CIVIL LIABILITY (CHARITABLE DONATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:33): Obtained leave and introduced an act to amend the Civil Liability Act 1936. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I will not hold the house long on this matter as it is the first day of private members' business and there are seven or eight items that need to be dealt with within the hour, so in fairness to other members I will not go into elaborate detail on this bill. For members who were here in the previous parliament I will not need to, because this bill seeks to introduce the same principles to donations of services and goods as the government introduced when it did the reform of law in relation to food donations.

With the support of the Liberal Party the government successfully moved legislation so that donors of food were exempt from liability, given certain conditions. The theory was that that would increase food donations. The conditions, essentially, were that the donations were made without expectation of payment or other consideration, were for a charitable or benevolent purposes, and with the intention that the consumer of the goods or services would not have to pay for them. They were exempt from liability on the basis that the person making the donation was not reckless about the donation. That was the broad principle of that legislation moved by the then attorney and supported strongly by this side of the house.

This side of the house during the debate moved amendments to extend that principle to donations of all goods and services. We argued: why should donations of food attract that reduction in liability; why shouldn't all donors of goods or services be encouraged to make increased donations of goods and services on the same basis—the basis that they are not reckless, it is done without expectation of payment or other consideration for a charitable benevolent purpose, and the intention that the consumer of the goods or services would not have to pay for them?

The government decided at that time in the debate that it would not support them but would put out a paper, seek public submissions and then make a decision. The government honoured that promise. It put out a discussion paper and received just six submissions. It only invited 30 organisations to make contributions to that discussion paper.

This bill again puts before the house amendments to the Civil Liability Act about charitable donations. It gives the government time to work through this issue. The opposition consulted with the Law Society, which agrees with the opposition on this matter.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: As about so much else.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Speaker, the ghost of defamation past is here. I have been walking around Adelaide noticing all the defamation lawyers looking so glum these days that there has been a change in attorney-general because they have all had to cut their budgets. It is good to have the former attorney here, and we welcome his interjection. The Law Society wrote to the opposition saying:

As a matter of policy, we support the notion of a reduction of legal liability of donors and distributors towards the recipients of donated goods. We suggest that the same structure and principles currently applying to the donations of food be used to the extent that this can be achieved.

So the Law Society agreed to the same principle. There are no politics in this for the opposition. This is a principle belief. We think that the government did the right thing on the food donations law and we see no reason why that principle should not be extended to other donors of goods and services. I will touch on one issue, because I know there are seven other topics members want to get up today in the hour.

In the response from the government, there was an argument that charities will have goods dumped on them as a result of the opposition's concept. That is a nonsense. The charities already have goods dumped on them regardless of the liability of the law. What this can do, we think, is give the charities stronger opportunity to reject goods because, in terms of electrical goods, for instance, they can say, 'Unless they've been checked we're not taking them.' We do not believe that it will impact some of the government agencies—and let us remember that, of the six responses, two of them were government agencies; so, of the community organisations out there, only four responded. We do not accept that argument from the government agencies at all.

The Liberal Party believes in volunteering. We strongly support the concept. We think that, by reducing the liability with the appropriate safeguards as per the government's proposal with the food legislation—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Why do you pay people to stand at polling booths instead of having volunteers?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And the Labor Party has never paid people to stand at polling booths? Unions never pay them? No, right!

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: If we haven't got volunteers, we just go without them.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You had people handing out how-to-vote cards representing other parties.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The reality is, Madam Speaker, that we support the principle of this bill. We have a new Attorney-General and we have asked for a new set of eyes to look at this matter. I will say this to the government: if it thinks there is a way to improve the bill but still adopt the principle, then the opposition is open to working through those amendments to deliver an amended bill if that is what is required, but I do not think we should be turning our back on what is a piece of sensible legislation that will deliver more charitable donations and be an improvement to the volunteer and charitable sector generally. With those few words, I look forward to the debate on the legislation, eventually.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Sibbons.