Motions

Regional Impact Assessment Statements

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Griffiths:

That this house—

1. Supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact statements, with the ability to call witnesses.

2. Urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government—

(a) guarantees full compliance by all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented; and

(b) makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements undertaken prior to any change to a service or services in regional South Australia.

(Continued from 3 June 2015.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:21): I have a few minutes left in regard to my contribution on this referral about regional impact statements, so I will just note the first point of the member for Goyder's motion, that the house:

Supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact statements, with the ability to call witnesses.

I continue my remarks from the previous occasion in this place. It is not every day you get a good news story in your region, but the United Dairy Power plant in Murray Bridge has got back into gear with new owners and it is very pleasing to see. I have had a conversation with the Minister for Agriculture, and I am sure he is pleased as well with the events that have happened in Murray Bridge, not only because they will strengthen the local community but also because the Beston Global Food Company has shown faith not just in the region but in the South Australian dairy industry.

They will have to go through a process of bringing milk back in because, when United Dairy Power went into receivership, there was a worry about the milk having to go somewhere, and I must congratulate Parmalat and Warrnambool Cheese & Butter for getting on board immediately with that. This is great news for South Australia. The Adelaide-based Beston Global Food Company have come to the rescue and are buying the company, with the two plants at Jervois in South Australia, out of receivership. They want to deliver not only this milk to South Australia but also products to Asia, which is great for export in this state.

This company is headed by Dr Roger Sexton AM. He has built a portfolio of investments with a view of taking premium clean, green Australian food and beverage products into global markets and, as I indicated, particularly China and Asia. When he established the company, his aim was to take heathy eating to the world's growing communities with Australia's best foods. He made the following comment in his press release:

Being able to purchase and revitalise United Diary Power is a win-win. BGFC has secured additional dairy resources to feed its growing overseas markets. We make an even greater contribution to realising the State's food export vision, and through our investment we are adding fantastic value to a regional economy and keeping local jobs and ownership.

United Dairy Power (UDP) and the previous company's facilities have been involved in the production of cheese and other milk products for over 40 years, but sadly have only been operating at about 30 per cent capacity. The company, through Dr Sexton, want to take advantage of the dining boom in Asia, and they are going to invest considerable capital into United Dairy Power to upgrade the facilities at both Murray Bridge and Jervois and increase the production capacities. They will introduce new products for distribution into China and the ASEAN region via their subsidiaries based in Thailand, Vietnam, China and Brunei. I might be destroying the minister's ministerial statement, but that's fine.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: That's alright. It's good bipartisan support.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. Under the ownership of the Beston group, the company name will change to Beston Pure Foods to reflect the broader scope of the dairy-based food products to be produced at Murray Bridge and Jervois. It is noted that BGFC has created a range of natural, clean and green products which capitalise on the intrinsic benefits of South Australia as a premium food producer. These products will include high probiotic yoghurt and milk drinks, nutritional supplements and organic beverages, all of which are in high demand in Asia and will be progressively introduced into production at Murray Bridge and Jervois over the next three years.

I congratulate the Beston foods group. This is fantastic news for my area, to get those jobs back in, as we lost over 100 jobs recently. I note I have worked with ministers over time but, sadly, we have not been able to negotiate stamp duty exemption or payroll tax exemption for other companies, but I am pleased to see that Dr Sexton's group have just come in with all guns blazing. They are going to make this a huge asset for the region and South Australia and for our dairy export growth. So, that is a fantastic impact on our regional economy. You cannot come in here and say that every day, but I am so pleased as the local member and so pleased for the betterment of the South Australian dairy industry.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:27): Good news indeed for the member for Hammond and his dairy industry, which is a most important industry for regional South Australia. I rise to support this motion today. The motion has been brought by the member for Goyder, and I congratulate him on his diligent work in bringing this motion. I am going to quickly summarise the motion for the purposes of Hansard and my constituents. The motion is:

That this house—

1. Supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact statements, with the ability to call witnesses.

2. Urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government—

(a) guarantees full compliance by all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities [most important] before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented; and

(b) makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements undertaken prior to any change to a service or services in regional South Australia.

The reason the member for Goyder has brought this motion is that quite simply the government has not been fulfilling its responsibility. This regional impact assessment policy came into operation in July 2003 with good intention, and it is a policy that should be implemented and should be followed through.

Unfortunately, only five RIAs have been completed since 2010 by all government departments, agencies and statutory authorities. In fact, no RIAs have been prepared during the 2013 financial year and, since the implementation of the policy way back in 2003, only 21 RIAs have been completed; this is a sad situation and a sad indictment on this government. Once again, we from the regions feel that we are not just neglected but not considered, in fact, in a lot of not only the legislation but the impact of legislation.

I have in front of me a litany of legislation that this government has implemented just in the time that I have been here—five short years—which has really impacted significantly on my constituents and constituents right around the regional and rural areas of South Australia. It would do the government well to consider the impact of our legislation. Obviously, as legislators we are here to govern the lives of people and build a framework in which businesses and communities can thrive and to provide enough social activity, social security and social safety for society to be good, stable, prosperous and constructive.

Once again, there was much discussion on the radio this morning about marine parks and, more particularly, the sanctuary zones that have been implemented in this state by the government, and the member for Goyder, the mover of this motion, talked about the fishers at Port Wakefield. I can tell you that the impact of the sanctuary zones has been significant and widespread right around the coastal zone of South Australia.

Of course, 11 of the 19 marine parks abut the coastline of Eyre Peninsula including Port Lincoln, the seafood capital, which has the largest fishing fleet in the Southern Hemisphere. It is not only Port Lincoln but that entire coastline where hook fishermen, marine scale fishermen, abalone, lobster, prawns, pilchards and recreational fishers—ultimately finishing up with the tuna quota—have been impacted by this legislation, and it has had a perverse outcome.

I note that the Minister for Fisheries is listening, and he could do well to consider this because the perverse outcome has been, of course, that there has been a more concentrated effort to catch quota in a smaller area. It is bizarre; it is a bizarre outcome. As I have said in this place before, public consultation was carried out for a long period of time—two years in some cases—and people went to the table with goodwill and good intent, but the contribution of those people was simply ignored and neglected. It will be interesting to see how the review goes, and I know the Minister for Regional Development will be heavily involved with that. I have to say I fear the worst for some of my fishing families, some of my fishing businesses, and also for the environment because the best managers of the environment are those who make a living from it.

I know the member for Goyder wants to take a vote on this at some point this morning so I will be brief. In the last couple of weeks we have seen significant changes to regional skills and trade training and, once again, the consideration of country areas was not factored into this decision. Ultimately, what it means for agriculture, transport and fisheries is that the trade training that is required for people to be able to go into and be employed in these industries will not be available in country areas. Once again, a sad indictment. I could go on, as I said; I have quite a list.

Our primary producers bring so much export into this state and this is new money that comes in. There is no money going around in latte and small bars. This is new money, export money that comes in, and as primary producers we have to be able to remain competitive in a globalised market. It is about competitiveness, it is about jobs, and I congratulate the member for bringing this motion and I urge the government to support it.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:33): I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Goyder. Unfortunately, we have seen on too many occasions situations where communities have not been consulted before government decisions are made. In particular, the regional impact assessment statement policy has been in place since 2003, but clearly it is a policy that has not been adhered to by this government.

The statement applies to all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities, and only five regional impact assessment statements were completed between 2010 and 2014. As I understand it, no regional impact assessment statement was prepared during the 2013-14 financial year by any government department, agency or statutory authority. Just over 20 regional impact assessment statements have been completed. One of the completed regional impact assessment statements was for the Riverland regional hospital development in Berri. We are told that this policy is being reformed, but I continue to remain sceptical as to how Labor will stick to this despite barely doing it so far over the last 10 years.

It is vital that effective consultation is undertaken with the community before decisions are made by government and we need a bipartisan approach to ensure communities are fully engaged before decisions are made. They are micro communities. We are not talking about a big city. We are talking about small regional communities that are, in some cases, fragile and that have a declining population, and every decision by government always has an impact. It usually has an impact to the detriment of those smaller regional communities.

We all know about the well-documented Cadell ferry closure proposal in 2012 and the impacts of weight reductions on ferries. I use the example of my local ferry at Lyrup which has gone from a 50-tonne rating down to a six-tonne rating. There was no consultation and no impact assessment done of the impacts on business, community and tourism. Having met with the minister yesterday and putting some of the statistics on the table, he was quite shocked to see the impact that that downgrading of a ferry has had. It was just a simple decision without any form of consultation.

The proposal to cut the Yamba quarantine station hours down to business hours, which I think was a decision by the then minister O'Brien, was then a backflip to uphold the 24/7 roadblock to keep our state fruit fly and phylloxera free. I think that was a decision that was well applauded by every South Australian and, of course, that had an impact on the electorate of Flinders as well as the Ceduna roadblock. Sometimes they do make good decisions, but it is usually to the detriment of our regional economies.

The closure of the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs in Berri was another decision made without any consultation on the impact that has had on services to those local economies, and it is not just about Berri but also the people from the Mallee and the Riverland who used that office on a regular occasion. It is now not there. The service is gone. We see that it has had a significant impact on another service in the regions.

The proposed speed limit reductions went through in 2005 and 2011. Many speed limits have been reduced from 110 to 100 with no regional impact assessment. We all know that speed kills, but what the minister needs to understand is that speed limits are not the reason for death. It is people usually breaking the law or the inaction on road maintenance programs or road signage and the like.

The member for Flinders has just made comments about the changes to vocational training under WorkReady. That is going to have a serious impact. We see the government, the Premier and all of his ministers saying how vital trade export opportunities are, particularly with food and wine, yet we are seeing those courses, the upskilling of that vital industry to our state's economy, just being passed by. For the minister to underpin her union mates in TAFE and send the private training sector to the gallows, if you like, was just outrageous and it will be a slur on them forever.

The regional impact assessment on water restrictions decimated the Riverland region. I think that was one of those decisions that the government made with no RIAS. They decided to sacrifice communities right up and down the river so people in Adelaide could have water when they turned on their taps. We acknowledge that the good people of Adelaide do have the right to water, but so do the people of those river communities.

There are a lot of inconsistencies with those regional impact assessments and I note that the Sturt Highway upgrade was one of those in 2007. There have been plenty of road upgrades around South Australia with no impact assessments. I urge this house to support the motion. If it goes to the Economic and Finance Committee—seven members from government and opposition are good people who will consider this issue.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (11:39): The government now intends to amend this motion to delete part 1 and reword part 2 to more accurately reflect the regional impact assessment statement policy and process. I move to amend the motion as follows:

2. Urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government—

(a) requires full compliance of all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented; and

(b) makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements as soon as practicable having regard to cabinet confidentiality.

The Regional Impact Assessment Statement Policy and Guidelines were launched in July 2003 as part of the broader commitment to ensure that regional impacts and issues are considered in government decision-making processes. This policy requires that, when a significant change in services is proposed, the proponent must give detailed consideration to regional impacts before implementation.

The government opposes part 1 of this motion. There would be no additional benefit obtained from expanding the processes for a regional impact assessment statement to include referring the statement to the Economic and Finance Committee. Such a referral would only add to the length of time taken to initiate, assess, consult, analyse and report on a proposal. Regional impact assessment statements are already subject to in-depth consultation and communication with the regional community or communities which may be affected by the proposal. The regional community represents, after all, the people who should be provided the greatest opportunity to subject government policies to scrutiny.

Parliament itself is already able to scrutinise government decisions and programs by means such as question time, estimates committees and tabling of agency annual reports. Individual members of parliament whose electorate is within the regional community covered by a regional impact assessment would be consulted as part of the consultation process. Should it wish to do so, this house can refer any particular matter or public sector operation or service delivery to the Economic and Finance Committee and the committee can look into such matters on their own motion. There is therefore no need to refer every regional impact assessment statement to this committee. It can choose to examine these matters for itself. In summary, there is no case for routinely referring regional impact assessment statements to the Economic and Finance Committee and this part of the motion is opposed.

With regard to part 2 of the honourable member's motion, government departments are already required to comply with a regional impact assessment statement. Agency chief executives are responsible for ensuring there is a process in place to identify when a significant change is proposed for the preparation of a regional impact assessment statement. This policy is in addition to the current requirement that cabinet submissions consider and include comment—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: —on the regional impacts of any proposed decision. A regional impact assessment statement can be initiated in a number of ways, including:

a departmental officer advises a chief executive that a proposal will have a significant impact and therefore a regional impact assessment statement is necessary;

a chief executive of a department requests that a regional impact assessment statement be prepared; or

a minister can request that a regional impact assessment statement be prepared.

Agency chief executives have been reminded of the importance of regional impact assessment statements and the continuing requirement for their preparation.

In addition, regional impact assessment statements are required to include consultation and communication with the regional community affected by the proposed implementation of any significant change to a service or services in line with the government engagement principles. The regional community that may be affected by a significant change is consulted and communicated with throughout the process and is advised of the outcome of the consultation in a timely fashion. All completed regional impact assessment statements should be and are published on the Regions SA website and are therefore accessible to all. I am not disputing that we need to sharpen our pencil, but certainly the amendment is as I am putting it to the house now.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:44): I will speak only for a few minutes on this particular motion and the amendment. I had the good pleasure to be around when the impact statements were first introduced. At that time I was on the Whyalla Economic Development Board and the Whyalla City Council. In fact, while on our council, prior to the introduction of the impact statements, we were actively lobbying that such a process be entered into. One of the reasons we were actively lobbying for such a process to be developed was that we had the strong belief that this is an incredibly metrocentric state.

The default option in this state has been historically—and I would probably argue currently—the metropolitan area, and that needs to be addressed. The impact statements were a tool that were developed to see if we can, to a degree, start to address that metrocentric culture.

Mr Pengilly: Don't support the amendment then.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HUGHES: In addition to that, a number of other things were done. The introduction of the Regional Communities Consultative Council was introduced in the early days of the Rann government, and that was very ably chaired at the time by Dennis Mutton. That particular committee went around the state listening to the views of people in regional communities—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HUGHES: It is always interesting to listen to those opposite when it comes to bagging the government for its neglect of regional areas. One of the great benefits of being around for a long time, of being on economic development boards, of being on councils, is that you have the memory, and in my mind a very clear memory—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

Mr HUGHES: —of the last Liberal government, and that was incredibly metrocentric as well. I do not say that to make a simple political point—

Mr Pengilly: No, no, no.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. Sit down. The member for Finniss is called to order and asked to remember standing order 142. We have all listened to everybody in silence this morning but, all of a sudden, you do not seem to be able to control yourself. It is for the benefit of all members that we enforce these orders. You are already on a call to order. Alright?

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will not be staying for question time.

Mr HUGHES: I do not go on a trip down memory lane just to make some simple political points. The point that I am making—and as I said at the beginning of my speech—is that there is a pervasive metrocentric culture in this state and I believe that we need a bipartisan approach to address that culture. Do I believe the impact statements as they are now need to be improved? I do believe they need to be improved. I do not particularly agree with the mechanism that has been floated here, but I am more than willing to sit down with the minister—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond.

Mr HUGHES: —and those opposite to have a discussion about how to improve impact statements so that regional communities are better involved in the decisions that affect them, because it has been a perennial bugbear. It has been a perennial bugbear of the previous Liberal governments; it has been a bugbear under our government that the quality of engagement with regional communities leaves something to be desired. We need to work on improving the mechanisms that we have when it comes to that.

In relation to the current policy, the regional impact assessment statements policy stipulates that when a significant change in services is proposed, the proponent must give detailed consideration to regional impacts before implementation. When an RAIS is undertaken, the guidelines require that the agency proposing the change in services must conduct a full public consultation process with the affected community. But I take the point about the number that have been done, and that does need to be improved.

The guidelines state that the factors to be considered must include the economic, environmental, social and equitable impacts of the decision. I take the point, especially when it comes to smaller communities. What seem to be small decisions in the context of the state can have major ramifications on our smaller communities. Consideration must be given to both positive and negative impacts of the proposed change, and this consideration must be from the perspective of the community and not the agency. Sometimes that is a tricky thing. We know how agencies can sometimes operate. The government opposes part 1 of this motion; the Economic and Finance Committee does not need to review every regional impact assessment statement. There may not be any impact arising from some of the decisions made but, as I said, I think improvements can be carried out.

Parliamentary scrutiny will determine whether any particular regional impact assessment statement should be subject to the further scrutiny of the Economic and Finance Committee and indeed, as the Minister for Regional Development has said, the committee itself can resolve to look into a particular statement on its own motion. So it can do that at the moment, especially for those more contentious statements. In my view, this should be sufficient. There is no case for referring regional impact assessment statements to the Economic and Finance Committee, and this part of the motion is opposed. Government departments must comply with the regional impact assessment statement policy. I will leave my remarks there, but an offer is open to discuss with anyone opposite, and the minister, how we can improve these processes—because they can be improved.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:51): I am so disappointed with the comments that have come from this side about the bipartisan nature of it, because that is the exact reason—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GRIFFITHS: —why the motion is before the house. When I have asked the minister in this parliament questions about regional impact statements he has expressed his disappointment at the lack of them in past years.

The Hon. G.G. Brock interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: In your time as minister, since March of last year, there have been two additions to it, all about the guidelines to it and none about the impact on regional communities and actual services or standards of services or infrastructure. Two examples: the Cadell ferry—nothing occurred about that, and that devastated a community until the community rose as one to fight it—and WorkReady, the training program announced two weeks ago. Minister Gago in the other place refers to a regional impact statement having been done. The Premier refers to a regional impact assessment statement having been done. Well, there is nothing on the website. Until there is actually information available for a level of public scrutiny, the only way to do it is to refer it to a committee of the parliament that allows it to exist. The opposition will not support the amendment.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 22

Noes 18

Majority 4

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.