Bills

State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 20 February 2025.)

Clause 13.

Mr TELFER: Thank you again minister and support staff. As I spoke about when we first started this committee debate, this is a pretty significant piece of legislation and we need to make sure at all levels that we are putting in place a structure like this that it is going to have longevity and sustainability and is not something which can chop and change depending on the mood of the parliament.

Clause 13 is around the minister's representative attending meetings. This is an interesting structure. Clause 13(2) provides:

(2) If CGO considers that a matter dealt with at a meeting attended by a representative of the Minister should be treated for any reason as confidential, CGO may advise the Minister of that opinion giving the reason for the opinion, and the Minister may, subject to subsection (3), act on that advice as the Minister thinks fit.

Can you give an explanation as to why there is no facility available for the CGO to keep the matter confidential from the minister as a whole if the CGO sees reason for this to be so?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can I thank the member for Flinders for his question. I am advised that clause 13(2) is based on fairly standard provisions in other pieces of legislation, for example, which establish statutory authorities or officers. It is not unusual for a minister to be able to send an observer along to the board meetings of a statutory authority.

I can say from a firsthand perspective as Treasurer, the Treasurer of the day is entitled to send a Treasurer's representative to attend board meetings—for example, of HomeStart Finance or SA Water or so on—to ensure that the responsible government of the day is aware of what is being considered. Then, of course, it stands to reason that from time to time there will be matters that are considered by that forum which are confidential and I think subclause (2) and subclause (3) just provide a regime where that request for confidentiality can be made and that request can also be respected by the minister.

Mr TELFER: Further from that, clause 13(3), which you referenced, provides:

(3) If the Minister is satisfied on the basis of CGO's advice under subsection (2) that CGO owes a duty of confidence in respect of a matter, the Minister must ensure the observance of that duty in respect of the matter, but this subsection does not prevent the Minister from disclosing the matter as required in the proper performance of ministerial functions or duties.

If the CGO believes that a matter requires confidentiality, why is there discretion for the minister to breach said confidentiality as a matter of course within the performance of the minister's duties?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I thank the member for Flinders for the question and an understandable question. Of course, all ministers above all are responsible to the parliament for the conduct of the functions for which they are responsible. For example, in this instance, this would I imagine entitle the minister to be able to respond to a question in parliament, for example, whether it is during a question time or an estimates process or similar.

Presumably, there are other occasions where the minister may also be obliged to disclose knowledge or information, for example, when there is an investigation by one of the bodies such as the OPI or something like that. There are instances where the minister must always be able to furnish information, despite having provisions like this in legislation, such as in the basic conduct of responsible governance or being answerable to integrity agencies.

Mr TELFER: Section 13(1) states:

(1) A person authorised in writing by the Minister may attend (but not participate in) any meeting of CGO…

Does this provide the CGO with the opportunity to deny the attendance of the minister's representative on the basis that such a person 'may' attend a meeting rather than 'shall'?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On the face of it, I do not believe so. This clause creates an entitlement in legislation for the minister responsible to have someone on their behalf attend those meetings. Of course, I could imagine that if there is a circumstance where there is some sort of tension or conflict in respect of the individual who is tasked by the minister to attend a meeting, such as a conflict of interest or something like that, that may trigger a preclusion of that particular person from attending on behalf of the minister, but otherwise this clause provides that right to the minister to ensure they have a representative who can be present.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, sir, for your indulgence for one more. This clause provides for a representative of the minister to attend any meeting of the CGO. Will any notes or reports of these meetings made by the minister's representative subsequently be made available to be public documents? If so, what steps will the Treasurer take to make sure these processes are transparent and accountable?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, member for Flinders, for your question. I am advised that the preceding clause, clause 12, talks about the requirement that accurate minutes must be taken of the proceedings of those meetings and they also need to be published publicly on a website.

Clause passed.

Clause 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr TELFER: This clause as well as the subsequent schedule 2, which we will get to later on, require members of the CGO to disclose relevant interests. A relevant interest is one seemingly, by looking at the definition, that is defined by the minister. Would it be possible under the act for the minister to declare that no interests are relevant interests?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that what is envisaged there are the standard sorts of disclosures of interests which we would be most familiar with, whether it is financial or pecuniary interests. However, the minister may choose to go beyond those sorts of standard declarations of interests and require the declaration of any further interests that may be particularly of relevance to the job that the CGO will be doing, whether it is somehow development related or something like that. The purpose of the clause is to give the minister the flexibility to go beyond the regular interests that you and I would otherwise be familiar with.

Mr TELFER: So for clarification—and obviously this is talking about development—the regular interests that you are talking about include landholdings, and there are specified guidelines when it comes to parliamentarians and family members. Do you envision that these same sorts of criteria structures will be in place for a member of the CGO's process of relevant interests under this act?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think what we would anticipate is that there would be, at the very least, a basic level of disclosure of, say, financial interests, perhaps interests in land or property holdings, and then this creates a discretion for the minister to go further. Whether it is other interests, which may or may not be of relevance to the task that the CGO is doing, whether it is memberships of professional associations or organisations, and so on, we have—according to I think it is called the register of interests act—requirements that members have to fill out. We would envisage a similar sort of regime here, but allowing that additional discretion for the minister of the day to say that it is their belief that there should be additional interests and if it is relevant in their view to the job being undertaken by the CGO.

Mr TELFER: Just extrapolating out a little bit, would it be a relevant interest if a member of the CGO is, for instance, a member of the same political party as the minister?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It may well be. My advice is it has yet to be determined what the full extent of that would be. My understanding, and I had better get this right, is that we are required to declare and disclose those sorts of memberships and affiliations. So conceivably that would be a similar regime for this, but as I said it has not been settled yet.

Mr TELFER: Supplementary to that—and obviously this goes back to my second reading speech and the contributions—we all want this to succeed. I think these sorts of schemes and regimes do not succeed when they become too political and then there can be a change of mentality with a change of government. Is the decision about what will be included as a relevant interest one which is made subsequently by the minister and put into regulations, or is it subsequently by the minister put into guidelines or some lesser document?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that it is established by the minister. It is not prescribed by regulation, but just determined by the minister. I am advised that is not too dissimilar to other regimes which similarly seek to oblige statutory office holders to disclose interests, that that can sometimes be done according to how the minister determines interests should be disclosed. I should also say that, while there is not a particular view of the government as to who might undertake this role in the first instance or in the future, there have been people who have undertaken similar roles for state governments in the past who have had party political affiliations.

We have asked Dean Brown to assist us with flood and drought response in the past, and Rob Kerin, and so on. Patrick Conlon is assisting the government in trying to sort out the seemingly intractable issue with governance in Coober Pedy. Quite often, people who still have political affiliations can do really good jobs of this. I think the point that the member raises, in having some comfort that the minister is going to set those requirements in a similar vein to how we are all used to those declarations of interest, is a reasonable point.

Mr TELFER: This is extrapolating out—I would not say the current minister would do something like this—but I agree with the examples you have given about some of the cross-party examples. I see this position as a pretty senior and influential, big-picture position, which provides a foundational backbone potentially for a government's economic vision. Through your explanation, it seems clear that the minister of the day could decide to have only the regulatory pecuniary interest as the obligation rather than some of these others. Is there a risk—and it is probably a short answer—that a minister, whether it is current or subsequent, could make that change so that there is not that transparency in what is a pretty senior position?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think that is a reasonable point to raise. I guess that is where the function of accountability and transparency comes in. If a particular individual was appointed to the role, and people thought, 'Well, who on earth is this person? Nobody knows anything about them,' you would want to know not only what their credentials and maybe their curriculum vitae looks like but also what interests they have and if the regime is appropriately set for that person to declare their interest. I think that would understandably raise questions.

I would be surprised if that is the case. This is going to be a full-time strategy officer. Governments in the future, whether they are Labor or Liberal—I cannot think of anything else—will want someone who is not only familiar with making decisions about planning and development but has a skill set capable of working with a range of government agencies, a range of external stakeholders, and probably having to conduct community consultations effectively and equitably. Even when you frame it like that, you are starting to look at a really particular type of person with a particular type of capabilities.

We are confident that we will be able to attract someone to a role like this because, as you said, well designed and legislated this would be an attractive position for somebody to put their hand up for, but it would also deliver significant benefits for the community in speeding up developments. I do think that legislating the fact that there has to be a disclosure, and that there is going to be a regime to determine how that disclosure is made and what is included, hopefully provides a bit of comfort that even if we do attract a great person, the public and the parliament can have confidence that out of all their interests, none of them fall into conflict with the duties that they will have as the CGO.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr TELFER: This talks about remuneration and there is certainly not very much clarity about what that remuneration may entail: 'entitled to remuneration, allowances and expenses determined by the Governor'. Is the detail of this expected to be set in the regulation, and if so, can you provide a level of formula or a guideline to a comparable remuneration allowance and expenses package that may provide the parliament with at least an indication of what the expectation of the government is in putting this in place?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Again, I think that is a reasonable question. The level of remuneration has not yet been determined. I think the government would envisage that it would be akin to a chief executive salary and, of course, there is a band of chief executive remuneration that the member would be well aware of. I guess if I could provide any guidance, it will be—of course, as it should be for candidates—conversant with their experience and capacity.

We would also think that it would have some relevance to the workload of it, because if it has a fairly light workload, then the office perhaps will not need to be as fully staffed as what it otherwise might be, and also there may not be a need to attract and remunerate a very high-calibre person. Beyond that, I cannot really provide any guidance because we have not considered it at that level and we certainly have not made a determination.

I can also say that the staff of the Coordinator-General's Office are envisaged to be engaged on the same basis as a regular government agency, so with administrative services stream staff in the ASO-2 to ASO-8 bands and potentially a manager of administrative services, and if there are any executives who are appointed below the Coordinator-General themselves, then they would be in the regular executive service bands.

Mr TELFER: I will get to the staff probably in the next clause. I am interested for clarity's sake: is it envisioned that, indeed, this position will be full-time and at a level, as a guideline, comparative to a CEO? To get to a point of responsibility or obligation for a full-time role and subsequent staff underneath is a pretty significant body of work that is probably required. We have talked about what sorts of scenarios there might be around the job requirements. Do you envision coming in at day one with a full-time remuneration package and staff structure when we do not really know what the guidance of the government of the day or the CGO of the day will be, as far as what their potential target projects or economic areas are going to be? Do you envision, from day one, that position starting at that level?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I think it would be the same as any other worker taking on a new position. The annual remuneration package is known up-front, even as the work may gather in terms of amount and depth, not too dissimilar to all of us when we first made members after the declaration of the poll. Each of the three of us listening attentively to this is probably working somewhat harder today than what we were just after that declaration of the poll.

Where I do think there would be more of a ramp-up would be in the remainder of the office resourcing. No doubt, there will need to be the establishment of an office, there will need to be some administrative effort and support to enable that to happen and then, as that gets underway, the capacity to recruit staff and attract candidates again with appropriate skills for facilitating these sorts of development activities, and that will occur over time. Overall, in the office there will be a ramp-up, but once this person commences their role they will be remunerated on a consistent basis from one pay period to the next.

Mr TELFER: I appreciate the comparisons, but also it is probably not a very good comparison because this is a role where there will have to be a fair bit of self motivation within the expectations of something like this. We know the functions but we do not know the prescriptive projects. It is unique inasmuch as the CGO walking in, like we did at the start of a term, as you put it. We know what the structure of a comparative role would be. A CGO comes in and basically has to discover for themselves what their role is with regard to specific projects.

This is something broadly under remuneration, but does the minister envision that there would be some sort of structure or outline given to the CGO at the beginning of their term by the government of the day or is it purely going to be the CGO going out and consulting with government, private industry, etc., as to exactly what the focus area of their responsibilities and functions are going to be?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a good question because in establishing the role, and the first person in particular taking it on—this is really a question about the first person taking on the role, not about subsequent people in the future—there is, I guess, that kind of administrative functional task of getting the CGO, the office, up and running, of course, but their role is going to require fairly consistent and ongoing interactions with a range of government agencies.

You could easily imagine that the very early part of their role will be making themselves known and meeting with and forming those relationships with those key internal government stakeholders and then more broadly engaging with the community, including industry groups and potentially the local government sector and so on, about what their role is and how it fits within the overall broader planning regime that we have here in South Australia.

I can imagine that there is conceivably going to be a honey pot effect, much like under the previous Rann government where everybody who wanted to put a patio on was after a major development declaration, whereas it took a little bit of time and education to make it clear to the development community: 'This is your particular development and this is the development application and approval process that is the best fit for you, not necessarily the major development declaration.'

Similarly, I can conceive that the first Coordinator-General is going to have to lift the awareness amongst the community about what the three different paths are of having a project or an initiative considered by the CGO, and working fairly closely not just with industry representatives but also with proponents who might contact the office about whether it is most appropriate for their development or initiative to be lodged with the CGO or if they should just go down the regular process of dealing with council or dealing with other government agencies.

Mr TELFER: We have spoken about the remuneration for the Coordinator-General themselves at the top. This clause talks about members of the CGO as a whole. There is going to be the head, the Coordinator-General role, and those roles below it. What remuneration allowance and expenses level is envisioned—a comparative for this role? Will it be full-time, part-time or on an as-needs basis? Obviously that role is very different to that of the Coordinator-General itself. Can you give me perhaps a comparative example of what you think the roles and responsibilities of a member of the CGO would be with something similar?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a good question. So you are talking about, effectively, the board members?

Mr Telfer: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There is a Premier and Cabinet Circular which determines that there are levels of remuneration for different types of government boards. While it has not yet been formally determined what this board will be, I think we would envisage it to be at the same level as the existing SCAP. Now that I have said SCAP, I should probably remind myself of what that acronym stands for: the State Commission Assessment Panel. I think it is customary for it to change its name and acronym every 18 months. That is currently at the top level of remuneration for government boards and committees, so it is likely to be similar for this.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Mr TELFER: We started to touch on this a little bit. Obviously we are looking at a starting point and who knows to where it will develop. Clause 17, for those reviewing Hansard or listening in, talks specifically about CGO staff, and provides:

(1) CGO's staff consists of—

(a) Public Service employees assigned to assist CGO; and

(b) persons employed by CGO, with the consent of the Minister and on terms and conditions determined by the Minister, to assist CGO.

Are these staff simply seconded from other departments or is this going to be a separate unit from other departments where employees would permanently move to the CGO?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It could conceivably be both. So there will be, we would imagine, a core office function which will be committed to working solely for the CGO. That would include certainly those administrative-type staff who will be necessary to functionally make the world go around for the office.

There may be occasions where staff are seconded to the CGO from other government agencies. I am not saying this will happen, but conceivably that could be either getting some external planning expertise in or transport or water or environment or something like that. It may also mean that there is the opportunity, as does occur from time to time in some government agencies, to have a legal professional from the Crown Solicitor's Office seconded into that agency to provide regular legal advice as well.

But aside from that, we do envisage that that office will comprise staff who are remunerated on a consistent basis to other members of the Public Service, whether they are administrative services staff or, if there are any executives in there, similar to the SAS level 1 and 2 bands. Does that answer your question?

Mr TELFER: Yes, it answers that aspect. It leads on to another question. This is envisaged, obviously, as a red-tape reducing unit capable of getting a bit of cut-through. Surely it stands to reason that Public Service employees coming from other departments could potentially, if their obligation or responsibility is with the example you gave—like the planning department—there is a risk that the advice or the work that gets done is not with that sole vision of reducing process and red tape but reiterating what a department is already doing.

This has basically been put in place because we see that there are hold-ups, there are blockages, there are challenges to working through process. That process input is put in place and implemented by a department. If we are seconding staff to work within the CGO from that department, is there a risk of that being an area of potential conflict and/or additional blockages?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can see the point that the member makes, and it is not an unreasonable concern, but I would like to think that by establishing this process effectively what we are trying to do is provide a one-contact point approach for somebody seeking to get a development assessed and considered for approval or some other project or initiative similarly where the role of the Coordinator-General will be to try and seek the advice and input and potential consideration or decision from each of the agencies that are relevant, and do it concurrently rather than what can often occur at the moment, and that is going off with a development application, for example, to the planning department and asking, 'Have you spoken to SA Water yet?' so you go off and do that and you finally get that and then you get told it is transport, and then you get told it is EPA and so on and so forth. You can see that by having this office, in principle the idea is to make sure that that happens in a far quicker way.

But I take your point. If we are removing a key resource from one of those agencies that does the assessment or provides the advice into a development assessment process, does that mean that that agency is left without that resource and is less able to do it? Yes, I think that is a risk but I would imagine that the chief executive or whomever is senior in that agency and the Coordinator-General would only make decisions about seconding or taking staff on the basis that it was not going to leave a vacuum and stop the existing agency from being able to do its job. I guess that is why the provision is that the CGO can recruit their own staff to be doing that so that they do not necessarily have to draw on those resources from those agencies.

Mr TELFER: Clause 17(1)(b) states that the CGO staff can also consist of:

…persons employed by the CGO, with the consent of the Minister and on terms and conditions determined by the Minister, to assist CGO.

What safety nets are there in place to ensure that such staff are simply approved of by the minister in the same way that electorate staff are approved of rather than staff being hand-picked by the minister to assist in delivering predetermined outcomes? Is there that same tension between roles and responsibilities if there is a particular outcome that the minister is hoping the CGO gets to and they may decide to put a person who they know reflects what their preferred outcome would be into a role within the CGO?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The purpose of this clause 17(1)(b) is to enable the CGO to engage people who you would generally regard as consultants. That might be an external traffic engineer, an environmental consultant or somebody else with external planning-related capability that would obviously provide a benefit to the office that is not otherwise generally able to be sought from the public sector. I should say that they are employed or they are engaged by the CGO. The role of the minister is just to provide consent for that arrangement rather than the other way around.

Mr TELFER: I have just one more question on this clause. This is once again a tension between trying to put a body in place that provides for expediency around decision-making and a streamlined process for projects. If I was a sceptical member of the public looking in, I would see a coordinator-general on a CEO salary. I would see a staff contingent, whatever it may end up being. I can see another level of bureaucracy, another department or sub-department that has been established by government. We could look at it in a cynical way and say it is more bureaucrats.

Is it envisioned that this will be bureaucrat-neutral? Is this work that is expedited or that would ordinarily be going across the desk of someone at Planning, SA Water or Infrastructure and Transport? Is this something that would be bureaucratic-neutral, or could the accusation be put by a member of the press or a member of the public that this is just another layer of bureaucratic obligation and extra expense on the taxpayers' purse?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess the question you are asking is: is it cost-neutral? Are we setting this up and then seeking offsets from other agencies that would otherwise be performing those same sorts of functions that this will be? Not at this stage. We are proposing—and this will be something that you will see when I hand down the budget—to allocate additional resources to be able to create this office and the function.

While any time there are additional staff within the Public Service or additional budget allocations, which can raise concerns from some members of the public that this is bureaucracy out of control or that sort of thing, I would like to think that the creation of this will provide some efficiency and economic benefit to the state. The fact that in principle both major parties and also the development industry would like to see this effort succeed gives an indication that, if it is set up well and conducts itself well and provides real value, then it should be a very positive net benefit to the public sector but more broadly, importantly, to the community as well, because it will expedite, hopefully, money being invested in the economy in whatever the developments are.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

Mr TELFER: I think I have only one on this clause. This question is about delegation of power, minister. Can the minister direct the CGO to delegate a power to the minister's representative?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is no, because set out in clause 13, which we looked at, the minister's representative is able to 'attend (but not participate in)'. I think that sets out that they will not have any deliberative role in the CGO.

Mr TELFER: Absolutely, I looked at that, and that is around meetings and decision-making within meetings. This is around delegation of functions of the CGO. Basically, I want reassurance that there is not the capacity here for the CGO to delegate functions to the minister's representative.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, that's correct, because the minister's representative is only attending the formal meetings of that—I am not quite sure it is called this in the legislation, but the CGO board essentially—and outside of those meetings of the CGO board there will be the ongoing management and work on particular proposals which are being considered by the CGO, which that minister's representative will not be present for; they will not be sitting in the corner of the office 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, or at least you would hope not. I think that shows that they will not.

Clause passed.

Clause 19.

Mr TELFER: This clause 19 is obviously fairly broad and it talks about some of the interpretation and structure of the project coordination and facilitation. Indeed, this bill, or something like that has been considered and nigh on anticipated, actually, from not just people in this place but people watching in—oh, there's plenty watching in, sir. At the 2023 local government association AGM, the then local government minister Geoff Brock announced the proposed new position of local government coordinator. Will the local government coordinator be a staff member of the CGO, or a statutory officer or have some status? Will the local government coordinator have a status position in relation to the CGO?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that the commitment by the then minister was to create that as an administrative position and that, while they will be incorporated within the CGO, it will not be a statutory officer which is constituted in the same way that the Coordinator-General is.

Mr TELFER: At that 2023 local government association AGM, the then local government minister, Mr Brock, made a commitment that the local government coordinator would have access to the powers of the Coordinator-General's Office; does the government stand by that commitment and, if so, how will that occur practically?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think if they are working within the CGO structure they are obviously going to have access to the functions of the CGO, but they will not be necessarily exercising the same determinative discretion that the Coordinator-General themselves, or the members of the Coordinator-General's Office board will do, because they will not necessarily be occupying either of those positions. They will be a participant within the broader office.

Mr TELFER: Treasurer, can you explain the interaction between the Coordinator-General's Office and the state local government accord, which was first announced by the Premier at the state Local Government Economic and Development Forum in March 2023?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that that commitment by the Premier was basically an agreement for the local government sector to work with government to try to develop a pipeline of projects, which could be considered in due course through the Coordinator-General's Office and that the local government representative that you referred to in your earlier question would have a key role in those projects, or those initiatives, being assisted through the deliberative process of the Coordinator-General's Office. So it was, I guess, an agreement or a framework to work collaboratively together to try to bring projects forward and the role within the office of the particular officer that you referred to before, which former Minister Brock made mention of too, would include assisting getting those projects considered.

Mr TELFER: So for clarification, and I guess this will develop as the process does, what will be the process for local government areas to effectively communicate their pipeline of projects as you put them to the Coordinator-General? Will it be through this individual who is entrenched within the office directly? Will it be through their regional Local Government Association or the Local Government Association of South Australia? How is this pipeline of projects going to be effectively communicated and thus streamlined through to the CGO?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a good question because a lot of it is going to be determined on what those projects are and who is putting them forward. If it is a chin scratching idea that we would love to see an integrated recreation development in our council area and that is the full extent of the detail that is able to be brought to bear by the relevant council, it may be that it is a little too premature to consider pushing it through the process.

But if the council says, 'Look, we have a proponent who has ownership of a piece of land. This is what they want to do with it,' whatever the development is. 'They have demonstrated to us they have the capital available and are committed to the project, but it is far too complex for us to consider. We think it might be something worth the Coordinator-General's Office looking at.' Then there will be the capacity for any of those three designations to be made, either by the Coordinator-General themselves to effectively call it in, or it could be designated to them by the minister, or if it is a state development area the government may advise the Governor that the area should be declared for consideration by the CGO.

So it is a bit hard to say specifically and conceivably that there will be a bit of chaff that will be filtered out from the wheat, if can put it like that, amongst the projects because no doubt there will be some councils that may take the view that they will just get this up to the CGO so they get it off their desk so they are free to go and do other things. There will need to be a bit of mutual understanding about who should be dealing with what and what sorts of projects should be coming forward from the local government sector. I guess that is, unfortunately, as specific as I can be.

Mr TELFER: Just for clarification, basically the question with your analogy is: who is going to be doing the thrashing of the crop before the decision is made about the separation of the wheat from the chaff? Where are they going to get to and who is going to be making the decisions about—I will give another agricultural reference—the drafting of the sheep from the goats? It is not going to be going all the way up to the Coordinator-General all the time.

Will it be that local government person who is entrenched who is making those decisions? If so, that is going to be giving them quite a lot of power really when it comes to whether they have a council they get along well with or not. They might just flick them off. When we talk about the potential for politicisation, it is another pinch point where that could conceivably happen if it is at that local government coordinator level.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, it is a good question. That local government coordinator, I would imagine, has a bit of a two-way role. While they may be, in one sense, in receipt of projects coming from local governments to go to the Coordinator-General for consideration or to be dealt with by the Coordinator-General, I think it is conceivable that they will also have a role to go from the Coordinator-General to councils to say, 'Please stop saying that Jane Bloggs' patio extension at the back of 18A Strath Terrace is for the Coordinator-General.' That is probably in your bailiwick. There might need to be a bit of a two-way information flow in that respect.

For the projects that are coming from council to the CGO, it still requires not that local government coordinator to make a determination: they might provide some advice to the Coordinator-General or in turn through to the minister, or through to cabinet and the Governor, but it will still be the Coordinator-General, the minister or the Governor who will make the decisions. They may be corralling—and I am sure there is an appropriate agricultural analogy you could use for that—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: They might be shepherding them—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —corralling is fine?—but they will not have the decision-making capacity.

Clause passed.

Clause 20 passed.

Clause 21.

Mr TELFER: Minister, clause 21(1) provides:

(1) CGO may, on application or on its own initiative, by notice in the Gazette, declare that a project is a coordinated project.

What criteria do you envision a project needs to meet in order for a project to be declared a coordinated project?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If we turn back to clause 4 of the bill, it provides:

(1) If the Minister or CGO (as the case may be) performs—

(a) a prescribed function in relation to a project;

And then you get down to the paragraph on it:

…[they] must have regard to the economic, social and environmental outcomes of the project (for the State as a whole and in the locality of the project), in addition to any relevant objects or principles under the other Act.

So really it is those three key elements and its significance for the state that will determine whether it should be called in. Clause 21(1) allows for the CGO to use its own discretion, of course, but they may also be requested either by a proponent or, for example, by a council to say, 'Can you take this on and get it out of our hair,' if it is the council, or the proponent may say, 'I have tried to go to the council and the council has said that they can't get to it for however long, because they have so many in the queue beforehand, so would you consider taking it on?' Again, it has to satisfy clause 4 by being significant from an economic, social or environmental perspective. It cannot just be a routine planning application that anyone might make as a normal matter of course.

Mr TELFER: I appreciate you pointing to clause 4. If you remember the debate at the time, it is pretty vague and it is pretty broad. This is why, when we look at the three areas that we are going to be considering—coordinated projects, designated projects and state development areas—there is no differentiation within that description (which you point out in clause 4) around a coordinated project in particular. I am trying to provide some guidance for the house in trying to work out the differentiation between a coordinated project, a designated project or what may be then considered to be the establishment of a state development area. Is there envisaged, perhaps within the regulation or subsequent process, a bit more clarification about a threshold, a trigger point, for a coordinated project?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a good question. It is being kept deliberately broad and unspecific for a couple of reasons. We could have tried to codify particular thresholds, for example a financial threshold, if it is over X million dollars worth of total spend or investment. It is conceivable that there are projects which could meet the threshold but be relatively simple to consider and approve and may not need the sort of detailed, nuanced case management that the Coordinator-General's Office can provide. Similarly, how could you set another threshold in terms of whether it is residential, commercial or industrial? Conceivably, it could be either of those three or it could be some combination of them. It could be based on how much land it impacts or on what sort of social or environmental impact it has.

I think the concern from government is that, if you are prescriptive from the beginning, the loss of flexibility may mean that the Coordinator-General either is never satisfied, those thresholds are never satisfied, so is not actually achieving the purpose for which it has been designed, or it gets overwhelmed with what would otherwise be considered if not routine projects then projects that could quite easily be dealt with in the existing planning regime.

If that was to occur, for example, and somebody says, 'Well, here's my project. It ticks the boxes, or it meets the thresholds that you have designated either in legislation by regulation, or by some other instrument. You need to get onto my thing.' If the CGO is encumbered by a whole bunch of otherwise routine applications, then you can see quite quickly the office is not able to fulfil the purpose for which it has been established. That might not provide much comfort to the member because we cannot be too much more specific. Clause 4 tries to set out that it has to have some significance about it. It has to be worth the additional investment by the state in making its resources available because we think that it has a significant impact on a local area if not the whole state itself.

Mr TELFER: I respect that answer. I am not trying to press the point but trying to provide some clarification for the committee as we consider it. There is obviously an escalation. When we look back at clause 3, which is the interpretation of the definitions, it is a bit of a circular process. For instance: 'coordinated project means a project declared under section 21 to be a coordinated project'. Then, you point to clause 4, which talks about 'primary principle', and primary principle has an overarching perspective on all the different project declarations or state development establishments.

Can you provide some clarity to the committee on what you envisage the differentiation is between a coordinated project and a designated project? Apart from some additional definition in the clause that we are yet to consider, you point to clause 4, which is with regard to 'the economic, social and environmental outcomes of the project'. What would be an example, potentially, of a differentiation between a coordinated project and a designated project? If there is that level of flexibility you talked about for the determination of the CGO, it really does set up the CGO to be an incredibly powerful decision-maker for that point of escalation if there is not more clarification on the differences between a coordinated project or a designated project.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We are frantically trying to come up with some primary production-related examples. I have been given a couple of examples here which, hopefully, will provide some better guidance.

An example of a coordinated project might be a large renewables-powered data centre that does not necessarily have its own issues, but the government timelines for the different approvals—for example, operating licences under the Environment Protection Act or the Work Health and Safety Act—may be of significant benefit to the development assessment process. The Coordinator-General's Office could designate it as a coordinated project and that will set timeframes for those specific considerations and determinations by those particular agencies around government and will, in principle, try to expedite the consideration of the development.

A designated development might be a proposal to establish a manufacturing facility in a state development area. It is potentially a lot more complex. There are a lot more approvals which need to be sought: not only an operating licence under the Environment Protection Act and the Work Health and Safety Act but there might also be licences that need to be sought under the Electricity Act that may require input from the Essential Services Commission, for example; it may need a water licence to be provided in conjunction with the Department for Environment and Water; and it may also trigger the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Act as well.

By designating that project, it may provide that there is a quick coordination of that to assess whether it can be given a quick no, for example, if it is unlikely to comply with all of the requirements that would be necessary to approve it, or if it is a suitable proposal they can call on the planning approval from the State Planning Commission and try to coordinate that far more complex regime more quickly.

A state development area might be a pre-assessed industrial complex or industrial area in a particular region of South Australia—for example, the area surrounding but also including Port Bonython, those coastal areas—for consideration of new pipeline infrastructure for oil and gas, new port facilities for the grain industry or, potentially, other new industrial facilities related to the Northern Water desalination project. That, conceivably, could be an example of designating an entire area and trying to do a lot of the pre-planning work so that when the actual discrete elements of that lob into that area, it is much more quickly and readily assessed, having had that state development area declaration made.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. I will reflect back on those two aspects when we get to clauses 22 and 23. My final question is on clause 21(2) where it says that the 'CGO must consult with the proponent of the project on the proposed declaration.' Once again running scenarios, does this allow a project proponent to potentially be lobbying the CGO for coordinated project status?

Once again, we are looking at scenarios where if there is an independent person looking in at a process, and you might have a very powerful lobby group, a very powerful potential developer/investor who may put through this subsection consultation pressure on to the CGO to make a decision, is this what this subsection allows for, the project proponents to be lobbying the CGO for them to have a declaration of a coordinated project?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that the requirement to consult with a proponent has been included in no small part because the development industry, when we were consulting on the bill, asked for that to be included. I can understand why for two reasons. One is they would conceivably want to be able to have a process where they can put to government or they can put to the CGO their proposal and have it considered as to whether it should be a coordinated project or a designated project, which is understandable.

On the flip side, they would not want the Coordinator-General or the minister to call in a project or to designate a project without the proponent knowing. So the proponent might be some way down the path of dealing with the local council or the State Planning Commission, thinking that they were going through the process, ticking all the boxes and then suddenly they find out that their project has been called in and they think, 'Hang on. What does all this mean? No-one ever told me about this.'

I think that is the rationale behind it. To answer your question: does it give rise to the unreasonable capacity for lobbying? It may, but we have a pretty robust regime around lobbying. Everyone has to be registered and it has to be declared.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand that, but how do you determine the difference between just submitting your project to the Coordinator-General for their consideration about whether they will declare it a coordinated project and lobbying? If you are a proponent conceivably rather than just send in a letter or send in a slide deck or whatever, it is understandable that a proponent might say, 'Look, I am thinking of investing a substantial amount of money which I believe satisfies the economic, social and environmental thresholds of clause 4. I would like a meeting to be able to walk you through why you should consider designating it a coordinated project or for the minister even to determine that it should be a designated project.' It is not an unreasonable consideration, but I hope that the lobbyist regime that we have in South Australia provides a bit of public comfort and comfort to the parliament that there is at least some transparency and accountability behind that.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Mr TELFER: Minister, in your answer before when you were trying to provide a differentiation between a coordinated project and a designated project, the example that you gave was of a designated project within a state development area, so a specific project within a state development area. Is that inclusive or exclusive, i.e. is the designated project always going to be within a state development area or will a designated project potentially be a standalone designated project? Just because of the example that you gave, it got my attention because maybe that is the differentiation: specific projects within a state development area as opposed to a coordinated one, or is that just a reflection of the example rather than the rule?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It does not need to be in a state development area. Sorry, that was the fault of the example I gave, so apologies for that. But the reason I gave it is that if you look at the definition in clause 22(1), it says:

The minister may…a designated project if the Minister is satisfied that the project is of significance to the State because, in the opinion of the Minister, the project is of major economic, social or environmental importance (including, if relevant, when the project is considered in conjunction with 1 or more other projects being undertaken, or proposed to be undertaken).

That is where, for example, that establishment of a state development area becomes relevant because it may be a larger geographic area where there are a range of developments proposed to occur in that same general area.

The example I gave before was that kind of Upper Spencer Gulf industrial-type area where there might be some augmentation to the infrastructure that is already at Port Bonython or there might be some improvements to the Port Bonython Jetty. There might be a new export port created there or there might be an accommodation in the larger region of the Northern Water project—a consideration of, 'If you're going to have a desalination plant somewhere in that area and you're going to have ships coming in to take grain away, how do the outfall pipes from the desal plant potentially get anywhere near the transit route of the ships?' and so on.

Or, for example, there may be a major new housing development in a large geography of if not Greater Adelaide then regional South Australia. If I was to give an example, maybe something like a Riverlea housing development where you have a lot of houses but there is likely to at some stage need to be a school, emergency services facilities or healthcare facilities, policing facilities and so on there. If it is of such a large scale, you might declare that a designated project because you will be needing to make a number of determinations around different discrete developments within that one geography. So that is, I guess, a different, broader example.

Mr TELFER: Just extrapolating that out, does this mean that projects allocated the status of designated projects are to be considered separately or, upon being taken into consideration alongside one or more other projects, do they all become a single, designated project or is this at the discretion of the minister or the CGO?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There will be a discretion, so it can be done as one or it could be done discretely element by element. For example, say that housing example I gave before, there may be a broader consideration of the housing development and perhaps the transport requirements—the roads and the water and so on—and then it will not be until perhaps some years down the track that there will need to be a separate consideration of a school development or a healthcare facility or an integrated commercial facility, and so on. It would be up to the discretion of the CGO and, of course, the proponent as well.

Mr TELFER: Clause 22(2) states that the minister cannot allocate a project designated project status unless the minister is satisfied the CGO has consulted with the proponent of the project on the proposed declaration. Again, what sort of objective criteria applies to the consultation or is it purely subjective?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess there are two elements to the answer that I can provide the member. One is that it is to satisfy that concern that no designation is going to be made without the proponent knowing, so that is one important element. The second element is that it is to be the Coordinator-General or the office that does the consultation and not the minister to provide that separation from the minister and the proponent in that process, and perhaps alleviating some concern about inappropriate lobbying or anything like that.

Mr TELFER: Comparing once again the coordinated and the designated projects, obviously the designated projects are purely on the minister's decision whereas the coordinated projects are the CGO's decision. This is why I was trying to get a differentiation between them: is it an escalated point to get to a designated project, or is it just one where the minister of the day has decided, 'No, this is important. This is politically important. This is strategically, for our government's economic vision, important'—the differentiation between the two.

We could have a scenario potentially where the CGO has considered a project and thought, 'I don't really think this is appropriate for a coordinated project,' but then the minister comes in and says, 'Actually, this is important to me so I am going to designate this as a project. I know that you have already talked to the proponent about the potential, CGO, you have made your decision that you probably don't think it is appropriate as a coordinated project, but I am going to declare it as a designated project and you have to do the work, CGO.' Does this introduce some of those potential party political or individual ministerial interference and/or involvement into the process? Do you envisage that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not think so, no, because it says the minister may, on application—so the minister may be approached by a proponent saying, 'I've got this terrific development proposition that we want the government to consider.'

Mr Telfer: The CGO has ignored me.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Or it might just be someone who has lobbed in from interstate or overseas who is unfamiliar with the administrative landscape of how South Australia deals with these things and thinks, 'I will go to a minister,' and the minister says, 'This is the sort of thing that should be considered by the CGO,' and off it goes.

Of course, the other thing that might be possible is it might be a government project that the government wants the CGO to manage because it is a piece of public infrastructure that is in high demand. For example, in last year's budget we announced a $200 million expansion to Yatala to put on more prison beds. The minister might say, 'We want that considered by the CGO to expedite it, because we want as much prison accommodation brought online as quickly as possible.' It might also be a public sector project. We are not setting this up, of course, to consider public sector projects, but you could see in that instance how it could just be of the minister's own initiative. When a significant public project like that has been approved, it is foreseeable that a minister might make that determination and ask the CGO to manage the process.

Mr TELFER: I have one more question on this one and then we can finish this clause. This is specifically around the processes of the Coordinator-General's Office and how it might offer a pathway of opportunity for growth-minded councils, for instance. Could a pathway occur by declaring a council-initiated project as a coordinated project, as referred to in clause 21, or a designated project, as contemplated in clause 22?

For example, if a council has a strong proposal for economic development in a particular part of South Australia but has had difficulty gaining the attention and focus of state government departments or agencies, how will the Coordinator-General's Office help? Can these become coordinated projects, or is the process best gone through the Coordinator-General's Office under a designated project, potentially from correspondence or conversations with the minister for them to come in at a designated project area? What do you envision that process is going to look like?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Actually both pathways are possible. If that local government coordinator is able to bring forward a project that meets the requirements of clause 4, then the Coordinator-General could declare it a coordinated project. But it might also be the case, for example, that when we are going to country cabinet, a council might petition a minister directly. The minister might say, 'This looks kind of similar to one I am aware that the Coordinator-General has been dealing with from another council. I will put you in touch with the Coordinator-General,' which may then result in the Coordinator-General saying that they will themselves declare it a coordinated project, or the minister might make that determination to ensure that councils are being treated equitably if it is not declared by the Coordinator-General themselves, so both paths are possible.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.