HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

OUTBACK COMMUNITIES (ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 June 2009. Page 2628.)

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (11:54): Outside this chamber I have expressed to the minister that I am fundamentally opposed to this legislation on the grounds of social justice, nothing more or less. My colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade has amply articulated the concerns of the Liberal Party as to why and how this bill, if it becomes law, will impact adversely on the 30-odd small communities in the South Australian Outback. I wish to focus more on those people who live in the Outback of South Australia but who do not live in a community at all: those who live in extremely isolated circumstances on our pastoral lands.

This bill is an attempt to set up de facto local government across those lands, involving those people, without of course providing them with any of the services that go with local government. As we all know, local government provides services and imposes regulation on those who live in a local government district. Ratepayers elect their representatives and pay rates for services provided. In the case of this legislation, Outback residents will be required to pay rates and a flat levy across everyone. Two types of levies are to be imposed with this piece of legislation: first, a flat levy against everyone who lives in the Outback; and, secondly, a levy to be generated by the small communities. We should not imagine that anyone who lives in the Outback will escape this piece of legislation.

In the case of this legislation, Outback residents will be required to pay rates, a levy, for no services, and they will not have the privilege of electing their representatives, either. Rather, their representatives will be appointed by the minister of the day and they will have no say at all. If the experience of natural resource management boards is anything to go on, at least five years of these levies will be spent on producing business plans for each of the small communities and nothing will be spent on actual on-ground works.

This is a two-pronged process of levies. The first that I will address is a flat rate to be decided by the minister and levied across the whole of the Outback, and this is the one that bothers me most. We know that Outback people choose to live where they do, but they are the caretakers of this vast land. They care for the land and produce a disproportionate amount of this state's export wealth, and we who choose to live in comfort are glad they do. In return, do they have access to subsidised public transport? No! Do they have access to public schooling? No! In fact, I have spoken at another time of parents paying up to $1,200 per month to have access to online distance education so that they themselves can teach their children or, if they cannot do that, they can pay a governess out of their own pocket so that their children are not too far behind when they pay, out of their own pocket again, for their children to go to boarding school.

Do they have access to health services? No! But, if they are lucky, they can prepare an airstrip at their own cost and, if it is of sufficient standard, the RFDS will come in an emergency. If they are really privileged the RFDS may conduct a clinic once a month or so. Do they have access to decent roads? No, they do not. I am trying to illustrate that these people do not have access to what we southerners would regard as basic services. They are in many ways disadvantaged.

South Australians previously have always acknowledged this by providing what meagre services there are from general revenue and, of course, these people already pay their taxes, their pastoral levies—pay, pay and pay. The cost of everything they have is more expensive than it is here: for example, groceries, petrol, freight, and so on, are all much more expensive. All their costs are exponentially higher than they are here.

This bill is being sold under the guise that more services will be provided because more money will be coming in, but I will be interested to hear whether the minister answers the Hon. Stephen Wade's questions on this matter. Will the government commit to maintaining current funding at actual levels or will this levy, by stealth, gradually—drip by drip—replace government funding? Will these people in the Outback in fact be expected to pay for their own services out of their own pockets—an additional impost at a time when a lot of them have suffered drought over many years? I fear the latter.

The second sales pitch is about the second levy. As I said, it is to be imposed at a local level for local projects to be decided by what are currently the voluntary progress associations. These people are being told that they will be given regulatory teeth with this legislation. But do they really want this power if, in fact, they will spend the next four or five years wrapped up in bureaucratic claptrap devising plans in triplicate—because that is what will happen? Many of these tiny communities are fiercely independent. They do not conform, and they do not particularly want to. They survive in spite of governments, not because of them, and I am concerned that they have no idea of what life will be like if they are forced to conform.

In the case of the residents of Iron Knob, which was quoted as one of the small communities that wants this legislation, they live right next door to the local government area of Whyalla, and it would be very easy for them to be annexed within the local government area of Whyalla. However, Whyalla does not want them, because the cost of running a small community is greater than the rates that the Whyalla community can extract. If that is the case for an industrial city like Whyalla, how can we then expect Iron Knob to extract sufficient rates to run its own affairs? It is not going to happen.

I think these people have been sold a pup. At the very least, my colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade will be attempting to move some amendments that will make the system a little more representative. For instance, we will be seeking to make the majority on the authority people who have real and tangible ties to the Outback, and we will be seeking to have independent oversight over the extent of the levy. We will also be seeking to move the bill closer to local government, where residents choose their representatives. However, in the end, if it looks bad and it smells bad it probably is bad. As far as I am concerned, this legislation is ugly and it stinks.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (12:02): I rise to support and commend the comments of the Hon. Stephen Wade and the Hon. Caroline Schaefer with respect to this legislation and replicate many of their concerns. This bill (and, indeed, the current Outback Areas Community Development Trust Act) covers a large number of diverse communities across the Outback in the vast area of the state that is not covered by local government bodies.

I think it is worthwhile to put on the record the currently active progress associations that represent and advocate for those communities. As I run through the list, those of us who have moved around the state will notice the wide variance in those bodies. Those associations are: Andamooka, Aroona (which is based at Copley), Beltana, Blinman, Bookabie, Coorabie, Copley, Dunjiba (which is at Oodnadatta), Eastern Districts, Fowlers Bay, Gawler Ranges, Glendambo, Innamincka, Iron Knob (which was mentioned by my colleague the Hon. Caroline Schaefer a minute or so ago), Kingoonya, Leigh Creek, Lyndhurst, Manna Hill, Marla, Marree, Mintabie, North East District, Olary, Oodnadatta, Parachilna, Penong, Pimba, Tarcoola, William Creek, Woomera and Yunta.

The PRESIDENT: Buckleboo?

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I think Buckleboo is in a local government area, Mr President. As indicated by the Hon. Mr Wade and the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, there are varying views from some groups about the best way forward regarding governance and service delivery for Outback communities. During the committee stage, the Liberal Party will, first, seek commitments to maintain grant funding; to increase authority staffing; to undertake the increased planning and enforcement roles; and to assess Andamooka's infrastructure needs.

Secondly, we will seek to move amendments to require an independent audit of an asset sustainability levy before it is imposed rather than after. Thirdly, we will move amendments to require each levy or contribution to be tabled in and disallowable by each house of parliament. Fourthly, we will move amendments that require that all five voting members of the authority are residents of the region and are appointed by the minister from nominations by clusters of progress associations, with provision for up to two non-voting members of the authority.

At this point, I should emphasise the view of the opposition that the introduction of levies should not be accompanied by any cut in state government funding. I have noted Appendix 8 in the Outback Areas Community Development Trust 2007-08 Annual Report, which lists the trust's contribution to joint initiatives. I have some questions relating to those contributions, and I would be grateful if the minister could respond to them in the committee stage.

Currently, the Outback Areas Community Development Trust contributes the following to the Northern Regional Development Board (and I recognise that these are 2007-08 figures): $17,926 in resource agreement funding; $1,500 for marketing and participation funding; $5,000 for northern economic development officers; $5,000 for the central northern development officer; $10,000 for the emerging industries officer; $10,000 for the Outback emerging industries officer; $3,000 for marketing for cattle drive events; and $5,000 for the Leigh Creek Service Centre. My question in relation to those contributions is: what impact will the change from regional development board and area consultative committee to the new Regional Development Australia network have on these funding levels?

Further contributions made by the trust include those to Flinders Ranges Outback SA Tourism, otherwise known as FROSAT: cooperative marketing agreement, $20,000; four-wheel drive brochure, $4,000; and Outback photo shoot, $1,000. There is a contribution to Tourism Eyre Peninsula of cooperative marketing funds, $8,000; and the Eyre Regional Development Board resource agreement funding, $5,000. Once again, my question relates to whether that will remain under the new Regional Development Australia arrangements.

In addition, the trust contributes $5,000 for an Outback Connect project to the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology, and $1,500 to Lifeline Central for a volunteer training contribution. Some of those things may be projects that are no longer happening, but I would appreciate advice about any changes. So, overall, what, if any, changes to these relative contribution levels will result from the new legislation if it is enacted?

In conclusion, I commend the board of the trust for its contribution to the communities within its jurisdiction. In my view, it is vital that the voting membership of the board should all be residents of the area served by it. I also commend the staff of the trust. I might say that it is a lean but efficient unit that works well for the various communities, despite the tyranny of distance.

I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. In addition, Mr President, I expect that, as someone who has worked in and is committed to Outback areas, you will also take great interest in the analysis of the bill. I would also take this opportunity to congratulate you, sir, on your impending 60th birthday. Best wishes.

The PRESIDENT: It is the 39th!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Mr President, I would never have guessed. By way of concluding remarks, I would like to thank all those honourable members who have contributed to the second reading debate for their comments, and I take this opportunity to address some of the issues and questions that were raised during that debate.

This bill sets a new framework for governance in the unincorporated areas of South Australia. As the members who spoke to the bill yesterday in this place quite rightly stated, it is the government's intention that the new legislation will replace the Outback Areas Community Development Trust 1978.

Why is there a need for change? Under the current arrangements, local administration is primarily undertaken by volunteer progress associations in individual Outback communities, with the assistance and advice of the Outback Areas Community Development Trust. The roles of the volunteers who make up these progress associations cannot be overstated. I hold these people in high regard and have such high admiration for them. Their commitment, hard work and relentless selflessness is critical to the way these communities operate and to the long-term sustainability and integrity of these communities. They are amazing people. I have met quite a number of them since I have become minister, and they are wonderful people who have extended a great deal of hospitality to me, which I also appreciate.

In recent years, however, these organisations have taken on responsibility for the management and maintenance of essential services and infrastructure, such as aerodromes and water supplies. The roles and responsibilities of volunteer progress associations are becoming increasingly complex, particularly with risk management and insurance compliance matters. Volunteer burnout, the lack of capacity or capability to perform certain functions within some communities, and the over-reliance on one-off grant funding clearly creates further challenges and pressures for these communities.

This bill has been developed in recognition of and with encouragement from these volunteers, to assist them in their role as community leaders. Communities at all levels have come to expect a more strategic approach to governance, and rightly so. These changes too have influenced the government's thinking in arriving at the proposals being laid before the council. As these new economic and social challenges have arisen, and as the argument for more strategic and considered governance has gained wider currency, so has the case for a reappraisal of governance arrangements for Outback areas.

I will recap on how we arrived at this point, because I was, frankly, quite surprised at some of the assertions that were made in some of the second reading speeches. Following a visit to Outback communities in April 2007, my predecessor, as minister for state/local government relations, the Hon. Jennifer Rankine, whose contribution I acknowledge, initiated the preparation of this legislation.

In May 2007, a review of the operations and governance arrangements of the trust occurred. As part of the review, feedback on possible future governance options was sought by residents, community organisations, agencies and other key stakeholders. The community itself was widely engaged and consulted. In fact, all households—thousands; I do not have the figures—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: There are only 5,000 people in the in the community, in the region—thousands.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, all households. We were accused of not consulting adequately. It was truly the most outrageous comment I have heard. All households in the Outback regions were sent an issues paper (which canvassed these options), a questionnaire and an open invitation to participate in the review, including through community workshops at Yunta, Leigh Creek, two in Andamooka, Coober Pedy and Penong. Written responses were invited through to 20 July 2007.

Some key themes emerging from the engagement project and reflected in this bill include: the trust being seen as an advocate for the Outback, particularly in an advisory role to state agencies; more systematic consultation processes; support for the trust taking control of wider infrastructure issues, such as aerodromes; more streamlined strategic planning, budgeting and business planning processes; greater transparency and accountability in its operations; and broad recognition of the need for some form of local rating to help support the changes. These were the things that emerged from the consultation engagement process.

Drawing on these and other feedback, the government developed draft legislation. Workshop attendees and the many people who had registered an interest in the consultation process in 2007 were all sent the information on the draft bill, three information papers and a covering letter from me. These were emailed or posted by the staff of the Outback Areas Community Development Trust.

In addition, we also sent copies of this information to all progress associations; all councils that border the area administered by the Outback Areas Community Development Trust; the Local Government Association; regional associations, such as the Northern Regional Development Board; boards such as the NRM board and the Arid Lands NRM board; government agencies with an interest in the Outback; and other interested parties. I also requested that this information be placed on the trust's website and also on that of the department. In addition to that—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think it might still have been Jennifer's. It wasn't mine by then.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: No; your photo's on the website.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank goodness; I'm pleased. In addition to this, a range of newspaper advertisements were placed in the Stock Journal and The Advertiser—we have consulted and consulted and consulted for years, but let me finish. The advertisements were placed in the Stock Journal, The Advertiser, The Flinders News, The Transcontinental, Coober Pedy News, Roxby Downs Sun, the Northern Sun, and the West Coast Sentinel to ensure that engagement reached the greatest number of people.

The mail-out information and the advertisements provided a very broad range of people with an opportunity to let me know of their concerns, and the concerns expressed have been very few. As I have said, it is simply outrageous to suggest that this government has not conducted a comprehensive consultation process throughout all households involved in the unincorporated areas and that we have not given every opportunity for interested parties to be engaged in an ongoing way in the development of these proposals.

It has already been placed on the record that the Outback Areas Community Development Trust supports this bill, and a number of other associations have also both verbalised and put in writing their support for the bill. That is not to say that every single individual in unincorporated areas, and outside, might have a different point of view about some of these matters. Very rarely can we obtain 100 per cent consensus on any matter, but to suggest that we have not consulted adequately is quite simply incorrect. To suggest that there is not generally overall support—I am not saying full consensus—for this bill and that it does not incorporate the sentiments engaged and the issues raised through that consultation process, again, is grossly inadequate and inaccurate.

Regarding revenue raising capacity, yesterday an honourable member discussed the very broad revenue raising powers. In fact, the revenue raising powers are quite narrow. The rationale for applying the asset sustainability levy is based on the idea of a shared community responsibility to contribute to the maintenance of existing public-use facilities and infrastructure in the Outback, just like all other ratepayers in the city and country council areas. So, to suggest that we were somehow placing a levy on infrastructure that does not occur in any other council area, again, is completely misleading. It similarly occurs in metropolitan council and regional council areas.

Funds collected from the levy would only partially cover the total cost of providing the prescribed services. The remaining costs would still be sourced from the commonwealth local government grant moneys, allocations sought by the Outback Communities Authority through the normal budget allocation process, and other specific commonwealth and state grants. This levy is not about providing funding for any perceived infrastructure backlog; rather, it is about contributing to the ongoing cost of the maintenance of existing infrastructure.

The trust has conducted an infrastructure audit and is currently finalising its asset management plan. The amount of the levy will be based on the annual cost of maintaining these assets and would apply to all properties, including pastoral leases, located within the Outback Communities Authority area—except for those uses of land currently exempt from council rates under the Local Government Act 1999—and would be applied as a fixed charge similar to a local government service charge. When completed, the audit will form the basis for consultation with all communities prior to any recommendation about the amount of the levy.

The bill also provides capacity for a community contribution scheme, a local user-pays system, to raise revenue for municipal-type services and activities. This will be done at the individual community level, so revenue will be expended only in that community. Obviously, each community is unique, so these schemes will be developed in consultation with individual communities but, unlike the general rates system, it will be applied only at the specific request of the individual community on which it is proposed to be levied.

The fact that the legislation will require the Outback Communities Authority to consult extensively on the strategic directions driving the use of its powers, on detailed business planning, and on the planned introduction of the asset sustainability levy, should serve to further allay any concerns and ensure that the community is fully informed of and provided with ample opportunity to contribute to the manner and direction of its governance.

I believe there was a question about whether there was currently an arrangement for residents to pay rates. I am advised that residents contribute through voluntary levies in some communities, fundraising, through committing time and effort, and through grant applications, but not through a structured rating system.

The honourable member who spoke yesterday addressed the issue of membership of the authority and representation, and I can advise that the current act is silent on representation. In developing the appropriate membership of the authority, we need to strike a balance between people who live and work in the Outback and people who have skills and expertise in strategic planning and governance for the whole of the Outback. Obviously, specific legal and financial expertise is also something at which we are particularly looking.

Staffing of the trust currently consists of seven full-time positions, with one position vacant. I am advised that that position is likely to be filled in the near future. The government, through officers in the Department of Planning and Local Government, and in particular the Office for State/Local Government Relations, is supporting the existing staff of the trust in working through these proposed new governance measures. No change in staffing levels is currently being contemplated; however, this will be a matter for the authority itself to consider and to provide advice to me as minister. Obviously I will continue to monitor that and receive advice from the authority.

In terms of the assessment of community infrastructure needs in Andamooka, the immediate focus is on making sure that the existing infrastructure is being maintained. The trust manager has advised that the community infrastructure asset management plans for existing infrastructure have commenced not only for Andamooka but also for other communities. There is already a community asset register for Andamooka, Blinman, Iron Knob, Marree, Oodnadatta, Parachilna, Yunta and Copley. I am advised that the finalisation of these infrastructure asset management plans is being discussed with the consultant this week. Future needs will be included and worked through as part of the new authority's strategic planning process.

In relation to grant funding, security of funding is obviously a very important issue, and I can assure members that before embarking on the review process officers sought assurances from the commonwealth that funding arrangements would not change. In terms of commonwealth/local government financial assistance grants, the Outback Areas Community Development Trust is already recognised as a local government authority for the purpose of receiving these grants, so that remains unchanged.

State government funding contributions are factored into the forward estimates, and I see no reason for any change in that regard. As members would be aware, financial commitments are generally not made outside the budgetary process; however, as a general principle the levies are intended to generate additional income, not provide a vehicle for cost shifting. I can certainly put that commitment on the record.

Once again, I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I am happy to address questions that I have not answered to date as part of clause 1 in the committee stage. I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.


[Sitting suspended from 12:30 to 14:17]


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