Bills

State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill

Committee Stage

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: I indicated before the second reading that the Hon. Mr Pangallo would like to make a contribution, so we will do that now.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that I support the Hon. Rob Simms and the Greens in opposing this bill. While I support measures to streamline development approvals, I believe that this bill certainly goes way beyond that and gives enormous powers to a coordinator to override existing legislation if it is deemed to be in the state's best economic interest. I note that it was stated that there were concerns from within the government that, if this legislation was not put through, it could discourage other investors from coming into South Australia and putting money into various projects in South Australia, which I do not believe.

This is a state that provides stamp duty exemptions for commercial purchases in the state, and large projects are going on at the moment all around the state, from towers being built right behind us at Parliament House, through to the Riverlea housing project and other housing projects that are now on the Premier's mud map or road housing map, or whatever he calls it, in the hope of building thousands of homes, which they will never be able to achieve.

As I said, this bill gives enormous powers to this coordinator, who is not an elected representative, and he or she—whoever gets the job—can override existing legislation if it is in the state's best interests. I raised this matter with the Premier's own advisers, and I thank them for coming into my office yesterday. I did not get a briefing until yesterday, even though one was listed as being available back in February, but I did not think this was going to be shunted through at such pace as it is today.

I note that there is a list of exempted places where this legislation will not apply. My concern is that this legislation could well be a Trojan horse, that once you put this legislation through there will be nothing stopping a government that has control of both houses of parliament being able to move through the legislation, amend that legislation, and see development even on the Parklands again—even though the Premier says they will not. I was assured this will not happen, that there would not be any development on parklands, which was good to hear, but of course we know that this government is about to carve out a huge slice of parklands in North Adelaide for its LIV golf course. Of course, that will not be applicable to this piece of legislation.

I have also raised concerns about the impacts these housing developments might have on existing businesses. I have been approached by businesses from Murray Bridge who believe that future housing developments there may endanger their own businesses that have been there for a long period of time. One in particular, of course, is the Costa Mushrooms business. I raised this with the advisers who came to my office yesterday.

It is probably a bit too late now, but this is likely to occur with the government's announcement of a 1,700 home subdivision at Sellicks Beach. Now, that's a disgraceful situation that continues there that has not been addressed at all by this government. It has been totally ignored by the environment minister, the planning minister, the premier. This is where residents in Sellicks Beach have, for the last five months or more—in fact, it happens for nearly half of the year—been subjected to constant, 24/7 showers of dust from the large Adelaide Brighton Cement quarry, which is going to be operating—and it operates day and night—when the 1,700 allotments are going to be developed at Sellicks Beach.

These residents are being subjected to a constant shower of dust—and we are not just talking about any ordinary dust, it also contains dangerous levels of silica. This is the same stuff that the Attorney-General was bragging about during question time, and rightfully so, about how they banned stone cutting. However, I have seen the levels of silica dust that have been recorded at homes in Sellicks Beach and it is alarming. In fact, you have residents who are now reporting health problems as a result of inhaling the dust that constantly falls each day.

I have urged members of parliament, I have urged the ministers, to go and have a look for themselves to see what is going on at Sellicks Beach right now, where the residents are being subjected to this; it is almost like a storm of dust when the wind blows. Every day they have to sweep out their homes. It gets inside their homes, it is everywhere, and they are inhaling it—and it includes dangerous silica dust.

Of course, here we have a government that, once this legislation goes through, will be able to quickly fast-track that 1,700 home development at Sellicks. It will get developed, and unsuspecting buyers will have to put up with the same problems that current Sellicks residents are having to put up with. One resident has told me that they are so fed up they are going to sell up and leave. One has already decided to sell his home, and others are also contemplating moving out of the place—and I am not talking about a handful of people. This dust covers almost the entire suburb.

This legislation is certainly going to protect the developers that will work on that new subdivision, and I have to say that it is actually just across the road from this quarry, which has a length of about four kilometres, its depth is huge, and has a life of 150 years. Here is a government that says it is concerned about inhaling silica dust but is showing absolutely no concern for these residents at Sellicks right now who are having to put with up this. Nobody is listening to them, nobody. The environment minister, Susan Close—no, not interested. The planning minister, Nick Champion—not interested. They just do not have any interest in what has been created and the problem that exists in that suburb right now, and it will only get worse.

As I said, my concern is that this is Trojan Horse legislation, quite clearly. While I certainly want to see developments in this state being fast-tracked more than they have been in the past, I think there needs to be some sort of measure in there to put the brakes on what is going on here. With that, I will be supporting the Hon. Robert Simms and his amendments.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I thought it might assist in the committee stage—I have some questions about specific provisions but I also have some general questions, so I might start with the general questions at clause 1 and move through some of those. Might I say that I agree with the Hon. Frank Pangallo's statement around the risk of this being a Trojan Horse. It has been referred to by some community advocacy groups as 'one bill to rule them all'. The mega bill that overrides so many other pieces of legislation I think does send a shiver down the spine of many South Australians who care about our democracy.

The bill requires consultation in certain circumstances but places no clear requirement on the Coordinator-General's Office to take the results of the consultation on board when they come to make decisions. What is the government's expectation in terms of how consultation will impact on decision-making of the office under this legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that it would have the usual expectations: it is an implied expectation that when consultation is undertaken it will be taken on board. Obviously, that does not mean that everyone's viewpoint is necessarily able to be accommodated, but what it does mean is that all viewpoints are listened to and changes are made where appropriate.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: We have received conflicting advice from various sources about what instruments are disallowable under the bill. Can the minister clarify exactly which provisions of the bill will be disallowable?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would refer the honourable member to part 3, division 1, clause 19—Interpretation:

(1) In this Part—

…disallowable notice means a notice under any of the following provisions:

(a) section 25(1);

(b) section 36(3);

(c) section 37(1),

that modifies or excludes the application of a designated Act (or a provision of a designated Act), and includes a notice [that there is such a notice]

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am sorry, but that does not actually assist me in understanding the provision. What I am trying to understand is: how much oversight or opportunity will the parliament have in terms of being able to disallow? Is it the case that existing disallowable provisions within existing legislation will automatically be disallowable if they fall under the remit of the new state development coordination office, or are some elements going to be treated differently? I am not asking the minister to simply read from the act. I am trying to get clarification on how this is going to work in practice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there are no changes to any disallowable instruments in any other acts, and therefore the disallowable characteristic that we are referring to only refers to those three provisions that I outlined in the answer to the previous question.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: What precisely do those three provisions relate to? Are they relating to any particular projects or legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised it will refer only to any notice where the CGO makes use of the functions. The three areas that it refers to specifically are the calling provision, the pre-assessment and pre-approval provision, and the essential infrastructure provision, but only where it would modify or issue an exemption.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Again, I apologise—I understand this is not the minister's bill; I understand that you are dealing with it in this house—but I think this is an important point, so I am keen to clarify here, because it does go to the heart of the level of transparency. Can the minister be specific around, again, how that is going to work in practice? The parliament will not have the power to disallow provisions that relate to—can the minister repeat those for me?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will convey the information that has been provided to me. If it is still not answering the question, perhaps the honourable member will frame it in a different manner. The three provisions that were referred to would be subject to the usual disallowance process. In the same way that the parliament might disallow a regulation, it would be exactly the same process for a disallowance in this particular case.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will have to give up on this line of inquiry. I am not getting any closer to actually understanding where the parliament's powers for disallowance may be curtailed. If the government's view is that they are not going to be impacted in any way, it would be useful for them to clarify that, but I will move on. When the CGO takes on secondments from another agency, will that agency be given additional funding to backfill that position, so that they can continue business as usual?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the budget appropriation does have the capacity for such a backfilling situation, but it is important to note that the reason there is a significant budget appropriation is so that there will be sufficient resourcing for the CGO and also for the regulatory system. According to my advice, that apparently came through very strongly in the feedback and consultation that it needed to be appropriately resourced, essentially, in order to be effective and to have the positive impact that we are hoping it will have.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the government give a commitment that this will not have any adverse impact on the work of existing departments or agencies?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The intention is to have a positive impact, and therefore I think it is fair to say 'yes'.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: What interaction will the Coordinator-General's Office have with the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We would not expect it to have any.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Isn't the purpose of this new office to deliver key projects of strategic importance to the state, or are they not considered of value in terms of the Premier's Delivery Unit?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There is no requirement for the CGO to interact with the Premier's Delivery Unit. My advice is there would be nothing precluding that occurring, but it does not seem particularly—certainly there is no requirement for it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In Queensland, the Coordinator-General's Office was used to expand the Adani coal mine, despite the fact that there was significant community opposition to the project. Is there potential for this legislation to be used to approve similar projects in South Australia that might have adverse environmental outcomes?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this bill maintains existing requirements around such matters. It does not make something able to be approved that is currently not able to be approved in circumstances that have been outlined by the honourable member.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: What level of funding does the government consider will be required to establish and maintain the Coordinator-General's Office?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the expectation is it will cost around about $4 million per year. That obviously includes both the establishment and the operationalisation going forward.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the minister clarify whether that is new money or whether that will be taken away from existing agencies?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised it is a budget appropriation. It is new money.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In his second reading speech, the minister said that the bill was to ensure independent decision-making; however, the bill enables the minister to give directions to the new CGO. Does this mean the new office is not independent of the government of the day?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The bill establishes the CGO as a statutory authority with independence. Because it is established so that the Public Sector Act 2009 and the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995 apply to the CGO, the CGO is legally required to act in a non-political way and detached from any other interests. Clause 9(2)(c) of this bill also prohibits the responsible minister from directing the CGO to either approve or reject an application. I am advised that the provisions are modelled on very similar provisions that protect the independence of the State Planning Commission.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Members of the CGO will be entitled to remuneration. Can the minister clarify who will set this remuneration? Will it be set by the Remuneration Tribunal of South Australia, for instance?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the CGO would be a government board and therefore remuneration would be set in line with the framework for government boards and committees.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the minister clarify what that framework is? How is that determined?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that it is under one of the Premier and Cabinet Circulars. It is certainly available publicly online.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Could the minister advise what it is? How are members of the public meant to know? I am trying to ask these questions so that we can get to the bottom of how this bill is going to work in practice and I am finding some of the responses to be quite circular.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The framework for boards and committees is set out. It has specific bands. I am not sure if that is the correct term that is used, but it is essentially bands or tiers based on the remit of the board or committee in terms of its scope. It is something that has been in place for many years so I am not quite sure why there would be new questions around it now.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Which minister will the act be committed to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that at this stage that has not been determined. An act can be committed to any minister, as all acts can, and that will be worked out in due course.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Is it standard for the parliament to be asked to give such significant powers to a minister when we do not even know which minister will have responsibility for the act? Is that standard practice? I have not seen that in the time I have been here.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: An act can be committed to any minister. The honourable member might recall that, when we have a new government elected, for the first few days often all acts are committed between perhaps the Premier and one or two others, so it is not unusual according to my advice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just go back a step in relation to the constitution of the CGO. I note that the provisions of the bill say there will be a board and that there will be one member who is appointed as the principal member. Is it anticipated that the role of the CGO, which is that one member, will effectively be an executive government appointment?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that that is possible, but it is not required. I am referred to and I would refer honourable members to the Planning Commission, which is currently a mixture of both external members and public servants. So a similar model could be used in this case.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Further to that question from the Hon. Connie Bonaros regarding the composition of the panel, will they be selected? We do not know which minister is going to be responsible for this piece of legislation. How will these panel members be selected? Will they have to apply, or will they be captain's picks?

Further to that I note that there is an allocation for a specialist for AUKUS and that it needs to be somebody with a knowledge of the AUKUS project. Considering that it is still in its infancy, who would that person likely be? Will it be a politician, defence personnel? Where would that person come from?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised, in terms of the first question around panel selection, it would be usual to appoint persons based on their skills. It could be either an open recruitment or an appointment by a minister in the same way as occurs with many other boards. In terms of the second question, there would need to be a recruitment process where someone could demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of AUKUS.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just again in terms of the role of the CGO and the reference to the Planning Commission, is it anticipated that in this instance the role of the CGO, given the gravity and scope of the scheme, will be a full-time role, as opposed to some of the examples that are given that are not occupied by full-time members?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the bill does not specify whether it will be a full-time or part-time position. It would be based on workload. Currently the expectation is that there will be quite a high workload, which would suggest it is likely to be full-time, but it is not specified in the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just further to the composition of the board, can the minister clarify why precisely AUKUS has been singled out and why there is not a requirement for members of this board or committee to have, say, planning expertise or climate change expertise or expertise in the housing sector?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the, if you like, general members of the board will be appointed based on their ability to fulfil the functions and that is likely to be a broad range of skill sets. It could include planning, it could include various other things. Obviously, as with the make-up of any well operating board, they will be seeking to have the appropriate mix of skills.

In terms of why AUKUS is specified, as was noted by a previous speaker it is quite a rare skill set. Given that there could be significant implications in terms of the AUKUS supply chain, it was considered appropriate to specify and ensure that where there is something that will affect the AUKUS supply chain or involve the AUKUS supply chain, there are specific skills related to AUKUS.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What are the steps open to individuals or groups who may be opposed to a decision made by the coordinator?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this bill does not remove any existing review or appeal rights that exist in any other bill and therefore it does not create that type of change.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am just having a look at exclusions here. What about native title? Is there the ability here to even override native title rights?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Essentially, I think the honourable member is asking whether this will take power away from native title holders or in regard to those matters and I am advised that, no, the bill deliberately focuses on internal government processes. There was a decision that was taken quite deliberately earlier on in the process to leave Aboriginal heritage, Aboriginal land rights legislation and the ALT, as well as native title matters, out of scope of this bill. That is because affecting those protections, rights and processes simply will not be appropriate either for Aboriginal communities nor for proponents.

Improved coordination and certainty in this context can only be achieved through earlier improved engagement and collaboration and doing so will continue to be an important priority for state authorities and for the Coordinator-General's Office, especially where those things are relevant.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will the office of the coordinator have the authority or the power to override, say, commonwealth developments that may be slated for South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that any development that is under a commonwealth act or on designated commonwealth land can only be changed through commonwealth authorities and, therefore, this would not enable that to occur.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: To clarify the issue I raised earlier about the Parklands, I notice that the Governor may, on the recommendation of the minister, by notice in the Gazette, establish a specified area of land as a state development area. Does that leave the door open for Parklands or other protected areas to be included?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that section 19, the interpretation section, refers to protected areas. Specifically, it includes:

(a) the Adelaide Park Lands as defined (from time to time) by the Adelaide Park Lands Plan under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005;

So it is specifically excluded, and then there are a number of other areas under that same explanation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What happens, say, with the development of the LIV Golf project at North Adelaide? There will be separate legislation required there for the government to acquire that section there. Does that mean that this legislation will then apply to that slice of parkland that will be acquired by the government to complete its LIV Golf project?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, no, this bill would not apply to that. As the honourable member suggests and I think has been made clear previously, that is separate legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I go back a step again just to clarify? On the example of native title or heritage significance or environmental significance, is not the concept really that whatever is required to be done in relation to native title, heritage significance or anything else would have been done prior to the relevant land parcel being identified as ready to go? If there is native title significance, for instance, that would have been done already, and we would have established whether it is an appropriate area of land. If it has cultural heritage significance or environmental significance, similarly, that body of work will have been done in advance, before we say, 'This area is ready for certain industries to go into.'

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that essentially, yes, that is the goal. To have a state development area, the intention is that the work that is required is done as early as possible and therefore that gives greater clarity for proponents. It is worth, however, also reiterating that that work is done through existing processes, so it does not remove native title rights. It does not remove Aboriginal heritage, for example. It is done through existing processes, but exactly as the honourable member suggests, by having that work done up-front and as soon as possible that will streamline the processes and give proponents a swifter opportunity going forward.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank the minister for that response. I go to one final point that I raised during my second reading contribution, and that is that not all players in these fields are of the same scope and scale. Is it the government's intention, and will they give an undertaking, that they will give some prominence—I am not suggesting that there be a register as such—on the website so that people can easily identify the areas that have gone through the processes we have discussed and are available for certain activities in certain industries in certain areas?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes. I am happy to expand, if necessary, but I think essentially that covers it. The answer is yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 7, after line 3—After clause 4 insert:

4A—Application of Act

This Act does not apply to or in relation to—

(a) a project to establish a site to store nuclear waste; or

(b) a project relating to AUKUS.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove AUKUS from the remit of this bill and also to ensure the Coordinator-General's Office cannot use these powers to establish nuclear waste sites in South Australia. The government has told us that this bill is primarily for development, and they have talked about the potential to collaborate in terms of delivering housing. If that is the case, then it should be a no-brainer for the government to exclude AUKUS from this bill. It has been their argument throughout this process that this is an office that will simply use powers that are already available.

If the government wishes to narrow the field, this is an opportunity for them to do so. I point out, in speaking in favour of the amendment, that South Australians have a long history of standing against nuclear waste dumps in our state. The Barngarla people fought and won a 20-year fight against a nuclear waste dump, with the court deciding in 2023 that the facility could not be built. In 2004, a South Australian campaign opposing the Howard government's plan to create a nuclear waste dump in Woomera resulted in the plan being shelved. The Greens are concerned that these new powers could be used to establish nuclear waste sites. My amendment makes it expressly clear that there is no potential for the new office to be used in this way.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act is a separate South Australian act that prohibits already any state authorities from any involvement with nuclear waste activities or projects. That act continues to apply and, according to my advice, is unaffected by this bill. The prohibition that this amendment purports to achieve already applies through other legislation, and therefore this amendment would have no practical effect in that regard. Secondly, excluding AUKUS-related projects is not reconcilable with the intent of this bill, which is to be able to support AUKUS and, where relevant, task the CGO with supporting AUKUS-related developments. The government will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment either.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 2

Noes 17

Majority 15

AYES

NOES

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 7, lines 26 to 31 [clause 6(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) In nominating members for appointment, the Minister must ensure that—

(a) at least 1 member is a member of the State First Nations Voice (within the meaning of the First Nations Voice Act 2023); and

(b) at least 1 member has expertise in climate change; and

(c) at least 1 member has expertise in planning.

The effect of this amendment is to expressly remove the requirement for a member to have expertise with AUKUS and instead to insert some other areas of expertise.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Simms' amendment, particularly in regard to removing the AUKUS member. As I mentioned a little earlier, that would also be inconsistent with the government's stated policy objectives of supporting AUKUS and tasking the CGO with supporting AUKUS-related developments.

In regard to the Hon. Ms Lensink's amendment, if that is moved I will flag that whilst the government cannot support it, given the lateness of its filing, as I indicated in my summing-up we are willing to consider it between the houses.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I note that we have not moved the amendment of the Hon. Ms Lensink yet.

The CHAIR: We will move them one at a time.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, and I will speak to that when we get to it, as an amendment that I would be inclined to support. I note that, in relation to this particular amendment, I will not be supporting it. We are kind of picking and choosing between who we put on as relevant—and perhaps if they were separated it would be a different issue as well.

In relation to the inclusion of the State First Nations Voice, I would just highlight that the State First Nations Voice, whilst I am not opposed in principle to that concept, would of course still have the ability to make comment in relation to this bill and report to this parliament on any issues or concerns that they have in relation to the bill. It may be that one of those individuals who is appointed as one of the four on this is from the First Nations Voice or, indeed, from another Aboriginal Indigenous representative and not necessarily from the Voice itself. I would just make the observation that there is not anything precluding the Voice from sharing their views on this bill, but there also is not anything in the bill itself, as it is now, preventing anybody with expertise in that area from being appointed under the current guidelines.

I do not share the same views of the Hon. Rob Simms in relation to AUKUS, but I wonder whether we would then have to look at further changes to include everybody who we think might necessarily be on the board. I do note that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has a related amendment, for which I am willing to indicate now that I will support it and consider it between the houses as we progress through this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It will come as no surprise to the Greens that we will not be supporting their amendment. I agree with everything that the preceding speaker, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, just said. We do hold some concerns in relation to ensuring a breadth of expertise, but I will speak to my amendment in a minute when we deal with that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister clarify how this will be negotiated between the houses, given that we have received it from the other house and unless there is an amendment made there is no message to come back to us? How will that process work?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I was referring to, if, for argument's sake, the Hon. Ms Lensink's amendment passes here even without government support, we would then be willing to consider that between the houses.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: So everyone else has to vote for it.

The CHAIR: We will deal with that amendment when we come to it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lensink–1]—

Page 7, after line 31—Insert:

(3a) In addition, in nominating members for appointment, the Minister must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the membership of CGO reflects an appropriate diversity of experience and perspectives (whether business, industry, government or other experience or perspectives) and should have regard to the knowledge, experience and background of each person to be nominated for appointment.

As I indicated in my second reading speech—and I think this is reflected in the House of Assembly debate by my colleague Mr Sam Telfer, the member for Flinders—we do have some concerns that the government may have missed some opportunities in its drafting, particularly when it comes to governance issues.

There is an opportunity within this clause for the CGO to feature a full panel of members from one particular organisation, whether that is a business, a trade union, an industry organisation or any similar sort of entity. This proposed amendment is to ensure a diversity of skills and experience within the CGO, which seeks to ensure the diversity that the Treasurer spoke about in committee in the other place. It ensures against a minister looking to—if we could use this word and which I am sure does not occur in any political parties represented here—stack a CGO to achieve a predetermined outcome.

Given the only existing prerequisite for CGO membership is that one member fulfills an AUKUS-related position, the other three positions could theoretically be manipulated without such a safeguard, so I move this amendment standing in my name. Just to test the Legislative Council, I am prepared to call divide if we do not win it on the voices.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is worth putting on the record that we would, of course, expect—in fact, I think I have referred to it earlier today—that the board would have an appropriate diversity of experiences and perspectives. Knowledge and experience are obviously absolutely essential to an appropriately functioning board. As I mentioned, whilst we cannot formally commit to supporting an amendment that was received after we have gone through our usual processes within government, we are certainly happy to consider it. On face value, it does not appear to be contrary to any of what would be the intention in any case.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, notwithstanding our position on the bill overall, this does seem to be a sensible improvement on what had been originally proposed, so the Greens will support this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 7 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Lensink–1]—

Page 10, after line 8—Insert:

(1a) In connection with subsection (1)(b), if CGO conducts an investigation into the regulation of a project, CGO must submit a report on the investigation to the Minister, which must set out any improvements to the regulation of such projects identified by CGO (or, if relevant, include a statement that no improvements were identified).

(1b) The Minister must, within 3 sitting days after receiving a report under this section, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Currently, the bill only requires an annual report to be submitted by the CGO, and separately clause 10(1)(b) only requires identification of areas of improvement for state regulation. This may be withheld until the publication of the annual report.

The proposed amendment ensures that a report is to be tabled in parliament on every project undertaken by the CGO, even when there is no identified area for improvement. We seek to do this for two reasons: firstly, to ensure that all members are aware of the CGO's views on the project where otherwise no submission may result in ambiguity about the CGO's views; and secondly to provide timely feedback on a project without having to wait until an annual report publication, which, if a project is only finalised days after an annual report being completed, could take up to 12 months to be provided to the parliament without such a mandatory report.

The tight timeframe of three sitting days also ensures fast turnaround times for the parliament to consider what regulatory changes can be made for future projects undertaken within the state and to streamline any processes, which is the goal of the entire bill as outlined by the Treasurer in his second reading speech as read in the other place. I commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am sorry, it is very difficult for us to form a position on this amendment having literally only just seen it. I do not really have an understanding of the implications of what the opposition is proposing, so on that basis I think we would have to oppose it.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Lensink–1]—

Page 10, after line 26 [clause 12(2)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) must provide for a quorum of CGO to include at least the principal member; and

This, once again, is a question of what we view is an improvement to the governance structure. The Treasurer, in the committee stage in the other place, agreed that some matters of a particular project might not require the input of the entire CGO, depending on the experience of each member. However, without requiring the coordinating member to be present as part of the quorum, each individual member theoretically holds the power to convene a meeting with a quorum of one after requesting the coordinating member call such a meeting.

By requiring the coordinating member to be present at any meeting and for any quorum to be a minimum of two of the four members, the hierarchy of the CGO is maintained and the coordinating member's position as such is never brought into doubt should there be conflict between other members of the CGO. This amendment effectively ensures that the CGO can continue, in the words of the Treasurer, 'to be a bit more nimble and quicker' in dealing with issues as they arise and still ensuring the coordinating member has jurisdiction unquestioned.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Again, given the lateness of the filing of the amendment, the government has not had the opportunity to go through our processes and therefore will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Providing for a quorum for this group sounds like a fairly sensible proposition. It does at least safeguard against, as the honourable member has pointed out, one member simply making a decision without others being present. On that basis, we will support that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I, too, will be supporting it, and I echo the words of the Hon. Robert Simms.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Again, on the face of it, this looks like a sensible amendment to me and I will be supporting it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 13 to 27 passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Clause 28 requires the CGO to develop and maintain reports, material or information relating to environmental, social and economic considerations and impacts. Will these reports be made available to the public?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that should this bill pass, we are hoping to be able to promote the information around the state development areas. It would obviously be in the best interest for information to be made available. However, there will, of course, be some exceptions to that, if it is commercial-in-confidence and so on. There is some flexibility in there, but given the intent of the bill, the intent of what the outcome would be in terms of making the state development areas attractive for development, we would expect that that information in the majority of cases would be available.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just on that, will broader meetings of the board be publicly available as well?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that clause 12 refers to procedures being published on a website determined by the CGO and also that the CGO must have accurate minutes kept of its meetings and ensure that a record of its decisions is maintained.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just ask a follow-on question from that: save and except for material that may be commercial-in-confidence, does the current drafting under paragraph (d) or (e), particularly as it relates to recommendations, allow for cabinet confidentiality to apply? So if something is presented to the minister, particularly under 28(d), could it be that the minister then takes that to cabinet and it has the privilege of cabinet, and therefore prevents disclosure of that material publicly?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, where there is general information, that is not likely to be covered by cabinet-in-confidence. However, if there was a recommendation—for example, that cabinet should consider doing X, Y or Z—then that potentially would be covered through the cabinet-in-confidence processes. Essentially, it will depend on the circumstances of the nature of the recommendations that are being made.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That may very well be the case, but does that prevent the CGO from publicly disclosing the recommendations they have made which the government may consider to be cabinet-in-confidence? If the CGO has not made that assessment and determined that it should be cabinet-in confidence, will they still have the ability to disclose that information?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it will be the nature of the information that will determine whether something is cabinet-in-confidence or not. It is not the CGO who will make that determination; it will be on the facts of whether something is, for example, general advice or general information, in which case it is not likely to be subject to cabinet-in-confidence. In contrast, if something is a recommendation that, for example, cabinet should invest in building X, Y and Z, then that potentially could be a recommendation that would be subject to cabinet-in-confidence.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is the office of CGO subject to freedom of information requests?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, they are subject to the FOI Act, as all other state authorities are.

Clause passed.

Clauses 29 to 32 passed.

Clause 33.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Lensink–1]—

Page 23, after line 22—Insert:

(5a) If CGO publishes a declaration under subsection (1), the Minister must, within 6 sitting days after publication of the declaration, cause a copy of the declaration to be laid before—

(a) if the Minister is a Member of Parliament—the House of Parliament of which the Minister is a Member; or

(b) in any other case—the House of Assembly.

(5b) If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing a declaration laid before it under subsection (5a), the declaration will cease to have effect.

(5c) A resolution of a House of Parliament is not effective for the purposes of subsection (5b) unless the resolution is passed within 14 sitting days (which need not fall within the same session of Parliament) after the day on which the declaration was laid before the House under subsection (5a).

(5d) Nothing in this section affects the validity of a declaration under subsection (1) disallowed under this section before the passing of the disallowance resolution.

Clause 33 of the bill refers to applications for prescribed approvals under the Mining Act of 1971. It might not be immediately apparent, but for those who have dealt with some of these issues over the years there can often be conflict between agricultural interests, particularly with mining. With this particular amendment we are intending to address some of the friction and help to manage that in certain scenarios and with particular applications.

The intent of the amendment is to ensure that the parliament maintains the right to assess the strategic importance of a project under this section and not merely the financial benefits of it. While a mining project could over time easily generate millions, potentially billions of dollars, the impact of such a project could be that the long-term viability of certain agricultural interests, for example, could be threatened, such as in the debate over GM crops and the ongoing prominence and viability of Kangaroo Island GM-free produce.

This amendment does not seek to have the parliament veto CGO as an administrator but looks to ensure that the separate issues of strategic planning and the administration of a project are separated. I suppose an analogy could be that the role of a court is not to determine the merits of a law but to determine whether individuals conform with it. That is the best explanation I can offer, which I hope assists members in their determination as to whether they support this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government will not be supporting this amendment for several reasons. The first is that it has not been able to be given due consideration. Initial advice is that it may not actually achieve the stated aims of the honourable member; hence some more detailed analysis would be required. Secondly, the primary principle of the act refers to the economic, social and environmental outcomes both for the state and locally, so again and simply on face value it would appear that the stated aim of the opposition is covered by the existing primary principle which appears in this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It is my interpretation of what the honourable member is proposing is that this would actually ensure some increased level of transparency around these potential declarations. Given one of the concerns we have had with this reform is the potential for reduced transparency, giving the parliament a bit more oversight seems like a sensible proposal from the opposition. We will support it on that basis, but I recognise what the government has said around working between the houses. If there is some significant issue that we are not aware of, we can always revisit that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am inclined to agree with that assessment. If there are issues there—unintended consequences—we can tease those out and iron them out between the houses. I therefore support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 34 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Lensink–1]—

Page 28, after line 29—Insert:

(9a) For the purposes of this section (including in legal proceedings)—

(a) a statement in a claim that an owner of land suffered loss or damage as a result of a person entering or temporarily occupying land under this section; and

(b) a statement in a claim specifying the amount of the loss or damage,

will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be accepted as proof of the matter so stated.

This is an amendment to clause 38, which refers to entry onto land, etc. I think it is fair to say that the reversal of the burden of proof in any legal setting is one which cannot be taken lightly. However, the ongoing conflict between ease of access to remote land or even regional agricultural land and the need for possible preliminary works to be undertaken in our view makes it necessary to place the onus on the CGO to ensure that the landowner is not disadvantaged.

It is well known to all in and out of this place that legal action can be cumbersome, expensive and detrimental to those who are accused of wrongdoing. In placing the burden of proof on the CGO to demonstrate land has not been damaged, the landowners, who often do not have the time or resources to dedicate to any legal action, will be protected. This amendment does not to seek to prevent any access for the purpose of projects of significance but to demonstrate an act of good faith.

The entire bill seeks to streamline and fast-track projects of state significance and any burden of proof borne by landholders whose land is required for such a project could be taken to be an example of government seeking to ride roughshod over the private property rights should a particular CGO be so narrowly focused on the delivery of a project that the rights of the private citizen are cast aside. With those words, I commend the amendment to the house.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: At this stage the government will be opposing this amendment, first of all for the reasons already stated of being able to see the full implications—there has not been sufficient time for that—and given that it reverses the current position. As I understand it, what it would mean is that, if a government employee entered a property, the landowner could then claim there was $50,000 of damages done and it would be up to the government to disprove that, which is a vast change from usual and existing processes. It potentially raises significant issues and the government does not consider that there has been sufficient time to analyse the actual effects.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I suspect this may be an amendment that will require a bit more time to consider, given the difference between what exists in the bill itself now and what is being proposed here. I do not fundamentally disagree with what the mover has said, but I think we do need more time to consider the two side by side. I guess my concern is that, if we reject the amendment now, we lose that opportunity to do so. So, in principle, to keep this issue alive in terms of having some further discussions about it, I intend to support the amendment with a view to, I hope, getting some better clarification from both parties in relation to how they will interact.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, I concur with the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I think that makes sense. There is clearly a potential issue here, but I do also recognise the point made by the minister. We need to understand what this might mean in practical terms. So I am happy to support it, but on the proviso that there is potentially an opportunity to revisit this and iron out potential issues.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 39 to 52 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 34, line 7—Delete the item relating to the Coast Protection Act 1972

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 34, line 12—Delete the item relating to the Environment Protection Act 1993

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 34, line 17—Delete the item relating to the Heritage Places Act 1993

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 34, line 24—Delete the item relating to the Native Vegetation Act 1991

Amendment No 7 [Simms–1]—

Page 34, line 26—Delete the item relating to the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989

To make it clear for members, what these amendments do is they delete a number of items from the act. They delete the item relating to the Coast Protection Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Heritage Places Act, the Native Vegetation Act and the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act.

The Greens are taking this action because we believe that these acts should not be called into the functions of the Coordinator-General's Office. The environmental movement in particular has been very concerned about these acts being included in the remit of the office. The Conservation Council, the Native Vegetation Council and the South Australia Nature Alliance have all reached out to the Greens and called for the Native Vegetation Act to be excluded from the list of designated acts. Indeed, the Conservation Council's own submission to the government states:

This [law potentially] allows the coordinator General's Office to 'act in the same capacity as the relevant decisionmaker', replacing the Native Vegetation Council with three members of the CGO who have no requirement to possess knowledge relating to native vegetation, and thus helping to fundamentally overturn the cornerstone of what limited protections are currently available to South Australia's nature and native vegetation.

We are concerned that this will remove important safeguards in respect of environmental protection, heritage protection and our pastoral lands. On that basis we move that those acts be taken out of the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government opposes this amendment because essentially it is contrary to the entire policy intent. It would considerably reduce the utility of the bill. It would prevent the bill from providing a system-wide facilitation and limit it to planning matters only. What we are trying to achieve with this bill is streamlining the opportunity to have the state development areas clearly available with people aware that all the work has occurred and so on.

According to my advice, it would prevent the use of the bill for environmental purposes. For example, according to my advice, these amendments would compromise the CGO's ability to assess and create state development areas as environmentally suitable development go zones, which, according to my advice, is a feature of the bill that environmental NGOs indicated that they are supportive of.

It would also mean that the CGO and regulators such as the EPA could no longer use this bill to put pre-assessments in place. That would also further compromise the ability for the CGO to facilitate offsets, development of biodiversity corridors and so on. So it is essentially entirely contrary to the intent of the bill and therefore the government will not be supporting it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am sorry to disappoint the honourable member but that makes sense to me, particularly if you go back to the main core function in relation to making those environmental and economically suitable assessments and decisions. The reason I ask the honourable member to leave out the work health and safety one is because I do not understand why that one is there. It is not like the others, it is very distinct in nature from the others, and so I am hoping that when we get to that particular one the minister can actually explain why it is that we would need to leave work health and safety out of that list.

I flag now that perhaps that is something we may consider having to look at further between the houses as well because I do not understand, on the face of it, why that one needs to be included in the list in schedule 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party will not be supporting this set of amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could I take the Hon. Ms Bonaros' comment as a question and therefore provide an answer in a moment?

The CHAIR: Yes, sure. I was going to deal with that when we got to that next one.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is fine then.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Amendments thus negatived.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Simms–1]—

Page 35, line 2—Delete the item relating to the Work Health and Safety Act 2012

I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros actually clearly articulated why this amendment is so important. Whilst it is certainly the view of the Greens that all of these acts should be taken out, the Work Health and Safety Act is of a very different dimension from the other acts that fall within the remit of this new office. It is not clear to me why it has been included. The minister indicated that she was keen to elaborate on that, so I would certainly be interested in her response. But from our perspective, even if members were opposed to removing the other acts, I am hopeful that this might be one where members will see the merit in what the Greens are proposing and I may be able to increase the support that I received on the last vote. We will see.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can provide further clarification as to why this is included. The Work Health and Safety Act is included only so that the CGO can help facilitate licensing under that act for major facilities. For example, a large manufacturing facility would need to be specifically licensed, and by this provision being included it means that the CGO can assist with that.

A specific carve-out in the bill has been included to clarify that the work health and safety regulator's activities—compliance, enforcement and prosecution powers—are entirely out of scope, which is of course appropriate. I trust that that will actually clarify. There is no reduction in protections for employees; it is simply so that the CGO would be able to assist with licensing for, for example, large manufacturing facilities.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The second part of that make sense to me. The first part I am still struggling with a little in relation to the licensing. Is there any further clarity that the minister can provide?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that when there is a major facility, for example, that is a major hazard facility—that could be a facility that deals with chemicals or energy or high voltage; that kind of situation—specific licences are required for that facility to operate. By this provision being included, that would mean that the CGO was able to assist in those licences being obtained.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Were any industrial unions or SafeWork SA consulted with regard to this piece of legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there certainly has been consultation with SafeWork SA, particularly around the carve out. To reassure members, I can refer them to section 19 under 'excluded decision' and 'excluded function'. I am advised it is those particular parts that will ensure that the compliance, enforcement and prosecution powers are not included in this particular provision.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In which month was SafeWork SA consulted with?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that we do not have that to hand. I am happy to try to source that, but I do not currently have it to hand.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a final question. I was provided with a list of the organisations that this government asserts that they consulted with, and that list does not contain SafeWork SA or indeed any other industrial unions or workplace expertise. Could you please undertake to provide to this council an assurance that SafeWork SA and indeed those who are concerned with work health and safety legislation have been properly consulted, as you have just informed this council that they were?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, do you want to make a comment or a question?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, I am not going to tie myself up in knots on this because I understand it is going to be lost in any event. I do understand the rationale that the minister has provided. That now makes sense to me, but even on that basis, given some of the other amendments that we have decided to consider between the houses further, I think this is, in the grand scheme of things, not the most substantive one. Therefore, my position would be to support it between houses so that I can have a closer look at those issues that the minister has raised and, indeed, the mover has raised and consider it further. That said, I understand it is going to be lost anyway—not to pre-empt any outcome.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can provide some of the information that has been requested. First of all, I am advised that consultation with SafeWork around this particular provision occurred in July last year. In terms of the list of organisations that was provided to the Hon. Ms Franks, the list, I am advised, was the list outside of government; all the government bodies or agencies that were involved were not included in that list, according to my advice.

Amendment negatived; schedule passed.

Schedule 2.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Lensink–1]—

Page 35, lines 29 to 31 [Schedule 2, clause 1(1), definition of relevant interest]—

Delete 'interest (including pecuniary and personal interests) of a kind specified by the Minister as being relevant to the office of member of CGO' and substitute:

interest of a kind prescribed by the regulations

I do not think this one will take long; it is fairly obvious what it is intending. Where it specifies in this schedule that 'relevant interest' is one that is defined by the minister, our amendment seeks that the interest should be prescribed by regulation.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Given we do not even know who the minister is, I am concerned about giving them powers to determine pecuniary and personal interests. I think the suggestion of the Hon. Michelle Lensink that this be of a kind prescribed by regulation, which ensures that there is some level of transparency, makes sense. Again, if there is some glaring issue that the government identifies, I am open to revisiting that between the houses.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Quite peculiarly, I will support this—not because I like things being included in regulation, because once they are in regulations they are lost forever and none of us get to see anything that happens in those things. That said, I take on board the points that have been raised and, again, I think this is one of those issues that we can consider between the houses. As such, I support it on the basis that we will give further consideration to it between the houses.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Again, on face value there does not appear to be a huge issue with the proposed amendment, but given that we have not been able to consider it appropriately and take it through the usual processes we are not in a position at this stage to support it.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Remaining schedule (3) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (18:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 14

Noes 3

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.