HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-10-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Research, Development and Innovation Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2017.)

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (17:49): I rise to speak on the Research, Development and Innovation Bill, noting I have tabled an amendment for a sunset clause so that (1) this act expires on the fifth anniversary of its commencement, and (2) research and development declaration in force immediately before the expiry of this act under subsection (1) ceases to be in force at that expiry.

This is an interesting bill to be put before the house. We did get a briefing from the government, and I appreciate that. On this side of the house we are all for research, development and innovation here in South Australia. I believe very strongly that we need to be doing all we can to take South Australia forward and to create opportunities for our state and the people of our state in the future.

I was just over at Adelaide University's expo today, where engineering and science students were displaying their projects for the year, what they have been working on. It was absolutely outstanding to see the wonderful young people we have in South Australia in this example, the great minds they have, their thinking and innovation, and the opportunity it presents for these young people to do wonderful things in the world. I believe very strongly that it is our position, in this place, to make sure that we generate that opportunity for these young people. We need to do all we can to make sure we have a place and a space that allows these people to perform and show their wares on the world stage. To that end, on this side of the house we are very supportive of anything to do with research, development and innovation.

When we look at this bill there are a couple of concerns and some things that we can flesh out in the committee stage. I quote the Attorney's explanation, which outlines:

The Governor must not make a research and development declaration unless satisfied that it is appropriate having regard to:

whether the project or activity is consistent with the objects and purposes of the act;

whether the applicant possesses the relevant skills, experience or capacity to give proper effect to the project or activity;

whether the project or activity is on balance in the public interest; and

whether any risks identified in respect of the project or activity can be appropriately eliminated or minimised; and

whether there is a risk of loss, harm, or other detriment to the community if the project or activity does or does not occur.

Further, the Governor must not make a research and development declaration unless the Governor considers that doing so will not give rise to any adverse effects to public health or to the environment. Finally, a research and development declaration may not dis-apply or modify the application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

What the government wants to do with this bill is be able to nullify bills currently in place to allow someone to go ahead with research and development or with an innovative project they might have. There are some other steps that I will talk through in a moment and, as I said, flesh them out in the committee stage but, fundamentally, that is why this bill is put together.

We had the autonomous car legislation come through this place. It was talked about for a long time and, in fact, I think its passage through here was quite swift. We were very supportive of that, and said, 'Let's go. Let's get this thing happening.' We need to find all the jobs we can here in South Australia; as I said earlier, we need to create an environment that allows for innovation at every turn and allows for new industries to be unearthed. So we moved on that very, very swiftly.

However, there are a couple of concerns with this legislation. When we had the briefing with the government we asked what the intentions were with this bill, what did we want to do here. They said that fundamentally they wanted to keep it very open-ended so that it could capture opportunities in the future. We understand, as they say, that the jobs of the future, in 20 or 30 years, probably have not been invented yet, but is it good legislation to put legislation forward for things that we do not know or are not aware of? We understand the potential advantage the government is looking at, and we are looking to be proactive on this front and want to be supportive of that proactivity, but there are some checks and balances that need to be put in place.

When we had the briefing we were told that it was to be proactive and so the question that followed was: what things are in the pipeline, what are these innovative, development and research opportunities that sit in the pipeline? Sadly, the response was, 'Well, there's nothing there. We are doing this just in case.' That was an interesting response. We said, 'Well, surely someone is talking to you about something, stakeholders out there who are saying this would be really good.' They said, 'No, no-one was really banging the door down to have this done.' Then you look across the board and ask, 'If we put this in place, who is it going to impact and how is it going to work and which stakeholders have you spoken to?'

I did get a response to that, and I can list all the stakeholders. They are all government stakeholders: the Department of State Development, Health Industries South Australia, PIRSA, the Department of Environment, the EPA, DPTI, Investment Attraction South Australia, Defence SA, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, SA Health, the Department for Education and Child Development, and SA Water. It was all an internal conversation; there was no external conversation.

That was a little bit alarming and, again, it is something that we want to follow through. We might ask more about it in the committee stage. Fundamentally, as I said, we on this side of the chamber are very supportive of the idea of this bill to attract research, innovation and development, and we want to make these things happen as fast as possible. We on this side believe that we need to create these opportunities for the next generation and for all the people of South Australia. We believe we have some very intelligent people in South Australia and we want to make sure that they can ply their wares here as opposed to being sucked to the eastern seaboard, as happens so often.

I went through the research and development declaration, which is what part of the bill does, to have the Governor, on the recommendation of the minister, declare the mechanism to temporarily suspend, modify or dis-apply laws that would otherwise prohibit the pursuit of the innovative, research and development proposal. I also asked about the elements of how this may play out, who may put this in place, and I asked whether we could be given an example. Again, there are no new examples on the horizon. We are only referred to the example of the driverless car legislation. Again, the point goes back to the fact that that legislation was put in place and, once it came here, it was able to be moved through very quickly, specific to that task. That is something we want to be very conscious of.

In the Attorney's second reading explanation, he also talked about councils being involved and the fact that councils must be considered in this conversation. That is something that is very important in allowing this to go ahead. When we had a chat and a briefing with the department, we asked whether the LGA had been consulted on this and again the answer was no. We trust that a bit more work has been done in that area as far as consultation is concerned.

The other part to this is that if this legislation were enacted and a project did go ahead, a report to parliament would happen, but the report would be optional, which was interesting as well. It was only if the outcome were advantageous or positive or in the affirmative, if you like, that it would be reported to parliament. If it was a failure and did not work, then there was no obligation to report this to parliament. Again, that is something that we would like to explore.

All in all, this piece of legislation has the right intentions, but will it give the right outcomes? That is our real concern. We know this government is very big on inputs and not so big on outputs, and outputs are really what we need to be looking at in South Australia. On this side, we believe very much that it is the people of South Australia and the opportunities that we can give them that will take this state forward. That is the real key to what we need to be doing here. I again quote from the Attorney's second reading explanation:

Before making a recommendation to the Governor to make a declaration, the minister is required to consult with other ministers if the proposed declaration relates to an act the administration of which is the responsibility of that other minister. The minister is also required to consult with any council the minister considers would be particularly affected by the proposed declaration. It is also a requirement for the minister to publish a proposed research and development declaration inviting comment from affected persons.

We are intrigued to know where that will be published and how that will play out. Again, we will find out more when we go through the committee stage.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:29.

Mr WINGARD: I continue after the dinner interval, and I would like to recap where we were with this bill just before we left. Again, I stress the point that on our side of the house we are very supportive of innovation, development and research to help grow jobs and create opportunities for people in South Australia, for some of the great minds that we have just been hearing about. I will refer to a few of those we were listening to in our dinner break.

The bill that the government have introduced and the legislation that they have put forward have, as we said, a proactive element about them, much like the driverless car experience. There is an upside to that, but there are also some concerns. As we said, an applicant may make a request for a research and development declaration to be made by the Governor. On the recommendation of the minister, the application for the declaration may, to the extent that the Governor considers it necessary for the purposes of the project or activity, provide that an act or provision of the act does not apply, or applies with specific modifications.

The Governor must not make a decision unless the Governor considers that doing so will not give rise to any adverse effects to public health or the environment. A declaration must not dis-apply or modify the application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988. The research and development declaration is limited to an initial maximum operation of 18 months in special circumstances, and an extension for a further 18 months may be granted. In the committee stage we might find out from the minister how he foresees the enactment of this. Questions remain about how the bill will be managed and how well it will fulfil its purpose of reducing red tape and overcoming regulatory barriers.

On this side of the house, it is always our focus to reduce red tape and regulation to make sure that the great, innovative minds we have in South Australia can get ahead. I have already mentioned some of the questions that we would like to raise regarding what industries have been targeted, the public interest, at what stage of the declaration application the additional conditions or requirements will be considered and what penalties will apply for noncompliance.

While I am on innovation and science, I have a great opportunity to point to the federal government's innovation agenda, which is about promoting innovation and entrepreneurship across all sectors, supporting the economy's transition and providing more job opportunities for Australia. That is what I have been speaking about quite a bit in my speech tonight because that is what is important. I believe very strongly that we need to be doing all we can to put legislation in place to create opportunities for young people to be able to get in and have a go and do great things.

Where South Australia will be strong, and where South Australia is strong, is in the great and very intelligent people we have in this state. I mentioned before that I was at the Adelaide University ingenuity afternoon. Some of the young people we saw putting on their displays there were absolutely outstanding. There were a couple of groups that had some really great ideas. One group of guys was doing 3D photographs of people, and within a matter of seconds you could get a 3D photograph of yourself done. I questioned how accurate it was. I thought I had put on a few kilos, but they assured me it was spot on, so I am going to have to go to the gym and start doing some more work.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No more schnitzels.

Mr WINGARD: You are right: there probably were too many schnitzels in there, and my kids will remind me of that tonight when I get home. We spoke for a minute and we said, 'Where are the applications for this? How can we commercialise this, and where can we go?' They started talking about the health industry and the fitness industry, again, when they were reminding me of how I had had too many schnitzels. Then we talked about the fashion industry and they reeled off other industries that really could use this sort of application. So this is the opportunity that is before us.

I believe very strongly that we have the people here in this state, and we just need to create the opportunities to allow these wonderful minds to flourish and take what they know and have learned to the world, because that is where the opportunities are. That is very much our focus on this side of the house. We spoke to some other people who were doing some wave research, which was absolutely fantastic, too. They spent a bit of time at Carrickalinga and designed a few models and improved on the prototype that was put before them by a company that was looking to work in this area.

Another thing that was most notable was the analysis of data and the ability to use the ICT sector and computers and analyse data to get the benefit out of the big use of this sort of information. The more information they could get and the more data they could put into their systems, the more accurate the outcomes they could devise. These young people were just amazing and I think the opportunities that lie before us in this area, as I said, are absolutely outstanding.

I would like to mention some other people who have done a marvellous job and I met with, coincidentally, during the tea break. We had dinner with Dr Kate Fennell, who is involved with innovation in rural and remote health and mental health. She is absolutely outstanding. Again, it is just that other way you can think about doing things. She pointed out farmers' mental health and the fact that it is a very significant issue. She has devoted her time and study to this issue. She is actually the niece of Graham Gunn, who was a member here before my time, but, again, you would have crossed over with him—

Mr Snelling: A good member.

Mr WINGARD: The member for Playford mentions that Graham Gunn was a good member and I am sure, like most of us on this side, that he was. I am sure the member for Playford is a good member as well, knocking on doors in his community, no doubt.

An interesting stat, which came from Dr Kate Fennell, was that patients are 35 per cent more likely to die post-cancer diagnosis if they are in the country—again, the member for Playford, as a former health minister, would probably be aware of that stat—and this is why she has devoted her time to helping people in rural areas with cancer find ways to get the services and support they need to help them with their illness.

She has a Winnovation Award. In 2012, she put together the Country Cancer Support website, which I think was just a fantastic idea. She is about to release a YouTube channel with rural cancer stories and peer support for people out there in their homes who want to know what is going on and who want to see what other people have been through by sharing these experiences. That is launching next month and is another innovative way to reach out to people in the regions.

Finally, there is the ifarmwell website, which is about to be launched, which looks at coping mechanisms for people with mental health issues in that space. I am told the website is going to go live in January. It could go live now but, being harvest time, they figured no-one is around. Dr Fennell has also been awarded the Churchill Fellowship, which will allow her to look at rural cancer patients overseas and some of the online tools that are working over there to find ways that we can bring them back and fit them into our society.

One of the things she talked about was virtual reality and how we could potentially use this to fit in with some of the innovative things that she is doing. She made a very good point—again, the member for Playford will be interested in this—that they actually do have some videos and that the things they have filmed already are from the old RAH.

Now they are saying to these patients who live in remote areas that potentially getting a look at the new RAH could be a good way to appease them and make them comfortable with what is happening in the new hospital. I am sure the member for Playford will be keen to pursue that as well and help out. I think it would be a really great idea, as we move this forward, to get videos and/or potentially some virtual reality through this innovative health system, filming what is happening in the new RAH.

I had a wonderful conversation with Caitlin Byrt from the Waite Research Institute about the work she has been doing to help major food crops, like wheat, to cross-cultivate traditional wheat with older cousins so they could get more durable qualities to improve the yield of the crop. She is working with wheat here in Australia, but talked about doing work with tomatoes in Spain, grape growers for better wine production and better barley production as well to improve the quality of beer. I see again a smile on the face of the member for Playford. Not only will it improve the processing but it will also improve the quality, so that is absolutely fantastic.

Creating these crops that are tolerant and grown in sea water is another agricultural advance. Now they are looking at ways to commercialise all these aspects, and there are some great things moving forward in this space. Innovation is vital right across the board, no matter which way you look at it. Most people think that innovation is just about apps, or whatever it might be, but we can see from a couple of these examples that we have great people here in South Australia. I believe very strongly that they are the way forward for our state, and creating the right environment to unleash them and to take their great ideas to the world is what is going to take our state forward.

We are hoping that this bill is going to do that. I did mention my amendment right at the start of my speech that will make this just that little bit better. However, whilst the intent is good, we want to make sure it actually happens and we get ahead and we can harness the great skills of all those people to help take South Australia forward, lift us off the bottom of the ladder and get good things happening in South Australia.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (19:40): I will make a short contribution to this bill because research, development and innovation is one of my passions. It is about how we can move with the times and how we can make this state and the world a better place. It is about moving with the times. Obviously, the electorate of Chaffey is always looking for research opportunities and most of the research opportunities that have been supported by government over many years have, sadly, slowly disappeared. The onus is now put back on to the man on the land, the farmer, who has to stump up the time and the cash and search for the intellectual property or the intellectual know-how on how they are going to achieve both research and development and how they are actually going to move forward.

The legislation will enable the government to temporarily suspend, modify or dis-apply laws that would otherwise prohibit the pursuit of an innovative research and development proposal. An applicant may make a request for a research and development declaration to be made by the Governor on the recommendation of a minister. The application for the declaration may, to the extent that the Governor considers it necessary for the purpose of the project or activity, provide that an act, or the provisions of an act, do not apply or apply with specific modifications. The Governor must not make declarations unless the Governor considers that doing so will give rise to any adverse effects to public health or the environment. A declaration must not dis-apply or modify the application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

A research and development declaration is limited to an initial maximum operation of 18 months. In special circumstances, a further 18-month extension may be granted. As I understand it, we will be asking a number of questions around the bill in the committee stage. I would like to take the opportunity to speak about research within my portfolio of health industries. We have seen a great growth in health and biomedical precincts and research. You only have to look to the west end of North Terrace to see the magnificent investment that the federal government and the universities have made there to bring South Australia in line with the great medical research institutions around the world, with the capacity to do what we need to do at the SAHMRI building.

It is not just the SAHMRI building: we have SAHMRI 1 and we have SAHMRI 2 coming along. We also have the university hubs that are looking to do great work. It is a little bit like the ingenuity showcased in student projects today at the Adelaide Convention Centre. I was lucky enough to go and have a look at some of the great engineering, computer and mathematical sciences projects that are underway there. One that really got my attention was the solar challenge, in which the University of Adelaide had a vehicle. They were really up against it. The Germans had the latest photovoltaic cell technology and were using technology that is used in satellites. They were using technology that most students would only dream of having, because money is no object to the Germans.

What I saw today was passion. I looked at visualising flood scenarios and into support, communication and decision-making. That is very dear to my heart because those flood scenarios are really going to play a huge part in my electorate of Chaffey. Having the River Murray running through and having the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will mean that we are going to see man-made water events.

Those man-made floods will send a shiver up the spine of some landowners. I know that most governments, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Water For Nature and a lot of those groups that are going to manage and send those flood scenarios down the river will watch with a very careful eye because of insurance claims and liability. A man-made flood is not a natural event. That will mean that any man-made scenario will be met with some legal challenges. I think that is a sad state of affairs because what we are looking for is an outcome which is an environmental benefit, and that is obviously underpinned by the basin plan itself.

With regard to health care, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and biomedical devices and industries, I was talking to some funds managers today. They came in and visited me. They see this as one of the areas that investor groups are looking to put money into—people who are looking to be on the forefront of new technology and investment portfolios. Not only health services but medical devices will be one of the big ticket items.

I think we are positioned beautifully in South Australia, particularly with the health precinct at the west end of North Terrace. The South Australian health and biomedical precinct is likely to become one of the largest health precincts in the Southern Hemisphere. The government is always looking for silver bullets to fix our economy. I do not think this is a silver bullet, but I do think it is one of the great pieces of the puzzle that we will use to ensure we put investment into research and development within the health care and biotechnology area.

I also want to speak a little about some of the start-up businesses I have recently met with that are doing wonderful work. SKIN Tissue Engineering at the University of South Australia is a leading start-up in South Australia. It is a biotechnology company which is focused on delivering a global paradigm shift in burns and wound care. I have been there and had a look. It is amazing technology. People who suffer horrific burns or horrific injuries through car accidents or some form of unfortunate workplace injury do not have to have all that skin taken off their back or another part of their body; the tissue culture is developed in a lab.

The work it is doing is just outstanding. It was founded by Julian Burton OAM and Professor John E. Greenwood AM. Through the development of these innovative products, SKIN will remove the need for skin grafts forever. In most instances, for those people who have had skin grafts or know people who have had skin grafts, the most painful part is having skin removed from another part of your body so that you can have the skin graft performed.

At present, severe burns and wounds are treated with traditional bilayer skin grafts, where a piece of healthy skin the size of the burn is taken from a donor site and grafted over the affected area. With SKIN Tissue Engineering and the pioneering process they are doing, they will replace that. They will be growing a patient's own composite cultured skin in the lab and then it will be used on the wound or the burn. The patient's own cells are isolated from a small graft cultured separately before being seeded and grown in a biodegradable matrix that produces bilayer skin ready for grafting over the burn.

As I said, it is not just about burns; it is also about wounds. I saw some of the most horrific photographs during presentations at the University of South Australia and it showed me what they can do. It is making that process much easier and safer, and it is turning the corner when it comes to rehabilitation, which is much faster. It is also giving those people who have already been through the most horrific pain the opportunity to recover and have this skin product put over their wounds and burns.

Over 28 days, there will be enough skin growth to cover an entire adult. I think we are on the frontier of some great technology. The two major impacts will be in patients with smaller deep burns injuries. Conventional skin grafting results in the creation of donor sites. The donor sites are excruciatingly painful, as I have said. You only have to burn the end of your finger to know it is extremely painful. You burn it a bit more and you get a blister, and that hurts badly. Imagine burning some of the precious parts of your body—not just your hands, which are hardened, but your feet or your legs. These inpatients with extensive deep burns and donor sites—they are scarce and extremely painful.

We look back a number of years to the number of people who were victims of the horrific Bali bombings. We look back at the people who were in pain. History tells us that their minds and thought processes are scarred forever, not only because of the pain they have gone through; it leaves mental scarring. Dr Greenwood and Julian Burton were brought together through the tragedy of the Bali bombings, where 202 people lost their lives and many more suffered horrific injuries.

I have seen people with very serious burns. I myself received quite serious leg burns while competing in a water ski race. I was in a boat and the engine exploded, sending out hot oil and bits of engine which burnt my legs. The hot engine parts also went into my legs and left some nasty injuries, so I do understand what burns mean. I understand the pain that comes as part and parcel with burns.

Fortunately, I was not burned enough to need skin grafts. I was flicked out of the boat when it happened so I was able to get into very cold river water. Without being dismissive, I was able to tip cold beer onto my leg until the esky was dry, and that is what helped save the condition of my legs until the paramedics got there and I was admitted to hospital.

I think Dr Greenwood and Julian Burton ought to be congratulated because they are bringing to the forefront what we can do to deal with horrific burns and injuries that people are currently dealing with. Dr Greenwood led the Royal Adelaide Hospital burns emergency response unit to the Royal Darwin Hospital, where he helped in the recovery and evacuation process after the Bali bombings.

The South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) is South Australia's first independent, flagship health and medical research institute. The federal government allocated $200 million to build the iconic research facility, which will significantly increase Australia's capacity for leading scientific research by bringing together teams of top researchers in a world-class precinct of medical research and clinical application, state-of-the-art laboratories and a purpose-built, iconic, 25,000 square-metre facility adjacent to what we now know as the NRAH. SAHMRI is a collaboration with the state government, South Australia’s three major universities and the CSIRO to provide resources to researchers across the state.

I will touch on some of the research and development, particularly in the agriculture sector. What I saw today down at the Convention Centre was absolutely outstanding. The member for Mitchell has already highlighted some of the great work those university students are undertaking, but what I saw down there today was the ability of young minds to think outside the square. These young minds are not confined by old thinking: they have this fluid thinking that anything is achievable. I looked at all sorts of technology, all sorts of means of using a free mind, whether it is electric vehicles, whether it is looking at simulation on any front, or whether it is looking at simulating mine activity.

I looked at one of the latest mines in South Australia, that is, Carrapateena. One of the great cost burdens for the Carrapateena mine is that, with the overburden, when they mine the material a lot of the less productive material shakes on down through all the very valuable ores—the way they are processing that, the way they separate the less valuable from the more valuable—and they were telling me that, over the course of that mine, it could save over $1 billion, so it puts $1 billion back into the value of the mine.

We look at some of the other motion, non-friction capacity to pump and agitate liquids. I saw the virtual flood scenarios, and I am sure that the member for Mitchell has told us all about some of the other great achievements the University of Adelaide students have achieved. Everyone I spoke to, particularly the solar challenge vehicle students, was so enthusiastic because they see opportunity, they see themselves as being part of the future here in South Australia and they see themselves as being part of making South Australia a great research hub of the world.

I have spoken extensively about the opportunities in health, and I have spoken a little bit about agriculture and, of course, I cannot not mention the rebirth of the Loxton Research Centre, which is an outstanding achievement. Through the SARMS, the federal government money through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan implementation with SARMS, and the state government are administering that money, they have put money into some of the commodities there so that we can look at how we can be more competitive on a world stage.

We look at almonds, at citrus and at stone fruit and we look at the application of bringing dried fruit back into a bigger, more competitive world. We can look at new varieties, we look at new irrigation technology and we look at the way we address our soils. We look at vehicles on farm now, the autonomous vehicles—no drivers. For many years, people have said, 'Oh, yeah, how can that happen?' but now we are seeing more and more of that technology coming in. It is not about using GPS tracking: it is about using satellite technology so that we can steer our vehicles, we can understand our soils and we can understand application on those soils. It is about that technology saving us money and making us more globally competitive.

I know a great family in the Mallee, the McNeil family—Jock and Digby are the boys, Swinger is the father—and they are bringing technology to the forefront. The equipment they have on their farm now is all infrared, so they are spraying only the weeds, not just broadacre spraying the ground or anything that does not move. They are saving hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on the application of herbicide. The protein measure they put in their harvesters is another way of bringing technology to a farm to make it more globally competitive, to gain more for their bottom line. It is an outstanding achievement.

Many farms in the district of the Mallee—north Mallee, south Mallee, the upper region of the Riverland—are starting to embrace this technology. I think it is absolutely outstanding. There is intensive row crop farming and driverless tractors. Using satellite technology, they will put certain applications of sprays on certain areas of the property. They will put nutrient only where it is needed. That is a huge saving when it comes to being globally competitive. It is a huge saving when it comes to the bottom line of those farmers. It will make us more competitive and it will put us on a much higher level when we come to sell that technology and that product. Without further ado, I will be very interested to hear the member for Mitchell's questions on this bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (20:00): Can I thank those who contributed to the debate. I am pleased that we have an indication of broad support from the opposition. I appreciate that. We will deal with the particular matters raised in the amendment in due course, although I can indicate that, for reasons I will go into if need be, I do not believe that the particular amendment being suggested is actually necessary. We can deal with that shortly.

The member for Mitchell in particular posed the question: what, in particular, is in mind for this bill? The answer is that, at the moment, there is nothing in particular in mind for this bill. However, what is in mind is that, if South Australia wishes to be a destination where people who are interested in research and development want to go, it is very important that we stick up our advertising, in the whole global range of options that are there, as an environment that is ready, willing and able to work with research and development teams to enable them to realise outcomes associated with technology, which in turn, we hope, will translate into jobs for South Australians. I think the member for Mitchell shares that aspiration.

Rather than looking at this bill in terms of what in particular this bill is about, I would prefer to put it in these terms: this bill is as much as anything a very loud signal to anybody in the research and development game anywhere in the world that we are available, we are open for business and we want you to talk to us, and then let them come to us. Ideally, sure, if we also have local developers or entrepreneurs who are coming up with ideas and they are bumping up against regulatory issues that we can accommodate through this type of mechanism, then by all means let us help them as well.

This is about making South Australia have a marketing edge as a destination for research and development opportunities. That is what it is about. It is not about me or the government having a particular project in mind. Can I say also that it is probably useful to see this bill as another step in the direction that the parliament embraced a little while ago with the data analytics legislation we put through. We now have probably the most advanced data analytics legislation in the country, and we are already in a position where we are having quite positive conversations with the federal government about being a venue for testing or piloting a whole range of data analytics-based projects. Why? Because we already have a legislative framework that enables us to do that.

At the time that bill went through, I think I said that one day people will look back at some point in time and say that that was a very important piece of legislation we put through. I am very confident that this also will sit in the same space. The combination of those two is a fantastic marketing proposition for South Australia to a global marketplace for research and development. What I want to be able to do, and what I would like every member in the parliament to be able to do, is, if we get this bill passed, I would like everybody to be able to speak to anybody.

I was listening to the member for Chaffey talking about all the different industries that he has been looking at. Wouldn't it be terrific if, when he is speaking to those people, the member for Chaffey could drop on the table, 'Here's what we can do in South Australia to help you develop your latest products. This will supercharge your ability to market your state as a place where difficult things can be achieved, because there is a willingness and an open-mindedness about the way we look at these opportunities'? As I said, I am very grateful that there is an indication of support. This bill basically enables us to jump to the front of the research and development queue globally, not just within Australia, and I think that is something that we should be embracing and grabbing hold of with both hands.

In terms of the process, I was concerned, as I know some members may be. I think the member for Chaffey may have touched on the question of process, and the member for Mitchell certainly did. It leads in to the member for Mitchell's amendment. The process is basically this, if you think about it. The first question is: do they have something innovative that meets with the objects of the act and is not otherwise excluded? Let us pick on something that everyone picks on these days because people can get their head around it: driverless vehicles.

It does not have to be driverless vehicles; it could be some innovation in agriculture that requires a temporary relaxation of certain regulations in agriculture, obviously with certain safeguards around it. If there was a problem with people having driverless tractors running around farms because there was no driver in control of the vehicle, this is the sort of thing you could utilise to say, 'Look, we're doing a test program on that and, for the purposes of that program, the Murray Mallee or the Riverland is the designated precinct that is going to be the test zone,' and within that zone we suspend for the time being the requirement that these vehicles—provided they are doing this and that—have a driver in control of the vehicle at all times, for example.

It does not have to be about driverless vehicles. It could be testing biotechnology issues. It could be testing anything. I have deliberately not sought to make this specific because I have no idea what might come through the door. I want this to be as flexible and versatile as possible. The process is this. It has to meet with the objects of the act. It has to be something that a person cannot do anyway using regular arrangements, short of getting the parliament to enact a specific act just for them. It has to then go through a process of being scrutinised by the cabinet.

Can I assure members here that every minister who sits around the cabinet table would look at one of these proposals very carefully with a view to asking: 'Is the agency for which I am responsible strongly committed to or opposed to this for whatever reason?' That is the first filter: each agency would be using their minister to scrutinise what this thing is looking like as it comes to cabinet. It then has to go from cabinet to the Governor. It then has to come to the parliament, where either house of parliament can kill it. So we have multiple layers of security.

Let us be frank about this: in any foreseeable period in the future, it is unlikely that whoever happens to be in government will have a majority in both houses. So there is that final parliamentary capacity to wipe it out. Then, even if it gets through all of that, it is only for a maximum term of 18 months and there can only be one extension, if any, which has to go through the same process, and that can only be for 18 months, after which no extension is possible and you either change the rulebook in an orthodox way or you do not.

Coming back to the original point, I have been very encouraged by what I have heard from the members opposite about their willingness to see the potential for South Australia to be a place where innovation, research and development and all the job potential that hangs off that may occur. I have to say that I am very encouraged by those sentiments. I am happy, obviously, to deal with any questions that might arise from this in the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr WINGARD: The minister said that he does not anticipate any industries jumping onto this straightaway. I noted in his speech that he said that he sees it more as a marketing edge, but part of clause 3(c) states 'increase employment and economic opportunities for the State and South Australians'. With the increase in employment, how many jobs are anticipated to be created by this act? Has a figure been modelled or calculated?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it has not because obviously we do not know what we do not know, and I am not going to go—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: It is early—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, in deference to everybody, and in the hope that it means we will all finish early, I will not quote Donald Rumsfeld. What I will do, though, is mention what I have been trying to do to stimulate conversation that might be of use to us. Obviously, I can only do this to indicate that I have introduced the bill; I cannot indicate that it has passed because it has not yet.

Recently, in an attempt to alert people who might be interested in this matter, I sent a short note, enclosing a copy of the bill, to the following people and, without naming them, they include: the managing director of Google in Australia; the country manager of Amazon in Australia; the managing director, Australia and New Zealand, of Apple; Tesla, Australia and New Zealand; the chief executive officer of Hills Ltd, a local outfit; the managing director of Microsoft Australia; Samsung Electronics, South-East Asia and Oceania; and the managing director of Facebook for Australia and New Zealand.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think a number of them are, but you distract me. Even though we have not even got the bill through, I am trying to at least excite some interest in those types of—

Ms CHAPMAN: I hope you didn't send them a copy of your speech—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I think I spared them my speech. For reasons of not wanting to embarrass anybody, and not to be tactless, I will not say who at the moment—I am happy to discuss that—but at least one of those has already responded by saying, 'We are actually quite interested in knowing a little bit more about what you people are up to.' So it is early days. I am not going to give some bold prediction about jobs; I genuinely do not know, but I do know that if we do not have a go we will not get anything. This is a no-regrets move.

Mr WINGARD: I understand your marketing edge that you have just described there, but do you have a guesstimate of when you might get your first request, as you have hinted, and when this act might be first implemented? Given that we are looking at the bill, when might the act be first implemented?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is difficult to say with any certainty, and I will not even attempt to guess, but the way I would see this unfolding would be that, if we get this bill through, I would think every government agency in every interaction it has with business, with foreign business delegations and with our trade delegations would be throwing this out as one of the many things that we say are an advantage that this jurisdiction has to offer. Hopefully, we will find over the next year or so that interesting proposals come forward.

Whether or not a proposal that comes forward ultimately passes the test, again we would have to see, but I cannot make the point enough: if we do not take this step, we will never find out what potential this step might yield.

Mr WINGARD: I have a question on clause 3(e). I understand where you are coming from with this bill and the fact that it is very wide open, but I know that you will have also had public interest at heart. How will the public interest be protected and served in the process of making a declaration? Will there be an opportunity for the public to participate in the declaration application? Will they be notified of an impending application and have an opportunity to voice their concerns, if they have any, at the early stage?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A large part of the bill deals with process and consultation. We are obliged to consult with groups that are likely to be directly impacted. I will pick an obvious example—local government. If we were to be doing a driverless tractor test in the Riverland, we would have gone to speak to the councils there, obviously, because it affects them. We would not speak to the Adelaide city council, the council on Eyre Peninsula or somewhere else. We speak to the people who are on the ground.

If the test is geographically confined, that would tend to dictate the groups to whom you would speak. On the other hand, if it was a statewide test, you would go directly to the people because no particular local government area, for example, is probably any more or less impacted than any other. We have tried to build in that flexibility here, and the important point is: if anybody ultimately is unhappy about this, each chamber of the parliament has the capacity to veto one of these things before they actually get going. If it does get going, it can only go for 18 months before it expires, unless the whole process is done again, which again gives the parliament another chance to veto it.

I am confident that there is enough safeguard built into this. If it were going to be a permanent change to rules, that would be one thing, but we are talking here about temporary changes for a particular purpose, which expire come what may after, at the most, 18 months.

Mr WINGARD: Minister, you have jumped forward in your answer there to the consultation, so I will follow through with that. Have you consulted with the LGA and talked to them about this process, given that they are a stakeholder, as you mentioned?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I have not. To come back to my example, if we were in the member for Chaffey's electorate testing out—

Mr WINGARD: Overall.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes—why would I want to talk to the LGA when I could be talking to their council?

Mr WINGARD: To tell them what you are doing, to give them that bigger picture.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have—

The CHAIR: You must speak through the Chair. The Chair is insisting.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The CHAIR: I am the Chair at this point. I am a chair.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Are you?

The CHAIR: I am down here. I am Chair.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, Madam Chair, thank you. I have had informal discussions with representatives of the LGA because I meet with them reasonably frequently, but I would not pretend that I have got into detail with them because of what I just explained. If we were going to be testing a new agricultural device in the member for Chaffey's electorate, we would be talking directly to his council. We would not be waiting for the LGA to filter it through whatever committee they have. That is why we have specifically mentioned local government here because I wanted to make it clear to those people in local government that if we are going to be particularly affecting their area, they must be spoken to.

Clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr WINGARD: Clause 5(2) states:

A research and development declaration in respect of a project or activity may…

(b) impose conditions or other requirements that apply in respect of the project or activity.

What other conditions or requirements are likely to be imposed as part of a declaration?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is contemplating something where there are potentially two broad possibilities open. You want to do something innovative; you cannot do it because the law says for some reason you cannot do some bit of it. In that case, you are wanting to suspend something. However, there is another possibility as well, which might be that in order for you to do it, you need some framework within which to be able to do it.

That was intended to give us sufficient flexibility to both suspend some regulatory frameworks and also to create, for the purposes of this, some other framework, because it might be necessary, for instance, to build evaluation tools into the project, and you might want to make sure that those evaluation tools are not simply optional but mandatory. So you might use that provision to be able to bring things to the project which are not already there. It is not always necessarily about taking things away; it may also be about bringing things to the project.

Mr WINGARD: Who will create that framework and decide if and where it applies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The framework would be constructed as part of the process by which the declaration is made. If you are looking in clause 5, 5(1) says that the minister may recommend to the Governor that the Governor make a declaration; 5(2) says that the declaration can suspend or whatever or impose; 5(3) says that a condition or other requirement may include conditions, and it goes into what those conditions might be; then subclause (4) says what the Governor may not do under any circumstances in making one of these. As with clause 5, 6 says that in circumstances where all these criteria have been met it supersedes anything else for the term, obviously, only.

Then if you go to the next bit, 6 talks about what you need to do to commence that process. There are all these requirements there about what you have to provide in order to even get to the beginning of that process. So you have to provide detailed descriptions, you have to identify exactly what you are on about, you have to have a risk assessment, and all those things would be taken into account before the minister would even consider taking the recommendation that a declaration be made to cabinet, at which time all the other ministers would get to look at it and get a chance to comment. Then, even if that went past the Governor approving it, there is still an opportunity for either house of parliament to knock it off.

Mr WINGARD: As a result, what penalties will apply for noncompliance with a condition or regulation imposed as part of the declaration?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That would be a matter that could itself be dealt with to some extent. However, if you look at clause 15, that deals with offences for noncompliance with conditions or requirements. You see that a person who ignores a condition or requirement would do so at their considerable risk. There is a criminal sanction attached to that.

Mr WINGARD: In the same part, 5(4) provides:

The Governor must not make a research and development declaration in respect of a project or activity unless the Governor considers that the making of the declaration—

(a) is appropriate having regard to—

and then it lists five factors. Is it up to the applicant to ensure to the Governor or minister that they satisfy the requirements in clause 5?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, they are necessary preconditions before a valid declaration could be made. So if you do not get to tick all those boxes, you do not get to make a declaration. This is in 5(4). Sorry, are you still in 5(4)?

Mr WINGARD: In 5(4), yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, and then of course that is mentioned in 6(1)(a) as well. You fail on any of those, and the whole process stops; you do not get anywhere.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr WINGARD: Clause 7(2) provides:

...an applicant must, if requested to do so by the Minister, provide the Minister with a report from an independent expert relating to any matter relevant to the application specified by the Minister.

How long is it anticipated the application process will take from beginning to a declaration being made?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, it depends. If it were a relatively simple one, and the applicant had studiously gone through the bill and prepared themselves properly, it might be that the process of preparing a declaration, going to cabinet and so on might take a matter of months. If the applicant either failed to meet any of these or was inadequate in their response, and the minister had to go back and say, 'No, that's not good enough; go away and find some more. I want to know more about this,' it could go on for quite some time.

So it would depend on the competence and engagement of the applicant to a large degree. Above and beyond that, it would be a matter of how long bureaucratic process needs to take. There would have to be a necessary assessment of the application. There would need to be a cabinet submission, a cabinet decision, a determination by the Governor and then an opportunity for the parliament to either veto or not. So we are talking months, as a minimum, obviously, between start and finish, but I can easily see it could go a lot longer than that, particularly if the applicants have not got their act together.

Mr WINGARD: You mentioned that there was a stakeholder process, à la LGA, to be involved in this process. How will that play out? How will the LGA or a local council have their opportunity to speak out if they are not happy with some aspect of the process?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you have a look at clause 9, it says the minister must, before making a recommendation to the Governor—so this is right at the front end, not at the back—consult with any minister who has a portfolio that deals with that matter, and of course that minister would in turn have their own list of people to whom they would be going for their feedback; and any council that might be particularly affected, and we have already mentioned that; and we would be looking also to affected persons. Of course, there has to be the publication, under subclause (2) of clause 9, of the proposal anyway, which is a public consultation exercise.

So we have contemplated two levels of consultation here. One is targeted consultation, where the minister must seek people out, and another one is general consultation, where the minister advertises the fact that the declaration is coming, and anyone who wishes to comment may comment. Then, of course, if it goes through all of that, there is still the opportunity for people to lobby members of parliament before the parliamentary approval stage.

Mr WINGARD: Under clause 7, it would appear that the applicant may be required to provide quite extensive information at the request of the minister, which could be unexpected when the initial application is lodged. Are you concerned that this could be too top-heavy, too front-heavy, if you like?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not, provided the minister is sensible about what they are doing and has the objects of the act in mind. If you go back to clause 5, and you look at the things that might be very important for the minister to be satisfied about, like, for example, the risks to members of the public and so on, it might be entirely reasonable for the minister to go back and say, 'I want a risk assessment by an engineer,' for instance, 'about your proposal to see if members of the public are likely to be harmed by this'.

I think the reason we have clause 7 in there is to make sure that where there are those non-negotiable things, like a danger to the public and all that sort of stuff, the minister can actually not just have to accept whatever he or she is given; they can push back and say, 'Sorry, that's not quite good enough. I have an obligation, before I put this forward, to be satisfied that people aren't going to be hurt out of this, so I want more information about that.' I would hope that any sensible minister, in a position where these things are coming to them, would not unnecessarily burden an applicant. That would be completely counterproductive to the whole purpose of this.

Clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr WINGARD: I refer to subclause (1)(a), and I apologise, because the minister has gone over this a little bit. However, I seek clarification that the minister is very comfortable that in the case of the council (as the example) there is a front-end mechanism where they can get engaged in the process, and then there is the publication of a back-end mechanism, as he called it, to get engaged. Does the minister feel that all stakeholders will have an adequate opportunity to get involved early and/or, if the process goes on, they can get involved late to raise any concerns?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I do.

Mr WINGARD: I have a question regarding clause 9(2)(a). The minister must publish, as the minister sees fit, a proposed research and development declaration inviting affected persons to comment within a period allowed by the minister of not less than 28 days from the date of publication. What is anticipated as being a fit way of publishing the proposed declaration?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Bear in mind that we are talking about a publication under 1(b), which is a publication to affected people. As I mentioned earlier, in those circumstances the minister must take reasonable steps to attract their attention in a proactive way; whether that is writing to them, emailing them, whatever they might do, it is seeking them out in particular. That is different to 2(b), which is for the general public, where you would just put out an advertisement where any other person who does not necessarily, at first blush, appear to have any particular interest in this matter would still be given a chance to comment.

So again, in our hypothetical with the member for Chaffey's electorate, we would pick on the local government people there; clearly, they would have an interest. There might be farmers' groups in that area that we would write to directly, because clearly they would be directly interested in that matter. So there are two kinds of engagement going on.

Mr WINGARD: Further to that, how will people comment on the proposed declaration? You said that you would proactively contact them with an email or whatever it might be. Do you consider it adequate if you send them an email or a letter but they do not respond to it? Does that mean they have been engaged, or would you follow up and make sure they have responded?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: These things are all questions of degree, but obviously you would try to make a meaningful attempt to contact them. However, if someone is not interested or cannot be bothered it is not the minister's job to go up and knock on their door and shake them up and say, 'Write me a letter.' Obviously the minister would have to make reasonable efforts; if the minister did not make a reasonable effort to do that it would probably be a legal ground for challenging the validity of any declaration.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 19 passed.

New clause 20.

Mr WINGARD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wingard–1]—

Page 9, after line 25—After clause 19 insert:

20—Expiry of Act

(1) This Act expires on the fifth anniversary of its commencement.

(2) A research and development declaration in force immediately before the expiry of this Act under subsection (1) ceases to be in force at that expiry.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not support this because I think there are sufficient checks and balances in here. Another side effect of this thing would be that you might have something that is on track, having been the subject of quite extensive consultation and possibly expense on the part of an applicant, which will be chopped off by this in midstream.

I am opposing this, but if the member for Mitchell wants to have a chat to me between the houses I would certainly be amenable to having a review period or something built into this, so that the parliament or the minister has to review how things are going. I think that would actually be quite useful, because I think everyone would like to know how it is going. The review period should be a number of years. It should not be one year or two years. I think five years is probably a sensible review period. I would support that if that were acceptable to the member for Mitchell.

New clause negatived.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (20:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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