HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-06-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees - Abolition and Reform) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 May 2015.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:00): I rise as the second speaker for the Greens to address the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees—Abolition and Reform) Bill 2014. As members are well aware, this was one of the announcements made by Premier Weatherill that spoke to a vision of the Labor Weatherill government. The proposal before us substantially alters the current processes that we have for consultation in this state and, while many appear to be uncontroversial, there are some elements which I believe will cause great controversy.

Members are well aware that the proposal to abolish the board of the South Australian Tourism Commission has seen members of parliament subject to a great deal of lobbying. The Greens are not attracted to the government's proposal to abolish that particular board and express some dismay and concern about the level of ministerial control and direction that would be the resultant outcome.

As to the Hon. John Darley's amendment that he has spoken to, the Greens indicate we will be supporting that. My colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell will address the areas in his portfolios; I will address the areas in my portfolios. I raise some concerns about the different information I have had from government in briefings with regard to this bill. I refer the government to their press release of 30 October 2014, entitled 'Final report on boards and committees', and note the line in that press release issued under the name of Premier Jay Weatherill that the reforms are expected to save at least $5.5 million over the forward estimates.

I ask the government to outline where those savings will come from and to explain, given that the rhetoric around this bill has been that we will be seeking newer, better, different ways of engagement with the community, whether or not that $5.5 million will be going to those particular reforms or whether it is a saving to the bottom line. There has been much talk of not having the same voices heard in our debates in this state, and they are certainly the words of Premier Jay Weatherill.

What I would note is that we have just debated a bill on gambling and yet the South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) time and time again presents in its advocacy to this place on those important gambling issues that they are not adequately resourced to appropriately advocate on those issues as legislation comes to pass or issues arise. How will various parts of the community be adequately resourced, not just to have a voice but to have an effective voice, an informed voice and a truly empowered voice?

I look forward to the government's costings being detailed. I would like to know how that $5.5 million over the forward estimates is broken down, which particular committees those savings will be made in, and what are the expenses that are to be allocated in addition to what the current practice is? I note that we have had an announcement of yet another citizens' jury recently. Are those citizens' juries to be part of the expenditure that the government intends to invest in regarding engagement and the principles of engagement, I assume, in their Better Together program?

I look forward to those responses, and I certainly look forward to the committee stage of the bill and seeking assurances from the government about the level of thought that has been put into those boards and committees which are to be abolished, and to ensuring there will be appropriate debate into the future in those particular portfolios.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:05): At the outset, I am pleased that the government saw fit to support the opposition's amendments in the other place, which sought to preserve the tourism board. There is no question that the government's original position to abolish the tourism board was considered most unfavourable, so this was a very welcome development. I note that the stakeholders who lobbied so heavily against the government's position appear to be satisfied with the outcome, and I thank them for all their assistance on this most important issue.

I am also pleased that the government has seen fit to drop those provisions which would have resulted in the abolition of the Gambling Advisory Committee under the Gaming Machines Act. Members will recall that the provisions regarding the establishment of a gambling advisory committee, which were drafted in consultation with SACOSS, were only inserted into the Gaming Machines Act during the last round of amendments to the bill considered by us in 2013. In fact, they formed part of one of the few proposals that actually got up.

The aim of the amendments was to address the issue of asymmetric lobbying and even up the playing field between resource-starved NGOs on the one hand and the hotels and clubs on the other. This would be achieved by creating a gambling advisory committee to be made up of two representatives from the hotel and club industries and two representatives from the charitable and social welfare sector. The committee would provide advice to the minister in relation to his or her functions as they relate to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund.

The minister would also appoint an advisory officer, chosen from the social and welfare sector, to provide advice on any other matter relating to the gambling industry. It was envisaged that the gambling advisory officer would act as a conduit between the care sector and the minister, and provide them with advice based on feedback from NGOs and problem gamblers themselves. Overall, these measures would result in a greater level of advocacy by the charitable and welfare sector on gambling issues.

My office has kept in regular contact with SACOSS since these measures were incorporated into the Gaming Machines Act. The reason we were all so surprised by the government's original move to scrap the committee was that there had been no contact with SACOSS or any other welfare group, as I understand it, to even get the proposal off the ground. As I understand it, this has not changed. We are still waiting on the government to act on these reforms. Hopefully this will serve as a timely reminder.

Members will note that I have an amendment on file dealing with another board that falls within the scope of the Gaming Machines Act, namely, that which oversees the Charitable and Social Welfare Fund. I will admit that there was some confusion in my office over this aspect of the bill because, initially, it was thought that the government had reneged on its agreement to remove those provisions which dealt with the Gambling Advisory Committee.

That said, once the confusion was sorted out we were able to turn our minds to the question of whether or not this second board ought to be abolished. My primary concern is that, if abolished, decisions regarding payments from the fund will be left to the minister responsible for the administration of the Family and Community Services Act. In some respects it is not dissimilar to what was proposed with respect to tourism.

The Premier's office has provided my office with some additional information which focuses on how it is envisaged that the fund will be administered in the future. According to that advice, as part of the reducing red tape initiative the assessment process for a range of community services will be aligned. This process will include establishing an independent assessment panel which will provide independent advice and oversight and make funding recommendations on applications under a range of Department for Communities and Social Inclusion grant programs.

I have sought some feedback from stakeholders, including SACOSS, regarding this issue. I can say that the stakeholders with whom I have spoken have raised some concerns about the appointment process for the new independent assessment panel. Overall, the preference is to maintain the status quo, that is, to keep the Charitable and Social Welfare Fund. As such, I will be proceeding with my amendment.

Lastly, I note that the Hon. Mark Parnell has raised concerns regarding the abolition of a further two bodies, namely, the Fisheries Council and the Wilderness Advisory Committee. I will certainly give further consideration to those amendments prior to the committee stage debate. Overall, I think we all have to agree that, despite some hiccups along the way, this was a very worthy exercise undertaken by the government in terms of identifying duplication, cost efficiencies and reducing red tape. It is certainly something I think the government should embark on across government on a more regular basis. With that, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:10): I would like to thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate, and I look forward to the committee stage of the bill shortly. However, before we proceed to committee, I would like to address some of the questions that have been raised previously. Some of the comments other members have made relate directly to amendments that have been tabled, and I will speak to the amendments in committee.

Before I speak on the questions, I do need to correct some small inaccuracies in the second reading explanation, given on 26 March 2015, regarding the bill as received in the Legislative Council. The second reading explanation mentioned that the South Australian Tourism Commission and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee are to be abolished in the bill. These boards were subject to the amendments in the House of Assembly, as has been noted by other speakers. They are no longer in the bill and are to be retained.

To address the points made by the Hon. Mark Parnell, firstly in relation to, I believe, 30 areas of high-quality wilderness awaiting assessment, I am advised that the Wilderness Advisory Committee has been required to assess all land in the state and make recommendations, particularly under the act. Since 1992, the committee has assessed 19 areas. There are now 14 wilderness protection areas covering 1.84 million hectares. The committee has largely discharged its function in the agricultural areas of the state and, to some extent, in the arid lands.

The reference to approximately 30 areas of high-quality wilderness that could be assessed is a reference to a report from the committee in 2014, 'Measures for improving wilderness protection in South Australia's arid lands', which listed 35 areas containing wilderness of potential national significance. Many of these areas are in existing parks, wilderness areas or are on Aboriginal lands. I am advised further that this report will form the basis of the parks and wilderness council's work program moving forward. The parks and wilderness council will be required to continue to undertake the statewide assessment of wilderness. As minister, I expect the new council will provide advice early in its term of the first assessment area.

As to the question of whether there is still capacity for members of the public to nominate places for listing, I am advised that no functions of the act will change from the merger. The public will still be able to nominate areas for assessment by the parks and wilderness council. As occurred with the Wilderness Advisory Committee, it will be that body's decision about which areas of the state to assess in any given time.

Finally, in relation to the Hon. Mark Parnell's comments and questions, the potential for a subcommittee was raised. I am advised that this is entirely possible. The parks and wilderness council will determine as part of its work program which areas to assess for wilderness. The department will continue to provide the scientific, technical and policy support, as in the past, and the drafting of assessment reports, to enable the council to discharge this function.

If the parks and wilderness council felt that its skills and expertise for a particular assessment required additional expertise to be brought in, or if a wilderness assessment was to be undertaken as a matter of urgency, then the council could recommend to me as the minister to form a time-limited working group to prepare a wilderness assessment report for the council or, alternatively, a subcommittee could be formed.

As to questions raised by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, firstly, in relation to what reclassification means in some instances, I am advised that the decision to reclassify a board or committee was based on an assessment that it is no longer considered to be a government board or committee. Reclassification does not mean the function ceases. In relation to the specific example given for local dog fence boards, the management of these six local boards will remain unchanged. The state Dog Fence Board, which has also been retained, will continue to give administrative and technical advice and pay subsidies to these boards for projects to improve their sections of the fence. 'Reclassify' means that the local dog fence boards have been delisted from their needing to reside on the government's Boards and Committees Information System and the reporting that is required for this.

In relation to the question asked by the Hon. Michelle Lensink about NRM boards being asked to take on responsibility for marine parks management, I am advised that marine parks are managed, just like ordinary parks, by regional staff of the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources. Regional NRM boards have no specific role in relation to the management of marine parks or ordinary parks, I am advised. There will be no change to the management of marine parks as a result of this amendment bill.

Finally, in relation to the Border Groundwaters Agreement Review Committee, I think also a question asked by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, I am advised that the Border Groundwaters Agreement Review Committee is aware of the need to be cognisant of community needs and expectations with respect to groundwater management in the border regions. As South Australia is 'down gradient' in respect to natural groundwater flows, the Border Groundwaters Agreement is important for maintaining a sustainable groundwater resource in the South Australian border regions with Victoria. For nearly 30 years this agreement has ensured an equitable sharing and sustainable management of these border groundwater resources.

I am advised that the review committee has maintained engagement with both the South-East and the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin natural resources management regions and boards during the development of their respective water allocation plans. The review committee has met with the Presiding Member of the South East NRM Board and with South-East industry stakeholders during the consultation phase leading up to the adoption of the Lower Limestone Coast Water Allocation Plan. With those comments, I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

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