STATUTES AMENDMENT AND REPEAL (BUDGET 2012) BILL

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (11:46): This is sort of winging it a bit but it is the first day back.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hear what you are saying, everyone is speaking around you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It does not matter, you are not missing much. I think I am moving that we recommit the budget.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The previous amendments that we just went through? Is that what we are doing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Specifically it is in relation to one of the amendments that was apparently agreed to or acquiesced in, in the context of that debate before it was concluded.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will we need an absolute majority?

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand from the motion that was put by the Attorney that he seeks to recommit a bill. He has foreshadowed, I think for our benefit, that there appears to be an amendment that was presented from the other place that they are not supporting, and they seek to recommit the bill to remedy that. We cannot stop the motion from being put—we of course could oppose it—but it seems to me that it would be preferable if we had some understanding about what the nature of this is. It is very rare in the history of this parliament for bills to be recommitted. I think the Roxby Downs bill No. 1 was one of the few that was recommitted in the parliament for amendment, and with a complete turnabout. I think we need to have some understanding of what the position is and, once we have dealt with that, we could go on with the other business of the government.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I say at this point we need the recommittal. Once we have that, my ministerial colleague the Minister for Finance will explain what the point is and the parliament will deal with the matter and, when that is concluded, whenever that is, we will get to hear the contribution of the member for Fisher.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been moved and seconded. We do require an absolute majority to recommit. The motion before us is that we suspend standing orders; is that right?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, suspension of standing orders so as to enable the recommittal. That is what I am doing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded. I will count the house. Ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

The SPEAKER: There being an absolute majority present, I accept the motion.

Motion carried.

Final Stages

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Sector) (11:53): I move:

The rescission of the vote on the acceptance of the amendments of the Legislative Council in the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:53): For the sake of the record, I will speak against the rescission motion on this basis: when the amendments were brought before the house early this morning, the government and the opposition both spoke to the point of accepting the amendments moved by the upper house. The opposition made it clear to the government in the debate that the amendments moved in the upper house got rid of both the biosecurity levy and the police costs matter to which the Attorney has referred, and which I believe the Attorney has some concerns about, in the budget bill. The opposition made it crystal clear to everyone in the house that the amendments being dealt with at that time dealt with both of those matters.

Based on that debate from the government and the opposition, the government voted to accept the amendments in the other place. The government has had eight weeks to deal with this matter. It went through the upper house eight weeks ago. The opposition has not ambushed the government on this matter at all. The amendments were moved eight weeks ago. We alerted the house today that the amendments being agreed to in this chamber were to both elements of the particular bill. We made the house fully aware. So, there is no reason to rescind this other than that the government simply was not prepared and did not understand its own budget position in relation to the amendments in the upper house. How, after eight weeks, the government can get itself to that position is beyond belief.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: We were watching you guys. We were distracted watching you guys.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think you might have been distracted watching BHP, actually. That might have been the bigger issue, Patrick. The reality is that the house was fully aware of what it was voting for, it was dealt with in the debate, and on that basis we oppose the rescission.

The SPEAKER: Does the minister wish to respond to that?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Sector) (11:55): Just to make one comment. I received a briefing on the biosecurity levy. I did not receive a briefing on the other matter. The shadow treasurer, either through intent or confusion, advised me that there had been an agreement made with the government. I took his advice at face value and found out that in fact I should not have taken that advice at face value. Hence, we are at the point at which we currently stand.

The SPEAKER: The question before the chair is that the motion be agreed to. There being a negative voice a division is required.

The house divided on the motion:

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

The SPEAKER: As the suspension of standing orders was not passed by an absolute majority of the house we need to go back. Minister, would you like to again move?

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Sector) (12:13): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move a motion for the rescission of the vote on the acceptance of the amendments of the Legislative Council in the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2012) Bill in committee.

The SPEAKER: There being an absolute majority present, I accept the motion. Does the minister wish to speak to the motion again?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: No.

The SPEAKER: Does the member for Davenport wish to speak to the motion again?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I do not want to hold the house up unfairly, so no.

The SPEAKER: The question before the Chair is that the motion be agreed to.

The house divided on the motion:

Majority of 14 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

Mr PEDERICK: I will speak briefly to the first amendment which was agreed to in the other place. I am pleased that the government has agreed to knock out the provisions that would have set the legislation in place to introduce a biosecurity levy. The government tried to introduce this legislation through the budget bill. It was legislation by stealth, thinking that with normal protocols the opposition would allow the budget to go through unamended. Yes, I admit that is the normal protocol but I am pleased that my colleagues held fast and knocked that provision out.

Why I say that it was introduced with stealth is that it could have been dealt with in the proper manner when the Livestock Act was open in the previous three months. That was the appropriate act that had to be opened—

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: May I keep going?

The CHAIR: Might as well.

Mr PEDERICK: There just seems to be a bit of a debacle in here, Mr Chairman, which is hard to understand—I think the Labor members have had a bit too much of a holiday. The legislation regarding the introduction of a biosecurity levy could have been dealt with appropriately when the Livestock Act was open in the three months before the winter break. The government is acting by stealth in trying to sneak it through and add more cost to our primary producers.

We have a government that has walked right away from primary production in this state and keeps reducing the budget allocations. We saw only a couple of budgets ago where $80 million and 300 staff were axed from primary industries and, in the most recent budget, there was $24 million in cuts, which included 98 staff over the next three years. I hope you are getting this, Hansard, because there is a fair bit of noise down here.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, I have a point of order. In terms of procedure we have left out a little element. All of us have been listening to what the honourable member has been saying—and you do not need to say it again afterwards—

Mr Pederick: I'm quite happy to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: But there is a little bit we have left out, which is the rescission motion. As a matter of getting the technicalities right, we now have to formally move a rescission motion, which I so move.

The SPEAKER: The motion moved by the minister is that the vote on the amendments for the Legislative Council be rescinded.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is exactly what I meant, yes.

The SPEAKER: Is that seconded?

Mrs GERAGHTY: Yes, Madam Speaker.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can we speak to this motion, Madam Speaker, now that it has been seconded?

The SPEAKER: I am advised that this is a procedural motion; there is no debate. There being an absolute majority present, I accept the motion.

Motion carried.

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Amendment No.1:

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

Mr PEDERICK: I think I will have another go, as I have been given the opportunity. I would just like to reflect on—

The CHAIR: You don't have to repeat yourself.

Mr PEDERICK: I am quite happy to repeat myself, Mr Chairman, because—

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, I am not responsible for the debacle that has happened this morning: it is the debacle the government caused, and this could have been organised over the last seven weeks. What I will speak to, as the Chairman wants me to get to the point, is the fact that I am pleased, in relation to the amendment that came down from the other place, that this house has agreed not to allow the introduction of a legislative measure through the budget bill to give the government the ability to introduce a biosecurity fee.

What I will say—and I know I have already said it in this place today—is that this was introduction by stealth. The Livestock Act had been open in the previous three months before the winter break, and that was the appropriate time to debate anything about biosecurity fees. But we have the Weatherill Labor government thinking that they can legislation through by default, thinking that we would just bow to protocol and let all these budgetary amendments go through.

I am very happy that my colleagues held firm on this because we certainly understand that soon we will be in government and we will be responsible for the budget. We actually appreciate our primary producers on this side of the house, although I do notice from his comments last week that the Treasurer seems to have a new love for primary producers and agricultural production after BHP fell over.

We see this after years of budgetary cuts to primary industries—a couple of budgets ago there were $80 million and 300 jobs, and then we see in this latest budget, another $24 million in cuts and 98 jobs over the next three years. If the Treasurer is so enamoured of primary production, perhaps let's see him put his money where his mouth is and see some support for primary production.

While I am speaking on that, I want to talk about the forward sale of forestry decision, which is already being unravelled by the problems with Millers in the South-East not having decent forward contracts. We understand that the forest is being given away essentially for something over $600 million, yet in oncoming years we are going to have to find $10 million a year to manage the forests.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On a point of order, Mr Chairman, this is fascinating stuff, and I think that in a grievance it is going to be really good, at about 3 o'clock or something.

Mr PEDERICK: Alright, I take the point of order. Thank you, Mr Attorney, for getting me on the straight and narrow.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, they've got rid of them now, so they can't put a fee on them. Yes, they are gone. This was legislation by stealth, so I am glad that it has been agreed to leave that amendment out of the budget bill, but it was interesting to see the debacle that happened here this morning.

The CHAIR: Ah, the member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hear a welcome sigh from members opposite. I want to address the question of prosecution costs for unsuccessful cases, that is, the cancellation of an obligation to meet legal costs, which is the basis of the second amendment which has come down from the Legislative Council, in which the Legislative Council determined—

The CHAIR: Is the member for Bragg speaking to the second amendment or to this amendment here?

Ms CHAPMAN: This amendment. There are two prongs to this amendment. One is the Legislative Council's removal of the government's attempt to introduce a biosecurity fee, about which the member for Hammond has ably represented the opposition's position of our joy at that acceptance.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, just hold on. I am actually taking each amendment separately. That is why I am querying which one—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am prepared to speak on the biosecurity fee as well if you like, because I think the fee applicable for bees was completely unacceptable.

The CHAIR: I think that you have made that point already.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to leave that to the member for Hammond.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 2:

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 2 be disagreed to.

The government's view is that we will not accept the amendment by the Legislative Council on clause 2.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, you wish to speak on this motion?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. The Legislative Council has rejected the government's attempt to save money in this year's budget by not providing for legal costs to be paid in certain cases where those prosecutions have been unsuccessful. It flies in the face of the tenet that, if you proceed with a case against you and the prosecution of it is unsuccessful, you are entitled to have your legal costs paid. There are already some exceptions in our law which provide for very serious offences (what we have known historically as felonies), where it is in the public interest to ensure that people are brought to account for very serious offences where no costs follow, even if the prosecution fails and/or there is an acquittal.

Last year and this year, the opposition has taken a very principled position on the use of the budget bill to introduce new laws. We follow the convention, largely (and I think that our record is clear in Hansard), that it is the government's right to make a decision about how it spends the money in the budget.

The government comes to us as a parliament each year, and we in opposition do not question the government's entitlement to make that decision. We go to an election, and they are entitled to form government if they are successful, and one of privileges of that is to have control of the chequebook. We maintain a commitment to that longstanding convention, but we are absolutely opposed to attempts by government to use the budget bill as a means to change the law fundamentally in this way, and, as the member for Hammond has pointed out, in an attempt to introduce a whole new process, it says, for the management and protection of our agricultural produce, to introduce a biosecurity fee to protect against introduced pests and so on.

The attempt by the government to do it in this instance is even more offensive because this parliament wholly rejected that principle, this idea of reversing the obligation in relation to prosecution costs and not being liable to pay them, as a means last year in an attempt to prop up the law and order budget. This parliament totally rejected it last year, and to add salt to the wound, add insult to injury, the government has again tried to introduce this. Our leader spoke on this bill during the budget debate again, and we strongly want to send a message to the government that we will not tolerate it trying to use the budget process and the privilege of that convention to try to introduce new laws. That is completely unacceptable to us.

We have gone through this absurd situation this morning where we have wasted about an hour on a process just to get to the stage of the government being able to manage this. I will not dwell on that, but I will say this. Here we are in September, over three months now into the financial year. We passed an appropriation bill earlier this year which was for $3.5 billion or something to that effect. I cannot remember exactly, but usually each year we as a parliament pass sufficient money to make sure that there is enough money to continue to pay the public servants and so on and to provide for the offices of government to continue to function. We passed that to be able to provide for that.

On my calculation, it is a $15 billion-odd budget and we have already gone into the first three months. We have obviously continued to pay people as we as a parliament have permitted the government to do. I am very concerned that here we are in September and the government is so wedded to this idea of trying to use the budget bill to slip this through to save some money in the law and order budget, that it is prepared to hold up the whole of the budget bill because of this refusal.

I am absolutely stunned that the government should act in this manner, I suggest quite irresponsibly. If it was serious about having a proper debate about the whole issue of police and prosecution costs, then let us do that in another bill, but not hold up the main bill, the whole budget bill, which is billions of dollars. I assume that over the next few months we are going to have to meet in deadlock conferences and try to resolve this. We could end up, it seems to me, in a situation where people are not going to be paid. I do not know whether we are going to have to recall government if we do not resolve this. This is why it is so irresponsible of the government to reject this amendment in a circumstance where this is such an important bill for the people of South Australia.

Let it be on the government's head. If there is any kind of interruption to the operation of government and the funding in some way as a result of it holding up this budget bill because of its intransigence over this attempt to use this bill to get its own way on something, then let it be on its head.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I take the member for Bragg's point that we want to expedite this process and I will make no further comment.

Motion carried.