STATUTES AMENDMENT (BUDGET 2010) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 September 2010.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:39): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill. Although there will not be many speakers from the opposition, I know that some of my rural colleagues want to make some contribution in relation to the impact of this bill on their electorate and other issues.

The opposition does not intend to defeat any measure in this bill. We come from the principal position that, although we do not agree with everything in this bill, it underpins around $200 million worth of budget measures, and we are of the view the government deserves its budget. We will ask a series of questions and there may end up being some technical amendments in another place subject to answers here and further advice but, on the broad principles of the issues concerned, the Treasurer will ultimately get his bill, which has been a longstanding tradition.

This bill, the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) Bill, essentially sets out seven sets of principles into a number of acts that underpin the government's budget measures. These changes were all outlined in the Treasurer's budget speech to this house and have been subject to much comment and debate in the Appropriation Bill which has just been sent off to the estimates committees, a process we are looking forward to with great enthusiasm. So, I will not go through in detail all of the matters in this bill because the reality is they have been subject to a lot of debate in the Appropriation Bill.

For the sake of the record, this bill deals with all the Public Service changes to long service leave and recreation leave as outlined in the Treasurer's speech. There are changes to the Education Act, the Public Sector Act, and the Technical and Further Education Act in relation to those matters.

It also deals with the changes to the abolition of the fuel subsidy for regional South Australia. I have to say that, of all the measures that the government has introduced, I think it is this one that this side of the house recognises will cause considerable pain to regional South Australia and will flow onto all sorts of costs of living as a result of increased fuel costs. So I know other members will make contributions about that particular issue and the impact on their electorates. I assume the government did a regional impact statement on this decision, because this government has a policy commitment that every cabinet decision that impacts on regional South Australia would have a regional impact statement and, ultimately, we will seek the release of that impact statement by the government to show that this will not have negative impacts on regional South Australia, as some might claim.

The government has also chosen to restrict further the first home owners grant scheme by two changes which are outlined in the Treasurer's speech. It is seeking to save moneys by restricting it in one area to a cap of around $535,000, from memory; and, in other areas, restricting it to new homes or substantially renovated homes according to the bill itself, and there will be some savings to the government as a result of that particular measure.

The impact of that measure, of course, will be that people buying their first home will essentially be pushed more to the extremities of the city because most of the new homes are built north and south of the city at its extremities. So that means there will be different pressures on government services in the extremes of the city as a result of younger families moving there to get their $8,000, I think the figure is, and that ultimately has an impact on child care, kindergartens and schools in those areas. So, the middle of the city will miss out, largely. There are not too many houses under the cap in the centre of the city that fit into the definition the government is proposing, so what this bill really does is restrict the assistance to those people who will end up living more at the extremes of the city.

Also, there will be changes to the Motor Vehicles Act, including the abolition of the registration sticker. I know that members have some questions about that particular matter. I notice also there are some changes to the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to expiation notices. I have some questions on that—as, I know, will the member for Fisher—about the burden of proof and how this is going to work exactly, but we will come to those in committee. I do not intend to hold the house on that issue, other than to say that it will inconvenience some people to go from three months to 12 months registration and not have the six and nine months options. Unfortunately, some people do have financial issues and want the six and nine months options, but the government has decided, for cost-saving purposes, to abolish those.

There are changes to the Passenger Transport Act and the Private Parking Areas Act that relate to the previous measures. There are also new charges in relation to the Radiation Protection and Control Act and the Environment Protection Act. I want to ask some questions on the Environment Protection Act measures. As a former environment minister, I am interested in this concept of a sustainability licence and exactly how it is going to work.

Ultimately, the government adopted the principle of the opposition's payroll tax policy in relation to the rebate of payroll tax for apprentices and trainees. The member for Goyder reminds me that our policy was to exempt the value of the wages of apprentices and trainees from the calculation. The government's announced policy was that, rather than exempt them, they would calculate the salary in and then rebate it back, and we have some questions on that particular matter.

The opposition does not agree with everything in this bill. As I say, we are not going to defeat the bill. It is the government's budget and the government will publicly wear the applause and the opposition to its budget, and there has been plenty of opposition this week with protests from the Public Service Association, the Parks Community Centre and the people involved in adult education. There have been a series of examples of human cost that this particular budget will impose on the South Australian community.

I am aware that a number of members have other commitments that they need to get to tonight. I am not going to give a long speech. I think that more information will come as a result of questioning during the committee stage. I am aware that other members wish to speak before they go to other commitments, so with those few comments, the opposition is not going to defeat the bill, but we do have some questions in committee.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (15:52): I will be brief, and I appreciate the member for Davenport being very concise. I want to focus on one particular aspect within this bill, and that is the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. I am not debating the merits or otherwise of having a sticker or not on your car, what I am concerned about is the evidentiary provision in schedule 1—Evidence obtained by photographic detection device. I do not claim to be an expert, I am not a lawyer, but what we have here is a continuation of the reverse onus of proof. I note from my own costly experience that all that is required by the police, as it states under part 4—Evidentiary, is:

(b) a document produced by the prosecution and purporting to be signed by the Commissioner of Police, or any other police officer of or above the rank of inspector, and purporting to certify—

(i) that a specified device used at a specified location during a specified period was a photographic detection device; and

(ii) that the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as to the operation and testing of photographic detection devices were complied with in connection with the use of that device during that period,

will be accepted as proof, in the absence of proof to the contrary, of the facts so certified...

In other words, that is a reverse onus of proof. If a citizen wants to challenge a photograph taken of their car with the registration, they will have to prove that that instrument was inaccurate at the time it was being used. That is virtually impossible for someone to do. As I said, I know from my own court case that what hung me was the fact that—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: The fact you were speeding.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, I was not speeding. Honestly, I was not speeding.

Mr Piccolo: You are in denial.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, I am not. I was not speeding. I do not lie; I have never lied—I was not speeding. I have never had a traffic offence in my life. What hung me was what they did 2½ years after the alleged offence. They did it three times to get it right: once before the trial and twice during the trial. They changed it. A certificate said that that laser, in my case, was accurate on 2 January 2008.

That was produced in court in May 2010. The magistrate said, 'That's all they have to do.' The judge—and I agree with his ruling—His Honour Tim Anderson said, 'That's all they have to do. You're gone; you're done.' What we are seeing here is a continuation of that process. There is no way a citizen can defend themselves, because you will get a notice, presumably in the post, saying, 'Your car was photographed on 5 Ash Drive on the 2^nd,' and you have to prove that it was not.

It might sound fair in theory, but it is not, because what the police did in my case was threaten to bring someone from the UK to verify that the laser is accurate at a cost of $21,000 to put on my court costs if I lost. They will bring someone out to say that laser is accurate. Under the current rules, you cannot have an independent expert tester because you are not allowed to get your hands on the instrument. So, you cannot defend yourself. In my case, we asked for the University of Adelaide to test the laser. The police said, 'No, you can't have it for commercial reasons, and we will not supply any technical material.' So, you cannot defend yourself.

What they will do in this case, and what they have been doing recently with people who want to challenge a police camera, is threaten to bring the manufacturers of speed cameras from Germany to Adelaide at a cost in excess of $20,000. People are saying to me, 'I just have to plead guilty because there is no way I can win.' What I am saying to the government is that you need to look at this provision. We do not want people coming forward with mickey mouse, frivolous claims, but there must be a mechanism which is fair and reasonable, not this reverse onus of proof, which means the ordinary citizen cannot defend themselves.

I am not in favour of people driving unregistered or avoiding their legal requirements, but you must have a system that is fair and reasonable. I give a warning to people in here, you or a member of your family might get caught out on one of these things down the track like I have where you cannot defend yourself. I make this plea to the Treasurer. I am not commenting on the rest of the budget, but I am dismayed that we are seeing a repetition of this provision which means that the ordinary citizen has their basic fundamental rights taken away from them. There is a presumption which is against the citizen and which is a denial of your basic rights under our system.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:58): I would like to use the opportunity in speaking to this bill to raise some issues of concern in the area of education. Yesterday it was interesting to hear an interview on ABC radio with the education minister on general education issues, but in particular to hear his comments about SACE and re-entry for adults over the age of 21. It was interesting that, in that interview, he commented that he was not expecting TAFE to provide SACE. Matriculation (as it was back then) was provided by TAFE prior to the introduction of the adult re-entry colleges, but he said he did not expect that to happen this time round once these colleges were defunded (or virtually closed) for anyone over the age of 21.

We tested that in parliament today. We heard the minister confirm—and it is in Hansard—that, no, TAFE will not be taking on that role, that there are other avenues. One then needs to ask the question: why on earth then in Budget Paper 6, page 115, under the heading 'Adult re-entry program in public schools—discontinued', do we see a clarifying statement saying:

This initiative will save $20.3 million over three years. Access to re-entry education will continue to be provided to adults up to the age of 21. Adults above the age of 21 will have limited access to schools and will need to access their education needs primarily through the TAFE system or from alternative providers.

It is interesting that I have been inundated with calls from many people in the community who have either benefited directly from these colleges or have a professional involvement with them. I would just like to repeat some of the comments that people from these categories made to me or asked me to pass along.

When the education minister said that we are not expecting TAFE to teach SACE (that is, the secondary South Australian Certificate of Education), the professional comment is:

It's actually SACE that many of our students want, not a TAFE qualification. Others enrol at an adult re-entry school in order to learn how to learn: to gain confidence and study skills that will enable them to tackle such things as TAFE or university.

It is an interesting distinction, and I think it gives you some indication that, despite the minister's claims that 'he has been everywhere, man' when it comes to visiting schools since he has taken over the education portfolio, I am not sure whether the adult re-entry schools have been on his visiting agenda. I will leave it for him to clarify that, but it appears as though he does not have an understanding of what actually goes on in those schools. This is an interesting comment made by one of the participants at the school:

[Mr Weatherill's] handling of the issue convinces me that he has no idea what re-entry education is about. He's been told one or two things about some clientele, and decided that such examples tell the whole story. To some extent, it is the fault of successive governments and of those of us who have worked in this field. We have not publicly celebrated the benefits of this unique branch of education, so we now face the possibility of losing it, without most South Australians realising what they had.

It is a very emotional response to the closure of this college, and there are some real live stories out there. This afternoon I met a very young woman who is 41 years of age and a grandmother. Her name is Lavinia Collis, and she wrote to me and said:

My name is Lavinia Collis and I am currently a 4^th year undergraduate student of UniSA and studying a Bachelor of Education - Primary and Middle school. I am writing to you regarding the closure of Para West Adult re-entry Campus (PWAC), Davoren Park. I have chosen the word closure carefully as despite the fact that PWAC will remain operational for students between the ages of 16-21; these changes will close the doors on mature aged students who choose to better themselves and their education via the facilities that PWAC currently offers.

She has an amazing story to tell. This was a girl who grew up in Whyalla, finished her education at Davoren Park and left school as a 15 year old because she was pregnant with her first child. She then went on to have a second child as a single mother and then met a man who had two of his own children but who later died from complications of disease of the liver due to his drinking habit.

This was a woman who felt at this stage of her life that she did not even want to get out of bed in the morning—she could not drive herself—and that even the love of her children was not enough for her to get motivated for the day. She was introduced to the Para West college and to what the minister would describe as a 'basket weaving course' (he was very harsh on those courses today), where she learnt that she could actually do and achieve things. From that, she went on to do SACE, and she did so well with her SACE results that she won a scholarship to study to be a teacher at the University of South Australia.

I am very pleased to tell the house that, on 1 April next year she will graduate as a teacher with a Bachelor of Education—all that from what the education minister would describe as a WEA college or somewhere you go to. What was the language that he used in his interview? 'People aren't actually looking, in many cases, to complete their year 12.' This is what he told ABC radio: 'They're coming back just to do some subjects as a matter of interest'—a matter of interest! It is interesting, isn't it, that the interest that Lavinia had was for her self-esteem, for her standard of living, for the fact that she wanted to get back into the workforce and actually contribute.

She said to me today, 'You know, David, after all these years I've been on welfare; I'll be paying tax, I'll be giving back. I'll be giving back what I was given when I started my education five years ago, as an adult'—aged 36, right out of the scope, according to the education minister, for this re-education program. There are hundreds and hundreds of stories. I know one lecturer alone—although I prefer to call them teachers, because they do teach these adults how to learn. I know, Deputy Speaker, being a teacher in a past life, that you would understand there is a difference between teaching and lecturing. When you go to TAFE or university you are lectured. Before you go to TAFE or university you need to learn how to learn, and that is what a teacher does. That is what these 4,000 adult students who attend these adult colleges learn at these adult colleges.

The education minister dismissed this, saying, 'This is the only state that has this system.' We used to lead in education in South Australia. We used to be innovators on many things, but, unfortunately, just as the education minister was happy to be fourth place in the NAPLAN scores, he is happy to throw away one of the very things that this state needs. He used as an excuse for the poor NAPLAN results here in South Australia that we have a high proportion of lower socioeconomic people living in South Australia. I would have thought this is the perfect program for them; the perfect program to break that cycle.

It is a sad day for education when we see a premier stand up in this chamber and say, 'We're tough. You don't know what it is like to be tough, and a Treasurer saying that he is tougher than we were. It is not tough to kick people when they are down, Treasurer, and that is exactly what this policy is doing. The very people who want to contribute, who need a helping hand, just enough so they can be independent and move forward of their own ability, are being told, 'You're not worth the effort.' That is the message that this budget measure sends to South Australians.

It is none of my business why they need a second chance. We do not choose what families or circumstances we are born into. I think we need to remember that it is programs like this that give some hope and get some results for those who really need it, and we see a measure like this in a budget where the Premier says that he is proud of this budget, it is a Labor budget. I would certainly be very embarrassed if I was a Labor member of parliament. I am embarrassed as a member of parliament full stop. This program, which escaped the cuts that we needed to bring in when we were in power back in 1993 because of the bankruptcy of this state caused by the State Bank, survived because we understood its value. We do believe in the individual and empowering the individual, and this type of program is the very first step in doing that.

I am speaking on this bill with some pity and shame that a program such as this has been cut and that those people in our most socially disadvantaged suburbs, who want to give something back but do not know how, those people who want to be masters of their own domain want to but do not know how, have had that opportunity taken away from them.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:10): There have been millions of words said about the budget since it came out on 16 September and even the day before when the Sustainable Budget Commission preliminary report came out. Many of those were quite emotional, certainly because of the frustration that some people feel. Some might easily accuse the member for Unley, for instance, because of the example he quoted of the 41-year-old lady with four children, of putting the emotional argument before us. However, I think it is an inspirational one, too, and I hope it is repeated thousands of times over. If people want to improve themselves and recognise the need to educate themselves to achieve that and they manage to get there, that will be great for our economy.

There are quite a few issues in this bill that I could choose to talk about, but there is only one, in particular, that I wish to discuss and that relates to the Petroleum Products Regulation Act and the amendments to it, which are in part 8, clauses 43 to 56. There is no opportunity to propose any amendments to this, and I recognise that, but I wanted to take this opportunity for a few brief moments to put on the record the level of frustration in the community that I represent—which has been impacted upon by this decision on fuel—and, no doubt, all of regional South Australia, too.

I know that budgets are about hard decisions and priorities being determined with, seemingly, an increasing amount of quantum and dollars available, with an enormous amount of new initiatives being required and infrastructure development, so it is a challenge—there is no doubt about that. However, it is also fair to say that people across our great state need some level of support.

Yes, investment is occurring and it is divided up according to the priorities that the Labor Party discern by virtue of their right of being in government. However, it is with a lot of frustration that this decision has been made to remove the subsidy. It has existed since 1997 for people who live in regional areas. It is on a scale, admittedly—depending on how far out people are from the GPO—but the loss of the subsidy is going to be felt in every possible way.

One could argue that 0.66 of a cent per litre (if you reside within zone 2, which is for those people within 50 to 100 kilometres from the GPO) and up to 3.33¢ per litre (for those people who are beyond that) is not, in isolation, a large amount of money. However, it is the quantum and the fact that people who live in regional areas are required to travel that will impact upon them in some way.

The second reading contribution talks about the fact that this initiative will reduce state costs by a fraction over $50 million over four years after it comes into force from 1 January this year. However, what is it, indeed, going to do to the people who live in the regions? As I have said many times in this place, that is some 300,000 people.

The tyranny of distance is something that those of us who live in the regions manage to live with. In my case I would probably do three or four trips to Adelaide and back to the peninsula per week, so I am driving 60,000 kilometres per year. There are many other people who also do a vast number of kilometres, be it for their jobs, their social lives, their sporting opportunities, their health needs, for the educational needs of themselves or their children. This decision really concerns me because it will impact upon the ability of these families and individuals to undertake this level of transport.

That is not even considering that tourism within South Australia (from within our own community and travelling to other parts of our state) is an enormous driver of the economy, as well. There were programs in the past where, in the period of very high fuel prices, for instance, some tourism marketing areas were giving $20 or $50 rebates off fuel if you went to a certain place. That demonstrates to me, more than anything, that fuel costs actually do impact on people's lives.

We want to try to encourage people to live in the regions. The State Strategic Plan talks about the retention of 18 per cent of our population when it is two million people, so still 360,000 people living in the regions with fuel costs impacting upon them. Whatever I say is not going to change the position. I know there is a vast number of members on this side of the house who are very concerned about this. Certainly, when we discussed this bill within our joint party structure, there was some considerable debate about it. It is important to put out the message that it might seem a relatively small cost to the individual, but the cumulative effect, over the course of the year and from 1 January going forward, is going to be a negative one.

It is going to make it more difficult and more expensive for our farmers to move their product. It will impact upon the economic development that we hope will occur through mining opportunities and the fuel usage for the unleaded fuel that is being used as part of those operations. Again, it comes down to the impact that it will have on families and individuals, and that is what really worries me.

I know the debate can be had. The Treasurer is fixed on this, he has made a decision on it, and he has put it through his cabinet and caucus. However, we on this side of the chamber just want to ensure, as much as we can, that an honourable fight takes place on this. I know that a division does not prove anything or help the cause, but there are enough people who are upset about it that we must stand up and express our thoughts and try not to be emotional, because it comes back to that, and consider the economic impact. That is the message that we are trying to deliver.

The Treasurer is good enough to listen to this, and I appreciate that. I know he is forced into making difficult decisions. I listened to his speech yesterday when he talked about the impact of future costs and the ability of any state government to deliver services and infrastructure. I have some level of appreciation of that; but there are some basic principles that I hold true to. One principle is the fact that people living in the regions have enough challenges in their lives as it is already with the provision of services and infrastructure. The creation of an additional cost regime for this most basic of rights—the ability to travel from their community and within their community for whatever reason—is further impacted by this decision of the government.

It is important that we stand and make the Treasurer aware of what the real physical impact of this will be. No doubt, he has been considering for some time the recommendation of the Sustainable Budget Commission. It might be seen as an easy target. I know the second reading contribution refers to the fact that other states have removed the subsidy that has been in place. In Queensland, it was on the larger end of the scale—it was something like 8¢ per litre—and I note also that Western Australia has not done it. The easy argument is that they have a surplus budget, that financially they doing quite well and that there is pressure—

Mr Pisoni: It's a Liberal government.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is a Liberal government—from the Nationals too. It is a commitment from that level of government in Western Australia to support people living in the regions, but sadly it is not evident in what we have seen here today.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (16:18): If I speak I wind up the debate, I assume.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do; you pre-empt me.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will not speak for long, but I appreciate the flagging of the questions. I might just quickly try to answer a few of them, starting with the shadow finance minister. Motor registration first raised its head in a government drive to do away with, where we can, unnecessary red tape. I assume people will like getting rid of the sticker. I do not know how many people have trouble scraping their sticker off and getting a new one on; it is all a bit easier today than it used to be. I accept the shadow treasurer's point that there are people, and I have been one of them, who have taken advantage of the various payment options for motor registrations but, for efficiency reasons and savings, we have decided to give only two options: three months and 12 months.

I could say this to the Minister for Education about adult re-entry: other states are not doing it, and it is the same thing with the petrol subsidy—most states are not doing it. It comes down to simple choices. I do not like doing it. I would like to have delivered a budget where I did not have to do anything that was difficult, but we just do not have the financial strength. The point I was trying to make yesterday in my contribution is that this problem will only magnify in years.

If you win the next election, trust me, in terms of the position you take today, which is critical of the government's cuts, you will be faced with the same dilemma; it is the reality of state government in a modern age. We do not have enough money to deliver the services that the community demands. We are getting to the very difficult period where we have just got to make these choices, and we have done that. We accept that they are not popular and that they will cause discomfort and pain to some people.

In terms of the petrol rebate, I do not think that governments should be in the business of subsidising petrol, because petrol is pretty volatile as it is. One minute it is $1.10 and the next minute it is $1.40—it jumps all over the place. People do have marketing incentives from the likes of Coles and Woolworths; you get 3¢ or 4¢ a litre for shopping with them. There is enough private incentive in the market to get cheaper petrol. I do not believe that the government needs to be in that space. As I said, in the scheme of things from which we have to choose, we simply cannot afford it.

However, I am happy to take questions from the shadow treasurer and other members in committee. The member for Goyder is now flagging that he will divide on the petrol—

Mr Griffiths: I didn't say that.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is what I assumed you said. All right. I am happy to go into committee and take questions from members opposite.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PISONI: My question is on the changes to the Education Act, which I believe relate to long service leave entitlements. The Treasurer will probably have to bring this figure back to the chamber, but I would like to know the specific impact on the budget over the forward estimates of that change.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: We had printed the aggregate number for all of government.

Mr Pisoni: Specifically for the education budget.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I guess that it is proportionate. I will have a look at it and see whether it is an answer that I can give. I have given it across government.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Treasurer, I will just make some comments before I ask the question; that will probably speed the process up for everyone. If you are happy for that informal approach, it might help out everyone. I am just a bit intrigued about how this sustainability licence is going to work—this is the sustainability licence for the Environment Protection Authority.

It seems to me that the government is introducing a brand new system of environmental licensing called 'the sustainability licence'. It will be renewed annually on the basis that the business, the corporation that is being licensed, commits to certain sustainability outcomes and an open public consultation process.

I am a bit intrigued: are you looking at licensing activities that are currently not licensed, or are you looking at taking businesses that are currently licensed and transferring them onto a sustainability licence; and, if so, why will the outcome be any different, because they are already licensed by the EPA? Also, will the sustainability licence be dearer or cheaper than the current licence? If the sustainability licence is cheaper, will the new licence regime then be put up in future years as a revenue measure, because I assume they are the less polluting industries? I assume it is the most polluting industries that will go onto the sustainability licence. I am really intrigued as to why there is a need for this and how it will work.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am advised that this is a voluntary licence and they will keep their normal licensing schedule but there is demand, I am told, in the marketplace for this type of licence because it improves their brand. I guess it is like companies that get various standards in terms of best practice, etc. They actually use it as a measure to demonstrate that they are making improvements to their quality, I think. It is voluntary, they say there is demand in the market for it, and it should raise about $200,000 a year.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So this is the environmental equivalent of the Heart Foundation tick, essentially, so we are setting up a system for companies to market themselves. But, what better environmental outcome will result through having this licence that will not already be achieved under the existing licence?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am advised that, like the Heart Foundation tick when you have to actually deliver on low fat and low sugar, etc., these companies will be required under a schedule to use less water and less electricity and dump waste. There is a set of benchmarks for industry and we are putting the bar higher. If they want to achieve this higher recognition they have a number of criteria they have to meet. That helps them position their company better and they pay us for it. So it is a win-win situation.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If it is possible to licence them for less power and less water and control their waste dumping and all those sorts of things, why not do that under the existing licensing regime? Why do we need a new fee and a new licence? Surely, all of that can be achieved under the current licence.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am advised the EPA is only licensed to monitor pollution and waste. It has no role in electricity use or water use. The EPA does not have a role in that, I am advised. That criteria has been put in the sustainability certificate and it is at a higher benchmark. I must say that the member obviously has a passion for this. Were you the minister who set up the EPA?

The Hon. I.F. Evans: No, I inherited it.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am sure that in the estimates committee you might be in a much better position to ask these types of questions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the last question on this and then we can worry about it in another place or during estimates. I am intrigued, if it is a voluntary licence, as to why we have set it up on an annual basis and why there is a court process. It seems to me that if it is a voluntary thing, just as the business could withdraw at any stage, if they are not abiding to their licence, the government can just walk away from it. It is not binding on anyone. It does not mean anything. It is just a marketing exercise. It seems to me that it does not have the same status in the system as a licence that is enforced rather than voluntary.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am told that it is voluntary to enter the scheme but once in you are entrapped and then you must deliver or we will use the full power of the laws under the EPA act to ensure that compliance is delivered. One of the conditions, I guess, is that they agree, when they go in voluntarily, that if they do not deliver then they will be subject to action under the act and penalties, and they have the right of appeal, of course, or challenge. Is that a reasonable summation? I love it when I get to talk on the environment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 11 deals with the first home owners grant. I had to re-read these sections of the act a couple of times to actually understand the changes that were being proposed, and I think I now have my head around it. With your permission, Madam Chair, to make it simpler for the committee, I will talk about clauses 11 through to 17 inclusive, which is all to do with the first home owners grant. I will talk about that principle; it will be easier for the Treasurer to knock off all those clauses at once.

I notice that, in relation to the $575,000 cap under clause 12, which deals with section 7—Entitlement to grant, it talks about 'if another amount is prescribed by regulation for the purposes of this subsection'. Is it the intention to CPI this figure? This is the cap that is meant to be controlled, I think, by a federal agreement at 1.4 times. Is it the intention to prescribe in the regulations the 1.4 times so that it automatically moves with the median price? Is that the intention of that clause? If it is not the intention, I cannot see any need for the clause.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am advised that it is 1.4 times the median value of house prices and it is the decision of the government of the day as to whether it updates it annually, every two years, or every five years. It is not an automatic update. It would be something that you would look at, I guess, in the normal budget cycle, and whether there has been a movement in house prices, which you would assume there would be. I would certainly do it every year, as a treasurer, but that does not mean that future treasurers have to do it every year, but it would seem fair and equitable that you do it each year.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 15, which deals with section 18 and, in particular, 18BB—Market value of homes, is on page 12 of the bill that I am dealing with. Subparagraph (ii), at the top of that page, deals with what value the commissioner will place on the property in relation to an eligible transaction. This is where the commissioner has some discretion to dispute, if you like, the market value of a home. It is whether they are eligible for the first homeowners grant. I am a simpleton in these matters, Treasurer, but I cannot work out what subparagraph (ii) means. It states:

if the Commissioner considers that the consideration for the eligible transaction may be less than market value—the market value of the property on which the home is situated...

'The property on which the home' seems to indicate to me the land. It says 'the market value of the property on which the home is situated'. It seems to me the commissioner is restricted to the value of the property, which is the land, because 'home' has a definition under the act.

It seems to me that the market value should be of 'the home and land' or 'the home', but not 'the property on which the home'. Parliamentary counsel is very good at drafting these things, but it reads 'the value of the property on which the home is situated'. The home cannot be the property because the home cannot be on the home. The only thing the home can be on is the land. The only fair interpretation of that paragraph is that the word 'property' means land, because otherwise it makes no sense.

If you use the expression 'the market value of the house on which the house is situated,' it makes no sense. If the word 'property' is to mean 'house', it makes no sense. The only interpretation of the paragraph is: 'the market value of the land on which the house is situated', and if that is the interpretation, that is wrong. In my view, the paragraph should read 'the market value of the home', because the home includes the land by definition of the act. I think this piece of legislation has an error.

I will leave it for the Treasurer to look at it between the houses to see whether there needs to be a correction, but I do not think the commissioner can make a judgment on that paragraph because, firstly, the market value we talk about is the market value of the whole purchase. We are restricting it to new homes. New homes cannot be on a house: new homes can only be on land, and therefore potentially I think that is a problem. I will leave you with that one. That is my only comment on that one.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That paragraph is replicated from the existing act. I will come to the wording in a moment. It is here to deal with any related party transaction or someone selling a house in a related party transaction below what the market value of the house is. So, the commissioner can rely on the Valuer-General's valuation for that house and property, if he or she is concerned that it has been sold for whatever reason under its true market value. In respect of your interpretation of that paragraph, I am told that it is in the existing act and, to date, the commissioner has been using that act—and it is house and land. I am more than happy to raise the matter with parliamentary counsel between the houses and see whether or not that is as tight a definition as we need. We will do that between the houses.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am aware of instances where ownership of the land is via some form of lease but homes can be put on that land. I know that, within my own electorate, I have structures in place where there is an overriding ownership by one party but there are long-term leases in place for individual allotments on which houses are sometimes built and transfers do occur. I am not sure whether that relates to this issue.

The CHAIR: There is actually an issue here also between the use of the word 'house' and 'home', because they indicate different things; is that correct?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am advised that parliamentary counsel, and I assume, my people, interpret that to mean the land and the home. I do not disagree with the shadow treasurer. I had to read it a few times to get my head around it. On the issue of what the shadow finance minister said, I will take that on board as well.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I ask again, first just in general terms, about this part of the bill, which relates to clauses 18 through to 40. It refers to the issue about motor registration discs and labels no longer being required to be put on cars. I am aware of the fact that this actually occurs in Western Australia. I would be interested to hear from the Treasurer, examples of—I do not know how long it has been in Western Australia for. I know in the preliminary check I did, I was advised that there is a telephone number that people can ring and a website that people can contact to determine indeed if a vehicle is registered, if there is some uncertainty about it. I would be interested to hear how long it has been the case like that in Western Australia, and instances overseas where this practice might be in place.

In late June, early July of this year—it is only a fresh issue, it is not that old—there was concern raised by constituents to me, and, I know, across a wider area on some talkback radio stations, about where renewal notices for registrations have not been issued to people. The comment I recollect hearing on radio, while doing an interview from a departmental officer within motor registration, was that renewal notices are actually provided, I think the word used was as a 'courtesy'.

So, my concern would be, that if there are not to be any registration labels upon cars—which have traditionally formed the best opportunity for someone to remember, 'Crikey, I have got to register my car soon because my month is about to expire'—is there going to be a guarantee of a process to ensure that all vehicle owners receive a renewal notice, in a reasonable period of time before their renewal expires, to prompt them?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: There will be a local call number; there will be a call centre. It will be online and there will be a website. So, garages and motor repair shops will be able to look online to ensure that car is registered.

I recall the discussion I had, and others, with the police commissioner. I do not want to speak out of turn in terms of what he said, but my recollection of the advice from the police commissioner was that they can deal with it, because technology is improving in the police car, in its ability to check—I assume through technology and through voice—someone's registration quite quickly.

As I said, this initiative initially came up through our red tape reduction scheme, as just one way we could reduce red tape in terms of the consumer. So, it was not initially a budget savings measure, but when we realised it could save some money it had double the appeal. Sorry, what was the second bit?

Mr Griffiths: The renewal notices.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes. I had never really concentrated on this, but, interestingly, we send a notice six weeks prior to your due date, but it is only a courtesy. The obligation is on the driver to ensure that they get the car registered. So, if the postman drops your letter in the gutter, or if the dog pulls it out of the letterbox and eats it, or you change your address and do not contact the transport department, the obligation is on you. You cannot, as a defence, say, 'But I never got a reminder.' I am told that the vast majority of registrations go quite comfortably, but there will always be the problems. We send you another reminder, seven to 14 days after the expiry date. So we do not believe that we should then have to chase the person down. So, we will show minimum tolerance.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I appreciate the answer from the Treasurer, and certainly the member for Reynell corrected me: it is not when you receive it, it is when it is sent, and there is no guarantee of receipt. However, for the absolute majority of people Australia Post does deliver—there is no doubt about that—but there will be circumstances that arise. My real concern is to ensure that the process of these courtesy notices, some six weeks before and some two weeks after the fact, are still going to be in place. It is a great fear for me because there is also the third-party comprehensive insurance issue attached to the registration. I am sure none of us would like to see an accident occur and insurance not being in place, so I just want to ensure that those guarantees are there.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes.

Mr TRELOAR: I have a number of questions for the Treasurer on behalf of the Motor Trade Association, and they are all to do with motor registration. The first question is: can the Treasurer outline what protections have been put in place to protect motor vehicle dealers, repairers and their staff from being fined or charged unfairly if they are detected driving a customer's vehicle which is unregistered?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: They themselves?

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, they themselves?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am advised that we would expect most dealers to tick a box on the form that you fill out when you put your car in for a service to say, 'Is your car registered? Tick yes.' We would also encourage people to check online. I am told there is a part of the amendment that says that, if the motor tradesperson has reasonably attempted to verify the registration, there is a defence for that. If you have asked the person whether the car is registered and then you take it out, you would be safe because you have ticked the box.

We would be assuming that the motor trades will also go through and just check, as standard procedure probably, before the account is paid or something, the website. The website will be very easily accessible to MTA members. If they have a concern that maybe the person is not telling the truth, they can quickly check. If the person has said it is their car and it is registered, the onus of proof falls back on the person involved, not the motor trades dealer. That is what I am advised.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question on that, and it concerns privacy issues. I understand we are trying to ensure that things are registered, too, but it may be an arrangement where you are asked, 'Is it your car and is it registered?' and you say yes, but it has been lent or loaned to you by someone else you might not want others to know about and all of a sudden somebody checks on the website and says, 'Well, that's not registered to you but to someone else.' Is that a privacy concern?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The key issue is that the vehicle is legally registered; it is not under whose name it is registered. If my kids are taking my car in to be serviced or, for whatever reason, your next-door neighbour is dropping it off for you, when the neighbour goes to tick the box he would just want to be sure that it is registered, so he would ask you. Before he ticks the box, he will probably get on his mobile phone to check with you that it is registered. Again, provided that the dealer takes reasonable action to find out by putting a notice on the form A—it is a bit like going through customs, you just tick it, and that is all we are asking.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry to be pedantic about this, but I presume that, at the moment, the current situation is that the police can do a registration check—and probably motor registration staff can do a registration check—but, as I understand it, a website is now available where a person can key in data for any numberplate. Do they find out who owns it or only the fact that it is registered? Does a name link to the advice that comes up?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It confirms whether it is registered or not; it does not give any other detail for privacy reasons. However, I remind South Australians that red light cameras on many intersections are already capable and have the technology so that, if you go through one now, and your car is not registered—bang, it picks you up. There is a lot of inbuilt capacity within our system to check whether you are driving around the city in an unregistered car.

Mr TRELOAR: Can the Treasurer provide an assurance that the online computer checking system proposed by DTEI to allow motorists, including dealers and repairers, to check their registration expiry date by keying in their registration number will be speedy and free of charge?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have just been advised to give a yes and yes answer. As I have experienced a near-death experience in this parliament by giving such a definitive answer, I have no intention of following the advice of my adviser.

As it relates to speed, I am not prepared to give you a guarantee that it will always be quick. Even though my erstwhile officials are telling me yes, I do not want to have a Bob Such incident in a few years' time, where someone like the member for Fisher goes back to the Hansard of this debate and relies on my words for ambiguity. Every effort will be made to ensure that it is fast and speedy, but I cannot guarantee that that will always be the case—one would hope. As for charging, the government at this point in time has no intention of charging for that service.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I want to tease out the issue raised by the members for Flinders on behalf of the Motor Trade Association. You have given an unequivocal answer to the house in relation to the level of proof required by motor trader groups in relation to their clients' cars—that is, the only obligation on them will be to ask: 'Is your car registered?' If they get a yes they are at liberty to rely on that answer, and there is no other obligation on them to meet the test in the bill.

The test in the bill can be interpreted broadly. The reason I am raising this specifically is to get an unequivocal answer to make sure we are absolutely crystal clear, because in the bill it states that 'he or she did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known.'

Let me put my bush lawyer's hat on for a minute (which I know will make parliamentary counsel laugh). If I was a lawyer prosecuting a motor trader official for driving an unregistered car, I would simply ask him: 'Did you know you could click on a website to check whether the car was registered?' Answer: 'Yes.' 'Did you do that?' 'No.' 'Well, you could have reasonably known, if you had taken that step. Why didn't you take that step?' So, I am not convinced that your guarantee to the house will hold.

If it is the intention of the government that the only requirement is that they ask the owner or the person dropping off the car (it may not be the owner) why not make the legislation say that? Having received an assurance from the driver of the vehicle that it is insured, the motor trader has no further obligation.

I think the phrase 'could not reasonably been expected to have known' is so broad that a lawyer and a court could find that, because this website is going to be advertised widely, and the motor traders are dealing with vehicles every day, an argument could be mounted by a lawyer more clever than me that they should have known because all they had to do is click on the publicised website or ring the toll-free number. Why didn't they do that? I accept the government's position is right. I think that motor traders should be able to rely on the driver of the vehicle saying, 'It is registered,' full stop. That should be the end of their obligation.

I will not move an amendment now; it can be dealt with between the houses. The other point I make is this: because the motor traders are now setting up this website and everyone knows that the vehicle is not registered, will there be any responsibility or liability on the motor trader for not advising the owner of the vehicle that it is not registered?

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If he does not tell the owner and then the owner has a crash, and they are not insured, etc., are they going to come back against the motor trader and say, 'Hang on a minute, you knew this was unregistered and you didn't tell me. You had an obligation to tell me.' We do not need the answer tonight, but we need to get it absolutely crystal clear, because there will be issues at stake down the track, and that is the purpose for the member for Flinders' questions in relation to that.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. K.O. Foley]

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I think that is a very good question: why are we not more specific? Legal advice (and, I assume, with the concurrence of parliamentary counsel) is that the wording is correct. In terms of the things that are reasonable, it would be reasonable to check the vehicle's registration online, or by phone or to ask the owner before driving the vehicle. The question I would then ask is: why do you have a website or a call centre if all you have to do is ask the person? Convenience, I am advised.

I will ask my officers whether they could, perhaps, check with crown law and again with parliamentary counsel as to whether or not that needs to be further refined. The other issue was whether or not there is an obligation on the dealer, having discovered that the vehicle is not registered, to advise the owner or the driver accordingly.

My advice is that the onus of proof rests with the person responsible for the car. It is up to the driver or the owner of the vehicle to be aware as to whether or not the vehicle is registered. However, we will take that question on notice and we will give a more detailed answer in another place. I am worried now; you have got another act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, I had the wrong act. I was onto the next one.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: You didn't make a mistake, did you?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I did. I have seven acts, trying to follow all this. This question relates to clause 18(3), which deals with section 9(3) of the act, where we are inserting the words 'driven/or'. Section 9 (3) of the act states:

If an unregistered motor vehicle is found standing on a road, the owner of the vehicle is guilty of an offence.

The Treasurer is adding 'or driven', so that if an unregistered motor vehicle is driven on the road or found standing on the road, the owner of the vehicle is guilty of an offence. What is the defence for the owner if someone takes the car without permission?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: What, stolen or—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My kid takes it. Dad's at work, and the kid takes the car, as sometimes happens. I assume that mum and dad have a defence, do they? Does the owner become liable?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, you are okay. It is a defence to a charge of an offence against subsection (3). It is not illegal to have an unregistered car; it is illegal to take it out on a road. If you did not do it, that is a defence, provided the defendant had taken reasonable steps to ensure that any person lawfully entitled to use the motor vehicle would have been aware that the vehicle is unregistered.

There is an onus on you to tell your son at some point, 'Don't forget, the old man's car is not registered, so don't take it for a burn.' If he is dumb enough to take it, he gets the fine, does he? Whether or not you choose to pay it is a matter internally in the Evans' household.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The answer to that would be no. Clause 18 deals with section 9(7), the last subclause of this clause. You are inserting, 'but does not include a person who takes the vehicle on hire'. That is an addition to the definition of 'owner'. What about loan cars? When I crash my car and I go to Caddle's Crash Repairs, I do not pay a hire fee. It is just given to me for nothing, so I am technically not hiring it. I assume we are covered there?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Again, it comes back to the owner of the loan car. It is his or her responsibility, or the corporation's responsibility, to ensure it is registered. If you get pinged and it is not registered, that would be your defence.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is what I thought, so why do we need a special provision for hire cars because, when you are hiring it, by definition, you do not own it? If that is the provision in the bill, you do not need to specify hire cars.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The rationale for that is that, under the current act the definition of 'owner' for the administration of the existing act is the owner or a person who hires the car who is responsible. Because it will not be readily identifiable for you that it is registered, we are turning that around so it goes back to the owner. Under the current act I am treated as the owner. So that is probably a lesson for all of us—check the windscreen if you are in another state that still has stickers. That is why we are reversing the onus of responsibility back onto the owner of the hire car business.

Clause passed.

Clauses 19 to 32 passed.

Clause 33.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This deals with a change to the obligation on the owner of a vehicle that has been unregistered and is in an accident. On behalf of those owners, I want to get the same commitment for them as we did for the motor traders, because I think the same principle applies. This provision deals with section 116(7c)(b) of the bill. Subsection (7c)(b) talks about a defence to an action under subsection (7b) if the defendant proves that 'the defendant did not know and had no reason to believe that the vehicle was [uninsured]'. That is the current provision—they had no reason to believe. The government is changing it to a harder defence, or a defence that, in my view, will put the owner more at risk. The government is changing that defence to be: the owner could not reasonably have been expected to have known.

So this comes back to the same question as for the motor traders. If the only obligation on the motor traders is to ask, then what obligation is on these people to have known? I guess the question is: why is there a change in the defence? If it is not making it harder, why is there a change in the defence?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: What we are doing there, shadow minister, is we are making it consistent with what we have done, as you said earlier, for the motor trader: the same defence would apply. If I borrowed your car and I said, 'Iain, is your car registered?' and you said, 'Yes,' if I go out and have an accident and it is not then you are in trouble, not me.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That's fine, Treasurer. What I want on the record is that you have no obligation to go and check the website or make a phone call, because you are dealing with lack of insurance here. This happened to my sister. She borrowed the then boyfriend's car. It was uninsured. She was a teacher with four primary school kids going on a school excursion. The police pulled her over. She did not know that it was uninsured. Had she had an accident she was in more trouble than Ned Kelly. It is a huge issue for people if they have an accident in an uninsured vehicle. She went to the court, thanked the police officer for pulling her over, the court fined her $50 and that was it, because she was so courteous about it. She was very lucky.

So, I am very nervous about this issue of the change in wording because I think the wording is way open to interpretation in the court. If we are going to say to the motor traders that their only obligation is to ask, which is what we have said earlier in this debate, then it follows, in my view, that the same obligation should follow in these circumstances, and we should put that in the legislation so that it is crystal clear, because down the track some poor sod is going to ask his mate, there is going to be an accident, someone is going to get injured, there is going to be a huge claim against them because they are uninsured, they are going to come back to the Hansard and there is going to be an argument about what we meant. If we mean that you only have to ask, then put it in that you only have to ask. Make it an absolute obligation and nothing more, otherwise it is open to interpretation.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I think that is a very reasonable point. We will take that into consideration and have a response for the upper house. I must say though that I am getting very anxious that in years to come my comments in this legislation will be used by lawyers and judges alike to determine what we actually meant.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Some guide!

Clause passed.

Clauses 34 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This deals with photographic evidence, so it is the issue that the member for Fisher raised. I know that we cannot fix it here today, and I am not going to hold the house, but I bring to the Treasurer's notice my view that the member for Fisher is absolutely right in his argument. If you look at what the legislation does, it puts the driver in an absolute no-win situation against the government agency, because all through this legislation it says that the photograph will be accepted as proof in absence of proof to the contrary. When you go to the police and say, 'We want to get the equipment tested,' as the member for Fisher put in Hansard, they will say, 'Well, we will bring the expert out from Germany. It will only cost you $21,000 to contest this $200 speeding fine. Do you want to go ahead?'

Of course, no-one is going to go down that path. So, we are building in a system that is impossible for the ordinary citizen to contest—it is absolutely impossible. The practical effect of it is it is impossible to contest. I had a circumstance with a constituent where we got two documents from the police that had the camera at two different locations at the same time for the same offence. The police acknowledged that, but would not withdraw the expiation notice. They said, 'Take your luck and go to court if you want.' This guy was a subcontract transport courier driver, a day off for him was worth $800. It was a $200 fine, so he is not contesting it. That is 200 bucks in the pocket. We have all had speeding fines, but the system—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I was not going to comment on the member for Croydon, but I will. The member for Croydon was photographed on TV the other day riding a bike without a helmet.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: A tricycle.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: A tricycle on the road; Channel 7 news. That is a traffic offence and you are very lucky, member for Croydon, that you have not been issued with an expiation notice because then you could contest it under this system. All I say to the Treasurer and the Minister for Road Safety (who is in the chamber) is: have a look at the system and ask yourselves how can the ordinary citizen contest the fine? I accept the fact that, if people speed, they should be fined; no argument about that.

Occasionally there are disputes and there is no fair process to resolve the disputes. I had a constituent who got fined going through a red-light camera. The camera takes a photograph one second apart. You could tell by the first photo that his wheels were on the white line of the crossing as he was going across and he had not reached the other side of the crossing, according to the second photo. We measured from the white line to the other side of the crossing, and had he been going fast enough to get to the other side, the quickest he could have been doing was 63 km/h. He was booked at 68.

We invited the police down there to measure it with us. They refused and they flatly refused to withdraw the fine. Again he was a small business person; he is not going to take a day off work for a $200 fine. I totally agree with the member for Fisher. The process is simply unfair against the ordinary citizen who has a fair complaint.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Did you say this when you were a minister?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Member for Croydon, I just point out, we are debating amendments that your government is introducing now. That is the point I am making.

Clause passed.

Clauses 39 and 40 passed.

Clause 41.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I only have one question for the Treasurer on this clause. I have to make some comment on clause 41. This was the provision where the government contacted the Commissioner of Taxation and said, 'The parliament is so busy that we haven't got time to put through the legislation to do with the payroll tax rebates.' We were flat out, according to the government. You can all remember that, straight after the election, there was virtually no legislation before the house, as is always the case.

This piece of legislation deals with the rebate for payroll tax. I understand the government has gone to a system of exemption so that businesses do not even have to calculate the wage going in, so there is no rebate back, which means there is less paperwork. This was our policy and the government has adopted it, which is fine and we welcome it. Did the Treasurer tell the Commissioner of Taxation that the parliament was too busy to deal with this particular piece of legislation until 1 January 2011, as reported?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: All I can say is that my good friend the member for Davenport is always the cynic.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Treasurer, if not you, who? Did your office tell the commissioner that the parliament was too busy, because that was the reason put out on the schedule to businesses? I just want to know who told the commissioner. In fairness to the commissioner, he would not have made it up, so someone from within government told the commissioner we were too busy.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will take that question on board and get back to the member sine die.

Clause passed.

Clauses 42 to 61 passed.

Clause 62.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I move:

Page 28, after line 10—insert:

(2) The Governor may, by proclamation, declare that a specified provision of an enterprise agreement that relates to a particular class of public sector employees and provides for an entitlement to long service leave or payment in lieu of long service leave that is inconsistent with the standards set by subclause (1) of clause 7 of Schedule 1 of the Public Sector Act 2009 (as enacted by this Act) no longer applies from 1 July 2011.

(3) A proclamation under subsection (2)—

(a) may make transitional or ancillary provisions that may be necessary or expedient in the circumstances; and

(b) will have effect according to its terms.

I am advised that there was an error between crown law and parliamentary counsel. We are not necessarily apportioning blame—these things happen. We left a certain category of employee out, and they probably would have liked to have been left out, but then that would have been inconsistent and unfair. I am told we missed out the ambulance employees, even though this amendment does not mention them by name. This amendment ensures that all public servants are captured in the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The opposition has been briefed on the amendment. We accept the fact that the amendment simply inserts the intention in the government's budget speech, so we are not going to defeat the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 63 to 84 passed.

Clause 85.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am just interested, on behalf of the member for Fisher, in the prescribing requirements as to the operation and testing of such a device. I assume there is already regulation that goes to the testing of photographic devices for road traffic offences. I am just wondering what is different about this particular clause? There would already be a provision in the regulation about the testing of photographic devices, so what changes with this clause?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am told that it allows us to use apparatuses for the Motor Vehicles Act. Does that answer your question?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No. There are already photographic devices out there. One assumes there is already a provision for them to be approved, subject to a certain testing regime. So, why do we need a new clause that says, 'Approve apparatus for photographic detection, and prescribe requirements for testing'? Surely that is already in the act, or are we saying it is not currently in the act? Why do we need this new provision?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am told that the key words in that paragraph are the words that say 'any other act' at the very end of that paragraph, and that is to ensure that this picks up other acts where regulations need to be put in place.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Example?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: When we take a snap of you going through a red light and it is an unregistered vehicle, so we want to take action; at present it is under the Road Traffic Act. We are now needing it to be under the Motor Vehicles Act. So, it allows us to make regulations under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Since you have raised it, I will just clarify it for the record: there is nothing in this bill that reverses the onus of proof? The onus of proof does not change under this bill, since you raised it in the immediate previous answer? All the onuses of proof still remain the same for this bill?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, the onus of proof is not changing. I might just reflect on that. In my years in parliament, there are two types of politicians. I am not putting you in this camp, but I think you probably have a foot in it.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I think you would be in the camp of slightly conspiratorial, of the view that you cannot quite trust the state or the bureaucracy to always to get it right, or you are a politician like me who just goes with the flow.

The CHAIR: Because you are so easygoing.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Exactly. If you get pinched speeding, fair chances are you have sped. If by some miracle of chance the machine was faulty, just think of all the times you have sped when you have not been caught. There is a bit of karma in it. Just pay it and get on with your life. I cannot understand for the life of me why our good friend the member for Fisher would have expended such a large amount of money and time on a speeding fine—just pay it.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Why would Marcus Einfeld find himself in gaol for a stupid speeding fine? People do some—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Why would Paul Keating go to court over a speeding fine?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Very good question.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: And he won!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: And he won. Paul Keating is a great man, but I think he falls into your category: conspiratorial. I just go with the flow.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (86 and 87) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (17:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I speak now and I forever close the debate. We are acting with sheer haste here, but we can do it because it is in the budget papers and I am not going to make a point of that for the shadow education minister. However, DECS make up some 28 to 30 per cent of the annual savings of the adjustments to the long service leave provisions which, I guess, is proportionate to their workforce, and teachers are probably a little older than the average public servant. I want to thank members opposite for their constructive approach to this debate.

Bill read a third time and passed.