Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 8 December 2015.)

Clause 17.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We have an amendment moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell, his amendment No. 11 to clause 17, which removes one of the provisions; he wants to delete subclause (6). I guess this is an opportunity to ask some questions around the establishment, because that is what this section does, if is for the establishment and constitution of the commission.

It is interesting to note that three or four years ago the opposition released a discussion paper on an independent planning commission based around a Western Australian model. Brian Hayes, who was chairing the expert panel, was on radio saying that this was modelled on the Western Australian model, and I think I said, in my second reading speech, that I was delighted that Ian Henschke from 891 had recalled that this was the same bit of legislation in Western Australia that we had modelled our discussion paper and policy on and that, if we had been fortunate enough to win the election, we may well have been in a similar situation with a piece of legislation before the parliament.

The bill provides that the commission is subject to the general control and direction of the minister; that is what this bill says. In the Western Australian act I believe that any directions by the minister to the commission are to be laid before the parliament. This legislation essentially depoliticises the planning system; therefore, in stating that the commission is under the general control and direction of the minister, are there any circumstances where such a direction would not be made public?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised, as with most statutory bodies, there are usually regular meetings between the chairperson or the commissioner and the minister. There are often verbal reports, and there are sometimes written reports associated with those meetings. There is also usually a flow of correspondence between the minister and the authority. The authority will also be required to provide an annual report, and that report would be tabled in parliament. There is also further amendments or clauses that deal with particular aspects and reports that will be required to be published online—and we will get to those later on—and, of course, unless there was some sort of exceptional circumstance, they are also subject to FOI.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister did not answer the question in relation to the circumstances with the ministerial direction. Will that be published in the annual report, the ministerial direction? You talked about certain decisions and conversations. It is something the opposition feels reasonably strongly about, and there is a whole range of other examples. If the minister issues a direction—and I will use the Minister for Police—that is tabled in parliament, it is the opposition's view that in the same circumstances that direction should be tabled in parliament. I flag it now, and I know that the government is keen to see this bill passed, and we do not have amendments drafted to that—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: We could do it on the run.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, we could do it on the run, but–

The Hon. M.C. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, we might be able to talk to them to do something. Mind you, it is not something that has been through our party room, but from the conversation last night and today we seem to think that that may be something worth pursuing. I am just interested to know if ministerial directions will be published in the annual report, but I add that we think it probably should go somewhere further and it should be tabled in parliament.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On that point, in the context of the Hon. David Ridgway's remarks, I appreciate the minister's comments yesterday that this commission will not be a public corporation. My understanding is that public corporations are particularly for commercial trading enterprises. In support of the comments of my leader, I draw the minister's attention to a very similar ministerial control provision in the Public Corporations Act, section 6, particularly subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7).

As my leader rightly points out, it is very unusual for a ministerial direction to a statutory body not to be made public, and particularly subsection (5) envisages that a ministerial direction to a public corporation would result in a 'notice in the Gazette' and, 'tabling the direction in both Houses of Parliament' and the 'annual report'. So, in support of my leader's comments, I would ask the government why a similar level of transparency would not apply in relation to the commission.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank you for those questions. Just going back to the issue of control and general direction, I just draw to your attention to the fact that for the students of statutory governance such a clause is not unusual and is qualified immediately by subclause (5), which makes it clear that the commission is independent in its functions of giving advice and exercising discretions directly vested in it.

A ministerial direction it is not required to be either reported by the commission or tabled in parliament. We believe that the provisions that we have already outlined—that is, the meetings, the correspondence, annual report, the reports that will be required to be published online—warrant a thorough enough accountability. However, in saying that, it is highly likely that, if a ministerial direction was given to the commission, the commission would include that in their report, but the bill as it stands does not require that to occur.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In relation to the first point the minister made in terms of these ministerial control and direction powers not being uncommon in statutory corporations, let's be clear, the opposition has no qualms in relation to the general control and direction power and we appreciate the point the minister made that this general power is limited by proposed clause 17(5); it is only in relation to transparency.

The minister's comments that the corporation might well choose to mention in its annual report, with all due respect, I do not think the executive has any right to expect the parliament to trust this executive in relation to transparency. We have seen in relation to the MAC and the request and counteroffer scenario in relation to the transfer of revenues the whole point of these statutory frameworks is to ensure transparency. I support the comments of my leader that the parliament would normally expect these matters to be transparently declared. In that regard, I think the parliament should consider a clause such as that in Public Corporations Act, section 6(5), and look at one or more ways of early declaration of directions.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I would like to pursue this idea of transparency a little more. The crux of this matter I think is that, when you have a body that is supposedly independent, if there are any breaks or restrictions on their independence at all, then the community has a right to know about it. I fully support what the Hon. Stephen Wade and the Hon. David Ridgway were saying in relation to any particular direction that might be given by the minister. I think the community has an absolute right to know what marching orders a statutory authority such as this has been given.

The issue is the same in relation to the amendment that is before us: the amendment that I have moved. I did pose a number of questions last night which have not been satisfactorily answered, in my opinion, and they relate to marching orders as well, if you like, or instructions that might be given. Whilst they might not be absolute directions, the wording of subclause (6) states:

(6) The Commission must, in the performance of its functions, take into account—

(a) a particular government policy; or

(b) a particular principle or matter.

When I asked the minister what sort of things might that include, she raised the very good example, I think, of the government's carbon neutral policy, and I responded to say, 'That's great. I think that should be taken into account.' But the question that I asked and have not got answer to yet is, first of all, why should not such an important, overarching policy make its way into a state planning policy so that it becomes a statutory instrument that must be taken into account by all decision-makers under the planning system?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for his question. I guess the answer is that it may well one day become a state planning policy, but for the time being we do not have one and so therefore the effect of this clause that we are dealing with is to ensure that our policies are backed up and considered in this particular way. Currently, we do not have a state planning policy, and I am not aware that there is any intention at this point in time—I do not know the thinking of the minister, but we may very well one day have one.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. I also ask, in relation to the transparency issue, if the government does draw the planning commission's attention to particular government policies, principles or matters, will the community know that that has happened and how will the community know? Another way of putting it is: is the government going to maintain a list of government policies or particular principles or matters that the decision-maker is obliged to have regard to? Where will the community find that information?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I would envisage that the way for such a desire for a particular policy to be considered would be through correspondence—the minister writing to the commission. If the commission is required to give a report—and there are a number of clauses where that is dealt with—then that report would reflect, not the directions, but the fact that the minister has asked them to consider a particular policy.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On that last point, would the minister mind identifying where that requirement is in the legislation? In other words, in a report on a particular matter, what part of the bill requires the report to include reference to any ministerial 'take into account' suggestions?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice that I have received is that there is clearly ambiguity in this area and what the government agrees to undertake is to look at the possibility of using regulation to ensure that where a commissioner has been given direction to consider a particular policy or matter, that the commission is required then to report on that, either in the annual report and/or any of the other reports that they may be required to furnish. Clause 32(2) is the provisions around the annual report, but I agree that it is not as clear as it could be and so we give an undertaking to use regulations to make that much clearer.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer and for that undertaking that she has provided. I do not believe it goes quite far enough and I am going to briefly explain why. One of the principles that certainly is in some of the amendments that I have before this bill is this concept that where you have genuine community engagement, one of the fundamental principles is that the person who is seeking to engage must have available to him or her the same information that the decision-maker has. It is a really fundamental provision.

This planning commission is going to be responsible for making a range of different decisions including development assessment decisions. If you think it through, what would be untenable would be for a third party, for instance, going along to a planning commission meeting and making a submission about whether or not a certain development should be approved. The third party—a local resident, for example—will have in front them the planning scheme, the policy and design code, they will have the state planning policies in front of them, they will have all these documents in front of them which they know the decision-maker must have regard to.

But what they will not necessarily have in front of them is a secret direction or a secret policy or a secret instruction that the minister has obliged the planning commission to take into account. It might not be a direction to the effect of 'you must' but it certainly does say in the bill that you must take it into account. You get an unequal situation where representers before the commission do not know what is going to be taken into account.

The minister said that maybe in a regulation they could oblige the commission to list these particular government policies or these particular principles or matters, perhaps in an annual report. That is fine but it does not help the representer who has fronted up to a planning commission meeting and will not know, and will not have any way of knowing, whether there is a set of considerations that the planning commission is obliged to take into account; and the representer knows nothing about it. That is where the rubber hits the road; that is the practical consequence of this. I think that on top of the concerns that the Hon. David Ridgway made in relation to subclause (4) which provides:

The Commission is subject to the general control and direction of the Minister—

and that some accountability or transparency measures ought be included in that subclause, I think in the interests of advancing debate today that this clause 17 is a classic candidate for recommittal later on because clearly there are a number of things that need fixing up. I have moved my amendment and will put that to the test but I would also like the minister if she can to agree that, of the clauses being recommitted, this be one of them.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I made it clear right at the beginning, and I do not need to do it clause by clause, that the government is willing to have clauses recommitted, and the opposition has also given the same commitment, so we need to just get on with it.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Any clause? Any clause, okay.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I humbly suggest to the government that when we are considering how to improve clause 17, we might want to think about the need for transparency in clause 17(6)—in other words, the matters taken into account. The Hon. Mark Parnell perhaps prompted by the minister's example of the carbon neutral policy has been focusing on statewide policies, but I think it is quite conceivable that subclause (6)(b) could lead to quite specific matters.

The Hon. Mark Parnell rightly said that, as I understand it, it is only fair that information before the decision-maker should be before other parties. One can envisage quite specific matters that the government might require the commission to take into account which could undermine that principle. Let me use as an example the government's current proposal to transfer Ward 17 from the Repatriation General Hospital to the Glenside health campus.

It is now abundantly clear that the government had decided to close the intermediate care centre on that site and that Renewal SA was well advanced in discussions on the redevelopment of the Glenside site that would now mean that the northern boundary and the western boundary had townhouses up to three storeys high. It is not inconceivable that if this bill had been in place at that time the government might have said to the commission, 'When you are approving our development, be aware that we intend to do this and this on the site,' but anybody else who wanted to comment on the proposal would not be aware.

I think the Hon. Mark Parnell raises a very interesting point in terms of proceedings before the commission. I must admit I do not understand the intricacies of how the statutory regime will work, but in the context of a general direction—I am not exactly sure what to use as an example, but if you like, an overarching management principle that will guide the commission going forward—it might be quite reasonable to have that tabled in parliament within 14 sitting days and gazetted in due course.

But if we are talking about transparency on particular matters, which to my mind could almost take the form of a direction, we should be looking at similar transparency requirements to those that I suggested in relation to clause 17, subclause (4). Considering the specificity that clause 17(6)(b) could envisage, perhaps we need even more expeditious transparency on these matters. I am not expecting a response from the minister now. I am happy to hear if she had any thoughts. I would just ask her and ask the government to consider those matters as the bill is considered in due course.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I rise to indicate Family First's position on this amendment. The effect of the amendment is to delete clause 17(6). As we have gone into some detail, the clause actually says:

The Commission must, in the performance of its functions, take into account—

(a) a particular government policy; or

(b) a particular principle or matter,

specified by the Minister (subject to any relevant principle of law).

That is what this amendment seeks to delete. If you look above that, subclause (4) of clause 17 states that 'The Commission is subject to the general control and direction of the Minister,' which in my view is a more overarching statement, as opposed to subclause (6). Really, subclause (6) is talking about the commission having—I do not want to verbal it, but having—

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: 'take into account'.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: —'take into account'. Thank you, Mr Parnell. I can see nothing wrong with that. Would we expect a commission to not take into account government policies or general government directions in certain areas? Governments at the end of the day are elected by the people to determine things like planning laws and regulations, and the commission being a loose instrument of government—I agree, theoretically independent at least—surely must take into account a particular government policy or a particular principle of the matter specified by the minister subject to the principle of law. I see nothing wrong with that.

I think we can spend a good deal of time—not that I am critical of that; I think we should be spending a lot of time on this—thinking about things like community participation. It is important—I make no bones about that—but I think we also need to have some context around that. If we keep some perspective about that, the reality is that—I will give an example.

In the council area that I live in, the Adelaide City Council, they have just had a vacancy, created in fact by a Greens member—now Senator Robert Simms—going to the Senate and vacating his seat in the Adelaide City Council. There was quite a large campaign about electing a replacement for him. If you lived in the area that was affected, Adelaide and North Adelaide—the Adelaide City Council area—there were corflutes all over the place and street corner meetings. I had several candidates push our button to get in through our gates and knock on our door. They were very keen to see the people inside, and it is not easy to get into some of these houses.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Democracy in action.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Democracy in action; I am all for that, sir. In reality, despite that really quite substantial focus, with a lot of articles in the local press, even a number of articles about it in The Advertiser, we have had a voter turnout of about 20 per cent. They are actually saying that is a good result. That means that 80 per cent of people could not care less, frankly, they could not be bothered voting.

So, I think we need to have some context around this. There will be some who are interested, and that is important. I know that is a long bow, talking about elections as opposed to the actual commission itself, but I think the principle is the same: most people will not get involved in these sorts of things and they will be happy with the general direction the government sets. There will be times when they are not and that is when the other provisions in the bill will be important. For those reasons, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure we have progressed too far from last evening, other than we traversed these issues of 17(6). I guess I am disappointed because last night the minister did indicate, when we put the proposition to the minister that it did not seem unreasonable that there should be some public notice through some mechanism of any direction under 17(6) of the proposed bill, that she would take that matter up with minister Rau. Clearly, the minister's response this morning would seem to indicate that minister Rau and the government were not prepared to look at some amendment to this particular provision to ensure greater transparency and accountability.

I think the initial statements the minister made this morning were in relation to there were meetings and it might be referred to in a decision and it could be referred to in a report. Nothing, of course, was provided. Subsequently, the minister has then talked about the possibility of some change through a regulation from that viewpoint. I think, as the debate has transpired this morning, it has really reinforced the views that were being expressed last evening; that is, it is probably going to require, on recommittal, consideration of an amendment which requires transparency in relation to it.

The Hon. Mr Parnell has talked about almost a contemporaneous, you know, as you issue it you put it online or on the planning portal or something like that. I think probably the least satisfactory would be putting it in the annual report because, as we all know, the annual report does not arrive until many months after the end of the financial year. This decision might have occurred at the start of the financial year, so, potentially, it could be 18 months after the actual direction (if that is the word we want to use) might occur.

I think the two most logical options are the one which has traditionally been used, not just in the Public Corporations Act but in other statutes as well, the requirement to table within a certain number of sitting days by a minister in the house. The other option is the option, which I do not know that I have seen, there might be examples in statute, but in essence a requirement to put it up on some website or portal.

I think that could be a policy position with the government of the day, but ultimately the parliament has the option of looking at a legislative provision and that is more likely to be as a fail safe, a tabling in the house within a certain number of sitting days. If the government, in addition to that, agreed, as a policy initiative, to put it up on a planning portal, or whatever else it might happen to be, then that would be an additional element of transparency and accountability. I think that is to be resolved at another stage.

My general response to the Hon. Mr Parnell, and with the greatest of respect to the Hon. Mr Parnell there are two points to make. One is the issue of recommittal. I would just suggest that the Hon. Mr Parnell counts the numbers in the committee. It is a decision, I would have thought he would understand, for a majority of members of the committee to determine. You do not need to seek assurances from either the minister or, indeed, me in relation to that issue. Ultimately, it is a decision to be decided by members.

We indicated earlier, on behalf of the Liberal Party, that we believe there are a number of issues that would need to be recommitted and I do not think we need to tick them all off at this particular stage as we go through—and I agree, to that extent, with what the minister has said—clause by clause and saying: this is one that definitely will be or will not be. The only other point I would make, and the Hon. Mr Ridgway has indicated the party's position in terms of the particular amendment, is about clause (6).

Having listened to the debate, I guess the Hon. Mr Parnell has asked whether it would not be better to go down the path he is suggesting, that is, require every planner involved in the decision to take heed of the government decision, like the carbon neutral decision. That seems to go a step further than the statute. The statute says, as the minister has pointed out, that the commission must take it into account but is not required as a planner to sign up to it and abide by it. It has to consider it, as I understand the minister's legal interpretation of this provision, but in the end it can make its own independent judgement in relation to it.

As I read the Hon. Mr Parnell's alternative, he seemed to be suggesting that maybe planners right through the system would be required to take that particular policy, or whatever it is, and in essence implement it as part of their planning decisions. I think that goes a step further. Certainly, I would be uncomfortable with that, if that is what the Hon. Mr Parnell is suggesting. As the Hon. Mr Ridgway has indicated, the Liberal Party is not supporting this amendment, albeit that we are very open (we have not had discussions in the party room) to the issue of transparency and accountability.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: To respond very briefly, the Hon. Rob Lucas has understood pretty well what I am trying to achieve, but the one bit he has misunderstood is that I am not suggesting that clause 17 is a vehicle for a government policy to become effectively mandatory for all decision-makers.

My question was: if something like a carbon neutral policy is so important to government, if the government itself were to elevate it to the status of a state planning policy, which is in a different part of the bill, then that would in effect make it an obligatory consideration for all decision-makers. So, that was my point. It arose because I asked the government what sorts of policies might fall within the gamut of subclause (6). What was offered was the carbon neutral policy, to which my response was, 'Yes, I like that. Why don't you elevate it even further?'

The final point I make on this is that the mechanism I have put in my amendment is crude and it is not necessarily the best; in fact, I do not think it is the best. I think we need the transparency arrangements that we have spent the last half hour talking about. Without reagitating the debate around why we are doing this bill in such a hurry, I have to say that, having been told the optional planned sitting week was not on, and having to come up with quick amendments to 230 clauses of the bill, what really required detailed analysis and reform has become 'strike it out'. I do not think I am Robinson Crusoe there: I have looked at quite a few of the Liberal amendments as well, and they go down the same path.

I take some comfort from the fact that we will certainly be recommitting clauses that need it, and again I hope that the government will accept that there is a level of goodwill in this chamber for planning reform, and I for one am interested in clause 17 in incorporating accountability mechanisms rather than simply striking out the ability for the government to help dictate the planning future. Clearly, as the Hon. Dennis Hood said, they are the government, they are a key stakeholder, but it does not mean that they always get their own way. I will not divide on my amendment, but I look forward to coming back and, hopefully, fixing both subclauses (4) and (6) to incorporate some accountability measures.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have some questions on the constitution of the commission, and I am not quite sure whether the Hon. Mark Parnell has a number of amendments. This has been modelled somewhat on the Western Australian Planning Commission. The first subclause here states that the commission should consist of:

(a) at least 4 and not more than 6 persons appointed by the Minister…

Brian Hayes QC said it was modelled on the Western Australian Planning Commission. When you look at the Western Australian Planning and Development Act 2005, the Planning Commission is to have a board of management consisting of up to 15 members. It includes an independent chair and then directors of six government agencies, and representatives from economic, social and environmental areas, local government, regional development and coastal management. I am intrigued as to why the government has chosen to have between four and six members, given we have a model that most people believe works particularly well in Western Australia. I am just intrigued as to why the government has come to that landing of four to six.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The first point is that what we are proposing is not modelled on the Western Australian experience. It is similar to, but is actually not modelled on it. If you look at the expert panel's report, and I am reading from it now, it states, 'Feedback on this reform', and the first thing to note is that the:

membership of a State Planning Commission should be based on expertise, not sectoral representation

They were of a strong view that it should not have government agents represented. They were also very clear on suggesting the expertise that the commission's membership needed to contain, and they identified five areas of expertise:

planning, building, urban design or development

the provision of infrastructure or services

legal, social or environmental policy

local government or public administration

economics, commerce or finance

They are the elements that we have sought to highlight in the way that we have formed the commission.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I understand the minister is saying that the expert panel made that recommendation, although I do not think they actually recommended for there to definitely be an urban growth boundary but, clearly, the government of the day decided they would like to have one. The comment I would make around expertise on the panel is that so often we see in South Australia a new road being built and then, within a few months or a year or so, SA Water comes along and digs it up to fix up a main or it is dug up to put in a new gas main.

One of the things that was a standout in the Western Australian commission is the way that they coordinated the delivery of infrastructure by having the heads of a number of government departments. I think they had Education, Transport, Water and Energy. They had all of the heads of those agencies, who were actually brought to the table so that you did not have this, if you like, silo approach to the delivery of infrastructure. With the long-term planning and delivery of infrastructure, if there is a bit of land to be rezoned, suddenly, the education chief executive knows that, one day, they are going to have to provide for an extra school. It is the same with transport, water and gas—all that provisioning and thought process for the chief executives is in place very early in the process.

Of course, since you and I, Mr Chairman, have been living in this state, we have seen Adelaide go from being the third-biggest city in the nation to now the smallest mainland capital. We were behind Melbourne and Sydney but Perth and Brisbane were way behind us. Okay, Western Australia has had a mining boom over the last 20 or 30 years—a couple of decades—but they have had this robust planning regime in place to be able to deliver the benefits to the local community. So I am intrigued as to why the government has not seen fit to follow that model where you have the heads of those agencies at the table, because it seems logical to me that that would be a much better way of bringing that information to the table so that, in the end, we do not have this happening.

I will quickly indulge people with some information about the highway that went past our farming property. There were people collecting seeds to revegetate the roadside. There were staff, probably from DEWNR back then—I do not know who it was—collecting seeds. They harvested the seeds and then planted the verge of the road. The electricity line was moved off the side of the road out into the paddock. Then they obviously decided it was too hard to get to the electricity line, so they moved the line back to the edge of the paddock and then they poisoned all the trees because they were underneath the electricity line. There was no thought or coordination.

I think that is something about which the South Australian community scratches its head every time they see a section of road that was resurfaced only a year or two ago being dug up because we need to fix a water main, put in a gas main or do some electricity work. Why has the government not adopted a similar model? We do not have to copy it exactly, but it certainly was a standout feature of the Western Australian Planning Commission.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There are a number of provisions that ensure good planning and coordination across government and also across local government. Clause 16 is a general provision about government agencies and councils being required to cooperate and coordinate. Clause 22, subclauses (5), (6), (7) and (8) give the minister the power to direct agencies on the advice of the commission. Clause 29 enables the commission to establish committees and, again, they can involve various agencies and bodies where it is determined that better cooperation, coordination and communication is needed.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Before I move my four amendments, I have some general questions on the constitution of the commission in clause 18. I say at the outset that this is the most important body under the new regime. For people who are familiar with the current regime, we have the Development Assessment Commission and the Development Policy Advisory Committee. This new body will effectively take on the powers of both of those. The Hon. David Ridgway and I have attended many happy evenings at meetings of the Development Policy Advisory Committee, and I have attended a few meetings of the Development Assessment Commission as well.

The ability of the minister to appoint absolutely anyone that he or she thinks is suitable is in here. It is an unfettered discretion to appoint anyone. The requirement in subclause (2) basically says that it is up to the minister's opinion as to whether a person has the right sort of qualifications, knowledge, experience or expertise to be on the commission—so unfettered ministerial opinion—but subclause (3) obliges the minister to take into account appointing people who have certain qualifications or experience.

So I would say that as a matter of law it is unfettered. The minister can put whoever he or she wants into the commission but the minister is legally obliged to at least give consideration to these qualifications. With that as background, my question to the minister is: what particular process does the minister expect might be followed?

I will just segue. For example, the Hon. Rob Lucas has often talked about what he saw as inappropriate appointments to statutory bodies, and the question has often been asked in this place: what is the process? Is there an advertisement in the newspaper seeking expressions of interest for people to serve on this body? Will there be an interview panel of any sort? Will there be criteria publicly set out as to what the process is, or will it simply be a series of captain's picks by the minister? My question is about the process of filling these positions.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the Hon. Mark Parnell's question around it being unfettered, that is not quite right. He qualified it by saying 'the matters that the minister by law had to consider', so that is hardly unfettered. I also draw your attention to the fact that this has been drafted in a similar way to most other statutory boards—for example, the Natural Resources Management Act section 25(1) and (2)—so there is nothing unusual about this provision; it is quite common. Just like most other statutory boards, the usual process is that an expression of interest is put out and an appointment is made. That is a very common process that has occurred in the past and stood us in very good stead.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer, and I accept that similar provisions apply in relation to other statutory appointments. What I was looking for was at least some commitment to a process that has a level of transparency. The first part of a transparent process is that eligible people at least know that there is a job going—that is the first thing—and the minister said that is what they would do. In terms of how you then sort through the list of people who have lodged expressions of interest, we have had no response—presumably that is up to the minister.

I am not sure whether this is going down the wrong path or not, but I refer to some comments that were made by the Local Government Association. It queried why these appointments were being made by the minister rather than by the Governor. My understanding has always been that whenever we read in an act of parliament the words 'the Governor' we always know that it means 'the government' and that it is not His Excellency making some sort of independent judgement, that they act on the advice of the executive.

Given that the Local Government Association has actually urged us to replace 'appointed by the minister' with the words 'appointed by the Governor'—and I have not moved an amendment in that form—I at least want to give the minister the opportunity to put on the record and explain the difference between appointments by the minister and appointments by the Governor so that we can determine whether there is any practical consequence of that distinction.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The question asked is why the minister has responsibility for appointment, rather than the Governor and I am advised—and reminded—of the time when the Premier sought to streamline and reduce the number of government boards and committees. We had an unwieldy number at the time and not all of them could really demonstrate a lot of benefit from their being.

At the time when we made those reductions, we got rid of some of the boards and reduced in size most of those left. We also at that time moved the provision for appointments from the Governor to the minister and that was really just for administrative ease, so that we could more quickly and easily manage the process. This is in line with that.

Although this has not been formalised, I understand that minister Rau has put some considerable thought into the commission. His thinking so far is that he is after an extremely high-level, high-calibre group of people and he is even of a mind to perhaps conduct a national search. Again, he has not landed on that; this is just the way he is thinking. He wants, as I said, a very high-power, high-level group and he is prepared to search high and low to get the right people to do this job justice.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a further question on the calibre of the people. I notice that later in the bill—and I do not know quite where it is—there is a requirement for disclosure of interests. Does it also require them to disclose any political affiliations they either have or may have had in the past?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My understanding is that that is not a requirement for any member of a statutory body except the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am just testing whether there are any other general questions on appointments to the commission and, if not, I will move the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Can I just make a quick correction? I referred to section 25 of the Natural Resources Management Act, and I said (1) and (2): it is actually (1) and (4). I knew you would find me out eventually.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a question on the make-up of the committee. Clause 18(4) provides that the minister will appoint one member of the commission to chair the meetings of the commission. I know the minister has said that minister Rau says that he wants a very high-calibre type of person. The success of this planning commission will depend on having the right leadership. Assuming that this bill eventually passes at some point, what is the time frame for constituting the commission and appointing that chair? Given that we are talking about all the regs and policies taking two or three years to be established, what is the time frame on selecting four to six members—which seems a small number—and then choosing a chair?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: If we are able to complete this bill before the end of the year, it would most likely be in the first half of next year or the first part of next year. It will be one of the first things that we seek to implement.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister and minister Rau's advisers have spoken about introducing a further bill next year. Will that further bill be required before the minister is able to appoint the commission?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, is the short answer.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will move to the amendments now. There are three amendments—12, 13 and 14—which effectively are to do with the same issue. I will deal with my amendment No. 15 separately. My amendment Nos 12, 13 and 14 are to implement a request from the Local Government Association to try to make sure that local government's expertise is ranked higher than it is in the current bill.

We have already referred to subclause (3), which is a list of the areas in which the minister must give consideration to finding people who have expertise or qualifications, knowledge or experience. There are six things on the list, and you have to get down to paragraph (f) to where it says 'local government, public administration or law'. There is no doubt that all those areas are important in a body such as the planning commission, but the Local Government Association makes the point that its sector is, in fact, important enough to warrant its own 'head', if you like, its own paragraph.

So what I have effectively done in this amendment is to separate paragraph (f) out so that it is not 'local government, public administration or law', but is separated into two paragraphs, local government being one and public administration or law being the other. That might seem to be nit-picking, because the minister might think, 'Well, it's all in there anyway,' and the minister is committed to finding a high-powered, high-level group, but I think these things are beyond the symbolic. I think they do actually give a flavour to government's intentions.

I should say there is an equal argument for dividing paragraph (e), 'social environmental policy or science'. As I have said before, one of the criticisms of the bill has been that social and environmental issues are playing second fiddle to economic issues, and when you look at that list of areas of expertise I think that is borne out. The social and environmental areas are sort of dumped in together towards the bottom of the list. I have not moved that particular amendment; I guess we need to draw a line somewhere

However, the Local Government Association has specifically asked that there be a separate paragraph referring to local government expertise; further, and this is my amendment No. 14, to add an additional requirement that one person appointed under this section must have specific experience in the area of local government, and the minister must take reasonable steps to consult with the LGA before this appointment is made. Again, basically that is to add emphasis to the importance of local government.

I know that the minister disagreed with my terminology that ministerial discretion was 'unfettered'; I see ministerial discretion that is 'guided', which is a bit different to being 'fettered'. This does in fact 'fetter' the minister; this requires the minister to find someone with local government experience and requires the minister to talk to the Local Government Association before making the appointment.

So whilst I maintain that the minister will have pretty much open slather to find anyone else to form part of this four to six person group, I want to make sure, and the Local Government Association wants to make sure, that that most important stakeholders group—and remember, ultimately local government has to manage the consequences of development, they are the ones who need to provide most of the services—is given, or allowed, a voice, if you like, in terms of finding an appropriate person to be one of four or one of six members. They are not asking to be in a majority on the state planning commission; they are just asking for a greater voice to be able to suggest the appointment. If I can, I am happy to move those amendments together.

The CHAIR: We will deal with just amendment No. 12 as a test case; we will deal with just the first amendment, No. 12. Apparently No. 13 can stand alone.

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

Amendment No 12 [Parnell–1]—

Page 31, line 1—After 'subsection (2)' insert '(but subject to subsection (3a)'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose all of these amendments (Nos 12, 13 and 14) and we are happy to have No. 12 as the test. The first three amendments seek to restructure the commission to include a local government representative. The commission is not intended to be a representative body; and I have already spoken about that and talked about the expert panels, report and the recommendations that it found, and it expressly considered that it was not appropriate for the commission to be a representative body. We cannot support that proposal.

Also, there is absolutely no justification. If you are going to represent one organisation, body or level of government, however you want to look at it, you would simply open up the door to a whole raft of others. For instance, why would you not represent Business SA? Why would you not represent SA Unions? Why would you not have the Property Council represented? The list goes on. This is not to be a representative body and, therefore, it is not appropriate to have local government represented.

However, my amendment, No. 12, goes on to make sure that local governments and other appropriate stakeholders—but this expressly talks about the LGA—must consult with the LGA before an appointment is made, so the LGA has an opportunity to have input into the people, but it is not to be a member of. In our view it is not justified for any group to reserve a position on the commission. It simply then opens up the question: if this body, why not someone else? Instead, the government's amendment No. 12, as I said, is an alternative to that requirement for the local government to be consulted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I quickly indicate we are sympathetic to what the Hon. Mark Parnell is trying to do. From the comments I made earlier about the composition of the Western Australian Planning Commission I think there are some deficiencies, and this again might be one of those issues that we maybe revisit and recommit when we have had some further discussion. I have some further questions that I will ask the minister maybe at the amendment to clause 8, which is her amendment No. 12; but I indicate at this point in time the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her response, and we will have a look at the minister's amendment No. 12 in due course. I just want to make the point that my amendment does not seek to make the person a representative: it just ensures that the Local Government Association is consulted. People might think it is a fine line if you have to consult someone, because therefore you are obliged to put their nominated person forward, but I do not think that is the case.

The point that I just make it that one of the great dilemmas that we face with these statutory bodies is that your head tells you one thing but your heart tells you something else. I will just elaborate. It makes sense for most of these bodies to be expert-based—it makes sense. You work out what is their job, what is their function, and find the best people who have got the qualities that you need to fulfil that function.

Yet, what has often happened is that the most inappropriate appointments have been made: jobs for the boys. As a consequence, what you often find is that stakeholders, even though their head tells them that an expert-based body makes sense, often they are so frustrated by the nature of the appointments that are made that they say, 'Forget it, we want one of our people on.'

However, I do accept the minister's point. I do not think this should be a representative body, but all ministers need to understand that if the calibre of appointments that they make, using expert-based criteria, falls short of what stakeholders think is necessary, then the stakeholders are going to start clamouring for representatives.

There is no shortage of acts of parliament where, for example, a farmers group has a representative, local government has a representative, and there are a few where the Conservation Council has a representative, but I do accept that that is not ideal in most circumstances and that expert based is better.

Really, the government just needs to pay close attention to appointing people who are of sufficient calibre and respect in the community that they actually do credit to the position, otherwise we end up with the sorts of debates we have had here, where personalities are dragged into it and the inappropriateness of appointments is raised.

I just make that observation, that I am supportive of it being expert based, but when key issues are not acknowledged you can understand why people get frustrated. I am happy to leave it at that. I have moved the amendment as a test, and we will deal with the minister's in due course.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Parnell, do you accept that your amendment No. 13 is superfluous now?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes, I do not need to pursue that now.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What about Mr Parnell's amendment No. 14? It is 13 and 14 that we are—

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I think I suggested that amendments Nos 12 and 14 could be packaged; 14 is the same subject matter as the minister's amendment No. 12. This is about consulting with the LGA, so they are pretty much the same issue.

The CHAIR: Are you happy, Mr Ridgway?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am, Mr Chair.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 12 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 31, after line 9—Insert:

(3a) In making an appointment that is relevant to the operation of subsection (3)(f) insofar as it relates to local government, the Minister must take reasonable steps to consult with the LGA before the appointment is made.

This is ensuring that in making an appointment that is relevant to the operation of subsection (3)(f) insofar as it relates to local government, the minister must take reasonable steps to consult with the LGA before the appointment is made. That is very different, we believe, from the position the Hon. Mark Parnell has indicated: he was suggesting that the person appointed must have specific experience in the area of local government and then went on to say 'and consult with the LGA before the appointment is made' as well, so there are two parts to it, in my understanding. This only picks up the latter part, which is to consult with the LGA.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a couple of questions, but I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the minister's amendment. Looking at the skill set of people listed, I note:

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the Minister must give consideration to appointing persons so as to provide a range of qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience in the following areas:

(a) economics, commerce or finance;

(b) planning, urban design or architecture;

(c) development or building construction;

(d) the provision of or management of infrastructure or transport systems;

(e) social or environmental policy or science;

(f) local government, public administration or law.

I think there is a glaring omission there, that is, the regions of South Australia and regional development. Of course, the minister opposite was a minister for regional development in a past life. We are in a jobs crisis: we have a quarter of a per cent predicted jobs growth in the Mid-Year Budget Review. Regional South Australia is where our food industry and food sector are particularly strong, and obviously it will have the ebb and flow of mining and resources development. I am just surprised that there is no mention in that list of qualifications, knowledge and expertise, of regions.

We all accept that South Australia is probably the most urbanised state in the nation, and one of the government's strategic priorities is the regions' premium food and wine from a clean environment. I highlighted those problems yesterday, around the Hills Face Zone and family businesses that are trying to get on and make a quid and struggling because of the strange red-tape burden. We see the same with other developments. I know there are some concerns, and minister Rau was scheduled to meet with the member for Flinders around some proposals for the barging facility at Lucky Bay. Again, there are some concerns. That is very much a regional development issue.

I would like the minister to explain why, if all these other expertise and knowledge areas are good enough to be mentioned in the bill, we do not have even the addition of one onto one of the lines. We finish at paragraph (f), so why not have a paragraph (g) that says 'and somebody with regional development and regional experience'?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We simply followed the advice of the expert panel in relation to the knowledge and experience or expertise identified as being necessary to fill the commission position.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister has just followed the advice of the expert panel. Of course, the expert panel said that they could consider an urban growth boundary, not that we actually had to have one, so it is interesting that the government and the minister follow the advice of the expert panel when they choose to and then at other times choose not to.

Would the minister consider—and again this might be something we might look to if we revisit this bill and recommit some of the clauses—taking on notice the addition of someone with regional expertise because it is quite different? Of course, in the Western Australian model one person is nominated by the regional minister.

I know that in the Western Australian model—and it is a much larger geographical state—they have a metropolitan LGA representative on their planning commission and a regional LGA representative or local government representative on their planning commission. It is a body of some 15. It is a person nominated by the regional development minister, and I think that, given the importance of our regions, it is an important consideration. I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to indicate whether the government might consider that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his comments and I am happy to pass them on to minister Rau and draw his attention to them for his consideration.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have one other quick question, and I apologise, as it may be in the bill; I have not digested it all. In relation to gender, will there be a requirement for the government to have some sort of gender equality on the planning commission as well?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is not a legislative requirement, but there is a government policy requirement for gender equity on boards, committees and other bodies.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have two quick points, if I may. I have a process point which I can perhaps ask of you, Mr Chair, but respectfully of the minister and the shadow: can we mention the amendment and who is moving it? We have three sets of amendments, as I understand it, from both the government and the opposition. The Hon. Mr Parnell has done it beautifully, I must say, and prepared it wonderfully, and you really cannot get lost. It is not easy to work out which piece of paper we are using, so can I ask that the minister and the shadow, if it is possible, or maybe you, sir, when you talk about the amendments, to mention amendment No. 1 [Ridgway-3], for example.

An honourable member: And the set number.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is right. It would make things a lot easier. That is my process comment, but my substantive comment to the amendment is that I think one of the very clear overarching positions of this bill, or the thing the bill is trying to bring to fruition, is that the role of local government is being changed substantially by this bill. There will be people with different feelings on that, but we are now at a point where some of the fundamental aspects of what has always traditionally been the realm of local government—that is, planning in essence—are being absorbed, if you like, or relocated, whatever the word is, to this state planning commission in a general sense. Yes, there are exceptions, but in a general sense. We are not opposing that—in fact, I think there is some merit in it—and we will support that thrust.

We are now at a point where the obvious questions start emerging: what are the implications for local government should this bill pass? It looks like it will. If planning becomes the realm predominantly of another entity, what is the role of local government? Those are significant questions that I think are for the government and for this chamber to consider, maybe not as a consequence of this bill although obviously this bill is impacting on it substantially, but next year it needs to be considered in an opportunity to address exactly what that whole level of government needs to look like moving forward. That is another discussion. Coming back to the amendment, I think it is appropriate that government at least makes an attempt to consult local government and for that reason we will support it.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I put on the record that the Greens will be supporting the government amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 15 [Parnell–1]—

Page 31, after line 14—Insert:

(6) In addition, a person may only be appointed as a member of the Commission or a deputy if, following referral by the Minister of the proposed appointment to the Statutory Officers Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991—

(a) the appointment has been approved by the Committee; or

(b) the Committee has not, within 7 days of the referral or such longer period as is allowed by the Minister, notified the Minister in writing that it does not approve the appointment.

(7) Despite the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Statutory Officers Committee must not report on, or publish material in relation to, matters referred to the Committee under subsection (6) except to the extent allowed by the Minister (but this subsection does not derogate from section 15I(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991).

This also relates to appointments to the state planning commission. Again, it flows from the submission made by the Local Government Association where they have quite reasonably suggested that appointments to the commission should be subject to parliamentary oversight. The mechanism for the parliament to oversee appointments to statutory bodies is set out in the Parliamentary Committees Act, division 2—Functions of Statutory Officers Committee.

Before I go through that process, the reasons why I have moved this amendment and I agree with the Local Government Association's position is that, as the minister has said, this is such a vital body for South Australia. It looks like there is going to be a global search to find appropriate persons to fulfil these roles, and that says to me that the parliament would be an appropriate body to have a bit of a look at it as well.

When you look at section 15I of the Parliamentary Committees Act where it sets out the functions of the Statutory Officers Committee, you will see that the main requirement is in relation to certain positions where the position is filled by the parliament—in other words, a position that is filled by appointment on the recommendation of both houses. The Hon. Rob Lucas will no doubt correct me but I am thinking we have the Electoral Commissioner, the Ombudsman, I think the Auditor-General, and I cannot remember which others, but they are appointments that are made—

The Hon. J.A. Darley: The ICAC Commissioner.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Thank you, the Hon. John Darley—the ICAC Commissioner as well. The powers of that parliamentary committee are not limited to those appointments because the functions of the committee also include in subsection (1)(b) to perform other functions assigned to the committee under this or any other act (or by resolution of both houses but that is not relevant). It is functions assigned to the committee under any other act, and any other act would be the bill that is before us. So, I do not think that this is a particularly onerous provision but it would at last provide for these important roles to actually be subject to a bit of scrutiny outside the minister's office. The minister has so far only accepted that there will be a call for expressions of interest but we have had no undertaking as to any other part of the process, so in the vacuum that that presents, I have put this amendment forward, giving the relevant parliamentary committee a role in finding appropriate people for this commission.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment which would set up an extraordinary process for appointing members to the commission. The Statutory Officers Committee have advised that there are only three appointments they consider, being the Electoral Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the ICAC Commissioner. You will note that there is a multitude of public officers who are not included in this very short list, such as the Auditor-General. If they are not worthy for inclusion that sets apart the state planning commission to such a degree it should be elevated to this status.

There are no government boards or committees where membership of the relevant board or committee is determined by the Statutory Officers Committee. The government believes that the commission should be appointed in line with the existing guidelines for the appointment of the government boards and committees and be accountable to the minister, in line with the Westminster tradition. Involvement of a standing committee of parliament is completely not appropriate, nor is it necessary.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment, although he did spark some comment from one of my colleagues when he talked about a global search for people on the planning commission. The Hon. Rob Lucas suggested maybe Laura Lee or Fred Hansen or somebody might be likely to come.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Some names for you.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, names from the past and there are plenty of others, I suspect, that we could dig up from the thinkers in residence time frame. I am wasting 30 seconds of the time. We are not going to support—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: That's 30 seconds you will never get back.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Never get back; yes, 30 seconds we will not get back. Of course, if you had actually told us about getting the police here this morning, we could have saved 10 minutes. Anyway, we are not supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is a provision that allows for, if you like, the co-option of additional people to serve not on, but with, the state planning commission. In the other place, Mr Griffiths asked the minister what sort of circumstances might require an additional person or persons to be appointed. The minister's response was that he did not have anything in mind but he thought that it might be useful to have a general co-opting power.

My first question to the minister is whether there has been any more thought given to it. It strikes me as a sensible section, which I will be supporting, but to be a bit more specific, the commission is going to do all these different jobs—there are advisory jobs, in other words, making recommendations and providing advice; and there is the job of making decisions about development applications. At the broadest level, does the government see that these co-opted people would be part of the commission's advisory function or part of its decision-making function in relation to certain sorts of developments?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that either. It will be determined, basically, by need, that is, the final skill set complement that is appointed to the commission. There could be areas where there might be gaps, so they could be co-opted for that, or a person might be co-opted for the special consideration of a high-tech matter or very specialised matter, to give expert advice in relation to that. So, it has not been determined.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer and I agree, I think either of those functions may well benefit from having additional people on. Just in terms of, I guess, the process, the minister is required to establish a list. My guess would be, but I will get the minister to confirm, that, again, an expression of interest process would invite members with expertise in certain topics to offer to make themselves available. Is that how the process would work? In other words, how does the minister pull this list together?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I would imagine the process would be done in a similar way. As I said, there is not a great deal of detail that has been dealt with at this point in time, but it would probably be something like an area of expertise is identified as being useful, an expression of interest might go out, or a number of people might be able to recommend a series of experts that they know and they are then approached and a selection is made.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. It states in clause 19(2)(e) that a person appointed is not to be considered to be an appointed member of the commission. I take that to mean they are not going to be counted as one of the four to six. In other words, someone does not have to step down to make way for the expert. I am just interested in terms of the process of the commission. If they were required to vote on something—and it might be a matter of: do we approve of this development or not—would these extra people get a vote? There seems to be no limit on how many experts could be appointed. For example, you might have four permanent members of the commission and you might have 10 experts appointed, would they all get a vote?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There is a limit, there can only be one or two, that is clause 19(1). They do get a vote, I am advised, but only on the matter they have been appointed to consider. This is modelled on the provisions of the Development Assessment Commission.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I think this is my last question on this point. It is stated in subclause (2)(c) that the person will be appointed and they will remain on the list on terms and conditions determined by the minister and they are eligible for reappointment. I am interested to know what terms and conditions does the government have in mind? I am thinking in particular, a retainer? I mean, someone gets themselves appointed to—let us say they are the acoustic engineer expert on the list, are they paid anything by way of a retainer? I expect that if they were called to do work there would be some hourly rate or some payment for attending decision-making meetings, but is there likely to be a retainer as well?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My understanding is that this has not been prescribed. However, what is likely is that they would be paid sessional sitting fees. A retainer may or may not be considered, but I would imagine it could be considered where a person is a particular guru on a particular area and then they might pay additional (through a retainer) for that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I might say that the Hon. Mark Parnell has stolen a few of my questions, but credit to him.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Obviously they are important questions.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed, they were. This is a key aspect of how this will all work, hence members' interest in the matter. I express a note of concern. If the government wants to establish a state planning commission (and we support that—we have supported it throughout this debate), and then there is talk about how many should be on that, and I think four to six people will be appointed to the commission (and I see nothing wrong with that as it seems like a manageable number), but the question arises when you have one or two persons 'to act as additional members of the commission for the purposes of dealing with any matter arising'.

It is very unusual for those individuals to be given voting rights. Certainly the standing members of the committee, if you like, the four to six original or permanent members would have voting rights, which seems perfectly in line with normal practice for how these things run, but to have so-called experts consulted to have voting rights is very unusual. I express that as a note of caution.

It is perfectly reasonable to consult their expertise and draw on their expertise and knowledge in order for the committee to formulate its final decision, but you can change the voting dynamics quite substantially if, for example, only four members are available for a particular meeting, and two so-called experts have been co-opted in to add to the panel. If they have voting rights, that is a third of the voting block. I raise that flag with the government that it seems unusual to me and it needs to be further examined.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The sort of provision where an expert has the capacity to vote on matters pertaining to their expertise is not unusual. I have been advised that we have taken it from the Development Act 1993, section 10A, which has a similar provision.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Just a couple of questions: I assume it might provide an opportunity for that regional expertise to come in, I would assume. I read the bill quickly, and I cannot recall seeing it, but will the commission have a quorum, a minimum number of people who need to be there to constitute a meeting of the commission?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You are absolutely right: having these positions available would lend themselves most suitably to ensure that, for instance, country expertise was available. Clause 27 deals with the quorum, which is required.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What is a quorum? It might deal with it. I have a range of questions, but can you tell me what is a quorum?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Half plus one.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If it is half plus one, is that half of four plus one, half of six plus one, half of the formal members of the planning commission plus one, or half of those at the meeting plus one?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is half plus one of voting members.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you, minister. So my understanding is that a few moments ago you indicated that somebody who has been appointed to this, as consistent with the Development Act, would have a vote.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: On some matters.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, on some matters, but on matters that they are there for. Under this clause 19, the commission may appoint one or two persons to act as additional members. Can I just clarify whether, if the commission is four members, you could have a situation where you have two additional members, so the actual half plus one is four. Effectively, you could have your two additional votes and only require two of the regular commission members to then constitute a quorum. Is that accurate?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, that is correct.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Does the minister or her adviser envisage any circumstances where it would be likely that you would have two experts or two additional people on a reasonably consistent basis, when you will be needing to bring in experts all the time?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Obviously, it is untested, but the advice I have received is that you could foresee that, particularly where there is, for instance, a very complex environmental issue occurring that requires high levels of specialist expertise.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a final question. I know the minister said it was government policy—and they are not mandated to have gender equity—but, if we were a male short on the commission or a female short, in relation to government policy, could this provision be used just to top up so that the government policy has been adhered to?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The additional positions are only to provide expertise.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I just seek a point of clarification from the minister, if I can. We are dealing with clause 19, obviously, but subclause (2) paragraph (c), states that, right at the end, at the expiration of a term of appointment, that individual is eligible for reappointment. It does not say how many times that reappointment can occur. Potentially, it could be reappointment after reappointment, and they effectively become a permanent member of the committee and, therefore, the four to six number that is originally envisaged could in practice be eight people on a virtually permanent basis. Would the government like to comment on that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member is looking at this through the most cynical of eyes, I have to say. We had not contemplated such a high level of cynicism. The bill is silent on that level of detail. It does not indicate how many appointments, but the custom and practice is generally that reappointment usually means once or twice at the most—that is the general convention on boards and committees.

The advice I have received is that, if it were to be manipulated to fill a permanent position in an ongoing way and this was challenged in court, the court is likely to read the thing in the spirit of intention in which the bill was written, and also with general custom and practice in mind and general convention in mind. Although you have drawn attention to the fact that it is not explicitly addressed, I do not believe that the government, at this point in time, feels particularly threatened by such a possibility. We certainly have no intention of allowing those positions to become de facto permanent positions.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In the light of that then, I think that having some sort of regional expertise on this commission, I would say on a permanent basis, would be better than just bringing them in ad hoc. I know the minister said she would speak to minister Rau. I reiterate that I really would appreciate her speaking to him because it is something which I think the opposition would consider amending, when we have had a chance to talk about it, to maybe add that regional expertise to the list of provisions, or even increase it from five to seven members, rather than four to six.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I ask the minister to confirm just for purposes of clarity, that all members of the commission will be subject to the jurisdiction of ICAC.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: And it is not the government's intention in regulations or any other provision related to this act to remove them from the jurisdiction of ICAC?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised, no.

Clause passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a question on clause 20, and it is actually just a reiteration of my previous question, but this clause also refers to the fact that there is no specific end point and no maximum number of times somebody can be reappointed. I presume the government's response will be the same in this case.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is right.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to this, people can be appointed for a term not exceeding three years. Why did the government land at three? Why not two or four? What is the attraction to three?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Three is the general standard in the statute books for statutory authorities.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Is it contemplated that there may be some, if you like, staggered membership? Often with these committees, boards and commissions, people build up a bit of corporate knowledge and to have some sort of staggered membership, rather than everybody leaving, to me would make sense and I wonder whether that is the intention?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, we are mindful of the benefits of staggering membership and that has been considered. No decision has been made yet but it is certainly under consideration.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This clause provides for allowances and expenses to be paid as determined by the minister. In the other place, Mr Griffiths asked about that. The Hon. John Rau responded that he had not determined what the pay would be for these people. He said:

I have not really turned my mind to that properly yet. This is a body which is at least as responsible as the DAC, so you would expect that that is some guide as to what we are talking about, but we have not really worked it out.

The additional information that we have had today is that the planning commission will be high level and high calibre, that it may well be a broad search, and so, as a starting point—and even if we can get just a little more guidance than the minister was able to provide last time—my question would be: what do members of the Development Assessment Commission currently get paid, and is that an annual payment or a sessional payment?

That is my question, and while the adviser is looking that up, as I said before, this new body is a merger in some ways between the DAC and the DPAC. As some members know, I was very briefly a member of the DPAC some years ago. I think I am the shortest serving member; I think I lasted six months before I was shown the door. But my recollection is that the payment was around $7,000 a year for DPAC, but that was some 15 or more years ago. So given that the new body is a merger of both DAC and DPAC, what is the indicative range of pay that these people might get for serving?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not have the exact figure with us in the chamber today but it is believed that it would be in the vicinity of $24,000 per annum—something like that. There may also be modest sessional payments made in addition to that; I am not sure.

There could also be an attraction allowance; some members may also be given an additional attraction allowance if, as I have said, they have a particularly high level of expertise that is difficult to come by. The presiding member usually receives slightly more than that, as well. I refer to Circular 16—Remuneration for Government-Appointed Part-Time Boards and Committees.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Can I just clarify that that $24,000 per annum is for a full-time member of the committee or an—

An honourable member: They don't work full time.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, I understand that. I meant a permanent member.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: A permanent member for their role, according to the act.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, minister, for that answer. How many meetings is it anticipated that they would attend on a 12-monthly basis?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do not believe that has been determined as yet, no, but generally speaking you would expect them to sit at least once a month. Particularly at the beginning, there might be a significant body of work, so they might need to sit more often than that. Of course, there is also likely to be work that is done through committees so that the whole of the commission is not having to sit to do specific role functions. That is generally the run of the mill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: If they do sit more often, is it envisaged that the $24,000 would be increased? Is it on a meeting basis or an annual payment?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I have outlined previously, often—not always, as there are different permutations and combinations—there is generally a fee per annum, a flat fee per annum. For DAC, we think it is around about $24,000. There is commonly also a sessional fee that is paid in addition to that, so the more often you sit the more you are paid. The sessional fees, I have to say, are usually extremely modest (the ones I have seen), and they tend to vary. Individuals who might have a very rare and high level of expertise that is quite important and highly valued by the commission may receive an attraction allowance as well. It is a combination of things.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Payments for board and committee members is a subject I have had some interest in over the years. I must say that, in my experience, it is highly unusual to have a situation where they might be paid $24,000 plus a sitting fee or a sessional fee. Normally, it is either an annual payment or a sessional fee. I am not going to swear to the fact that there might not be the odd example where you get both, but generally, particularly when the numbers start getting up to $24,000, it is an annual payment and the sessional fee is an alternative mechanism, which might be some $100 per meeting or something.

As I said, I cannot swear to the fact that there is not an example, but in my experience, in going through boards and committees over the years, it is an either/or set of circumstances. Certainly, for example, boards like the WorkCover board, where the money comes in, you get paid whatever it is—$30,000 a year for a board—and then, as the minister has indicated, you might have a subcommittee and you get paid another $5,000 or $10,000 for being on that subcommittee. Some board members might be on two or three subcommittees, so you get the board payment for WorkCover and you are on their investment committee and you are on their compliance committee and you get another $5,000, so you get an aggregate of payments in that way.

The minister is suggesting that possibly, with the planning commission, there might be a similar structure, where you get a board payment as a member of the commission and maybe there are specialist committees that operate under it, for which you might get additional payments. As I said, I think it would be unusual to get $24,000 and then to get sessional payments over and above that.

Given that it is highly likely that we will come back in February, we should have an answer to my next question by then. Normally, the set of circumstances is that there is a classification or a category given to boards and committees by DPC as part of the cabinet submission. When minister Rau took the bill to cabinet and had it approved for drafting, he would normally have referred to the category.

I do not know what they are now called, but it used to be called either category 1 or 2 or classification 1 or 2. The best categories, like a WorkCover, get the highest payments and the lower categories get the lower payments. I would be surprised if the planning commission would not have already had cabinet authorisation for a particular level of category, which would therefore give the bounds within which the payments would be paid.

My question to the minister is: is it the case that the government approval has already categorised the planning commission? While she might not have that available immediately, can she take that on notice and see, whilst we continue the debate today and tomorrow, whether or not there is further advice she can provide to the committee in relation to what category it is and therefore what range of payments might be anticipated?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice is that as yet the commission has not been appointed a classification or a class. The Hon. Rob Lucas is quite right: the boards and committees are designated at a particular category or class or level. The DAC is currently classified level 3, which is mid-range. Currently, its members receive $24,765 per annum and the chair receives $37,148 per annum. The DAC is set at that, and the thinking is that the commission will sit at the same level as the DAC, so they will be applicable.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that advice because certainly I think whatever category 1 is, if that is the highest, you are generally looking at a range of board payments around about $50,000 and the chair being paid $70,000 to $75,000 and, as the minister has indicated, on rare occasions, there is an extra allowance paid for particular people.

I came in at the tail end of the earlier discussion in relation to the expert panel people, about whom there was a lengthy debate earlier. It is an unusual set of circumstances. Is the minister in a position to provide advice as to what their level of payment would be? Clearly, that would be different from being a commission member and it would be more likely to be a sessional fee, I imagine, or a sitting fee for the number of meetings. If the minister does not have any immediate information on that, can she take it on notice and in due course provide advice to the committee?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not have that answer; it has not been determined. It is likely to be some sort of sessional fee, though.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My question probably relates back to the previous clause regarding the position of chairman. In the Western Australian model—and I know that the minister says we have not actually followed it, but we have used it as a guide—the chairman is viewed as a very senior member of the planning structure. My recollection is that the chap I met when I was there was Mr Gary Prattley, who is well regarded right across Australia and New Zealand. I just looked on the internet on my phone, and I see he has 45 years' experience.

He has now gone off into some private sector role, but 45 years of experience is significant and the sort of expertise that the minister was saying minister Rau is looking at hunting nationally. The Hon. Mr Parnell talks about a global hunt, and even the Hon. Mr Hood.

Nonetheless, what is the role of the chair of our planning commission in the structure of government and the planning hierarchy? Certainly, Mr Prattley was seen as a particularly high level, almost public servant, and it was a full-time position. I have a schedule of the fees that the Western Australian Planning Commission have paid, and the position of chair is just negotiated. So I am intrigued as to where the minister sees the role of chair and the likely level of remuneration.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It has been described to me as more like a board of directors, where the board requires a chair and a chief executive. It would not be seen as a full-time position. It would be more akin to the chair positions of, say, the EPA or the Economic Development Committee.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I notice that clause 21 provides that an appointed member is entitled to fees, allowances and expenses determined by the minister. Given that we are likely to have a national search for these people—even though it is a reasonable amount of money, maybe $30,000-odd, or $24,000 and maybe add a bit more for committees—if they reside in another state, what level of expenses does the minister see as being reasonable for these members to be entitled to receive? Clearly there would be travel, accommodation.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, this level of detail has not been prescribed, but it is highly likely that they will be covered by those arrangements made available to other boards and committees. That usually means reasonable expenses or, for individuals, it would be negotiated at the time. For instance, if it were someone from interstate coming over for meetings, then at the time it would be negotiated for travel and accommodation, etc. So those matters are negotiated at the time. For general matters it would be covered by the provisions available to other government boards and committees.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I guess this relates to expenses. I know that in the Western Australian model the planning commission often has regional meetings; it goes out into the regions to have meetings and to get some understanding of regional issues. Under this model, is it envisaged that the planning commission itself will have regional visits, regional meetings, around the state?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That level of detail has not been considered. It would not be unreasonable but, as I said, that level of detail has simply not been dealt with yet. Also, I think the commission itself would probably have a view about how it would best manage its work.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They obviously have, in Western Australia, regional members on their planning commission from the very north of the state. We may not have the same issues here, but certainly I know Mr Prattley, in my discussions with him, said that it was very beneficial to take the planning commission to some of the regions to get a better handle on the issues. Will there be any additional staff appointed in a secretariat sense to provide support to the commission who are not already in existence?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised no.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Are there any estimations or provisions in the forward estimates for the funding of the planning commission and, if so, what is the budget for the proposed new state planning commission?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that we believe it will be budget neutral. It will be taken from within existing resources.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Clause 22 sets out the functions of the state planning commission. It effectively is two full pages—quite a lengthy clause. I want to ask the minister specifically about the submission that was made by the Local Government Association where, in their submission, they thought the functions of the commission listed in subclause (1) of clause 22 should be expanded to include the approval of regional plans unless a joint planning board has been appointed; secondly, development and approval of amendments to the planning and design code; and, thirdly, that they should work with local government to develop the community engagement charter.

My question is: no doubt the minister is aware of this request, so what response does the minister have? In fact, I will just say one more thing. In the other house I think a similar question was put by Mr Griffiths certainly in relation to the approval of regional plans. The minister's response was that he would be happy to think about them:

On the face of it they do not sound crazy, but we have to take some advice on it. My main worry is red tape. It is not the principle of having anything to do with the LGA; it is how much red tape we are creating.

That was the minister's response in the other place. Does the minister in this place have anything to add to that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, given the minister is accountable to parliament, we believe we have got the balance right and that there is no need to change that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This clause is about the function and powers of the planning commission. There is a number of provisions in here. I am just interested to know because in a previous answer it was all to be cost neutral. This is a significant change. As I said, the opposition supports the principle of an independent planning commission, but it just seems that there will be some resources required, and I am concerned that this is going to be a body set up that really just does not have the resources to deliver the expectations of both the expert panel and the opposition. I know the Hon. Mark Parnell and others see this, by and large, as a sensible reform, so I am just intrigued as to how the minister can say it will be cost neutral. It will be a new initiative.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to take that up with the minister. I am sure he would love to have more money.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is probably at some other point in the future, but the e-planning provisions that will be in this bill, there might be some questions about it later, but that is why I am intrigued as to whether they will be cost neutral—the Planning Commission itself, and the actual reforms that this bill is delivering. The e-planning component of it I am told could be $20 million or $30 million that will need to be implemented over the next three, four years. Could the minister give us a guide of what the government's expected cost will be for the e-planning system and over what time frame, and is there being money set aside in the budget to provide for that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We believe that the commission itself and setting it up and running it will be cost neutral. In relation to the e-planning, we anticipate that a budget submission would need to be developed and that go through the normal budgetary process. That is anticipated.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This bit of legislation, in a perfect world, if it had been progressed a bit earlier we probably would have passed it last week, but there has been no budget work and no preparatory work done to say, 'This e-planning system is going to cost X. We have to wait until a bill goes through, but once it is through, we can then make a budget submission.'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there has been a great deal of preparatory work around the budget implications for the e-planning system but, as yet, a final budget proposal has not been developed, but it is anticipated that one will be completed and go through the normal budget process.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: One further question on that particular issue. I think we have some questions later on around cost shifting to local government, but what will be the expectation for local government contribution to e-planning?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We have consulted with the LGA and will continue consultation through further development of the e-planning system. I am advised that there will be provision for cost sharing with local government and state government; however, my understanding is that the view of local government is that they will make overall significant savings from the e-planning developments and implementation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There is the old saying, 'Don't ask questions you know the answer to,' but I certainly have no idea of the answer to this one. Are there other e-planning systems in place in other states in Australia and, if there are, are we going to look to take an off-the-shelf type model (although I know every system is slightly different) or are we going to have another one of these—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Design models?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, another one of these IT projects initiated by government that cost four times as much as what was budgeted and never deliver.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Obviously, we have looked at what is happening in other jurisdictions, and there are other examples. A decision has not been made as yet, but it would appear at this stage that we will be purchasing an off-the-shelf model and then customising it to meet our own particular needs.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is obviously a very significant clause. It deals with the functions and powers of the new body to be created. My first question is quite a generic question and just for the sake of clarity. What happens to local government as a result of the formation of this new body? Specifically, what is it local government does now that it will not do as a direct result of the creation of this new entity?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that local councils will no longer have their own local development plan, instead they will have regional plans and they will also have planning and design codes. They will work with the commission in relation to both their regional plans and their planning and design codes.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is my understanding of it. At face value that then suggests that—I am not sure that local government would agree with this, they may or they may not—the creation of the state body, if you like, the State Planning Commission, may create a sense of excess capacity at local government level. Has the state government engaged with local government as to the possibility of that and as to what changes may ensue if that is indeed the case?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We think that the great strength and benefit that local councils would bring to this particular system is their engagement with local communities around the regional plans. In terms of their net work and their skill and expertise, local councils are demonstrated to have very strong close connections with local communities. We think that would ensure that we have a high-quality level of input for the development of the regional plans, and we think this will be a great strength to the system.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am moving on to another topic in the same clause, if I may. Again, it may be as I expect it to be, but just for the sake of clarity, under clause 22(3) it reads that:

The Commission may, in relation to providing advice under this Act, act on its own initiative or on request.

Could the minister provide some examples to the chamber of what circumstances may require the commission acting on its own initiative?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It could be that the commission, either whilst undertaking its work or simply the fact that it is engaging with various organisations and members of the public, has an issue come to its attention that it actually has not formally received a request to consider or take action on so it is able then, if you like, to self-refer.

Clause passed.

Clause 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 13 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 34, lines 30 to 33—Delete paragraph (b)

It is a technical amendment and it is quite straightforward.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Clause 25 is headed 'Minister to have access to information'. In a nutshell this clause provides that any information that the commission has needs to be provided to the minister with one exception, and the exception is set out in subclause (3) as follows:

However, the Minister is not entitled to obtain under this section information that the Commission considers should be treated for any reason as confidential so long as the Commission does not adversely affect the proper performance of ministerial functions or duties.

My question is: what are the circumstances in which that subclause might come into operation? Is it trade, commercial, confidential information in relation to individual development applications, or is it general information that might be provided by a witness to a commission inquiry? What work does the government believe this clause will do?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Firstly, this has actually been copied from the Western Australian legislation, so I am sure the Hon. David Ridgway will be delighted about that. Secondly, the type of information that might be captured by this exemption could be, as the honourable member has already mentioned, commercial-in-confidence information, information that might prejudice court action or in some cases it might be details of legal advice, depending on what that advice is. They are just some examples.

Clause passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think this will be a very quick and easy one for the minister to answer as well; in fact, I will put the answer and she can tell me if it is correct. A quorum indicated here would be 50 per cent plus one. Is that correct in this case as well?

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It is half plus one.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Half plus one, yes, thank you.

Clause passed.

Clause 27.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Clause 27 relates to the proceedings of the commission and it does cover issues that have been agitated already such as a quorum and how voting is to be undertaken. It gives them the ability to meet by telephone or audiovisual means, and it requires them not unreasonably to have accurate minutes kept of its proceedings, but otherwise the commission will determine its own procedures.

Given that an important role of this commission is to replace the current Development Assessment Commission, one of the things that I would be anxious about is that some of the procedures that have been developed in that body might be lost in translation to the new body. What I have in mind in particular is that I think the Development Assessment Commission, whilst it has made many decisions that I do not agree with, it has had pretty reasonable processes, especially in relation to access to information. For example, if you go onto the Development Assessment Commission website, you can get the current agenda for their next meeting and the agenda includes things such as the report of the planning officer who is advising the Development Assessment Commission, especially in relation to category 3 developments.

There are often many dozens, or even hundreds, of pages of information provided as part of the agenda. It is part of the practice of the commission to provide the agenda, I think it is at least three days, from memory, before the actual meeting is held. The importance of that is that, as I said in a contribution to an earlier clause, if you are a representer who is fronting the commission to give your view on whether a certain development should go ahead or not, you at least have the advantage of knowing what advice the commission has received, because the staff planner who is advising the commission has his or her report up online on the agenda.

Similarly, at the end of each meeting—my recollection is that they are on Thursday mornings every two weeks—the previous minutes are put, in a fairly timely manner, up onto the website, and so you can find out exactly what decision they made, what conditions they might have attached to a development approval that they have granted. In fact, I think it is a very good system; it is open and it is transparent. As I say, I do not always agree with the results that they come up with, but I think the process is fairly good.

There is no obligation in this clause 27 for them to be as open as the Development Assessment Commission currently is, and it would seem to me that the new planning portal is an obvious vehicle for the planning commission to publish its agendas, its reports and the minutes of its meetings. My question to the minister is—it may well be somewhere else in here and I have missed it—is it a requirement, and would the minister make it a requirement, for that level of transparency and publication of documents?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, the act does not prescribe that level of detail, nor do we think it should, because then the thing becomes overly prescriptive and too unwieldy, but at the moment the current DAC, as you outlined, does publish these things routinely. I would imagine the commission would continue with similar practices. I cannot imagine any reason for it not to do that, but it would be a matter for the commission to decide how it wants to manage its own affairs. As I said, we would be reluctant to legislate any requirements at this stage, but it would seem reasonable that they would follow similar sorts of practices to DAC.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer, and I accept it. I have not moved any particular amendment to require it. I also make the observation that when we get to, I think it is clause 44, the community engagement charter—I can never remember the actual name; it changed a few times during consultation—I would have thought that that document would be the type of place where it sets out not only the rights of citizens to engage in the planning process but also the expectations on statutory bodies in relation to things like the provision of information. Does the minister agree that that charter is perhaps the spot to put the requirement for the publication of routine information by the planning commission, just as DAC currently does?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think that is a most reasonable suggestion.

Clause passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Chair, one of the most efficient chairs of the committee of the whole that I have seen for some time—very efficient. Clause 28 is headed, 'Disclosure of financial interests'. It is a very short clause. It states:

A member of the Commission must disclose his or her financial interests in accordance with Schedule 1.

When you look at the schedule, schedule 1, there is quite a bit of detail there about what needs to be disclosed. The aspect that I am not so certain about is whether that disclosure regime is limited to what we are calling the permanent members of the planning commission or whether it would also apply to the panel of people who may be co-opted, from time to time, to sit on the planning commission. The reason I am uncertain is that if we go back to clause 19, which we dealt with before, clause 19 is the co-opting power. If we look at clause 19(2)(e) it states:

A person appointed under that subsection is not to be considered to be an appointed member of the Commission under the other sections of this Subdivision.

So, my question is really quite simple: does the requirement to disclose financial interests apply to co-opted members of the planning commission? My initial reading is that it does not and if it does not then I think we have a major problem because these people are going to be sitting on the decision-making body that decides whether or not developments get approved or not.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that both are captured by the requirement to disclose financial interests.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I need a little bit more than that, and the minister's adviser should be able to help. I actually need chapter and verse. I need to know where that is set out because it states, under 19, that these people are not members of the commission, and my quick look at schedule 1 does not illuminate the matter any more. I may well have missed something, but I do need chapter and verse on that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the key wording in clause 28 is that it refers to a 'member of the commission' not an appointed member of the commission, so therefore both are captured by being a member.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would ask the minister whether this requirement under proposed clause 28 dislodges or supersedes the requirements which I presume would be on the commission under the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995 where the duty to disclose is much broader, it is to include a direct or indirect personal or pecuniary interest, not merely a financial interest.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we will need to take that on notice to get precise advice.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: On the same thing. I can stop whenever.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It is a question, yes, and it does relate to the same thing. I thank the minister for her answer to my question. I see that there are the words 'member of the commission', which is different from an appointed member of the commission. Again, if the minister wants to take this on notice, that is fine, but it strikes me that one of these people on the list of potential appointees the minister is going to refer to, and every so often will appoint one or two of them to the commission, do not become a member of the commission until appointed.

Being on the list is not being a member of the commission—you are on a list of people who might be called on. So, my question is: when compiling the list, will the minister require all the people on the list to disclose their financial interests, even though they may never be called on to actually serve in that capacity? Secondly, does the minister envisage that there will be a process for updating those disclosures of interest?

We have seen that people can be on the list for five years, I think, and reappointed once or twice. First of all, would they at all need to have their disclosure done just because they are just on the list and, secondly, how often would it need to be updated? I appreciate that that is a technical question and I am happy to wait until later for the response.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will take those questions on notice and also note that we are happy to look at clarifying, if need be, the wording around the declaration of interests applying to both members and non-members. It was certainly our intention that both be captured, and if there is ambiguity there we will seek to have that clarified.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:15.