Bills

Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees - Abolition and Reform) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: While we are in committee, I would like to respond to some questions that were raised in the second reading contributions. Firstly, I would like to respond to questions raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks. When the Premier announced the reforms, he outlined that they were expected to save at least $5.5 million over the forward estimates. As part of the 2012-13 Mid-Year Budget Review, the government approved savings of $1.3 million per annum from the 2013-14 year by reducing the cost of government funded boards and committees, with the savings target to increase to $1.4 million per annum by 2015-16.

While the reforms will assist agencies to meet budget savings targets, the Premier has also made it clear that he expects resources to also be reinvested in alternate community engagement activities. The government is committed to realising its vision of a modern open Public Service which will support community engagement and representation. Initiatives such as the Citizens' Jury, GOVchat, YourSAy, and Country Cabinet are already making a difference in this space.

In addition, and as mentioned by the honourable member, the government's Better Together principles provide a foundation for engagement by government agencies in South Australia which aims to involve people in decisions that affect their lives and give them a genuine role in decision-making.

The whole-of-government approach is to embed good engagement practices across agencies. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet's Strategic Engagement and Communications Unit provides training and consultancy services across government to support engagement practices that involve everyday people in decisions about things that matter to them. I am confident that these latest reforms will support the delivery of these savings over forward estimates, and enable new and innovative rules of engagement to be adopted to make and shape government decisions.

The Hon. John Darley also sought clarification in his speech about how appointments will be made to the independent assessment panel which will oversee expenditure from the Charitable and Social Welfare Fund under the Gaming Machines Act. I am advised that, as with current practice for the appointment of boards and committee members, potential members of the assessment panel will have the required level of skill and experience, will be identified by the department and provided to the minister for consideration and decision.

The current legislative requirements of the Gaming Machine Act 1992 are that the membership consists of five members, being persons who have between them appropriate expertise in financial management and charitable and social welfare organisation administration, at least two of whom are women and two men. I am advised that these same requirements will still apply; however, it is expected that the panel will have more than five members and will include a broader range of knowledge and representation, encompassing, for example, multicultural and Indigenous committees and services. I trust this information is of use to honourable members. If more detailed information is required now or during debate on individual clauses I am happy to take further questions.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 12, lines 6 to 7 [inserted definition of animal ethics committee, paragraph (b)]—Delete:

'for the purposes of this Act' and substitute 'under section 23A'

This change adds clarity, more accurately reflecting in the definition of an animal ethics committee that there are two types of committee, one established under section 23 and the other approved under section 23A.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clauses 14A to 14D.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [SusEnvCons–1]—

New clauses, page 12, after line 7—After clause 14 insert:

14A—Amendment of section 6—Establishment of Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

(1) Section 6(2)—delete 'Governor' and substitute 'Minister'

(2) Section 6(2)(b)—delete 'the South Australian Farmers Federation Incorporated' and substitute 'Primary Producers SA Incorporated'

(3) Section 6(2)(f)—delete 'Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science Act 1982' and substitute 'Health Care Act 2008'

(4) Section 6(3)(a)—delete 'the South Australian Farmers Federation Incorporated' and substitute 'Primary Producers SA Incorporated'

(5) Section 6(4)—delete 'Governor' and substitute 'Minister'

(6) Section 6(5)—delete 'Governor' and substitute 'Minister'

14B—Amendment of section 7—Term of office of members

Section 7—delete 'Governor' wherever occurring and substitute in each case 'Minister'

14C—Amendment of section 8—Allowances and expenses

Section 8—delete 'Governor' and substitute 'Minister'

14D—Amendment of section 11—Secretary

Section 11(2)—delete 'Public Sector Management Act 1995' and substitute 'Public Sector Act 2009'

The purpose of these amendments are threefold. Firstly, this forms part of the government's commitment to red tape reduction by providing a simpler membership appointment process to the animal welfare advisory committee. This is to be achieved by vesting the power of the appointment with the minister rather than the Governor. Secondly, the name of the nominating body for membership is updated from the South Australian Farmers Federation Incorporated to Primary Producers SA Incorporated (Primary Producers SA supports this change, not surprisingly).Thirdly, the act names are updated to reflect current titles.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to the removal of or deletion of the word 'Governor' and substituting 'Minister', the explanation that was provided by the minister's advisor said that the government introduced a number of amendments in this bill and the amendments were procedural in nature, being an effort to reduce red tape and ensure a simpler appointment process. Have we done this? I probably should have looked at the rest of the bill, but have we done this for any others? From how many other boards and committees have we deleted 'Governor', and now have 'Minister'? Will there still be a requirement for the minister to seek cabinet approval for the appointment of these or is it just at the whim of the minister?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not have the number of changes of that type that have been made accurately, but I understand that it is in the order of dozens. The process would, of course, involve a cabinet process, but the change is to make sure that the minister then has the power to do the nominations, in accordance with the requirements that are in each act. Most of these acts, for example, would provide for the class of person that should be appointed and, in some cases, the nominating bodies, be it the LGA or Primary Producers or so on. That is not changing.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I need to clarify that the process that will be undertaken for the appointment to these boards and committees will still require some form of cabinet process.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It may well be that it is via process of a note rather than a submission. I cannot say offhand how it would occur in every single case but that would be my expectation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Should a minister not follow the act, it would be the minister's interpretation of whether the people who they appoint to these boards have the suitable skills to undertake the role. I am concerned that it will allow potential ministers in the future just to appoint whoever they feel like. I accept that we want a reduction in red tape and a much more streamlined process, which is why the Liberal Party, by and large, has supported this whole bill to reduce the number of boards and committees, but I am a little concerned.

Recently, minister Bignell, Minister for Tourism, indicated that he had appointed Mr Sean Keenaghan as chair of the South Australian Tourism Commission board. I know Mr Keenaghan. I cannot remember his exact title but his is the senior adviser on the China engagement strategy. He is a very competent and quite successful local government lawyer but from looking at his CV, etc., on LinkedIn, which is probably not the most comprehensive CV, there was no mention of any expertise or activity in the tourism sector. This is a little concerning.

When someone is appointed—and I have not looked at the act today—to a chair of a particular board, in this case the tourism board, I suspect that some skills are required, such as having a good working understanding of the tourism industry. Some 18,000 small business operators across the state make up our tourism industry. It is quite a unique one. That is one of the reasons why we were keen to move amendments to retain the South Australian Tourism Commission board; and we are delighted the government has seen perhaps the error of its way early in the piece and come to its senses and supported it because it is a little different from a lot of other boards and committees. I am concerned about making sure we have the right skills and expertise in these positions.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Let me assist the Hon. Mr Ridgway by putting his concerns to rest. Nothing changes in the requirements in terms of how boards are to be put together. Those provisions still remain in the act. The requirements that they have representations from stakeholders, for example, as I mentioned earlier, are still there. I cannot speak for every minister because I have only had a couple of portfolios in my experience, but from my broad experience so far, advice to ministers comes from a department. Advice to ministers about how appointments are made, who would fit the criteria in the acts are all based on advice from stakeholders initially who, for example, may be required to put up four nominations, half being women, for example—I have made that up but that is a standard requirement. The department gives you advice about the statutory interpretation of the act and whether those nominations meet the requirements of the act. None of that changes whatsoever.

New clauses inserted.

Clause 15.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 12, line 8—Delete 'Animal ethics committees' and substitute:

Establishment of animal ethics committees by licensee

This amendment changes the title of section 23 to more accurately reflect its purpose and to clearly differentiate it from the new section 23A.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 15A.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [SusEnvCons–1]—

New clause, page 12, after line 15—After clause 15 insert:

15A—Insertion of section 23A

After section 23 insert:

23A—Approval of animal ethics committee by Minister

(1) The Minister may approve a body as an animal ethics committee for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The Minister may only approve a body under subsection (1) if satisfied that—

(a) the body is constituted in accordance with the membership requirements for an animal ethics committee (within the meaning of the Code) as laid down in the Code; and

(b) the body has appropriate procedures and standards in place to enable the body to comply with the Code in performing functions for the purposes of this Act; and

(c) the body is otherwise suitable to act as an animal ethics committee for the purposes of this Act.

(3) An approval under subsection (1) may be conditional or unconditional.

(4) The Minister may vary or revoke an approval under subsection (1).

This amendment continues a series of amendments to reform animal ethics committees by providing the minister with an option of approving the use of an existing animal ethics committee. This is of particular value to persons who are located in another jurisdiction but who are licensed to conduct research and teaching using animals in South Australia. This new provision, section 23A, describes the considerations the minister must give to approving an existing committee for this purpose. It also allows a minister to approve conditionally or unconditionally and to revoke or vary an approval.

New clause inserted.

Clause 16.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 12, after line 24—After line 24 insert:

(1a) The quorum for a body approved as an animal ethics committee under section 23A is to be determined in accordance with the Code unless the Minister specifies otherwise.

This amendment provides for more flexible quorum arrangements for existing animal ethics committees approved to be committees for the purposes of the act. The need for this separate provision can be best illustrated using the following example: although most animal ethics committees in Australia do include a person with responsibility for the daily care of the animals used, this is not always so. Take the example of a stock feed company which may use privately-owned livestock to determine whether modifications in food formulas improves growth rate.

The company does not own any animals itself and its committee does not therefore include a person with responsibility for the daily care of animals. This amendment would allow the minister to determine whether or not the daily care member is required to establish a quorum. The code strongly recommends the inclusion of a daily care person on an animal ethics committee but does not mandate it, although most do have one, I am advised.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 17 to 69 passed.

Clause 70.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Part 14, page 22 line 20 to page 24 line 37—Part 14 will be opposed

The amendment I have moved is to oppose Part 14 and all of the clauses within that part. Effectively, the purpose of this amendment is to retain the Fisheries Council. In my second reading contribution I put a number of points on the record and effectively made my argument as to why the Fisheries Council deserves to be retained. I have since ascertained, from discussion with honourable members, that this amendment is unlikely to have support. So, whilst I will persist in moving the amendment, I do not intend to divide on it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I rise to indicate that the government will oppose this amendment, although I admire the Hon. Mr Parnell's persistence. This amendment would retain the Fisheries Council of South Australia. With the abolition of the Fisheries Council there will be more efficient and effective grassroots and regional engagement with industry and other stakeholders. The board will be replaced with direct engagement with the sector, involving direct consultation with each of the industry sectors and convening issue-specific committees as required.

There will be quarterly meetings between the Department of Primary Industries and Regions and each fishing sector for specific issues. Advisory committees with a defined lifespan specific to a task may be temporarily established and then abolished when the task is completed. The act contains mandatory provisions for public consultation and the development of management plans. All consultation and reporting requirements within the act have been maintained.

These requirements include the requirement to publish newspaper notices relating to the preparation of fisheries management plans and to publish a notice in the government Gazette of the adoption of such a plan. This will not change. In addition, the practice of the Department of Primary Industries and Regions has always been to consult directly with industry peak bodies and industry members before making significant fisheries management decisions. The abolition of the Fisheries Council will not change this practice.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition also will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment. I might make a broader comment now, too. When the opposition looked at the bill itself and at all the boards and committees that were to be abolished or have their status changed, I guess we could have taken the approach to go through and amend every possible one. However, we took the view that we were supportive of trying to streamline government to try to cut red tape and make things more efficient.

There are three or four bodies, I think, where we moved some amendments and the government supported them: the Tourism Commission, the Pastoral Board, the Animal Ethics Committee and the Health Performance Council. They were the four we thought were important to retain in their current form. I know members opposite think they will win another election, and who knows quite what will happen, but I expect that, if we are fortunate enough to win the election in 2018, we will consider any of the issues that have been raised by the Hon. Mark Parnell—and I know the Hon. John Darley has an amendment shortly. I think there will be an opportunity for us to see whether the actions of abolishing these boards and committees, or changing their status, has improved the performance of the sector or the interaction between industry and government.

It will be a good time to review that after the next election. If we think that something was overlooked, or something has not worked as well as the government thought or we had thought at this juncture then, of course, we will naturally be prepared to look at it. But at this point in time, we are delighted that the government has seen fit to support our amendments to retain the four that we identified, and each industry sector and every group will always want to mount a strong argument as to why they do not want any change. We were happy to allow that change and, as I said, we will continue to monitor and be happy to look at it; but any changes may be after the next election.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 71 to 79 passed.

Clause 80.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–1]—

Page 25, lines 1 to 12—Part 15 will be opposed

As I mentioned during my second reading contribution, my concern is that, if it is abolished, decisions regarding payments from the fund will be left to the minister responsible for the administration of the Family and Community Services Act. Whilst the government has sought to streamline its funding administration and assessment processes through an independent assessment panel, concerns have been raised with me about this process. In that respect, I also express concern about what experience such members will be required to have. I am a huge advocate for reducing red tape, but I do not want to commit to a measure that will jeopardise much-needed funding for charitable and social welfare organisations. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government will oppose this amendment. This amendment opposes the abolition of the Charitable and Social Welfare Fund—also known as Community Benefit SA. In the scale of grand funding programs in government, Community Benefit SA is a relatively small grant funding program of up to $4 million per year. The Community Benefit SA board has responsibility to allocate payment of funds for financial assistance to charitable or social welfare organisations.

The Department for Communities and Social Inclusion currently administers the grant funding process, including the call for applications, receiving and initial assessment of all applications, and consultation with external agencies when needed. Currently, the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion provides the board with a full report of applications, a summary, and recommended funding allocations for their consideration.

The Community Benefit SA board is an unnecessary level of red tape for a very small funding program. The abolition will support the government's commitment to reduce red tape for the community services sector. As part of reducing the red tape initiative, the assessment processes for a range of community service grants will be aligned. This process will include establishing an independent assessment panel which will provide independent advice and oversight and make funding recommendations on applications under a whole range of Department for Communities and Social Inclusion grant programs.

The assessment panel will have a broader role than the Community Benefit SA board, as it will oversee and review a number of grant funding programs which support community programs. This holistic view will allow government to be more flexible when a community organisation applies for grant funding. Assessment panel members will have a high level of expertise in the community sector on social issues, financial management and community sector funding.

Overall, this will achieve better allocation processes and an easier, more consistent process for the charitable and community sector. In addition, the government is currently trialling the Fund My Community approach participatory budgeting through $1 million of Community Benefit SA Funding, which allows for a higher level of community engagement and involvement in funding decisions. It is proposed that the assessor panel will oversee and review the new approach.

Allocating and administering grant funding is part of the core business of the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, which provides over $200 million in grant funding every year. This includes grants in the areas of Office for Youth, Office for Volunteers, Multicultural SA, disability grants, housing, and the homeless.

Currently, $3.8 million of the $4 million funding allocated to Community Benefit SA per year is dispersed in grants to community and charitable organisations. $200,000 is allocated for administration costs for the board, including board fees and promotional and executive support, etc. Other costs incurred by the department are met from existing resources. From 1 July 2014 to 30 December 2014 approximately $10,000 was spent just on sitting fees for this board, I am advised. This will be no additional cost under the proposal to abolish Community Benefit SA. There will be some savings in the level of executive support required as the processes for this grant funding program are brought into line with other grant programs.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will not support the Hon. John Darley's amendment. As I outlined earlier, a strong case can be made for a whole range of boards and committees, but we have chosen to support the government's reduction of red tape and streamlining these services.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens are supporting this amendment. It is our view, and I think a view shared by the honourable member, that the harm done by gambling in this state, and by poker machines in particular, is mitigated only to a very minor extent through the reallocation of some funds to charitable and social purposes. We think that the best approach is to make sure that, whilst those funds are modest (I do not know whether the minister would agree, but he said they were modest funds—I think they are too modest), we want to make sure they are targeted in the best possible way, and we believe that maintaining the status quo gives the best way of chance of doing that, so we will support the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 81 to 126 passed.

Clause 127.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Clause 127 is the clause that creates the parks and wilderness council. I will have a bit more to say about that when we get to my amendment in relation to the Wildness Advisory Committee, but I note that in the terms of reference, as it were, for this new parks and wilderness council under the proposed new section 19 of the act, it says that 'the council is subject to the direction and control of the minister'. That is a standard form of words.

Whilst this body will be advising the minister, the minister is also able to give instructions to the council. My question of the minister relates to how the parks and wilderness council might engage with the community. If I use as a parallel example the Environment Protection Authority under the Environment Protection Act, one of its requirements is to actually hold a round table of stakeholders once every year to try to ensure that stakeholders know what they are doing and understand the thought process behind various policy changes, and it strikes me that that is a good model.

My question of the minister is: whilst there is no such requirement for the parks and wilderness council to engage with the community in any particular manner, has the minister given thought to using his powers to direct and control this council to perhaps at first suggesting to them, rather than directing and controlling them, to perhaps form an engagement policy with the community that might include an annual round table of stakeholders?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for his most interesting question. In fact, he is probably tapping into my thought processes right now.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Frightening!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Could be, but we are simpatico on many issues, the Hon. Mr Parnell and I. Perhaps he has some latent memory of an answer I gave previously today in question time about the International Bird Sanctuary and how the government is partnering with the community and trying to make sure ensure that communities are engaged very early on in the work we do as a government agency.

So, whilst, yes, there is no direction in the legislation in terms of how the new parks and wilderness council might engage with the community, it is not envisaged in any way, shape or form that I would preclude them from doing so—just the reverse. In fact, when we sit down and talk at one of our first meetings, that will be part of the process that I want the council to engage with: how do we find out what the community wants from us as an agency?

Indeed, the honourable member may also remember some of the engagement that the agencies are involved in right now in terms of how we are spending approximately $10 million worth of funding to improve facilities in our peri-metropolitan national parks. We have had community forums, for example, in the south and in the north, having stakeholders in, and a couple of local MPs have sneaked in a couple of times (I think that the member for Morialta was at one of them) and actually asking them: what do you want this money spent on? So, that is the new paradigm we will be working with in this engagement process for council.

Clause passed.

Clauses 128 to 136 passed.

New clause 136A.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [SusEnvCons–1]—

New clause, page 39, after line 6—After clause 136 insert:

136A—Amendment of section 53A—Review of decision of Minister under section 53

Section 53A(1)—delete 'South Australian National Parks and Wildlife'

This amendment is consequential. It removes a reference to the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Council.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 137 to 173 passed.

New Clauses 173A to 173D.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [SusEnvCons–1]—

New Part, page 46, after line 16—After Part 27 insert:

Part 27A—Amendment of Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989

173A—Amendment of section 12—Establishment of Pastoral Board

(1) Section 12(2)—delete 'Governor' and substitute 'Minister'

(2) Section 12(2)(a)—delete ', will be appointed on the nomination of the Minister'

(3) Section 12(2)(d)—delete 'the South Australian Farmers Federation' and substitute 'Livestock SA Incorporated'

(4) Sections 12(4) and (5)—delete 'Governor' wherever occurring and substitute in each case 'Minister'

173B—Amendment of section 13—Conditions of office

Sections 13(2) and (3)—delete 'Governor' wherever occurring and substitute in each case 'Minister'

173C—Amendment of section 14—Allowances and expenses

Section 14—delete 'Governor' and substitute 'Minister'

173D—Amendment of section 25A—Establishment of pool of persons for the purposes of section 25B

Section 25A(2)—delete 'the South Australian Farmers Federation' and substitute 'Livestock SA Incorporated'

The purpose of these amendments is twofold. The first continues the government's commitment to red tape reduction through simpler membership appointment processes for the Pastoral Board, with the minister appointing the members rather than the Governor. The second is to update the name of the nominating body for membership of the South Australian Farmers Federation Incorporated to Livestock SA Incorporated. Primary Producers SA and Livestock SA both support this change, I am advised.

New clauses inserted.

Clauses 174 to 258 passed.

Clause 259.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No. 2 [Parnell—1]—

Part 41, page 62, line 29 to page 66 line 9—Part 41 will be opposed

This amendment seeks to retain the Wilderness Advisory Committee. I mention, for the benefit of honourable members, that the Presiding Member of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, Mr Eric Bills, and the campaign coordinator of the Wilderness Society, Mr Peter Owen, are in the gallery.

I would like to start by thanking the minister for the answers he gave on Tuesday to the questions I posed in relation to how we can make sure that the particular issue of wilderness protection does not get lost within a larger new Parks and Wilderness Council. The minister, on Tuesday, basically said that, if there was a need for additional expertise to be brought in to do a wilderness assessment, for example, it would be certainly possible for a subcommittee or a short or time-limited working group to be formed to achieve those objectives.

I would like the minister to perhaps explain a little bit further, if he can—and it follows from what he was saying earlier about the government's attitude to public engagement. He said on Tuesday that, if the Parks and Wilderness Council itself decides that it needs more help, he will respond to that request, but it may well be that the call for this extra assistance for wilderness assessment does not come from within the organisation, it might come from without. Those of us who have been around the block a few times know that human nature is such that it can be often very difficult to admit that you are not managing something or that you do not have the time or the resources to put into it.

My question to the minister is: will he be open to approaches from outside bodies, in particular, groups such as the Wilderness Society, to review how the new Parks and Wilderness Council is going about its work and to determine whether the minister might need to use his powers of direction to tweak the system that has been created by this bill?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Sure. The government obviously opposes this amendment. The amendment seeks to retain the Wilderness Advisory Committee as a stand-alone committee rather than seeing its integration into the newly formed Parks and Wilderness Council. The merger will facilitate a whole-of-landscape approach to conservation. In most cases, wilderness areas are joined or are surrounded by national parks and conservation parks. The new Parks and Wilderness Council, in providing advice on the establishment and management of parks and wilderness areas, will enable wilderness areas to be placed in their context as core protected areas and reinforce their role in conserving biodiversity in the face of climate change.

Treating them in isolation will weaken this primary role of wilderness into the future. There will be no impact on the creation of new wilderness areas or the management of existing wilderness areas from the merger, and the Parks and Wilderness Council will have a responsibility to undertake wilderness assessments. I expect the new council will provide advice early in its term of assessment area. In terms of whether I will be open to discussing with community leaders or community members ways that the new council will work, if there are perceived gaps in that work program or work structure of course I will be. I think the honourable member, if he consults with stakeholders, will probably get the impression that I already do that, and I will continue to discuss with them any key issues.

The whole concept of having stand-alone committees addressing different parts of environmental areas I think is out of date. What we need to have is a council with a helicopter view, a landscape approach to conservation where it can bring in all of the threads that need to be considered, not just one narrow aspect of it. Certainly we are not going to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater; that would be very silly. Wilderness will be a central component of the work program for this new body, but I will certainly be open to discussing ways that those gaps can be filled if there is a perception that they are not being addressed.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I rise in relation to similar concerns addressed by the Hon. Mr Parnell, and I thank the Wilderness Society for providing a very detailed paper on their concerns with the merging of a number of these committees. Is it the government's intention to establish some form of wilderness subcommittee as a standing committee and, if not, to what extent is such a committee likely to be established into the future? What triggers will be likely in order to see the need to establish such a committee if it is required?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Gosh, that is a very hypothetical question. No, it is not my intention at this point in time to establish a subcommittee. It is entirely possible that at some time in the future I might come to the view that, in fact, a subcommittee is essential for the proper processes of this committee. However, I want to give this new committee a go. I want to get this new committee, give it a new charge and try to bring together disparate players in the field to see if we cannot actually get a better outcome from this one committee than we have had from a range of separate committees. That is what I want to try first. However, as I said, if it is apparent or there is a perception that gaps are existing in its work program then that is when I will be open to consider alternative processes.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will place on the record that the Liberal Party will not be supporting this particular amendment, but we will be watching the activity of the new merged committees with great interest. Just to repeat the comments by the leader in this place, in relation to boards and committees in general, we will reserve the right in the lead-up to the next election to reconsider whether some of them should be reconstituted or whether new boards and committees may be required, based on the performance of the ones that will exist into the future.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer to my question and the Hon. Michelle Lensink's question in the same vein. Whilst I am under some small amount of pressure from my office trainee—it is her second-last day at work today and she has not seen a division in this chamber—I will incur her wrath and I will not be calling a division on this occasion, as I do see where the numbers lie. Whilst I have certainly moved the amendment and I maintain it is the right course of action, I will not be dividing.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (260 to 272) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.