PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (FUNCTIONS OF ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 May 2013.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:51): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Parliamentary Committees (Functions of Environment, Resources and Development Committee) Amendment Bill 2013, but I will not speak for terribly long. This bill is a response to the select committee into grain handling in the House of Assembly. The committee consisted of quite a diverse group of people, including the member for Frome (Mr Geoff Brock), Adrian Pederick and Tim Whetstone (two members of the Liberal opposition), Leon Bignell (now minister Leon Bignell) and Tony Piccolo (now minister Piccolo), who were all on that particular committee.

One of the recommendations, from recollection, was that the South Australian parliament establish a standing committee on primary industries with the following objectives: (1) to ensure that primary industries continues to be a valuable part of our state's growth and economic success; and (2) to succeed in developing policies and practices that promote the state as a producer of premium food from a clean environment. My understanding is that Tony Piccolo, Leon Bignell, Geoff Brock, Adrian Pederick and Tim Whetstone unanimously supported all the recommendations, but particularly that one.

It is my understanding that, when the final report from the select committee was tabled and before the House of Assembly and all members spoke to it, it was received unanimously, so it is somewhat baffling to see that we have the Labor Party in the House of Assembly, and its members, unanimously supporting a standing committee on primary industries. It is somewhat baffling now to see the minister in this chamber (the minister for primary industries) wanting to amend the committees act to morph, if you like, into the Environment, Resources and Development Committee a term of reference in relation to agriculture and primary industries, which is not in the spirit of what the select committee had found.

I am the shadow minister for primary industries, and both the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and I made our entire living from primary industries prior to being elected to this place. Brokey did have a small stint as a member of the House of Assembly, but there was a period, before he came in here that—

The PRESIDENT: Who?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Thirteen years.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thirteen years—a small stint! Maybe he had lost a little bit of touch with his farming roots. I also put on the record that I am the only person in the parliament—maybe not now that Tim Whetstone is here—whose entire living was reliant on irrigation prior to coming into parliament as well.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: How many calluses have you got on your hands?

The PRESIDENT: Order! You will ignore the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, who will be speaking after you, sir.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: How many what on my hands? He is talking about calluses on his hands. I am not sure which bill he is talking about. I come to the parliament with as good credentials in agriculture and primary industries as anybody, and I think it is important that we recognise the importance of this industry. It is worth about 25 per cent to our state's economy, given the revenue it brings in, and it is an industry, of course. We have a great grain harvest, for example, where the wealth is spread right across the state from Coorabie, 200 kilometres west of Ceduna, right down to the bottom of the Lower South-East in the Millicent and Mount Burr area—I think where Mitch Williams lives, the member for MacKillop—where quite a lot of grain is grown. You can see that the primary industries sector delivers wealth right across our state, and I think much more than most people give it credit for.

It just seems a little strange that we would be accepting the select committee's recommendations from the House of Assembly, as I said, unanimously supported by the committee which includes two ministers of the current government. So, two members of cabinet supported that, yet now we find the minister has only, if you like, a half-baked approach to let us just squeeze it into the ERD Committee, and I think that is an insult to the industry. If you are going to have a focus on primary industries in any committee, it probably does not really fit with the ERD Committee and it may well even fit more appropriately with the Natural Resources Committee.

I will quickly address the couple of amendments before us. It seems as though it is just a halfway measure to try to appease the select committee. I note that one of those members, Adrian Pederick, was recently on radio discussing all the other recommendations. My understanding is that virtually none of them has been implemented by the government. On one hand they have ignored all the other recommendations and this one is a halfway house.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: The others cost money and this one does not.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire interjects that the others cost money and this one does not. I remind members that the industry generates about 25 per cent of the revenue for the state's economy. I note that there are a couple of amendments, and the one that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has just tabled I will have to take back to our party room. I think his amendment is to refer this to the Natural Resources Committee. I note that the Hon. Mark Parnell has an amendment, and my recollection of it is that it seeks to make the ERD Committee a Legislative Council-only committee, to remove the House of Assembly.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Administered? So, not just Legislative Council only. There are a couple of amendments on the table, and obviously the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's I will have to take back to our party room. The opposition thinks that the committee structure here in this parliament probably needs some review, and we have a subcommittee of our party room actually looking at the committee structures here. We have a number of standing committees and select committees, and I think everybody recognises the great work done by the Budget and Finance Committee, which is chaired by the Hon. Robert Lucas. I am sure that, if there is a change of government—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —the new opposition and the crossbenchers will want to establish a budget and finance committee, and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is offering to chair it. It is very generous of him to do that, but nonetheless—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, in fact, it is only $12.50 a day for the one that the Hon. Robert Lucas chairs, so it is not about financial reward; it is about serving the people.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, if you want to have a conversation with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, I invite both of you to leave. You are either addressing the motion before us or you are having a conversation with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire; you can decide.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your guidance, Mr President. We have a subcommittee of our party room looking at the structure of committees—and I said that we have the Budget and Finance Committee here and a range of other standing committees—because it is our view that it is probably appropriate to have a look at the committee structure. I know the NRM committee has a large number of members. We have changed membership to accommodate people who have come in and people who have left and, if you like, to hand out some extra benefits to some members in the House of Assembly, because they did not want to have a fight or because the Labor Party factions did not want to lose a committee position.

We actually think it is time to take a big deep breath, look at the committee structure and make sure that the structure we have going forward represents the industries that are important to the South Australian economy, and also to make sure that the community and the environment are represented and the state's finances are well and truly aired in a sensible, open and transparent way. With those few words, I indicate the opposition will not be supporting the government's bill to put a term of reference of agriculture and primary industries into the ERD Committee's standing orders.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you have more to offer?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:01): I have, sir. I rise to indicate opposition to this bill. However, I foreshadow an amendment that I believe will rectify the immediate issues, or will be a compromise at least, by putting this referral to the Natural Resources Committee. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. David Ridgway, that we clearly need a full restructure of all parliamentary committees post the election. I say post the election, irrespective of whether it is a Liberal or a Labor government, because the reality is that we are on the eve of an election now and frankly this is the wrong timing.

When we look at committees, I believe we should set up an ongoing budget and finance committee similar or very close to, or identical to even, what happens in the Senate, so that the Legislative Council at any time, with all the powers, can fully scrutinise the minister of the day for that agency and that department, the CEO and everyone else. I think that would augur well for a much better government than sometimes we see.

I query the benefit of the government's bill therefore, given that we are eight months up to an election, when no referral is likely to occur in the interim and certainly none that will deliver a report, and this arguably should be a policy taken to the election. I just want to mention the select committee into the right to farm issues. That was moved by the member for Schubert, Mr Ivan Venning. The government used its numbers to manipulate it into one about sustainable farming, which I am still very concerned about, because sustainable farming could become—

The Hon. A. Bressington: No farming.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, indeed, no farming, from the point of view that the environment and the Greens of this state could take over and say, 'You can't do anything to keep it sustainable,' whereas right to farm is about ensuring that it is sustainable. This was at first chaired and supported by Labor members with some agriculture and/or horticulture in their electorate, namely the members for Light and Taylor, and now we see members from the government who have no connection to agriculture, farming, the land and the country.

When we look at the select committees of this parliament we can see the merit of a broad-based committee to investigate agriculture and regional development issues. In this parliament alone, there have been select committees on—and I will highlight them to you, sir, because I know you are very interested in agriculture—grain handling industry; harvesting rights in ForestrySA plantation estates (which found that the forests should never have been privatised; but it was done for short-term government benefit, not for the state); Port Augusta power stations; Roxby Downs indenture ratification; school bus contracts; sustainable farming practices; and wind farm developments in South Australia.

In the previous parliament there was a select committee inquiry into the conduct of PIRSA and fishing of mud cockles—something you are very interested in, sir—Kapunda Hospital (Variation of Trust) Bill, the Penola Pulp Mill Authorisation Bill, and the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill. So, arguably, a great many select committees could instead have been references to a broad-based agriculture and regional development standing committee. The demand is clearly there.

For a moment I want to look at what happens in Canberra and interstate for comparison. In Canberra, there are 15 House of Representatives committees, which include two of note. Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry has existed in that form since September 2010. Interestingly, it received a resources reference in the 42^nd parliament; prior to that it was agriculture, fisheries and forestry only. It was then extended to resources.

Mr Dick Adams, a Labor MP—probably one of your good friends, Mr President—chaired an inquiry and tabled a report saying, embarrassingly for state Labor, that forestry was in good health in Australia, when the state government was saying that it was in dire straits and that forestry had to be sold. This committee previously inquired into 'Skills: rural Australia's need' in 2007 and 'Taking Control: a national approach to pest animals' in November 2005, before it even had a resources reference.

The second committee of relevance in the House of Representatives is the Committee on Regional Australia, also in existence since September 2010. Its most recent report was 'Cancer of the bush or salvation of our cities? Fly-in, fly-out [and drive-in, drive-out] workforce practices in regional Australia'. I think they were done when Julia Gillard was prime minister, before she was hijacked by 'Mr See Through the Window I Know It All Kevin Dudd'.

Previous parliaments in Canberra had the following committees: Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs in the 38^th parliament, Primary Industries and Regional Services in the 39^th parliament, Transport and Regional Services in the 40^th and 41^st parliaments, and Primary Industries and Resources in the 42^nd parliament.

There are 16 Senate committees, including the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, which I think the Hon. Bill Heffernan chairs; it is a very powerful committee and a strong advocate for country Australia. A understand that today, some are taking evidence into the status of the citrus industry in Mildura, just over the border from our Riverland citrus region. In New South Wales, State and Regional Development is one of 30 standing and select committees; in Victoria, the Rural and Regional Committee is one of 14 joint standing committees; and in Queensland the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee is one of 10 standing committees.

There is merit in there being a committee reference. Family First argues for a committee such as the federal government and the larger states have, but setting the right committee with the right fit. Family First believes that, ideally, there should be a separate standing committee dedicated specifically to agriculture, resources, regions, fisheries and forestry. As the Hon. David Ridgway said, 25 per cent of all South Australia's income—and I believe it will certainly be more in the future—comes from agriculture. Family First advocates that we have a separate standing committee. Notwithstanding that, at the moment, to deal with this bill if it were to proceed, we ask colleagues to carefully consider our amendment to put the reference into the Natural Resources Committee.

One of the things I am very disappointed about is that, after a lot of fanfare, I do not believe we saw any positive outcomes from the 2012 Year of the Farmer in South Australia. I challenge colleagues to name one. Something needs to happen to give us—

The Hon. A. Bressington: They put some tents up in the mall.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: They put some tents in the mall; well, that was good. I was not there, but that must have been an achievement, putting them up, I gather.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You obviously didn't get over to any field days, Robert, to see them. They were at the field days.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It is an interesting point that the Hon. John Dawkins talks about, and I will digress slightly to field days. No, I did not get to field days because often field days occur when this parliament is sitting. On that, I find it really interesting that I wrote to the former government leader of business (the Hon. Patrick Conlon) saying, 'Given that you are prepared to change the parliamentary sitting calendar to adjust for the Festival of Arts, and all the things to do with the Festival of Arts, so that we do not actually sit during that period of several weeks, would you please, sir, consider the biggest field days in South Australia—the Eyre Peninsula Cleve Field Days and, in alternate years, the Yorke Peninsula Paskeville Field Days—and consider actually changing the sitting week so that we sit the week before or after?'

The PRESIDENT: I've attended a couple.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Guess what happened?

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It wasn't on a sitting week last year.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, I've attended a couple.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Right, well, guess what happened, Mr President?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Yes, I've attended a couple.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Because this government is so—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: I've attended some.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —uninterested in agriculture—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —they took no notice of my request.

The PRESIDENT: Well, there's a surprise.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: So, we can have three or four weeks off so that the members in the city can run around the Festival, but we cannot change one sitting week for the 5,000 or 6,000 country people who generate 25 per cent of the economic wealth of this state and we cannot go and see our constituents. I think this government needs to be condemned for that because, if you look at the diary, we have plenty of weeks either side when we are not sitting, but we cannot go and see our constituents at the biggest field day for the year. Back to the point—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you might want to return to the issue—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, sir, and I thank you for your well-chaired guidance.

The PRESIDENT: —mainly because you are straying—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I want to finish with this.

The PRESIDENT: —into foreign territory.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We ask colleagues to strongly consider the merit and the wisdom of this. If we are going to have this before the next term of whoever is in government, let's put it to the Natural Resources Committee because the Natural Resources Committee already focuses on a lot of agricultural issues; as an example, one at the moment is looking at sustainable water for agriculture and mining on Eyre Peninsula.

With that, that is enough from me on this point, except to say that, if we do not get that amendment, we will be joining with the Liberal opposition to knock this bill out because to put it to the ERD at this point in time we believe is not the way it should be headed.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.