HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

OUTBACK COMMUNITIES (ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 April 2009. Page 1893.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:37): On behalf of opposition members involved, I thank the minister and the departmental officers for briefings on the bill. The Outback is often described as the essence of Australia. In spite of the fact that 90 per cent of Australia's population lives on the coastal fringe and well away from the Outback, the region has a central place in Australian identity. In 1906, Dorothea Mackeller evoked the Outback when she wrote, in part:

I love a sunburnt country,

A land of sweeping plains,

Of ragged mountain ranges,

Of droughts and flooding rains.

The people of the Outback are not known for sentimentalism. They know they have chosen a home where life will have challenges. The harshness of the environment, the sparseness of the population and the vastness of the region means that many of the services people in the city take for granted are not available in the Outback.

In consulting on this bill I encountered recurring themes. On the one hand, residents know they will not get the same level of services available in urban centres, but they do expect basic essential services and they know that education and health in particular are basic essential services. On the other hand, they do not think they should have to pay for services they do not get.

In this bill the government is proposing to reform the Outback Areas Community Development Trust to provide a high level of services and to increase the resources available for services in the Outback. Before I address what is proposed, I will outline what is proposed to be replaced. The Outback Areas Community Development Trust is a statutory authority established under the Outback Areas Community Development Trust Act 1978, and it is under the control and direction of the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. The trust has jurisdiction in those parts of South Australia which are not covered by local government—that is, 65 per cent of the state in the Far North—and which are home to some 5,000 people living in 33 communities and scattered across pastoral leases.

A primary purpose in setting up the trust in 1978 was to provide a mechanism through which commonwealth/local government funding could be attracted to the Outback areas of the state. The trust makes grants and loans to local community organisations, including for infrastructure. Local government in its traditional form has been seen as impractical in Outback areas because of the diverse nature of localities, the small populations and practical difficulties in holding elections and enforcing the imposition of rates.

The trust has five members and two deputy members, all of whom are appointed by the Governor. There are 36 community organisations, also known as progress associations, at 33 different locations. With the exception of the Woomera board, these organisations are incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 and, subject to the act and the rules of the individual organisation, community associations deal with personal and real property.

Membership of and election to each organisation's governing body vary according to its constitution. All office bearers are voluntary. The day-to-day operations and decision making of individual community organisations are independent from those of the trust. Each organisation determines its local needs and project priorities and, where human resources allow, maintains facilities and services and undertakes town clean-up and management roles.

Through the use of community affairs, resourcing and management agreements, the trust works with each community to assist with funding for operations, development and infrastructure projects. The Outback continues to grow with exciting mineral and tourism developments providing both exciting opportunities and significant challenges. There is no doubt that some Outback communities are struggling under these pressures. The government also asserts that the trust does not have sufficient powers to deal effectively with many of the problems experienced by the communities or to raise sufficient revenues to support those efforts.

On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we believe that something needs to be done—but not anything, and not this bill in its current form. Following general consultation in 2007, the government released a draft bill in February, but the government did not seek responses to the draft bill. The letter from the minister, dated 6 February 2009, with a salutation, 'Dear Resident', presented a fait accompli. The letter purported to release the bill for information; it did not even seek input. The bill was tabled in this council in April 2009. I note that the Local Government Association issued a circular (7.12), entitled 'New authority to replace the Outback Areas Community Development Trust', which in part states:

The minister is not seeking submissions on the bill, but if there are matters arising from the new proposals which the LGA should draw to the minister's attention, please provide comment, etc., etc.

The opposition believes in consultation. I contacted a number of individuals and organisations and discussed the issues at length with local Liberal Party parliamentary members and candidates Graham Gunn, Dan van Holst Pellekaan and Chad Oldfield. The question this council must ask is: was the consultation on this bill adequate? In answer to that question, I would like to provide an overview of some of the responses I received to the consultation efforts that I made. For example, a communication from Oodnadatta states:

The new legislation has not been described to [our progress association] despite the OACDT visit, so it's a bit hard to comment. It would be easy to say that anything we got would have to be better than the current arrangement, which is riddled with intrigues, lazy and sloppy services and unwarranted interference, without attention to our real challenges, coupled with an insistence that we are required to volunteer in order to achieve living standards 50 per cent of city dwellers. Our [association] was not referred to in forming new legislation despite our very long history.

Another separate communication states:

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

The very first we heard about it was by sheer accident several weeks ago. I happened to be searching on the internet for something entirely unrelated and came across a comment that led me to look into this matter and subsequently came across the proposed legislation. I immediately printed off multiple copies and passed them around to every resident of this town for their views, and the result was a resounding 100 per cent objection to the proposed bill and the people behind it.

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

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

I put it to the council that there has not been adequate consultation with respect to this bill. How can we put in place a form of local government for the Outback areas that will be fundamental to the future prospects of our Outback communities without adequately engaging those communities? How can the government credibly say that it has consulted on this bill when the draft bill was not even part of that consultation process?

I turn now to outline the proposed new authority. The bill proposes to replace the trust with an Outback communities authority with seven members appointed by the Governor, at least three of whom must be from different Outback communities. The role of the authority, as I understand it, would be to undertake increased strategic and planning roles involving community consultation. Through that role, the authority would develop five year strategic plans for the region, annual business plans and budgets, including region wide revenue raising through an asset sustaining levy and community resourcing and management agreements (a type of service level agreement with community organisations), all with community consultation.

The authority would also exercise power under elements of the Local Government Act. The authority would provide essential services such as waste management and community projects, funded through a mix of government grants and community or direct beneficiary contributions. The authority would maintain developments and standards and controls, such as the regulation and use of caravans or vehicles for habitation, and also maintain community amenity standards, such as local noise, unauthorised dumping, roaming animals, unsafe buildings and littered allotments.

The bill enables the authority to levy two types of charges, and both need to be approved by the minister. First, the bill envisages an asset sustainability levy—a fixed charge across the Outback communities authority area—to fund public service and facilities in Outback communities, such as airstrips, infrastructure for the UHF repeater network and toilets. We are advised that the levy will be based on an independent audit of the costs of maintaining those assets across Outback communities.

Secondly, the authority will be authorised to levy a local community contribution: a fixed charge on a particular community for services and projects for the benefit of that community, as specified in the community affairs resourcing and management agreement agreed with that community.

I indicate that the opposition has concerns about this bill and will be seeking to amend it. First, the opposition is of the view that, although we agree with the government that Outback areas are experiencing significant challenges, we consider that some of the changes proposed are just as likely to exacerbate the problem than to alleviate them.

The revenue raising element of the bill, not surprisingly, is proving to be most controversial. The message I have received repeatedly from people in the Outback is that, while they are frustrated about the lack of services and infrastructure in the Outback, they are angry about the government proposal. The government will expect local residents to do the hard lifting to both develop and maintain infrastructure. Their view is that people in other parts of the state are only being asked to fund the maintenance of infrastructure while they are being asked to raise funds to address a long-term backlog and meet current and future needs and provide for ongoing maintenance. To illustrate this point, I refer to a letter written by a mother living in the Outback, as follows:

Hi Stephen,

I have read the bill and am less than impressed...I am very concerned that Outback communities are going to be funded on a population basis, which is totally unacceptable for Outback regions. Outback communities have been slowly dying for a long time and this bill seems to me to be aiding that process. Outback people should be encouraged and empowered to bring their communities together and work at making them a better place for our children, not have it governed by an authority that will have no real understanding of the community. How could they possibly have an understanding of 30 communities? Outback communities differ so much, we have tourist rich communities and we have communities that no-one would even stop at. Shouldn't it be the communities that have no facilities be the ones receiving funding for facilities? Why is it that I cannot take my children into our community town and play tennis with them? In a world that is combating obesity and promoting healthy living why are so many children and adults deprived of such opportunities? Simply because of a smaller population? Good luck to anyone who wishes to tell a mother her children are not as important as one who lives in a larger centre.

In order to illustrate the stresses on communities, I would like to highlight the situation in Andamooka. Andamooka is a name which derives from the Aboriginal word for waterhole. It was discovered by John McDouall Stuart in June 1858. Opal was first discovered in the area by 1926 by two dam sinkers, Shepherd and Brooks. The population grew strongly in the 1940s and 1950s, and the town was gazetted on 16 December 1976. No thanks to this government, in the 1980s Roxby Downs was established some 35 kilometres from Andamooka.

Andamooka now has a population of 800 to 900 people, about half of whom work at BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine near Roxby Downs, particularly as contractors. The local progress association is the Andamooka Progress and Opal Miners Association (commonly referred to as APOMA). I visited Andamooka and met with President Peter Allen to discuss this bill and the challenges faced by his community. I thank Peter for his hospitality and time but, more importantly, I pay tribute to the leadership, energy and commitment that Peter is showing as President of APOMA.

Like a number of communities, Andamooka is under stress in terms of municipal services and amenities. In an article in a recent edition of the Adelaide Review, Bill Nicholas portrays the town as a law-free zone. The article states:

Other residents' issues at Andamooka include rubbish (you can't charge for rubbish dumping because they'll just dump it in the nearest mine shaft.), water is reticulated on the back of a truck and TV reception is lousy. The local pool, donated by a rich opal miner, is being strangled by red tape. It has to have super-qualified resuscitation staff on hand for a few kids to have a dip, the cost of which is becoming prohibitive. Roads don't have official names—they're all ironically called Government Road—and there's always lively debate if the APOMA chief wants to spend any money on grading or preventive road maintenance.

APOMA maintains a hall and state-listed heritage cottages, which serve as a local tourist attraction. The association runs a camping ground and uses volunteers to run a rubbish tip. There is a need for more municipal services, such as footpaths and street lights, particularly in the central part of town.

I understand that the local volunteers running the town give in excess of 60 hours per week to serve the town. They love the town, but they know that that level of commitment is not sustainable. They know that they need to get services on to a sustainable basis in order to ensure the town's prosperity going forward. The town does have some paid support and the government has promised to employ a community manager, but my discussions with local people suggest that there may be a need for up to four full-time equivalent staff at Andamooka, not one.

I will interpose on my discussion on the Andamooka situation by referring to input from the Iron Knob Progress Association. Its correspondence focuses on the issue of municipal services, and it is one of the associations that welcomed the bill. The letter states:

For many years we have suffered from not having the teeth to deal with such issues as community health and safety, illegal dumping and deliberately littered allotments. With reference to the last, we have a resident who located here from [a regional town] after being advised that he had to get rid of his old wrecks of cars which were considered a health hazard. He brought the lot to Iron Knob and we have been unable to get assistance to stop him. He is currently filling [a] block…with broken down wrecks and car bodies. We do know that there are those who will raise some opposition to the bill because they do not want to make contributions or because they may have some personal agenda. This bill should not be blocked for reasons of self-interest. We fully support the bill and the proposed levies and urge the Liberals to get behind it and bring all communities within the unincorporated areas into the real world.

The letter is signed by Bryan Lock on behalf of the Iron Knob Progress Association. Clearly, Andamooka, Iron Knob and other communities are facing real challenges in terms of municipal-type services and powers.

Returning to Andamooka, Andamooka is typical of the Outback communities. It lacks essential services and infrastructure. Water is carted; waste water is managed on properties. Considering the town is built on a hill, there is real concern that, as the town expands, waste water will not be able to be contained. No roads within the town are bituminised; electricity is provided by a private provider.

My understanding is that the portfolio of infrastructure projects needing investment in Andamooka alone would cost well over $30 million. I was very disturbed to hear that the local efforts to quantify infrastructure needs had been discouraged by the government.

Roxby Downs and the Olympic Dam mine are some 35 kilometres from Andamooka. The prospect of an expansion of Olympic Dam is both an opportunity and a risk for Andamooka. Andamooka may well see a 50 per cent to 100 per cent increase in population as a result of an expansion of Olympic Dam.

The current stresses in municipal services and infrastructure are likely to become acute. In this context I think it is worth revisiting the 1982 response to the initial EIS which stated:

Andamooka residents sought a general upgrading of services (such as power and water supplies, road and airstrip), the retention of existing school and, in the event of the town becoming an attraction to Olympic Dam residents, the appointment of an additional police officer. However, these requests involve actions by government authorities rather than by joint venturers.

Seventeen years later, the words could have been written yesterday.

As we look forward to the prospect of a significant expansion of the Olympic Dam mine, I think it is very important that we take into account the impact on the Andamooka community of any expansion. One of the options would be for the Andamooka community to become part of the Roxby Downs local government district. However, my consultation has made it clear that the Andamooka community is not attracted to that option. The communities are substantially different in their history, population and character.

However, there may well be scope for shared local services. Even though the minister did not seek input from the Local Government Association, it did offer advice and, in this respect, it is relevant to this issue of communities located near local government districts. The Local Government Association said:

In light of the shared interests that prevail between adjacent Councils and the Authority, the LGA would like to propose that the Bill include a provision aimed at encouraging consultation and partnerships between the Authority and Local Government, particularly in relation to the potential for shared services. For example, adjacent Councils may be in a position to provide some services, such as development controls, by-law/animal control enforcement and infrastructure management, among other things. These types of arrangements, based on a fee for service, could effectively lower costs for the Authority.

Andamooka is a community facing great challenges. It is the opposition's view that for Andamooka and other communities this bill in its current form raises expectations and offers hope which is far from secure. It will offer nowhere near the level of resources needed to develop municipal services or deal with the infrastructure backlog.

Further, the Liberal Party is concerned that the governance model put forward by this bill is flawed. The bill changes the trust into a pseudo local government with very significant powers. The authority's revenue raising capacity is very broad. The form and quantum of the levies is ill-defined. On the other hand, the authority facing infrastructure challenges and a minister facing funding pressures would be unconstrained in putting unsustainable fees on the Outback communities. I fear that the government is underestimating the tendency for Outback residents to value independence highly and freedom from government control. I received a letter from a resident of the Manna Hill community which states:

There are a total of 9 people that live in the township of Manna Hill. 6 of those 9 people are either aged pensioners or infirmed. To sum it up, in literally ½ a century of living, working and helping people in the remote areas of this country, I, along with most other true outback residents have managed quite successfully to survive without the guidance and self propagating levys, rates, taxes of the proposed Legislation. It may even be said that we have survived because we did not have their guidance and taxes. This will not help outback residents, it will DESTROY them.

A defining issue of the American Revolution is that people should not be subject to taxation without representation. By analogy, the people of the Outback should not be subject to community levies or regional levies without participating in the decision-making. The government could argue that there are lots of taxes which are lost in general revenue and not subject to democratic control. However, I would argue that the matters covered in this bill are matters which, for other South Australians, are for local government and that, for those South Australians, they are subject to democratic local government elections. By analogy, these levies should be subject to democratic mechanisms whenever possible.

The minister may argue that as a minister in a democratically elected government she fulfils that democratic role. However, she is not accountable to the people of the Outback and the people of the Outback alone. South Australians in local government areas have councils focused on their needs and they are accountable to them and to them alone. South Australia's Outback communities are entitled to a similar right to the best of our ability.

Given the unique circumstances of the Outback, the democratic mechanisms for the authority are likely to be unique. The opposition will propose amendments that require that only former or current residents of the Outback be voting members of the authority. Members of the authority will be appointed by the minister but on nomination by individuals or associations of the regions.

Nomination practices may well develop over time which facilitate distinctively Outback responses to delivering democratic outcomes. For example, it may well be that progress associations form clusters for the purpose of nominating an authority member, and, if that were to occur, you would expect the minister's appointment process to regard such nominations with due weight. It is vital that the people of the Outback control their own local government and that the authority should have a clear role to advocate for the Outback. It cannot fulfil that role if it is controlled by the minister.

The government is not offering any assurance that grant funding will be maintained, whether state or federal. The challenge to Outback communities is that they need to know that any future arrangements will not give either the commonwealth or the state government the excuse to pull back one iota of grant funding in supporting the development of the region.

Another problem with the proposal is that there is no commitment to increase staff to meet the increased planning tasks and enforcement roles. The trust team is small, and it is based in Port Augusta. I have no doubt that it will need to be supplemented to deliver the expansion of functions envisaged in this bill. For example, enforcement of a single breach of community amenity, such as the untidy block at Iron Knob that I referred to earlier, may require a series of visits to establish a breach of the law, to serve a notice and to enforce the law. When the team of staff is small and operates over 600,000 square kilometres, they will need supplementation. If they were not understaffed under the proposal, they must be overstaffed currently.

In concluding my second reading contribution, I will put a number of questions to the minister, which I would appreciate the minister answering in the summing up of the second reading debate or, if it is more convenient for her, in the committee stage. The questions are:

1. Can the minister outline the stages of the consultation leading to this bill and the information that was available at each stage? In particular, when were communities and residents given the opportunity to comment on the prospect of an asset sustainability levy and a community contribution? Further, to whom was the minister's letter of 6 February sent?

2. Will the government give a commitment to at least maintain the prevailing levels of state government capital and recurrent funding to the Outback region?

3. Will the government increase the staffing of the authority to ensure that it has the staff to undertake the increased planning and enforcement roles?

4. Will the government undertake an assessment of the Andamooka community infrastructure needs, particularly in the context of the prospect of the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine?

5. Considering that the bill moves the trust into more of a statutory authority status, what discussions has the government had with the commonwealth as to whether the changes to the trust will have any impact on the commonwealth's relationship with the trust or authority, in particular the capacity of the authority to be regarded as a local government-type body for the purposes of receiving local government grants and for the participation of authority members or staff to be involved in commonwealth consultation processes?

6. Under the bill, does the minister have the power to override a community proposal if the minister considers that the proposal is not in the long-term interests of the community?

In summary, I indicate to the council that the opposition has taken the view that this bill cannot be supported as it stands. The proposal is not in the best interests of South Australians living in the Outback and is not an appropriate alternative model of local government for the state. We will be moving a series of amendments, which we believe highlight the weaknesses of the bill in this regard.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:06): First, I advise that I am grateful to the minister's office for providing me with some preliminary help to assist Family First to understand the context under which this bill will operate. I advise the council that Family First supports the second reading of this bill. We support the change of name from 'Outback Areas' to 'Outback Communities' in recognition that there are communities out there. The government has advised us that it recognises this fact and that the focus on the communities has been paramount in our giving support.

As the minister has acknowledged in her correspondence with my office, 33 communities are represented by 36 progress associations or similar community volunteer groups. Although the combined population of the communities is small (maybe fewer than 10,000 in total) and has a significant indigenous component, these communities are no less important or significant than other towns or suburbs, and they deserve basic and essential services.

Under this bill, the Outback Areas Community Development Trust will be replaced by an authority. I put on the record that, whilst we support the intent of the bill, as for trust, one sometimes wonders who you can trust—and I am reminded of George in the RAA ads. The Housing Trust is no longer a trust and, arguably, cannot be trusted to live up to the original Playford principle of a trust for the public good.

There also might be a good reason to 'break with past arrangements', as the minister said in her second reading explanation, but I hope the government does a better job of living within the spirit of why the trust was created rather than what has happened with the Housing SA name, its management intent and policy direction compared with when it was the Housing Trust.

I acknowledge the volunteers of the communities who have given so much. Family First is well aware that, if it were not for volunteers, South Australians would not be able to enjoy community life in the way we do. People are out there every day providing support to their neighbours, friends, communities and districts, and this is particularly the case in remote Outback communities, where they often do not have some of the infrastructure, facilities and services provided in the metropolitan areas of Adelaide. So, I place on record my acknowledgment of the importance of those volunteers and the great work they do.

I also acknowledge that the government, in introducing this bill, is trying to look after volunteers by relieving them of their administrative burden as they deliver increasingly important and complex essential services. We support the government in this, but we also say to the government that, whilst it is good to relieve volunteers of their administrative burden, it is equally as important that the government of the day listens to volunteers and uses them as a sounding board and delivers the services and requirements that volunteers raise with government agencies.

I will place on notice questions I have for the minister. I will put my questions on the Hansard record for the minister's staff to look at because Family First would like answers to the questions before we move to the committee stage.

First, on the question of road maintenance, we have been referred to the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI), but will the minister (via DTEI) outline for honourable members the road maintenance budget for the existing trust area? The minister explained that some community associations have responsibility for water delivery, whereas others rely on SA Water. Will the minister in a tabled answer outline for all the communities which case applies and where SA Water is providing water delivery since that service began; what funding the state government provides directly or via SA Water to those communities for water delivery; and what methods of water delivery are in place for those communities?

I do not apologise for those questions because water is a scarce and precious resource in our state, particularly in outback areas, and it is important that the parliament keeps a focus on sustainable water supply for the whole of the state, including those areas.

My next question is: what regional impact assessment has been done on this policy change? I believe there was a strong and passionate argument put by the government years ago that these assessments would occur, so I ask the minister to advise whether the Office of Regional Affairs has signed off on this policy.

With respect to technology, it is pleasing to see that the bill includes the capacity for the new authority to meet via telephone or internet linkup as a legitimate meeting of the authority. In this way, the tyranny of massive distances can be overcome using the internet, but I ask how clause 10(8) will work in that instance where a meeting is required to be a public meeting. Perhaps a website will have to be established with an open chat facility so that members of the public can attend. The implementation of that is something for the minister to think about.

Family First would like to know whether the remuneration of the chair and the committee members will change and what will be the reimbursement arrangements for committee members who have to travel to meetings. Lastly, I ask a question about rates. What rates are currently charged in the form of council rates or their equivalent and what are the proposed rates for the coming financial year?

With those questions having been put on notice to the minister, I indicate Family First's support for the second reading, and I look forward to the committee stage when we will receive some answers.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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