Bills

Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2016.)

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (12:04): I rise as the lead speaker for our side on the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill. I do so noting that we will not oppose the bill in this house, but we reserve our right to consider amendments in the Legislative Council. I note that four areas of this bill were looked at. The bill has potential and it is a promising idea, but I fear that this simplify bill may be poorly executed, as have been a lot of projects by this government.

We know that there are problems with Transforming Health, the NRAH, the EPAS that has been talked about a lot, especially today, and the ongoing legal battles that have ensued from the NRAH project. Child protection is another issue which has been poorly handled by this government and which is very much in the media at the moment, not to mention our poor jobs state, electricity prices and other such issues here in South Australia. I hope that this bill does not follow in that vein. As I said, it is a simple idea that has the potential to do good things, but I have concerns as I look through it.

This government has been in power for more than 14 years, and it has taken them that long to get to the point of realising that we need to simplify some legislation in order to help grow jobs, which one would think is a very key point in South Australia. I note with interest that the government has gone through four areas in putting this bill together: (a) legislative changes; (b) regulatory changes; (c) repealing legislation; and (d) talk about future reforms. I will look at some of these areas.

We note with interest the legislative changes and the consultation the government undertook with the industry. At a recent briefing attended by colleagues of mine, the government was questioned on whom they had contacted and which industry groups they had spoken to, and there was some uncertainty in giving the answer to that question, which is a little bit of a concern. We will be consulting on this bill between the houses to see if there are any concerns for industry with some of these bills which are meant to help simplify legislation but which in fact have the opposite effect. We will be keeping a very close eye on that.

All shadow ministers are out talking and listening to the people of South Australia and industry groups, and I think that is a very important point to mention, especially in this modern day and age when communicating and consulting with the community are vitally important. We have heard the member for Mount Gambier speak about how important it is in his local area, and we know across the board that communicating and consulting are vitally important in this job, especially in this age of social media.

Some people pooh-pooh the modern media that are out there, but there are some real and innovative upsides as we move forward as a society because there are great ways we can consult with the community, and I think it is vitally important that we do that. We know that everyone may not always agree, and we are very conscious of that, but this is certainly a day and age when we must talk and listen to the people and industries in the community, take on board their thoughts and concerns and make decisions accordingly.

You must take people on the journey with you, too. I think this government has failed to do that on a number of occasions, and that is why they are now having a lot of problems within the community. They have not taken the community on the ride with them and they have not taken them on the journey with them. I am hoping that these changes are for the good, that consultation will be fair and just and that everyone will have a chance to be heard. That is something we are very keen to keep a close eye on.

As I said, we will be going out and speaking and listening to industry groups and people in the community, as that is really important. A number of legislative changes have been listed here, and I will talk about a couple as we work through this bill. Again, I know that some industry groups are a little bit concerned, and we will be speaking to them at a future date, as I have pointed out. During this period, it was noted that the government had spoken a lot to the departments about the changes to the legislation.

They have spoken to the departments to try to make things easier for them. This has some upside, but we also know that making sure we make legislative changes that will help save money for businesses, grow businesses and grow jobs is far more important than making a lighter workload for the departments. The departments are there to help businesses and help grow South Australia. I know that the people in the departments are very keen to work hard and help do that, and that is a really key point.

As we look through some of these legislative changes—as I said, we will be exploring them in more detail—I will just pick out one, that is, the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. There was a recommendation by DPC to allow any licence, permit, exemption or other document issued under the act to be in electronic form or as a physical document. This is a fantastic idea. In fact, it is an idea we put forward last year, to say that we should be looking at electronic licences, so to see that the government has adopted that policy idea put forward by the Liberal Party is fantastic.

We need to get with the times and we need to be moving forward with this to make sure that, down the track, people can have their licence on their iPhone. Carrying it with them electronically will make it easier for renewing their licence, easier for taking it with them wherever they go, and it will add a lot of convenience for people. Ultimately, it will save people time and money, with not having to line up at Service SA. They could quite comfortably and easily flick through an app on their phone and make their payment when they have to renew their licence—heck, they could even take their own photo themselves with their phone as a camera. The options are endless.

These are things we have called on the government to do, and it is good to see they have listened and taken them on board. This is just one little example where they have followed on from one of our policies again, which is great to see. It is good to be doing government from this side of the house and helping out the government of the day, even if they are a little bit slow to react. That is just one issue; there are many others, as I have mentioned, and we will be going through all of those. We will also probably hear more from others in the house who have individual areas they would like to discuss.

With regulatory changes, it is similar. We want to speak to people out there to make sure that any changes that are happening are making life easier for South Australians, making life easier for South Australian businesses to do their work, grow their business, employ more people and create more jobs for people out there. I mentioned digital licences and, while I am on this issue, we did mention that New South Wales had moved into this space quite a while before us, so the precursor is out there for the government to follow, and again I commend the fact they have done that.

Looking at section C of the legislation, this again has me raising my eyebrows as the government moves this piece of legislation forward. There are concerns about how well it will be executed and what the outcomes will be. I stress the point that growing the economy and growing jobs is vital, but if we look at repealing legislation under this section of the document there are 11 points there. The Debits Tax Act from 1994 has been redundant since 2005, so making alterations to that or taking it off the table is really just a bit of pencil pushing; it is not going to grow any jobs or change the economy or help businesses grow to employ more people.

I will run through the list because it is interesting to see. As I said, the Debits Tax Act 1994 has been redundant since 2005, and the Financial Institutions Duty Act 1983 has been redundant since 2009. Really, we have gone along with these things in place and it has not impacted anything, but what we are doing today is putting a pen through them and wiping them off the board. Again, that perhaps tidies up the paperwork but does not do anything for growing jobs.

The Industries Development Act 1941 has been redundant since 2008, and the Gift Duty Act 1968 has been redundant since 1980. With the Mount Gambier Hospital Hydrotherapy Pool Fund Act 2009, the money from that fund has already been allocated so there are no problems with that for the member for Mount Gambier. In fact, I am sure that act is not what drags him down every day and has him working hours and hours in his office, so removing it does not really make any difference.

The Naracoorte Town Square Act, again, the project was completed, so a line goes through that. The Software Centre Inquiry (Powers and Immunities) Act concluded in 2001 so no problems there at all. The South Australian Meat Corporation (Sale of Assets) Act 1996 is again, an old one. In terms of the South Australian Meat Corporation Act 1936, the property was sold in the late 1990s, so it has been sitting there on the books not doing anything and putting a line through it is just a formality. As to the Wilpena Station Tourist Facility Act 1990, again the project was completed, job done. The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act 1999 is, again redundant.

The government will say, 'There are 11 pieces of legislation we have just removed to help cut red tape,' but realistically they were not doing anything to impact on South Australia and were not doing anything to prevent the economy from growing. It is really just putting line through those, so we cannot give the government any credit for those.

I find the future reforms quite interesting, and this is where potentially the real interest lies. This is the work that the government could have done. We are going through them and speaking with stakeholders about the handful the government has dealt with. We have looked at the repealed legislation the government has taken off the table which really has no impact or no influence. Looking through the future reforms, one might question why, after nearly 15 years in power, some of these reforms have not been progressed. Why have they not moved forward? Why has more not been done to help South Australia and help our economy and help grow business?

Let us have a look at this. The government talks about bus lanes and about looking at proposals to allow other buses in the bus lane, rather than just public transport buses. This was put forward by the MTA and it is a great idea. Why has the government not acted on it? I know that, in 2013, Bus SA actually went to the government and talked about doing this. The government has a push to get more and more events in the city, which is potentially a good thing. It allows regional people to come to the city, and a lot of them come by bus.

A lot of those bus drivers, companies and small businesses want to attract people, bring people from the regions to the city to be a part of some of the events we have in Adelaide to help grow those industries, those businesses and those events. When I was shadow minister for transport, these bus companies came to me and talked about this at length. Again, Bus SA broached this with the government before, but they have just ignored it or shelved it as too hard or will look at it later. Now, through some pressure, they are saying, 'We'll look at this again in the future.'

Why has this not been looked at? Why has this not been addressed? Buses come down to the city ferrying people to events, such as a footy game at the Adelaide Oval or a cultural event in the city. They bring people down from the regions. These bus companies want to attract people. They want to say, 'Look, come with us. We'll take you down. We'll take you in close to the event, drop you off, pick you up afterwards and take you home and we can offer you a really great service,' but they come to town and get stuck.

They cannot use the bus lanes and they see the public transport buses going past. They are taking vehicles off the road, which has a great environmental effect and also a great social impact in allowing these people to be active in the community and engage in the social event they have come down to see, but they cannot get their buses in the bus lanes. The bus driver is left sitting there saying, 'Well, that's a bus lane. I'm a bus. Why can't I travel in that lane?' Again, that legislation really does need to be looked at.

For me, it is a priority to allow these businesses to grow and allow people to get better access to facilities. Bearing in mind that they are driving buses and that there is a bus lane, how can we not work something out and make something happen? That was a great recommendation put forward by the MTA that I would be very keen to explore if I were in government, but our government has again just shelved it saying, 'We will have a look at somewhere down the track.' It is work to be done, as far as a future reform is concerned.

It concerns me that the government is shelving some of these future reforms that could actually help grow our state and grow businesses. That one example could create a lot of opportunities for regional bus companies to be more active, generate more work, have people more socially involved in events in the city and really help add to what is going on in South Australia and make people engaged with events that are happening, It has great potential for growth.

Another issue that interests me relates to caravans. This is again a future proposal, a future reform the government has flagged. Why they cannot look at this leaves me scratching my head. They are looking at shorter registration periods for caravans. Interestingly, not long into his tenure the Minister for Transport actually did introduce some legislation that allowed boat registrations to be over shorter periods—six months for certain size boats. I think they had to be under seven metres, if my memory serves me correctly.

That was a great idea, which was well received by the boating community. Someone might own a boat and only use it in the summertime. They might have a holiday away over the summer period with their family but they only use their boat for six months of the year. Under the old legislation, they might have sold their boat or might not have purchased a boat. Saving money on the rego and only registering the boat for six months seems like a really good idea.

I commend the minister for doing that, but here we are now talking about it for caravans and it really is the same sort of fit. I am a caravan owner myself. I have a 1964 Millard. Glenn McGrath, of course, owned a Millard, which was in fact his nickname because he lived in his Millard. My Millard is probably not able to be lived in, but it is a caravan and my family use it around Easter time at best. We mainly have the caravan because my wife takes away so much stuff that we have to put it in the van and take it away for a weekend, but that is a whole other story.

The point of this is it would be great to be able to just register this caravan for the six months that it is needed, not to register it for the whole year. This is something that the government is looking at, and I can see real growth in the industry and real growth in the caravanning sector where you could entice someone in. They might want to start off with a 1964 Millard much like mine, and they might do it for six months and then realise they like it, get a bigger caravan and help grow that industry.

Again, the government have that flagged, but the point I make is that is flagged under future reforms. The government have done that work with the boats, and we commend them for that, but now they have an opportunity to do this with caravans, and what do they do? In reality, they have balked at it and not put the work in. They have not done the work around this.

This is a great idea. Again, what we are looking at here is saving money for families, improving the cost of living for families in South Australia and helping businesses out because it is another sales point that these caravan industries would have when they sold their products. It is a chance to help grow industry, jobs and businesses in South Australia, so it is a win-win for everyone. I cannot see why the government have not looked at this as they did with boats. I think boats under seven metres can have the six-month registration. Potentially, you could do it for smaller vans. As I said, the 1964 Millard might fit into that category as well. You may not do it for the bigger vans.

When I look at this list, probably the most impressive things the government have put forward are unfortunately the future reforms. They are the things that potentially have the most to offer. I look at that with great interest and wonder why, again, the government is talking about lots of stuff but not doing lots of stuff to take South Australia forward. Another issue I note with interest is one I look at from an innovation point of view. Whilst the 1964 Millard may not interest younger people with what they are looking to do in life, I look at something that is captured under broader transport reforms. Again, this a future reform, so it is not something the government is doing straightaway.

I look at Segways, those fancy little two-wheeled scooters you see around the place but not on the roads or footpaths in South Australia. Whenever I have travelled interstate, and on a couple of occasions I have been lucky enough to go overseas, I have seen this great innovative tourism opportunity where people are taken on tours on these Segways. People are all helmeted up and speed limited, but again this is an area where we could create a potential business for a young entrepreneur here in South Australia, right across the state. We do have a couple, and I commend the people who do it up in the wine region, I think. There are maybe a few other regions where they do it on private property.

With our wonderful Riverbank Precinct that South Australia should be very proud of, and our wonderful city, suburbs and surrounds, we have so many opportunities. By looking at this legislation—not keeping it on the 'to be done' list or future reforms list but looking at stuff that we really could and should be doing right now—we could open up opportunities for South Australia. By changing this legislation, by looking at ways in which we can get this happening here in South Australia and by having a bit of initiative, we could create more tourism opportunities for an up-and-coming business around the city.

I mentioned the operation we have in South Australia in Seppeltsfield. This is one that is done on private property so it is fully legitimate, but this could be brought onto the roads. I think I have seen it in San Francisco, and I might have even seen it in Central Park, New York. I could be wrong, but I have been looking on the internet and have seen it in a few of these places, and it looks very exciting.

There is not a lot of work for the government to do because they can look not too far from our own borders and see where this is happening. I see this as being exciting for South Australia, and that is a big part of the reason why I have come into this place. We need to look at opportunities that will really excite South Australians and get businesses moving here in this state.

I looked at where this was happening close to our shores to see how we could implement this here and what would need to be done. We would not be reinventing the wheel or even reinventing the Segway for that matter; it could be very easy to do. The Northern Territory has looked at this and made a couple of quite simple reforms. They have allowed this to happen on shared paths and very safe places. Victoria is also trialling a pilot at the moment, which they started in August this year. They are doing it, too. Again, we are being left behind.

One of the great things about South Australia is that we are not as congested and overpopulated as perhaps the major cities in Victoria or New South Wales. Brisbane and Perth have a bigger population base. We are a smaller city, so let's look to leverage that. This is where opportunity lies for South Australia. We have wider streets and we have great facilities where an industry like this could evolve. It could be a whole lot of fun doing a Segway tour around the Adelaide Oval. It would be a chance to value capture from the investment we have made in that facility if a business were able to start up around that. The legislation is there, the regulations are there and the opportunities are there to create this.

People will say that there are concerns about all sorts of things. The legislation interstate has Segways very much tempered around the legislation regarding motor scooters or scooters that elderly people often use around the city. They are speed limited. There are a whole heap of things that could be put in place. Again, that is work that perhaps the minister or the Premier should have had the department doing, looking at how we could follow on from what is happening in the Northern Territory, and Queensland for that matter. There is some very sensible legislation up there as well regarding how they are going to make it happen. As I mentioned, Victoria is trialling it as well.

South Australia is falling behind some of these other states. That is a classic example of where we could be using innovative, exciting ideas to help make South Australia a leader and give young entrepreneurs the opportunity to grow their businesses and grow jobs in this state. Again, I stress the point that this is another reform that the government has put as a 'future reform'. It is stuff they are going to look at down the track. It has been 15 years. Let's not kid ourselves, it has been a long 15 years under this government and people are starting to get tired of missing opportunities like this. The government is really just leaving this behind. We are really keen to see these future opportunities be grabbed.

Another issue they are looking at is unfair contract terms for small businesses. As the shadow minister for small business, I think this should be at the top of the list. Again, small businesses and businesses in the state are vital to keeping South Australia pumping. That is where growth will come from. If we can get a small business to employ one more person, we can add hundreds of thousands of jobs in this state, and that is what we need. We need jobs, so we should do anything we can to help undo unfair contract terms. That is something that the government is again looking at as a future reform, but I think it needs to be addressed and worked on straightaway so that we can create jobs for South Australians. That is what is important.

We need to put the vibrancy back into South Australia and we need to get people working. We need to create jobs and get people into jobs so that people will stick around. The number of people who leave South Australia is not good; we lose a lot of our young up-and-coming talent who really could help take this state forward. It is little things like this that do not help our state. They are a couple of examples.

That is some of the legislation the government has been working on. I argue that maybe they have been looking at the wrong ones. Maybe there are some others that would have been more important. My colleague David Ridgway from the other place goes out and speaks to a lot of the industry and stakeholder groups with whom he is heavily engaged and he has a couple of concerns as well.

He is a little unclear as to which industry groups have either recommended or endorsed the proposed amendments to the various PIRSA legislation in particular. We know that the government has had some feedback. On the website, there are six or eight groups that have lodged feedback; others have apparently emailed their thoughts. Exactly what those thoughts were, whether they were pro or against some of the changes, we do not really know, so that is a bit unclear.

The Hon. David Ridgway, as I mentioned, will be out like the rest of my colleagues consulting on these changes to ensure that there is industry support for this bill. He has also raised questions about amendments to the Aquaculture Act 2001. He has noted that clause 8 will allow the minister to approve licence conditions and variations without referring to the EPA, and he would like to know who suggested this change and what the implications may be. There has been a bit of lack of clarity with this bill as it has come forward. That is why I again mention that we would not oppose this bill in the House of Assembly but will reserve our right to consider amendments in the Legislative Council.

The Hon. David Ridgway from the other place also had some concerns around the Fisheries Management Act 2007. It was noted that clause 57 enables the minister to cancel a licence, permit or registration if has been suspended for more than six months of non-payment or if that holder cannot be located. While we understand the intent of the clause, it may affect the way financial institutions view licences as security. That is one thing that we will be seeking some further information about as well.

Clause 59 of the Fisheries Management Act also changes the presumption of innocence; that is, if someone is accused of trafficking a species, it will be presumed that if there is no proof suggesting otherwise, the person has the species in their possession and is therefore guilty of the offence. This is something that we would like to explore a little further. Similarly, in clause 61, it states that a permit granted by the minister:

(a) is not transferable; and

(b) is subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit—

and allows the minister to revoke or vary conditions at any time. Again, there are concerns that this may have the same implications as clause 59, and we would like more information about the full extent of the proposed provision. So, there are concerns about these changes and the additional powers the minister will have. As I have mentioned, the Hon. David Ridgway from the other place will be looking into that. If there are more questions or issues raised around that, we will be raising those in the other chamber.

I talked about consultation. It has been interesting and maybe murky at best. The process was that people were called to have their say and as far as I am led to believe, as I pointed out a few moments ago, if they sent through their application it was tabled on the website and you could read it. I think there were half a dozen or maybe eight that appeared on the website. If it was sent through as an email request, it was not open to the public and we were not entitled to see or know what these people had claimed, whether they were saying they were good, bad or indifferent. So, again, it is hard to have that communication.

I go back to that point of communication because I think it is vitally important that we keep those lines of communication open when we are talking to stakeholders. I note with interest that the government is saying, 'Well, we did engage with a whole heap of stakeholders.' In fact, they have provided us with a list of stakeholders to whom they sent the actual report on Simplify Day. These were organisations that the government sent the information to once Simplify Day had happened. There were only a handful that were listed on the website but more were sent the information when Simplify Day happened. It is not entirely clear, but we will keep working through that, and we are happy to keep working with the government in that space. I just stress the point that communication is very helpful.

I do drive back to the point I made earlier that, whilst this has some good intentions—cutting red tape is always a good thing—I am interested to hear from the Premier or the member carrying this bill as to how much money has been calculated will be saved and how many jobs will be created. I think that would be a very important fact and figure. Also, how do they justify that these jobs will be created? That is what we want to do with red tape: we want to simplify things and make it easier for businesses to operate in South Australia. Ideally, we want to make it easier for businesses to operate in South Australia than in other state, to attract more business to South Australia and grow our state.

We know that is what we need to do to grow jobs and keep people working in South Australia. We know where our unemployment rate sits across the nation and how low it has been for such a long time. They are a couple of things that we want to talk about. As far as the consultation is concerned, I have managed to get onto a couple of people as far as that is concerned. I spoke to the Property Council and I know they have been back in touch with the Premier about a couple of issues that they raised. As they looked at the bill, one of the points they made was that the significant areas of reform they identified were not really covered. They talked about strata titles, easements, registrations of titles, adaptive re-use of existing building stock and trading hours.

We have talked a lot about trading hours on this side of the house. We see the opportunity to open up trading hours and create far more opportunities for businesses in South Australia to be open more hours. Again, we talk about innovative operations now and we know that the advent of online shopping really has eaten into the traditional method of shopping. I could probably steer these comments towards younger people, but I am probably not young and I do look at online shopping as well. Online shopping is something everyone is getting into these days and that makes it harder for bricks and mortar businesses, so we need to give bricks and mortar businesses more opportunities to trade and sell their wares as well.

That is why we have looked at the shop trading hours and we think it is a great policy. The South Australians we speak to, communicate with and listen to tell us that they would like the shops to be open more often. A classic example is my local Foodland just down the road. It has a great proprietor and it is very handy, being only 150 metres from my house.

My local Foodland really probably operates as my pantry. I do not need to keep much in the pantry at home because we can always go down and top up. In fact, I often go down, buy my milk and bread, then realise I need something else, so I whiz down and top up two or three times. After I have done it two or three times, if I have still forgotten something I will often ask one of the kids to go down and do it for me. It is really handy, we have a great relationship, it creates a great community atmosphere and we like to support our local business.

My point is that the other morning we got up and my wife wanted me to do some jobs around the house. We had some work that needed to be done, and she is much better at that than I am, but she thought it would be a good idea. I said, 'That's great. How about I make breakfast first?' I thought I could buy myself half an hour to read the paper and have some breakfast with her, which I like to do on a Sunday morning. I said, 'I will make some bacon and eggs and cook that up.' She said, 'That's fine. No worries at all.'

I went to the fridge and we were out of eggs, and bacon for that matter. I thought, 'I will just whiz down to the shop.' It was 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning. I thought I would go and get the stuff from my local Foodland and come back, but of course the Foodland was shut. I could not get my bacon and eggs, so I suggested to my wife that we wait until 11am and I could go down there then. She said, 'Fat chance, big fella. We'll have some muesli and get into those jobs.' I do not really like muesli, so it was a disappointing morning for me and I was into the jobs far earlier than I had hoped and planned.

The point is that the opportunity was there to go to my local supermarket, support my local business but that money was not spent. That money did not go into his pocket and it did not help support my local business. I think shop trading hours really will open up a lot of opportunities for businesses to grow and to give different offerings, too. There is a great opportunity for businesses to be entrepreneurial, to be forward thinking and to give greater offerings to allow more opportunities for South Australians to shop and spend their money locally, which we know is important. We hear the government talk a lot about 'shop local', but you cannot shop local if the shops are not open, so I am interested to see if the government is going to get behind this and support our shop trading hours reforms, which I think have a great upside for all South Australians.

The Property Council also talked about competitive utilities prices. We know about the high price of electricity in South Australia. We have the highest electricity prices in the state. We pay a lot for our electricity and, of course, we have the most unreliable electricity supply as well. We know about the recent blackout. I do not want to go over old wounds or old ground, but we know that the state did black out. We know that industry was hit savagely by these blackouts. We know companies like BHP and Arrium were hit with costs in the millions—$20 million plus in losses they suffered because of that power blackout, and that damages confidence, too.

I have talked about this before in this place, where people think, 'That's fine. We have a blackout. We put the candles on at home, we might play a board game and not watch TV.' That is nice for the four, five, six, eight or 10 hours, or whatever it was at your place that you had the blackout, but it really damages business. Industry and business look at South Australia and think, 'Do we want to take our money and set up in South Australia?' They might have an industry they might want to bring here that actually needs reliable energy and reliable power supplies at a competitive price. When they look at the situation we have in South Australia, they just say, 'No. No, we don't want to go to South Australia because of those impediments,' because we do not have competitive utility prices. The ramifications of that blackout are going to be felt for a very, very long time, and that is something we are conscious of.

They are the areas that the Property Council identified. I will run through them again: strata titles, easements, the registration of titles, adaptive re-use of existing building stock, trading hours, and competitive utilities prices. They were the issues they raised. They were not even in the future reforms. We have talked about things being future reforms, and here is quite a big industry group saying, 'These are things we think are important,' though I must say that adaptive re-use was flagged for potential opportunity beyond 2017. That is the only one that was flagged as a future issue.

We know that the adaptive re-use of Adelaide buildings is something that we on this side of the chamber have supported and put forward as a policy. We think it is a very important thing, and we note that the government has grabbed onto that initiative that we put up. They are looking at it, as I said, for potential opportunity beyond 2017. We would like to see legislation to allow for easier adaptive re-use of buildings constructed prior to 1980. We think this is a big opportunity to breathe some life into vacant buildings in the City of Adelaide and increase property values right around the state.

The figures show that D-grade building stock has a vacancy rate of almost 21 per cent, and that is the highest recorded level in Adelaide. The C-grade building stock has a vacancy rate of almost 18 per cent, and this is the highest level in 12 years. So, there are opportunities there with this legislation. It is good to see that the government has flagged the potential opportunity to look at the adaptive re-use of existing building stock beyond 2017, but it is something that we have been calling for and believe will help to grow business and grow jobs in South Australia. We know that is vitally important.

As we talk more about this bill and we look at where there are potential opportunities—and again, they are future opportunities, and we have asked why they are not being addressed now—we see some of the things that the government has done. This is my concern with this bill: great intentions, poor delivery. That is potentially the history of what this government has delivered a lot in recent times. It brings me to compare this bill with other projects the government has done. Let's start by talking about child protection, because this is something very dear to my heart. A lot of constituents in my local community come to talk to me about this and I listen to what they have to say.

The government yesterday released its 'Child protection: a fresh start' document. I am not sure how many fresh starts you can have when you make such grave mistakes in this area, as this government has. We know and understand that this is a delicate area, and we know and understand the issues that go with it. I get very passionate when I talk about this. We know the issues, we know there are problems, and we know that it needs work all the time, but the failings of this system by this government are really damning. When we look at legislation and whether or not this government gets it right, we can go through the history of child protection in South Australia and the parliamentary select committee on families that took place in November 2009.

Over two years, the select committee received 92 written submissions and heard evidence from 38 witnesses. In that, notably there were what I suppose you would call whistleblowers from the department who spoke about their concerns. Bear in mind that this is 2009. The report handed down revealed that there were a number of failures, and not just one or two, but a big number of failures within the department. There was talk of cover-ups and problems that were going on there. I think it was outlined in 2009 that the agency was in crisis. That was 2009, and we stand here today in 2016.

The Debelle inquiry in July 2013 was another independent inquiry into education after it was revealed in this place in November 2012—before I was here, I know, but it was something that was very much talked about in my community at the time—that parents of children who attended a school in Adelaide's western suburbs were not informed, were kept in the dark for two years, that an out-of-school-hours care worker had raped a seven year old. That is a really, really poor system to have had in place. That is the concern, when we look at the legislation before us, that this goes on.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Newland has a point of order.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Ma'am, we have progressed from the somewhat large discussion on regulation through to the Debelle inquiry. I think perhaps if we could bring the debate back to the bill at hand, that would be good.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we have allowed the member for Mitchell to range fairly widely, but I know he is going to come right back—

Mr WINGARD: I appreciate that, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have allowed you to range really widely, so we just would like to remind you that we are listening.

Mr WINGARD: I understand that, Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate that. I am little bit concerned that the member for Newland raises child protection and talking about child protection as an issue, as do others on that side of the house. We on this side of the house see this as a very, very important point. The point I am making is that, as we go through the failures of the government when it comes to their child protection system, there are concerns within bills that, if you do not get it right, grave things can happen.

In the simplify bill, it is not to the same extent, but the point that I am making is that, as we go on through Chloe Valentine, Shannon McCoole and now the Nyland royal commission with that child protection issue, the government has got it wrong time and time again. I started with the select inquiry in 2009. It is now 2016, and the government is looking for a fresh start. The point I am making is that I do not think the government deserves a fresh start when it comes to running South Australia.

Mr PICTON: Point of order: I think we all agree that child protection is an important issue, but there is nothing in this bill specifically about that, so I ask the member to return to the subject of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have asked the member for Mitchell to be mindful that we have let him have a very, very wideranging debate, and he really does need to focus on the actual bill.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and again I do not resile from the fact that I find child protection as a very—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, you are going to ignore me again?

Mr WINGARD: No, I am happy to move on. I am just making my point, Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, that would be good, thank you.

Mr WINGARD: —that I find child protection—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WINGARD: —very important. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Again, to have people on the other side—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for Mitchell, you are talking to me, and you said you would move on.

Mr WINGARD: And I will, and I say to you—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Straightaway.

Mr WINGARD: —thank you for your protection. It probably leads me to talk about the nuclear dump which is another issue. We talk about social licence and talking with communities. There are issues that I could go on about for hours: child protection, Transforming Health, the nuclear dump. We could talk about the Attorney-General, the deputy leader, becoming an SC. That is another issue, and it could even take me on to talk about the Minister for Water and his foul language when he attends meetings. This government has dropped the ball.

As we look back at this legislation, there are some things that the government has not done and that probably concerns me as much as some of the things they have done. One of the things they have done is to strike a pen through a couple of pieces of outdated legislation that do not have any impact on anything at the moment. There are other things that have been put forward to make sure that we have the right consultation, that they have listened. We will be doing that, and I made the point right at the start that we will make sure that we engage with, listen to and talk with the relevant industry groups and people involved in making some changes to this legislation. With that, the member for Fisher has pointed out that I have gone on. I would just like to remind her that as lead speaker I can speak on this bill for as long as I like and just—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is almost like responding to a silent interjection because I did not hear her actually say anything to you.

Mr WINGARD: I can assure you, Deputy Speaker, it was said. I am just making the point that everyone in the house knows how this operates, and I appreciate your time on that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And we have been very, very lenient in letting you go as widely as you wished up to the moment when members raised points of order. You are winding up; I will let you go.

Mr WINGARD: I will, Deputy Speaker, and I will just say that my concerns have been raised. I am glad that I had the opportunity to document most of them, even though I was cut short on a couple of points that I think really need to be addressed in this place. At the next opportunity, I will make those points again because I think they are issues that South Australians are very concerned about.

We know that this is a great state. We want to make this a great state, but after 14 years of this government I fear that we are not in that position, that we have been dragged further down the list of productive states in this nation. I believe that we are better than that. I believe that we have a brighter future than that, and I think a change of government will allow that to happen.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:49): If we are going to be relying on the opposition to provide ideas about the future of this state, we will be in a very sorry state. I might add that it was funny just listening to the member for Mitchell and his complaint about not being able to have a discussion about the nuclear issue. The only people stopping a discussion about the nuclear issue in this state are the opposition. So, it is a bit rich for him to come in here and complain about not being able to talk about the nuclear issue.

I also noted that all his complaints about not going far enough came from ideas outlined in government documents. It is not like the opposition has come in here with their own list of regulations they think should be overturned, repealed or changed; we are seeing that they are just listing off things we say we are going to do—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is called to—

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The government is saying that it is going to do at some—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. Member for Hartley—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hartley, you are called to order, and if you defy me I will have to warn you.

Mr Tarzia: Thank you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, don't say 'thank you'; actually take it on board. The member for Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The member for Hartley—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the debate, please.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Yes, ma'am. We have not seen the opposition come in here with their own list of regulations. What we have seen is them complaining that we are not moving fast enough on all the things we have pointed out. They have no ideas of their own, and that is what we can expect in the future I think.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

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

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The part I want to speak particularly about is the areas of this bill accompanying regulations and an extensive list of future considerations for Simplify Day 2017 and beyond associated with the planning and transport sector.

The bill itself incorporates a number of reforms to reduce red tape and take away some of the burdens on both businesses and consumers in planning and transport. I will just touch on some of those now; the first is the heavy vehicle registration labels, and perhaps the most prominent of the immediate reforms in transport is the abolition of the requirement for heavy vehicles to have registration labels. This amendment has come about as a result of significant feedback from the heavy vehicle industry calling for this change.

From an industry perspective, this reform represents a real and practical reduction in red tape. It means that businesses with heavy vehicles no longer have to worry about keeping track of their registration labels at the risk of receiving a fine, and it also increases productivity for these businesses, who would otherwise need to call in their vehicles unnecessarily and take them off the road to arrange and change new labels.

From the perspective of reducing red tape in government, this amendment is expected to generate savings through greater efficiencies, including by removing the direct costs of label printing, processing and postage. The initiative demonstrates the government's increased uptake of digital technology in preference to paper-based systems. I might say that, from my point of view, the removal of stickers in my vehicles has been a good thing. I can do all my registrations on my private vehicle on the phone using the EzyReg app, which is an excellent function. The only time I ever need to visit Service SA offices now is to have photos taken.

Another reform relates to the Survey Advisory Committee. Included within the bill is the abolition of the Survey Advisory Committee. This initiative formalises what already happens in practice, where the review functions and initiatives coming from the profession are being delivered through the Institute of Surveyors, rather than through the Survey Advisory Committee. This reform gives effect to a recommendation in the government's Boards and Committees final report of 2014, which proposed to abolish the committee.

Although the committee was relevant during the early years of monitoring the functions of the Survey Act, this role has increasingly diminished over time, with the board no longer meeting regularly and with very few matters to discuss when meetings do occur. In addition, the Survey Advisory Committee currently duplicates many of the functions of the South Australian division of the Institute of Surveyors. This amendment abolishes the Survey Advisory Committee and transfers its functions to the Institute of Surveyors.

New motor vehicle pre-registration inspection is another area of reform. This regulation, made by the government on Simplify Day, removes the unnecessary requirement on the preconditions for registering new vehicles. Currently, a new vehicle cannot be registered until a report requiring various information in relation to that vehicle, such as the vehicle identification number, make and date of manufacture, is completed by a police officer or authorised person. An authorised person is someone working in the new vehicle dealer's business who has been certified to complete the report.

The regulation will remove the need to authorise, manage or audit persons authorised to carry out inspections. This means that the industry is no longer having to nominate authorised persons or hold documentation for audit purposes. This change represents little risk, as the department can verify new vehicle data against the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information System.

Some of the things I will briefly mention in the planning and transport area included in the bill itself are:

allowing the minister to grant the Rail Commissioner standing approval to exercise powers under the Rail Commissioner Act 2009 that would otherwise require the minister's consent and approval. This will mean that the Rail Commissioner can carry out operations like installing and maintaining traffic control devices, maintenance of trains and tracks, and overseeing day-to-day administrative staff functions and getting rid of the need to confer unnecessarily with the minister;

removing an unnecessary duplication between the Australian Road Rules and the South Australian legislation relating to the restriction of selling goods and services on the side of the road by simply repealing the South Australian prohibition to leave the single prohibition at the national level; and

removing the redundant voluntary mandatory alcohol interlock scheme, under which a disqualified driver could obtain their licence sooner if they agreed to the installation of an interlock device. The voluntary scheme was discontinued in May 2009 when the scheme became mandatory for drivers convicted of a serious drink-driving offence. There are no longer any participants in the voluntary scheme.

The additional regulatory reforms include removing redundant provisions established in 2008 which covered a transition period of appointing independent members to council development assessment panels, and removing redundant child restraint standards provisions in our South Australian legislation, as these have been superseded by the current Australian standard for child restraint requirements.

I note some of the future commitments this bill has introduced on parliament's Simplify Day, and the regulations made by the Governor on that day are certainly not the end of the government's work in red-tape reductions. As was announced on Simplify Day, the government is committed to continual efforts in red-tape reduction, signalled by the annual Simplify Day process. In particular, the government has identified a wide range of potential future reforms in the area of transport going to 2017 and beyond, including:

allowing private or charter buses to use bus lanes. I think this is a big change for the charter bus industry, and is expected to assist in boosting tourism. This is a great idea;

allowing for the optional postal delivery of number plates direct from the manufacturer of the plates to the vehicle owner, skipping the need for people to attend Service SA to collect their plates, another convenience for consumers;

removing duplication in the medical fitness-to-drive assessment required for a drivers licence and passenger transport driver accreditation, reducing costs and administrative burden. I actually have a couple of constituents in my electorate who are in the position of having to get two doctors' checks within perhaps a month or two of each other for essentially the same purpose, so removing that burden would be an excellent result for them;

providing an option for owners of light trailers and caravans to have a six-monthly registration when currently only three-month and 12-month options are available;

allowing trials for Segway tours to operate along the Riverbank Precinct, which is a great idea, with a view to allowing a framework for these devices to be used in the CBD and popular tourist areas;

simplifying accessibility of the conditional registration for historic left-hand drive and street road vehicles to allow greater opportunity for enthusiasts of these vehicles, particularly attracting more of these niche industries in South Australia. I think while the minister is doing that he might want to check those historic vehicles, especially those that are imported, American muscle cars and those sorts of things. They are very, very strict on original equipment and changes to wheels and tyres, etc., and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find original parts. Allowing some form of mild modifications, as they do in other states, would be an excellent addition to that work;

removing duplication and unnecessary forms associated with the process of authorising driving instructors to conduct heavy vehicle licence assessments;

introducing simpler access to low-risk events held on roads, particularly those that flow rather than static events, such as the Tour Down Under passing through town;

allowing farmers to tow their field bins in particular circumstances along public roads, making it easier for farmers to go about their day-to-day business (and I know my brother-in-law, Joe Honner from Yorketown, would be very pleased about that); and

removing the requirement for new light vehicles to be inspected before they are registered to transport passengers, given that all these vehicles are already required to meet Australian design rules. This will remove the red tape for tour operators and other passenger service operators.

I understand many of these future commitments were put forward by the transport minister as a result of the substantial feedback he has received from industry.

All these reforms relating to transport and planning are only one aspect of the Simplify Day initiative which is, in itself, only one part of the government's red tape reduction agenda, and the government has evidenced a clear intention of continuing ongoing reduction of red tape, helping South Australian businesses to thrive.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the excellent work of the parliamentary secretary in this area. I am particularly impressed by his organisational skills and the way he has been able to pull together quite disparate parts of government. It is a mundane task in many ways but it is a very important task, and he is to be commended for the work he has done in that area. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Tarzia.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:01.