Local Government (Rate Increases) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 March 2016.)

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (10:53): It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and speak on the Local Government (Rate Increases) Amendment Bill which has been tabled in the parliament by my colleague the member for Goyder. I think this is a really important piece of legislation which has the opportunity to significantly reduce the cost of living pressures being faced by ordinary South Australians the length and breadth of this state.

As many people here know, I was a member of the City of Marion council for 3½ years prior to my election to state parliament. Some people say to me that they are surprised that I would be such an advocate for this body of legislation because of my time on a council; however, one of the motivations for being such a supporter of this legislation is that very reason, because I was on a council and I was able to see firsthand the unusual way that councils went about delivering their rate rises and budget setting each year.

I have described before how I find it very backward. Rather than look at how much money they have and then consider what that money could be spent on and how far it would go, certainly the council I was involved with (and I think this is fairly common practice) would look at devising a range of projects or a wish list. They would then go away and work out how much that would cost and raise rates accordingly. I do not think many businesses would operate like that. I do not think many household budgets would operate in that way either, so it is a particular luxury afforded to very few that they get to come up with their wish list and then have the capacity to collect revenue in a way that will, accordingly, fill that wish list.

I find that quite troubling. When I was on the City of Marion council, I thought it led to a lackadaisical approach to budgetary discipline, and it resulted in poorer outcomes for the overall budget for those councils and, as a consequence, higher rates and more significant cost of living pressures being faced by South Australian households. The councils I have been involved with—the two councils that sit across my electorate are the City of Marion and the City of Holdfast Bay—have a tradition of raising rates substantially above annual inflation or CPI rates.

That does need to be called into question. It does need to be reduced, and we need to look at legislative mechanisms from this state to actually hold some of these councils to account. I commend this legislation to the house. I think it is good legislation. It has the capacity to lower household cost of living pressures in South Australia and I look forward to bipartisan support for this legislation because that is what South Australians deserve.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (10:56): I rise today more in disappointment than anger to oppose the Local Government (Rate Increases) Amendment Bill 2016. In common with the member who introduced the bill, I also have had a long period of involvement with local government. In my case, it was as an elected member for 23 years—23 years of wins and losses, satisfaction and frustration. I started out with hair and ended up with none.

It is a world of footpaths and roads, stormwater, parks, gardens and sporting grounds, landscapes, landfill and rubbish collection, community wellbeing, economic development, residents with their day-to-day concerns, dissent, dialogue, deliberation and decision, meeting after meeting. Over time you see the changes, the improvements and also the mistakes, good judgement, poor judgement and middling judgement and, at its heart, that desire to help through engaging with all the amazing mix of people who make up any community. It is because of that involvement that I know this is a poor bill. It is cheap populist politics and bad policy that will ultimately hurt communities.

It will hurt in two fundamental ways. The first is that it represents an attack on intragenerational equity. It does that by shifting raising revenue, over time, from rates to far more aggressive user charges. It does not save people money in the long run. Ultimately, it has the opposite effect. New South Wales has had state-imposed rate capping for many years and the result is plain to see. Total local government revenue per capita in New South Wales is significantly higher than in South Australia. User charges in New South Wales represent over 36 per cent of total revenue compared with 18 per cent in South Australia.

There is always some complexity in making comparisons, but what can be clearly stated is that the evidence shows that rate capping does not work and does not benefit the cost-of-living exposure of households. What it does, through a reliance on user charges, is hit the poorest households the hardest. Rates revenue provides opportunities to cross-subsidise service delivery, improving access for people on low incomes. There is clearly a role for user charges and, for some services, it makes sense but an overreliance on user charges ends up being deeply regressive. The second fundamental way it will hurt communities is through a reduction of investment in long-lived infrastructure assets—

Mr Pengilly: Who wrote this? Finnigan?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HUGHES: —and, as a result, an undermining of intergenerational equity by shifting costs onto future generations. South Australia's 68 councils manage close to $22 billion in assets. Most of those assets are essential for the decent functioning of our state's many and varied communities. Most councils are already experiencing an infrastructure backlog, and state-imposed rate capping will make that backlog worse. Rate capping in New South Wales has contributed to a $7 billion-plus infrastructure backlog. Councils need to be prudent when it comes to expenditure and need to ensure that spending is both efficient and effective.

Councils are required to engage with their communities when it comes to setting budgets. Years before that requirement was mandated for all councils, I was able to initiate that change at a local level on the Whyalla city council. One of the challenges is getting people to engage in the process. Some councils do it better than others, but just holding a meeting and expecting people to turn up usually results in a handful of participants. Effective engagement needs to be properly resourced and open to creative ways of involving people. It should also be said that sometimes this is not a priority for people who have all sorts of demands on their lives. On genuine engagement, it is clear that the opposition has not engaged with the local government sector in good faith given that the policy—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HUGHES: —has been decided upon before involving the sector.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HUGHES: That is the view—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. Sit down, member for Giles.

Mr HUGHES: That is the view—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Giles, sit down. It is unparliamentary to interject, and it is unparliamentary to respond. I will have the member heard in silence, and I ask members to cooperate with the standing orders. The member for Giles.

Mr HUGHES: That is the view of councils in my region, and I will say a bit more about that later. The bill undermines local decision-making, and it runs counter to the principle of devolving decision-making to the level best suited to making those decisions. It increases red tape and associated bureaucracy, and it perversely increases costs. The New South Wales Independent Local Government Review Panel found that millions of dollars are spent each year by councils and state agencies on preparing, reviewing, and determining applications when the actual cost impact of the proposed rate increases on households is often no more than a dollar a week.

I have four councils in my electorate—five if you count that creature of an indenture, the unusual example of Roxby Downs. It is 'unusual', given its undemocratic nature and, in my view, a body that needs an overhaul of its governance structure in order to introduce greater democratic accountability. That is something that I might talk about on another occasion. The local government sector is strongly opposed to state-imposed rate capping. I refer to a letter that I received from one of the councils in my electorate because it probably reflects well the views held in the sector.

The letter comes from the Kimba council. It is a conscientious council that takes its role of serving its community seriously. This is not a council from Labor's heartland. I could count the votes that I get from Kimba and surrounding districts on the hands of four mates. That does not bother me; they are good people and they want to do the best for their community. This is what they had to say, 'Steven, I thank you for recently travelling to the Eyre Peninsula to consult on'—

Mr Griffiths: You're not going to read all three pages, are you?

Mr HUGHES: I am not going to read all of this; it is a long letter.

Members interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: You wait until we get to the best bit.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members of my earlier request for you not to interject, or respond to interjections.

Mr HUGHES: I apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have three minutes.

Mr HUGHES: The letter states:

I thank you for recently travelling to the Eyre Peninsula to consult on your proposal to introduce legislation for the implementation of rate capping on Local Government rates. I was disappointed to learn you already committed to this cumbersome, restrictive, regressive and unfair policy…

I will repeat that: 'this cumbersome, restrictive, regressive and unfair policy'. The letter continues:

…meaning consultation would have very limited results for us and our communities. Maybe I have it wrong, but when we consult with our community we are not completely committed to an action and I believe the consultation is somewhat farcical when your course is already set.

Rate capping in its various forms, I believe, has a history of poor results and certainly does not address an overall healthy and sustainable sector. Its very focus is solely on rates and ignores results and the very needs of the community in question. I believe this will be a damaging policy for regional councils and most damaging for small rural councils such as our own. I have no doubt rate capping will result in reduced services, unfunded asset renewal over the long term and ultimately will most likely deem our council unsustainable. I sincerely hope that is not your intention, but that said, good intentions will in no way excuse the action and ultimate poor outcomes for our community.

You state you want to ensure councils are as cost efficient as possible. This regressive policy will add costs, red tape and inefficiencies to small rural councils who are already struggling with grant cuts and cost shifting from other spheres of government. You are adding to the problem, not being part of a solution.

The mayor, on behalf of his council, then went to the nub of the motivation for this bill when he stated that this is 'populist policy for a quick headline'. That is what this bill represents: it is a populist policy. It is not going to lead to a reduction in cost exposures for households. It will lead to an increase in bureaucracy, it will lead to an increase in red tape, it will lead to an increase in user charges, and in the long term it is an incredibly regressive policy.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (11:06): I rise today very briefly to speak in support of the Local Government (Rate Increases) Amendment Bill that has been put before the house. More than 200 people in my community support this policy and have contacted my office in support of reducing council rates in our local area.

It is absolutely fantastic to have this bill before the house and to be looking at reducing the costs and charges and fees on families in all of South Australia. To reduce the cost-of-living pressures right across the state is only a good thing. This legislation will impose a council rate cap and will ensure that families keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets so that they can spend it as they see fit. A rate capping scheme will protect ratepayers from unnecessary council rate hikes and provide much-needed cost-of-living relief to all South Australians.

It was outlined in our 2036 manifesto that we want, and are committed, to reducing cost-of-living pressures. Under our scheme, the independent regulator, ESCOSA, will set the rate rises for councils and allow councils to apply for rate service increases at the Local Government Price Index (LGPI). Councils will be able to apply for rate rises above the cap but they will need to show that they have the support of their communities. We want to see councils being transparent as to how they come up with their rate rises. We do not want to see constant rate rises and constant pressures being put on families in the community.

It is a very good bill. It makes sure that council ratepayers' money is being used in value for money exercises; that is what is important. It is in place in New South Wales, and has been for several decades, and it was introduced by the Victorian Labor government in 2015 as well, so they see it as being a very good policy. Unfortunately, those opposite are addicted to increasing fees at every opportunity on all South Australians. All they know how to do is to take money from people's pockets and waste money, and that is why South Australia is in the predicament it is. It is simply not fair to have council rate increases out of proportion to the increasing cost of living. So, from a cost-of-living perspective this is a very good policy and will be much loved by all South Australians.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I was waiting for the other side to stand.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on. I was just going to say, if you speak, you close the debate, and I see the member for Colton is on his feet, so we probably have to let him speak.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thought there was an order but, notwithstanding that—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Off you go, member for Colton.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:09): Thank you very much, ma'am. I was always going to speak, future leader. One of the things that I find somewhat annoying is the very nature of populist politics. My good friend—in fact, some people refer to him as my twin—has well articulated that this is a regressive and populist policy.

Of course, you would expect that the member for Mitchell might have, just like the member for Hartley did when he sent out a survey, got many people back supporting this. You might as well ask them whether or not they support a reduction in the wages of members of parliament because the answer will come back 'yes'.

The point is, on the evidence that the Economic and Finance Committee has received to date, particularly from those located in New South Wales, this is not going to in any way reduce the cost of living that is being felt by many within our community. The way in which the cost of living can be more significantly reduced, particularly for those most vulnerable, is simply by things like the $200 per year concession that the state government provided to those people—that is the way by which you reduce the cost of living.

The evidence we have seen from New South Wales to date—and the member for Giles said it very well—was that, whilst there is rate capping, and I believe they have to go to IPART if they want to go above whatever that capping is, they have significantly increased the level of user-pays charges and cost of service delivery charges. That is simply the evidence we have seen, and it cannot be refuted. We had before us at the Economic and Finance Committee I think a man who wishes to become a future member of the Liberal Party in this place, and that is Mayor Lachlan Clyne. He is the only mayor of the 68 in this state who is out there supporting rate capping.

Mr Tarzia: No, he is not.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, we are yet to see any other mayor, and in fact the local—

Mr Tarzia: Try reading The Australian.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I read The Australian to make me angry.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Colton!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind members again that it is unparliamentary to interject and respond to interjections. In the interests of keeping the business of the house moving along well, it would be great if we could hear each member's contribution in silence. Member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I understand that, at the most recent meeting of a special meeting of the Local Government Association, there was unanimous support for rejecting this blunt instrument that you call your bill. It is nothing but a blunt instrument, and it is not going to work. I expect that, at the next election, you guys will be out in all of the seats saying, 'This is how we tried to reduce the cost of living by introducing rate capping,' knowing full well that it is nothing more than populist rubbish and is not going to actually, in any way, support the people who you purport are going to be the beneficiaries of this rate capping exercise.

In fact, what it will do is pass costs on to future years. We know we have had this in the past. I think it might have been the member for Wright who was the local government minister, and a very good one I might add, when changes were made during that period of time because what we had seen with council infrastructure—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, there was no ability to be able to manage infrastructure properly when rates were being capped or reduced. I know the member for Finniss was a mayor of—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Not a very popular one.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No.

Mr Pederick: That's outrageous!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you very much, member for Mitchell. I know you haven't interjected at any stage this morning!

An honourable member: He is in his spot.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's true, but two wrongs don't make a right.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Ma'am, interjections are disorderly no matter where you are sitting.

Mr Pederick: Now he is running the show.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I am not. I am just reinforcing the point that was made by our Deputy Speaker. The member for Finniss was the mayor of Kangaroo Island and I think, at one stage, it might have been 2004 or 2005—I do not have those figures here in front of me—the local government price index might have been slightly higher than CPI but pretty much the same at 4 per cent, 3 per cent or whatever it was. The member for Finniss oversaw, at that stage, as an elected mayor, something like a 17 per cent, it could have been 18 per cent, it might have even been a 19 per cent increase in rates in one particular year.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: It was the rates that increased by that value over that period of time.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Anyway, you oversaw something that you and your side are trying not to let happen through this bill. I agree that there should not be 19 per cent increases in council rates. If I were a member of that community, I would have taken the opportunity to bag you just like I am taking the opportunity today to bag you for what I think is a nonsense piece of proposed legislation.

The member for Goyder was an outstanding CE, as I understand, over an extended period of time in various councils, even starring in the Hunter Valley for a period of time, but it is safe to say too—and you can turn around and say, 'Well, actually rate increases are a matter for the elected members,' but of course we know that CEs are meant to show some leadership in this particular area and that you have been subject to up to 14 per cent increases in rates during your period of time as a CE.

I am sure that that was done for a very good reason—to address some of the infrastructure problems you might have had within your particular council at that time. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot come into this parliament and say, 'This is what we are going to do' yet oversee in a previous life those things that you obviously supported as a CE that those elected members were putting forward.

The member for Hartley, as I said earlier, put out a survey—800, I think it was, and it got up to maybe even more—and he got back a couple of hundred or I think it was significantly more than 800 and it might have been thousands that he put out. He got back only a small percentage, perhaps 10 per cent, which is not a bad return. But, of course, you are asking whether you pay too much in rates or not. You know the answer you are going to get before you send the survey out. It is just populist and ridiculous.

I understand that comparing things in New South Wales and South Australia might be a little bit difficult from time to time because you are not comparing apples with apples, and that is a point that has been made. But the fundamental issue is that what you are trying to do with this bill to cap rates has been undertaken in New South Wales, and we have seen through evidence there that the only people who are affected by that are the people the councils are there to support in varied ways.

Getting back to the Mayor of Unley, I might be wrong, but I do not think I am, when I say that there is almost universal support across local government for this not to occur. Even my deputy mayor, Bob Randall, in the City of Charles Sturt has made it pretty clear that he does not support in any way this proposal. Of course, he was a former president of the Liberal Party, as I understand it.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, that is right, he shifted around, just like your position on this shifts around, but that is okay. Getting back to Mayor Lachlan Clyne, he made a bit of an appearance before our Economic and Finance Committee. I did not think it was a very good appearance, but about rate capping he was asked, 'If we cap rates, how would you get other forms of income?' I will paraphrase here. He said, 'Through fees and services, just like new South Wales.'

So, in reality, what he was admitting was that the amount of money coming out of ratepayers' pockets would not be reduced at all, it is just that we would be able to say, 'There are fewer rates being collected'. But there is going to be more money collected from them through other means and that is all that will happen, plus we will make sure a future generation is going to have to pay for the infrastructure that will be left behind and not maintained whilst this rate capping is on.

We also see examples in New South Wales, where community clubs, community organisations, ovals and these type of things are either closing down or not being maintained to the appropriate level. I do not think I have said this before—we often say, 'I commend the bill to the house'—but I condemn this bill to the house and believe that, quite rightly, it should be voted down because it is nothing more than a populist load of rubbish.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Light.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member for Goyder speaks, he closes debate, doesn't he? Do you want to come up and take over, member for Mitchell? Member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:19): The member for Mitchell would like to guillotine debate, clearly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just speak, member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Given this matter affects local government, I consulted with the four councils which I—

Mr Tarzia: How much did they go up when you were mayor, Tony?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not as much as when you were a councillor.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to start calling people to order if you cannot behave, which means you will miss out on question time if you are naughty this morning. The member for Light needs to be heard in silence. Member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I consulted my four mayors and CEOs in my council and asked them for their views on this matter. I obviously used their opinions to help me form my own opinion on this matter. For the record, I indicate that all four councils are opposed to it, including the City of Playford, where their mayor is a well-known member of the Liberal Party, Mayor Docherty, and the other three mayors. I will quote from their letters, because I think their letters and their emails are very constructive in what they think of this proposal.

It is quite clear that this bill says that local government is either incapable or unwilling to reform itself and do the job properly—simple as that. That is what they are saying: it is a vote of no-confidence across local government. I hope that when members of the Liberal Party go to local government events they actually say that to their mayors and CEOs, 'We as the Liberal Party in this state think that you people are incompetent, incapable or unwilling to reform yourselves.' Let's be honest about it, but I bet you they do not do that. They will play games in here, and will go out in their communities and say what a wonderful mayor they have. In fact, they will probably call their mayors around election time to make sure they boost their prominence in the community for their re-election.

They are saying with this bill that local government is incapable or unwilling and clearly too incompetent to manage their own affairs and that they need to use a big stick to bring them into line. The Mayor of Gawler—and all the mayors have given me permission to quote them; they were happy for me to quote them in this place—said the following:

Gawler has demonstrated over the last few years the capacity to manage its financial affairs, reducing debt, driving efficiencies without large rate rises and without forced rate capping. The paternalistic view that this motion [bill] represents is disappointing, as is the lack of any real consultation with the local government sector.

I urge you to reject this bill tomorrow.

Many thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Barossa Council mayor, Mayor Sloane, stated:

We have discussed rate capping at a workshop but not in a Council meeting.

I listened to another presentation from Stephen Griffiths last week at a Central Local Government meeting in Maitland. None of the Mayors and CEOs present had any support for his rate capping.

We are very happy for you to voice our opposition to this ill conceived proposal.

Mayor Bill O'Brien, Light Regional Council—these are all bastions of socialism of course I am talking about here—

The Hon. P. Caica: Agrarian socialism.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, agrarian socialism. Mayor Bill O'Brien's contribution was the longest, so I will paraphrase rather than take up all my time. Essentially he says that he believes that local government is capable of reforming itself. It is certainly true that, if you talk to local government (and I have held that view for many years, and still do), we can improve the transparency and accountability of how it charges a set and engages with the community—that certainly can be improved. I am on the record in my local community saying that, but I do not believe this is the way to achieve this. In short, the mayor says:

…the LGA's position was to reaffirm the view that decisions concerning council rates are better informed, and the impacts better understood, when made by the respective councils in consultation with their communities;

So, not only are they saying that there is a vote of no-confidence in local government right across the state—each elected member, each official in local government—but they are also saying that this bill disempowers the local community as well. The mayor continues:

…it rejected the State Opposition's policy on rate capping; and it endorsed the LGA President and (LGA) CEO to continue to work with all Members…to ensure rate capping is not imposed on South Australian councils.

When you look at the evidence, and compare councils between South Australia and New South Wales, like with like population-wise, area-wise and rate base, it is interesting that, where New South Wales has had rate capping for many years, the total charges to each resident are actually greater than those in South Australia. It is important to say 'total charges' because all members would know that there are different components on your rate notice. There is the flexible amount—the rate bit—and then there are other fixed charges, which councils have now introduced.

Mr Griffiths: They provide different services, too.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That's right. Let me finish. They do. Well, they do provide services, that is right, but for some of these services that were provided previously the councils have now costed them out as a way of trying to control those costs and also tell the people what the costs of those services are. Rubbish collection is a classic example.

So when you compare New South Wales and South Australia, there is no actual benefit to the ratepayer. Zero. What capping does is it forces councils to increase charges in other areas, so the total cost is the same, if not more in New South Wales, so this is really just a con job. It is a Clayton's cap—the cap you have when you don't have a cap. Quite simply, it does not work. It does not work—a cost-of-living measure—if it does not work, it is not a cost of living measure, and I will explain why. Why would the Liberal Party go with this policy? Why would they do this? Why would they think clearly when they have local government—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Let me finish. Listen. Why would they do this? Mayor Clyne came to give evidence to the Economic and Finance Committee. I wanted to understand why he would be supporting rate capping.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Sorry? But apart from that—his concern was the current act, and I will quote him:

I'm not sure that the Local Government Act 1999 promotes and encourages local councils to aggressively pursue other sources of revenue.

His concern is that the current act does not enable councils to charge people enough, so what they say is, 'By capping, we will force them to charge for things which people don't charge at the moment.' This policy will force councils to say, 'Well, perhaps we will start charging for library books.' You will bring your credit card when you want to borrow your library book. When you go to the local pool or reserve or sporting club, you will need to bring your credit card. How does this impact on families and the cost of living?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Exactly. In terms of cost of living, those user charges, those direct charges are regressive and they impact greatest on those who are less wealthy. What this policy does in terms of cost of living is it increases the cost of living for pensioners, families with more kids, so your sporting group will have to charge your child to pay more for their sports because of the charges on the reserves, etc. This is a back door way to meet a policy outcome that the Liberal Party has always had. They like user charges. They like fixed charges, they like user charges. They have tried it before; they have form in this area. A previous Liberal government introduced rate capping in this place and it was dumped. It was a failure.

Mr Pengilly: Like you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is called to order.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stuart is called to order.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am a failure? I am on this side and he has been going down the rank ever since he has been here, so if I am a failure it is an interesting definition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Light, no response to interjections.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I want to have a full discussion on this.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I want to have a full discussion. I am more than happy to have a full discussion. I have nothing to hide here. Let's make it very clear. This is about the Liberal Party's long-term view of increasing charges to people. They do it at the federal level. They would need to reduce income tax but increase charges. They are doing it at a local level. Let's be very clear. If this policy is put in place—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Finniss, order!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If this policy is put in place, you can rest assured that the councils will increase their charges and also introduce new charges. Mayor Clyne said so. He wants that freedom; he wants the freedom to charge for everything. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you just granted leave.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Disgraceful. No, we didn't.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you did.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, not at all.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, well, if someone has objected to leave being—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we heard yes. No-one—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Mitchell! The table is advised that leave has to be unanimous; so if someone is now saying 'No', leave is not granted. So, the member's time has expired.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No. I call for—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a second; I am getting instructions from the desk. As the time has expired, it is now 11.30, the debate has to be adjourned.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that seconded?

Mr Griffiths: No.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: You can't say no to seconding.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Everyone needs to be quiet. Procedurally—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You either want to play by the standing orders or you do not. I cannot control where we are. We are at 11.30, so the time for this business has expired, so we do not have many choices. The choice we have is to adjourn, and that is it. If you want to bring out your standing orders book and have an argument with the Clerk, please come and do so; but as I am told, adjournment is our only option.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have an opportunity to seek an additional allocation of time for private member's legislation to be debated?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be fraught, wouldn't it? What standing order are we working on with that? The Clerk has advised you can move to rearrange private member's business. Procedurally—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am advised—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down! I am advised procedurally we still have to adjourn before you can move to seek that. That is what I am advised. I cannot do anything else but follow the advice. If you think about it, it makes sense.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goyder has something to say.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Deputy Speaker, can I seek clarification? On the basis that an adjournment is successful, the opportunity to debate the legislation is lost, it goes to the back of the list and disappears into the ether and is never resolved. Is that correct?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We all know that standing orders exist. We are all trying to work through this in a logical fashion. You can adjourn it on motion, I am advised—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss, it is not necessary—

Mr GRIFFITHS: On the basis of an adjournment on motion, do I have the opportunity as the mover to nominate the date for it to be debated again?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! As the Clerk rightly points out, if you wanted to deal with this further today it would have to be adjourned on motion. Obviously, you would then have to negotiate between the sides to make sure it was given precedence. We are at 11.30; that is the complicating factor.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not know if you have to do that at this point.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I just wanted to provide information (it is not a division, sorry) for the clarification of the house—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: From your point of view.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: From our point of view. We obviously moved the adjournment because the members who want to speak on this bill are not here. So that the opposition is aware, in the event that the adjournment is successful, and if they intend to move that the debate be extended and that is not successful, we are happy to bring it up to number one next sitting week. So, it can be first order of business next sitting week in Private Members Business, Bills.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would this not have all been better sorted out between whips before we got to this point? But that is just an observation. Member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the commitment given by the member for Newland, but can I just seek clarification. Given that there is no government business listed for this afternoon, is that an opportunity for this to be debated at number one in this afternoon's session after the grievance debate?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: It would be if the people who we need to be here were here.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And, as I said, this should have been—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This should have been sorted out privately. You are wasting the house's time now, everybody. Quickly get to where you are going.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The member for Frome, who is paired because of illness, and the member for Kaurna, who is paired due to the birth of his child, both wish to speak on this bill, and the member for Frome, being the minister, wishes to participate in the debate. He is not going to be here today. We cannot do it after grievances. We are happy to bring it on. We are happy to oppose this bill. I have said to you before that we will bring it on at No. 1. If the opposition can agree amongst themselves on their side of the house to make it No. 1 next sitting week, done.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As a point of clarification, as the Clerk so wisely points out—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It cannot automatically go to No. 1 but, if you have an agreement for that to be the case, the house can resolve that itself. Member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I need to qualify this, and I apologise for taking this time. I understand that on Thursday 9 June a bill controlled by the member for Ashford is listed at No. 1.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is the whip, on behalf of the member for Ashford, prepared to commit for this bill to become No. 1?

An honourable member: Probably.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hold up the business of the house while this is nutted out to the nth degree.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Having pointed that out, and as the issue listed as No. 1 is such a sensitive topic, I will confer with the member for Ashford, and then I will confer with the member for Goyder, but I give a commitment now. We are not afraid of this bill. We will bring it on whenever we can make that arrangement to do so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does that meet with the agreement of the member for Goyder?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will accept the compromise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not want him running around being unhappy about it, but the house cannot stay on this for the next 10 minutes.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am speaking to the member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS: For the record, the whip provided the opposition with details of what might be a vote opportunity this morning, but I understand the circumstances have changed since that was given, and I appreciate that. Given the commitment by the member for Newland, I am prepared to accept that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The chair sincerely hopes—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This should not happen again. We should be big enough to organise our own business without this happening again.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.