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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 March 2015.)

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:41): I rise today to make a contribution to this important bill and to note some concerns with the overall process. The announcement of the streamlining process, which included a widespread review of all state government boards and committees, created much angst amongst community committees and boards in my electorate. However, I believe it is important to decrease the layers of bureaucracy and red tape that currently exist in this state government.

In July 2014, the Premier announced a review of boards and committees of the South Australian government and the Premier stated that the boards and committees would need to justify their existence and that those boards and committees that could not would be abolished. In September, it was announced that of the 429 boards and committees, 90 would be retained, 107 would be abolished, 17 would be merged and 62 were subject to further review. This bill abolishes or merges 56 boards and committees, including abolishing 28, merging eight and simplifying 20.

I do not have a problem with getting rid of bureaucracy, streamlining boards and committees, getting rid of red tape and putting to one side boards that are defunct or dysfunctional. However, there are a number of boards that are going to be abolished that play important roles, and I want to make a contribution in support of those, including the South Australian Horse Industry Advisory Group, which is to be abolished. Dr Holly Lewis, an equine veterinarian, submitted a letter stating that South Australia has a large and active equine industry and a proud history of equestrian achievements in an industry that is far too important not to have a direct advisory role to government.

Sandra Hale, a member of SA Thoroughbred Breeders, submitted a letter stating that the advisory group gives a range of diverse horse groups a single voice to communicate with PIRSA and the government regarding numerous horse industry related issues and to assist with the control of exotic diseases that can be brought into Australia. This is the only group that brings all horse industry groups together, and she says that it would be detrimental for the industry group if it were disbanded. I think that really does explain the importance of particularly that board.

The Genetically Modified Crop Advisory Committee has been re-formed with a simplified important process which is to transfer the power from the Governor to the minister. The Genetically Modified Crop Advisory Committee provides advice to the minister on the issues and risks of genetically modified crops to markets and trade.

In 2004, South Australia enacted legislation, the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004, to regulate the cultivation of GM food crops in South Australia. We note that the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designation of Areas) Regulations 2004 established that currently the whole of South Australia is designated as an area in which no GM food crops may be cultivated.

The act established the GM Crop Advisory Committee to undertake functions assigned to it by the act or the minister to whom administration of the act is committed. The advisory committee consists of between nine and 11 members appointed by the Governor, and at least two members must be women and at least two members must be men. Why does the minister need advice when he is clearly anti GM? Would it not be better to maintain some independence with the Governor appointing that committee? Again, it is a government that is hell-bent on centralisation and hell-bent on not having anyone who opposes their view or their say. I think it really is a sad day when we lose that independence.

The regional communities consultative council has been abolished. They argued that they were a conduit between grassroots people and government. I question whether we are further losing our regional voice by scrapping these types of committees and, again, it has a taint of centralisation. It clearly is that dysfunctional between government and real grassroots regional communities.

The wine industry council was abolished last month and a committee on phylloxera was also abolished. I understand the phylloxera committee was an advisory committee to the phylloxera board, so I do not think we needed that duplication. The wine industry is a huge economic driver in South Australia, and for the minister and the Premier to abolish such an important industry committee I think is quite foolish. Let's not beat around the bush: we do have an ailing wine industry at the moment. The wine industry is very important, but we know that, particularly in my electorate in the Riverland, wine grape growers are returning much less than the cost of production.

At the moment, the focus of government is on producing a commodity and underpinning a bottom line for their economic boasting rights, but what we are not doing and what we are not seeing is a link between advisory boards, the grower and the marketing arm. I think the marketing arm is probably one of the most important parts of the wine industry that is sadly lacking at the moment. I think the support is not there, and I think we will read a lot more in coming weeks and months about how the wine industry is needing support. Particularly, we need to sell our product, rather than be so focused on growing a product that we cannot sell.

The rock lobster fishery advisory committee and the fisheries council have both been abolished. It is a pity that the minister has only just left the chamber because I think all these boards and committees that are being abolished are very important conduits between the grassroots, what is happening in a sector, and government, and how we can better market our product, how we can better use R&D to further the establishment of bigger markets, better product and putting the right product on the table.

The chair of the committee, Richard Stevens, said that it was critical to continue its role to provide sound, independent advice. We hear those words again, 'independent advice'. I am sure that the minister likes to hear the tone of his own voice when giving himself recommendations and advice. It is a relevant issue of importance to South Australia's rock lobster fishery. The annual funding of $40,000 for the operation of the committee is cost recovered from the industry. It is an annual licence fee, so no government funding is required.

Mr Stevens said that, without the mechanism of consultation provided through the committee, many of these issues would take an enormous amount of time in negotiations not only with the commercial fishing sector but across all fishing sectors, with consequent adverse resourcing implications for both industry and government. Since the announcement that this was to be abolished, the industry has said that it will now have to try to re-establish a fisheries management advisory committee under its own steam. Mr Stevens said that members of this committee are extremely disappointed with the outcome and the attitude of the government.

I certainly support, as I have said, the streamlining of the bureaucracy, but many of these boards and committees do play an important role, particularly with communities, and contribute to government decision-making with those communities and the impact that those sectors have when government makes decisions or policy adjustments. The boards and committees play an important role in providing leadership, direction and accountability across every area, particularly within the government's activity. Some of the boards provide policy advice to government while others oversee trading enterprise. There are a number of professional registration boards where, I think, the government is almost looking a gift horse in the mouth.

In August, Premier Weatherill listed tourism as one of South Australia's top economic priorities. The industry lobby group Tourism and Transport Forum said that abolishing the SATC Board would make South Australia the only state without such a body. The South Australian Regional Tourism Chairs' Forum, which includes regional tourism organisations in the Hills, the Fleurieu, Kangaroo Island, the Barossa, the Yorke Peninsula, the Flinders, the outback, the South-East, the Riverland and Murraylands—very important—put forward submissions calling on the state government to retain the South Australian Tourism Commission Board and stated that it is essential that the board is independent and contains regional representation.

In listening to the minister's contribution last week, I note that he pointed out several times the industry panel he is about to set up, which he will be part of. So, again, the minister will be accountable to himself, giving advice to himself and putting recommendations of his own to himself. The issue that I think was very clear in his contribution to this was that the lines of communication were lacking. The minister and the board are both acting in isolation.

It was very clear, particularly when tourism were developing a brand. Why would the minister have one idea of having his own brand and tourism have an idea of having their own brand? Again, I think it is blatantly obvious that there was a lack of communication. Whether there were egos involved or whether there was a lack of preparedness to sit down and listen to one another is something that is by the by but, again, I think it just shows you where the breakdown was in accounting for how important Tourism SA is.

I think what we have seen, particularly with tourism, is clear. The minister wrote to the industry stakeholders stating that the board is to be replaced with this panel. I will just touch on the panel. The panel was all about the tourism industry with a strong voice on decisions. I think that is what the Tourism Commission is offering at the moment. I just think that there has been that communication breakdown.

The minister said that the estimated saving of around $200,000 a year from this move will be spent on marketing in South Australia. Well, minister, you were talking about growing an industry from $5.8 billion to $8 billion by 2020. I think you really need to acknowledge the importance of a tourism board. You need to be connected with regional tourism bodies and you need to be connected with all of the inputs to making the right decisions on things such as branding. We all know that tourism in South Australia is becoming more and more important to the bottom line of the state's economy.

A panel of industry tourism stakeholders will include the Airport, Education Adelaide, two regional representatives—two! Why only two representatives from regional tourism? I think the state needs to be represented by a majority of regional tourism panels so that we can get a good overall picture of just exactly where the state is heading and where we need a contribution.

We do not just need populist marketing campaigns in a couple of regional centres: we need populist campaigns in all regional centres because all of regional South Australia is an important mechanism. It is an important, if you like, cog within tourism here. It is not just about promoting Adelaide as a tourism hotspot. It is about complementing all of the regions to Adelaide, because let's face it, Adelaide is the hub that people come to and then go off on their holidays and their destinations. It is all about internal tourism as well. It is not just about bringing tourists from overseas: it is about states visiting their neighbouring states. I think South Australia has a huge void to fill in attracting interstate tourists, because it is one of the great destinations in this country.

The Pastoral Board was established in the late 1800s to help implement the land management act and it served as a mediator between pastoralists, bureaucrats and government. It is an independent body dealing with the concerns of pastoralists and is earmarked to be scrapped. Livestock SA said the Pastoral Board had been around for too long to abolish and has served the community really well. Board members raised concerns as to who would undertake pastoral lease assessments. I know the member for Stuart has a long history with the Pastoral Board and he has stated in many contributions in this house how important the Pastoral Board is, as it is to my electorate of Chaffey. We have a number of pastoral areas that need representation. They need an independent voice to government, and I think the Pastoral Board is another one.

The state government suggested merging HACs in my electorate of Chaffey, and the overwhelming feedback was, 'No; merging HACs is a no-go zone.' Country hospitals are the fabric of those communities. Those communities rely on the HAC to give them that feedback. The community give the HACs the feedback that Country Health needs for those decisions then to be passed on to the minister. In a submission to the review, the Loxton-Waikerie district council described the Waikerie HAC as an essential purpose that cannot be met through other means. In other words, 'Keep your hands off, minister.' HACs within Loxton and Waikerie are very important, as they are in Barmera, Berri, Renmark, Paringa, the Mallee. It is very important for those communities to have ownership.

The Mallee HAC made a submission, and they have made it very clear that they do not want any of their HACs amalgamated. I am glad to see common sense prevail and the HAC boards were retained as they are. I think those HACs are on notice that they have to remain relevant. They have to remain an important part of giving information to Country Health SA who then in turn will make decisions upon the minister's agreement. It is very important that country health still has its own identity.

Going through the list, I came across a number of other submissions, including abolishing the River Murray Sustainability Program Steering Committee. Rob Kerin is the chair. He gives great advice to the state government—a former premier who I think is highly regarded with advice to any level of government. He is a real people person and he really does have his ear to the ground at any stage of the day or night and always gives good feedback. Looking at the Riverland NRM group and the Mallee and Coorong NRM groups, they play an important role that cannot be ignored. I think that, again, communities are part of those boards as is industry and I think they should be retained.

In conclusion, I believe it is important to reduce the high levels of bureaucracy currently within government in South Australia, so therefore I support the streamlining of boards and committees. Feedback from the community and industry in regard to all the boards that I have mentioned is critically important. Those boards, particularly tourism, the Pastoral Board, the fishing industry, a lot of economic drivers that need that grassroots advice independent to government, I think need to be acknowledged and retained. I think it is important that the state government listens to these industry groups and professionals in these particular fields and makes the decisions that are in the best interests of these people's groups and in the best interests of South Australia.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (16:00): I rise today as well to contribute to the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees—Abolition and Reform) Bill and I concur with members before me and the things they have said, including the member for Chaffey. As he pointed out, the Premier said there was a need to 'justify your existence or be abolished' when he looked at over 400 boards and committees that were laid on the table in front of him, and he asked those boards and committees to justify their existence.

I wrote to a number of those people. I will talk a little bit later about the lack of response that I got and some blocking that came from the government to prevent me getting a bit of an understanding of some of the boards and committees in my shadow portfolio areas. As far as government boards and committees are concerned, they do play an important role in providing leadership, direction and accountability across many areas of government activity. Boards and committees represent a vital link between community needs and government delivery of services. While I am a firm believer in cutting red tape to make dealing with government easier, I do not believe taking all boards and committees away is ideal either.

So there are concerns. While I am all for removal of red tape and excessive bureaucracy, as well as any responsible measure to get the state's debt back under control, I am concerned about the potential loss of independent government scrutiny. This will give more power to ministers if all these boards and committees are taken away, and also to department chief executives. It has the potential for great concern.

I also note that some of the boards saved from the axe by the Premier—because he has outlined his list—include boards and committees that have recently had former Labor MPs appointed to them. Coincidentally, I know that Kevin Foley, Grace Portolesi, Karlene Maywald and Jane Lomax-Smith have all received positions. Many might suggest this is jobs for the boys or girls, as the case may be. I do not want to believe that but with the evidence before me it is hard not to feel that way.

Some of the boards that we do not want to see removed are the South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC) Board, the Pastoral Board, animal welfare committee and the Health Performance Council. I know colleagues before me have spoken about those boards, and we do not believe they should be removed.

As well as the list the Premier has axed, he has a hit list of 'subject to further investigation' and a list of 'reclassified', and that is where a little of my concern kicks in. I would like to make a couple of points about the Motor Accident Commission. It is interesting to read the submission put forward by Roger Cook, the chairman of the Motor Accident Commission. They talked about some of the highlights they have had over their time since coming into operation. There is a concern that, with the Treasurer putting the Motor Accident Commission on the table, some advantages may be lost to the state, which is a little bit worrying as far as removing boards and committees is concerned.

Since taking over the government's road safety communications program, MAC has helped contribute to SA's annual road toll reducing from 124 in 2007. They have developed and implemented an award-winning road safety communications program to raise awareness and change attitudes and behaviour of road users, and they have developed close relationships with key road safety stakeholders, including SAPOL, the RAA, the SAMFS and the CFS to facilitate a more coordinated approach to safety initiatives in SA.

They have established a number of sponsorships and community partnerships to raise road safety awareness and influence road user behaviour. These are some of the important points that have come out. They have also provided sound financial and investment management of the CTP fund, resulting in a new asset position of $1.24 billion and a funding ratio of 154 per cent, and they achieved a record operating result of $271 million in 2012-13, which will be superseded in 2013-14, which was estimated at the time as being $481.3 million.

They are fantastic figures, and you can see why the Treasurer wants to get his hands on the Motor Accident Commission to take that money out of there. We know he has already spent half a billion dollars, and he is looking to access more funds from the Motor Accident Commission to prop up his flailing budget.

The Motor Accident Commission has done a good job initiating and providing strategic advice and support to the state government in the introduction of the CTP scheme reforms, including the implementation of legislative changes. On strategic business outcomes, the Motor Accident Commission has improved social and health outcomes for South Australian road users through the effective management of the CTP scheme, and mitigated risk to the state government through financially responsible management of the CTP scheme, ensuring the government was not exposed to unfunded liabilities and is in a position to access a significant surplus likely to be in excess of $1 billion.

I know the government finds this too good to be true because they cannot run a budget that has in excess of $1 billion. They would be dying for that sort of figure and, again, I stress that is why the Treasurer wants to get his hands on this, to try to prop up his own flailing budget for the state. This government does not understand effective financial management. In fact, last year, in 2013-14, they ran a $1.3 billion deficit and $300 million of that was unbudgeted expenditure. It just goes on, and it is quite shameful.

If we look at the new RAH, there are $620 million in costs blowout, and in relation to the Gawler electrification line we know that nearly $50 million there has been written off by the Auditor-General—just another sign of how this government struggles to manage its finances. I mentioned before the sponsorships. The MAC also has supported the accident and emergency response teams through the provision of funding and sponsorship of the state rescue helicopter, hospitals and SA Ambulance services, and we know that is greatly appreciated and does help contribute to the welfare of South Australia in those areas.

I mentioned before some of the other sponsorship roles. They are a significant player in Schoolies Week, in keeping our kids safe when they go down to Victor Harbor, as a lot of teenagers do when they finish school. They put on a wonderful festival down there and the Motor Accident Commission funds are greatly appreciated by the people who put on Schoolies Week and, also, the students who are finishing up at high school.

Personally, I know the Motor Accident Commission has a very good strategy for country football. For that matter, they fund a lot of country sport and they use that arm in the regions to help push their message and sell their message of road safety, which is absolutely outstanding.

It was interesting to read that a couple of groups have made comments about maintaining MAC, and the RAA is concerned that the government's tactic of closing down MAC will have negative outcomes for South Australia. I note the Australian Lawyers Alliance says that the South Australian government should not be raiding MAC funds to prop up its budget. There are others who agree with me about the mismanagement of this budget. It is very concerning.

I mentioned that one and, while it is not directly being removed, it is potentially on the hit list, and the Treasurer is doing all he can to rip all the funds out of there. We are well aware of that. He wants to close that down and, as I said, put the money back into state government coffers. But, in doing so, they want to reclassify the Motor Accident Commission board and also reclassify the Claims Management Committee, the Investment Committee, the Road Safety and Sponsorship Committee and the Board Risk Finance and Audit Committee. As part of that, that also incorporates the Third Party Premiums Committee.

As I said at the start of my speech, I wrote to a number of the key players in areas attributed to my shadow portfolios of transport and road safety, and I was very pleased to get a response from the presiding officer of the Third Party Premiums Committee who, again, had some concerns. She forwarded me the correspondence that she had sent through to the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis (Treasurer) outlining her concerns with some of the issues and the good things that are done by the Third Party Premiums Committee.

This committee, which they are looking to close down, cost the state $464 in the last financial year to get community members together, including chief financial officers of the RAA, Steve Shearer (Executive Director of the SA Road Transport Association) and other prominent members of the community, and this Third Party Premiums Committee, which does a very good job, is likely to be closed down. They have some concerns and, again, I thank the presiding officer for forwarding me this information.

The reason I say that is I wrote to a substantial number of the other boards and committees—and there must have been 15 to 20: I would have to check the official number. In writing to these committees, given that they had been asked (as I said at the start of this speech) by the Premier to justify their existence, I did say, 'I would like to know what your justifications are and I too would like to have that information as to why you think you should stay or go so that I can speak to this bill and the amendments.' I wrote to a number of them.

Interestingly, I got a letter back from the Assistant Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, the Hon. Tony Piccolo. Mr Piccolo sent me a letter telling me in no uncertain terms, really, that I should not be writing to these people, that I should not be contacting them, that I should be going through ministerial officers. So here we are with the government saying that it wants to cut back on red tape and stop these sorts of things, and all I am asking for is documentation that is very straightforward. I am not asking for trade secrets, I am not asking for secret documents that I can obtain through some other means. I am just asking for a copy of the justifications for these boards and committees staying in place—or not, whatever the case may be—as is being sent to the government, so that we can form our opinions on these boards and committees and on whether or not they should be maintained or disbanded.

I thought it was really quite farcical to get this letter. Along with it came the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment's Guideline Requests by Members of Parliament for Briefings—and a nice, glossy little paper it was too—from the Acting Minister for Transport, the Hon. Tony Piccolo MP. It just makes me question why we cannot be a little more transparent in our dealings. As I said, if I were asking for the secret passageway to get into the Premier's office and unlock his cabinets and find his files I could understand that sort of response, but I was just looking for the information that was being forwarded to the Premier about this bill. I hardly think it was super-secretive or super-surprising. However, the minister felt that way and took the time to send me the glossy brochure, which was, I think, a little bit of overkill.

In summary, I do support the bill with the amendments we have put forward. I will be watching with great interest the other boards and committees that the Premier has on his hit list. As I said, I know he is looking at some and is keeping a watching brief on others, and I will also be keeping a watching brief on those just to make sure that we have the best interests of South Australia at heart and are not shuffling all the power, as we said, across to the government and the chief executives so that they can rule the roost and call every shot. We know that boards and committees play a very important role in allowing the community to contribute to the goings-on and the running of government, and it is very important to keep that balance.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:12): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees-Abolition and Reform) Bill and would like to use the opportunity to speak about 'where to from here' with the review of boards. I particularly want to talk about the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia, and some of the comparisons with teachers registration boards across the country.

I hope that the Teachers Registration Board will be reviewed, because I think it is time that it was updated. If we look at what happens in other states, our board looks similar in some respects but it looks a lot different in other respects. For example, here in South Australia we have a board of 16 members, seven of whom must be union members. Of those, five must be members of the Australian Education Union and two must be members of the Australian Independent Education Union. It is the only teachers registration board—other than the ACT, which only has one union representative on a board of 14—where non-union members are actually excluded from participating.

That may have been okay the 1970s and 1980s, when everyone on the left side of politics was going around calling each other comrade, but we are a modern society now, and we know that union membership in the area of teachers, in particular, is nowhere near as strong as it was in those days. Not allowing non-union members to put their hand up to be members of the Teachers Registration Board is, I think, disappointing. All the talent that the Teachers Registration Board has access to is not available to it simply because of an outdated act of parliament.

If we look at comparisons, the Victorian system has a similar size board, where three people have to be elected from registered teachers who are currently teaching in a government school. There is no requirement to be a union member. Then we have the same for registered teachers who are at a non-government school: again, there is no requirement to be a union member. Of course, in the South Australian situation it is the union that also decides, through their own election process, who those delegates are. Even teachers in schools who are not union members are not able to have a say about who could be members of the Teachers Registration Board because, being non-union members, they are not included in the process at all.

If we look at the New South Wales system, again there are requirements: five members are to be elected from persons employed to teach, other than the principal, in a government school. These are described as 'representatives of government teachers'. Again, there is no requirement for them to be members of the union and no requirement for the Australian Education Union to be involved in that appointment. It is an appointment that is conducted by teachers themselves without the exclusive rights of the union. Even in the ACT, where there is a member of the Education Union, it is only one member on a board of 14; it is not five members on a board of 16. You can see that the board in South Australia is out of whack with all the other boards.

I think the model board for the South Australian minister to consider would be the Western Australian board, which is less prescriptive than any of the other boards. It comprises seven members, and we know small boards can be very effective and very efficient. All seven members are appointed by the Minister for Education, and I have confidence that if we had a similar system in South Australia our Minister for Education would be more than qualified to put the right people on that board.

One member of the Western Australian board must be an Australian lawyer and at least three must be currently registered teachers. The minister also nominates the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. The only requirement the minister needs to consider is that 'board members are selected on the basis of their experience, skills, qualifications and relevance to the board's functions', not on their affiliation to a union, a political party or any other organisation but on their experience, skills and qualifications to do the job. That is a model I would like the education minister in South Australia to seriously consider when the Teachers Registration Board does in fact go through the review process.

Looking at what happens around Australia was an interesting exercise. As I have explained in my remarks, at a glance you could argue that what South Australia is doing is not a lot different from what is happening in other states, but when you get down to the detail you can see that a good number of hardworking and dedicated professionals in our education system, our teachers, are excluded from participating in the process simply because they choose to exercise the right that any member of our society has—that is, whether or not to join a union.

There should not be a requirement that people be union members in order to be considered for government boards that are appointed on merit. They are appointed to do a very important job—to make sure our children are safe and our teachers are qualified and have the skills and ability to teach our children and deliver quality education in South Australia.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (16:19): I agree with the comments made by the member for Unley. I would like to think that members of these boards and committees were awarded their positions based on merit and nothing else. That could just be my utopia, but I would like to think that in an ideal world that would happen. It should happen. For what reason should people be appointed to these positions, positions that are funded by the taxpayer, other than merit?

Overall, I would support the bill with amendment, as has previously been mentioned today. In particular, I would like to talk about four boards and committees and why they should stay under the government's proposals: firstly, the South Australian Tourism Commission; secondly, the Pastoral Board; thirdly, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee; and, fourthly, the Health Performance Council.

Speaking broadly, the government has certainly stated their intent to abolish a whole plethora of boards and committees, and they will have many opportunities before they make their ultimate decision. However, there is no doubt in my mind that there may be merit in abolishing some boards and committees. On this side of the fence, we believe that efficiency is certainly a good thing. If you are able to utilise the state's resources, the taxpayer resources, that is a good thing and, if you can do that for the benefit of South Australians, why not? However, we do have a concern about a blanket reform measure that says that you should abolish only to cut costs, say. You should not just cut for cost because there are valuable services, opinions and reports and many functions these boards and committees provide.

They are formed mainly of experts in a chosen field. It is important that they advise the relevant committees, relevant boards and relevant ministers because they are mainly experts in their field. Often, they come up with very valuable findings so, if there is no cause or real argument to abolish them, that should not be done. I note that the Premier has announced that of the 429 boards and committees, 90 would be retained, 107 would be abolished, 17 would be merged, and 62 will be subject to further review, I understand.

I believe that this bill initially abolishes some 56, or thereabouts, either completely or by merging them with another entity. I have spoken about four in particular that I think should be kept, and these have been key and pivotal in identifying for the lawmakers and the government of the day areas of development and opportunity to delve into benefits the state can explore, so I encourage the government to look at keeping these.

Firstly, I look at the South Australian Tourism Commission Board, a board established under the South Australian Tourism Commission Act 1993 and the governing body of the SATC. Every financial year, the board enters into a performance agreement with the tourism minister, covering areas such as tourism policy, planning, market share, industry sustainability, advocacy, visibility, financial management and performance measurement. I think that it serves a very important role and that we should certainly look at keeping it at least for the time being.

If there are financial constraints, and that may be the case, perhaps this needs to be made clear to the board. If they need amended key performance indicators, and that needs to be seen in light of the financial situation, that should be made clear to the board. I think it is wrong just to come out swinging and say that you are going to sack some boards and not others. What the market is after is certainty, and what these boards and committees are after is certainty.

I think we should definitely engage and consult with them and give them some time lines and ask them to perform and meet certain targets, and if those targets are not met after a certain point in time, sure, perhaps then they need to be looked at, but I do not think that has been done. In fairness to that particular board, I think it should be maintained.

Secondly, I would like to speak about the Pastoral Board. The member for Stuart had a lot to say, I believe, about the Pastoral Board. It serves an absolutely fundamental role in not only his electorate but also across the state. They have certainly been focusing on many strategic priorities in recent times. I just wish to draw upon them to highlight how important they are and why I believe that they should stay.

For example, I note that they provided advice to DEWNR on progress against the SASP targets by 2020, to achieve a 25 per cent improvement in the condition of pastoral land. In the SA NRM plan guiding target 7, the board discussed how its business can contribute to achieving that target and also how the board would report on the target. They have also recognised that various new interests and issues have emerged since the enactment of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. I note that this act is still subject to discussion for variation, and the board has also discussed ways to ensure that it can continue to meet its responsibilities through the mechanisms of the pastoral act.

They communicate widely with many stakeholders, often in parts of rural South Australia. Many of these stakeholders often find that, because they are in remote areas, they certainly see this board as a mouthpiece for their interests. I believe that they also entered into a memorandum of understanding with the SA Arid Lands NRM Board in response to improving relationships and synergies with other statutory boards. That MOU has formalised a strong working relationship between the two bodies. They have also done a lot of work with regard to public access routes. Pastoral lessees have also been reminded of their responsibilities regarding boundary fencing and the impacts on neighbours of straying sheep, in light of the increase in farming of alternative breeds of sheep in the rangelands.

They have also had a lot to do with Indigenous land use agreements. Say no more. That is an area where it is fair to say that the government needs improvement in that regard. I could go on and on, but it goes without saying that the Pastoral Board is a fundamental part of the backbone of the remote parts of South Australia and the economies that that supports, economies such as agriculture. It is certainly a very important board and we should look to maintain it.

Thirdly, we have the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. I know animal welfare is close to your heart, Deputy Speaker, and it is also close to mine. We have seen in recent times issues regarding, say, baiting in the greyhound industry. We know that, from time to time, these issues are raised and they are very serious and important issues. It is committees like this that aim to really provide much needed support to those who own animals and those who trade in animals, and we should certainly look to keep this committee.

They have also, in the last year, provided a whole range of positive changes in South Australia relating to animal welfare not only by responding to ministerial requests for advice in a timely manner but also providing advice to the minister and to DEWNR on draft policies and proposed legislation. I note that they have been involved in the code of practice for the humane destruction of wombats, for example.

They have also provided responses to national standards and guidelines for animal welfare. I note that at its March 2013 meeting the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee considered and commented on the draft Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines—Livestock at Saleyards, and they were involved in an associated discussion paper as well. In fact, their comments were conveyed to the national writing group for consideration.

They have also provided many comments on codes of practice and developing codes of practice, as well as developing position statements. They provided a series of these position statements regarding specific animal welfare issues. These statements, I am led to believe, have been reviewed on a regular basis to determine things like relevancy, and they are amended as appropriate. New statements are added as they are considered and, in 2012-13, the committee reviewed its position statements to align with the six categories of animals used within the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. There is also the sharing of information between nominating organisations and agencies. Subject specialists provided the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee with presentations on many admirable causes, so they should certainly be maintained.

Last, but not least, I think we should also look at keeping the Health Performance Council. The Health Performance Council provides a fundamental role to South Australia. They are an independent body and they review South Australia's health system, as I understand it, across not only private but also public and community sectors, and they speak about and look at prevention strategies in both primary care and hospital care. They are separate from health departments and they are separate from health services. Their independence is a good thing because it means that they are not owned by anyone. It means that they can provide frank advice on whether strategies are being implemented as planned on merit and without bias. This is why they are so important.

They have no specific affiliation to any union or any interest group. They are independent, and in a world today where our health outcomes are not where they need to be and as high as they should be, we need good independent bodies like the Health Performance Council to provide the checks and balances, as well as the other array of expertise they provide. They do report to the Minister for Health every four years and they have recently provided an annual report to the parliament. They should certainly be kept.

I believe that the four boards and committees I have mentioned today should be preserved, so I plead with the government of the day to have mercy. Please do not cut what are very important imperative boards and committees. I understand that there are financial implications of keeping some of these; however, we should not just take an axe to things that provide expertise and benefit to South Australians. We need to be selective. We need to be very measured with this, and I would ask and plead that the government keep these four boards and committees. With those comments and the amendments that I propose, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for the Public Sector) (16:32): I will speak only very briefly prior to our moving into committee. I would like to thank all the boards and committees who were engaged in the consultation process and thank those who we will be discontinuing for their service. I thank the ministers and their officers. It is an immensely complex piece of legislation that has required a lot of coordination through public servants, as well as ministerial officers, and I thank them for their efforts. I thank the members of the opposition who have made a contribution to the second reading speech, and I look forward to engaging in some productive work at the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The CHAIR: The first amendment belongs to the minister, is that correct?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not wish to proceed with that.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Chapman–1]—

Page 13, line 8 [clause 14(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This supports our proposal in respect of keeping the Animal Ethics Committee. It is in support of our position on the Animal Welfare Act amendments, which I have referred to in the second reading speech. I do not think I need to progress it further. I understand the government have reconsidered this matter and are agreeing to retain that committee. We thank them for their thoughtful consideration of that. I indicate that amendments Nos 2 and 3 also relate to the retention of that committee.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15.

Mr GARDNER: I would like to signal an objection to this clause. To be clear, the opposition proposes that, as a result of the opposition's amendments, we not proceed with this clause.

Clause negatived.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will not proceed with amendments Nos 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Clauses 16 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Chapman–1]—

Page 14, lines 14 and 15 [clause 20(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment will have the effect of deleting subclause (2), consistent with our position on the Animal Welfare Act amendments.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 21 to 29 passed.

Clause 30.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [PubSec–1]—

Page 16, line 8—Delete 'subsection' and substitute 'subsections (4) and'

This is a technical amendment that reflects consultation occurring under two clauses, not just one, as was originally drafted.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 31 to 61 passed.

Clause 62.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 6 [PubSec–2]—

Page 20, line 31—Delete 'Primary Producers SA Incorporated' and substitute 'Livestock SA Incorporated'

This amendment is needed in order to replace the South Australian Farmers Federation as a board member appointed to the replacement entity. It is appropriate that Livestock SA, rather than the peak body, Primary Producers SA, be appointed.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 63 to 89 passed.

Clauses 90 to 96 negatived.

Clauses 97 to 150 passed.

Clause 151.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am advised that in respect of the original draft amendments to hold the four boards we need this clause to be opposed. This was kindly pointed out by the drafting parliamentary counsel.

Clause negatived.

Clause 152 negatived.

Clauses 153 to 183 passed.

Clause 184.

Ms CHAPMAN: I indicate that we are opposing part 29 of the Opal Mining Act which, if removed, will help preserve the Pastoral Board.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 185 to 216.

Ms CHAPMAN: Part 30 is the area proposed in the bill to abolish the Pastoral Board. We will be opposing the abolition of part 30, which is clauses 185 to 216.

Clauses negatived.

Clauses 217 to 264 passed.

Clause 265.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Chapman–1]—

Page 63, lines 12 to 17 [clause 265(1) to (3) (inclusive)]—Delete subclauses (1) to (3) (inclusive)

This amendment seeks to delete the subclauses as indicated to preserve the tourism board and similarly, amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9 all too have the effect of preserving the tourism board and I understand that is agreed to by the government. The numbering has changed a bit, so if I have not referred to the correct numbering in the edicts of this 9(1) schedule, I am happy for you to indicate otherwise.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 266 passed.

Clause 267 negatived.

Clause 268 passed.

Clause 269 negatived.

Clauses 270 to 271 passed.

Clause 272 negatived.

Remaining clauses (273 to 318) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for the Public Sector) (16:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:50): I rise to, firstly, thank the government for their I think thoughtful consideration of the importance of preserving the South Australian Tourism Commission Board, the Pastoral Board and the animal ethics structure we have to provide advice to the government; and, finally, and for me most importantly, the Health Performance Council. I hope that on the last day of parliament tomorrow, in anticipation that this bill is going to pass the parliament here and go to the other place, we will have the four-yearly Health Performance Council's report (which has now been sitting on the minister's desk for a number of months) tabled in parliament tomorrow, if not today.

I think it is very important that the government, in recognising the work of the Health Performance Council and agreeing to keep it alive and let it continue its work, tables that report as soon as possible. Certainly, at present, the government is asking the South Australian community to make some very important decisions about health reform. I will not traverse the merits of it. Suffice to say that it is clear that the government have a view that they are proposing a better service that is going to be, ultimately, more financially efficient.

It may be, but at this stage there is a lot of controversy about it and the community is obviously speaking a lot about it. Especially after today, and the government's decision not to produce the full business case for this reform, it is absolutely important that we have that four-yearly performance review of the health department which is on the minister's desk. I would urge the government to do so.

I would also urge them, having agreed to keep the Health Performance Council, to reissue them with a request, or direction, from the health minister to resume responsibility for their research and work in the Indigenous program of Closing the Gap, which is a program which has bipartisan support and which is designed to bring together all efforts, energy and resources to ensure that we remove the inconsistency of the life expectancy of our Indigenous Australians compared with others. At the moment, it is a woeful disparity, and I think everyone in the parliament is keen to ensure that there is a reduction and, ultimately, elimination of that kind of disparity.

I thank the government for agreeing to keep these other important boards. I think other members have made contributions which outline the importance of the other three boards. My lack of detailing of their merits in this third reading speech does not in any way suggest that they are less important than the Health Performance Council, but thank you to the government.

I wish them well in the further exercise they have, because they have reviewed over 400 boards. There is a big long list that they have published in their final report that they have provided (and which is available online) that they still have under consideration that they have not decided to remove or restructure. It is a lengthy exercise.

We will continue to work with the government to relieve the responsibility of boards or committees that no longer have a useful purpose; we agree that they should go. I think that rather than doing these reviews over each number of years it would be helpful if, at the conclusion of a board's effective operation, it is actually dissolved at that point; otherwise the thing sits around for a long time, wasting money and resources. Those people could be effective somewhere else.

We look forward to the next tranche of reform, and hope that when the opposition does present a meritorious argument for reform in a different way to what the government has in mind that it will listen again. I thank those on this side of the house for their extensive consultation with their stakeholders and for making sure, on this occasion, that four have survived the knife.

Bill read a third time and passed.