STATUTES AMENDMENT (BUDGET 2011) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 11.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Treasurer, you mentioned that there is going to be an annual fee charged. Is it the intention to set the annual fee but charge it on a three or five-yearly basis so that the administration only has to send out an invoice once every three or five years, or is it the intention to charge and send out an invoice every year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In answer to the member for Davenport's question, I would expect it would be charged annually, but I will check with the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner and find out if that is how it expects it will do it. If it is not an annual fee, if it is not to be charged annually, then I will get back to the member and let him know.

I would ask that clauses 11 through to 17 be deferred and taken into consideration after clause 18.

Consideration of clauses 11 to 17 deferred.

Clause 18.

Mrs REDMOND: I move:

Page 9, lines 14 to 37 and page 10, lines 1 to 32 [clause 18, inserted section 189A]—

Delete inserted section 189A

We had a fair discussion in our party room about this, but really this amendment does not, we think, become a money bill. Indeed, we took advice about whether this was a money bill and reached the conclusion that it was not a money bill. The intention of the amendment as moved is to delete section 189A.

Clause 18 adds into the bill a provision as to costs generally, which is section 189, but then adds in 189A, 189B and so on, down through to 189E, I think is the last one. If you go through those, effectively there are a number of provisions in the existing act which are then repeated in the various parts of sections 189C, 189D and 189E, so that for the most part those are not really new, they are just repeating what is already in the legislation.

Sections 189A and 189B are really the crux of the matter. Section 189A is the section which reduces the court's discretion to award costs against police. The other part, section 189B, is basically the court enforcement fee. That section proposes to increase the court enforcement fee for cases where a defendant is found guilty. At the moment it is $25, and the proposal of 189B is to increase that to $100. The government says that will raise an extra $13.4 million over the next three years and will continue to meet the costs of prosecuting in this state.

We are not objecting to that. If I can make it clear that of all the sections in there, the new 189 is replacing, I think, 189(1) as it is at the moment. The new section 189B is the court enforcement provision which is increasing the fee from $25 to $100, and we are not objecting to that. Sections 189C, 189D and 189E are simply repeating the equivalent provisions in the existing legislation. Our objection is simply to section 189A. Now, why do we object to that? Section 189A(1), in brief, provides:

If, in proceedings for an offence prosecuted by a police officer—

(a) the Court dismisses the proceedings; or

(b) the proceedings are withdrawn.

the Court may only make an order for costs in favour of the defendant if the Court is satisfied that...the order should be made.

The effect of it is that, if a person is prosecuted by the police in this state and is entirely successful, that person will not necessarily get their costs paid. It has been a fundamental principle of justice in this state over more years than any of us in this place have ever been here, that, if you go to court and you win, be it in a civil case or a criminal case, you will get your costs paid. They will not always be the whole of your costs, they will be costs according to the scale, and so on, but you will get at least a contribution, and it is significant that you are able to get your costs paid if you are in the right.

What this does is tantamount to creating a police state because it allows the police, without fear of any penalty whatsoever, on the slightest whim, to take a matter to court and put the person who is accused to the bother, the time, the cost and the inevitable stress of defending themselves against a police prosecution. Of course, they do not have usually all the wherewithal of the police, but they may well engage legal assistance at considerable expense; and no matter that they win their case entirely, no matter that they are found absolutely innocent, they are not necessarily going to get their costs.

That is fundamentally objectionable, and it is for that reason that we are seeking to remove that provision from this particular piece of legislation. As we say, we have taken advice. It is not a money bill, and we are not persuaded that it is appropriate for this government to try to sneak this radical change into the rights of the individuals in this state into this legislation.

It is for those reasons that I am moving, on behalf of the opposition, that we delete new section 189A (and that is the amendment standing in my name) from this legislation. We consider that it is entirely inappropriate. In my reply to the budget I asked the question as to whether the Attorney-General was going to nail his colours to the mast over this, because I can tell the Attorney-General that there is a great deal of angst in the legal community about the idea that people can be dragged into court on the whim of the police, and, no matter how successful they are in defending themselves, the police are not going to be up for any of the costs of this matter.

I have a couple of questions that I want to ask the minister in relation to the clause of the bill as it stands, so I wonder whether it is appropriate for me just to conclude my remarks on my amendment, have the vote on that and then move onto my questions, or whether you would prefer me to ask my questions of the minister on the bill as it stands at the moment?

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Thompson): It will be simpler if we deal with the amendment and then proceed to questions on the whole clause.

Mrs REDMOND: In that case, I will just conclude my remarks on the amendment. I might just indicate briefly where I am going to have concerns, amongst other things, because one of the things that this proposal seems to do is simply take money out of one pocket and put it into another. I say this because a considerable number of people who are represented in our courts in matters which are being prosecuted by the police are indeed there on the basis that they have obtained legal aid.

To obtain legal aid in this state in this day and age is pretty difficult. When I was in practice many years ago it used to be the case that you could get legal aid over a range of issues. These days, almost exclusively, you will get legal aid only for criminal matters, and, if you do get that legal aid, you will have to get it by showing that you are virtually unable in any other way to get your own legal representation. So, it is really the people who are the most vulnerable in the state who do get legal aid, and I used to do a lot of that sort of work. There are a lot of people who are out there who need to be represented by legal aid in order to have any representation should their matter go to court.

What would normally happen at the moment is that a person goes to court and they are represented by legal aid—they may have had to make some small contribution to their legal costs, but usually only a very nominal amount. They go to court, they are represented by a solicitor from the Legal Services Commission, and that person then, if they are successful, applies for costs, and those costs are awarded by the court, and the money then has to be paid to the Legal Aid lawyer, who of course is in receipt of that on behalf of the Legal Services Commission.

The effect of that, it seems to me, is taking money out of one pocket, that is, the police, who have lost the matter, and paying it to the solicitor for the Legal Services Commission. That seems to me to be pretty much taking it out of one pocket of the government and putting it into the other. But there is a question to be asked about the fact that the government says that they are going to save $1.6 million—and I think it is $1.6 million per year—by this measure.

One of the questions which I think must inevitably arise is whether that is a gross figure, as it were, a figure just on the extra people beyond the Legal Services Commission, or whether that is a figure that relates to people including the Legal Services Commission clients, because, as I say, a lot of the money that transfers, transfers from one pocket to the other of the government.

One of the other interesting factors here is whether it diminishes the police accountability in this state. Our view of the matter is that it does significantly reduce police accountability, because it means that the police are going to be able to take a prosecution without any fear that, no matter how much it costs the person defending themselves, they will be able to continue to prosecute regardless of the likely prospects of success, and regardless of what that pursuit may do.

I know that there are people in this state who have been pursued in legal prosecutions who have literally had to lose their house because of the costs of defending themselves. In fact, Tom Easling springs to mind in that regard.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: He didn't lose his house.

Mrs REDMOND: He didn't quite lose his house. It cost him $2 million in costs, though, because of a prosecution by the state against him, which was ultimately unsuccessful on every single count. That was not, I think, a police prosecution but, nevertheless, there is certainly ample evidence that many people spend a considerable amount of money defending themselves.

As I say, they are not necessarily going to get back all of their money in going through the normal processes and getting costs awarded in the normal way, because they will only get costs awarded according to the scale. Nevertheless, it is significantly impeding the access to justice in this state if people have the possibility that they will face considerable financial penalty, with no recompense from the government, no matter how innocent they may be ultimately be shown to be.

I also think there is probably less incentive to finalise a case where, perhaps, costs could be used—you know, there is cooperation that no costs will be sought if there is an early resolution of the matter and so on. It may even be that there could be an increase in civil actions against SAPOL from lawyers seeking costs.

But, in any event, I do take the view, and the entire parliamentary side of the Liberal Party takes the view, that it is inappropriate, fundamentally wrong, and entirely unjustifiable for this government to say that it is going to achieve a saving of $1.6 million a year and put it through as a budget measure, when what they are really doing is so heavily impeding the rights of the citizens of this state to have what people everywhere, I think, in modern, civilized communities anyway, should expect, and that is the right to recover at least their scale costs in the matter of a police prosecution, should they manage to show themselves to be innocent, or even not guilty. For those reasons, I move the amendment in my name which involves the deletion of the inserted section 189A into the bill.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The government is opposed to the amendment. It is interesting to hear the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot agree with them. What this bill effectively does is just make consistent for summary offences what already applies to higher criminal offences that are heard in the District and Supreme Courts. As the member for Davenport would know, with Mr Easling, if you are acquitted in a criminal matter that is heard in the District or Supreme Court, you are not entitled to recover costs. The effect of the bill is to make consistent with summary offences what already happens with those higher indictable offences.

If the Leader of the Opposition thinks it is such an injustice that people who are acquitted of an offence in a court have to bear their own costs, then perhaps the Liberal Party at the next election might be taking a policy that people acquitted in the District or Supreme Court of an offence be entitled to recover their costs against the Crown. It would be a very courageous policy, I have to say, and I would be very pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition have the courage of her strongly held convictions and take such a policy to the electorate and let the electorate decide.

For the time being, until a Redmond government is elected and until the Leader of the Opposition has her way and those people who lose their cases in the Supreme or District Court or are acquitted of an offence can recover their costs, the government believes that it makes sense for there to be consistency and that if you are acquitted of a summary offence in the Magistrates Court then the same principle should apply as if you were acquitted of an indictable offence in the District or Supreme Court.

I must say that if you have to appear on a charge in a higher court, the costs which you have to bear and which this parliament expects you to bear on your own, regardless of whether you are acquitted or found guilty, are much higher, one would normally expect, than if you were charged with a summary offence where the costs you are likely to have to bear are going to be much lower.

The government does not agree with the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. We think this is a sensible measure. It will enable scarce resources to be put into policing, into police officers, into doing the job that police officers have to do in detecting criminal offences and bringing criminals to justice, rather than having to pay out costs awarded against them in the Magistrates Court. We think this is quite sensible and we do not agree with the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As the committee knows, I am not legally qualified and I have not had a lot to do with the courts, as luck would have it, but it just seems to me that the Treasurer's contribution does need to be answered in this context. The existing system where costs are awarded has been in place for many years. No government up until the Snelling budget has sought to change that provision, not in the Foley crisis budget of last year—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It wasn't introduced in last year's budget, I don't think. It might have been a Sustainable Budget Commission issue.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So it was a savings measure in last year's budget. Right. For the previous eight years of the Rann government this almighty principle that is now being argued apparently was not such an injustice. It has only become an unfair system in the government's mind in the last budget or, if you take the Treasurer at his word, in the budget last year. It just seems to me that the system has worked pretty well and the only reason the government is doing this is for a cost measure, a savings measure, and not looking at it as a justice measure.

The interesting thing about it is the Treasurer says that the $1.6 million will go back to police. That is not my understanding of the budget savings measures. My understanding of the budget savings measures is ultimately that they are exactly that, they are budget savings, so the money is not spent and any savings go back into general revenue and could end up anywhere. The police budget is not being increased by $1.6 million a year because they are saving that money out of their prosecutions. My understanding of the budget savings measures is that, if the police do make this $1.6 million worth of savings, it will ultimately go back into the general revenue pool as part of the Treasurer's savings task to try to bring the budget back into surplus. I do not think the Treasurer's argument is necessarily true on that basis.

I also support the Leader of the Opposition's position that this particular measure is hardly a true budget measure. It is attached to the budget bill. There is a trap or technique, which is a better word, used by treasurers to tag non-budgetary measures to budget bills, because there is a protocol that exists, of course, that the government gets its budget. So, if you attach a non-budget measure to a budget bill you try to sneak it in on the back of the budget bill. That is exactly what this is. This is not about a tax or a levy or a licence fee. It is about a saving that might be made if we change the justice system. That, quite rightly, should be debated separately from the budget, and that is why the leader has taken the position she has, and that is why the Liberal Party is supporting that position.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: My answer to the member for Davenport about why this has suddenly become an issue, why this has not been an issue for eight years of the Labor government, simply is this: in 2002-03 costs awarded against police for these sorts of matters amounted to $461,072.36; in 2009-10, that has risen to just under $3 million ($2,933,639.57). The police are having costs awarded against them on such an increasing scale that I would much rather that money be spent on policing than be awarded against police by magistrates. The issue is that the Magistrates Court has such a wide discretion that on even relatively trivial technicalities the police are finding that they are having costs awarded against them and on an increasing scale. So, it is simply because the cost has, over the time of the government, increased roughly sixfold that this has now become an issue.

Mrs REDMOND: All that the Treasurer has said simply indicates that the police are not being successful in their prosecutions; hence they are trying to find an easy way out of having to face the consequences of taking unjustifiable matters to court or not prosecuting them appropriately. That should not be the way justice is administered in this state. That is the reason we are moving this amendment—that is simply the wrong way to go at it. As the member for Davenport said, we should be about the delivery of justice, and how can it be just to say that because the police are becoming increasingly inefficient at managing their own prosecutions and succeeding in their own prosecutions, and the court is therefore awarding more and more costs against them because they are becoming increasingly inept, why then should we change the system that has been in place for so long to allow those who have been forced into court by those very police to not recover their costs? That simply makes no sense and is unjustifiable.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, it is not, because, in the Leader of the Opposition's words, 'the police are inept' whatsoever, and I think those words will come back to haunt her. The fact is that the successful prosecution rate is about 80 per cent and it has remained at 80 per cent and it has not changed significantly. What is driving this increasing cost is the increasing tendency of the Magistrates Court to award costs on relatively minor grounds. That is what has driven the increase in costs, not, as the Leader of the Opposition alleges, because the police are in any way inept. The successful prosecution rate—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I would be very careful if I were the member for Norwood, because the Leader of the Opposition has really just scored an own goal. The simple fact is that the successful prosecution rate is about 80 per cent and it has remained consistent over that time. That is not what is driving the increase in costs being awarded against the police whatsoever.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Piccolo): Is this your last round?

Mrs REDMOND: Mr Acting Chairman, I did not call a point of order before when the Treasurer got a second chance, but we are technically dealing with my amendment, so I actually get the last word on my amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR: Go ahead then.

Mrs REDMOND: I absolutely accept the 20 per cent figure. If that is what the Treasurer says is the rate, then that's fine. Then what the increase reflects is the increased cost to the innocent people out there who are taken to court. Whether they are part of the 20 per cent or some other figure, it is an increased cost to them. Generally, the court does not award all of the costs, but if the award of the costs for the 20 per cent of police prosecutions that are unsuccessful has gone up to $3 million, that is because it costs so much more for the individual to go to court. And that is yet more evidence as to why this is an unjustifiable thing because the individuals involved are, therefore, having to pay a much higher figure as the years go by to defend themselves against prosecutions by the police.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 5 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a question for the Treasurer. As I mentioned when I was speaking on the proposed amendment, a number of police prosecutions are undertaken against people who are funded by the Legal Services Commission. Can he provide any information on the extent to which the savings that will be made by the police in not having to pay the prosecution costs in an unsuccessful prosecution will in turn then be visited as extra costs to be borne by the Legal Services Commission because they will not recover the costs that they would otherwise have done in that event?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We do not have any exact figures. We will have to wait until the legislation is in operation and we will have a better idea about what effect it might have on the Legal Services Commission. We will work closely with them. However, I am advised that the general practice is that the Legal Services Commission do not make claims for costs in these cases. If they are successful in an acquittal, they generally do not make an application for costs. So, we do not expect that this is going to have much of an impact on the Legal Services Commission. However, we will monitor the situation and liaise closely with the Legal Services Commission in case it does.

Mrs REDMOND: Prosecutions are from time to time conducted by other departmental officers—control officers or authorised officers of various sorts. Why is it that police are singled out by this provision? What is it about the principle of police prosecutions that the government has decided is different from the prosecutions conducted by other departmental officers?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Essentially, because this is a budget measure that is targeted at reducing expenses to the police. It is so that the police can prioritise their resources towards detecting criminal activity rather than on having to pay out costs in these sorts of situations.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: There are two things that I want explained. The Treasurer said earlier that the current cost is $3 million a year. How is the saving only $1.6 million? If you are taking away costs then surely the saving must be $3 million? Secondly, is the Treasurer saying that the police are going to save this and spend it in other areas and therefore it is not part of the savings task, it is not part of the $1.6 million a year contribution to the savings task?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The saving is based on the 2008-09 figure of costs awarded against police, so the saving may be greater than the $1.6 million which is indicated in the budget. With regard to the second part of the member for Davenport's question, if this saving was not found by this measure it would have to be found by some other measure in SAPOL and inevitably that would mean that the police would have less resources to detect criminal activity and bring criminals to justice.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Earlier, the Treasurer used figures of about $300,000 or $400,000 at one point and now the costs have climbed to about $3 million, and he is saying that there is an 80 per cent success rate of police prosecutions. What is the number of prosecutions where the costs were at the lower figure and what is the number of prosecutions now?

While your adviser is getting that information you might be able to answer this one for me, just so that I can explain this to my constituents. I assume that if someone gets a speeding fine and wishes to contest it that, if they are lucky enough to have it overturned, under this provision they are not able to claim costs, whereas previously if the magistrate was so convinced they were able to claim costs.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will answer the second part of the member for Davenport's question first. Yes, the member for Davenport is correct, if you elect to be prosecuted and not pay the expiation then it is the same as any other prosecution, and if you are acquitted of that prosecution then, yes, under this provision you would not be entitled to recover costs.

As far as the figures are concerned, we have the figures available for two years, and, for the other years, I am more than happy to get back to the member for Davenport. For the year 2008-09, the total number of cases was 63,255; for 2009-10, the total number of cases was 57,618. You wanted to know how many of those had costs awarded against them?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The number of prosecutions in each case and how many had costs awarded against them.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In 2008-09, in 1 per cent of the 63,255 cases the court awarded costs against the police. In 2009-10, of the 57,618 cases 2 per cent of cases had costs awarded against the police. That is for those two years.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry, was it about 2 per cent of 63,000? So, 10 per cent of 63,000 is 6,300. We are talking about 2,000—not even that. You are talking about 1,200 cases.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Over two years, yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What is the average cost awarded against? Can you tell me the average cost. I want the answer on the average cost. Let me explain it this way, Treasurer: what you are saying to every speeding motorist is that, if you want to contest your expiation notice, which, at the lowest level is now $252, you have the great opportunity to go to court and incur more costs and, even if you win, you are not going to get your costs back.

It is going to cost you more to go to court and take the risk of having court costs than it will the fine. The reality is that I have dealt with the police Expiation Notice Branch with disputes, and they are not always as fair as I think they can be. I want to know: if you have got 63,000 and 2 per cent of those have costs awarded against them, 10 per cent of it is 6,300, so 2 per cent of it is around 1,200; and 1,200 into $3 million will give you the average cost, and that is going to be more than your $252 traffic fine.

The point I make is that, when he stands up and talks about what happens in other criminal matters, the Treasurer is talking about serious criminal matters. We just make the point that this is going to impact on ordinary, everyday South Australians, and hundreds of thousands of them, because how are they going to really contest a speeding fine if it is going to cost them more to take the chance in the court than the speeding fine itself?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: For the benefit of the member for Davenport with regard to his earlier question, for the year 2005-06, there were 502 files in which costs were awarded against the police and which represented 0.7 per cent of the total files. The total amount was $747,054. The average, which the member for Davenport is interested in, is $1,488.15. For 2006-07, there were 456 files and it was in 0.62 of a per cent of the files where costs were awarded against the police. The total amount of money was $876,341.33. The average cost per file was $1,921.80.

In 2007-08 there were 548 files, and in 0.76 of a per cent of the files, costs were awarded against the police. This represented a cost of $1,161,551.05. The average cost per file was $2,119.61. In 2008-09, there were 755 files. In 1.06 per cent of files, costs were awarded against police. It came to a total of $1,660,351 and the average cost per file was $2,199.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I have had a little bit of experience in these matters. Mr Treasurer, the bottom line, in my view, is that this is designed to discourage people from exercising their legal right, in a society which is still somewhat democratic, to contest a matter. What you are seeking to do is to make it even more difficult for someone to challenge a system.

We heard Justice Hora talking about penalising lawyers who delayed matters. Well, the Crown can delay matters too; that is one of their tactics, so that they inflict additional costs on someone who is challenging a matter in court. So, the bottom line (and I would like you to respond to this) is that this is designed to reduce and restrict the rights of a citizen so that the currently partially level playing field, in terms of court procedures and outcomes, is made even more uneven than the current situation.

That is why the Law Society and others are extremely concerned about this matter. It seems part of a process where we seem to be moving more and more to an authoritarian-type state, which is completely contrary to the principles that have been established over a long period of time, and which have always been referred to as British justice. I would like you to respond to the accusation that this is simply about trying to deter people from exercising a right in a system which is already geared against them.

It is difficult and costly now for someone to challenge the system, particularly when, for example, during a court case, the police will threaten to bring expensive witnesses to put additional costs on a person if they lose the case. My reading of this is that it is another step towards whittling away the rights of citizens, which have been won at great cost over a long period of time.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is designed to do one thing, and that is to allow police to spend more money doing what the South Australian public expect them to do, and that is to detect criminal offences and bring criminals to justice. At the moment, there is a cost pressure in South Australia Police because, contrary to the assertions of the Leader of the Opposition, who says it is because the police are inept, the police are more frequently having costs awarded against them than has previously been the case and are having higher costs awarded against them as well.

The latest figure I have, which I think was 2009-10, states that cost pressure in the police was about $3 million, whereas in the past it has been but a fraction of that. I would much rather the police have that $3 million to spend on doing what the South Australian public expect them to do, and that is to detect criminal offences and to bring criminals to justice. That is why the government is bringing this bill to the parliament and seeking to do this.

It is consistent with what happens in the higher courts, in the District Court and the Supreme Court. If you are acquitted of an offence, you are not entitled, normally, to a recovery of costs. If you are acquitted, you have to bear your own costs. It simply makes consistent for summary offences what exists for indictable offences in the higher courts. It enables the police to concentrate their resources on doing what they do best and that is bringing criminals to justice and keeping our communities safe.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The fact that something exists in another level of the court system does not mean that that is correct either. I do not see why we should extend a principle that is questionable in a higher court to a lower court. Just from my own experience, mine was a relatively minor traffic matter—I do not generally regard speeding generally as a minor issue, but I do when I believe you are falsely accused—that cost me something like $14,000 in the Magistrates Court for the lawyer. If I had been speeding, I would have paid the $300, because $300 beats $14,000 anytime.

So, what are people going to do? The system is designed to discourage people from appealing, and the police say that quite openly to people who are thinking about challenging, because the way the system operates at the moment—just using expiation cases—you do not get the expiation notice until something like seven months after the alleged offence, after the time you have to decide whether or not you are going to contest it in court. So, you have a system that is geared against the citizen from day one.

Then, to cap matters off, if it is an expiable offence, if you pay it no-one knows about it so judges and others can pay it in secret and no-one knows, whereas if you lose in the Magistrates Court you get a conviction because it is a criminal matter. So, not only do you get the lawyer's costs—in my case, $14,000—you get a conviction, you get court costs and you get the penalty as well. If you think that is a system of fairness and justice, then I would question the values that this government asserts, because the system is anything but fair.

I would be less concerned about this if the government was prepared to look at measures that helped avoid people going to court through a process that was less costly like they have in New South Wales, where disputed expiations can be considered by an independent panel. Victoria is setting up a commissioner to look at some of these matters. I would be less concerned if there were cheaper alternatives where people could have their grievance heard without having to go to court. But the answer from the police is, 'You take us to court.' Nothing comes out of their pocket; they don't care how long the court case drags on. They don't care.

In my case, I think there were about 11 visits to the court. The police officer took leave so that he could go to Europe for a funeral. There is no concern about the costs imposed on the person challenging the system. So I just repeat that I would be happier if you were advocating a cheaper option where issues could be dealt with without having to go through the costly and time-consuming business of taking the matter to court.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is my final contribution on this point, and I also want to support the member for Fisher in his comments. I personally have not had the experience of going to court to defend an expiation notice, but I have certainly had lots of expiation notices that I have taken up on behalf of constituents. I will just give you one example.

I had a gentleman come to see me who had not had an offence in over 40 years, and he got picked up for speeding going through a red light camera at a crossing. He was not picked up for going through a red light; he was picked up for speeding through the crossing. As luck would have it, when you get a red light camera and you write to the Expiation Notice Branch and ask for the photos, you get two photos, one second apart.

It just so happens in this case that on the first photo, the back wheel of the car was on the white line. On the second photo, the back wheel of the car had not reached the other white line, so you could actually reference how far he had travelled, or not travelled, in one second. He went down to measure from the white line to the white line, and it worked out that even if he had travelled between the two white lines (which the photos clearly showed he had not), the most he could have been doing was 64. He was booked at 68, even though he had not travelled that distance. It was physically impossible for that photo to be accurate.

We wrote to the Expiation Notice Branch saying, 'Hey, withdraw it.' We offered to go down there and measure it with them, and the answer we got back was, 'Bad luck, take your chances in court.' I just make the point that the member for Fisher makes: not only are the fines increasing but the Expiation Notice Branch knows that if they say this to the taxpayer a lot of them will not take a day off to sit around in a court. One issue is the cost, and the other issue now is that you are going to get hit with costs as well. Where is the pressure on the Expiation Notice Branch to look at each issue on its merits? I mean no disrespect, but I have had some experience.

I know of another guy who was picked up by a speed camera on Main North Road or Lower North East Road, and when he sourced all the information from the Expiation Notice Branch the camera was in two different locations, according to the documentation. The camera was in two different locations—well, that is physically impossible. The Expiation Notice Branch said to this guy, who ran a small business, 'Go to court.' I support the principle outlined by the member for Fisher, that is, to me the system is even going to be more weighted against the average citizen in this particular case. You write to the commissioner on those matters, and ultimately the commissioner refers it to the Expiation Notice Branch, and that is where you get your response.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I might just point to one provision that is in this section and that is 189A(2)(b), which provides that 'where there was a failure to take appropriate steps to investigate a matter coming to, or within the knowledge of the prosecution' the court is given some discretion to award costs in the circumstances. So there is a provision there that in those circumstances, if something has come to the attention of the prosecution, the court has the discretion to impose costs. I point out—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The simple fact is that in the 1970s the road toll peaked and 372 people lost their lives in circumstances where the traffic volumes were about a third of what they are today. The road toll now sits at just over the 100 mark. A few years ago we managed to get under 100. Without a doubt—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not saying that speed cameras are the only reason, but without a doubt—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There are members on the opposite side who came to me when I was road safety minister asking me to have speed cameras installed on school crossings in their electorates. It is all nice and convenient for you to say, 'Aren't speed cameras terrible?' but the simple fact is that when it is convenient for the opposition, and they have an issue in their electorate, they are the first ones coming to say, 'Please put a speed camera in this location.' You cannot have it both ways. The simple fact is that speed cameras have undoubtedly saved hundreds upon hundreds of lives. We would not be able to have the speed camera system if every single incidence of speeding had to go before a court and be prosecuted. It would put an enormous drain on the resources of the government and South Australian taxpayers. The system of expiation is not something that was invented by this government; it is something that has been around for a very long time. I have great esteem for the member for Fisher, but on this matter I could not disagree with him more profoundly.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The issue is that this will make it harder for people to contest matters in court. If the Treasurer is worried about the cost on the police force out of a budget of nearly $700 million, reform the system so that people are not forced to go to court as a last resort to try to clear their name. Reform the expiation system. The government does not want to do that. You do not get the full expiation notice at the time of the offence. I am trying to get it changed so that they get it at least within seven days. In my case, I got the expiation notice seven months after the alleged offence.

Where are your witnesses? You find out when you get the notice seven months later that the police officer is claiming that he was 120 metres from where I understood he pulled me over. If you are worried about the cost on the police department, reform the system so people are not forced to go to court to try to clear their name. In my case there was no photo, no camera, and the officer said at half a kilometre approximately he could tell what speed I was doing. I defy anyone in here to be able to do that. No photograph, three dodgy certificates presented to the court—three dodgy certificates all different—whiteout on them, handwritten additions on the certificates and the court accepts it.

What is your bill going to do in that case? The magistrate will say it has been investigated properly, but has it followed procedures which are fair and followed due process of reasonableness and so on? Your provisions here under section 189A provide no protection or guarantee that the person taking legal action through the court will get a fair hearing and be dealt with fairly at all.

If you are concerned about the cost of the police department then reform the system so that, when people are issued with an expiation or any other type of penalty provision, it is fair, it is open, it is transparent, they get the information up-front, and they can make a considered judgement about whether to contest it in court, not months after the closing date for deciding on whether or not you go to court.

You have to decide within 28 days whether to go to court. You get the information six months after that. That is ridiculous, and that is the system we have currently, and the police oppose giving full details at the time. The traffic police at the front line do not, they think it is a good idea, but you cannot get that detail until the police decide to give it to you, and they only give it to you if you go to court, and often that is seven months later.

Mrs REDMOND: The minister indicated that the number of prosecutions has increased but the proportion, according to him, has stayed the same, in terms of 80 per cent of police prosecutions being successful and 20 per cent being unsuccessful. It seems to me that, if it is not an increasing percentage of police prosecutions that are unsuccessful, the explanation for the massive cost increase is either because it is costing a lot more for the individual to go to court and, therefore, more costs are awarded or, as the minister asserts, the magistrates are actually awarding costs more readily.

I understand that to be the statement of the minister and the Treasurer, that the motivation for bringing this in is because the government perceives that magistrates are awarding the costs more readily in favour of a successful defendant in the court and, therefore, this is an attempt by the government to interfere with that process by means of a claimed budgetary measure. We do not accept that it is a budgetary measure.

I just want to clarify that that is the minister's position, that the government is seeking to address what it sees as an untoward magistracy in awarding these costs too readily in favour of successful defendants and that is the ill the government seeks to address in bringing in this measure.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The issue is that magistrates are willing to award costs too readily above the scale. That is what is driving the increase in costs which police are finding when they are having costs awarded against them. It is not necessarily that they are too readily awarding costs per se, but they are too readily awarding costs over the scale and that is what is driving the costs. The Leader of the Opposition asserts there is some sort of principle here. It is not the government that is doing this; if the legislation is passed it is the parliament and the parliament is perfectly within its rights to do so.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Treasurer gave us some figures earlier about the number of prosecutions and the average costs. You may not have them now but, in between houses, given that you are doing this on the basis that magistrates are awarding costs above the scale, can the police officers, through you, advise us of the split between those costs that have been awarded on the basis of the scale costs and those that have been awarded above scale costs so that we can see the trend?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not have that information to hand, of course. It might be a bit hard to dig up what that information is. It is not information a record of which is necessarily kept, but I will have my officers or the officers of SAPOL see what they can find out and if there is information to be found we will provide it to the opposition.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I make two points: the government's whole assertion is that magistrates are awarding costs above the scale rate. I ask for the evidence of that because you must have had the evidence, Treasurer, because your own advice to this house is that this was announced 12 months ago, so you have had 12 months to collect the evidence and you would not have made the decision based on no evidence. The police, somewhere, must have sent you a minute saying, 'Here is the evidence to our claim.' So, we want to see the evidence to the claim.

The second point I make is that in your contribution you tried to paint the opposition as somehow being anti road safety. I want to correct the record: it is a nonsense to suggest that the opposition is anti road safety in that it criticises the procedures used by the Expiation Notice Branch.

As the member for Fisher quite rightly outlined in his argument and as I have outlined in mine, we are not criticising the expiation notice per se. We are criticising the process that follows, once someone receives an expiation notice. How then does the process deal with it? That is what we are critical of and that is not about a road safety measure. It is an administrative measure that is meant to be treating citizens fairly. It is that issue that we are arguing, not whether road safety is in question. Naturally, we are in favour of road safety.

I also make the point to the Treasurer that, of course, the big killer in South Australia is not motor vehicle accidents, although they are significant. The big killer, of course, relates to the 1,200 people a year who die of smoking. For every one who dies on the road, 12 die of smoking.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: With regard to evidence, I will cite some examples of costs that have been awarded against the police that go above the scale. This is not precisely the information the member for Davenport is seeking, but he is seeking the basis upon which we are seeking this measure from the parliament, so I will cite some examples.

Benjamin Craig Hirst was awarded costs in the amount of $90,683.64 by Mr Harris SM in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 6 September 2007. He had been charged with a number of offences, including indecent assault and indecent exposure. Henry Arkell was awarded costs in the amount of $73,957 by Ms Tracey SM in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 17 December 2009. He had been charged with historic sexual offences. Lilya Flaks was awarded costs in the amount of $54,606.17 by Mr Ackland SM in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 24 November 2009 on charges of theft and unlawful possession of paintings. Antonio Leo was awarded costs in the amount of $26,496.75 by Mr Grasso SM in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 27 June 2007.

These are examples of the sort of costs that we are seeing being awarded against the police way and above the scale of costs. It does not take too many of those sorts of costs being awarded against police to get the sort of cost figures that I am talking about. These, admittedly, are anecdotal, or a number of examples and not the precise figures, but this is the basis upon which the government is proceeding in this bill.

Mrs REDMOND: Further to the Treasurer's statement he just made, I take it that the Treasurer can confirm, though, that those people each managed to get an acquittal on the charges, and none of them received any more in costs, and possibly even received less in costs, than their bill for costs from the people who represented them in defending those matters.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The Leader of the Opposition does not have to get narky. I did not say that these were not costs that they had not incurred. I am simply pointing out examples, given the member for Davenport's questions on the basis for which the government is proceeding, of where costs are awarded against the police and the sorts of costs that police are expected to bear way and above the scale of costs in the Magistrates Court and the basis upon which the government is proceeding with this bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: The question I have relates to the basis of this recommendation which, as I understand it from the second reading explanation, emanates from the Sustainable Budget Commission. In fact, it is detailed in the leaked sustainable budget report which is now in the public arena and which, therefore, of course, came under consideration by the group that was appointed, including Monsignor Cappo, who was a member of that commission.

The minister to some degree has identified, by examples of cases where there were quite substantial costs orders against the police, exactly why we have in the law a presumption, but still a discretion in the trial officer—usually a magistrate in this instance—where police are involved in the prosecution of offences. Essentially, unless a felony is committed where there is permission given for the prosecution of serious cases, some immunity for the Crown, whatever the officer is, whether it is a police officer or a prosecutor from the DPP's office, or the old Crown as we used to call it, there is a public good in ensuring that very serious offences are prosecuted, if there is reasonable evidence, and there should not be a fear in the prosecuting officer of an order for costs against them, and that is longstanding.

One of the reasons you have a capacity for the magistrate in these instances to make an order for costs is when someone is put to an extraordinary expense through no fault of their own. Sometimes they contribute to that cost and that is often reflected in an order that is made by the magistrate where they do not enjoy an order that is fully recovering their costs at scale.

In the information provided by the Treasurer in the last few minutes, there seems to be a suggestion that these orders for payments of $90,000, $73,000 and $54,000, those large costs orders, in some way are above a scale that is ordinarily paid in a Magistrates Court.

An honourable member: They are not the norm.

Ms CHAPMAN: They are not the norm in the run-of-the-mill minor cases that might be dealt with in a Magistrates Court, that is true. These are quite serious offences that presumably have at least got to some committal stage, given the numbers of awards of payment that are in here as costs orders. Obviously, there are a lot of smaller cases where the orders would be much inferior.

Quite a bit of time, since I have been listening to the questioning, has related to orders that would be made relating to road traffic offences where an expiation notice is issued in circumstances which, for whatever reason, ultimately, when challenged, are unjustifiable and perhaps should have been known by the prosecuting officer at the time as being unreliable and therefore a costs order is made against them.

Quite a few questions have been asked about road traffic offences. The member for Davenport, the member for Fisher and the Leader of the Opposition have quite clearly pointed out the position from this side of the house. We support road traffic initiatives that provide for safety on our roads. We support an expiable offence process as being one which avoids all the costs of litigation in the first instance and gives people an option, but we are fundamental in the commitment that it has to be done properly.

One of the most important aspects of a costs order, either way; that is, against the prosecution or against the defendant or a bit of both, is that it is an instrument of discipline to ensure that there is some level of transparency and accountability by either the prosecuting officer, whether that is a police officer or not, or the defendant or their representative. So, we give that power to a magistrate to be able, at their discretion (they do not have to) on an application for costs, to grant that.

I find it unbelievable that someone, especially someone like the Commissioner for Social Inclusion, would be a party to this recommendation, to be quite honest, in recommending it as a cost-cutting exercise to the government. It does seem, in the absence of any other information coming to us, that this has actually emanated from the police department, which has been put under pressure by the government to come up with some ideas about how it can cut its budget so that it can comply with a directive from Treasury.

We can talk about the merits of that or otherwise, but the fact is that the police department has been given a job to do. It has come up with a list of ways that it could cut costs. It is up to the executive of the government, and for the Treasurer in particular in that cabinet, to be able to say, 'Well, we have to also identify what is important for the whole social fabric of ensuring that our court system is one that can be measured, can be tested, can be accountable and have some instrument of discipline.'

I know, not only from the short time that I have been in this parliament but also from the 20 years before when I was in courtrooms, how situations can be abused in litigation, as well as the extraordinary cost, not to mention the time off work, the personal expense and the destruction to people in having to go through litigation. If there is one instrument which helps to be able to manage that, it is the instrument of someone facing the risk that they will have to pay the costs of the other side—or at least part thereof—if they have taken proceedings or maintained or perpetuated those proceedings which have been malicious, which may have been just simply reckless but which have been trivial.

We have instruments in our legal proceedings, including costs orders, as a way to manage that. In the nine years that I have been in here, I have repeatedly come into this parliament to argue when the government has said, 'Let's have a no-cost jurisdiction,' which is where each party pays their own costs, unless there are exceptional circumstances. I paraphrase that, but that is a sort of 'no-cost' jurisdiction.

It seems to be that the Labor Party has a real penchant for this type of exercise, yet we see in the courts that exercise no-cost jurisdictions probably the greatest abuse of process by litigants where that applies. Each and every time it has been raised, each and every time this government has tried to introduce tribunal-type determinations, no-cost legislation, I have opposed it, and we have argued that many times.

I would have thought that, by now, the government would appreciate the significance of having a costs-order process which keeps people on their toes, and, in this instance, the Police Department. I find it unbelievable that the minister (the Treasurer in this instance) would use a historical sexual offence charge for which a costs order was made of some $73,900 (presuming in that case that there had been an unsuccessful prosecution of someone accused of a historical sexual offence), when we had debated in this parliament the importance of there being the opportunity to prosecute old sexual offence cases, and I think it was pre-1982.

This was something that was championed by the former attorney-general, and we raised in the debates at the time the significance of whether there would be many successful cases on that because of the difficulty in being able to prosecute cases where the witnesses might have moved interstate, died, or whatever, or even the alleged defendant or abuser in those circumstances, and how it was going to be difficult to prosecute those cases.

But what we would have at least expected is that, if they did prosecute them, they would have a good case and that they would be able to resist any order for costs against them if they failed in being able to demonstrate to the magistrate that they had acted in a manner which was proper in all the circumstances and which they should resist on their submissions through their council an order for costs against them.

I just find it incomprehensible that, when it comes to using excuses or case studies of where the police are trying to get out of paying costs orders where there are serious offences and high costs orders are made, they are using that as the explanation to try to save, whatever it is, a million dollars a year for this initiative.

I would say to the Treasurer that I think that we need to have some explanation, if there is any, as to whether this was entirely a proposal from the Police Department to the Sustainable Budget Commission, or whether, in fact, there is any other explanation—any other party who was knocking on the door of government to say, 'Change the costs order jurisdiction in the Magistrates Court for non-felony offences.'

I have never heard of it. Nobody has come knocking on my door in the time I have been here in the parliament, and I have covered legal matters both in principle and as the speaker in the lower house. In nine years, not one party has come to me to say that this is an area in which there has been some abuse to the public or the public are abusing this power to which they should not be entitled and putting an unreasonable financial burden on the Crown. If there is someone, I would like to hear who it is.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The point of those cases that I cited was this: if any of those cases had been heard in the District or Supreme Court and an acquittal was found, those costs could not have been awarded because, in the Supreme and District Courts, you cannot be awarded costs in the event of an acquittal. The purpose of this bill is simply to make consistent the summary offences heard in the Magistrates Court with what already happens in the Supreme and District Courts.

The member for Bragg has come in rather late into the debate; if she had perhaps joined the debate a little earlier, she would have heard me say this several times to other members who were here at the beginning. In regard to how the proposal came about, I was not Treasurer at the time, but the Sustainable Budget Commission sent out requests to various agencies for proposals for savings measures, and this is a proposed savings measure that SA Police put forward to the Sustainable Budget Commission. The Sustainable Budget Commission accepted it and included it in its final report to the government.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Thompson): The question is that clause 18 stand as printed. Those in favour say aye and those against say no. The ayes have it. We now return to—

Mr Marshall: No!

The ACTING CHAIR: You are too late.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR: I did. He said yes, and then I went back and asked—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR: No, then I asked for the noes as well. I will do it again, just in case I was asleep. Those in favour say aye, against say no. The ayes have it.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, in answer to the member for Davenport's question: you are charged every year.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Treasurer, why would you do it that way? The government is strapped for cash, and it has brought in tax increases and budget saving measures, so what it has decided to do is hit every pub and club with a new fee, ranging from $100 to $700, depending on the type of hotel or club, including, of course, some extra fees for late-night venues, because the government needs more money. To make sure we spend the money on administration, the bureaucrats and the Treasurer have designed it so that we have to send a bill out every year. Why would you not send out a three-year bill? Why would you not give an option to pay two or three years in advance?

I know it will not save the business any money, but it will save the bureaucrats time. They are developing a system where there is going to be an annual invoice, an annual envelope and annual administration. It does not need to be that. You can buy a 10-year driver's licence. The hotels do not change too much; they basically stay in the same venue. It just seems to me that you are setting up a bureaucratically clumsy system by charging it every year and not having the vision to do it in multiple years. I will leave that for the government, but I am glad you clarified that for me because I think it is a poorly thought-out system, if that is the way it is going to be implemented.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Of all the things to get excited about, whether it is paid annually or every three or five years—I am a bit stunned that the member for Davenport would feel such passion on whether a bill is paid annually or every three or five years but, nonetheless, whatever floats your boat. Annual fees are generally charged annually; that is the nature of them. Apart from the driver's licence exception, I am not really that familiar with fees that are paid anything other than annually.

I am sure that, if we expected pubs and clubs to fork out three or five years in advance, I would be getting complaints from the opposition that this was a terrible impost and 'Why can't we break them down into more frequent but smaller payments?' In terms of the costs and so on, the costs of doing it will be fairly minimal, whether it is three years, five years or one year. I do not think it will make too much difference to the cost of administering it. I pointed out that the bill will be able to be paid online, so I think that that will also have the effect of reducing the cost of collecting the revenue.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: For those who have just entered the debate, we have actually dealt with some later clauses first because some of the advisers were not available, so we are now going back to some earlier clauses in the bill. There are four elements of this bill. There is liquor licensing, the prosecution matter which we have just dealt with, annual leave and the First Home Owner Grant, which we did this morning. There are four elements and this is the last element. This element deals with the annual leave provisions.

This is the Treasurer's Christmas present under the tree provision. This is the provision that reinstates for the public servants who were so affected the 17½ per cent holiday loading. The opposition position on this is very simple.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: You've got a position, have you?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Absolutely. We've had a position on all of these elements, Treasurer.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: I am waiting to hear it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We just voted against the last one and we moved amendments trying to delete the other one. I am sure you have picked them up. The reality is that last year the opposition did not oppose you taking it out because it was a budget measure and we are not going to oppose you putting it back in as a budget measure. We are going to comment, though, that the government seems to have no consistent strategy in dealing with the Public Service.

Last year, the then treasurer came in and said he was going to streamline the costs of the Public Service and reduce the cost of the Public Service and this was a prudent measure and people in private enterprise did not get this outrageous condition. There were all sorts of claims about good economic management by the former treasurer. Those claims were so valid that the union movement took on the then treasurer, made it known publicly that they were going to get rid of that treasurer and, ultimately, the treasurer changed.

Let us have no crocodile tears from the current Treasurer saying that in preparing the budget all of a sudden he realised that, by taking away the 17½ per cent loading for the public servants so affected and giving them two days extra leave a year, that was going to take cash out of their pockets and affect Christmas presents under the tree. Well, give me a break, Madam Acting Chair! This is nothing other than a survival strategy by treasurer Snelling that treasurer Foley was not prepared to make. Treasurer Foley was not prepared to back down, treasurer Snelling is, and it is simply a message to the PSA that they are firmly in charge of this treasurer, unlike the previous treasurer, who was prepared to stand up to them. At the end of the day, the opposition are not going to stop this measure being reintroduced. We accept the fact, as we did last year, that it is part of the budget, it is part of managing the Public Service, so it will go through both houses and the Public Service will have their condition reinstated.

The Treasurer has, of course, then gone on to flag that he will to try to recoup this $22 million cost a year in other areas. The Treasurer might like to outline to the house what other savings provisions, what new savings provisions, are now going to be required from various departments to find this saving of $22 million a year; or are they simply going to give up on that saving measure and accept the fact that they are going to have fewer savings than treasurer Foley first outlined last year?

As part of this measure, the Treasurer is talking about giving an extra allowance to the Public Service. That is something like a retention allowance to attach to the Public Service, in part as a repayment, if you like, or a counterbalancing item for the long service leave provisions which the former treasurer has cut and this Treasurer is, at this stage at least, holding onto, and which are subject to a High Court case. I am just wondering whether the Treasurer can explain to the house what the extra provision is he is actually talking about.

He has been in the media saying that there is money in the budget for this extra provision to counterbalance the long service leave. I am just wondering what exactly we are talking about, because there already are retention allowances and attraction allowances paid. If they are already getting retention allowances, attraction allowances, long service leave allowances and annual leave allowances, then what other allowance is not covered by those four items? Do we need to pay the Public Service, given that last year the government's position was we had to reduce the cost of the Public Service and now the Treasurer is not only reinstating this cost, but is talking about introducing a brand-new cost?

In responding I would like the Treasurer to explain what is this new allowance he is negotiating with the Public Service Association? What is it meant to cover that is not already covered, other than a repayment for some of the long service leave lost? I will be surprised if there is not an element of their service that is not already covered by some form of allowance, whether it is their actual salary, their annual leave loading—that is now of course being reinstated—their current long service leave, their bereavement leave, their sick leave, their carer's leave, or any of the other industrial conditions that have been negotiated through the EB process and negotiations with various governments over many, many years.

So I am interested in that particular issue. Also, I will just make the point that it seems to me that this is nothing more than a backdown by the Treasurer. The PSA and Janet Giles through the union movement have made it crystal clear that on the cuts to Public Service entitlements they essentially blame two people: they blame former treasurer Foley and current premier Rann, and they are going to continue their industrial action until they get rid of both.

I think the Treasurer's colleagues thought that he had done a deal, that when he gave them the annual leave provision back there had been a negotiated settlement with the Public Service Association that they would lose 400 jobs as a result in part for the saving of this particular measure and then that would be the end of the industrial action. It would be back to paradise, but the reality is that that deal did not last. The union movement now has the sniff of blood because they have had one win. The former treasurer is not going to be treasurer and, if the rumours are right, the former treasurer may not even be in the parliament all that much longer, and now they are after the Premier. It will be interesting to see where it goes because they have made it crystal clear that they blame two people.

Here is the issue: what is the member for Cheltenham doing behind the scenes? We know that the member for Cheltenham tried to get closer to the union movement over the WorkCover changes in cabinet. We know that the left wing of the Labor Party was angry with the right wing of the Labor Party over the WorkCover changes. Remember last year when there were protests after protests by the union movement? We had members of the left wing of the Labor Party sneaking out into the protests saying, 'Don't blame me, it was that awful right wing of the party.'

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: There were members of the Liberal Party out there, too.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Of course there were members of the Liberal Party out there. The government was cutting workers' entitlements.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: You've got to be consistent.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let me explain this to the Treasurer. It is something that the previous Liberal government never did to state public servants. Certainly, we reduced numbers, but we never came in by legislation and changed their entitlements.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Do you support this or not?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We are letting it through, Treasurer. Just as we let you take it out, we will let you put it back in. It is part of the budget. The reality is that the Liberal government's past at state level did not take away workers' entitlements by legislation. It did not do it, so of course we were going to go out there and say, 'Don't blame the Liberal Party, we never did this when we were in government. This is your own mob that did it.'

The big question in the Labor Party is this: what is the member for Cheltenham doing behind the scenes in relation to this issue? He is already out there speaking to the teachers union and the media saying, 'Please don't protest over this because we can talk.' The message from the member for Cheltenham is pretty clear, that the—

Mrs GERAGHTY: I rise on a point of order. I am exhausted from listening to the member. I am not sure how you are relating this to the bill, but we are going to be here all night if you do not come back to bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am happy to be here all night, member for Torrens. I know the Labor Party likes to knock off at six. I have been here lots of nights very late, and I have spoken for a very long time and very late into the night, as the member for Lee might remember, on a particular bill. It was five hours 28 minutes in response to his four hours 23 minutes, if I recall.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Thompson): Order, member for Davenport!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It comes back to this point, now that I have been so tactically interrupted by the member for Torrens. The reason the member for Cheltenham wants to talk to the union movement over annual leave, which is part of this bill, and other conditions, is that the member for Cheltenham is out there undermining the Premier as fast as he can go by saying to the union movement, 'Mike Rann couldn't give a stuff about you. He doesn't care about you. He is taking away your entitlements. But don't worry, Jay from Cheltenham is going to listen to the union movement,' and that is the real issue with this bill. The Liberal Party is supporting the reinstatement of these particular provisions; it is part of the budget measure and we look forward to its speedy passage through the upper house.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The member for Davenport gave a wide-ranging speech which covered far more ground that what is strictly in the bill, but there is no doubt that on this issue the opposition has the political equivalent of bipolar disorder. On one hand, it is saying, 'This is a terrible measure, you should never have done it,' and on the other hand it is saying, 'Treasurer Snelling is doing the bidding of the unions. He will do whatever the unions tell him.'

You cannot have it both ways. At some point the opposition is going to have to come up with a consistent position rather than just picking and choosing the issues and trying to get the greatest political expediency that it can at any particular time. Either it thinks the government should have proceeded with this measure (which as I said, was going to hit hardest the lowest paid public sector workers) and opposes the government not proceeding with it, or it opposed it from the very beginning and now supports what the government is doing. The opposition cannot have it both ways.

A very interesting point is the question of tenure, where opposition members seem to be having a very difficult time making up their mind. They ring The Advertiser and say, 'We are going to have a position on this. We are going to be able to give you our position today. We will give you our position today.' Then during question time they send a message, 'We are going to tell you our position. We will tell you what it is in the next half-hour.' Then the half-hour passes, 'We are having some difficulty coming up with a position. We will tell you what it is in a couple of days.'

This is an absolutely hopeless opposition which cannot make up its mind on these issues, an opposition that on the question of tenure is at complete sixes and sevens, that does not know what it is going to do. It is an opposition that is completely hopeless and unable to come to any considered position of policy. You only had to listen to the 6,000 words of drivel from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday morning in the Appropriation Bill debate. It went for 2,000 words longer than the budget speech itself, but was there a single policy position in 6,000 words?

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Yes, there was!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, not a single position. This is an opposition in complete—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order, Madam Acting Chair. I would hate the Treasurer to mislead the house. The Treasurer knows full well that the Leader of the Opposition in her budget reply outlined the opposition's policy on the police prosecution issue we have just been debating for two or three hours. He knows that and he misleads the house. I would hate for him to mislead the house and for me to have to come in and move a motion on him because he knows that if he continues down that line he is misleading.

The ACTING CHAIR: Member for Davenport, points of order are points of order, not speeches.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The simple fact is that the Leader of the Opposition had no new policy positions to point out in 6,000 words—2,000 words longer than the budget speech itself.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I know the Leader of the Opposition is the creation of Evans Inc. in the Adelaide Hills, and I know what a bitter disappointment she has proven to be to the Evans clan. They thought she was the great white hope and how disappointing she has turned out to be. So, I can appreciate that the member for Davenport is somewhat sensitive about these issues. Nonetheless, on this provision the government listened to what we were told, not only by the unions but also by people talking to Labor MPs in their electorates. We were convinced by the argument that this measure was going to have a disproportionate effect on lower paid public sector workers and on that basis we have decided not to proceed with it.

Clause passed.

Clause 17 and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education) (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank honourable members and the opposition for their support for the bill, apart from one amendment that they made. I thank officers for the preparation of the bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.