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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 July 2013.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:42): I do not believe that there are any further second reading contributions to this bill. I thank honourable members for their contribution and for the qualified support that was given. I look forward to this bill being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: With respect to clause 1, and given the time before the next state election and the fact that I am advised—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Third Saturday in March next year, if you're interested. Whilst I am a strong advocate for a separate standing committee for primary industries because of its huge importance to our state, where one in four jobs directly and indirectly is created because of agriculture, I am wondering whether the minister wants to pursue this any further in clause 1 because I cannot see any purpose in it because no-one is going to be able to do anything on this until after the election, so I would like comment from the minister.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, I have given you the call to move your amendment here. Are you moving your amendment or not?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just wanted to flag that I still move:

Amendment No 1 [Broke–1]—

Page 2, lines 3 and 4—Delete 'Environment, Resources and Development Committee' and substitute:

Natural Resources Committee

I move this amendment because I believe that if there is to be a reference to primary industries between now and the next state election, my amendment fits better with the NRC than it does with the ERD Committee.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The amendment bill recognises the good work of the parliamentary Select Committee on the Grain Handling Industry that recommended amongst other things that the South Australian parliament establish a standing committee on primary industries to provide a forum to monitor and keep the parliament informed of developments and issues relating to primary industries.

The government has exercised its prerogative to determine how best to achieve the outcome envisaged by the select committee and it opted to empower the Environment, Resources and Development Committee (the ERD Committee) to deal with matters relating to primary production. Even though the functions of the ERD Committee are already broad enough in scope to embrace primary production technically, we wanted to make sure that we clarified this beyond doubt.

While the ERD Committee has already taken on specific inquiries into some matters relating to primary industries—for example, biosecurity fees and aquaculture—the government believes that giving the ERD Committee the statutory imprimatur to inquire into, consider and report on any matter concerned with primary production better recognises that the primary production sector is a significant sector to the state's economy and its general wellbeing and is a cornerstone of rural and regional communities across South Australia.

As a dairy farmer, I know the Hon. Mr Brokenshire will know that primary production is about much more than just natural resources, and I acknowledge that he has been a tireless advocate for those dairy farmers whose current financial circumstances have been quite challenging, although there is a ray of sunshine on the horizon which is very pleasing. So, why would we want to give the Natural Resources Committee carriage of this matter when the Parliamentary Committees Act constrains its deliberations to matters relating to soil, water resources, geological features and landscape, native veg, native animals and other native organisms and ecosystems? It is really not something that we want to support.

I cannot look beyond the farm gate to the broad gamut of issues that impact on primary production in the way the ERD Committee can, so supporting this amendment would be a retrograde step and I think we would be selling farmers short. I know the Hon. Robert Brokenshire would prefer a separate select committee; nevertheless, this government wants to make the best of the committee structure that we already have in place.

I have spoken to the Chair of the NRM committee and the Chair has consulted, I understand, with all members of the NRM committee currently and no-one on that NRM committee currently supports the scope of the NRM committee being extended to include primary products, except for—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Let me finish—except for the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. He is the lone voice on that NRM committee supporting any change to those terms of reference. I guess the bottom line is that it is important that this role or function is clarified and clearly identified somewhere in our committee structure. The government obviously prefers it to be with the ERD Committee, and for those reasons we are opposing the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I can tell that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is upset. From the opposition's point of view, I can indicate that we also will not be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment. I may as well make some comments while we are doing this. We will not be supporting the government bill at all. I think they have actually missed the point that the select committee of the House of Assembly asked for a standing committee with primary industries as its primary focus.

What the minister could have done is said that they would establish a primary industries committee and natural resources management or environment, resources and development. She is the minister. She said today that one in five jobs in the state belongs to food or the flow-on effects of food in food manufacturing and food delivery. It is worth 25 per cent to our state's economy and it deserves to be the primary reference with either natural resources management or environment, resources and development as the secondary focus.

The opposition is going through an internal policy development process at the moment, too, where we are looking at the structure of committees. We are now 135 days, one hour and eight minutes from the close of polls at the next election. We have only six sitting days after today, so whatever the outcome of this ballot today will have no impact on future operations between now and the election.

So I urge members not to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment but also not to support the government's bill. We will, I suspect, probably before the election, have an indication of what we will do in a policy sense in relation to committee structures if we are fortunate enough to win the next election. With those words, I urge members not to support the government. We will have a better and closer look at the structure of committees in this parliament after the election.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. The minister gave some fairly cogent reasons why it is better that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament retain its brief to look into matters concerning primary production. As the minister pointed out, it is a function that the committee has been exercising already over many years, certainly over my nearly eight years on that committee, some examples being biosecurity fees and aquaculture.

Having said that, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee has on occasion decided that there were parts of its work that better lay elsewhere. Drains, I think, have gone off to the Natural Resources Committee, and that made sense given the range of responsibilities of that committee.

So the Greens' position is that we will not be supporting this amendment but we will ultimately be supporting the bill. I am somewhat surprised that we are even discussing it, because it seems to me that if the bill goes down then the status quo remains and the ERD Committee will continue to deal with primary production matters, so we will be back where we started.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister, given her government's fierce rebuttal of my amendment, whether, first, she can explain why the government is so keen to get up this reference with a standing committee on the eve of an election, because a select committee made a recommendation on this, and yet we have some fairly detailed and serious other select committees that table reports in this house that are ignored by the government. Why is the government all of a sudden rushing around on the eve of an election pushing this in any case?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have to say that it is largely symbolic. Every new government, whether a re-elected government or a newly-elected government, reviews its committee structure. That is a normal function for any new government, and no doubt when the Jay Weatherill Labor government is re-elected we will be looking at our committee structure again.

I feel very strongly that the grains committee did a lot of good quality work. It put down a number of recommendations, many of which we have acted on already, one being to have a select committee for primary production. The current terms of reference for the ERD Committee already allow for that, albeit that it is not overtly expressed in its current terms of reference. It would be most negligent for an outgoing government not to take every action it can to put in place recognition of the importance of our primary sector to be part of our committee structure. That is most important.

It is important as a government that we can tick the box, that we have demonstrated our commitment to do this, albeit there are not likely to be a lot of practical outcomes seen in this particular calendar year. It is negligent of the opposition to be dismissive of this bill. I do not believe they will be, but if they are elected as the new government they will be able to review their committee structure and do exactly as they wish.

Rejecting this bill outright is a slap in the face to our farmers and to our primary producers, and I believe they deserve some recognition. We are not able to establish a new committee at this point in time for them, but I believe they deserve at least some basic recognition in this place, and it is a disgrace that the opposition will not afford that recognition.

The CHAIR: Before I call any further speakers, I point out that the bill has three clauses. The bills with the smallest number of clauses seem to be taking the largest amount of time to deal with.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I may just make a couple of comments in response to what the minister said, namely, that we should be ashamed of ourselves for not supporting this legislation. I actually spoke to the members of the committee from the opposition side and to the Chair, Mr Geoff Brock, member for Frome, about exactly what they wanted. I asked Mr Brock and the opposition members what they wanted, and they said that they absolutely wanted—and the evidence they took supported—a stand-alone committee with a primary reference for primary industries.

That is actually what the farmers and the people who gave evidence to that committee said they wanted. The government, again, is not listening. That is why we are opposing it, that is why we do not support Robert Brokenshire's amendment: because we want to deliver exactly what that committee recommended. Piccolo was on that committee as well, wasn't he?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Did a good job, too. I declare, as I always do, my interest as a farmer, but to the minister for primary industries, on behalf of the government, does the minister have any concerns as to what will be a situation where the primary industries may be jeopardised by going into a standing committee whose number one focus is on the environment? There are a number of us in agriculture who want a balance between a sustainable environment and having flourishing, growing and strongly sustainable primary industries in this state.

I know some of my farming colleagues—and I declare, myself—have concern that it may end up, if this reference goes into the ERD, that environmental matters again override primary industries and we again are pushed further down and have bigger slaps in our face as a result of the restrictions that often happen with farming practices through the number one focus being on the environment and not primary industries. I would like a response to that for the public record.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The short answer is, no, not at all. I believe that it can be enhanced by the relationship. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire would absolutely acknowledge that the success of primary production relies heavily on environmental values. They are in direct partnership with each other, not in competition, and we have to shift our mindset because it is the quality of our soils, the quality of our air and the quality of our water that our primary producers heavily rely on. It is a partnership and a collaboration that needs to continue to be enhanced and not to be set up against each other in competition.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

New clause 2A.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 2, after line 8—Before clause 3 insert:

2A—Amendment of section 8—Membership of Committee

Section 8(4)—delete 'House of Assembly' wherever occurring and substitute in each case: Legislative Council

This is a very simple amendment. It simply replaces the words 'House of Assembly' wherever they occur with 'Legislative Council'. That very simple change would have the effect of making this committee a Legislative Council-administered committee. What that would mean—and the Hon. Rob Brokenshire should pay attention to this—is that it would not be a government-dominated committee. It is a committee of six people.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am happy to go in open competition with the Hon. Rob Brokenshire for Chair of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. In all likelihood it would be two government, two opposition and two crossbench members of the committee. That is pure speculation—I do not want to pre-empt the will of the Legislative Council—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Or the electorate.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —or the electorate, for that matter. Certainly, it would have that effect. It would no longer be government controlled. The Chair would be provided by the Legislative Council and that would mean—and this is most important—that in decisions to, for example, overturn planning schemes, the power in the Development Act would become effective.

All of a sudden, if the Legislative Council controlled this committee, if that committee felt that a rezoning exercise were inappropriate, then it would have the ability to refer it to both houses of parliament and parliament would decide whether a rezoning exercise should go ahead or not. At present, that power is illusory and, as I have said probably four million times in this chamber, since 1994, the parliament has never rejected a rezoning because it has never got through the ERD Committee. It has never got through ERD because—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Anyway, the vast bulk of its history, it has been government dominated—not always but mostly it has. This simple amendment would make this a committee that will, if this bill passes, have express power to deal with primary production. It would make it a much more relevant and more democratic committee that would have real power for a change.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment. As I indicated earlier, we are looking at the structure of all the committees of the parliament, and we will be presenting something later to the people as we get closer to the election in that respect.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. Put simply, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current arrangements work extremely well. The Development Act requires the minister to whom the act is committed, among other things, to take reasonable steps to consult with the ERD Committee before the minister adopts or varies the codes of conduct, under 21A, and refer a development plan amendment approval by the minister, under subdivision 2, to the ERD Committee to consider within 28 days of approval.

In the case of the development plan amendment, certain actions follow depending on whether the ERD Committee resolves that it does not object to the amendment or resolves to suggest amendments to the relevant department as amended, or resolves to object to the amendment. I think it is a bit rough to suggest that the ERD Committee's independence and integrity are somehow compromised because the presiding member must be one of three members from another place.

Honourable members who have taken time to scrutinise the Parliamentary Committees Act will notice that presiding members of operational committees of parliament—Economic and Finance; ERD; Public Works; Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation; and Natural Resources committees—tend to come from another place, while the presiding members of review committees of parliament (Legislative Review and Statutory Review) tend to come from this house.

As I said, it has been in place, it is working well, and I believe the honourable members who serve on the lower house committees would have to acknowledge the level of high integrity of officers of those committees.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will not delay the chamber on this; I can see where the numbers lie. I remind members that we will have another opportunity to consider this question on private members' day next Wednesday. That is all I wanted to say about that. If I could get some guidance from you, Mr Chairman, I have a nagging suspicion that my next amendment might have some difficulties. Will I be able to speak briefly to it before you rule it out of order?

The CHAIR: No.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I might make some observations now before moving on. All members know this, but one of the great consolation prizes in this place is that if you miss out on being a minister in government you get a car and a driver if you score the gig as the Chair of the ERD Committee or the Economic and Finance Committee.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Parnell, you are now speaking to a future amendment under your name which will be ruled out of order. We are still dealing with your first one, but my view will not change once we get to the next one, I can assure you. Are there any further contributions?

New clause negatived.

Clause 3.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, I understand that you will not be pursuing your amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, sir, given the course of this debate and the business still to get through the house.

Clause passed.

New schedule 1.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Parnell–1]—

Page 2, after line 11—After clause 3 insert:

Schedule 1—Related amendment to Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990

1—Amendment of section 4A—Non-monetary benefits

Section 4A—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) However, a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal must not provide for the provision of any motor vehicle, or services relating to the provision of a motor vehicle, to a member by virtue only of the fact that the member holds office as a member of a committee under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 as specified in the Schedule.

2—Amendment of section 6A—Ability to provide other allowances and benefits

Section 6A—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) However, the Parliament or the Crown must not provide for the provision of any motor vehicle, or services relating to the provision of a motor vehicle, to a member by virtue only of the fact that the member holds office as a member of a committee under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 as specified in the Schedule.

This amendment removes the consolation prize of car and driver from the chairpersonship of the ERD Committee. It is an absolute rort. It has nothing to do with the obligations of members—

The CHAIR: Order, the Hon. Mr Parnell!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I could go on, but—

The CHAIR: You could, but I will not let you. These amendments insert a schedule 1 which concerns an amendment to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act and the provision of chauffeured motor vehicles to presiding members of certain standing committees.

I rule that these amendments cannot be considered in this legislation as they are not within the Order of Reference. Not even a prior instruction would give the power to the Committee of the Whole to consider these amendments, as an instruction must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and does not allow an amendment to the title to introduce a subject matter which is different from the bill in question.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:11): The Hon. David Ridgway said that his party would be considering the committee structure and how it works, and I would hope that, in the lead-up to the next election, the government would as well. I certainly would not dream of dissenting from the President's ruling—it was most correct—but I urge my colleagues in the other parties to seriously consider whether taxpayers' money should be spent on consolation prizes of cars and chauffeurs that are unrelated to the work of being a Chair of a committee.

It is an absolute rort. I know it goes back in history to disappointed members who did not get the job of minister. They needed to give them something to shut them up and keep them placid on the backbench, so they gave them a car and driver. It is a rort, it is a waste of taxpayers' money and it must end. Here endeth the sermon.

The council divided on the third reading:

Majority of 2 for the noes.

Third reading thus negatived.