HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-05-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 March 2015.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:27): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees-Abolition and Reform) Bill 2015. In doing so, I want to say at the outset that it is a reasonable exercise for governments to periodically reassess the value of the various structures under various pieces of legislation to determine whether they are providing good advice, efficient advice or, in the case of those bodies that make decisions, good and efficient decisions. Having said that, I think that the approach the government has taken in this instance is simply to play the game of numbers and seek to gain public approval for abolishing a certain number of boards regardless of the value of those boards. I think that it really is an exercise that is that cynical.

The government, I do not believe, has made its case in relation to many of these boards and committees that are proposed to be abolished or merged. Nevertheless, the reality of the situation is that, with government and opposition overwhelmingly agreeing, most of these proposed abolitions and mergers will go ahead.

The Greens have narrowed our list of those boards and committees that we are going to fight for in this place down to a final two, and they are the body under part 14 of the bill, the Fisheries Council, and also the body under part 41 of the bill, the Wilderness Advisory Committee. My colleague Tammy Franks may have some observations in relation to other boards and committees and, in fact, the two that I mentioned are simply the two in my portfolio areas that I will be pursuing.

I want to start with the Fisheries Council. I think it is worth going back to the origins of the legislation under which the committee is established in order to provide some context and to understand why the Fisheries Council was created; then we can identify whether the need for such a body has passed. When the new Fisheries Management Act was debated eight or so years ago, one of the key issues was whether commercial fishers should have a property right over communal resources or whether they should just have a more ephemeral licence to access those marine resources.

Ultimately the industry won the day and property rights were granted so as to provide certainty to industry and also the ability to raise capital using the property rights as security. However, the legislation also included a range of checks and balances, and one of the most important of these was the creation of an expert-based fisheries council with a range of responsibilities including the preparation of fisheries management plans.

I understand that, in relation to the present bill, the commercial fishing lobby is supportive of the abolition of the Fisheries Council, but what I think many of those supporters have conveniently forgotten is that this council was a key requirement ahead of replacing annual fishing licences with a statutory, transferable property right. These arrangements were negotiated over more than 10 years, beginning, I understand, with Rob Kerin as the minister. The present role of the Fisheries Council is summed up conveniently on their website as follows:

The objectives of the Fisheries Management Act 2007…make it clear that the sustainable management of our fisheries resources is paramount and that it is only within a sustainable management framework that these resources can be developed for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Protection from over-exploitation is set out as the primary principle of the legislation...The principles that guide decision-making under the Act also require that commercial, recreational and Aboriginal traditional fishing activities be fostered and that aquatic ecosystems on which fisheries rely for their productivity are not endangered or irreversibly damaged.

The success of wild fisheries management in South Australia to date can be attributed to the science-based and precautionary approach taken to management decisions. This has occurred through close, transparent and formal consultation with industry groups and the broader community through Fishery Management Committees and other processes.

The co-management approach continues under this Act with the establishment of a Fisheries Council to provide advice to the Minister on the management of fisheries, whether for commercial use, recreational use, or for Aboriginal traditional fishing purposes.

The Fisheries Council is expertise-based and has at least nine members appointed by the Governor, plus the Director of Fisheries as an ex-officio member. The Council has a broad advisory role and key responsibility for the preparation and maintenance of fishery management plans.

We have given the commercial industry a very valuable property right accompanied by a guarantee to the public that there would be independent oversight through a fisheries council. It is remarkable, then, that we abolish the latter without touching the former. If this part of this bill passes, there will be no independent oversight of the commercial fishing industry. It will be left entirely to the department.

When the original fisheries bill was being negotiated 10 and more years ago, many of the Indigenous, conservation and recreational fishing groups were reluctant to support the new access rights for professional fishers but, eventually, they accepted it because of the overview mechanism in the Fisheries Council that was enshrined in and protected by law. I understand that the minister has suggested that ad hoc committees might be created as necessary. However, the members of those committees will not necessarily have the understanding, the experience or the expertise that is set out in the present act.

One thing I will acknowledge that I am grateful to the government for is that, on the government website, they have included many of the submissions that were made in the consultation process for this bill. That includes letters from the chairpersons of the various committees that were being abolished or merged. I would like to quote a few sentences from the submission of the Fisheries Council of South Australia dated 17 September last year and addressed to the Premier. The submission includes the following:

Council members agreed that a submission should be made in response to your letter. In your letter, two areas were highlighted that will help to inform the government's decision on whether a board or committee would be considered exempt from being abolished. These were efficiency and independence.

The Fisheries Management Act 2007…reformed the way in which fisheries management is undertaken in South Australia. The act was the vehicle [which] set up an expertise-based advisory body (the Fisheries Council of South Australia) aimed at maintaining the highest level of trust and confidence in your government's management of the fisheries in this state.

This was a significant move away from industry-based advisory committees and one that was very well received by the public. The board operates at a strategic level and within the requirements of the act advises the minister on the long-term plan and annual operating plan, ensuring openness, transparency and accountability at all times. The independent nature of the fisheries council, which includes expert stakeholder representation, adds another layer in maintaining public confidence in the management of South Australia's aquatics resources.

I know that many members will say, in relation to that letter, that they would say that anyway; they are about to be abolished, so of course they are going to defend their position. That is not my experience. There are some committees that quite reasonably recognise that their time has come, that the need for them has gone and they should be abolished. Clearly, in this case, the fisheries council does not believe that its role is redundant and neither do the Greens, so we will be pursuing that committee's retention.

The second committee I wish to bat for and protect from abolition today is the Wilderness Advisory Committee. At the outset I will declare that my interest in this committee goes back to 1989; in fact, the Wilderness Protection Act was the reason I came to South Australia. I came from Victoria to take a job with the Wilderness Society at the end of 1989, with the task of lobbying parliament and the community for the establishment of a wilderness protection act. So it is why you have me here; I came here to get this legislation on the statute books.

The Hon. K.L. Vincent interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Kelly Vincent interjects, 'And you are still here.' I will leave others to commentate on whether that is a good or bad thing. However, I certainly remember coming into this place in 1990/1991 to lobby members of parliament and the standing committees of this parliament for a wilderness protection act. Ultimately, the act was introduced and it had cross-party support, and became part of the law of South Australia. An important part of that legislation was the Wilderness Advisory Committee.

At the heart of the legislation is a scientific assessment of wilderness, looking at its qualities and condition, and determining whether or not it deserves the highest level of protection afforded by the protected area system in South Australia. If my memory is correct the wilderness assessment methodology was developed here in Adelaide at the University of Adelaide by (I think I have this right) Rob Lesslie and Sandra Taylor, and it effectively became the national standard for wilderness assessment.

Again, I will quote briefly from the Wilderness Advisory Committee's webpage; I think it summarises their role well. It says:

The Wilderness Advisory Committee is required to assess all land in the state to identify which areas meet the wilderness criteria to sufficient extent to justify protection under the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 and to report its findings to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation.

Data used in assessments include the National Wilderness Inventory and a study of Wilderness Areas of Potential National Significance (both prepared for the Australian Government) as well as information gathered on field trips and from [the department].

The committee is required to assess land nominated by the public for wilderness protection and to provide advice to the minister on the management of wilderness protection areas and zones.

It is a fairly light committee, with just four members, all with expertise in this area. Under the bill before us today, the government wants to merge the function of this committee with the new Parks and Wilderness Council. I will say at the outset that, despite the inclusion of the word 'wilderness' in the name of the new body, the conservation sector is not convinced that abolishing the Wilderness Advisory Committee is a positive move; in fact, they oppose it, and so too do the Greens.

The Wilderness Advisory Committee, as all of these committees were invited to do, wrote to the government, and I would like to refer briefly to the Wilderness Advisory Committee's submission dated 9 August 2014 and a supplementary submission dated 24 October 2014. In the first submission, under the headings of 'Effectiveness' and 'Public Engagement in decision making', the committee highlights some of the unique features of the way they operate that they fear will be lost under the new body. In relation to effectiveness, they say:

To date, the Committee has undertaken 19 assessments of wilderness quality and recommended protection in each. Of the 19 recommendations 13 have been acted on and approximately 1.8 million hectares of Wilderness Protection Area constituted. It is probable that the Committee's assessment of the Mawson Plateau contributed to its protection under the Arkaroola Protection Act 2012. The statewide assessment process is not complete, with approximately 30 areas of high quality wilderness awaiting examination.

Under the heading of 'Public engagement in decision making' the Wilderness Advisory Committee points out its role in dealing with the public on nominations. They say:

The Act enables members of the public to nominate areas for a wilderness assessment by the Committee. Public nomination has resulted in protection in a number of cases. Before a wilderness protection area or zone can be constituted, the Committee's report and recommendations are circulated for public comment for three months. These submissions (except submissions made in confidence) are available for public inspection, as are the Committee's comments on the submissions. The development of management plans has two rounds of public consultation, the first on issues to be addressed in the plan and the second on the draft plan itself. An additional, but as yet unused, safeguard of public engagement lies in the civil enforcement provisions of the Act which provide for third party standing.

These are quite complex roles engaging with the community, which this particular four-person committee has undertaken efficiently and diligently. The concern is that the new amalgamated body will not have either the expertise or the independence to be able to do that work.

In terms of cost effectiveness—because we know that one of the reasons for this legislation is to cut down the cost of boards and committees—this has to be one of the cheapest committees around. Members meet four times a year. Their sitting fee is $103 for a four-hour session, so $25 an hour. I think you could probably get that in a large number of businesses, maybe making coffee or similar lower skilled tasks. So these are top-level people being paid a minimal amount.

In addition, members work with no pay on many of the field assessments they undertake of three to eight days duration, and they also devote a lot of out-of-session time to report writing. So really this is not a great impost on the public purse. In fact, as we have started Volunteer Week, these four people are largely volunteering their time.

The committee undertakes its functions with no staff or specific budget of its own. One of the reasons why I think the case exists for the committee to continue is that there is unfinished business. As I said before, I think there are still some 30 areas that need to be investigated, but I think there is also great potential in terms of economic development in the identification and promotion of wilderness areas. To quote the presiding member's letter to the minister, he says:

Wilderness is gaining an important economic dimension. Tourism Research Australia market surveys show that nature-based tourism is the primary travel motivator across all of Australia's traditional inbound markets. Research also shows that nature is the key motivator for the rapidly-expanding Chinese market.

Relatively undisturbed natural landscapes are increasingly rare at a global scale and regions that have tracts of land with these characteristics have a competitive advantage in a burgeoning international tourism market.

The target market in this context is the 'experience seeker' which is characterised by high dollar/low impact. South Australia's wilderness system, particularly in arid and semi-arid zones, is potentially a major drawcard for this market and a significant contributor to state and regional economies.

So I believe the Wilderness Advisory Committee should be retained. I think its past achievements are noteworthy and commendable and I think its future role is important so I do not believe that the government has got it right.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of compromise, I know that certainly the Wilderness Society and others have put forward to the government that there might be another way around this. In particular, I know that a formal subcommittee of the Parks and Wilderness Council might be a partial solution to make sure that there are at least a dedicated number of people whose job it is to continue this role under the Wilderness Protection Act.

Certainly I think the minister is aware that the submission of the Wilderness Society includes the creation of a wilderness assessment and management committee. I will not go into all the details of how that might work but I think that, whilst we have not prepared particular amendments to that effect, I would like the minister to respond later as to whether or not there is scope for a specifically identified subcommittee to deal with functions under the Wilderness Protection Act. With those brief words, I look forward to the committee stage of this debate.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:47): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this piece of legislation, which had its origins following last year's election. I think possibly it was a surprise outcome for many, including members of the Australian Labor Party who found themselves back in government without much of an agenda—and this is one of the things that was pulled out of a hat to keep the punters busy.

It was mooted probably in mid-2014. It is, as the preceding speaker noted, a useful exercise to go through and review boards and committees periodically, and so every board and committee was written to and asked to justify its existence and respond to their relevant minister, who would then provide a report to the Premier. The final report was tabled on 30 October 2014, the bill was introduced in November last year and now we have it before us. The final report proposes to abolish some 107 of the 429; merge 17; subject others to reform and further investigation—that is 95; reclassify 120; and retain 90.

A large number of these boards and committees are within the environment portfolio and so were obviously of particular interest to myself. As shadow ministers we wrote to all of those boards. Most of them, because they are administered by the government, could not provide a formal response to us. All of those have now been made publicly available on the website.

The number of animal ethics committees which exist—and I note that a fairly standard response from some of the committees would be to say that they might not see reason for continued existence; in fact, the non-government schools animal ethics committee wrote back and I think quite rightly said that it is inconceivable that any instance of animal cruelty would go unreported in a school. If staff did not proactively report any such occurrence, the students certainly would. Given the above, it would appear that the committee's function can be made redundant.

A number of others did fight for their existence, including the NRM boards. Beyond those, there are four boards and committees that the Liberal Party determined were particularly important. Those have been re-included through amendments which were passed by the House of Assembly, so I will just speak briefly to those and cover a couple of other issues.

First of all, there is the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which provides independent advice on a range of issues. Stakeholders who are particularly interested in this committee include the RSPCA, which is in favour of its retention, and Livestock SA, which is also represented on it. It provides a number of useful functions, and we are pleased that the government has seen fit to agree to continue to support that committee. I do note that all other states have some form of animal welfare advisory committee of some description, and I think that makes sense. Given the interest in this issue and that there are ongoing issues that crop up from time to time, I think it certainly has an ongoing role.

The Pastoral Board: the advocacy for that particular board has certainly been taken up by the member for Stuart, who has by proportion the largest number of constituents affected by that. Their concern was that pastoralists would lose their independent voice to government. Livestock SA was also very concerned about the proposed abolition of that board, and I note that the conservation sector supported its continuation, so that particular board will continue. Then we have the Tourism Board and the Health Performance Council, which have been covered by other speakers. My colleague the Hon. David Ridgway in particular has spoken about the Tourism Board in some detail.

I think into the future there is a bit of uncertainty about what actual form some of these boards and committees will take. I am not certain what reclassification means in some instances, whether for the Dog Fence Board, for instance—I will put this as a formal question to the minister—reclassification means that DEWNR or the relevant department is going to try to get the local NRM board to manage that. I also understand that NRM boards are being asked to take on responsibility for marine parks management and would appreciate if the minister could respond to that as well.

The Border Groundwaters Agreement Review Committee: this is an area that is obviously very important to the people of the South-East, who are impacted by decisions that that may make in relation to reductions in water allocations, so that is seen as a very important board to those particular constituents and I think that some better coordination with the South-East NRM Board would be quite useful.

I note that we have some amendments from honourable members in this place in relation to other boards and committees, and those will be considered. I thank the Conservation Council and the Wilderness Society for the very detailed response that they provided to the government; that is dated 21 October 2014. They had concerns about a number of boards, including the ones that the Hon. Mr Mark Parnell has mentioned. I think the Coast Protection Board, the Native Vegetation Council and the State Aboriginal Heritage Committee, which they were concerned about, the government has decided to retain, but there are still those two boards that the honourable member has mentioned that we will consider prior to the debate in the committee stage. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.

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