Bills

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide Charitable Trust (Membership of Trust) Amendment Bill

Referred to Select Committee

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (15:51): In accordance with standing order 325, I bring up the final report of the select committee on the bill, together with minutes of proceedings and evidence.

Report received.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (15:52): I move:

That the report be noted.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:52): As a member of the select committee, can I say that this process of examining the bill that was before the house was one that was uneventful, but it was very thorough. We did call for witnesses and we did advertise. We were cognisant of the fact that this piece of legislation was last reviewed in 1981. We also were very aware of the concerns that had been raised about the need to protect people who may have claims against the church: that they were not in any way going to be able to continue those claims with assets of the church in some way being shielded from any particular claimants where there could be some claim for damages and the assets could be used to provide resources for those damages. This was not the case here.

There are some straightforward mechanical changes to the arrangements that have been going on with the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide. It is with hope that this bill goes through without any particular obstacles, that the report be noted and the bill become law as quickly as possible.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:53): I wish to speak briefly on the report that has been received and note that the recommendation—although I have not seen the report yet—is that the legislation progress. There are issues that I raised during the course of the debate on this matter as to the alienation of assets: that if, in fact, there was any structural change to further make those remote for the purposes of any civil proceedings against the Roman Catholic Church (in this case). I am assured that there is no change at all in respect of the effect of the rights and liabilities of these trusts as a result of this legislation; that the current status is that they are already protected in these trusts and that there is no change to that.

Probably unsurprisingly then, in answer to my second issue which is the question of why they have not moved to a private trust, even with the good grace of government or even this parliament supporting some exemption of stamp duty, if that was their decision to make, that has not been a course of action that the trusts have elected to progress.

I raise this one other matter, and that is this. The Sisters of Mercy, for example, is one of the trusts to be incorporated, now to be one of the designated ministries in this structure to try to provide some perpetual provision for the archbishop's nominee to be in charge of these trusts. I understand the whole future-proofing arrangement for this, but I understand that the Sisters of Mercy, for example (and I do not want to take this out), have proposed in their trust that they will take in Papua New Guinea as part of their territory.

One of the things I think we ought to be appreciative of here in the parliament—and the government, particularly, should be aware of this—is that if there are enterprises and activities proposed to be developed in other regions which are going to be given exemptions, for example, on payroll tax as a result of the status of these trusts, then the expansion of enterprise of these trusts (which I cast no reflection on) does have a consequence in respect of enterprises or businesses that they pursue in South Australia. They may or may not in the geographical area of Papua New Guinea. I do not know what activity they intend to develop or engage in up there in relation to their redefining of the boundaries, but we ought to be aware that there are consequences to the bottom line.

It just seems to me that the parliament does need to consider in the future how we can assist trusts that have the sanction of the parliament—as distinct from indentures such as Santos or BHP, for example—where private trusts have been established by the means that they were a century or more ago to transfer into private arrangements. I, for one, think that would be fairer and appropriate, and it would therefore take up the time of the parliament to deal with these matters. With those few words, we will leave it in the hands of the archbishop.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (15:57): I thank the speakers today, and I also thank the members of the hardworking select committee who thought very carefully about this matter before bringing it back to the parliament. We had a number of harmonious meetings where all of us were able to—

An honourable member: Bipartisan.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They were completely bipartisan, and I am looking at the member for Morphett and the member for Adelaide who participated in a very constructive way, and I thank them for their efforts. The government members, of course, were very constructive as well. I appreciate the fact that the recommendation of the committee is being endorsed by the parliament and I thank everyone for their assistance.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (15:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.