralists do to look after that land. I will continue to work with minister Hunter, my colleagues and pastoralists in Stuart and other parts of the state to try to come up with a good alternate solution—a way of improving what happens at the moment but, until there is one, I will vehemently oppose the removal of the Pastoral Board.

I would like to give some credit to Livestock SA for contributing to this debate in a responsible fashion. They held a meeting at Marree a month or so ago, but I was not able to get there as it was a parliamentary sitting day. They are holding another meeting in Port Augusta this Friday, which I will be able to get to for the last part of that meeting. They are trying to contribute solutions and suggestions to the best way to move forward from this. They are not trying to be stick in the mud type people and say 'No, forget it, no changes. We refuse to improve.' They are saying, 'Look, what is the best way to go forward?'

It is important also to say that Livestock SA, and specifically their northern region which is headed up by Colin Greenfield who is a pastoralist for whom I have very high regard, do not represent all pastoralists. It is important to put that on the record too. There are many pastoralists who are not members of Livestock SA, but good on Livestock SA, as the grazing arm of Primary Producers SA, for trying to be really positive and contribute to this debate.

I look forward to the opportunity to consult with my constituents and other pastoralists around the state to get their knowledge and expertise, because remember, of course, I am not a pastoralist. I suspect I know a lot more about it than any other member of parliament, but I do not know nearly as much about it as the people who have spent their whole lives living and working on sheep and cattle stations, so I take their counsel extremely seriously.

I look forward to consulting with those pastoralists and coming back to minister Hunter, presumably when parliament resumes after Christmas, with a positive, genuine, productive suggestion with regard to what we should do for everybody's benefit to improve the work that the Pastoral Board already does. Until some solution like that can be agreed to I will certainly oppose the removal of the Pastoral Board.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:46): I too rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees—Abolition and Reform) Bill. The member for Stuart, as he said, has followed the Pastoral Board with keen interest for a long time—I think since we came into the parliament together. He has had a keen interest from day one and his commitment to that does give him knowledge. He meets with the proponents of the Pastoral Board and he is there because his electorate is reliant on good information being fed back, whether or not it is from the Pastoral Board.

It will be determined whether the Pastoral Board has a future, and I think it is one of the boards which particularly has experience under its belt. It has members who live it and breathe it and who have had generations of that knowledge passed down. They really are important for the future direction of the pastoral country, because it is not easy country; it is almost undefined country.

It is open country that is out in the arid lands and, as was previously stated, if those people were not there, the government could just come in and lock the gate. They could just come in as they have done with a lot of the conservation parks and some of the national parks where they only have a certain amount of funding to look after. They only have a certain amount of resources to manage large parcels of land. In some cases they lock the gate and walk away and the result is more and more feral animal pressure, more pest weed pressure, and less presence, less knowledge, and fewer people there managing the land, so that is one of the issues.

When the Premier announced the review of all South Australian government boards and committees, he stated that the boards and committees needed to justify their existence and that they would be abolished unless they could demonstrate that they have an essential purpose that cannot be fulfilled in an alternative way. I totally agree with the Premier that we do not need duplication. We do not need mouthpieces that achieve nothing. We do not need boards that cost the taxpayer and really do not set the wheels in motion, so he has put a lot these boards and committees on notice.

There is another agenda as well, and that is that some of these boards and committees have been outspoken. They have been the squeaky wheel, they have been there for the benefit of their industry, their group or their representative body, and they are there with the knowledge and the know-how of the needs of these industries. I feel that more of them need to be retained than be abolished. Of the 429 boards, 90 were retained, 107 were abolished, 17 were merged, 72 fell under another reform, 120 were reclassified and 33 are still in consideration. This will reportedly save about $5½ million over the forward estimates.

I guess what we have to do is look at it and say, 'What are our priorities?' We are going to get some savings and I think that is good. Any business, any model or any government has to look for savings and efficiency gains, but what is the balance? What are they going to lose and is there any benefit of the boards that are going to be abolished? Perhaps not, but in many instances the boards have been vital in progress, particularly if you look at research and development in agriculture. A lot of the boards and committees that have been a part of that R&D for many years have been defunded out of existence and they are long gone. We hear the Premier and many of the ministers saying that we want to be part of the future and we want to be state of the art, yet in many instances there is nothing backing up how we are going to be part of the future when we are relying on R&D.

Some of the countries that are R&D driven, particularly the Scandinavian countries and Germany, are the R&D capitals of the world. They produce the latest and greatest technology. They enable other countries to come in and purchase that technology and then go out and mass produce it elsewhere. They make the world a better place, and that is what South Australia wants. We want to be part of that R&D economy, but we are at risk of losing that R&D drive and those R&D funding processes. In most cases it is led by committees or driven by boards to put advice forward to government and bureaucrats as to where they can best spend their money and get the most bang for their buck.

One thing that was strikingly clear through the review was that South Australia, as I said, had too many boards and committees, and for too long they basically went unchecked and unexamined. In some cases, we have had boards advising other boards and so on, and I think that is crazy. It is remarkable that it has taken some 12 years to realise that we have boards advising boards, wasting a lot of money in duplication. In a lot of cases they have created an existence for their own wellbeing; that is, they create rules and regulations, and advise for their own existence. I think that is really unhealthy.

I will touch on the Pastoral Board. As the member for Stuart said, we need to keep that experience. We cannot afford to lose that experience, because it is a generational thing, particularly in pastoral country. We do not just get people or green fingers who come in and manage pastoral country. Normally it is passed down through the generations, and that experience is vital, because it is a tough game. It is an arid landscape and it is very, very hard to survive. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau.