HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

OUTBACK COMMUNITIES (ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 July 2009. Page 3560.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:14): I advise the house that I am the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition in relation to this bill, which has been around the parliament for quite a number of months. I understand that the second reading and committee stage was dealt with in the upper house back in June, if my Hansard record is correct. So, it has been a long time coming to this place. Notwithstanding that issue, we are here this afternoon, at the end of the second to last sitting week for the year before we go to the election, debating the legislation.

By way of background to this bill, the Outback Areas Community Development Trust is a statutory authority established under the Outback Areas Community Development Trust Act 1978, and is under the control and direction of the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. It has jurisdiction in those parts of South Australia that are not covered by local government—that is 65 per cent of the state in the Far North, home to 5,000 people living in 33 communities and scattered across the pastoral leases. It is actually a very picturesque and beautiful part of the state, I might add. If anyone has travelled to that area of the state and stayed there, they would certainly appreciate the unique nature of that part of South Australia.

A primary purpose in setting up the trust was to provide a mechanism through which commonwealth and local government funding could be attracted to the outback areas of the state. The trust (Outback Areas Community Development Trust) makes grants and loans to local community organisations, including for infrastructure projects. Local government in its traditional form has been seen as impractical in outback areas because of the diverse nature of localities, the relatively small population and practical difficulties in holding elections and enforcing the imposition of rates.

The trust has five members and two deputy members, all of whom are appointed by the Governor—meaning that they are appointed by the minister (the government). So, what we have really is a structure that is established at the behest of the minister/government. I know the member for Stuart will have something to say about that later in the course of the debate.

There are 36 community organisations (also known as progress associations), at 33 different locations. With the exception of the Woomera board, these organisations are incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 and, subject to the act and the rules of the individual community associations, deal with personal and real property. Membership of and election to each organisation's governing body varies according to its individual constitution. All office bearers are volunteers.

The day-to-day operations and the decision making of individual community organisations are independent from the trust. Each organisation determines its local needs and project priorities and, where human resources allow, maintains facilities and services and undertakes town clean-ups and management roles. Through the use of community affairs resourcing and management agreements, the trust works with each community to assist with funding for operations, development and infrastructure projects.

The region continues to grow with exciting mining and tourism developments, providing both exciting opportunities and challenges. Indeed, we have heard the government talk at length about the opportunities that mining may provide to the state. We have had a mining exploration boom but we have not had a great deal of actual mining activity per se take place.

The government claims that some outback communities are struggling under these pressures and that the trust does not have sufficient powers to deal effectively with many of the problems experienced by these communities or to raise sufficient revenues to support those efforts. That is the government's claims and, again, I am sure the member for Stuart, who has represented that part of the state for many years, has a very detailed and intricate knowledge of those issues relating to those communities and will be able to cast some light on the claims that the government makes.

Following general consultation in 2007, the government released a draft bill in February this year but has not sought input on it. The bill was tabled in April 2009 and was debated in the other place in June.

The bill proposes to replace the trust with an outback communities authority, with seven members appointed by the Governor (minister/government), at least three of whom must be from different outback communities. The role of the authority would be to:

undertake increased strategic planning involving community consultation: five yearly strategic management plans for the region—and we hear about a lot of strategic plans from the government; an annual business plan and budget, including region-wide revenue raising through an asset sustainability levy—and that is a point of contention which I know the member for Stuart will address; community resourcing and management agreements—a type of service level agreement with community organisations, possibly with provision for local community contributions. (In itself those words 'possibly with provision for local community contributions' raises some issues, so we might explore that a little more); and exercise powers under elements of the Local Government Act;

provide essential services, for example, waste management and community projects, funded through a mix of government grants and community or direct beneficiary contributions;

maintain development standards and controls, for example, regulating the use of caravans or vehicles for habitation; and

maintain community amenity standards, for example, local noise, unauthorised dumping, roaming animals, unsafe buildings, littered allotments.

All that might sound fine, but we on this side of the house know from experience that what is written on a piece of paper does not necessarily translate into practical outcomes for the community; and I want to flag that in the house this afternoon. It talks about strategic management plans for the region. How many plans in the last eight years has this government come up with? If one thinks of every agency and every ministerial portfolio, there would have to be thousands of plans. What happens with most of the plans? They are prepared and very rarely see the light of day. They are put on an officer's shelf and become dust collectors.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That's right. In relation to plans, I remember not long after I was first elected to this place, representatives from a community association in one of the townships in my electorate came to me with an armful of plans to upgrade the main street in that township. Many plans had been drawn up but none had been implemented. The latest plan that was drafted was sent to the mayor at the time and I said, 'Listen, I am not usually in the business of giving you advice, mayor, but if you want a bit of advice, the feedback I get from the community is that this plan is the last one and it has to be implemented. You go out under community consultation, get some feedback on it and put it in place.'

The community was absolutely sick and tired of getting plan after plan—they came out with literally an armful of these plans. This government is all about talk. The track record of this government in implementing decent, purposeful plans is not particularly good.

The bill enables the authority to levy two types of changes. Both need to be approved by the minister. The first is an asset sustainability levy—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Asset.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That is what I said. What did you think I said? I said 'an asset sustainability levy'. What does that mean? It means a fixed charge across the outback communities authority area to fund public services and facilities in outback communities such as airstrips, infrastructure for UHF repeater networks and toilets. The levy will be based on an independent audit of the cost of maintaining these assets across outback communities.

The second one is a local community contribution: a fixed charge in a particular community for the services and projects for the benefit of that community, as specified in the Community Affairs Resourcing and Management Agreement agreed with the community. Gee-whiz, if that is not double-dutch I don't know what is.

Notwithstanding that, we oppose this bill for a number of reasons. Again, the member for Stuart (Hon. Graham Gunn) understands these issues. He has represented these communities in a magnificent manner (if I can use those words of description). The proof that he has done so is the fact that he has been successfully re-elected to this place in election after election. We know that the ALP has thrown any and every resource at trying to win the seat of Stuart, but because the member Hon. Graham Gunn is such an outstanding representative he knows what these people want, and in a moment he will have the opportunity to communicate that to the house.

We have several concerns about this bill. The first is that it is basically putting in a pseudo local government structure over these communities. The other is that the people on this authority are not elected by the locals. These people are appointed by the government—by the minister—and we have seen some evidence of the outcomes of those appointments and how inefficient some of these authorities (whatever you want to call them—councils, boards, authorities; whatever the word might be) have been at times.

We believe that this is an attempt to put in a pseudo local government structure and charge them a levy—in other words, apply a rating system—without any representation. It is taxation without representation. We have seen a war fought over that—one which goes down in the pages of history. The American War of Independence was fought over that issue—taxation without representation—and in many ways this is a similar situation.

The member for Stuart has some amendments to move that will improve the bill in relation to proper representation of members of those communities on this authority and a better way of dealing with this asset sustainability levy, and also so that the parliament has some overview on how this levy may be set after the community has some input.

I want to make a comment on the character of the people who live in these communities. I have not spent an enormous amount of time there, although I lived and worked in a township that is on the outskirts of these outback communities. I worked in Ceduna for two or so years, which is the last major town before you move through those outback communities further to the west and the north-west of the state. My dealings with these people show that they are self-reliant, hardy and basically honest, good, hardworking and reliable people. They are basically salt of the earth people.

The conditions in these areas can be harsh and unrelenting. We have had a series of droughts through that part of our state. These people know how to live their life, they know how to manage the land, and, as I said, sections of our community could learn a lot from them.

Digressing slightly, I mention Operation Flinders, which is a program for youth at risk. Those young people, who need and are looking for a little direction in their life, are taken into this part of the state and put through a reasonably rigorous program. The vast majority who come out at the other end of the program are very thankful that they have received that direction, and it sets their life on a much better path and in a much better direction.

A member of my family owns a station north of Hawker. My family and I have gone a couple of times to stay at the station for a bit of a holiday. We have met some of the locals, and they are very good people. They are a credit to South Australia.

In relation to this bill, specific people from those communities have made a contribution to it and have commented on it. The Hon. Stephen Wade read a letter into the Hansard. It states:

...in all my years...I have never before seen such a compelling need to voice my objections to what is quite simply a blatantly dictatorial act. In spite of what minister Gago and the existing few people currently in control of the Outback Areas Community Development Trust are claiming, there has been no consultation with the community and they are not working for their benefit or wishes—at least not this community. Quite the contrary, we have been lied to, deceived and deliberately kept in the dark about this whole affair.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am reading, minister, what this person has communicated to the opposition. This was read into Hansard on 16 June in the other place.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: It doesn't make it right.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, you get up and refute it.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: I will.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Basically, you are saying that this person is not telling the truth. Is that what you are saying? Is that the allegation you are making, minister?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: I'm not making allegations.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: What are you doing?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: I'm saying that that I can give you the detail of the consultation.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, we would be interested to hear it; but why would someone like that say it? These are good, honest, reliable folk.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member continue speaking and disregard interjections, and that the minister cease interjecting.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: They are extremely out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is outrageous. They should know better. I will keep going.

The very first we heard about it was by sheer accident several weeks ago. I happened to be searching on the internet for something entirely unrelated and came across a comment that led me to look into this matter and subsequently came across the proposed legislation.

Crikey! The letter continued:

I immediately printed off multiple copies and passed them around to every resident of this town for their views, and the result was a resounding 100 per cent objection to the proposed bill and the people behind it.

It just so happened that the very next week two officers of the trust called in...and at the meeting were quite obviously caught totally unawares that we (the residents) had finally become aware of the proposed legislation. When asked specific questions re the same, they were evasive, noncommittal and outright untruthful with their replies. As you would be aware, one of the requirements of a council under the Local Government Act is to be open and frank. Obviously somebody has forgotten to inform the proponents of this proposed legislation of that requirement. When we voiced our objections we were virtually told that 'it' (the passing of the bill) was going to happen regardless of what we wanted, so get over it.

That is absolute contempt. It continued:

There is not one single thing that will benefit this town, or many other towns for that matter, by the passing of this bill. Rather, we will suffer even more financial hardships than we are already undergoing by living in a remote area.

There you go; that says it all. This is another example of this government riding roughshod, using heavy-handed tactics and treating people in a heavy-handed manner when implementing their policies and implementing what they think is in the best interests of the state—with which a lot of people disagree.

I could draw some comparisons with what is taking place up in the Mount Barker district with residential development, and the current government's 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. It is running roughshod over the local community. There was a rally the other weekend which was attended by over 250 people; I can tell the house they are on a hiding to nothing up in that part of the Adelaide Hills in relation to those proposals. Do not get me started on that, because we would be here for a lot longer.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: You will get him when I am finished.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That is right; he is a very self-effacing, quiet and reserved person by nature. This is another example of the heavy-handed manner in which the government treats the communities of South Australia. One day it might wake up. I think this government will get a big shock at the ballot booth come 20 March next year, when the communities that it has treated in such a poor fashion go to the ballot box, and send it a big message and vote it out.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (16:39): I have had the privilege of representing in this place all the areas covered by the Outback Community Development Trust. It has been a good organisation, it has done a good job, and the people who have been on that trust have been dedicated and hard-working, and they have had the interests of their communities at heart.

This proposal sets out to change the whole concept of the trust. It is taxation without consultation. There has been no adequate or proper information provided to the people in the Outback in relation to this matter. If you do not believe that, just look at what happened during budget estimates. I asked the minister in charge of this bill a number of questions including who was going to pay and how often and she could not answer them. The minister was swimming in deep water and she certainly needed a lifebuoy because she could not adequately answer. She could not tell us. So, I was more specific. I asked her whether the people at Leigh Creek and Copley were going to pay. Who is going to pay? No answer.

I want to know who is going to pay, minister. How often and how much? You can start on the Western Australian border and work right across. You have the people involved in the pastoral industry. They already pay pastoral rents and NRM levies. If you live at Marree and Oodnadatta and those places, you also pay a River Murray levy for the worst water in South Australia. My questions were not answered. These people are already paying a substantial amount of taxation to the government. They live in an expensive part of the state. It costs a lot more to live in these areas. They pay their general taxes and, therefore, they are entitled to receive adequate services.

This bill is the first step in taking these people down the local government road. It means that there will be more bureaucracy and controls imposed on these people. You are going to have petty little officials running around with their book of rules looking over their shoulder at people. Are they going to impose a strict building code at Marree?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Are you going to impose a building code at Marree?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, I am asking the minister: are you going to send your petty little officials around there with their tape measures and cameras? We want to know because the minister could not tell us anything, yet you are asking us in the house to agree to impose upon these long-suffering people a new tax. They are going to know about it. Make no mistake. I look forward to the television coverage tomorrow afternoon up there because it takes me all day to work myself up. We want to know. Are you going to have a community charge?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: And you do not even trust them, because you have to bring in outside experts. Are you going to bring in Sir Humphrey 1, 2, or 3? You have a group of seven and you are going to have three outsiders. You had the situation on the NRM board when they put a person from Stirling on it. She had to be given a road map to find her way up there. When I raised it in the house, the minister got very upset and angry with me, as if I was doing something wrong.

I was only pointing out that the local people have ability and they have an understanding, and they are responsible and they are quite capable of making decisions in relation to running their own affairs. They do not need these outside people to come up there and impose their ideals and aims upon them. The only people who, in my view, have the right to impose a tax or charge on people are elected officials. If you have elected officials and you do not like what they do, you can get rid of them. If you have appointed Sir Humphreys, you can't. They become self-centred.

If the people who live in an area have to live under the administration they impose on people, they understand its effects, and they will apply common sense. When they go to their little town or their community, if people are unhappy, they can get to them. But, if a considerable number of these people fly in and fly out, they are not affected. It is a nonsense. It is an absolute nonsense to say that these people are not competent to look after their own affairs. The bill states that the authority 'may', and we know what that means. They might as well put 'shall', because they will. Clause 21 provides:

(1) The Authority may impose—

(a) asset sustainability levies on land in the outback to raise revenue for the maintenance of public services and facilities in the outback; and

(b) community contributions on land in an area of the outback to raise revenue for the purposes of planning, carrying out, making available, supporting, maintaining or improving an activity that is, or is intended to be, of particular benefit to the outback community in that area or to visitors to that community.

So, they are being asked to provide for the visitors. It states, 'any land', and I asked the minister specifically: does this include every pastoral lease in the north of South Australia or those other leases, those perpetual leases, which are used for grazing as well? Are those people going to have to pay this levy—yes or no? We want to know. We are entitled to know and they are entitled to know, because this is an important issue. Subclause (2) provides:

An asset sustainability levy is to be imposed in the same way as a council imposes general rates on land in its council area, except that the levy must be based on a fixed charge approved by the minister.

We want to know the basis of the charge. We want to know how these charges are going to be calculated, how they are going to be imposed and at what rate. It would be just like the Treasurer coming in here wanting to increase stamp duty, but saying, 'Well, I'll do it by regulation. I'll tell you later, just give me the authority.' That is a nonsense. This is an absolute nonsense. Not only is it unfair, it is unreasonable, because the elected people of this place are entitled to know before they vote on this. On behalf of the people of this state, we are entitled and we have a responsibility to indicate to the minister whether we think this is fair or reasonable, or whether it is a stunt that suits the minister.

That means that what the government proposes excludes this place. It will have unelected people recommending these charges and no-one will be able to do anything about it. I say that both houses of parliament not only should have a view on it but they have an obligation to examine these proposals. What other right will the people who are going to be paying this particular levy have if they object to it or do not like it?

It goes on. The erased provisions relate to the suggested amendments from the council, because they cannot oppose them; it has to be done in this chamber. Clause 21(6) provides:

The revenue raised from asset sustainability levies and community contributions in respect of a particular financial year need not be completely expended in that year.

So, they can actually raise more than they require. I will say to the minister that, when she responds to this debate, if she wants to short-circuit the time we are here this evening, we would expect her to have a detailed explanation, because this is a unique occurrence in this place. We are being asked to vote for a new charge—a new tax—on people, and we do not know how it is going to be calculated. We do not know the rate in the dollar, what valuation is going to be used or how much.

We are not even sure who will pay because you have some anomalies. The township of Leigh Creek is owned by the government and leased by the mining company, but the people up at Copley, a few kilometres up the road, own theirs, so they will get hit with it. The adjoining pastoralists and others and the people in the roadhouses, they are going to get whacked. What sort of valuation are they going to use—unimproved values or capital values? We need to know this. These are not unfair questions. These are the sorts of matters which, in a responsible democracy, people raise and want to know.

I am near the end of my time in this place (and people may be pleased about that, I do not know), but I will not let my constituents down. I cannot understand the logic. This bill has sat around for months, and it was months ago that we raised these issues with the minister during the budget estimates committee. The minister floundered around and had no idea about her own legislation, nor did her bureaucrats. I understand they went into some sort of a panic afterwards, looking at one another like stunned mullets because they did not expect them.

Well, what sort of thinking capacity have they got when you have a budget estimate and you are bringing in a new tax that the opposition, if it has any wit or wisdom and it is in their electorate, would not do something about? When we rolled these questions out, we got nowhere. The leader said to the minister, 'Have you heard of the Boston tea party?' I do not think she had. That is how difficult it got. We made up our mind then: if that is the way you want it, if you want to turn it into an issue, we will turn it into an issue, and we will, because we have not got any reasonable responses.

They are going to have authorised inspectors, authorised persons. When you look at these other provisions in this document, what I cannot understand is the membership. It says that you are going to have seven people. We agree that, perhaps, you need one person with some accounting experience. We are happy to agree with that, but the rest of them should all be local people. There was no reason whatsoever why you could not find six people from this vast area of South Australia who not only are competent but also who can do this job. Of course they are there. There are dozens of people who could do the job, and I say that they should be elected.

To say that three of them will come from outside, I do not agree with that. I never will agree and nor will my constituents. At the end of the day we are really swimming in the dark, because we really do not know the total amount of revenue the minister wants to collect. I ask the minister when she responds to tell us how much she anticipates in the first budget they intend to raise and the basis of the collection process, because we really cannot make an informed decision unless we know that. The bureaucrats are the architects of this. It is a cost-shifting exercise.

Be under no misapprehension, this is an attempt by the state government to shift the costs onto these long suffering people. They pay enough now. It is a lot more expensive to educate their children and to get basic services. If people get into difficulties in the Outback they act as the emergency rescue people. In many cases their health costs are far greater and more difficult to obtain. They support the Royal Flying Doctor Service. They like rodeos and gymkhanas, and then you have people in this place who want to make it even more difficult for them to have a bit of entertainment and to raise some money with silly laws put forward by odd groups who have no practical understanding of life in the bush and no commonsense.

What I cannot for the life of me understand is why there was not a full explanation memorandum put out with this bill explaining the cost structures involved. Is it because the government does not know? Is it because it wanted to hide this from people? What are the reasons, minister? You are the minister representing your colleague in another place, and the government of the day has a responsibility to tell us and inform us so that we can act accordingly. There has not been an adequate explanation given to the people in the north and west in relation to these proposals.

These small groups of people who run progress associations have been working and doing a good job for a long time. There was occasionally a hiccup or two—there has never been a perfect solution to anything, but it has worked pretty well. If you want more revenue, tell us how you are going to go about it so that people can have an opportunity to make a contribution and comment and be involved.

Here we have a bill with lots of clauses in it that has sat on the Notice Paper, and I will guarantee members that 10 per cent of the community would not have seen this legislation or be aware of its contents, yet, in the dying hours of this parliament, we have been asked to support it and impose these solutions upon people without their having any recourse to object to it. It really is the government saying, 'Like it or lump it.' Well, if they want it, we will give them 'lump it' all right, make no mistake about that. If you treat people fairly, they will act reasonably, but if you treat them with contempt and try to bludgeon them, if you kick someone in the ankle during a football match you must expect that, before the game is over, you are going to get one back. These people will have the ability to give one back when they find out.

How much are the people at Yunta going to pay? What about the people at Cockburn? They are going to get slugged. What about the mining industry at Beverley, and places like that? What about the Arkaroola tourist village: how much will they be charged? We want to know. So, I say to the minister: you have a few minutes to consider this, because we are going to go through it clause by clause and find out.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.M. Rankine]


Ms BREUER (Giles) (16:58): I am very pleased to stand today in support of this bill, because it has been a while coming. My constituents, contrary to what the member for Stuart seems to be saying about his constituents, are looking forward to the passage of this bill. I can speak with some authority on this because, when this bill was proposed and after it was initially put out for discussion, I decided to do a trip through the Outback and talk to progress associations about it.

So, I set off and I took a week to drive through. I went through Pimba, Glendambo, Oodnadatta, Marla, William Creek, Marree, Leigh Creek, Parachilna, Andamooka and Iron Knob. I may have missed one but these are the communities that I remember visiting and discussing this bill with. I wanted to find out what they thought about it, what they thought about the levies and charges, etc. and to find out whether it was acceptable.

Everywhere I went I found genuine approval for this bill, and also a welcoming of the bill. I do not know who the member for Stuart is talking to, but everywhere I went I got genuine approval for it. People felt it would take a lot of the pressure off progress associations and finally give them the ability to spend some money because some money would be available to them.

It would also give support to a lot of these progress associations. Unfortunately, just about every community has a handful of people who are trying to look after their community, trying to keep their community going, trying to access funding for their community. They get very little thanks for it. The rest of the community is always happy to cut someone down and not give them any credit for what they are doing.

They experience a lot of burnout in progress associations because often people are there for many years. It is a hard task for them to continue doing, but they do an incredible job. They keep their communities going and, in the past, with very little support or help.

Last week, for example, two people from the Iron Knob Progress Association came to my office to meet with the EPA in relation to an issue with the rubbish dump at Iron Knob. It was originally started by BHP when BHP was at Iron Knob and the progress association took it over some years ago. They do all the work. They do the grading and keep it clean. They keep the gates locked and open them when someone wants to unload rubbish. They do all that work for absolutely no pay in order to keep the dump going.

Unfortunately, they got into a bit trouble with the EPA—which the member for Stuart would probably love. We were able to talk to them about the bill, and with the levies and charges they will be getting they may have some money in hand so they will not have to bake lamingtons and take material into the dump to keep it going. They will actually have funding. They find it very difficult to get money out of their community, which is very poor and probably has the highest unemployment rate in the state.

They are looking forward to receiving the levies and charges. They are most grateful. Currently, they rely on haphazard fundraising (which is very difficult for them) and they have to pursue grant money. They do not have the skills to do this. My office spends a lot of time helping them to try to access that sort of funding.

Iron Knob is a classic example of a little progress association that has major problems in keeping going. This bill would alleviate a lot of problems for them and they are really looking forward to it. They are most distressed that it has not been passed already.

We are not all cowboys in the Outback. We know there are big issues out there, but people are prepared to look at the issues and look for a good way to resolve them. I do not know who the member for Stuart has been talking to, because I did not find anyone who was upset about it. They believe the provisions in the bill and the safeguards in the scheme will cover any concerns they currently have.

A few pastoralists might have some concerns. Perhaps the member for Stuart has been talking to pastoralists. I do not know why pastoralists would be upset. One or two pastoralists expressed concern to me, but most of them understood the bill and, again, they want the funding. They realise they use the facilities in the communities. For example, at William Creek the pastoralists accept what is being proposed. They have struggled for years to get the gymkhana going and they have struggled for years with their airstrip. They welcome this bill. I do not know who the member for Stuart is talking to and why he is so upset about it. I think he should embrace and welcome it.

People were consulted about the levies and charges. The member for Stuart said there was no consultation about that, but they wondered why I was wanting to talk about it because they said that they had already been consulted on this matter and had already agreed to it. They were happy to pass on their opinions to me, but they felt there had been adequate consultation. Again, I do not know who the member for Stuart has been talking to.

Unfortunately, politics have come into this. Members opposite want every road in the Outback fixed, but they are not prepared to look at taxes and levies, and so on, to fix every road in the Outback. It is unfair to expect fundraising by a few people to get things done. Today the member for Flinders was to move a motion to get the Wirrulla to Kingoonya road sealed. My understanding is that an average of 13 cars a day use that road. I hardly think it would warrant the incredible amount of funding required to seal that road when so many other roads in the Outback have to be continuously maintained. Why we would be looking to seal a road that is used by 13 cars a day seems an incredible proposal. That is the sort of logic and thinking that comes from the other side. They try to make a problem where they can instead of getting on with it and getting things done.

I can truly say that I spoke to many people—all those communities and progress associations—and I heard no objections anywhere to it. There were a few little concerns about the Outback Areas Trust board, in regard to having locals involved in this rather than experts from Adelaide. I think that issue has been resolved. I was talking to people who will never vote for me: pastoralists, farmers and outback people. They do not vote Labor; they will not vote for me. So, there was no reason for them to say nice things to me. They will end up voting for Gunny's side. These people genuinely said to me that they had no objections and were very supportive of the bill and the proposals. Their only concern was that it was taking so long to get it through. They wanted to get on with it and get it sorted out, so that they could start to seriously plan for their future. I believe that this is a good bill. It will work, it will make a great difference to those outback communities, and I fully support it.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (17:05): I thank members for their contribution. I particularly want to thank the member for Giles, because I know she has been out and about in the Outback consulting with the community and, interestingly, the responses that she has received are very similar to those that I received when I visited the Outback, on numerous occasions.

There is no doubt that change is occurring in the Outback and that the expectations of the people living in the Outback are changing, and that was very clear on the occasions that I visited numerous communities there. Not very long after becoming minister for local government, representatives of the Outback Areas Trust, which the member for Stuart described as very good people, came to me and said, 'We really need to update our legislation, and we need to have a very good look at our governance arrangements. We think that, because of the way we are structured, we can't provide for the needs of people in the Outback as they are expecting,' and they invited me on a tour with them. The Local Government Grants Commission also came along, and we visited many of those communities and met with many local people who came to speak with us. So, to hear from members opposite that there has been no consultation just defies belief when one looks at the enormous amount of consultation that has taken place in relation to this—

Mr Goldsworthy: That's not what they are saying.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Kavel refers to 'they' but does not specify quite who 'they' are. I have met with the progress associations in the Outback and local community members, and I can say that the consistent message was that there needs to be a change in relation to how things are managed. The progress associations are run by volunteers, who are great people; they are salt of the earth and truly unique human beings. We were very cautious in dealing with this issue to ensure that we are able to maintain that very strong spirit of the people who live in the Outback.

The very strong message was that, for one reason or another, an increasingly unreasonable burden was being placed on these volunteers in the progress associations, essentially, for two reasons. The first was that their towns were growing so quickly that it was beyond their capacity as a progress association to manage effectively the growth of their town, and the second was that those towns were seeing people leave because of the mining boom and they did not have enough people to be able to cope with it. This bill has been developed in recognition of and with the encouragement of those volunteers to assist them in their role as community leaders.

One of the key things that came from the engagement process was that people really wanted a bill that included the trust being seen as an advocate for the Outback, particularly in an advisory role to state agencies. They wanted more systematic consultation processes, support for the trust, control of wider infrastructure issues (such as aerodromes and the like), more streamlined strategic planning, budgeting and business planning processes, greater transparency and accountability in its operations, and broad recognition of the need for some form of local rating to help support the changes. So, it is by drawing on this and other feedback that the government has developed this draft legislation.

We have heard from those opposite that there was no consultation. Well, that just simply is not true. People previously consulted provided their contact details. There was a range of consultation processes undertaken and visits to the Outback. Those people came along and gave their details to the community meetings. I think I have a list here of some of the meetings that took place. Three information papers were sent out to people who gave their details, and, depending on the details provided, these documents were emailed or posted by the staff of the Outback Areas Community Development Trust.

Copies of the information were sent to all progress associations, all councils who border the area administered by the Outback Areas Community Development Trust, the Local Government Association, regional associations such as the Northern Regional Development Board, boards such as the NRM board and the Arid Lands Board, and government agencies with an interest in the Outback, and other interested parties. This information was also placed on the trust's website and on that of the department.

In addition, a range of newspaper advertisements about the release of the bill were placed in the Stock Journal, The Advertiser, Flinders News, The Transcontinental,the Coober Pedy News, the Roxby Downs Northern Sun and the West Coast Sentinel to ensure the engagement of the greatest number of people. The member for Stuart should get such comprehensive coverage.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: I read all those newspapers.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Well, you would have picked up on it. You obviously did not read them properly.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: You didn't answer the question: how much, how long?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Just as well you asked. Let me go through them all. The member from Kavel quoted a letter not sourced by any person, but when I looked at the Hansard of the Legislative Council it indicated that it came from a person from Oodnadatta. Can I tell you, Mr Speaker, about my visit to Oodnadatta with the Outback Areas Trust?

We had a person come along to that meeting, who had been entrusted with the keys to the telephone tower in Oodnadatta. When that person got cranky with the Aboriginal community because they were not paying his association a levy, because according to them they could not get any clarity around the management of that association's books, he would turn the TV tower off and create absolute mayhem. It may not be, but I would strongly suspect that that letter of complaint from a person worried about the powers in this bill might be from the very same person. It may well be.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: You made a whole lot of unsubstantiated allegations. We had to make sure that the police officer got control of the key so that people could watch TV in Oodnadatta. In relation to the revenue raising—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: He won't be?

Mr Goldsworthy: No-one is making these allegations.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Did I say it was a he?

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Did I say a he?

Mr Goldsworthy: I think you might have.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, I didn't. I've been very careful not to identify who that person was.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: By the look on the member for Stuart's face I think he knows full well who I might be talking about. That is not very neighbourly, is it?

The new authority will have to prepare and adopt a public consultation policy, and in doing so it will be working with each community to ensure that the community's views are taken into account. The public consultation policy must be used in connection with the development of its five yearly strategic management plan and its annual business plan, and this strategic plan will provide a vision and direction for the future of the Outback for at least five years. People will know what is going on.

Many communities are well advanced in the development of their individual community plans, and, when complete, these plans will collectively form the foundation for the development of the new authority's strategic vision for the Outback. Those communities who want to implement a community contribution will have developed a clear direction for their community from the development of their community plan and their community's contribution to the new authority's strategic plan. Each community must be consulted as part of the development of the authority's strategic plan. In addition, the community contribution must be authorised by the individual community's community affairs resourcing agreement.

The rationale for applying the asset sustainability levy is based on the idea of a shared community responsibility to contribute to the maintenance of existing public use facilities and infrastructure in the Outback. It is expected that the funds collected from the levy would only partially cover the total cost of providing these prescribed services. The remaining costs would still be sourced from the commonwealth/local government grants moneys, allocations that are sought by the outback communities authority through the normal budget allocation processes, and other specific commonwealth and state grants. The levy is not about providing funding for any perceived infrastructure backlog, but rather contributing to the ongoing costs of the maintenance of existing infrastructure.

The amount of the levy will be based on the annualised cost of maintaining these assets and will apply to all properties, including pastoral leases, located within the outback communities authority area, except for those uses of land currently exempt from council rates. So that is the answer to your question. The trust has conducted an infrastructure audit and is finalising its asset management plan. When it is completed this will form the basis for consultation with all communities prior to any recommendation about the amount of the levy.

So they are doing the plan. The levy will be based on the annualised cost of maintaining the assets and will apply to all properties, including pastoral leases, located within the outback communities authority area, except for those uses of land currently exempt from council rates under the Local Government Act 1999.

Mr Goldsworthy: Who works it all out?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Who works what out?

Mr Goldsworthy: The annualised—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: You are not listening. They are doing an audit of the infrastructure, they are working out their maintenance plan, and they will then consult with their community. That is how it is happening. The legislation requires extensive consultation—

Mr Goldsworthy: Yeah, right.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: You say 'Yeah, right' and 'Heard that before'. I know that when you were in government you did not consult; you did not know how to consult. This government has actually consulted; we went out in the first instance and said, 'How are things going?' It was the outback areas people who said to us, 'This needs changing. We need our trust authority updated. We want things in our town that other people have in their town. We want to be able to manage our town. We don't want to be the ones, volunteers, knocking on our neighbours doors telling them what they should or shouldn't do. We want a strategic plan.'

Some communities want street lights. They have never had them before. They have been happy to sit up there and not pay any levies or council rates and, therefore, not have any facilities. When I went out and talked to them, they said that things had changed, that they want facilities, and they are prepared to make a contribution. They want the trust to be updated in order to cope with the changes that are occurring in the Outback. I do not know whether the member for Kavel has been out there, but it is a really interesting—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, you are referring to the person from Oodnadatta.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes. They will be consulted extensively on the detailed business planning, the strategic directions and the planned introduction of an asset sustainability levy, which should ensure the community is fully informed of, and provided with ample opportunity to contribute to, the manner and direction of its governance.

There are some communities already who pay voluntary levies. They do fund-raising and commit an enormous amount of time and effort applying for grants and doing a whole range of things. I think it is unfair to flag that this is taxation without representation and an impost being placed on the community when the very strong input that we received was that the community is willing to pay a fair share to lift the standard of their communities.

The member for Stuart raised the issue of membership of the authority. The current act is silent about that. The current act does not provide that one person from the Outback needs to be on it. They could all be city dwellers running that authority.

Mr Goldsworthy: I didn't say that.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, he did. The current act is silent. The trust does not need to have one person from the Outback on there. We want a balance of skills and knowledge on the trust authority, and that is why we have agreed to lift the number from three to four. It must represent people from outback communities, but we also think there needs to be a range of other skills. That does not preclude them being from the Outback. In fact, that would probably be a great outcome. What this bill is doing in that regard is ensuring that people from the Outback Areas Trust area are assured of having people from that area on their board. I think I have covered all of the member for Stuart's questions, and I thank members for their contribution. Once again, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I seek from the minister when she proposes that this act will come into operation. When will the people in the Outback get the first notices in their letterboxes or mailbags that impose these new taxes?

In her explanation, the minister indicated that there is going to be a very broad brush of people who are to receive this new tax. I say to the minister that there are not too many people out there who are aware that they are going to get it. So that we know, can the minister tell us what the process will be? When will the act come into being and when will the first tax notices be sent out to these people? The minister seems to think that this will be a pleasant surprise for them.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The act will come into operation once it is proclaimed, and the levies will come into play once the authority goes through the extensive planning and consultation that I have outlined.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Minister, we are entitled to know. This is a completely new concept of putting a tax and charges from the Western Australian border to the Queensland border, to the New South Wales and Northern Territory borders on unsuspecting people who, at this stage, are already paying a number of taxes and levies. They pay pastoral rents for their services, which is the equivalent of council rates. They are entitled to know.

I point out to the minister that things are not very rosy out in some of those areas at the present time. If you think that people in the north-east of South Australia have the ability to pay, or will be thrilled about paying a few hundred dollars in levies, you are not with it, because they are not in a position to do it. They are shifting their stock out. It is bad enough having people wanting to defect the hay trucks going up there—what silly nonsense. They really need to know what this impost is going to be and when it is going to come into effect when they sit down at the beginning of the financial year to work out their budgets. This is not good.

One of the things that people have to understand and one of the things that people fail to appreciate is that ministers and others in this place are reasonably well paid, and their advisers are paid a lot more. They do not understand what it is like to not be able to make the numbers add up. In many cases, these people are on restricted incomes, and they are entitled to know. It is not an unreasonable question to ask. Just tell us when people are going to get both these things. That is all I want to know.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The vast majority of the provisions of this bill impose requirements that are about good governance. The current trust has been putting many of these in place anyway, so, there should not be any delay in relation to progressing those sections of the bill. However, as I have said, the trust has a lot of work to do in relation to its asset management plan, its business plan, its strategic plan, and consulting with the community to work out what the extent of that levy might be. I am told that that is likely to take a couple of years. I cannot tell you a month and a year, because there is an enormous amount of work that the authority will need to carry out before the levies come into play.

Clause passed.

Clauses 3 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 5, lines 9 and 10 [clause 7(1)]—Delete:

'at least 4 are to be members of different outback communities' and substitute:

6 are to be members of different outback communities elected by residents of those communities in accordance with the regulations

The minister has just indicated to us that the new charges will be all encompassing.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: What do you mean, 'all encompassing'?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It means that everyone will be caught up in the net. That is what I mean. It is quite simple. You have got your hand ready to dig right into your hip pocket, and pretty deep, I would take it. That being the case, the people who are paying the taxes, in my view, have the absolute right to elect the people who will be exercising that privilege. If you went out to the minister's electorate and told the residents living in, I think, the Tea Tree Gully council that they cannot have a vote to say who the councillors are who will impose rates on them, they would get pretty grumpy, and I do not think that the honourable member would be here again.

What is happening here is that the minister is saying that you cannot compare this set of circumstances with the current trust because that trust does not have the ability to levy taxes and charges. It is a new concept, and the concept is this all-encompassing arrangement. The minister has not yet explained whether the individual people living at Leigh Creek who do not own their homes will have to pay, and we are entitled to know. They do not own them. When the mining comes to Beverley, how will that go? We have not been told the system. What will it be based on—unimproved values, a surcharge or capital values? These are important issues.

These are the questions that anyone with the slightest amount of ability and doing their job would raise. This is one of the problems of this place. Too many people sit behind the government and want to rubber stamp everything that happens. That is not the role of this place. The role is to challenge the minister. The role is to question and to challenge the minister. It is like giving evidence in a court: it has to be tested. We are here today to test the minister and her advisers. So, that is why they should be elected. I say to the minister that she has not yet explained who will be hit, because there is a minefield of difficulties out there.

What are you going to do at Arkaroola? Are you going to charge those people, because those people at Arkaroola running the tourist establishment have huge bills to provide their own power. They have huge costs. They are the biggest charges they have. They are providing a service. If someone breaks down they are the service up there. Go north. My friend Michael Sheahan says that he is the emergency services in that area. Are you going to hit him twice? The police ring up and say to these people, 'Someone's missing. Will you go and look for them?' If someone's car breaks down, they have to fix it up. These are the questions.

What about over there at Cameron Corner? Is everyone going to pay on the same basis? Someone might live closer to Glendambo or closer to Coober Pedy or Leigh Creek. Perhaps they will get better services than the people who live at Cameron Corner or Innamincka. We want to have elected people so they can take these particular matters into account when imposing this new charge, this new tax, upon them. These are not unreasonable points of view I am putting. They are not unreasonable at all, but they are important, and people should have a clear understanding of what will happen when this new law comes into effect.

I have been given the responsibility to represent these people notwithstanding what the member for Giles has said. I might not know very much but I reckon I know a little bit about the Outback of South Australia. Those people have kept me in this place. I am going to ask the questions on their behalf, and I will not be talked out of it by the member for Giles. I want to know the answers to these matters. That is why we want elected people, not appointed people. You know, you can appoint people and, if they do not affect them, they are less cautious in imposing those charges.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The government does not accept the amendment put up by the member for Stuart. We are ensuring that at least four of the seven people will come from the Outback—it could well be that the full seven come from the Outback. They could be chosen in a whole range of ways, from advertisements in The Advertiser seeking registrations of interest to looking at the government's register for appropriate people who have registered for boards and committees. There is a whole range of ways that we might look to appoint those people. This legislation, at the very least, is making sure that the Outback is comforted by the fact that at least four (a majority of people) will be appointed from the Outback.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It is unfortunate that the government is not prepared. It will get its way, but it should remember that, whatever happens here, this place has the ability to change it in the future. The Liberal Party is not happy with this, and my colleagues will deal with this on another occasion. Let me make that very clear. They will deal with it. They have been given notice, and those around them have been given notice of what the consequences are. There will be a complete new set of circumstances, and you are not going to let people elect them.

So I now say to you: the Liberal Party will change this in government; make no mistake about it, and we will make sure that the communities in the Outback have the ability to elect who they want and not have who the government wants them to have. We will have plenty to say when it comes to these financial clauses. I was hoping the minister would answer them, because we want to know. There are a lot more questions to be asked.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (8)
Goldsworthy, M.R. Gunn, G.M. (teller) Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S. Pengilly, M.
Pisoni, D.G. Venning, I.H.
NOES (24)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Ciccarello, V.
Foley, K.O. Geraghty, R.K. Hanna, K.
Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W.
Koutsantonis, A. Lomax-Smith, J.D. Piccolo, T.
Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M. (teller) Rann, M.D.
Rau, J.R. Simmons, L.A. Snelling, J.J.
Stevens, L. Weatherill, J.W. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (10)
Redmond, I.M. Conlon, P.F.
Evans, I.F. Fox, C.C.
Griffiths, S.P. White, P.L.
Williams, M.R. O'Brien, M.F.
Penfold, E.M. McEwen, R.J.

Majority of 16 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

Clause 9, page 6, line 3—Delete 'Public Sector Management Act 1995' and substitute:

Public sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

Page 7, line 6—Delete 'Public Sector Management Act 1995' and substitute:

Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995

This is a similar proposal, because the Public Sector Management Act is to be replaced by two acts, the Public Sector Act and the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act and it is not satisfactory to rely on section 14B of the Acts Interpretation Act, which provides that 'a reference in an act to some other act will, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed, where the act is substituted by a subsequent act, as a reference to that subsequent act'.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 12 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The CHAIR: The member for Stuart has indicated that he has amendments to clause 21, which has been erased. The minister must now move that clause 21 be inserted.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

That clause 21 be inserted.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 12, line 28 [clause 21(2)]—Delete 'approved by the minister' and substitute:

prescribed by the regulations

This measure allows the parliament to examine the situation and, if it sees fit, it can refer the matter to a parliamentary committee or it can disallow a regulation. This is a safety valve for people in the Outback. The parliament will not agree to let them elect their people, but this is a safety valve to allow them to go to their elected representatives and say, 'Look, what has gone on here is over the top. These people aren't with it.' We have done it with water catchment levies and NRM levies and this is no different. The parliament can look at it and take evidence and if they are fair and reasonable there is no problem.

I will give the minister an example with respect to the Outback of South Australia. When the NRM parliamentary committee was examining one of these proposals, a proposal was put up to charge one company $1 million, and the minister's government was not aware of it until it came before our committee. Of course, it got the message that the committee was not going to recommend it. It was appalling, particularly when that organisation was under some difficulty. So, this is a safety valve. It is not an unusual provision to give the parliament the chance to have an oversight over these matters. I would appeal to the minister: if she wants to short-circuit this debate here tonight, this is essentially a fair and reasonable proposal.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The government is not supporting the amendments that I received from the member for Stuart late this afternoon in relation to this bill. We think that we have put in place a number of very stringent safety measures. The trust is charged with developing a range of plans. It must consult with its community, and we have not given it carte blanche to place those levies on people in the Outback. The minister has to be satisfied that appropriate processes have been gone through before they will be endorsed.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Obviously, the minister wants to have a fight. Here we have a situation where this parliament in its wisdom has put in place natural resource management boards right across the whole state, and those plans and charges are referred to those parliamentary committees which can take evidence—and I am not going that far—and which have proved to be a most beneficial and commonsense approach. It has acted very well. Yet, on this occasion, for some reason best known to themselves, they do not want this fair and reasonable proposition put forward, because, for the first time in the history of South Australia, the minister has told us that probably 70 or 80 per cent of the land mass of South Australia is going to have a new tax, a levy, imposed upon it.

The minister has not told us the basis of how it will be collected. She has not told us the basis of charging, but she has said that every pastoralist—and that means every tourist operator, every shopkeeper and every homeowner—is going to get charged and, in some cases, twice. They are already paying. It is the height of arrogance that they have to pay a River Murray levy to live at Marree and Oodnadatta where they have the worst water in South Australia. Yet I thought in a modern democracy people would be prepared.

No wonder the public loses confidence and thinks there is something wrong with members of parliament when they act in such an arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and unwise way. The fundamental principle in a decent society is that you give people the right of appeal, and when that does not happen you have problems. Openness and public scrutiny have never caused a problem. It is where you have the opposite that it creates difficulties.

This is amazing. Just think, Madam Chair: a completely new regime for 70 to 80 per cent of the land mass of South Australia, and the minister is saying that this parliament does not have the wit, the wisdom or the common sense to be able to look at it. I just wonder, minister, what possesses people to put on a pair of blinkers and have tunnel vision and not accept that, in this society, the community at large expects us in this place to act fairly, reasonably and wisely. Democracy is about checks and balances.

Many of these people live a considerable distance away. If you live out from Innamincka on a station, you are a long way away. If you get this imposed on you, you expect that your member of parliament should have the time, the wit and the wisdom to scrutinise these things on your behalf. That is what this does: it does nothing else. That is why we are sent here. We are not sent here to be rubber stamps because some minister—and God help us, some of them are not too bright, and it does not matter from what side of the house they come—expects you to put your hand up like a puppet—like you pull the cord and they put up their hand because that is what they expect.

Yet, when someone puts forward what is a sensible provision and when there is provision after provision in dozens of acts of parliament which do the same thing, we are prevented. You say, 'No, my bureaucrats do not like this; someone is going to look at them.' I say to Sir Humphrey 1, 2 or 3 (whoever they may be) you might get your way today, but remember that people have a cross on you and are watching you. Remember: the people you are going to hit are hardworking, good, honest people who work hard under difficult and tough conditions. Deny them the chance to have their member scrutinise these things on their behalf and you will pay. I will make sure tomorrow that they are told that this government is not prepared to let the parliament supervise it so that their interests can be protected. This is nothing radical, it is nothing unusual, it is not extreme.

They say, 'No, you can't have this.' No reason is given; there is no logical reason or any common sense for why you have decided that this is a bad idea. If there is a better idea than this, why haven't we got it and all other pieces of subordinate legislation? That is why you do not do it by proclamation. It means that it is subordinate to the parliaments. That is what it means, nothing else. It is a very simple process.

Therefore, it is an absolute right in a democracy in the Westminster system that the parliament has the final say. If we get it wrong they can vote us out, but under these provisions they will have no hope. They can say there is community consultation. The two or three people who live at Tarcoola, what chance will they have? I know them very well. Surely, they are providing a public service out there looking after things.

They expect the member for Giles and myself, who know them, to supervise and watch these things on their behalf. The people who live at Mulgathing, or the people who live out at Nundroo, Cockburn, Cameron's Corner or Mungerannie. That is our job. It allows us to do our job properly. Is the minister prepared to reconsider, because this is fundamental in a decent, responsible and compassionate community?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The government agrees with the member for Stuart about being fair, reasonable and wise. That is why we consulted so extensively with the community to come up with this legislation. I do not want to be unfair to the member for Stuart, but I would ask him if he at any point in the last two years raised these issues with the Minister for Local Government. I am not sure. I do not want to be unfair to him, but he is a wily old dog, and the first, I understand, we knew of his amendments was when they were lodged at four o'clock this afternoon.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: And the first I knew that this bill was going to be debated today was at about the same time.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Well you need to look at the Notice Paper. The whip needs to tell you what's going on.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Every question I asked your minister during the budget estimates, she did not have a damn clue. You can call me a wily dog, but she would not have known if it was Sunday or Monday. If ever I have seen an incompetent minister and a poor exhibition at budget estimates it was that exhibition. She had bureaucrats running around with bits of paper. They lost their place, and they were stumbling and stuttering. I found out through the system that they did not expect any questions. That is how bright the whole lot of them were, and now they are coming here. If it is right to have it in the other legislation, it is right to have it in this. The response the minister has given—

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Stuart, I am afraid we have to report progress.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, that's a good thing. It will give the minister time to reconsider it.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT