HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-08-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 May 2014.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:56): It is a pleasure to finally rise to speak about the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill. It was listed on the single sitting day of 24 July and it did not get there and has been tabled to be debated this week. It is rather disappointing that it is nearly 5  o'clock on the last day before we get to it—but we are here.

I do confirm that I will be the lead speaker on this bill but there are quite a few who will choose to speak in regard to this bill. Some have a very personal interest in it as a result of where they live or where they were born and raised and there are others who will speak on the potential and impact in other areas that it might raise for them. But there are people that are primarily really quite interested in this one. I confirm from the very start that the Liberal Party will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister notes, 'Surprise, surprise.' I can say that it has been part of a very lengthy review and it is some time since the bill was tabled on 8 May. But it has been treated exceptionally seriously. We have tabled eight amendments—seven of those deal particularly with local government and the impact upon that and the concern that I have, and I will talk about that further into my speech and the proposal from the Liberal Party to remove the local government connectivity between the actions of the commissioner and a democratically-elected body.

Lastly, there is an Amendment No. 8 with a suggestion that, while in recognition that one of the amendments from the minister himself talks about a review by the ERD Committee two years after operation and then every subsequent four years, a suggestion from us is that it has a sunset clause of four years in it. So there will be some interesting discussions.

There will be lots of questions and clarification that will also be sought during the committee stage just on the basis that I am able to count and understand that within this chamber I have no doubt that the bill will be supported, but I am also able to have some level of understanding of how the numbers in the other chamber work with the 22 that are there and some indication of where their position might be at this stage. That is what this rather unique opportunity represents because there will be some quite extensive period between any comment made today and the next time this bill is discussed in September for those in the other chamber to consider that.

I want to really enforce the fact with the minister that the Liberal Party has taken its consideration of this exceptionally seriously. I am happy to confirm for the minister's information that I have presented a 10-page report to the opposition—to the shadow cabinet initially, and then portfolio and joint-party committees.

I believe, as I will put a lot of it on the record, that there is a reasonable amount in common about both sides of the equation—the intentions of KIFA when it originally commenced, the Citizens' Jury and the three meetings which have been held, and the consultation the opposition has undertaken. While not mentioning the names of those people who have given us the feedback, they are all Kangaroo Island residents.

To give an indication of either support or opposition to issues they might have had around that, I want that information also to be available to the minister as part of his review on this and to reflect upon the fact that it was not very long after the bill was introduced by the minister that I chose to go to Kangaroo Island. Admittedly it was very early in the process, from the position of obtaining a full council position, because it had only just been tabled.

Some members of the council have had quite strong involvement with the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority and the preparation and drafting of this bill by having been members of KIFA. I was pleased to receive a variety of letters from the council, including some good review which has stimulated some of the amendments the minister himself has proposed to his own bill, and my recollection is that that talks about clarification and requirements too.

I reinforce from the very start, though, that the reason for the amendments we have proposed about the removal of local government from the equation of a position of influence by the commissioner is to ensure that local decision-making ability continues. This was a bit of a basic issue for the Liberal Party, I think it is fair to say, because a lot of our members have had some level of involvement in local government.

They respect in many cases the challenges involved in getting elected; the reasons people stand for election; the challenges, once elected, in providing a vision for their community; being prepared to accept good feedback, criticism and everything that occurs in between; and the challenge of having to be in front a community at all times and being acknowledged as a representative of the community and making decisions on their behalf and the ramifications. It is from that concern that many members will probably choose to speak about it.

I am pleased that the Minister for Local Government is in the chamber, having served in council himself.

The Hon. G.G. Brock interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not reflecting upon that. I know that the minister has also been on the island—

The Hon. G.G. Brock interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Twice, the minister confirms—and has met with the community. I know that the minister responsible for the bill has been on the island many times and spoken to people, and that he has been involved in consultation on the island. I believe the minister has also undertaken a consultation in the Adelaide metropolitan area, which I think is a good step because the consultation that occurred in the Adelaide area reflects the non-resident property owner percentage, being quite high (40 per cent or thereabouts), which is common in a lot of coastal communities in particular, and the concentration of people who have a property interest on the island but who reside in Adelaide.

I had a conversation with mayor Jayne Bates just this afternoon. The mayor has flown home in the belief that the bill was probably not going to come on today, and she mayor expressed to me in her way, which I respect, the frustration that she was not able to listen to the debate, as I think her preference is to listen to it, instead of reading it. I have no doubt that she will be back again in September, when we sit again, to listen to the contributions made by others.

I told her about the amendments the Liberal Party has proposed and she said, 'Steven, have you consulted with the community on those?' and I said no. The minister is wagging his finger at me and I understand why, but the amendments we propose refer to the impact upon local government—and it is rather interesting to consult with them when they have expressed in a quite forthright way that they support the bill—and I will actually put onto the Hansard record later in my contribution their exact words. I am not trying to prevent the future review of this bill in Hansard reflecting all the comments that came back to me on this bill.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: The LGA support it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister confirms that the LGA support its, and it does, via two paragraphs, and that is all. I will flag even at this very early stage the level of disappointment that I have with such a short response. The minister is wondering why I am upset by that, and maybe it is because I am considering what I think are the wider potential implications of it. Maybe I am reading into it things that do not exist—and the minister's eyes are going backwards and forwards wondering what the hell I am talking about. It stems from a concern that has been raised with us about a potential for the principle encapsulated in this bill of a commissioner being appointed that could be rolled out in different areas. We will talk about that—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Theoretically, if communities were begging for it like this community is, sure.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. I have no doubt that, by flagging it at this stage, without an opportunity for the real debate to occur—that is why I would have preferred everything to be encapsulated within a sitting week of parliament so that all could know what was going on—not everybody is going to think that the Liberal Party not supporting the bill was actually going to be the right move. I understand that, and some of the feedback that I am going to talk about reflects upon that. However, there is also a vast number of people who are contacting us, or the member for Finniss, who has a very strong particular interest in this bill—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Now we are getting close to the point.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, this has been subject to a lot of debate on both sides of the equation, I can assure you—who are not supportive of it. They have seen it as not the best use of a resource, or the impact that it has upon the council—but anyway, I will put that on the record a little bit later. I do from the very start, though, point out that in a sense I can understand why the minister has introduced it. I am not entirely pleased by the circumstances that have created the reason why the bill has been introduced, but I believe that the minister has introduced it to try to improve service delivery.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Yes, absolutely.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister says 'absolutely'. I also live with that creed, I must say. For me, it is all about government actually ensuring that service delivery is the best that it possibly can be for the people and that, no matter what service or infrastructure it is, it is able to compete amongst the hundreds of priorities that exist for government funding to be used. My frustration will always be that I have seen this as a response to a particular area or community that the minister has a level of support for without actually fixing the whole problem.

When I say 'the whole problem', it seems to me that the minister, by virtue of this bill, intends to put in place a role (the Kangaroo Island commissioner) that has the authority to create management plans. Those management plans have a level of control over other individual versions of how a service or infrastructure is to be supplied within the Kangaroo Island community.

I think you are going to need an amazing mix of skills, personality and knowledge of the area to actually fill the commissioner's role in the first place, but I do not see how it ensures that the process of government—the 100,000 full-time equivalent people who work within the public sector, who have the responsibility to provide services across the whole of the state—will necessarily change their mindset.

I believe that the minister has probably put this bill before the parliament out of frustration (no doubt he will correct the record if I am wrong) with the way government is structured, managed, operated and influenced—all these things—on what it actually delivers for people. If it is too hard to change the process of how government does all those things, a way to get a win is to put an authority above it which will direct how these things are to be done.

For me, who has worked within bureaucracies all my life—and I am bureaucratic in the way that I think about these things—you have to be driven, though, about how is it best to deliver, and to reflect that the services and infrastructure that you are delivering are indicative of what the community in that area wants. Now, sometimes you cannot provide that. I understand. Sometimes it is physically impossible. The location it exists in, the resources required for it, the challenges for the personnel you need to deliver the service, or whatever, there are lots of different reasons for it.

In the case of Kangaroo Island, which is just so close to us but indeed so far away in many terms, when it comes to the cost of visiting or living on the island or getting goods shipped there or shipped off of there for an export revenue opportunity, it frustrates me that the process of government is not where the focus is to create a fixed opportunity by ensuring that every government department that operates and provides a service to the people of Kangaroo Island looks at what the real need of the community is. By association, if that is to occur and they are able to deliver upon that expectation and demand of the minister who is responsible for it, that indeed all regional areas benefit in the same way.

I suppose the end debate on this might be that if there is a commissioner for Kangaroo Island do you need a commissioner for every other regional part of the state? In what way do you use the member of parliament for that area and what skillset do they need to deliver upon the expectation of the community that elect them in the first place, or do you look at improving upon the way in which departments are run, decisions that are made by it, how it allocates resources, how it best uses resources, the individual mindset of the public servants who actually deliver all of these things, to ensure that the best possible outcomes are achieved by the community at all times?

That is where for me, and I have no personality issues involved in this, but in assessing the merits of the bill that is how I formed my judgement, entirely upon that way. The way that I formed my judgement is probably the reason that I actually stand in this place anyway because when I was approached about if there was an interest from me in running for parliament it was based upon my own assessment of: did I want to do it? Did I see myself as a reasonable advocate for the people? Was I a worthwhile candidate for others to consider the merits of?

The Hon. P. Caica: The answer was yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And I said yes to myself, that is right. The member for Colton said, 'The answer was yes'—

The Hon. P. Caica: And they said yes to you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, and they have three times, but not in an increasing percentage though, I must admit.

The Hon. P. Caica: No; changing landscape, despite what you guys say on boundaries.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, it is. It started from the low area, went up a bit higher due to all these vagaries of life and it has dropped back a bit. But that said, I do not think any member of parliament is worth 25 per cent on the two-party preferred anyway. I do not think anybody is that good, but it is nice to be around 12, I must admit that, yes, it is a great comfort.

The Hon. P. Caica: It's nice to be around four.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Colton says it is nice to be around four, and given the fact that he sits on that side of the chamber I am sure that is why he says that too, I have no doubt about that. When I self-assessed my capacity to do it, and others formed judgements later on, I did so in the belief that I had lived in a regional community nearly all of my life. I have tried to be involved in an organisation of local government that had provided services to the community. I knew what the expectations of people were. I knew about the histories of issues. I knew about three generations of families in many cases and all of the gossip that goes around those sorts of things. But I knew that you needed to have somebody who could be a reasonable advocate for stuff and who would try to take an objective assessment of issues.

The great frustration, or one of the wonderments of being in parliament is that the level of information provided to you makes every decision that much harder to make because it is hard to get a straight yes or no on things because there are so many issues that impact upon it. Others in this chamber are nodding their heads because I think they live with the same level of conflict that occurs within their minds all the time. Minister, it is not very long before my hair will go a similar colour to yours because of the internal debate that occurs about these things.

So, it is the needs of regional communities that has driven the reason as to why I have gone into parliament. It is those needs of regional communities that will drive every decision I make and, indeed, many of the words that I say. When I talk about the coordination and improvement of services, the best possible use of resources, the version of a commissioner proposal or indeed the way in which departments are run, there are a couple of little examples that I want to give. To me, it is about the duplication of services. This one predates me—on Yorke Peninsula, when I returned in 2000—but it was given to me by a very reliable source, and it is about the Aboriginal community at Point Pearce. I have to say that it is a nice community. I doorknocked there in 2006, and I got one vote in 2010 and one vote in 2014, but I like the people and they need all the support they can get.

I think it was about 1998, and all the providers of services to the Point Pearce community were invited by the local government authority in that council area to come together to talk about how better to improve it. The feedback I got from the person who did the invitation, the facilitator of the day, was that there were groups there who did not know that the other groups were even providing services there. That is wonderful example of where resources—scarce as they are, and as hard as they must be for ministers to get allocated in their budgets from a Treasurer who is expecting certain things in demanding periods of time—have to be used as best they can.

The minister's suggestion for the Kangaroo Island community is through a commissioner. The fervent hope of the Liberal Party is for a management of government processes that ensures the needs of the community are met as best they possibly can be, as efficiently as they can be, and that the community benefits from it, in view of what it has to pay in taxes to fund it all.

So I have reinforced the fact that resources are scarce and we have to get the best outcomes for them, and in that case I do put on the record that I understand why the Minister for Planning—and I presume this is the portfolio area to which the bill relates—has put the bill before the parliament and has stimulated debate about it as well. I have had the opportunity to read The Islander newspaper; the member for Finniss left it on the desk this morning and I had look at that. The letters to the editor had some differences of the opinion about things as well, and that shows that even in a strong democracy like we have it will always be a close call as to what the best decision actually is in a lot of ways.

Now we get to the serious part. The bill, for an act to establish a commissioner to provide for the development of management plans in relation to the coordination and delivery of infrastructure and services on Kangaroo Island and other matters relating to the island, and for other purposes, was introduced on 8 May. What I have taken from the feedback, minister—and you have provided us with one briefing opportunity—is that there appears to be a lot of concern that matters concerning Kangaroo Island do not necessarily reach the minister's attention. There are a lot of things that come to the minister, there are a lot of decisions made below the minister, and I understand that the minister cannot manage the minutiae. I understand that he needs to ensure he has good people around him to manage things for him, but it appears as if this bill was a bit of a solution for that.

So in Kangaroo Island's case, on the basis that the minister would become the person responsible for the management plans, the person who reports to the cabinet and therefore have the authority for it, the minister just wanted to be seen as taking an absolutely positive step. This is where the bill has come from. I do not totally support the outcome of it, but presumably that is what the minister has done.

The key objective of the bill is to provide Kangaroo Island with a voice in cabinet via the minister. This is envisaged to assist streamlining infrastructure and service projects. I understand that, and I do not necessarily disagree with it. I suppose the argument I have is that the member of parliament for that area—as for any area—is the voice for their community at all times. The nature in which the parliament exists means, sadly, that the local member is not part of the government, and that means it is rather difficult to have that direct voice into cabinet, and that is why the minister has created this role, presumably with the suggestion, even with a change of government, that the position continues.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister says 'absolutely' to that. From my perspective again, as a regional member, I believe that the issues the minister is attempting to deal with in this bill are actually problems that face all country electorates. That is why I am intrigued the government has singled out Kangaroo Island. It might be, indeed, that it is part of your contribution, minister, that you give further words to that, as to why you have decided to target Kangaroo Island, because from my point of view it is about actually fixing the management of governance so that the services of all the regions are the best they possibly can be.

It is important, I think, at this stage also from my outside perspective that I have on Kangaroo Island just to put some facts on the record. It is a relatively small population: only 4,600 people or thereabouts. It has a relatively small ratepayer basis, I think of about 1,400 property owners, and it has had some significant challenges financially. I know the member for Bragg, in her very diligent work that she does on all things, has actually reviewed some of the annual reports of council and has reported to me the level of loss that might have been incurred and borrowings that they have been forced to undertake and some of the challenges.

I know in the 2012-13 financial year, for example, the net loss of the council was $1.8 million. For any regional council, that is a level of ongoing concern that worries the life out of me, and no doubt it must worry the staff, the elected members and the community of Kangaroo Island, who have the responsibility in the long term to actually turn it around financially. I do also take this opportunity to make all members aware that about one-third of Kangaroo Island's landmass is actually government-owned land through national parks and things like that, which is not rateable and does not contribute to the council's revenue.

As I understand it, the minister's first step in his deep wish to be involved in the Kangaroo Island community was via the creation of the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority (otherwise known as KIFA), which was established in 2011. It was based upon a recommendation from the state Economic Development Board report 'Paradise Girt by Sea'. No doubt others who are far more familiar with this 'Paradise Girt by Sea' report will probably talk about it, but the report highlighted the importance of Kangaroo Island as a major asset to the state, but it did also recognise that the island was lagging behind economically, socially and environmentally.

Decades of over-promising and under-delivery have left many residents facing an uncertain future. That is a direct quote from the report, and I think that must worry all members, too, because the challenge for all political sides and indeed for local government bodies is to deliver on what they promise. It appears as though, for a report by the Economic Development Board to highlight that, this particular area is a great concern.

The objective of establishing the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority was to—and this is over a period of five years—work towards a number of projects that had been identified as crucial to delivering lasting prosperity and benefits to the Kangaroo Island residents. I do note that for the 2013-14 year, KIFA had I believe an operational cost of about $1.5 million, and, as part of KIFA (which will continue for a little while) and the commissioner, there is about $4 million across the forward estimates still in expenditure in this area.

It has been reported that KIFA has facilitated a land use policy. I do reflect as a member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the parliament that planning changes have occurred in Kangaroo Island quite recently: an international brand development, an international framework for tourism, to improve utilities service infrastructure, and it has sought funding for an airport upgrade and development of an approach to future sea access. Member for Bragg, is the airport upgrade in the range of $18 million or thereabouts?

Ms Chapman: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, $18 million. I know the desire is to secure that from a variety of government grants to do that, but indeed from the talks that I have had with people there is a bit of a difference in opinion as to if an airport upgrade is more important than the costs associated with sea transfers. I know there will be others who will talk about that, too, because for the majority of people (and having used both those options in the last two years) when you book a plane at relatively short notice, it is not cheap, but I also understand that regional airlines have to make a profit. But the sea access services that are provided by SeaLink have heavy investment and infrastructure, too, and, indeed, shareholders for whom they have to return a profit.

KIFA is overseen by an advisory board led by Mr Raymond Spencer, who was also chair of the Economic Development Board, and the first meeting of KIFA occurred in November 2011. I will put on the record the eight key areas of the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority:

1. land use planning;

2. government services and administration;

3. branding and protection;

4. tourism;

5. infrastructure, utilities and communications;

6. business and economy

7. sea and air access; and

8. the community.

It is interesting that the community is No. 8. I think people actually come first in all these things because they drive all these other things, so I personally would have put it the other way round.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Bragg reflects that they were trying to achieve the cheap ones first. In 2012 and 2013, the state government, the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority, the Kangaroo Island Council and interested residents worked together to identify and 'unlock' opportunities for Kangaroo Island's future. The work resulted in three draft documents which were available for community feedback from 16 September to 11 November in 2013. These documents were then subsequently approved by cabinet in January of this year, as I understand it.

The first document was the Kangaroo Island Plan Addendum, the second was the Kangaroo Island Structure Plan and the third was a sustainable futures development plan amendment. Associated with this were five community meetings that were scheduled as part of the consultation process. My understanding is that, all up, about 138 people attended these meetings, with 38 people in Kingscote at the open day, 18 people at Penneshaw at the open day, 15 people at Parndana, 25 people at American River and then another 42 people who attended the consultation in the evening in the Adelaide CBD.

In addition to the above consultation on the three plans, the futures authority sought to gauge the general Kangaroo Island population with regard to service delivery and to understand what islanders want from government, which is a bit of an all-inclusive thing. People these days want an enormous amount and have very high expectations without considering what level of government should provide it or has the capacity to provide it, but they want these things. As an extension of this, a Kangaroo Island Citizens' Jury was engaged to look at the options to be developed.

I might just put on the record some details about the citizens' jury, too. It was coordinated under the Premier's 90-day change project which was a statewide initiative to enhance community engagement and was coordinated through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The objective of the jury was to consider government service delivery on Kangaroo Island. KIFA provided the jury with options to consider, but people have suggested to me that the information made available by KIFA at the meetings was a result of them wanting certain decisions to be made.

By association, this means that the jury was fed details of what they would like to see as the outcomes from that. Some people might shake their head and think that that does not happen—that the government actually engages the community on the basis of wanting the community to make the decisions and does not give them direction on that sort of thing—but the greatest example that I have seen in recent times of where seemingly a preordained position is attempted to be reached via a community group is the marine parks local advisory groups.

Anybody who has followed the marine parks saga would still live with the knowledge that, at the first meeting, as I am advised, particularly in the Goyder electorate for my four marine parks, members of this local advisory group, who were people from the community in the main who volunteered their services because they wanted to get good outcomes from marine parks in their area, were basically given a map of where the proposals were for the different sanctuary and habitat protection zones.

I find that amazing, because this was a variety of people, a lot of whom had a long-term interest in recreational and professional fishing and who held some wonderful knowledge of the sea and the marine environment, but who were given a direction on what the outcome should be before they even had the first chance to sit down and talk about it. Seemingly, the citizens' jury had the same intent by giving a direction on what should be achieved, and there is a practical example that anybody in this chamber who has listened to the marine parks saga would have heard of before.

I am advised that 30 people applied to be part of that Citizens' Jury. Eleven jurors were selected, aged from 16 years upwards, so a variety of ages were involved. They met three times, and there was a small honorarium for expenses; I am not bothered by that. There were three recommendations made from the work undertaken, and they were announced in December 2013. The first recommendation was:

In partnership, we develop a new Kangaroo Island act which enshrines a democratic governance model that ensures island autonomy, representation and participation in decision making processes.

Ms Chapman: That's what the councils do.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That's right. The member for Bragg comments that that is what councils are for. Indeed, the little note I have made for myself on what to speak about here is: how the hell does one person do that? That is seemingly the case with the appointment of the commissioner. You have a single person who, yes, as I will talk about later, will create local advisory boards, but it is a single person who is entrusted with this responsibility from the minister of the Crown to give direct feedback to the minister and cabinet and who will ensure that democratic governance will actually work, even though they are a single autocrat, when it comes to it all. I am rather intrigued by that, and I am not sure how it links up with what the bill actually proposes. Point 2 was:

A series of governance models are developed for further community deliberation, these should enable integrated service delivery and address:

social equity and resilience

economic development, and

environmental sustainability.

The feedback I have had from a variety of people is that several options were looked at on how to do this, but the minister has chosen an option that does not exist anywhere—

Ms Chapman: Never.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —from what I am told. The member for Bragg confirms that. It is a rather radical move. South Australia is going to be seen as a world leader in this because the minister is intending to put in place, over 4,600 who live there permanently and the probably tens and tens of thousands of people who visit there, an experiment on how decision-making, government service provision and infrastructure should be put in place—very interesting. Point 3 from the Citizens' Jury was:

That the democratic governance model is developed through a process which is owned and created by islanders and ratified by an island-wide ballot.

The mayor asked me if I consulted with the Kangaroo Island community about my amendments, but I do not believe that the ballot has occurred on Kangaroo Island about this suggestion either. One could argue that there has been an informal method of a ballot because it has consumed the local media for some time, there is no doubt about that, and there have been a lot of comments about it, but I am not aware that people have been given a chance to have a vote on it.

Ms Chapman: It's all about 1 per cent of the population.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. The member for Bragg notes that even the feedback that has been received is probably from about 1 per cent of the population, so there are an enormous number of people out there who have not expressed an opinion or who have not made a decision on what they feel about it; whether they are supportive of it or against it we do not know.

Even on those three points I have highlighted from the Citizens' Jury, I am not actually sure that this bill represents a solution to any of them, even though you could argue it is part of point No. 2, where it talks about the governance model. Again, I enforce the fact that this is a model that has not been used anywhere.

I was looking for some information about the Citizens' Jury, and I have lodged an FOI seeking the minutes and documentation from the three meetings that were held. I confirmed with my assistant yesterday that we have not received even an acknowledgement and that we do not have a scrap of information about what has occurred there.

The FOI was lodged on 22 May. I think those in this chamber who lodge FOIs quite regularly will probably note that that is not good enough even though, sadly, it occurs a lot of times with FOIs we lodge that it takes some time for replies to be received.

I am also aware that the state government has called for new jurors to work with us in the Kangaroo Island Citizens' Jury to make recommendations on the way in which government services are made available on Kangaroo Island and to support the commissioner if and when the legislation passes. At best we are looking for a new September date now, when it is going to get through this chamber, and then it will probably be some time in October before it is debated in the other place. Now, to the bill itself, after having talked for about 30-odd minutes on the preamble and some other things—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Filibustering.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, not filibustering, member for Kaurna. This is an opportunity for me to put on the record the feedback that I have had, and I encourage members from both sides to do this, too, and not just talk about concerns they might have had, but indeed the comments and discussions they have had with people. No doubt the Minister for Local Government, having been on the island twice during the period in which this bill has been open for discussion, will put on the record what his thoughts are.

While the first recommendation of the Kangaroo Island Citizens' Jury was to develop a Kangaroo Island act, no reference is made regarding the establishment of a commissioner. It was as recent as February of this year that the notion of a commissioner to Kangaroo Island was publicised, and it was on 19 February that The Advertiser reported that, 'A Commissioner for Kangaroo Island would oversee development of the tourism destination as part of sweeping reforms proposed by the Labor government to realise the island's huge potential.'

I do not deny that it has huge potential; I do not deny that I want a stronger economy to exist there so that businesses and individuals do well; and I do not deny that I want to see an improvement in the level of infrastructure investment that occurs there and service delivery that goes onto the island. So the words are right—it is the actions of how it is achieved that is the thing.

That media report included '…government agencies would be required by law to consult the Commissioner when making decisions which affected KI.' I am not sure if it works that way or if it works in the reverse—if it is the commissioner who has the authority to tell them how it is done instead of the government departments going to the commissioner and basically saying, 'Is it okay to do it this way?' So, it will be interesting to get some clarification from the minister on that.

The Deputy Premier's pre-election plan—the minister responsible—to establish the commissioner for Kangaroo Island was announced in conjunction with a package that included $3.5 million to upgrade the Kangaroo Island airport, which was also the subject of an application for $13.5 million in support sought from the federal government, $5 million to develop a five-day walking trail, and I think in the budget $2.25 million in the 2014-15 year—something like that—and a major project status being declared for a $30 million Greg Norman-designed golf course. Coming from Yorke Peninsula where there is a Greg Norman-designed golf course (admittedly it is only of nine holes—not the originally-intended 18 holes) it does represent an enormous challenge to get those things happening. So, great in vision.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: That is a problem for the developers, not for me.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister comments that it is a problem for the developers, not for him—I understand that. These are the economic realities that that community and indeed all communities who look at those really large-scaled developments have to deal with, too, because they are exceptionally expensive. In the minister's second-reading speech on 8 May, as part of his presentation of the bill he commenced that speech by referring to South Australia's Strategic Plan, specifically, these two targets:

Target 4: Tourism industry—increase visitor expenditure on South Australia's total tourism industry to $8 million and on Kangaroo Island to $180 million by 2020; and

Target 40: Food industry—grow the contribution made by the SA food industry to $20 billion by 2020 (including 'Clean green food as our competitive edge.')

I do not disagree with those things, minister. Indeed, in my pre-parliament days I know I was told that, while the number of visitors to Kangaroo Island was much smaller than my own patch on Yorke Peninsula, the average-daily spend of those visitors was much higher. We have to try and get some balance where if you improve the numbers then you improve the dollar return—and they all came from that.

These targets coincided with the two key targets made within the Economic Development Board's Kangaroo Island 'Paradise Girt by Sea' report of 2011 that I referred to earlier to double the tourist income within a decade and to double farm-gate income within a decade. Achieving these targets requires an improvement in the delivery of infrastructure and services to the island from the private and public sector.

I know the member for Finniss has talked to me constantly about this. Certainly, in the period before the 2010 election when I had some Treasury responsibilities he was into me all the time about the need for the opposition policy at that stage to focus on infrastructure and the cost of freight transport.

We have heard lots of arguments that have occurred in recent times about reliable electricity supply as well. I know there have been lots of proposals to ESCOSA for the replacement of the electricity supply that goes undersea to the island. That is a significant project to deal with, too ,but it will come upon us one day.

The cost of getting on and off the island is a barrier to the growth of the island's economy and I am aware that infrastructure upgrades have occurred and there are lease agreements that the Crown has in place with SeaLink that provide some surety with that, and I think there has been an investment of financial support towards the seawalls and that sort of thing that are necessary for these berths. Having used those myself and having actually seen it, I understand that there are still probably a lot of competitive bids that have been submitted to try and improve those things too.

The minister, from what I have read and from what I have taken from the conversations with him as part of the initial briefing, probably has some frustration about seemingly a state government focus on Kangaroo Island, I think, and the minister might want to correct me if I am wrong on that. He is probably concerned that decisions that are made within Adelaide are not always in the best interests of the island. I think I could argue that a lot of regional areas would probably say the same thing to the minister.

It appears as though that, in addition to the agency or departments having that focused thinking on Kangaroo Island—and that is the intended outcome for the bill so there is a focus via a quite senior level of influence for that—the minister considers the lack of coordination between government departments and KI is impacting on the delivery of outcomes. I suppose that comes back to the example I quoted on Yorke Peninsula of services to the Point Pearce Aboriginal Community and the improved opportunity for coordination to occur there.

As an example, state government departments and bodies that deliver services on Kangaroo Island include Regional Development Australia, tourism, local government relations, environment and natural resources, education and further education, fisheries and primary industries, native vegetation, SA Water, Department of Transport and, importantly, national parks. In the minister's second reading speech he stated that delivery of state government services suffers from three inter-related major problems from a Kangaroo Island perspective, and I might just put them on the record again:

1. There is a lack of critical mass in any of these agencies that can be devoted to Kangaroo Island issues.

2. The delivery of services tends to be Adelaide or mainland focused (and that is by association with the population so I understand that).

3. There is a lack of any one or more networks joining up services to have a Kangaroo Island focus.

We will talk later about amendments and the challenge that has been put to me by people on Kangaroo Island: 'Steven, if you and the Liberal Party do not support this bill, what is your alternative vision?' The minister says yes. I suppose the first opportunity I looked at was the Capital City Committee where there is a structure put in place by government and where there is a level of coordination between state government and local government. The state government coordination, one would hope, ensures that the coordination of the government departments that operate under the control of those ministers and, by association, with the departments that are part of the cabinet that ministers control.

So that is one alternative that I have suggested to people when I have talked about, 'Okay, our alternative vision is not just the example that I expanded upon before of the improved level of desire to ensure that services and infrastructure are welded or are fixed on delivering what the local community are saying to you,' but at a higher level there is an example of the Capital City Committee.

On the basis that that structure works well—and I wish that the member for Adelaide was a member of that, and that has been the subject of an amendment bill also—the Liberal suggestion for the Kangaroo Island solution would be to have this over-arching group with representation from local government and key ministers whose responsibility is to ensure the outcomes occur and, therefore, what flows from that is the direction that goes to all government departments.

The difference between the Capital City Committee and the legislation that we would suggest—even though we cannot do that via amendments; a completely different issue—is that the local member is involved in that, because of the fact that they are put in place to actually represent the people, and therefore should have very strong connections to them, as the member for Finniss does, having been born and raised on the island.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister makes a comment that a lot of this sounds like it is about the member for Finniss. It is fair to say we have had a lot of chats.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Yes, I bet you have.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes.

The Hon. P. Caica: All one way though.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, not at all. We have had a lot of chats where—and it is a bit reflected in the consultation. When I went to Kangaroo Island, I met with the council and the member for Finniss had a very strong position on this immediately. I understand that, and he will put his position himself. But when I spoke to the council at the same meeting I said to them, 'I am not here to preach on what my position is, but my desire in being with you today is to find out'—even at that early stage—'what your thoughts are, what concerns you might have and what opportunities to improve there are.' That is the basis of what we are doing and that is why I am suggesting amendments to it, too. Even though I am not supportive of the bill, and the Liberal Party is not supportive of the bill, there are changes that we would like to see occur.

The Hon. P. Caica: So keep Kangaroo Island the way it is then?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No. The member for Colton interjects that I want to keep Kangaroo Island the way it is, and that is the farthest thing from the truth, I have to say to you. I am probably only on Kangaroo Island every two years, so I do not pretend to even know in great detail the issues that the community deals with there. However, having come from a regional community—and I live in a town of a thousand people—there is a lot of similarity in the way thoughts are processed.

The Hon. P. Caica: You live on an island?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, it is a community of 1,000 people, member for Colton. Even though I have the opportunity to go by road, we talk about a lot of similar things. I do have a family connection with the island: my father-in-law lives on the island now and we do talk quite often. He is the greenkeeper of the bowling club and is about to become Lions Club president next year, I think, and all that sort of stuff.

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: We have talked about it.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Newland interjects from out of his seat, actually.

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Outrageous! I am not into that, I can assure you. We have degenerated in the last 12 minutes; I can see people want to close up and go home.

The Hon. P. Caica: We want you to finish, Steven, with the greatest of respect.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I still have lots to go; I am not even halfway through yet.

Mr Picton: Seek leave to table the rest of your remarks.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There are a lot of personal reflections that I want to include in this; there is a lot that I want to say.

Ms Chapman: Mine might be worse, so be grateful for small mercies.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Someone else could have stood up first, that's right.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Back to the point.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will put on the record the role of the commissioner, so we have the chance to have some debate about that:

1. To improve the management, coordination and delivery of infrastructure and services provided by government agencies on the island.

2. To assist to improve the local economy, including the marketing of products and the development of the tourism industry.

3. To prepare and keep under review management plans dealing with the delivery of government projects and services to the island.

That is the absolute key thing for us: the development of management plans.

4. To have responsibility for coordinating and using existing public servants and programs to deliver outcomes in line with the regionalisation of policy formation.

In the notes that I have attached to that I say that they are honourable targets. I can understand that.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Give us a go. Let us have a crack at it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is why we are going to come back and talk about this later on. They are honourable targets, but I still come back to the basis of: why is it that a single person, who is appointed and not elected, is deemed to be the person that will do that and not elected members? It seems to me that it is guided solely by the one person. That is where I would be interested for the minister, as part of his response to this, to outline some of the special skills that are going to be required of the commissioner, for a person worthy of that role. They have to have the wisdom of Solomon, just about.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, that will be the great change and I do look forward to the minister putting on the record some of the skillset that he is going to be seeking in the appointment that he wishes to make of the commissioner in this. Another target is to have the power to establish local advisory boards and it does say, I believe, that you must establish those. That has come about from an amendment that the minister has proposed on this. Instead of, I think, before it talked about 'shall' and there was no certainty attached to it, so—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: May.

Mr GRIFFITHS: May. My apologies. The minister says may. But this reflects, I think, some of the feedback that came from the Kangaroo Island Council about the surety that needed to be attached to creating those local advisory boards. I would be interested to know also, minister, about how you are targeting those. Are they focused on a locality in which they might operate? Are they focused on a particular type of service? Are they focused on a national park solely? Are they focused on business groups?

It would be interesting to know—because the island is rather diverse, there are population spreads that exist and land use differences that exist—how the intention is to do that. Presumably you are going to want to make sure that you have some people with great marketing skills, with some of the products from the island too, people who have had international experience, potentially, on the growth of an economy and making best use of the resources that exist on the island and grow opportunities to invest in it. So, getting all of those things right will be a challenge.

The deputy leader and I have had a variety of meetings about this and briefings that have been coordinated by the minister's office, and he has been very generous in that, I must admit. Whenever requests for that to occur have gone through it has happened relatively quickly. Indeed, it was not that long ago that Mr Golding from the minister's office approached me and said, 'Is there any more information that you need on this?' So, I certainly appreciate the fact that information flow and accessibility has been there.

I think it was in one of the earlier meetings that the deputy leader and I had that we were told that in addition to the commissioner there was only intended to be two full-time equivalent staff that would be associated with this and presumably those staff and the commissioner were to be located within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, or planning, was it?

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Planning, was it? Planning; I apologise. At the time of the announcement the cost of the commissioner was expected to be in a range of $860,000 per year for a four-year period, I believe, for total operations, but given that the budget across the full projection talks about, I think, very close to $4 million over that same four-year period—

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes; well, some of that is KIFA continuing for a short time also and then transfer responsibilities and things like that. The development and implementation of management plans is the key component of the bill. The legislation provides the framework to enable the commissioner to prepare and implement management plans which take precedence—and that is the key word for me—over other state authority management plans and also because local government is included as part of the definition of 'state authority' over local government, the Kangaroo Island Council, that exists in the area.

Indeed, that was the emphasis of the very first question I asked the Kangaroo Island Council when I met with them: did they see any concerns about the fact that local government has been required, for some time, to prepare management plans? What its vision is for the next 12 months, what its forward projections are for five, seven, 10 years, and to plan extensively and communicate those with the community and involve the community in the preparation of those management plans before they get endorsement of it because it drives what the level of rate income required to deliver those services actually is.

Did they see a concern that a single person with a high level of authority can come in and, potentially, presumably, whatever, if they do not agree with that vision, even though it has been developed by wide consultation, put an alternative vision in place? I thought that was an entirely relevant question. To be fair to the Kangaroo Island Council, it is very early in the process and there are not enough elected members who had been involved at that stage of it, I think, to express an informed position on that, so I got individual feedback from a few members about some different components of it but not to that wider arching question.

Now I note that one of the amendments from the minister, in consultation with the council, talks about this scenario where an alternative vision is developed which has an impact upon local government and, by association, may create a cost pressure, and the opportunity exists for the commissioner and the council to talk about or seek alternative funding sources. In my discussion with mayor Jayne Bates this afternoon I told her that this is one the key things for me, because it provides no surety, absolutely none.

It talks about the scenario potentially being created but does not provide any definitive answer as to where the solution is going to come from. Potentially, it could be for any amount of dollars or any amount of alternative resources that need to be allocated for something, which could have an impact on the decisions made by the elected members and, by association, the funds that are provided to that council to do that by the community who own property there, and by the attraction of state and federal government grants on that.

That is a key issue for me, and I think that is part of the reason why, even with the amendments, the Liberal opposition has chosen not to support the bill, because of the concern that still exists there. In the committee stage there will be a lot of questions posed about that, and I think that for the people of Kangaroo Island that level of clarification needs to occur, because the words you say will be the drivers of actions in the future. So that is an absolute key point for us.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is not in his chair; ignore him and keep going. Continue.

Mr GRIFFITHS: He is a bad man.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Continue.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On 21 May the minister was good enough to provide a briefing in his office in Parliament House. I was in attendance, the deputy leader was in attendance, the member for Finniss was in attendance, as was Ms Kristina Roberts from KIFA and Mr Goode, who had drafted the bill on the minister's request. The minister relayed that the purpose of the bill was to ensure that the Kangaroo Island community continued to have a direct voice in the cabinet—and the member for Finniss is ringing me now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This might be an opportune time then to ask the member for Goyder to seek leave to continue his remarks.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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