House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Corporations (Commonwealth Powers) (Termination Day) Amendment Bill CORPORATIONS (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) (TERMINATION DAY) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 23 March 2011.) Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:52): I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Corporations (Commonwealth Powers) (Termination Day) Amendment Bill, notwithstanding that personally I will express my own concern about what happened in May 1991, when there had been a transfer from that time by the commonwealth and each of the states and territories to uniform law to regulate corporations, generally referred to as the Corporations Law. That was an era in South Australia that we of course all vividly remember as being in the wake of the State Bank. I think by that stage we had a very desperate treasurer (Frank Blevins), and an even more concerned premier (Lynn Arnold), contemplating how they might get the state out of the mess of that, and the introduction of poker machines was, of course, high on the agenda. That was the era we remember, but it was also a time when South Australia had a number of national corporations based in Adelaide. Sadly, of course, during the post-eighties era and the demise of confidence in the banking sector, particularly with the State Bank collapse in South Australia, it was hardly surprising that we saw an exodus from South Australia of iconic and key industries and entities. However, to facilitate the capacity for companies that operated across the boundaries of our states—that is, at a national level and an international level—it was considered at the time that having a national corporations scheme providing for consistency, in particular for those that were, as I say, operating, in a number of states, would greatly facilitate a regulatory framework to support their operations nationally and internationally, and it was that ideology that sat behind the need to sign up to a federal scheme. Since that time there have been two High Court cases which, from memory, the Attorney-General referred to in his second reading explanation—that is, Wakim in 1999 and Hughes in 2000—which created uncertainty as to whether the commonwealth corporations law could be enforced. On 25 August 2000, the commonwealth state and territory ministers reached an in-principle agreement for the states to refer to the commonwealth parliament the power to enact the corporations law as a commonwealth law and to make amendments to that law subject to the terms of the corporations agreement. The referral was certainly unusual, because it did not specify legislative powers but referred the state legislative power necessary to maintain a piece of legislation. I place that on the record because, although it is in a much more succinct form than what was presented by the Attorney-General in his second reading explanation, I think it is important that we demonstrate to the house the opposition's understanding of that. The states and territories chose to make a time-limited referral rather than an ongoing one. In particular, the South Australian referral act said, 'We'll do this, but we are only going to do it for a five-year period.' So, the reference terminates on the fifth anniversary of its commencement. As it was renewed in 2006, it now lapses on 15 July 2011. So, within a few months this will lapse unless we do something about it. This bill essentially makes provision for another five-year term of the referral of power to expire on 15 July 2016. I would have thought that we would have been able to undertake some assessment by now about whether in fact the corporations power at a national level has been successful, is workable, and is for the benefit of Australia and South Australia. It seems as though nobody has undertaken that exercise. That is disappointing but, nevertheless, on that basis, I think it is reasonable that we extend it. I think it is also important that the government in the next three years that it has left in office turns its mind to this to ensure that we properly conduct an assessment about whether this has been beneficial for South Australia and, if it has, that we identify the correct model upon which we will provide a specific legislative power transfer; and, if not, that we review that matter for the benefit of South Australians. Sadly, I can count on my two hands the number of national companies that are headquartered here in South Australia that would be directly affected by this. However, it is fair to say that there are a number of enterprises in Adelaide and South Australia which operate from headquarters in Melbourne and Sydney, and legal professions are included in that. So, there are service providers as well. Therefore, it is not just identified for those that are headquartered here in South Australia. I am not a great signatory or supporter of something that is one size fits all and that uniformity is necessarily a good thing. In that regard I am a bit closer to the Western Australian school of thought. However, we can see the benefits in not having conducted any comprehensive review, particularly of this matter, to get the model correct. We do need to facilitate an extension of time and, accordingly, the opposition supports the bill. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Minister for Urban Development Minister for Tourism Minister for Food Marketing The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (12:59): I again appreciate and congratulate the member for Bragg on her contribution. It was very much to the point again, which is marvellous. It appears that we are in a sort of furious agreement about this matter, which is splendid, so I am very happy. Bill read a second time. Third Reading Third Reading The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Minister for Urban Development Minister for Tourism Minister for Food Marketing The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (12:59): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and passed. [Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]