HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 17 September 2014.)

Clause 17.

The CHAIR: I remind members that we have put through amendments 8 and 9 and we are into the remainder of the general questions, because we have had lots of them, on clause 17.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have given the Attorney a commitment that we will go through the amendments rather quickly.

The CHAIR: So you have finished with clause 17 and I can put clause 17 as amended.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 18 and 19 passed.

New clause 19A.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 10 [AG-1]—

Page 9, after line 26—Insert:

19A—Review by ERD Committee

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the Parliament must inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on the operation of this Act—

(a) after this Act has been in operation for a period of 2 years; and

(b) at the end of each period of 4 years thereafter.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I recognise amendment No. 10 is an improvement on the way I consider the original bill to be drafted, but it is my intention to move another amendment later which sets a four-year sunset period on the term of the bill's operation also.

New clause inserted.

Clause 20.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No. 11 [AG-1]—

Page 9, after line 29—Insert:

(2) The Minister must undertake consultation (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) with the Kangaroo Island Council and the Commissioner in relation to any proposed regulation under this Act.

Mr GRIFFITHS: To be consistent with other amendments and issues debated, it talks about consultation with the Kangaroo Island Council. My request would be that the minister give consideration to the member for Flinders—Finniss—being included in that.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Apologies, Finniss.

The CHAIR: You already gave that undertaking yesterday.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to consider it, and the member for Flinders would probably be very helpful.

Amendment passed; clause as amended passed.

New clause 21.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Griffiths–1]—

Page 9, after line 29—After clause 20 insert:

21—Expiry of Act

This Act will expire 4 years after the day on which it comes into operation.

The intention of this is to actually, as I mentioned briefly before, put some form of expiry onto the operation of the act. While I appreciate, as mentioned, that some changes have been brought about to the original bill as proposed by the minister, in considering this the opposition wanted an opportunity for a significant level of review beyond that provided by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. It was our intention to seek the finalisation of the act, which would then be in four years' time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not happy with the amendment because I think we have sufficient checks and balances in there. The whole idea of this thing was that it would supersede in a more lasting fashion the activities of KIFA. If the parliament comes to the view at some point in time in the future that this should be either amended or wound up, it can do so.

I think having a self-executing clause, as they refer to them in the legal world, embedded in this is unhelpful. This thing will either justify its existence or not. If it does not, a future parliament can deal with it as it wishes. It would also, can I say, lead to the possibility of people deciding to simply sit it out, waiting for the expiry date, and just be noncompliant at least for a period of time towards the end of the term, in the hope or expectation the thing would simply disappear. I do not think that is in the public interest.

New clause negatived.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (15:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:47): Now is the appropriate opportunity for a third reading contribution?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is, indeed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There are some people, Deputy Speaker, who wish to make contributions at this time also, but we have got through a lot quicker. It has been about seven hours and 10 minutes so far, minister, I think.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think it is actually true that there will be some comments made that might not have been before—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to task. We have done such a good job.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. There might be some in the chamber who listened to the debate that occurred and thought we were taking an inordinate length of time to actually debate the bill.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No. Can I assure those who are unsure about their position on that that it was because of the desire of the opposition to scrutinise the bill to ensure that our position was put, to put the concerns raised with us on the public record, to seek clarification, to try to ensure that the bill could be in its absolutely best possible form and to put in the minister's mind some issues that were concerning us. It is seemingly the case that the minister holds some quite strong convictions on some things. He queries the reason why the opposition holds seemingly opposite convictions. It is because we can see some grounds for concerns to be raised.

I put on the record again that, while the Kangaroo Island Council has supported this bill, the amendments proposed by the opposition and, indeed, the position that we hold on it is that the bill should hold grave concerns for local government. The Local Government Association has supported it via a two-paragraph letter—I understand that also—but we consider quite strongly that we have taken the broader perspective opportunities and potentials that may exist from the introduction of this bill into the parliamentary system, the creation of the commissioner's position and what could flow through to other areas.

I also put on the record though that, from a delivery of service and an investment in resources to create infrastructure and services, we also want to see the best possible use to remove duplication, to ensure efficiency, to get outcomes that the community demands and to produce a result that we can all be proud of. That is why we have taken a long time to debate this bill. I would have loved the Minister for Local Government to make a contribution, just to put on the record his position in relation to the concerns that we have raised, as we see it, on behalf of local government in relation to this, but it has been a robust debate.

The minister has, in the main, been quite forthcoming with information. I think there was one little stage of the debate in which some comments made by the minister, without questioning from others about the detail behind that, got us trapped for a little while going through some things, but I do respect that we have given this bill a great level of debate. We have ensured that the community’s position has been put. I think those who read it in the future will recognise that the contributions made from the opposition highlight both sides of the argument as put by people in the wider community, but what we come down to completely is to ensure that the people who reside on Kangaroo Island and the people who visit Kangaroo Island get the outcomes they want.

The member for Finniss holds a very strong view based on the feedback that he has had from people—and it would be in the hundreds, no doubt—that this is not the way to achieve it. The opposition has put its case. The minister has carriage and has managed to convince the majority of the house of a different position, so we will live with what democracy has landed upon us, but I hope that in the fullness of time, the outcome is that the people benefit. That is what we are all here for. I look forward to the passage of the bill.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (15:51): This has been a protracted debate, and before I get too far into it, I just want to make mention of some comments that the minister made yesterday in relation to Southern Ocean Lodge. I was part and parcel of that from day one in another capacity, which I think I mentioned. Southern Ocean Lodge has, I think, one local Kangaroo Island person working at it. Put simply, they do not want to work there, not because it is not a nice place, but they do not want to work to the conditions down there—if they are required at times when they have family things on or sport or whatever. They simply do not want to do it. That needs to be understood.

The Southern Ocean Lodge is fantastic. I love the place. In fact, the opening was spectacularly successful. A group of us went down there with then premier Mike Rann, Kevin Foley and the list goes on. However, what concerns me in the minister’s statement that he would like more high-quality accommodation is one thing. There is quite a bit of quality accommodation around the place, but I had a fellow called John Lashmar ring me about two or three weeks ago. He has property at Cape St Albans, north of Cape Willoughby, on the eastern end. He rang me to say that everything is off in regard to his project.

He has had investors wanting to do a high-quality accommodation project there. They have been working on it for two years. I do not know where KIFA came into this; I would not have a clue. However, he rang to tell me that, because the bureaucrats said that he cannot have any accommodation within two kilometres of the coast because of the sea eagles, it is all off. The investors are not interested. They have walked away from it.

I do not think you will fix that, minister, with a commissioner. In fact, I am damn sure you will not because you get done over—and everyone gets done over, I might add; the holistic done over—by these people who simply walk over the top of whatever people want to do. Having high-quality accommodation and wanting more is one thing, but the other point I make, which I talked about during my contribution and which really riles me, is that there has been a complete and utter failure by the government or KIFA or whoever to deal with this issue of getting across the water.

That is the issue in getting more people to Kangaroo Island. It is not airports and 100-seater aircraft or whatever. It is the cost of getting across the water. The Watergap project of a few years ago clearly identified that there was a role for the federal government, whether it be Liberal or Labor, and the state government, whether it be Liberal or Labor. There has just not been any effort made. I have banged on about this ad infinitum in this place.

Even today I had an email from an island resident saying, 'All these plans and structure plans are ridiculous until such time as the cost is addressed,' and they are quite oblivious to what is going on up here They are not critical of SeaLink; it is not the fault of SeaLink. It is the issue of getting across there without sorting out the cost of it—similar to Tasmania. I am not suggesting the Tasmanian solution is ideal either. However, it needs to be dealt with.

If the minister does one thing, if he takes that on board and tries to do something about it, they will probably put a bridge across to the island and call it the John Rau bridge, or a tunnel, or whatever—I do not know. The fact of the matter is I can bang on as much as I like, as can the member for Bragg, but someone has to be the champion in cabinet at both state and federal levels.

I have had this discussion with the federal member for Mayo whose seat covers the island and he knows my views on it. But someone has to bang some heads on it; they really have to bang some heads on it. For anyone with an income of $200,000 or $250,000 a year, it does not mean much to them to get on the boat, or to get on the plane. That is a ridiculous situation. I am very lucky: I get my plane fares paid for, but they can pay up to $450 or $500 return. The system is ridiculous in this place with travel, I might add as well, that I can also get on cheaper. Island people cannot do that.

However, for families who want to go to the island—mum and dad with two or three kids—and have a week or 10 days over there, it is becoming prohibitive for them to do that. You cannot just have all high-end tourism at the expense of families who traditionally have been the backbone of the tourism business on the island.

Yes, the ferry carries lots of daytrippers and they give them a good day out, but that is not the same as putting people in beds and giving kids a good time. After this morning's debacle, their efforts to go fishing are now limited to the nth degree. They used to be able to go fishing in Shoal Bay, a piece of water adjacent to Kingscote which is the only bit of calm water in and around Kingscote, the main town. That is gone after 1 October—finished, done, dusted, gone.

I do not want to reflect too much on what happened this morning regarding the debate and the outcome but let me tell you that, when something goes wrong with one of these fishing families and when there is a tragedy involving them because their lives have broken down, I know who I am going to point at. I can tell you that—they are talking about it outwardly—and what the government needs to do here is to pretty rapidly put some counselling in place. I had a phone call; a family who left here today are completely distraught. If anything happens, I swear to God I am going to hold the people responsible who voted for what happened here this morning. I tell you I am furious about it.

To get back to the bill, let me say that I am somewhat staggered, perplexed and stupefied by the attitude of the Kangaroo Island Council on this. I think they have been completely conned and they think the commissioner is some sort of panacea to all their financial ills. It is not going to happen. There is nothing in it for them whatsoever. The minister has not given any indication. We asked questions about the economy and we could not get answers on how it is going to boost the economy.

Let me just go back to the day that the member for Goyder and I went in there. We were greeted as though we had rabies or something similar; we were given the cold shoulder. The next day the minister, Mr Spencer and whatnot went there, and that is fine—I have no problem with that. However, with indecent haste and without everybody there who could have been there, they quickly called a special meeting and rammed through the motion supporting the bill for a commissioner. I will stand corrected but I think there were either five or six councillors there—they barely had a quorum.

I do not know what you have done, what you have offered them, whether they have been given some sort of financial incentive or whatever. I just find the situation blatantly ridiculous. When you have your contribution you can tell the house what happened, but I do not think the council, or a number of the council, in any way understand what this is all about. I really do not think they do. They have been conned and you have had agents from the council running around trying to whip up support with members of parliament. I just think it is appalling.

The Kangaroo Island Council is very sadly and regrettably in a financial mess. I think it is three weeks ago tomorrow (or it might even be four, I will have to check) that I was on the boat going to the island and I had a local contractor come to me and tell me that they were owed $50,000 by the council for work done and it had been outstanding for 60 days.

I discussed this matter with my colleague, the member for Goyder, who was a council CEO, and there is no way known that a local authority should get in that sort of financial mess. They should be over and above being behind in their accounts and these accounts should be paid within one or two days at the most at the end of the month. It is simply unacceptable and particularly poor that this has been going on. I think the local government minister is aware. I wanted to find out so I asked some genuine questions to people about the situation with councils and their inability to pay their bills. They sit differently and, indeed, they always have the capacity to raise money through additional rates or whatever. I do not know why successive ministers for local government have not grappled with what is going on.

As I pointed out, we are having a new council elected on the island, as is the case all around the state, in early November and things may change at the elected member level, but I have been really worried about what has been going on over there for some time. Indeed, one former councillor, Rosalie Chirgwin, was bullied and intimidated in an appalling manner. I stand to be corrected, but I believe she had a councillor and the mayor turn up at her place uninvited. She lives alone out in the bush. Now, this bill really worries me. Is a commissioner going to fit this?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order. The debate about this bill is not an opportunity for the member for Finniss under privilege to vent his dislike or disagreement with members of council and produce hearsay material which is disparaging of people who are past or former elected members of the council. That is not the appropriate thing for us to be doing in this place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is a little concerned at the way things have drifted off and would ask the member for Finniss to address the third reading of this bill and not canvass other broader topics.

Mr PENGILLY: I am relating this story to the house to ask whether this commissioner bill is going to be able to do anything about the way the local authority on the island operates, given that this is the only one that is going to be over 68 councils? The minister may or may not know the answer to that, but it has been my view all along that he has not been able to satisfactorily answer the question in the house as to exactly what the commissioner is going to do.

The point of the amendment from this side of the house was to remove the local government, in this case the Kangaroo Island Council, from the bill. Unless they can assist or whatever, I do not know. I cannot see any financial assistance going in that council's direction. I cannot see any governance going in, so what is the purpose of having the local government authority in there? That is the question I am trying to allude to. Wouldn't you be better off just leaving them as it is and taking them right out? Now, we have passed that and it will go to another place, and heaven knows what they will do with it up there, but it really worries me that if this eventually goes through the council on Kangaroo Island will, in effect, be significantly neutered.

I cannot see why they think it is going to be a panacea for everything. We have talked about plans to the nth degree and where that goes, and I have listened with interest. We have had hours of debate, as the minister knows, and we have had questions asked. However, I do not think a lot of those questions have been answered and I do not know why on earth this has been put in place. Correct me if I am wrong, minister, but I do not think you knew a lot of the answers to the questions that were in there. There were not a lot of firm decisions coming from you on answers to questions in relation to that bill, if you are serious about it. So I am somewhat frustrated.

It will not make any difference to me. The harsh reality is that our kids have all left the island; they have given up because there is nothing over there for them and they are not interested in farming either, for that matter. They have gone. Indeed, at least one of them will leave the state, and perhaps two of them, because there is not enough here. The reason many kids do not stay on the island is because there is not enough there. If the minister can give me an assurance that by putting this bill through it is going to lift economic performance and create jobs and whatnot, then terrific.

I did an extensive interview in the local paper this week, and my view on the commissioner is that I am opposed to it. I said that if the government really wanted to do something that would lift the population and create jobs then perhaps it could look at putting a new prison over there. I am not being silly about this; put a new prison in. There would be young families working in the prison, blah, blah, blah—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not all of them, surely; not all the young families would be working in the prison. The adults of the young families—

Mr PENGILLY: I have visited a number of prisons in South Australia and a lot of the prison staff are reasonably young, let me tell you. That may be something you could consider, minister. If you want to put government money into it, if you are not going to do anything apart from draw up plans and whatnot, it may be something to consider. It may be from left field, but it has been raised. In fact Mr Dudley Kelly, who is now deceased but who was chairman of the district council 30 or 40 years ago, I suppose, thought it was a good idea, and I raise it again.

Just putting people into bureaucratic positions is not going to help; I cannot see how it is going to help, and therefore I am opposed to the bill. I will watch with interest what happens when it gets to the upper house but, at the end of the day, I again say to you, sir, through the chair, I do not know what it is going to achieve.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:08): I rise to speak to the third reading of the Kangaroo Island commissioner bill. From the outset, I can say that Kangaroo Island, its economy and its governance has varied considerably over the last 175 years. I am not going to go through all of what has happened; I gave a number of speeches on that when we celebrated 175 years as a state, which, of course, started in July 1836 on Kangaroo Island. I welcomed the then premier, with the member for Finniss, to Kangaroo Island for the 175 year celebrations.

However, let me say this. It is an island that has, to a large degree, determined its own destiny. It has had a number of industries, some of which have come and gone, some of which have been temporary, and some of which have been lifelines for periods of time; but, overwhelmingly, the sustaining industry—after fishing, its first industry, and salt harvesting—has been agriculture and primary industry. That has been its core economic base.

Very quickly, though, by the turn of last century, tourism became a very significant operation. There are many debates and records of meetings of the establishment of the Flinders Chase National Park. It took 20 years, I might tell you, to convince the people of Adelaide that it was an important area that should be preserved, to have one remaining water system in Australia unadulterated, to ensure that it preserved an area that was fox and rabbit free, to ensure that there would be sufficient research maintained for bees, which of course were significant in agriculture and horticulture, and that opportunities to experiment with forestry could be developed and, to quote one of the reports from the early 1920s, 'to be a place of sanctuary for weary workers'.

In between that, there had been a number of activities that developed tourism, peppered with periods of great hope for mining. I have to say the gold and silver mine rushes for Kangaroo Island were very short-lived, they did not last terribly long. Gypsum, on the other hand, was an area which gave a sustainable income for a significant period. So, we have, as an island, had industries that have come and gone but, unquestionably, a very important and valuable supplement to the food industry from Kangaroo Island has been tourism. To a large degree, it has developed with very significant accommodation facilities.

In my lifetime, the development of the Ozone Hotel and its major expansion in the 1970s and 1980s, the development of Linnets accommodation at American River, the very significant developments at Penneshaw in more recent decades upon the original Penneshaw Hotel and the expansions there, have all been very significant developments in tourism for South Australia and have provided a very good base. Right next to where I grew up at Western River, morning teas have been served to people who travelled out on Linnets buses back in the 1940s and 1950s, including a number of premiers of the state who sat on the verandah at that homestead to be served morning tea after, usually, the menfolk had gone fishing. So, it is not new.

If I can come to a time forty years ago, the early 1970s, you only have to look at The Islander newspaper from those times to see that the three big issues of the day for that time (1972) were: the amalgamation of the Dudley and Kingscote councils on the basis that there had been a suggestion that the local community was overgoverned by two councils and there would be a streamlining and a cost saving benefit if the councils were amalgamated. There were the usual expected cries that that would actually leave the island with a less strong voice by amalgamating to one council, but in any event that subsequently prevailed.

The second issue was the announcement by the then education minister Hugh Hudson that he would extend the matriculation year at the Kingscote Area School and that other schools on the island, there were five of them at that time, had continued to expand. The third issue of the time was the representation of the council and the public on the hospital board and the significance of having a voice on the most significant (probably), apart from education, state government agency on the island.

What has changed? We have had the following decades. We have had continued contribution through the Bannon and Brown/Olsen periods where very significant contribution was made to the island and its development in the agriculture, forestry and tourism areas particularly. We had a change of significant sea travel service. Unfortunately, under the Labor government, we saw the demise of the hospital board into nothing more than an advisory council, and the way things are going we will probably not even have that by the end of the year.

We have seen, under the watch of this government, the schools all amalgamated. A couple have passed since, like the Karatta School's demise, but now they have been amalgamated under this government and notwithstanding all sorts of promises about what they were going to do they have closed down the year 11 and 12 services at the Parndana campus and there is every expectation that year 10 is about to go.

They have gutted the education services and they have muted the voice of the hospital services. They have given, quite frankly, very little contribution towards road services, a little bit to supplement some sea services by adding a facility where you can have a cup of coffee as you get off the sea services at Penneshaw, but largely there has been an abandonment of infrastructure investment in the last 12 years, a drought exceeding anything I can remember occurring under any government, Labor or Liberal, in my lifetime.

Unsurprisingly, when we look at the newspaper today, we see that we still have a desperate community looking for representation and looking for delivery of service and infrastructure. It has now got to a very critical stage. That is why it was so terribly disappointing, when we got this year's state budget, to see that the only thing Kangaroo Island was going to get was a walking trail—a walking trial, for goodness sake!—and an announcement that some property, unknown yet, is going to be flogged off to help pay for it. I have to say that there is bitter disappointment.

The background of this is that we had the initiative of Mr Rann, the former premier, when he announced when attending the 175 yearcelebrations that there was a KI futures authority—I do not think it quite had that exact name; it certainly did not have the same composition at the time. There was going to be some work done to have a clear understanding, do the reports and prepare a contemporary assessment of what was needed for the island. The usual suspects were there: water gap costs, cost of transport, cost of living, cost of fuel, airport upgrades. Nothing has changed; these things are still there.

Then we had the appointment of some personnel. We had a new board established, chaired by Mr Raymond Spencer, who had another role in economic development for the state. Some members were put on that. Ms Kristina Roberts was appointed to provide some assistance in the preparation of the report.

Since then, this organisation has again delivered up to the government a number of recommendations, and they include all of the usual suspects in relation to infrastructure. The government has completely ignored these—they have just been shoved over here as though they did not even exist. What have we got? We have some planning reform, which helps suit the government in redoing the DPA; we have a KI brand, which hopefully will help with some marketing—in any event, the government just has to announce that. It is up to other people to use it and so on.

We have, I think, a Rockhopper service for transport on Kangaroo Island. I have seen the bus stop. It is about three seats long, and it is on the side of the Playford Highway, just in case the minister ever goes there to see it. I have never seen a person on the service or waiting at the bus stop, I might tell you. It is in the middle of the island. It is not to say that to have a service that will collect people, for example, at the western end of the island to go to the airport or to go into Kingscote on a regular arrangement is a bad thing, but typically it is a service that does not actually respond to what is most needed.

Most people who live west of Parndana have a car because they have to have a car, because they cannot rely on a bus that turns up once a week or goes to only one destination or the like to provide that service. It may help those who are visiting Kangaroo Island to catch the SeaLink service down at Penneshaw, when it goes on to provide that service, and you might save a bit of petrol if you happen to have a SeaLink service that coordinated with that Rockhopper service.

But, frankly, I am appalled at the cheap, easy options that the government has chosen to cherrypick out of the list that KIFA and its predecessor have identified as necessary for the economic development of Kangaroo Island. They have picked out the cheap options, and it simply will not assist Kangaroo Island to do the things they want to do. So, what do they do next? When their backs are up against the wall, they have spent the money everywhere else, what do they do for Kangaroo Island?

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Extraordinary things with free-range eggs.

Ms CHAPMAN: 'Extraordinary things with free-range eggs.' Can I tell you this: I went to school with Tommy Fryar. I think that he was voted the least likely person to succeed at doing anything at school.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're straying.

Ms CHAPMAN: Notwithstanding the support that he probably did not get from his family, he excelled—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're straying.

Ms CHAPMAN: —incredibly in getting those chooks to lay eggs, free range, and sell them to the world. Every time I see him, I tell him that I am still buying his eggs, and I am still happy to. Let me tell you what else has happened! His sister married an Ordway and they had chooks—to eat. Guess what has happened to their business? It has wound up; it does not operate anymore. They do not sell chooks at the market anymore. Another one has come along which we hope will survive, but let me tell you, minister, that for you to start interfering with people whom you think you have fostered into some kind of panacea of profitability is bulldust.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: He's a success story.

Ms CHAPMAN: He was a success story before you and despite you—and despite your government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we remind members not to interject and not to respond to interjections, and I ask the deputy leader—

Ms CHAPMAN: Protect me from these puerile interjections. I appreciate it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You would only know they were puerile if you listened to them.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just go to a positive, to this extent. Whilst the government, I think, in the last 12 years has abandoned Kangaroo Islanders, has feathered its own nest, has ripped the guts out of the ratepaying base of that island and has made it more and more difficult for families over there, I do want to say that, notwithstanding that, KIFA and some of the personnel have assisted in some of the moderating and mediating. I do not take away from that work.

That is not to say that it cannot be done if Kristina Roberts just remained as a member of the department, was not part of KIFA and she could continue that role. If she is any good at it, surely that is what the department would do. However, these are existing organisations. There was pure grain development. There was an opportunity to try to help that, as if the late Duncan MacGillivray was not doing a good enough job with Rodney Bell and others to develop that. At any rate, if she helped out a bit, that is fine.

If she, as I understand it, went to the government to say, 'Look, we've got a proposal on the table to help reopen the abattoir, to actually provide industry, to provide jobs, to provide a 52-week of the year operation. There would need to be a doubling of lamb rates over there for sale, but nevertheless, let's look at it. Let's look at grain feeding lambs and let's look at that opportunity.' I think she did some work to help that. What did the government do? Stuff all! We have no provision for rewiring the facility. A huge piece of infrastructure over there is sitting idle.

All the hard things on the list have just been pushed aside and the easy, cheap things have been announced. I just find the assertion by the government that it actually gives a toss about what is happening on Kangaroo Island to be absolutely shallow.

Now that the nominations have closed for council, let me say this. I have made some general comments during my contribution on the local government's financial predicament on Kangaroo Island. The other major problem with the decision that there was going to be a signing off by the council in support of the government's bill, as a proposal from KIFA, is that the mayor of the council, Jayne Bates—whom I voted for and supported—was also a member of KIFA, and another member of her council has also been put onto KIFA. This is the usual practice of the government. Anyone who they think might cause any trouble or they might need to absorb into the system they put on a board or a committee or something; that is the usual way to shut them up.

I put this on the record now. I think that it was quite inappropriate for the mayor of a council (she has not renominated, so I am happy to say this now) to even agree to go on the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority and be part of an organisation, which, in my view, is a direct conflict of interest. Whatever process the government puts up in the future, the independence and the consequential integrity of a local government council, duly elected by the people, must ensure that its members, particularly its mayor, remain independent of boards and advisory committees and the like of government. I am very strong on that view and I make that statement today. I would not have in this debate had Her Worship renominated for council, because I would not want it alleged that I was interfering with re-election, but I will put it on the record now, because I am very unhappy about it.

The other matter I want to say is this. I recognise that Mr Spencer, Kristina Roberts, Mr Matthew Goode and members of the minister's staff have made themselves available for a number of briefings and public meetings and I thank them for that. I did attend a briefing in the minister's office here at Parliament House with a number of my colleagues. At that meeting we received a briefing as to the detail of the bill from Mr Matthew Goode and, as I say, I thank him for that. This was on 21 May 2014. Also, Ms Kristina Roberts was present. She is a member of KIFA.

I raised the question of how the management plans were going to operate and whether that might cause a delay in advancing the infrastructure and all the other important things for the island, which they had also confirmed, yet again, along with a mountain of other reports. Her answer was words to the effect, 'It won't take the 12 months,' because I thought I would throw it along the line of, 'This will take another year. We've got more plans to do. How is this going to delay what we want at the end of this?' She said words to the effect, 'No, it won't take that, it will only be a few months because we already have a draft plan.'

Subsequently, I called for a copy of the draft plan, because Kangaroo Islanders and, I think, South Australians, had burnt their fingers badly enough believing that the government would listen to the development of management plans on marine parks. So I asked for a copy of this draft. At a subsequent public meeting at the Parndana Hotel, which the minister and the Minister for Regional Development attended, I again asked for a copy of this and it was represented that there is no document in existence. I find that incredible.

The reason I say that is because if members, and indeed the minister, even looked at the KIFA website and identified the areas of direction they propose to go in, it is pretty clear what they want to do. One of them, of course, is in the planning area and, as I have already pointed out, the minister has already been active in that space and ensured that there will be an opportunity for major developments in coastal regions on Kangaroo Island, particularly of a tourism flavour, etc. I do not doubt for one moment that there are drafts sitting in the back pocket of somebody and I will not be misled on the development of these plans.

If I ever find that there are any plans in existence, that there is a draft proposal that is going to go out to the community and that it was germane prior to these debates and it has not been disclosed, I will be raising that issue and I will not be happy, and nor should any member of this parliament be happy. It is not acceptable that we be kept like mushrooms and fed bulldust. This is not acceptable.

We need to know and be able to work with the government in relation to proposals that they have. They need to be honest in coming to the parliament and asking for our blessing to support a governance structure and, in this case, somebody who is going to be a panacea of moderation who is able to assist the economic development of this particular area of Kangaroo Island. We need to have the full facts. I place that on the record.

Finally, I want to say something about the Local Government Act itself. I did say during the debate that I was concerned that we had not had a response from the Local Government Association on this issue in respect of the process of what will happen to local government in the event that they refuse to provide information or documents, including prescribed contracts, to the commissioner as per the processes set out in the bill. There is another penalty if you do not comply with their management plans. In relation to section 272 of the Local Government Act, this comes into play specifically in the bill, and I remain concerned about that.

Time expired.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (16:28): What a whirlwind journey this has been. A mere eight hours ago we began this and we could have gone to Singapore but, no, we have been here talking about this—much of it repetitive and much of it not particularly pertinent to the actual matter before the parliament.

I want to make a couple of brief remarks in relation, specifically, to the third reading contributions, the first being that of the member for Goyder. The member for Goyder is a very shrewd person. He made some very truthful statements to me today, which were that he expected to be brief after the return of this matter onto the Notice Paper but he, cunningly, did not mention the fact that he was only speaking for himself and, therefore, here we still are. But he was as good as his word, I will give him that. He was brief.

We have had a few contributions from the member for Finniss, as we have indeed for the last couple of days. He made a comment about sea eagles. The issue there relates to the application of guidelines in respect of the conservation of native fauna. I cannot for the life of me see how a person who can get high-level access to senior bureaucrats would not help that. The criticism appeared to be that bureaucrats are slowing it down, 'blah, blah, blah'. Well, why do we not go right to the top right away instead of having all these so-called problems occur?

Let us just talk about water gap very briefly. Everybody knows there is something about Kangaroo Island. It is surrounded by water; that is why it is an island. This is coming out of left field, isn't it? That has nothing to do with 12 years of Labor—it pre-dates that. In fact, as I understand, it goes back to the Oligocene era. It has something to do with the melting of the polar ice caps at the end of the last little ice age when the connection between Corny Point and Kangaroo Island was eventually severed by the marching of the waves. That is my understanding of the island's aetiology, as they say in legal circles.

It is nothing to do with this government that Kangaroo Island is an island but it is, by definition, being an island, surrounded by water, and that has been known by everybody for some time. The suggestion by the member for Finniss that it is all up to the state government to solve this problem is manifestly ludicrous.

We have been trying for some time to negotiate with the commonwealth government of various complexions to see whether they would be interested in subsidising or providing some assistance. They have made it very clear they are not interested in doing that at all. They also say, as would any transport economists, if you start building in subsidies to things, you just drive the price up, and you actually just fatten the pockets of the people who are doing it.

The other point I would make about this is there are many people on the island who have a direct financial interest in SeaLink. I do not recall hearing any declaration from the member for Finniss, so I assume he does not have one or there is none in his family, but the fact is it is difficult to get a completely objective view from somebody who is not directly personally associated with the financial progress of SeaLink. Obviously, subsidising SeaLink would be damned good for SeaLink, so let us keep that in the back of our mind when we are talking about watergap policy.

The next point I would make is the suggestion that there is no effort made is false—absolutely false. I have some red hot news for members of the opposition, which is that, even as we speak, within the internal circles of government, there are very well-planned moves afoot to have a meaningful conversation with those who operate the SeaLink ferry service about whether or not we can deliver better outcomes to the island. We are not going to—

Ms Chapman: Going to have a talk.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, talking is the precursor to agreement, which is different to what happens in here. I am not going to rush out and claim something that has not happened, but I just say to the members opposite: just be careful how critical you are. You may find yourself a little bit surprised, and you may find yourself, in full self-respect, coming here in the not too distant future and saying a few words like, 'I tell you what, we were a bit sceptical about you people but, my goodness, you have achieved great things.' I am just putting that out there. You wait and see.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The next outrageous thing—there were many—from the member for Finniss was the suggestion, and I do find this offensive and outrageous, that members of the council on Kangaroo Island were in some way induced by some glittering prize being dangled in front of them by me to support this bill. That is outrageous. It is highly defamatory to those councillors, and I utterly reject it. It is outrageous, from my point of view, to suggest that I would go around dangling anything, particularly public moneys, in front of people to secure a vote in here. That is outrageous, and I think it would be appropriate for the member for Finniss, who has not had his best day ever in here, to come back in and actually put on the public record that he apologises to those people for making that outrageous suggestion.

The further point I would make is that not only have there been no inducements offered by me but I can guarantee you that there have been no threats made either. That is something that I could talk about, but I will not because I am not going to get into the sort of space that the member for Finniss got into.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On a happier note—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader, who has ticks and a big square around her name, is not going to raise a frivolous point of order, I am sure, so what is your point of order?

Ms CHAPMAN: My point of order is, firstly, the minister has referred to the absence of a member when in fact that is disorderly because reference to any member who is not present in the chamber at any one time it is not to be brought to the attention of the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is true.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is the first thing. The second is the assertion by the minister that he is not going to progress a certain statement in light of allegations that were made by a member of this house and then not proceed with them. He is suggesting that there is some improper statement or conduct by another member of the house in this debate, and then he does not even have the courage to go on and say what they are. However, I make this point: this is a third reading speech. This is not a getting stuck into members of—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, Attorney. I have not finished yet, Attorney. I think it is very unfair and quite pointless of you to say that the other side has engaged in anything worse than has occurred on my left. I would ask all members to continue in the spirit of goodwill now that we are almost there, and I ask the Attorney to continue his remarks now.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I will. Next point, a happier point: I was actually celebrating Mr Fryar and I do not claim any credit whatsoever for his success. I am saying that he runs a great operation. He has 50,000 of the happiest chooks I have ever seen in my life. He has these magnificent dogs which actually, I believe, are brought up to believe they are a chicken and they defend the chickens from cats and they keep everything away from the chickens. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may not believe this but, if I went into one of those pens with these chickens—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Acting like a chook.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I might be okay in that case, but if I went in there as myself, I would be torn to pieces because they would recognise I was not a chicken.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Anyway, I am just making the point that they are great dogs. They are moranos, I believe, if I am not mistaken.

An honourable member: Maremmas.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Maremmas. They are great looking dogs, but do not pat them, Madam Deputy Speaker, unless you are dressed in a chicken suit. The other thing is that there were some comments made by the deputy leader about mayor Bates. The comments were something like this: ‘Mayor Bates shouldn’t have been involved in the conversation as a member of KIFA.’ At the risk of getting into something that was explored in Summer Heights High about fine and not fine, the fact is that if we had not involved the council directly in something, that would have been not fine because everyone would have said, ‘Why didn’t you involve the council?’ Now we do involve the council and it is not fine because you involved the council. It is an interesting debating point.

Then there is the conspiracy theory, the bit about the draft plan. This is the bit about the Apollo 11 landing being filmed in Universal Studios and all that sort of stuff. We have been down this path before: it is nonsense.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: It could have been ‘Draft 51’.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, Area 51 and Roswell and God knows what else. The last point is that the member for Bragg, rather menacingly, said that if there does turn out to be a draft plan, which I assure you there is not, but if there does, she would ‘not be happy’. The only observation I can make about that is that most times when I am in here, she does not appear to be happy anyway, so it would be hard to tell the difference. I assure her that there is no draft plan. I am not holding something in my back pocket. The whole point is that this thing will evolve out of the community from which it comes.

All of that said, I would like to say that I do believe that in particular the member for Goyder has tried to focus on an issue which is, from his point of view, concerning. I give credit to him and fundamentally, obviously, to the member for Finniss and the member for Bragg. At the kernel of all of that elaborate eight hours of conversation there is a legitimate concern about something, and I acknowledge that.

I say to all of you who are concerned I do not think you should be. This is not designed as some sinister plot to cause damage to the Kangaroo Island community. If this is as useless as people opposite say it is, it will do no harm—

Ms Chapman: Except waste $6 million.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —and if it is as useful as we believe it is, it will be a very good investment in a part of South Australia which could do with a little bit more attention from the state government.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J R. Rau.

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