Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2014.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:35): I rise very briefly to speak on the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill. The bill proposes to establish a commissioner who will be a statutory officer responsible for coordinating and using existing public servants and programs in existing departments, but with a regionalisation of policy formation and service delivery. Amongst other things, the commissioner will have the power to establish local advisory boards, assist with improving the local economy of Kangaroo Island and helping to create employment and other opportunities from tourism or other industry programs on the island, and to develop management plans dealing with delivery of government projects and services to Kangaroo Island.

I have to say from the outset, like the Hon. David Ridgway and other members of the opposition, I am somewhat perplexed as to why we need a commissioner to fulfil the responsibilities of existing ministers and heads of departments. What the bill highlights is that, like many regional areas, the needs of Kangaroo Island, one of our most iconic tourist attractions, and the needs its residents have for many years have been ignored by the government. I am not talking about any fanciful or far-fetched wish list but about the timely delivery of basic essential services that residents can expect to receive in any given community.

Time and again we hear the government spruiking about a whole-of-government approach, yet time and time again we are confronted with examples where government ministers, government departments and government agencies do not seem to have any idea of what the other is doing. Put simply, the right hand is not talking to the left hand. Instead of focusing on establishing commissioners, this government needs to be ensuring that its ministers and its departments are doing the jobs they are tasked with in a coordinated approach. It is not rocket science!

Instead of spending more money on creating a new body, it would also have seemed more plausible to ask the question of whether some of these responsibilities could have been referred to the newly-appointed state Coordinator-General for action. I do not know whether any consideration was given to this, but I would ask that the minister provide some feedback on this question.

It would take quite a bit of convincing to get me to support this bill, not because I do not believe that Kangaroo Island does not warrant attention (or even extra attention), but because the government should already be ensuring that it is receiving the attention it deserves, much like our other regional districts. I have considered the opposition's amendments and I support the alternative measures that are being proposed.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:38): I speak today on behalf of Dignity for Disability against the second reading of this bill. Dignity for Disability does so after very careful consideration, and with appreciation of the support that the majority of Kangaroo Island residents in particular have expressed for this bill. I would like to thank the persons of Kangaroo Island for expressing those opinions, either to my office or publicly, and I certainly understand their perspective and that they want the very best for their island and for everyone who calls KI home.

I would particularly like to thank the mayor of Kangaroo Island, Ms Jayne Bates, for making the time to come and meet with me here at Parliament House, and also to Matt Kandelaars from the Deputy Premier's office for arranging a briefing with my office, and Kristina Roberts, the General Manager of the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority. However, in spite of these briefings and impassioned pleas to support this bill, and acknowledging once again that there are the numbers on this floor today to pass the bill regardless of Dignity for Disability's opposition, we cannot support the establishment of a Kangaroo Island commissioner.

Let me elaborate as to why. We cannot, on principle, support it at a cost to taxpayers of around $1 million, when the same government will not support the establishment of a disability services commissioner, nor enshrine in legislation a community visitor scheme for people with disability, nor pass other pieces of legislation to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our community living with disability.

The argument that Kangaroo Islanders have significant problems in integrating local, state and commonwealth government services may well be a very valid one, but I can assure you that the disability community has its own share of economic, social and systematic issues, and I would argue that they are far more serious. Given that one in five of us live with disability, I would argue that these issues affect more of us.

Kangaroo Island and its 4,600 residents (or thereabouts) are important members of the South Australian community—and I want to make that very clear—but they are not more important than the 300,000 South Australians with disabilities that range from mild to profound. According to the briefing my office received, 47 per cent of the 4,600 islanders currently live on the mainland. While poverty, illiteracy and the transport mobility challenges associated with living on an island are important, the fact that half of the islanders commute between the island and the mainland demonstrates, I believe, a reasonable level of wealth.

I am sure that people who are stuck on the island and those with disabilities, those with low literacy levels and those with limited job prospects need support but I do not know that a commissioner for Kangaroo Island is going to solve this, at least not alone. I think a management plan to thread the 1,000 plus services available could be established without a commissioner. I think relevant government services, whether it is the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) at commonwealth level, or the health department at a state level, or the Kangaroo Island Council for rubbish removal, for example, should provide relevant services in a relevant and collaborative manner.

I also note that I find this Kangaroo Island commissioner move particularly interesting, given that when I queried my colleague in this place, the Hon. Ian Hunter, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, about disability services or health services or education services for people in the APY lands, I am told that it is the Minister for Disability, say, not the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who is in charge of providing services. It seems that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is not responsible for ensuring that services provided to APY lands residents are done in an integrated fashion. Why then is it an appropriate answer for Kangaroo Island? Why isn't the Minister for Social Housing responsible for ensuring that KI housing is relevant to islander needs? Why isn't the disability minister charged with ensuring high standards of disability services are being provided on the island?

I call on members to also remember that some 45 per cent of people with disability currently live at or below the poverty line Australia-wide and that this same community is between four and seven times more likely to be sexually or physically abused in their lifetime than non-disabled peers. Kangaroo Islanders, as a whole, face no such shocking statistic, as far as I am aware. We need protections and commissioners in the disability community long before we establish a commissioner for one region of South Australia.

I think the potential vulnerability and social disadvantage of people with disability (in the Indigenous communities in particular) far outweighs the challenges that Kangaroo Island faces at this time and, for this reason, on behalf of Dignity for Disability, I cannot support this bill. I understand that this may be disappointing to some members here in the chamber today and to some members of the public, and I understand that I have a broad role as a member of parliament to represent, as best I can, the needs of all communities whom I do my best to represent. However, on certain issues, I believe that it is right for me to stand up and protect and attempt to enshrine the rights of my core constituency—that is, people with disabilities—and I do so today.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:45): I believe that there are no further contributions to the second reading and I thank honourable members for their contributions. We know that Kangaroo Island has been assessed as having an untapped potential as an internationally recognised tourism asset and also a premium agriculture producer.

We are well aware in this place, and it has been well documented, of the significant challenges that the island faces in terms of its population, access to transportation and infrastructure issues. They are serious challenges, and serious efforts need to be made to assist the island's sustainability. It has been proposed to establish a commissioner for Kangaroo Island. There are many examples of governance structures that could afford a whole-of-government approach to coordinating efforts on Kangaroo Island; however, in relation to timely delivery of government services, we have chosen this commissioner for Kangaroo Island model.

The commissioner will be a statutory officer responsible for coordinating and using existing public servants and programs in existing departments but with the regionalisation of policy formation and service delivery in accordance with set statutory functions. As outlined, the commissioner's principal administrative responsibility will be to develop management plans dealing with the delivery of government projects and services to the island, of course subject to extensive consultation with both government and the local community.

Again, I thank members for their second reading contributions and look forward to expediting this through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 3, lines 16 to 18 [clause 3, definition of responsible Minister, (c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

I have three groups of amendments to move. This is a test clause for a number of amendments relating to the role of council in the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill. The other two amendments are in relation to consultation with the local member and also a sunset clause, but I will deal with this one first.

It seems strange, Mr Chair, to the opposition that we have a democratically elected body on Kangaroo Island, that is, the local council—I know you have some property interests there and are good friends with a number of the local councillors—and that you would effectively allow this commissioner to override the council and take away that democratic right.

In a sense, it may have been better to do away with the council and have a commissioner and not have both. There seems to be duplication and, if you are going to have duplication, it is the opposition's view that council should not be able to be overridden by the Kangaroo Island commissioner. They have been democratically elected.

We are right in the middle of council elections and, as a matter of fact, I was looking at the percentages of votes cast across the state, and I think Kangaroo Island is doing as well as anywhere, if not a little bit better than some of the other areas, so the community is certainly interested in their local community and interested in having a voice.

Given that we are approaching 1 o'clock, I will not delay things any longer by speaking any more, other than to ask members to consider supporting this amendment because it will certainly allow the democratically-elected councillors to have a more significant role than if the bill is passed in its current form.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First has considered this amendment as part of the quite involved and in-depth consideration we had on the whole bill, and I advise the house that we cannot support this amendment because—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Democracy; you are stepping over it, crushing it.

The CHAIR: Order, the Hon. Mr Ridgway!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We cannot support this amendment and we will be voting with the government on this, and the reason is that the council has taken a lead role in supporting the whole concept of a KI commissioner. I have worked with a very broad range of people on Kangaroo Island on a very broad range of issues and no-one has come to me and said that they have any concern that local government is going to be undermined as a result of this bill.

In fact, the council, as I understand it—and I have had written and verbal correspondence with them—are strongly supportive. They are not at all fearful of the commissioner taking over. They want to work cooperatively and collaboratively with the commissioner and, because of the complexities and dynamics of Kangaroo Island, the fact remains that this council, as a small council with pretty significant demands on it, wants the support of the commissioner.

I would have to say that having worked with mayor Jayne Bates for years, she has been actively out there consulting with the community and working with her council—both with her councillors and the paid staff. I have confidence in the advice I have received from mayor Jayne Bates, and I believe that they are very satisfied with this clause as it stands.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I oppose the amendment. I think the Liberal Party's approach to this whole bill seems to be, 'It's our seat and we'll cry if we want to and that it's is not for the government to do something on Kangaroo Island because that is Liberal territory.' I cannot see any other rationale for the approach they are taking. We have here an amendment, we have the honourable Leader of the Opposition saying, 'You should not be creating a commissioner for Kangaroo Island,' and then in the same breath saying, 'But, if you are, you may as well get rid of the council too.'

This bill does not create an administrator for Kangaroo Island, it is not becoming a separate territory; it is simply a mechanism to assist in ensuring the best delivery of government services but, particularly, to ensure that Kangaroo Island's tourist industry thrives.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: As I indicated in my second reading speech, I will be supporting all the opposition's amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes these amendments for the reasons outlined by the Hon. Bernie Finnigan. As I indicated, the island has been identified as having enormous potential. It is facing significant challenges that affect its ability to be able to thrive in a sustainable way. If it is to have a future it needs a much more coordinated across-government approach. The model that we are proposing, we believe, is balanced and the best model to deliver that level of coordination. Considerable consultation has occurred with this. It is well supported by people on the island and it has been identified as being the best model for these sets of circumstances. So, I would be urging members to give Kangaroo Island a go and to support the government's bill as it stands.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 4 and 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 4, line 15 [clause 6(3)]—After 'Kangaroo Island Council' insert:

the member of the House of Assembly whose electoral district includes Kangaroo Island

This amendment is to give the effect that the minister, when appointing a commissioner, must consult with the local member on that appointment. I note that the bill provides:

The Minister must undertake consultation (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) with the Kangaroo Island Council and the people of Kangaroo Island in relation to any proposed appointment under this section.

It would seem to make sense that if we are looking to spend $1 million a year to support Kangaroo Island, and there will always be a locally elected member of the House of Assembly, it would make sense that that person be at least consulted on the appointment of a commissioner. I could not see why anybody would not want to at least consult on it. It does say, 'The Minister must undertake consultation (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit),' so there is a reasonable amount of latitude there. It certainly seems that it will be important to have this commissioner working closely and, if you like, collaboratively with the local member. So, to have that level of consultation, we think, is a very important amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise, after deliberating the amendment, that Family First will not be supporting this amendment. It is consistent with what we have always said, including the ICAC appointment, where, at the end of the day, on these sorts of appointments I believe the government of the day—and it does say it here quite clearly that, 'The Minister must undertake consultation (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) with the Kangaroo Island Council and the people of Kangaroo Island,' so there is flexibility there—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No; this is my point: number one, the local member is absolutely opposed to the whole concept.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Let us put it on the public record: the local member is absolutely opposed to this concept. I know this for a fact because I have seen documentation and I have talked to the people on Kangaroo Island. So, I do not understand, if you are opposed to a concept, why you would want, in any way, to have an involvement in the appointment process.

The second thing I always say is that if you give the government the responsibility of the appointment and that appointment is no good then you can go out and attack the government for putting the wrong person in the position. But I do not think you can have a bob each way. I do not think you can say on the one hand, 'I don't like this. This is a crock and it's a waste,' and so on and so forth, and then say, 'But hang on a minute, I actually want to have some input into the appointment process.'

As a matter of principle, on these appointment processes, irrespective of whether the local member does or does not agree with what is happening, that is for the local member to decide and the community makes its decision as well. The reality is that we do not believe in the process of individual MPs, or parties, or whatever, being involved in these sorts of appointment processes. Rather, you become the watchdog and if the government makes a mistake then you actually blame and point out that mistake to the government, the media and whoever else you want. So, we cannot support this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The opposition is just seeking to undermine this legislation; it is obvious that they do not support it and now they are trying to amend it in a way that will make the thing cumbersome and unworkable. As the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has pointed out, the appointment process is outlined in the legislation. It is quite clear. The minister must undertake consultation in a manner that the minister thinks fit with Kangaroo Island Council and the people of Kangaroo Island in relation to any proposed appointment under this section. There is a clear definition there. This position is about the coordination of government services, and it is appropriate that an appointment be done in this way. The opposition is just seeking to unpick this as best they can to make it as unworkable as possible.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment either. The Hon. Rob Brokenshire named it, in relation to the current member of the House of Assembly whose electoral district includes Kangaroo Island. He did want it and railed against it, and now there is this last ditch attempt to try to put him in the legislation as a compulsory consultee.

We do need to look at it beyond just the current member; he will not be the current member forever. However, I still think, even removing the personalities from it, that it does not make sense to mandate it in this way. Personally, I would be surprised if there was not a broad consultation, but I do not think it is necessary in legislation to mandate that local member. As we all know, all of us represent Kangaroo Island, everyone of us here; our electorate includes Kangaroo Island. Are they going to consult all of us? I think it is a bit of a slippery slope to start nominating particular members of parliament when, in fact, all of us here in this chamber represent that area. If we are going to go down that path we would need to add 22 other names to list of people who must be consulted.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already spoken, but I will take this opportunity to respond to the question the Hon. Mr Darley raised in terms of consideration of using the Coordinator-General's role. We did have a look at that, we looked at a whole range of different governance models to work out the most suitable for this case, and it was decided that the Coordinator-General's role is quite a different role. It is responsible for the coordination of just infrastructure projects over $3 million, and obviously the role of the commissioner is much broader than just considering infrastructure. Of course, it is designed in a way to have that very close and special relationship with the local community, which we believe is needed in relation to regional response. It is for that reason we chose this model, and the model has been supported by the Kangaroo Island Council. It is deemed to be the most appropriate.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:04 to 14:15.