OUTBACK COMMUNITIES (ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank members for their contributions during the second reading. A number of questions were asked in terms of debates made later in the piece, and members agreed that we put this bill through to committee, giving me the chance to put on record answers to questions. I will go through some of those issues and put on the record some of the answers to questions asked during the second reading stage.

The new authority must prepare and adopt a public consultation policy and, in so doing, will work with each community to ensure community views are taken into account. This public consultation policy must be used in connection with the development of its five-yearly strategic management plan and its annual business plan. This strategic plan will provide a vision and direction for the future of the Outback areas on a five-year rolling basis. Many communities are well advanced in the development of their individual community plans. When complete, these plans will collectively form the foundation for the development of the new authority's strategic vision for the Outback.

Those communities that wish to implement a community contribution will have developed a clear direction for the community from the development of their community plan and their community's contribution to the new authority's strategic plan. Each community must be consulted as part of the development of the strategic plan. In addition, the community contribution must be authorised by the individual community's affairs resourcing agreement.

I therefore find it difficult to think of a situation or an example where I would be put in the position of thinking about overriding a community proposal because it was not in the long-term interests of the community. The process ensures that the long-term interests are always in mind. Roads in the existing trust area, whether sealed or unsealed, are primarily the responsibility of the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. The department has advised that for the 2009-10 financial year it has budgeted $26.5 million to be spent in the existing trust's area. This includes work on both the sealed and unsealed road network. Further advice is that the maintenance component of this work is $15.5 million.

The honourable member also asked that I clarify some issues in relation to the provision of water, and I paraphrase his questions, as follows:

1. For all communities, will the minister outline which community associations have responsibility for the provision of water and which rely on SA Water?

2. What funding assistance is provided to those communities, and what is their method of water delivery?

The Outback Areas Community Development Trust provides funding assistance and management support for Outback communities managing a community water supply. The trust has advised that for the 36 communities there are different methods for the provision and delivery of water. Currently, the trust, and in the future the new authority, will provide funding assistance and management support for Outback communities managing a community water supply.

They do this through the Community Affairs Resourcing and Management (CARM) agreement. The CARM agreement is an agreement with and a commitment by the trust to communities in regard to grants and subsidies over a 12-month period. The types of things covered in these agreements include: access to subsidies for essential town services such as water supplies; insurance; street lights; waste management; executive support; and town maintenance. The agreements are different for each community.

I am advised that the Office of Regional Affairs supports the bill and, at the time of consultation, the office stated that the bill would have a 'positive impact on the Outback region by ensuring long-term strategic planning, including the asset and infrastructure planning in a coordinated and consultative manner'.

The bill includes a capacity for the new authority to meet by telephone or internet link as a legitimate meeting of the authority. The tyranny of distance can be overcome in this way, at least partially. When it was first envisaged to include this ability, it was thought that this would enable a single member to attend a meeting when they would otherwise have been unable to attend. It is indeed envisaged that the meetings will be open to the public, and there will be a rare occasion when a meeting is suddenly called. The suggestion that an open chat facility be established on a website is very welcome, and I will certainly pass on that suggestion to the agency.

It is not envisaged that the level of remuneration for members of the new authority will change from that which currently exists. Members are currently paid in accordance with the Premier's Circular 16. The chair is paid an annual fee of $14,220, and members are paid sessional fees of $206. Deputy members are paid $103 per four-hour session when attending as observers and, if they attend as a member, they will be paid accordingly. In addition, all costs associated with these meetings (such as mileage, accommodation and meals) are paid for by the trust, which obviously will become the authority.

The Outback Areas Community Development Trust currently contributes to a range of boards and committees for such things as activities, joint brochures and economic development officers, to name but a few. A question was raised as to whether these types of funding contributions would remain. I would like to assure members that in this regard it will be business as usual. If the new authority chooses to enter into resource agreements or contribute to tourism events (such as the cattle drive, for instance), this will be a matter for the new authority to decide.

What this government requires is transparency and accountability in the new authority's decision-making processes. I also flag the government's opposition to the concept of non-voting members—a concept suggested by the Hon. Stephen Wade. I believe it is imperative to have an authority made up of entirely voting members. We are asking for a significant commitment from authority members—a great deal of their time and significant travel requirements, for example. Members will be required to attend meetings in Port Augusta regularly, and to assist in the development of policies, strategic management plans, asset management plans, and financial and annual budget plans. Members will also be required to participate in the authority's visiting program to Outback communities. Members can appreciate that this work will not only take a significant amount of time and commitment but also will require a specific skill set for members of the authority. I do not believe that we would be able to attract appropriately skilled people necessarily to these positions if they were not given the opportunity to vote on important matters affecting Outback communities.

All members should be able to contribute to decisions using their skill and knowledge by exercising their vote, otherwise these non-voting members become advisers or observers to the committee and it would be difficult for them to have the same sense of ownership and sense of commitment as someone who exercises a vote.

However, the government understands the intention of these amendments and the desire of the honourable member to ensure that the majority of authority members are from Outback communities. Therefore, we are prepared to increase the Outback representation membership of the authority by preparing an amendment that will require the authority to be made up of at least four Outback community representatives, rather than three, which was the original proposal in the bill. Given that the total membership is seven, that would mean the majority of members would come from or have a close association with Outback communities.

There is no reason whatsoever that the authority could not be made up entirely of Outback representatives, and that would certainly be our objective. We have certainly shown that commitment in the past where those provisions do not exist on current membership but where we have generally had 100 per cent of the membership of the trust either coming from or very closely associated with Outback communities.

We have a demonstrated track record and commitment to putting locals on this authority or trust. Obviously, the membership of the trust will depend on the skills and expertise of applicants, and the government wants to have some discretion in order to make sure that we can have expert skills if and where we are not able to find those skills in the local community.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for the responses she gave at the end of the second reading and just now. I indicate, though, that, in relation to the commitment of grant funding, the minister's response was that basically the government could not give any forward assurances on funding. The opposition finds that disappointing.

In relation to the comment about the commonwealth's attitude, as I understand it, the minister said that in terms of commonwealth local government financial assistance grants, the Outback Areas Community Development Trust is already recognised as a local government authority for the purposes of receiving these grants, so that remains unchanged.

I presume that was an attempt to respond to my fifth question at the end of my second reading contribution when I asked: considering that the bill moves the trust into more of a statutory authority status, what discussions has the government had with the commonwealth as to whether the changes of the trust will have any impact on the commonwealth's relationship with the trust or authority and, in particular, the capacity of the authority to be regarded as a local government-type body for the purposes of receiving local government grants, etc.? Clearly, the minister's response indicates that the commonwealth has not been consulted. We believe that is a risk with the bill.

In relation to the minister's response just given that she cannot conceive of a situation where the minister would have cause to override a community plan for the sake of the long-term interest of the community, I would like to pose a question by way of scenario. Could the minister conceive of a situation where a community had established nearby another town that was significantly expanded due to a mining operation? In this scenario, a significant number of people (either workers or contractors) at that mining operation decide to live at the non-mining community, which is a member of the Outback Areas Community Development Trust. Those contractors and employees do not intend to live there long term but instead intend to be there for the duration of their employment with the mining operation. They do not see it in their long-term interests to fund the roads, waste water systems, power and whatever other challenge that community faces. Is that surely not a situation where the minister might see it as conceivable that a community's plan might not represent the long-term interests of that community?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the question about consultation with the commonwealth, indeed, yes; I have been advised that our officers have consulted with the Grants Commission, and they have indicated they will continue to support the contribution of funding to the trust at least at existing levels. In relation to the second hypothetical, even with that example I am still not able to conceive that the long-term interests of the community could not be upheld, given that the funding for the communities is irrespective of a community contribution, so I do not see that that scenario would necessarily deliver a long-term conflict.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Perhaps I have not communicated effectively. My understanding is that a community levy cannot be levied without the agreement of the community. If the community's progress association were taken over by short-term residents, is it not conceivable that they would develop a plan that was totally at odds with the long-term interests of the community? What will the minister do? Will the minister draft an alternative plan and require the community to agree?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the community levy is only one aspect of funding available to communities. For instance, that particular hypothetical community the honourable member is referring to would still receive its funding under a CARM agreement and any other project funding or whatever else it might have access to. So, it is only one element of funding for that particular community.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: Will the minister say who decides whether this plan is, in fact, in the long-term interests of the people, given that there is no election process to appoint either the members of this particular authority or, indeed, the members of a progress association within these Outback communities? What is assumed to be the long-term good of the community may, in fact, be the long-term desire of four or five people. As I see it, we have no way of confirming that, given that there is no polling mechanism or method of election.

By way of comment, I suppose, as opposed to a question, the minister has just pointed out that, even without the community levy, they are still eligible for the other funding. They are still eligible for the other funding under the current legislation. What you are trying to do is impose another layer of levies without any polling mechanism to decide whether those who purport to be representing their community are doing so.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The process involves a very extensive community engagement and consultative process at a range of different levels. I have been advised that, for instance, the community plans, on which work has already commenced, are a precursor to feeding into and informing the Strategic Plan. It is required that the whole of the community is consulted in relation to that process, and that then informs the Strategic Plan. I have already outlined the extensive processes around that, which involves extensive community consultation. That then, in effect, has to be signed off by the minister. I have been advised that it has to be submitted every five years and approved by the minister.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: The minister responded broadly to some questions I asked about the contributions the authority would make. Obviously, my questions included the background of the contributions made by the current trust to a range of bodies, including the Eyre Regional Development Board and, I suppose, more particularly the Northern Regional Development Board.

I think the minister broadly said that the authority will continue to make contributions to such bodies, to tourism and other projects. However, what I would like clarified is whether the contributions under the new Regional Development Australia program to the Far North, Eyre and West RDA bodies will be any more than is currently the case.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that that is currently a decision the Outback Areas Trust makes, and this bill will not change that. That means that the authority will make those decisions for itself, just as the trust currently does.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: With respect, they make contributions to those bodies on a basis similar to local government. Obviously, they do not put in the same amounts as local government because of their inability to do so. I am grateful for that answer, but I am not sure that is the way in which it will work under Regional Development Australia, and I would want the minister to keep a close eye on that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 5, lines 9 and 10 [clause 7(1)]—Delete 'of whom at least 3 are to be members of different outback communities'.

If the chair is agreeable, I propose to speak particularly to my amendments Nos 1 and 2 because the first one is consequential upon the main clause which is the second. The opposition is of the view that, in this bill, the government is proposing to move the Outback Areas Community Development Trust into, if you like, a new state of being. From being a grant allocation body, it is going to become a pseudo local government body.

Opposition members are not saying that that is fundamentally inappropriate. What we are saying is that it is fundamentally inappropriate to transform the trust into a pseudo local government body and not accord the people of the Outback the same rights as other South Australians and that is to have a democratic say in their local governance.

We appreciate that the Outback is unique and that there might need to be special arrangements to reflect that democratic will, but we do not accept that the people of the Outback deserve second-class local government. We do not believe that they should have local government representation without democratic inputs. One of the key elements of local government in South Australia is that local government is by locals: local people form the government for the area that they serve.

Of course, local government in most regions in South Australia is able to support staff who are able to provide the breadth of expertise that the local government might need and, therefore, it is not unusual for the CEO and members of the staff of local government to be available for council meetings and to advise. I am sure that happens with the Outback Areas Community Development Trust. We intend that it would continue to happen with the authority, but we also see merit in the government being able to supplement the expertise of the local residents by appointing board members who are not put up through the democratic processes. However, it is our view that, just like any other local government in South Australia, the Outback authority should not have non-local people having a voting say in the affairs of the body.

The minister has intimated that the government is suggesting an amendment. I do not know whether the minister has had that drafted; I am certainly not aware of it having been tabled. As I understand it, the suggested compromise (and that is my word, not the minister's) is that the minimum number of residents would increase from three to four. This misses the point somewhat in terms of our fundamental belief. Our fundamental belief is that we have crossed the Rubicon. We are turning the authority into a local government-type body and, in that context, no non-resident and no person who is not democratically put forward should have voting powers.

The minister says that, without a vote, no non-voting member would turn up. I think that is an unfortunate reflection on the quality of people who put themselves forward for boards, authorities and other community organisations. The reality is that many people are very keen to serve South Australia and particular regions within South Australia. Certainly, I would hope that there might at least be government appointees who are willing to take an appointment without voting powers.

Let us remember the realities of these boards and similar bodies. The reality is that decisions are rarely taken by vote. The vast majority of decisions of well-functioning boards are made by consensus. A non-voting member can fully participate in the proceedings of the authority. They can express their view and, presumably, because the minister has seen that they have the expertise that will contribute to the authority, I am sure that their views would be persuasive. So we are certainly not so cynical, as is the minister, to think that people would not accept appointment to the authority because they would not have the power to vote.

I also want to clarify, and I am not sure whether this is a misconception of the minister, but just to make it doubly clear, we are suggesting that the members be non-voting, not that they be unpaid. It is our expectation that non-voting members of the authority would have the entitlements of any other member. I stress, too, that a non-voting member may well be a resident of the Outback; it is just that they have not come up through the democratic nomination process.

I appreciate that the nomination process is not a normal polling process. The Hon. Caroline Schaefer referred to polling and, indeed, we are not proposing a local government poll, but we do hope (as I mentioned in my second reading contribution) that these nomination processes will allow the development of democratic processes particularly, say, with the prospect of progress associations voluntarily clustering for joint nominations of particular authority members.

So, in due course, as the authority matures, it may well be that we have informal ward-type arrangements throughout the Outback, and that may well be a very healthy democratic development. We believe that our amendment, rather than being prescriptive about the nature of the democratic processes and the Outback, allows the minister to work with the communities and the authority to evolve those processes over time. I commend amendment No. 1 standing in my name, but I reiterate that I have also been speaking to amendment No. 2 because they are linked.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will also direct my remarks to amendments Nos 1 and 2, because they are related. The government does not support either of these amendments. We are very clear that we do not support having non-voting members on the authority. We are saying that, with the expanded role and function of the authority, so too comes the need for expanded skill sets and knowledge, particularly, for instance, in relation to financial and/or legal skills and expertise. I have already indicated that we are committed to having 100 per cent of the membership of the authority coming from local residents and people closely associated with the Outback. However, where that is not possible we want the discretion to be able to appoint certain expertise—if and when needed.

The government asks for a significant commitment from members of the authority. In relation to travel, for example, I met with one trust member who had to travel for a day to get to the meeting and another day to get home again. That is an overwhelming commitment; it is a huge ask, and it is unreasonable not to include those members as fully-fledged voting parts of that authority. I believe (and I stand by this) that it is likely it would make it more difficult for us to recruit; having an adviser or observer role only is quite different to being an active part of decision-making.

As I said, it is most important that the authority has the skills and expertise it needs to assist it in doing its job properly in protecting local communities. The members we choose will, hopefully, have an array of skills and expertise and we want those skills and expertise to be part of the decision-making process. By ensuring that the people with those skills and expertise are part of the decision-making set, we will get sound, well considered, expert decisions.

In relation to this, I believe it is fundamental that all members vote. We have never promoted this to be a democratically elected level of council: it is not that. South Australia has to design its structures to suit its own environmental and social needs, and the Outback has many challenging pressures and needs. We believe we have this right. We have consulted extensively, and the proposal put forward has broad and solid support from all the associations—from the LGA, the current trust, and surrounding councils—and most of the individual residents who provided feedback gave resounding support for the proposals put forward to them.

So, Outback community members have seen that the proposals this government put forward were a sound, fit and proper way to assist them to meet their future needs, and it is of concern that members who are not part of the Outback community come into this chamber and want to override the considerations, decisions and wishes of that community. I have put on record the extensive level of consultation that went into the proposals, and the broad support they have received.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: I point out that there are numerous precedents for having public servants, particularly senior public servants, in advisory roles without their having voting rights. The example that immediately comes to mind is each of the natural resources management boards in the state, together with the Natural Resources Management Council. There are numerous precedents for people to sit on boards and authorities in an advisory capacity and to be there for the whole meeting, but not to have voting rights, in order to protect local interests.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that (and to the very best of our combined knowledge) there has never been a public servant member of the trust. That is not the way the trust has worked in the past, nor is it the way we envisage it working in the future. It is not an authority, board or committee that we intend to fill with public servants; we want it to be in touch with Outback communities and to reflect their needs, concerns and interests.

It is outrageous; is the honourable member really suggesting that we fill this committee with public servants? That is not the intention. To the best of our knowledge our track record shows that we have never put a public servant on the trust; it has comprised local Outback community residents and people closely associated with Outback communities. That is the way we plan to continue. We do not propose to fill it with public servants.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In response to the minister's comments about consultation, in our second reading contributions we expressed our cynicism that the consultation was effective. The most fundamental point, in my view, was the fact that the minister distributed the draft bill but sought no comment on it. I make the point to the minister, too, that the opposition is speaking not only because of concerns raised by residents in the Outback but because we also have an obligation to ensure that the government's models within which local government operates in South Australia are functional and appropriate for the good governance of the people of South Australia. We do not believe that appointing a local government type body with no democratic nomination or election process is for the good governance and good government of South Australia.

To give the minister credit—and I thank her—she has had significant discussions with the opposition during consideration of the bill between the houses, and I think both the government and the opposition well understand each other's position. I do not see that we will progress the discussion in committee: it is a matter upon which the committee must decide. The minister has made it clear that the government's commitment is fundamental. I assure her that the opposition's commitment is fundamental, also.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 3 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: I now put the question: that the amendment in the name of the minister be agreed to.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Chairman, I have not seen this one. If I can clarify: is this the amendment tabled at 3.37pm today, which is less than an hour or so ago? I must admit, as I said in the debate, I was not aware of the government amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The minister moved that amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was not even aware it had been filed and now we are voting on an amendment which has not even been moved. Considering the attitude of the government to late amendments in the past, I had one which was 28 hours old last session and I got crucified over it, and here we have one which is an hour or two old. It is extraordinary.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have indicated both in our negotiations and discussions and also in my remarks on clause 1 that it is quite a simple amendment. It aims to have four members of the authority being residents or people who are strongly associated with Outback areas, as I have indicated and put on the record. It is not a problem. If the honourable member is having trouble keeping up, that is fine: we can adjourn so that he gets to look at the amendments. I have discussed with him some of the technical difficulties in terms of addressing his amendments. I have sought to indicate my intention in advance wherever I could. I indicated previously that we would be moving to four members rather than three. I am happy to proceed as it is a simple straightforward amendment and I have previously foreshadowed it, but, if the honourable member is too slow to keep up, I am happy to adjourn so that he can give it further consideration.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not think it helps the committee to progress for the minister to slip down into denigration. I remind the minister that this is not just a chamber of opposition and government members. Indeed, we have had discussions, but there are other members in this place. There are crossbench MPs who were not part of the government/opposition discussions, and they have a right to know what the government is intending with sufficient notice. According to the parliamentary counsel note, it certainly was not tabled before 3.37pm. I do not propose to delay the committee, but I hope that crossbench MPs note the lack of regard the government has for the due process of this chamber. We are still to hear the minister move the amendment, but to try to cover up her disregard for not only this place but for crossbench MPs, she is slipping very quickly into personal denigration and abuse. I suggest that she focus on the merits of the case and move the amendment so that we can get on with dealing with it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his advice and preparedness to move forward, which I appreciate. I draw attention to the fact that I have amended the bill in response to discussions we have had with the opposition, involving its concerns around the level of representation of Outback members on the trust. The intention behind the amendment is to accommodate some of the concerns the opposition itself raised. It is time to move on, so I move:

Page 5, line 9 [clause 7(1)]—Delete '3' and substitute '4'.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 5, after line 10—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) No more than 2 members of the Authority may be non-voting members.

(1b) The following rules govern the appointment of voting members:

(a) subject to paragraph (g), the Minister must seek nominations for appointment of voting members by notice in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the outback and on the website of the Authority;

(b) the Minister may accept a nomination from any person whom the Minister is satisfied has or formerly had his or her principal place of residence in the outback or from any community organisation that the Minister is satisfied represents the interests of, or provides public services and facilities to, an outback community;

(c) the Minister may accept the nomination of any person whom the Minister is satisfied has or formerly had his or her principal place of residence in the outback;

(d) the Minister must select voting members for appointment from the persons validly nominated for appointment within the period (being at least 1 month) allowed by the notice;

(e) subject to paragraph (f), the Governor may appoint a person as a voting member despite the fact that he or she has not been so nominated and selected by the Minister if an insufficient number of nominations have been received and it is necessary to do so in order for the Authority to have at least 5 voting members;

(f) in appointing a person under paragraph (e), the Governor must ensure that at least 3 voting members of the Authority have or formerly had principal places of residence in the outback;

(g) if a person is to be appointed to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of a voting member within 12months after the member's appointment following nomination in response to a notice seeking nominations for appointment, the Minister may select a person to fill the casual vacancy from amongst other persons validly nominated in response to the notice but not selected for appointment (without seeking further nominations).

This is the key amendment I foreshadowed in the cognate discussion, so I will not recount it in detail. The opposition stands by this amendment and believes it is a far more appropriate democratic model than the government's approach.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I understood that the first amendment we voted on was a test for this, and the government won that test. I understand that we have debated the principles about having non-voting members on the authority, so we do not need to have that discussion again. I understand that we voted on that test clause and that the opposition lost it, but if we need another vote let us have it. I therefore move:

Page 5, after line 10—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) In selecting a member of an outback community for appointment to the Authority, nominations for appointment must be sought by notice in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the outback and on the website of the Authority.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not disagree with the minister that the committee's determination on amendment No. 1 makes clear what its view will be on this one, but we believe it is fundamental so we will still put it but will not divide on it, and we will accept amendment No. 2.

The Hon. S.G. Wade's amendment negatived; the Hon. G.E. Gago's amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 8 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 10, line 24 [clause 16(3)(d)]—

Delete 'payable' and substitute:

proposed to be declared

I understand we have government support so I will not delay the council any further discussing it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 10, after line 32—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) The plan and budget must be accompanied by a certificate of assurance of an independent auditor approved by the Minister certifying that, in the opinion of the auditor—

(a) the Authority has made a proper assessment of its financial requirements for the financial year taking into account the activities proposed in the plan and the means by which the activities are to be carried out; and

(b) the rates proposed to be declared for the financial year are appropriate having regard to that assessment.

The opposition moves this amendment because the government suggested in the second reading that at least the asset sustainability levy will be subject to an audit. My understanding is that the government's audit is ex post facto (after the event). We believe that the community—and, for that matter, the parliament and the representatives of the community—deserve to have some assurance about the appropriateness of a levy before it is applied, not after it is applied. We suggest this amendment because it gives the communities an opportunity to have some assurance that the asset levy that is proposed to be applied is appropriate in terms of the financial requirements for the year outlined in the plan. I urge the committee to support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This amendment would require the authority to engage an independent auditor to certify that the authority has made a proper assessment of its financial requirements for the year and that rates proposed are appropriate having regard to that assessment.

It is questionable whether this amendment is necessary given that the authority falls within the auspices of the state government and is currently subject to the same financial management and reporting requirements as agencies, that is, that it is audited currently by the Auditor-General. As part of this process, the Auditor-General not only audits the finances but also the processes behind these financial decisions. So, that already occurs, and I am informed that is actually a cost impost for the trust. It pays for, or at least contributes something to, that auditing.

One of the other problems we have in relation to this is that we believe it could be quite difficult for the authority to find auditors to undertake this particular task. It would be in addition to the Auditor-General's auditing requirements, so they would have to find an auditor to do that. We are also concerned that there would obviously be additional costs associated with undertaking this additional work, taking funds away from the badly needed on-the-ground services. One of the reasons we made these changes is so that local communities can have increased access to funding to improve local amenity. What the honourable member is proposing would siphon off funds for a second lot of auditing when, already, the authority's records will be required to be audited by the Auditor-General, and I do not believe you can get a higher standard than that.

As well, to ensure there is a robust process in place, the new authority will be required to consult with communities, develop a public consultation policy, a strategic management plan, an annual business plan and budget; and develop a Community Affairs Resourcing and Management Agreement for each community. This process ensures there are indeed more than enough checks and balances in place so that appropriate standards are maintained and proper processes are adhered to, and that the communities' best interests are upheld. So, we oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 17 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The CHAIRMAN: I point out to the committee that this clause, being a money clause, is in erased typed. Standing Order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon any such clause. A message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (22 to 27), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.