Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (15:44): I rise today to speak to the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2016. I might just start where the member for Newland left off. He said that if we were to rely on the opposition (his words) for ideas he would be in trouble. I just want to remind the member for Newland that the idea of a repeal day was actually that of the Liberal Party. In my research before I was looking to speak on this bill, I saw that there was a Liberal Party document dated 3 April 2013 about a repeal day and removing redundant laws.

The Labor Party seems to have this obsession with passing laws that interfere with the daily lives of business owners. As Liberals, on this side of the chamber we are actually committed to making sure that government interference is at a minimum and that individual freedom is consistent with good order and sound administration. We know that unnecessary legislation and redundant laws add costs to small business, and are a burden on society and government departments. We acknowledge that it is time to clean out laws that have passed their use-by date.

It has been said that in 1975, after about 140 years of South Australia's laws, a full set of South Australian statutes took up 60 centimetres of shelf space. Over 40 years later, they actually occupy double that space. We had a five-point repeal day plan to do a number of things, including:

1. Identify outdated legislation that had no relevance to the everyday lives of South Australian business owners, individuals and government;

2. Work with the private sector, non-government organisations, community groups and individuals to identify opportunities to cut down the burden of unnecessary legislation affecting them;

I point out that we would not just dictate; we would listen to the private sector, listen to non-government organisations and listen to community groups. What the government has done here, judging by the low level of consultation they have conducted, is as per usual: they are dictating; they are not listening to the people. You can see that because community groups have not had enough time, in my opinion, to be consulted and to provide feedback in relation to this. We also said we would:

3. Dedicate a full day of Parliamentary sitting in our first year in office—

because this is a priority—

to this cleaning up and repeal of outdated and redundant legislation: 'Repeal Day';

We would not rush it in one of the last weeks of a sitting year like this government is trying to do. We would also:

4. Ensure that all ministers in a…Government would actively identify ways to simply legislation in their portfolio areas—

which is consistent with this theme, and we would also aim to:

5. Consolidate other laws to remove duplication and avoid confusion amongst government and the private sector.

We would consult widely in doing this. We understand that we must embrace technology, especially when technology can reduce red tape and also add value. This South Australian government wants to talk about repealing redundant laws; however, it has certainly taken its time to do so. I understand that in recent times the Attorney's priorities have been perhaps in the wrong place, getting letters behind his name and what have you. I notice that he has passed it on to other members of the government to carry the weight in this bill.

The government keeps passing laws that interfere with our daily lives. As I said, we on this side of the chamber are certainly committed to keeping the level of government interference to a minimum. Individual freedom consistent with good order and sound administration is extremely important on this side of the chamber. We understand that we have to take the handbrake off the South Australian economy, because for too long it has been shackled by a bad Labor government which has too much red tape in a whole array of areas.

We understand that, whilst there must be a legal framework in some areas, the government should always try to get out of the way where it is possible to do so. Whilst the government's spin-off of this Liberal policy sees consultation with various government departments, it would be beneficial for the government to consult with more, and to listen rather than dictate to, various bodies, including the private sector. They should also work alongside these groups to cut down the burden of unnecessary legislation.

There are a few questions the government must answer, as put forward by my colleague the member for Mitchell. Firstly, we must understand from the government how many jobs this will create. Not only that, but how much money will this save, and is there any associated modelling with this? These are very important questions that the government must answer in speaking to this bill. As I said, we announced in the 2013 plan at the time that a Liberal government would dedicate a full day of parliamentary sitting to the cleaning up and repeal of outdated and redundant legislation rather than trying to rush things through in the late stages of a sitting calendar, as we are seeing this year.

We would ensure that every single minister in the government of the day would try to find ways to simplify legislation in their portfolio and also consolidate other laws, because we understand that duplication and confusion amongst government and the private sector is not a good thing. For the last 15 years, what have we seen? We have seen Labor pass many laws that interfere with our daily lives. We are certainly committed to minimal government interference wherever possible.

I would now like to speak on some of the legislative changes that the bill seeks to implement, beginning with the Conveyancers Act 1994. Clause 19 of the bill seeks to allow body corporate conveyancers to carry on their business without approval being obtained from Consumer and Business Services through changes to the Conveyancers Act 1994. The partnership details required to be listed on the public register are already under separate regulations. It is important to note that approximately 70 body corporate conveyancers operating in South Australia currently are inconvenienced by the need for approval from the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. I support reforming what seems to be an unclear and unnecessary additional rule for conducting business.

The Crown Land Management Act 2009, which came into effect in 2009 under the Labor government, replaced the Crown Land Act 1929 and six other minor acts dealing with crown land during that period. Since its implementation, a number of provisions have been proven to be ambiguous and cumbersome, as acknowledged in the 'Simplify Day: reducing red tape and regulatory burden' document released by the government.

In the bill before us today, clause 21 provides that if a land parcel owned by a crown agency is declared surplus, the minister may dispose of it without declaring. Clause 23 gives the minister final consent on granting a lease in relation to crown land of which they are the custodian, and clause 28 allows some crown land to be disposed of without a competitive process and for less than market value.

In terms of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000, clause 42 seeks to extend the exemptions to government documents specified in the regulations. Clause 44 broadens the act to include other forms of electronic communications, to allow the government to issue documents electronically. Clause 48 allows the minister to determine what the approved communications system is and the usage rules around the system. The receiver of this information must also have consented to receiving the information electronically.

As shadow parliamentary secretary for entrepreneurship, innovation and business start-up, I hope to see the government spend more time looking into these kinds of amendments to assist in the shift to the digital age. I note that the government has engaged in a pilot program in this area and, should any issues be identified, I hope that they are addressed in the polishing of this legislation in the other place. It might be a good time to also point out that, whilst we will reserve our rights on this legislation, we will likely be amending parts of the legislation. We will reserve that right for the upper house.

Under the Evidence Act 1929, clause 53 adds a section 25A to abolish the oath belief rule, whereby a witness can be questioned and can express an opinion about whether the evidence given by another person in court on oath should be believed. We then have the Heritage Places Act 1993. Clause 64 seeks to implement changes to meetings of the Heritage Council so they will no longer need to be held in a public place and allows for a conference by telephone or other means to be a meeting, as long as participants have notice and are capable of participating. Clause 64 also states that meetings of the Heritage Council are to be open to the public unless the council considers it necessary to exclude them.

Under the Land Agents Act 1994, I note that clause 66 removes the penalty for a late payment of a land agent's registration fee. Clause 67 removes the default penalty for a failure to lodge an audit statement and also allows an agent to be liable in both a civil and criminal matter for a charge of failure to lodge an audit statement. Currently, I believe it can only be one or the other. Various changes are also proposed for the Security and Investigation Industry Act 1995. There are a number of regulatory changes proposed, especially in regard to the Development (Panels) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2006 and the Urban Renewal Regulations 2014.

The South Australian economy has certainly been slowed by unnecessary laws in a whole array of areas. What we need to be doing is addressing this now in every single area that it applies because we know that simplifying and reducing the number of redundant laws is certainly an effective way of unshackling the red tape burden on the South Australian economy. I anticipate that many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber will also review and identify other areas of improvement for the legislation. As I said, we support the passage of the bill in this house; however, we do respect our right to seek amendments in the other place.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (15:55): I will not hold the house for too long.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We know what that means.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, that is right, I am going to use my full 20 minutes. You are right onto me, Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for having sunglasses on my head. One thing I want to start off with is that the member for Mitchell, in what I thought was a very interesting contribution to say the least, talked not so much about the things we are doing but the things that we should be doing. I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the Premier has given a commitment in his second reading explanation, or earlier, that this simplify bill is going to be an annual event.

I do not mean to put it in too simplistic terms, but the reality is that, before you make changes to existing legislation, you have to go through a process to make sure that the changes you are making or simplifying are actually understood with respect to the implications and that you have gone through a process of consulting with those people who will benefit or be affected by these particular bills. So, it is a bit of a nonsense to say, 'Bring this in. Bring this in. Bring this in.' Eventually they might, of course, but it needs to be undertaken by a process, and this is going to be an evolving bill over years as more bills are brought into the frame that are subject to and appropriate for some form of simplification.

What I basically want to do today is address some of the legislative and regulatory changes under the government's simplify bill initiative. I want to do this in those areas that relate to food and fisheries and the environment, in addition to some future considerations and commitments in those sectors.

Mr Duluk: You would make a good environment minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you very much. I hope one day that you will make a very good member of parliament and very good minister as well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not the member for Davenport on two warnings I hear, is it?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the member for Hammond and the member for Hartley. We would hate the member for Schubert not to have an audience.

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

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: We were delving into forming a self-appreciation society for a while there, but we will move on. In the fisheries area, the Simplify Day bill and accompanying regulations made by the Governor on Simplify Day itself address a number of burdensome, outdated or unnecessary requirements in the fishing industry. When we look at aspects of the bill, in particular the media advertisement options for fisheries and aquaculture, the bill addresses the outdated requirement for all notifications on fisheries management or advertising in the preparation of statutory policies to be published via a newspaper.

Currently, the legislation allows no other option for the distribution of such information and notifications other than in a newspaper, in an era where electronic means—of course, we know how good the member for Schubert is at accessing these more modern forms of communication—and media are much more widely used. This change will allow for alternative options to newspapers for these notifications and advertisements, allowing the information to be published in places such as the PIRSA website, and I might add that it is a very good website.

The bill also provides important clarification surrounding the rules over possession of protected species. I know what I would like to do with people who are in possession of protected species, but I know the bill probably will not cater for what I would like to do to those people. However, getting back to it, as I said, it provides clarification surrounding the rules over possession of protected species or parts of protected species in relation to historical exhibits, museums and national collections that were taken before species protection measures were in place, such as the white shark jaws in the Museum.

The possession of such protected species will now be allowed where it satisfies a test of being justified in the public interest. Long may it be that there will never be future exhibits of protected species that are taken in this day and age. The prawn fisheries—I suspect you like prawns, Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am very good at peeling them.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, I have a doctor who tells me my dietary requirements, so I can only have crayfish in various ways, but nobody ever seems to believe that when they ask, 'Do you have any dietary requirements?'

Changes to regulations have addressed ambiguity regarding prawn fisheries rules in the Spencer Gulf and West Coast, in particular rules on when prawn fisheries are opened and closed to fishing. Although the amendments are not expected to cause any big changes to the way in which the industry operates, they do remove unnecessary practices by taking away the need for temporary exemptions and closure notices to be issued.

I would say that the Spencer Gulf fishery is one of the best managed fisheries in the world. A similar thing can be said about the West Coast as well but, in particular, Spencer Gulf is recognised. As I said, the changes to the regulations define the fishing season as 12 months from 1 July to 30 June the following year in relation to the taking of prescribed species under a licence. The changes also allow the suspension or limiting of fishing activity, or the use of fishing vessels, at any time throughout the season. This can be done via a notice or direction issued to all licence holders.

This change affects up to 42 licence holders across three fisheries, allowing for the same activities to occur consistent with the management plans for the fisheries. Won't it be novel—to have activities that are actually consistent with the management plans for the fisheries. I am saying that tongue-in-cheek. I am just making the point that there are things within this bill that do simplify the way businesses operate in this state, and that can only be a good thing for those various businesses.

For broodstock and seedstock fisheries, a regulatory change was also made to remove the need to gain an additional permit to farm wild mussel spat naturally occurring within an area over which an individual already has an aquaculture licence. This removes red tape requiring a permit to cultivate the mussel spat occurring naturally on an aquaculture farm, positively affecting up to 36 aquaculture licensees authorised to farm mussels. I will repeat that: positively affecting up to 36 aquaculture licensees authorised to farm mussels.

On other aspects of the bill, the bill also introduces an amendment which clearly identifies the purposes for which the Fisheries Management Industry Fund can be used. These purposes previously lacked clarity. The bill also removes unnecessary requirements for the Environment Protection Authority to review minor administrative aquaculture licence changes. I state again that they are minor administrative aquaculture licence changes, such as the substitution of an aquaculture licence upon amalgamation or subdivision. I can tell by your face, Deputy Speaker, that it makes a lot of sense.

The bill also introduces a number of additional minor changes to fisheries legislation, including allowing for a fishing licence to be cancelled where it has been suspended for a long period of time and where it has not been possible to contact the licence holder. I notice that the member for Mitchell was talking about what impact this might have with respect to the value that a bank sees these licences to have. The way I read it, it is where it has not been possible to contact the licence holder. That says a bit about what the licence holder might think about the value of the licence, but I may be being a bit presumptuous there.

Certainly, in certain prescribed circumstances, the changes proposed in the bill allow the operators of fisheries to remove exotic and noxious species from state waters where the appropriate equipment and processes are used—they should be able to do that. The changes allow fisheries officers to report potential offences to law enforcement agencies and, where a person is discovered to have a commercial quantity of fish, incorporate a new presumption as to the purpose of trafficking. This is an important reform which will apply to priority species, of which there are only two: rock lobster (my dietary requirement, as my doctor says) and abalone. It provides a presumption—that is rebuttable on the balance of probabilities—that the priority species are taken for trafficking.

This reversal of the onus of proof is consistent with other parts of the Fisheries Management Act 2007. These two proprietary species are high-value fish species for which there is clear evidence of interstate and international black-market trade. The nature of illegal taking of any species has serious impacts on fish stocks, as it is indiscriminate and normally includes the take of juveniles. This can lead to localised depletion of these species. Black-market value for these species is conservatively estimated to be in excess of $1.5 million annually. The true value of undersize fish might be even higher if they were allowed to grow to full size and then taken in the appropriate, proper and legal manner.

I mentioned that I would talk about future considerations for fisheries. As part of the 2017 Simplify Day process, reforms to regulations under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 will be considered. These proposed reforms relate to various reviews and requests of the fishing industry. Again, I hark back to the comments made by the member for Mitchell about what should be in the bill here and now. That is evidence of the fact that we have to go through processes to ensure that we properly consult with people who will be impacted by any changes made with respect to simplifying bills.

In terms of the agriculture sphere, I know that many opposite have a great understanding of the importance of agriculture and horticulture in the State of South Australia. I know from my time that you never count your chickens until they are hatched, but in this case you never count the grain until it is in the silo. I imagine that it has been progressing pretty well to date in some areas, and there are still some areas that are late with their particular harvest. I wish them all the very best of success in ensuring they harvest well and get it to the place where it will be properly protected and then sold. Are the prices coming up or not?

Mr Pederick: No, it's looking alright.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you; that is good. We just heard that the prices are looking better than they were some time ago, so that is a good thing. I thank the member—

Mr Pederick: They're not fantastic.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, but farmers in general would never say they are fantastic, but at least they have a good crop and they going to get the majority of that into the silos, which is only a good thing, and especially a good thing for the state.

I want to focus on interstate trade after that little bit of deviation. In terms of interstate trade of horticultural products, more broadly in the food and agriculture sector the bill seeks to more closely align the annual fees and returns of accredited persons and registered importers of horticultural products with national requirements. It makes sense. It will also create efficiencies in associated state government audit and compliance activity, making equally good sense.

In terms of future considerations, as part of the plan for Simplify Day 2017, consideration will be given to Biosecurity SA to investigate whether their compliance arrangements regarding veterinary and agricultural produce could be simplified by adopting arrangements similar to those applicable to primary produce. In addition, it will be considered whether Biosecurity SA should remove some regulatory burden on companies exporting whole fruit. Consultation on this potential reform is currently in progress, to be completed next year, and builds on the contemporary approach of working proactively with industry on meeting their food safety requirements.

We heard today the Minister for Agriculture pay tribute to the work being undertaken by Biosecurity South Australia with regard to the decision to recognise internationally agricultural and horticultural produce from the Riverland—I think it was Indonesia on this occasion—as coming from a fruit fly free zone. I think that one of the very sensible things the government did was to ensure that two aspects of Biosecurity SA in South Australia were merged. There was one with PIRSA and one with DEWNR, and they merged to form Biosecurity SA, and I think that was a very sensible and productive thing to do with respect to the management of biosecurity in this state.

On the environment, something I know is near and dear to the heart of everyone in this chamber, I would like to briefly speak about the reforms under this bill that relate to environment and conservation. The Simplify Day bill addresses a number of provisions within the Crown Land Management Act 2009 to improve clarity and reduce administrative ambiguity. These reforms go to the removal of duplication in declaring surplus crown land, simplifying crown land leasing arrangements and simplifying the disposal of crown land in certain circumstances.

In addition, the bill seeks to allow council officers the ability to use sensory evidence for all local nuisance matters, improving consistency in council processes. What better body is there than local council to use sensory evidence for all local nuisance issues? They are best placed to deal with these nuisance issues, and they ought to have mechanisms that make it easier for them to do that.

The bill also seeks to allow the South Australian Heritage Council to conduct out of session business by means other than members being physically present, allowing instead for a telephone call—fancy that—or other electronic means of communication. Again, it makes a lot of sense for that to occur, and removing that restriction is just the proper and right thing to do. The bill removes the requirement for a national parks and wildlife regional reserve report to be prepared every 10 years, supporting a more effective use of government resources for the preparation of publicly available management plans for reserves.

The Simplify Day bill also removes the need for a waste transport business licence applicant to advertise the nature of their business to the public, saving three weeks for these applicants. The EPA has not received public submissions for these types of notifications. The bill also addresses redundant ozone notification requirements within the Environment Protection Act 1993. Ozone protection regulations were removed from the Environment Protection Act 1993 in 2008.

In conclusion, I can say this: the government is committed to reducing red tape across all sectors of the South Australian economy, aiming to help ease the burden on our businesses and to stimulate economic activity. This bill, the regulations and future reforms are evidence that this government is continuing to reduce red tape to make our state a place where business can thrive. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:11): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2016. I think it is a good thing to simplify legislation and, as referred to earlier today in the debate, repeal legislation that is not just years but decades out of date from when it was enacted.

It makes you wonder why it takes decades to get to a point of repealing acts that obviously were once needed to enact the laws of this state but that have nothing to do with our daily life any longer. This was certainly part of our policy platform. We need to make sure we do not create any inadvertent circumstances. From this side, there will be a watching brief, and certainly the conversation may be changed in the other place.

The bill was introduced on only 15 November by the Premier to amend a number of pieces of legislation and regulations. As has been stated in this place, the government announced earlier this year, on 14 July 2016, that it would hold a red tape repeal day annually, and this bill aims at making these legislative changes. What the government is claiming are the first four elements of Simplify Day are in the following categories: (a) legislative changes; (b) regulatory changes; (c) repealed legislation; and (d) future reforms.

I sometimes get concerned about changes in regulation because, unless you monitor the Gazette religiously, you may miss a regulatory change. One bill we debated in the not too distant past comes to mind, that is, the repeal of the Firearms Act and the new Firearms Bill, when a lot of the regulations were to be sorted out by a committee afterwards. My issue with that is partly that we do not get to debate those in this place, but the one saving grace we had then was that the Hon. Rob Kerin was chairing that committee.

With regard to legislative changes, as the shadow parliamentary secretary for agriculture and fisheries I, too, am interested in changes around agriculture and fisheries that have been put up in this legislative change. In relation to legislative changes to the agriculture act of 2001, clause 4 allows the regulations to clarify what matters do not constitute a variation of licence conditions. Clause 5 enables the minister to advertise policies in the media and on their own website, which currently requires the Premier's consent. Clause 8 allows the minister to approve licence conditions or variations without referring them to the Environment and Protection Authority.

In regard to other clauses relating to the Fisheries Management Act 2007, I have always argued in this place that this act governs, if not the best, one of the best management facilities for fishing not just in this country but in the world. Certainly, I have always contended that fisheries should be managed by Primary Industries and not by default through the environment department, talking about no-take zones, etc.

In relation to the Fisheries Management Act 2007, clause 55 allows voluntary contributions to be made to the Fisheries Research and Development Fund, with money in the fund able to be used for projects relating to management of aquatic research. I do not think there is ever enough aquatic research. Clause 56 changes the requirement for an advertisement of proposed management plans to be displayed in a newspaper and allows the minister to publish a notice in the manner they determine. It has been mentioned earlier by members in this place that you can use the electronic media now to put articles out there.

Clause 57 allows the minister to cancel a licence, permit or registration if it has been suspended for more than six months for non-payment or if the holder cannot be located. With a six-month lead time, you would like to think that people who are actually serious about their licences would know that they needed to renew and put up that payment. I do note that some licence payments are either being paid by the government or are not being taken by the government from the Coorong fisheries because of the impact of the New Zealand fur seals on the fishery, which is significant. That would be having an impact on the budget, where it would be better for a management plan to be in place to manage the seals.

Clause 58 allows the minister to issue a permit authorising the possession of an aquatic resource of a protected species if the minister deems this is in the public interest. A person or body must not generally be in possession of a protected aquatic species which speaks for itself, but obviously if it is in the public interest, for research or other purposes, there might be a need for someone to be in possession of an aquatic resource of a protected species.

Clause 59 changes the presumption of innocence for those accused of trafficking a species to presume that, if there is no proof suggesting otherwise, the person has the species in their possession and is therefore guilty of the offence. It changes the onus of proof. People would have to be aware of that and make sure they do not get tied up with that change in the regulation. Clause 60 allows the minister to issue a permit authorising the person to have an exotic or noxious species using appropriate fishing equipment.

Clause 61 inserts provisions stating that permits granted by the minister are not transferable, and are subject to conditions the minister thinks fit, and allows the minister to revoke or vary conditions at any time. Clause 62 permits a person engaged in the act to disclose information to authorities outside South Australia where information is required for any act or law of that jurisdiction. This was previously limited to providing information regarding fishing laws.

As I said, we have some very good legislation in this state. It is very tight, and there are severe issues for people who contravene the legislation. In some places, it is tough legislation. There are tough impacts on commercial fishers if they break the law, but they know that the consequences are tough and the fines are tough. They know their properties can be accessed under the act, but all that is required is that people comply with the law.

In regard to tourism and the Major Events Act 2013, clause 73 allows the minister to declare a major event by notice in the Gazette, which is currently limited to the Governor by regulation. Clause 74 allows a controlled area to be declared by a map or description for flexibility in defining the area and removes the Governor's ability to close roads for major events by regulation, leaving this solely with the minister.

In regard to the Plant Health Act 2009, clauses 95 and 96 amend the payment time of an accredited person under the act to be a yearly payment rather than being fixed by regulation. I think that will make it simpler when people understand that it is an annual payment and not something that, being fixed by regulation, could be changed over time. In regard to regulations around fisheries management, the Fisheries Management (Miscellaneous Broodstock and Seedstock Fishery) Regulations 2013 allow for the collection of a mussel spat by someone with an aquaculture licence. This bill removes the need for a specific mussel spat permit.

We heard about prawn fisheries earlier under the Fisheries Management (Prawn Fisheries) Regulations 2006, which define how prawn fisheries are opened and closed to specify the fishing season dates and to allow for the suspension or limits on fishing activity at any time during the season. I know the member for Colton spoke about how good the prawn fishery is managed. Certainly, the Spencer Gulf fishery is very tightly managed. I believe there are 38 boats that go out. They are all restricted to being identical, essentially, with identical motors and identical plant.

They go out together as a group, and it is really up to your skill as to how many prawns you get. It is very well regulated, and it just shows again how fisheries are well regulated under the Fisheries Management Act, which is how it should be. There is another clause involving reforms to simplify agricultural and veterinary products compliance through introducing accreditation and auditing. This happens in primary produce already, and this will assist to make it simpler in the agricultural world. Some changes are also going to be made to simplify the citrus fruit packing food safety arrangement.

On that note, it is good to see that we have had an outcome with the backpacker tax after some negotiation federally. I would just like to say that, without backpackers operating not just in this state but right throughout this country, an industry, especially horticulture, would just fall over if we did not have those tens of thousands of people who are willing to take up that work on the appropriate visas and get the job done. They are vital to our economy and I am really pleased that there has been a result after being in limbo for a very long time.

Certainly, in regard to the simplify repeal bill, we are in support of it. We will monitor its way through to the other place and, as a party, reserve our right to potentially debate more about any probable changes, if we deem it fit, in that house because this has come along rather quickly. In the main, we on this side of the house support simplification.

Ms Redmond: This is sleight of hand, not simplification.

Mr PEDERICK: Exactly. The other side is that we must make sure that we do not have any effect that may not be directly perceived in the way the bill is being presented, because there are multiple acts and regulations that are being changed and, when it comes through like this, it is a lot of legislation and regulations being amended in one hit. Certainly, if there are issues with it into the future, we can all come back to this place and amend the legislation. At this stage, we are running with it and will monitor the debate through this place and the other place as it goes forward.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (16:26): I am speaking today on one of the more prominent changes that form part of the Simplify Day bill, that is, amendments to the Electronic Transactions Act to allow for electronic transactions relating to a range of documents and processes, including the creation of digital licences. These legislative changes allow for the issuing of electronic licences, permits and identifications such as occupational licences and driver's licences without causing doubt over which document, physical or electronic, would be valid.

Currently, we rely on having our licences in a physical form, despite the fact that the systems that the licences rely on have been essentially digital for some time. Physical licences consume unnecessary costs, time and paperwork, all adding up to additional red tape. Generally, to obtain a physical licence, you are required to wait for something to come through in the mail, and the introduction of digital licensing would cut costs, reduce paperwork and save time for both customers and the public sector. Our physical licences do not represent the most up-to-date information. The physical licence is simply a snapshot of when the licence was printed. I do not know about you, Deputy Speaker, but my licence rarely looks like me at any given time of life.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can take current photos, you know.

Ms COOK: Thank you: I am not sure whether it is their camera or whether it is me, or whether I just have very kind mirrors, but my photograph does not look like me at all. A digital licence can be constantly updated and provide those analysing the licence, such as police officers, with real-time information, and I am sure there will be lots of folly and carry-on creating up-to-date digital photographs. It is important to emphasise that the changes included within the Simplify Day bill do not introduce digital licences now.

The changes simply enable digital licences to be put into effect in the future. A program of work is currently underway to determine how this will operate. In July of this year, the government initiated a pilot which successfully put to the test a limited number of digital licences. The trial involved the creation of a licence app, called mySA GOV, which allows for licence credentials to be accessed in real time, as opposed to a physical licence which does not always accurately reflect the licence status.

The app allows your licences to be stored in the one place and easily accessed rather than having to carry around multiple physical cards or bits of paper—which, Deputy Speaker, I also find very difficult in this day and age when you are trying to carry a phone and a purse and fit all your bits and pieces in. I think a digital copy will be much more practical. When available, customers will be able to opt in to create a secure verified account and access their stored credentials in a convenient way. A number of people have raised concerns with me about how people would be safeguarded if they were unable to access their licence right then and there, such as when they are out of range of a phone tower.

Thankfully, though, through the trial, those issues have been worked through and strategies are in place to deal with it. The licence information provided within the app relies on the same government systems that our physical licences currently do. This means that source data will remain protected as it currently is. Of course, with the introduction of digital licences, security precautions are of primary consideration.

One such security feature is a unique barcode that refreshes at defined intervals for validation purposes. In the trial, that period was every 30 seconds. For example, if a police officer were to check your digital driver's licence, they would scan the licence barcode, which prompts a real-time call to the source system. The current licence status is then represented on the police officer's app. When your phone goes out of service, the barcode is then removed and it shows the period that has elapsed since the licence was last refreshed. Obviously, if your licence—

Ms Redmond: Who wrote this for you?

Ms COOK: Indeed. Obviously, if your licence had not been refreshed for a while, the officer would take additional precautions to confirm your identity and the licence's validity on a common-sense basis. In addition, in order to protect against screenshotting of digital licences, there is a shake effect built into the app that shows a green tick when the phone is shaken to signify that the licence is not a screenshot. It is very clever, isn't it?

Further to this, the app itself, as well as licences within the app, would be protected by its own PIN code separate to the general PIN code on your phone. Thumbprint security will also be available for Apple phone users. I do understand how this would be challenging for people who do not already use that sort of technology.

Mr Duluk: It's like the Australia card.

Ms COOK: Is that right? Do you think so, member for Davenport? That is an interesting comment. The development of this app is occurring in parallel with engagement with businesses, associations and the public, incorporating discussions with and feedback from regulatory authorities. Of course, everything I have outlined reflects only the trial process for digital licensing and is subject to further development. There is still some way to go, and when digital licences are introduced they will be phased in under consultation with the public and through ensuring public understanding of this new policy.

It is proposed that digital licensing would be phased in through the introduction of licences such as land agent and boat licences first, and eventually driver's licences would be offered at a later time. Physical licences would still remain as valid forms of identification upon the introduction of digital licences for those that wish to continue to use it in that format. With this system, it is proposed that renewal reminders would occur via electronic notifications including texts, push notifications and emails, rather than via post as currently occurs, resulting in time savings and further cost savings and efficiencies.

This move puts South Australia at the forefront of this kind of innovative thinking, with other states at various stages in considering this technology. The South Australian government has been working really hard to integrate our mobile use and networks into the way we use our transport system. Already we see around Adelaide time signs that give drivers an indication and advise on best routes, which are all done using Bluetooth technology in phones and cars, so that there is an up-to-date record of what time someone can expect to travel. This information is also available through a phone app.

It is great to see that we are further integrating technology into our transport system to help bring it into the 21^st century. Although the amendments contained within the Simplify Day bill are just the beginning of the transition towards digital licensing, the potential benefits are significant and something the government is working towards right now.

I also wanted to briefly address another reform in the bill under the Attorney-General's portfolio: the abolition of the oath belief rule. This reform is consistent with views expressed or favoured by various courts, legal scholars and the Australian Law Reform Commission, as well as the department of public prosecutions. It is a good example of how the Simplify Day process has engaged and responded to stakeholders on areas where they would like to see change.

The oath belief rule is a common law rule relating to evidence. This rule allows a witness to be questioned and to express their thoughts as to whether the evidence given by another witness in court on oath should be believed. This rule is an ancient one and has been heavily criticised for its inconsistency with modern-day evidence laws. In light of these considerations, the oath belief rule is to be abolished in a common-sense update to our laws of evidence.

In conclusion, the changes I have just discussed are only two of the reforms within the Simplify Day bill, and the bill itself is an important part of the continuation of the government's red tape reduction agenda. Simplify Day is now committed to by this government as an annual event, with a large number of potential reforms already on the plan for 2017. The Simplify Day bill is a symbol of this government's commitment to making things easier for consumers and for business in Australia, and I commend it to the house.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:34): Reducing regulation and red tape is always hard. As somebody who has shadow parliamentary secretary responsibility for this area, trying to discuss this issue in the specific, rather than just in the broad and the abstract, is quite difficult. Even when talking with specific organisations, everyone knows that they want less of it, but they do not know exactly what it is they want less of.

The cumulative effect of regulation is a little bit like the boiling frog, in that every little piece of regulation we inch and bring forward in this place adds to the weight and burden of that which already exists but, because it happens incrementally and with the best of ideas and the best of ideals, it often goes unnoticed in the broader quantum. Getting rid of regulation and red tape takes courage. Whilst I think there are some things in here that are worthy, bill does fall short in a number of different ways.

It is funny that in my community I am often asked how often we parliamentarians sit. This year, we have sat for 18 weeks and last year it was 14 weeks. When people say, 'That doesn't sound like much,' I say, 'Well, the truth is, you don't want your politicians to be in parliament because all they are doing is making laws to take away freedoms you currently enjoy.' Really, we would be much better served by spending much more time in our electorates actually helping people on an individual, one-on-one basis.

Most of the time, when we are asked to help individuals in our community, it is helping them to navigate government, the bureaucracy, the regulation and red tape that exist. In fact, it is when that regulation and red tape break down that the vast majority of a politician's work in their own communities comes to the fore.

It is interesting that this day is called Simplify Day. I can only assume that is because the government was too embarrassed to admit that 'repeal day' was already taken as a policy idea—something the Liberal Party took to the last election. As much as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we would like to say to members opposite, 'You're welcome.' But, typical of this Labor government, it has taken a noble idea and done it in a pretty half-hearted sort of way because culturally and structurally those members opposite have a bent towards government controlling people's lives and so will always err on the side of more regulation rather than less. That is where I think—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: —the idea of courage comes into this because it is difficult, from time to time, to make the decision that the weight of regulation is more than the benefit that comes with it.

Interestingly, as I was going through the briefing on this bill, with the member for Bragg, with members from the department and also from the member for Kaurna's office, what became apparent to the member for Bragg and me was that many of the ideas put forward—as the member for Fisher spoke about when she says the intent of Simplify Day is to actually make life easier for business and consumers—have come from the departments themselves and that it is about departments making their lives easier. When I read through the report the government has put out in relation to Simplify Day, it makes the following statement:

Initial public consultation was undertaken over 30 days concluding on 13 August 2016. A variety of engagement strategies were used, including a yourSAy discussion and face-to-face meetings with industry associations. In excess of 60 responses were received during the dedicated public consultation period from individuals, small business, local government representatives and industry peak bodies.

Interestingly, though, the first thing I want to point out (and I will get to some of these later) is that only 12 of these submissions were actually publicly available. It is pretty difficult for us to be able to evaluate the sum total of ideas that were put to the government when only 12 of the submissions have been made public.

The second thing I would say is that, again through the briefing, it became extremely apparent that ideas that were put forward by individuals, industry peak bodies and the like, were all filtered through the various departments. In fact, the departments themselves were the first port of call and they then put those ideas to the central group, which I think is running out of the Attorney-General's office with some help from DPC, especially in relation to the digital licensing project. In fact, I think that could be one of the fundamental flaws of this process.

In genuinely trying to seek out a better solution, it may indeed be better that the people involved with this project in the AGD's office do not allow the departments themselves to become a filter because it may mean that good ideas that may otherwise make life a little more difficult for the departments but, conversely, make life easier for consumers and businesses—which, as the member for Fisher says, was the idea of this whole thing in the first place—may be truncated and cast to one side.

Certainly, during the briefing it was apparent to me and to the member for Bragg that the departments were the ones that undertook the consultation in relation to their area. I can see why there is a need for that, but if it is the only way of engagement with individuals then there is a flaw in the process. When I look at the changes that have been mooted as part of this bill, it seems to me that the vast majority are not about making the lives of consumers and businesses easier; they are about making the department's life easier. In and of itself, that is not a bad thing, but it is not, as the government has stated, the intention of this legislation.

I want to go through a couple of things that I think need to be raised. I know other members have had issues with specific clauses. For instance, in relation to the presumption of innocence for those accused of trafficking a protected fish species, to reverse the onus that possession is nine-tenths of the crime essentially we are making it easier for the fisheries department to be able to prosecute people. I would like explained and justified in detail why we are essentially reversing an onus to certainly make the fisheries department's job easier, but is that fair? In fact, does that in any way help business and consumers?

I am also quite worried about changes to the Fisheries Management Act in clause 61, which inserts a section stating that permits granted by the minister are not transferable, are subject to conditions as the minister thinks fit and allow the minister to revoke or vary conditions at any time. That seems like the minister and the department granting themselves a whole lot more scope when issuing fishing permits.

However, I know plenty of businesses out there that would stake the value of their business on these fishing permits, and any derogation of the rights available under those permits would lead to a loss of value in the permits and potentially a loss of value of those businesses holding those permits. So, again, something that may make the life of the department easier may, in effect, actually make the lives of consumers and businesses more difficult, which has been stated as the intent of this bill. In fact, it may cost them money. That is something I would like the member in charge of this bill to explain to the house.

I know that the member for Heysen is going to make a contribution in relation to a couple of clauses relating to the Crown Lands Management Act and a number of others. They all seem to be around making the department's life easier. Again, that is not bad, as long as you can justify that nobody else is made worse off under this bill. Clause 93, in relation to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, removes the requirement to prepare 10-yearly reports on the impact of regional reserves. As I understand it, that is one of the few notification mechanisms whereby we get to understand what is going on in our national parks. Is this just something that in the department they have thought, 'This pesky thing is a report we don't like to prepare, so let's just get rid of it and make our lives easier'?

That is not to say that there are not otherwise worthy things being considered in this bill, especially in relation to builder's licences issued by Consumer and Business Services. Removing the obligation for spouses who may be an owner of a business but not actually an active tradesman in a business to have to seek a permit I think is worthy. Certainly, digital licences could be, if conducted properly, a worthy pursuit. Perhaps we would be forgiven for not just handing over our trust to this government quite so easily when it comes to delivering IT projects, but we certainly wish the government well in that pursuit.

There are a number of ways that the government is actually reducing its ability to seek fines and permit fees under some of the changes to these acts. Again, I think that is a worthy cause, but a lot of the repeals of acts that we are seeking to get rid of here may help to pad out Simplify Day. In the words of The West Wing, they are maybe some of the packing peanuts to help bolster up what Simplify Day looks like. The problem with repealing redundant legislation is that it is already redundant, and if clauses are not actually being enacted, or the act itself has no practical purpose anymore, then all we are doing is getting rid of the bits of paper that they stick in The Bluebook in the statutes.

For instance, I understand that we are repealing the Y2K act, which I am sure we have not had to deal with for 16½ years. Whilst it may feel good to get rid of this piece of paper, and we will support getting rid of it, does it actually have any practical benefit? Is it actually doing anything to simplify anything, other than making the poor clerks, who are going to have to go through and take all these things out, not have to check these things from time to time? It may save Kane and the other attendants here a little bit of time, once they have taken the time to actually take the thing out, which may or may not be the only practical effect of getting rid of the act.

That is the problem with getting rid of redundant legislation. To the extent that we should get rid of it because it is redundant, that is great; but if it has no practical application, do not stand up in here and say you are making life easier for anyone. That is why I think that Simplify Day—because, again, 'repeal day' was already taken—is a missed opportunity. I want to highlight some interesting ideas that were put forward in the 12 submissions out of the 60 submissions that we have been able to see so far. I am not suggesting in any way that the Liberal Party is supporting any of these, but I want to put these on the record because I think that they are quite interesting ideas to explore. The RAA put in quite a good submission. Interestingly, on page 4 of their submission, they say:

RAA continues to advocate for the review of the application of the Victims of Crime Levy on all fines. RAA strongly believes that the Victims of Crime levy should not apply to all traffic infringements due to the lack of actual victims in [the] majority of situations. This is the view of 75 per cent of the respondents from the RAA Member Panel.

I think that is an idea worthy of consideration. I think it is an idea that was put forward in good faith, and we are going to have to start to deal with and tackle some of these harder issues if Simplify Day is going to be more than just a token effort at getting rid of things that nobody knew existed in the first place. Bartons Chartered Accountants put in quite a broad-ranging submission on a whole variety of issues. In relation to the transportation of plants interstate, they say:

Where a business is importing and exporting plants between states and needing to comply with bio security laws there is significant legislation requirements to comply with and these differ from state to state. Our recommendation is to seek national uniform laws in relation to the transportation of green plant matter.

That seems like a pretty worthy idea. I understand that that is possibly beyond the scope of just this parliament to deal with, but it is an idea that could be taken up in a COAG sense. They also go on to talk about incentivising research and development. They say:

Businesses who [are] continually researching…and innovating their product offerings in strict WHS environments find the WHS policy is inflexible.

Can I take that a step further and say that work health and safety, and occupational health and safety, is a big area that needs to be tackled in terms of regulatory requirements. It is not because I want to see in any way a derogation of the strict laws that are applied. I am not talking about fines or watering down the responsibilities of PCBUs in any way, but it is pretty difficult for businesses and consumers to enact legislation that they do not understand.

When you have these hefty tomes which are passed into law which only experts are able to understand, it is very difficult, for instance, for a sole trader plumber who happens to take on an apprentice to try to understand the whole plethora of work health and safety requirements and obligations that he undertakes by employing someone. I think the true spirit of Simplify Day is to look at burdensome regulation like the Work Health and Safety Act and make it accessible, understandable and enforceable for small businesses out there in the community.

Bartons go on to say that they would like to see greater flexibility for businesses who undertake high levels of research and development. Essentially, they were looking at a case study in Sweden, which has 'a robust regime to support and facilitate work health and safety employer risk in relation to R&D and innovation'. I think that is an idea worthy of consideration. In a state where we are looking for jobs, where we are looking for innovation, that is an idea that is worthy of looking at in the first place.

The Property Council put in a submission which would quite obviously lend itself towards looking at things like lowering land tax and a whole range of taxes, which their members, I am sure, would be extremely excited about. They talk about strata titles and 'a threshold of 25 per cent of owners voting against a proposal'. Essentially, they are talking about their 100 per cent limit, the fact that a unanimous decision from all owners is needed to cancel a strata plan and also to amend or dissolve an existing scheme, as well as third parties such as lenders, and that the threshold should be reduced to 75 per cent so that something can happen instead having a person involved in the strata being able to effectively veto.

Again, I think that is an issue that needs to be explored. I agree that it is extremely complex delving into some of the fundamental private property rights that exist in South Australia, but it is an idea worthy of exploration. There are ideas, for instance, from EnergyAustralia, and this one is perhaps a bit pertinent to the government. Its submission states:

The current design of SA energy concessions are complex, inefficient, error-prone—

and I think we have seen that in this place with the Auditor-General's reports on energy concessions—

and inconsistent with other state jurisdictions. In SA, a retail customer when accepting an energy offer with an energy retailer provides concession details to DCSI who verify their eligibility and advise the retailer to apply the concession. In other states, the customer provides concession details directly to the retailer who establishes eligibility with Centrelink and applies the concession. The result is the customer has two touch-points in SA, which is a cause of confusion and frustration and errors may occur—

I am fairly certain the errors have occurred—

when data files are sent between two active databases (DCSI and the retailer).

I think that is a fairly sensible suggestion, given the fact that the Auditor-General over the last two years has suggested that the way we run concessions has been a bit of a mess and also the fact that the government went from spending $600,000 to $7.8 million on a concession system that it had to scrap and is now starting over again, and the new system, COLIN, has gone, I think, from $2 million to $3.2 million already.

A helpful suggestion from some of the retailers, who are probably having increased compliance costs at their end because there is confusion and error on the government side, is probably an idea worthy of consideration. Business SA provided a submission. Quite interesting and novel is the idea to abolish employer registration before taking on an apprentice or a trainee. Business SA states:

This is a state requirement and is not a requirement in other states and territories including Queensland, Western Australia or the Northern Territory. Business SA has advocated for the removal of the registration requirement as it often delays the commencement of apprentices or trainees—

I think that is something we can all get around—

and imposes additional unnecessary layers of compliance. Business SA suggests that all compliance procedures included in employer registration are either adequately covered by other laws and regulations or could be covered through the contract of training and training plan approval process.

As somebody who has spoken to many private training providers about the process needed to get apprentices and trainees approved, I suggest that that is hard enough already without this extra layer of bureaucracy. Those ideas have been missed as part of this process, but I think they are worthy of consideration. I highlight them because if these ideas were filtered and discarded by the departments themselves before they got to this more centralised outcome, then these are voices that need to be heard and ideas that need to be aired.

I urge the government to take this process more seriously and make some hard and bold choices in relation to making life easier for businesses and consumers, and not just government departments, and to have an open mind about some more novel approaches that come from a whole heap of people who have done a lot of work to try to help the government to help themselves. I look forward to future repeal days, post 2018, being much more successful than this mediocre effort.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (16:54): It is my pleasure to rise to make a contribution in relation to the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2016. I indicate to the house that I will be opposing the bill because, in my view, it is a particular piece of sleight of hand on the part of the government and I think it is directed to get through this house in a particular hurry at the end of our sitting year for a particular purpose—and I will come to that in a minute.

The first thing that took my eye on this particular piece of legislation was amendments to an act I did not know even existed until quite recently, that is the Second-hand Vehicles Dealers Act. I knew that existed, but I did not know that in that act there was a Second-hand Vehicles Compensation Fund, and there are amendments in this legislation to that fund.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you may be aware that that fund is now administered through a government agency whereas it was previously managed by second-hand motor vehicle dealers through the Motor Trade Association (MTA). What happens is that each of the motor vehicle dealers in the state pay a fee of about $300 a year to be put into that fund, and the idea is that that then contains a guarantee fund for people who are basically dudded by licensed dealers who do not come good on a warranty for a second-hand vehicle when it is purchased.

As at 2010 that fund was administered by the MTA, as I said, and they managed to administer it pretty effectively. There were five claims in 2010, and the cost of administering the fund was $21,000. The claims themselves were not worth a great deal. Last year, having had the management of the fund transferred to the government—indeed to the minister for consumer affairs and the Office of Consumer Affairs—there was only one claim against the fund.

According to the annual report, that one claim was worth, I believe, $17,000 but the cost of administering the fund had gone up to $409,000. This is a fund with $6 million in it, so it will not take very long to deplete it completely at that rate, but how on earth a government department can justify having spent over $400,000 administering one claim—which, in total, cost the fund $17,000—bewilders me.

However, that is not the main thing that concerns me about this act. What I believe is happening with this act is that it is part of a process that this government is going through as they really treacherously treat the people of this state in their dealings with the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site—that is, when it becomes the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site in the sense of the hospital eventually moving to its new location.

Over the years, we have had many statements from various members of the government—minister Hill in particular made a number of statements over a period of years—and there was a vast expectation as to the public use of that space. The fact is that the government itself, in 2005, passed an act, now known as the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, which sets out particular provisions as to how the land which comprises the Adelaide Parklands should be dealt with.

What I believe is happening with this particular proposal is that the government now needs to avoid the consequences of the various pieces of legislation that currently affect that piece of land, because it is Parklands. The whole of the site of what I will call the old Royal Adelaide Hospital is, in fact, part of the Parklands of the city. In fact, I have a copy of the certificate of title, volume 6134, folio 112, and it currently shows the registered proprietor as the Central Adelaide Local Health Network Inc., and its address as Level 3, Ground Floor, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide 5000. In fact, that particular entity owns the fee simple.

Under the Crown Lands Act 1929 (which has now been superseded by the act amended in this legislation, the Crown Land Management Act 2009), the land was dedicated as a reserve to be used for hospital purposes and the certificate of title was endorsed with these words: 'In trust, to permit, suffer and be used at all times as a reserve for hospital purposes.' That act was then repealed, but it was replaced by the Crown Land Management Act 2009.

Basically, under the transitional provisions, in layman's terms, the title is still held by the Central Adelaide Local Health Network and is still in trust for the same purposes but it is now managed under the new Crown Land Management Act 2009. There is no doubt that the whole of the land on which the old RAH now sits was originally Parklands, and it is also worth noting at this point that the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, which I already mentioned, stipulates as the first statutory principle in section 4:

…the land comprising the Adelaide Park Lands should, as far as is reasonably appropriate, correspond to the intentions of Colonel William Light in establishing the first Plan of Adelaide in 1837.

But of course this government has announced that what it is going to do is sell the Parklands into private ownership, amongst other things, and put hundreds—if not, I think, a thousand—privately owned apartments on Parklands. This bit of treachery is being perpetrated partly by the amendment of the Crown Land Management Act in this legislation, laughingly called the simplify bill, when, as far as the Crown Land Management Act goes, the amendments go for five or six pages, I believe, and indeed change the nature of what is going on.

I will just take a few minutes to explain, and I am sorry that it is a bit complex and a bit long. The Crown Land Management Act largely deals obviously with what happens to crown land. There are provisions about dedicated land. Section 18 is largely concerned with new dedications of land and there are provisions for the minister to alter the dedication of land and so forth, but these provisions may not apply to all land that comes to the minister under the repeal and transitional provisions in schedule 1. So, section 18 may only apply to new land that has come to the minister.

What is important about what happens here is that under the amendments proposed by the Crown Land Management Act in this so-called simplify bill is that they change quite specifically the wording of the section that deals with the minister's power to dispose of surplus lands of a Crown agency. I have no doubt that part of what the government is planning to do once they move into the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is to say, 'This land of the old Royal Adelaide Hospital, although it is crown land, is now surplus to requirements because we've already got our new hospital, so it is now surplus land and we're going to deal with it.' The Crown Land Management Act currently provides in section 14:

If land owned by a Crown agency has been declared surplus, the Minister may dispose of the land by transfer of the fee simple (and Part 3 Division 3 applies to such a transfer as if the land were Crown land.)

I will get to part 3 and division 3 in a minute, but the bill before us changes what is said. It says the same thing except that, at the end, it states:

…(and part 3 division 3 applies to such a transfer as if the land were Crown land that had been declared surplus by the Minister.)

The effect of that is to enable the minister to more easily undertake this treacherous deal that he is doing to deprive the citizens of this state in perpetuity of land absolutely in contravention of what was said in its own Adelaide Park Lands Act in 2005.

One other little matter I will briefly touch on here is that there is also another piece of legislation involved here, that is, the Urban Renewal Act. Again, it is a bit complicated because there is the Urban Renewal Act and the Housing and Urban Development (Administrative Arrangements) Act. They are both from 1995, and this is a bit complex to understand. I will not go through the details of why we have ended up with things the way they are, but I have done a lot of work on the background of this.

In my view, it was a very clumsy way of dealing with it, but what happens is a Riverbank Precinct can be established under what becomes the Urban Renewal Act 1995. The Riverbank Authority is established as a statutory corporation under the act and given certain functions and powers, and that Riverbank Authority has to behave in a certain way under that act. So, the Urban Renewal Authority has the Riverbank Authority under it, and the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site becomes part of the Riverbank Precinct under the Royal Adelaide Hospital site and under the Urban Renewal Authority.

I put in a freedom of information request and asked, 'Can you tell me, when you set up these various committees that the legislation required you to set up, who were the appointments, when it was advertised and so on?' I received a response back from the head of the Urban Renewal Authority, John Hanlon, which said, 'There are no documents to say how we have complied.' We know that the Royal Adelaide Hospital site is part of the Riverbank Precinct site. We have a Riverbank Authority set up under the act, but there are no documents about this precinct.

I happened to see him that day. I had a meeting with John Hanlon, completely coincidentally on another matter, and I said to him, 'John, can you explain to me how it could be that I have received this FOI response signed by you, which came into my office this morning, telling me that there are no documents in spite of the fact that the Riverbank Authority has clearly set up this precinct?' His response was, 'We just called it a precinct, but we haven't set it up as a precinct under the authority.'

So, even though it is run by the Urban Renewal Authority, even though their legislation says that they have to set up a precinct and go through certain steps to set it up and behave in a certain way, they have set it up, they have called it a precinct, but they have not obeyed anything because they said, 'Yes, we have just called it a precinct. It is not a precinct under the act, even though we are running it.'

That is another part of the sleight of hand that is going on with this government in terms of how they are trying to manoeuvre themselves from a situation where their own legislation says quite clearly that they must do certain things. They have certain statutory responsibilities. They have responsibilities under the Adelaide Park Lands Act, the Urban Renewal Act and the Crown Land Management Act, and all those things need to be subverted and avoided in order for them to do the unthinkable, which is precisely what they are planning to do: sell private apartments on our Parklands.

It is an absolute outrage, and the members on that side sit there quietly, saying nothing about it. This is sacrilege to the people of this state, yet people are doing nothing about it and sitting there quietly accepting the fact that a government is just giving away to private enterprise private ownership of our Parklands. I am outraged that they can do this.

I am probably not going to have time to go through all the details, but I will just quickly talk about how they are achieving this in terms of dealing with crown land. As I said, they have changed it so that, whereas it used to say that part 3, division 3, applies to such a transfer as if the land were crown land, it now says it will apply as if the land were crown land that had been declared surplus by the minister. Once you have land that is declared surplus, section 14 enables the minister to then execute any assurance, contract, deed or instrument that may be necessary to effect a transfer under this section.

The government's wish would be to give the fee simple to purchasers. At the moment, they are probably facing the dilemma of having to deal with 99-year leases, which are a common way of holding land in Europe but not very familiar here. However, given the history of our shack owners and so on, I suspect that what they would do is, if necessary, not give the fee simple in the first instance but proceed with a 99-year lease and then ultimately, some years down the track, say, 'What is the difference? It is owned privately anyway, so let's let them have the fee simple.' There will be a way around it, I have no doubt. If it is the last breath I take in this place, I will be opposing this with every fibre of my being because it is simply wrong.

As I say, the government's own legislation, the Adelaide Park Lands Act, says quite clearly that they have a responsibility to ensure that, to the extent possible, the public land (the Parklands) remains available for the public. Instead of doing that, what have they done? They have engaged a private consortium to flog it. That is what they are planning to do. Once you do that to the Royal Adelaide Hospital site, where do you stop?

There are some purists who say nothing should ever be built on the Adelaide Parklands, that nothing should have ever been built on the Parklands. I am not one of those people. I actually think it is good to have ovals, walking spaces and all sorts of interesting things on the Parklands that people can use. But what is common about everything—even the Casino, hotels, Next Generation and the tennis, the cricket and all those things that are currently on our Parklands—is that, subject to paying your way or dressing appropriately, or whatever the rules might be, the public can have access. The difference here is that this government is privatising the Parklands, and I cannot believe that a government could, in 14 years, get the finances of this state into such a dire position that we have no alternative.

My understanding is that it is going to cost something like $250 million—to be borne by the people of this state—to clean up the site in the first place (and I suspect that if that is the estimate now it will go well beyond that) and that it is going to take something like 20 years for this project to eventuate. If that is the case, why on earth does the government not say, 'Well, it's a cost we are going to have to bear. We have time. Let's just clean up the site and have a good long think about whether it is appropriate for us to go down this path'?

But, no, the government has already committed itself to the idea that it is going to sell the Parklands into private ownership. I went on radio in February, having not spoken to the media for three years, to alert the public to the fact that the government was planning to do this. Although they did not admit it at the time, they have since admitted that that is the intention and that private ownership of the Parklands will be part of the redevelopment of the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site.

I think that there are a thousand public things that can be done. Lots of money has already been wasted on that site—think of the competition for designs. What a nonsense was that and how many millions of dollars did it cost to run the competition? It was always a nonsense because how could you decide what was going to be built there if you had not actually figured out what the use of the land was going to be?

But the government had a competition, and I think it cost over $1 million, and possibly even more that. I think of the small communities in my electorate that could have shared that sort of money and done something useful with it, but instead of that we had a design competition for no particular purpose other than to be a part of the bells and whistles and circuses with which this government continually tries to distract the people of this state so that they do not comprehend what is being done to them.

As I say, I am absolutely opposed to this legislation. This is not about simplifying. It has been put into a bill when it is, in fact, a really important piece of legislation. It has a particular sinister purpose aimed at stealing something which rightfully belongs to the people of this state, and I will oppose it and speak on it at every opportunity as long as I draw breath in this place.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:13): I know that the Minister for Health, either yesterday or today in question time in one of his normal rants (I think he is trying to demonstrate that he is ready for leadership), suggested that the opposition is not ready for government. The bill before us today is, indeed, another good idea pinched from the opposition's manifesto from the last election campaign. As always, this government has managed to get it so wrong; a good idea has been mucked up.

There are a huge number of matters on our statute book that do not need to be there. I think it is a good idea to get rid of them and take some weight off the bookshelf. One of them, which I noticed when I was reading through the bill, is the Naracoorte Town Square Act 2005. I brought that matter to the house and got it through the house. The Naracoorte Town Square was given to the people of Naracoorte in trust and the local council—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, a bit like the Parklands the member was just talking about. The local council wanted to rebuild the public toilets in the town square, and they could not do so because it contravened the trust deed. I remember speaking to the Clerk of the House at the time and he advised me of what had to be done. He knew where to find an obscure piece of legislation that had been through the parliament many years ago and we had the appropriate legislation drafted. Indeed, it was passed by the parliament when we sat in Mount Gambier back in 2005.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was there and I don't recall—

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, the Deputy Speaker was indeed there; it was a most interesting time. I was thankful that the parliament passed the bill but I can report that, 11 years later, the task has well and truly been completed. The act is no longer necessary and can be removed from the statute book. I think there is a whole range of material within our statute book and within individual acts which could and should be removed.

That was an initiative of the opposition. We said that on a particular day, we would repeal legislation and regulation which were no longer useful and which were slowing down the pace, particularly of economic activity in the state. It was a way to unburden us with both red and green tape. As I said, it is a good idea, but what has the government done? The government has put together a large portfolio of measures. I will not go back over the area that the member for Heysen has just covered, but I totally agree with her sentiments.

I thought one of the wiser things that former premier Rann said was that the Parklands—yes, I know; the member for Heysen is now frowning because between us we did not hear very many wise things. However, he did say something sage when he said the Parklands should not be seen as cheap land. That land was invaluable, in that it had no value; it was inestimable, and it should be preserved to eternity for the people and the future of this state.

I totally agree with the member for Heysen on the points that she made with regard to that. Buried within this particular piece of legislation is a whole host of measures which I think should be dealt with by the house in a completely different way. I think we should have been presented by the government with a suite of redundant matters which we could have dispensed with very quickly and got out of the way in order to tidy up our statute book and get rid of redundant regulations to make life a bit easier for the people who suffer at the hands of overly burdensome regulations.

That was the good idea. This government, because it continues to fail, does not understand what its task is. It has filled this up with little matters, as has been raised by the member for Heysen, and matters which bring in new law and allow new things to happen. It is not about getting rid of redundant stuff. Interspersed throughout this, I suspect there is a whole range of things. I have only been able to identify a couple, and that was one of them.

Another matter I identified is within the Fisheries Management Act in relation to the burden of proof. In this bill, the burden of proof is reversed and an alleged offender will, all of a sudden, be assumed to be guilty and will have to prove their innocence. One of the fundamental principles of our criminal law in South Australia, and indeed in Australia, is that the citizen is innocent until proven guilty.

I recently read a most interesting book on the Magna Carta in Australia. One of the original copies of the Magna Carta is held in Canberra, in our federal parliament. I do not think it is the 1215 copy, but it might be the 1225 or 1227 copy. The book talked at length—it was a series of lectures, actually—about the relevance of the Magna Carta. I think that a lot of our criminal law goes back at least that far, and the idea of burden of proof and that a man is innocent until proved guilty of an offence by his peers goes back to those days.

Here we have, buried deep within this supposed bill, entitled Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2016, the introduction of new measures that are not to simplify matters for the citizenry of our state: the reality is that this is to simplify matters for the bureaucracy. This is to make life easier for the bureaucracy, and in this case it saves the bureaucracy from having to prove certain elements of a case they have against somebody they allege has been doing the wrong thing in the fisheries.

That is not what simplifying legislation and our statutes should be about. It should be simplifying it for the citizenry of the state, not simplifying it for the bureaucracy. Indeed, that very measure would make it easier for the bureaucracy but more burdensome for the citizen. Somebody charged with an offence under that particular part of the Fisheries Management Act would have a greater burden on them in proving their innocence—indeed, almost an impossible burden. I do not think that our criminal law should be treated in such a way. I do not think that we should be making changes to serious bits of law introducing new thoughts and ideas through such a measure as this.

I particularly want to talk about the amendment of the Stamp Duties Act with reference to clause 130 of the bill, which amends section 67 of the Stamp Duties Act—Computation of duty where instruments are interrelated, and deletes paragraphs (b) and (c) from section 67(2). I brought a measure to the house, bill No. 112, which is still on the Notice Paper and which I introduced into the house on 24 March this year. It also seeks to amend section 67(2) of the Stamp Duties Act to correct an anomaly that has arisen in the act over the years and make the act do what the house was promised it would do when that section was amended way back in 1993.

I am not going to go through the whole argument again, but I want to remind the house that then minister Blevins, in response to the opposition's amendment to this clause to make a clarification, said to the house that the measure was never used for that purpose in the past, that there was no intention for it to be used for that purpose in the future and that it would not be.

Lo and behold, earlier this year the Treasurer informed the house that in around the year 2000 crown law advice to RevenueSA was that they thought they had a defensible position by interpreting section 67 of the act in a way in which it was never intended to be interpreted. That is why I brought the bill, which is bill No. 112 on the Notice Paper, back in March of this year to overcome that anomaly and put the act back to where I believe it should be.

If any government wants to change the interpretation of the act or becomes consciously aware that there has been an interpretation that the house was specifically told would not occur, I think the government of the day should indeed fix it up or bring back to the parliament a measure to specifically insert in a clear way a measure so that the parliament can discuss the point. The point was that I have a constituent who purchased a number of properties from different vendors in unrelated sales and, under the Stamp Duties Act, the Commissioner of Stamps judged that it was one transaction. He accumulated the total value of the separate transactions and charged the stamp duty at a higher rate. That cost my constituent some thousands of dollars.

As far as the parliament was concerned, it was specifically told way back in 1993 that that interpretation would not be used, and we find that it has been used. I am really disappointed because certainly the Hon. Gail Gago in another place indicated that the government was looking at the measure I brought to the house and suggested in the last budget that was brought down this year that the Treasurer may indeed address this particular matter. I see in clause 130 of the bill before us that there is an amendment to section 67, but it is not an amendment to address the matter I have brought to the attention of the house.

When we get to the third reading, I may well introduce my amendment, which currently appears in bill No. 112, and test the government. I will certainly be pushing that matter in the upper house, and I would be reasonably confident that I could get support for the measure in the other place. It beggars my imagination why the Treasurer did not do anything to fix it up. Indeed, I thought the Treasurer was quite disingenuous in what he did because, when I first brought this matter to his attention, it was in a budget bill late last year (I think it was on the last day of sitting) and the Treasurer pleaded with me to give him an opportunity to have another look at the matter.

He subsequently wrote to me, and I think I got the letter on 23 December or it may have been signed by him on 23 December. I know that it was very close to Christmas that the matter was addressed with me by the Treasurer. It became evident to me that the Treasurer had not looked at the matter any differently from the opinion he had expressed earlier in the house. I do not think he even bothered to look at it again, to be quite frank.

I will certainly be seeking to make an amendment to fix up the Stamp Duties Act. I have not gone through the bill with a fine-toothed comb—I hope some of my colleagues in other areas of legislation that they are interested in have been able to do that—because, as I said at the outset, I think that this is a good idea that has been marked up by a lazy government. It is a good idea that I think should be an annual event. However, I do not think that it should be a tool or an instrument for introducing new ideas or new matters. It should simply be a matter for getting rid of anomalies and redundancies. Having said that, I will conclude my remarks there.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:29): I had not planned to speak on this bill, but I have been asked by the shadow minister for mineral resources and energy, who unfortunately is tied up in another meeting, to make a few points on his behalf, so I will keep the house for another couple of minutes. The points that need to be made are that in October 2014 the government published its final report on the review of boards and committees. The 2014 final report included in the list of 107 boards to be abolished the Industries Development Committee (IDC).

The Industries Development Committee comprises four members of the Economic and Finance Committee and the Treasurer. That committee has not met since 2006. Despite the decision in 2014 to abolish the IDC, the government decided against abolishing the board in the legislation at that time, the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees—Abolition and Reform) Bill 2015, as more time was required to seek advice on the responsibilities of the committee under various other acts. On 15 November, the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2016 was introduced by the government, and part 15 abolishes the IDC.

Given that the IDC will be abolished in the bill, other acts referencing the IDC require amendments to remove the relevant sections relating to that committee. Section 22 of the Natural Gas Authority Act 1967 requires the Treasurer to brief the IDC on the terms and conditions of a proposed agreement, giving the briefing or answering questions on written briefing papers. Therefore, clause 94 of the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2016 deletes section 22 of the act. It is also worth noting that section 23 of the Natural Gas Authority Act 1967 requires the Treasurer to ensure that the Auditor-General is kept fully informed about the progress and outcome of negotiations for a sale agreement under the act.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:31): I would like to thank all the members who spoke on this Simplify Day bill. It is the government's first Simplify Day, which we had on 15 November. It is something that the government has committed to making an annual event, which I think is going to be very important. It might not be the most glamorous or the most exciting bill this government passes, but it is certainly something that is important. It is important for us to continually review and refresh our legislation to make sure that we are making our legislation simple for businesses and consumers to interact with and that we are keeping it modern and up to date.

This process started in July this year when the Premier announced that we would be having this day. To be honest, it has been very fast work over those four months. Members would be aware that drafting legislation usually takes a significant amount of time, and this was brought to the house within four months of that first announcement. That is a very good first step, but we have now committed to making this an annual day, and we will continue to bring back bill after bill aiming to simplify and streamline our legislation. I would like to thank the members who spoke—the members for Mitchell, Hartley, Hammond, Schubert, Heysen, MacKillop, Flinders, Colton and Fisher—who all made contributions on this bill.

I would like to address a couple of things that were mentioned during the debate. Firstly, in regard to what the member for Mitchell discussed in terms of the consultation aspect of this bill, I would like to clarify the approach the government has taken because it is something I think is very important. After the Premier announced that we would have a Simplify Day, the government contacted a large number of organisations, businesses and other NGOs across the community, as well as putting the call out to all government departments. They came back with a good number of ideas from the community, and some of them are up on the YourSAy website. I am advised that some people did not give permission for their ideas to be on the website, and that is why they are not there.

We looked through and considered every single idea brought to our attention. There are certainly some things we have seen that we have been able to act on very quickly, and so they have been addressed either in this bill that was introduced couple of weeks ago or in the regulations that were given assent by the Governor on the same day to remove a significant number of regulations that were in place.

A large number of good ideas have been brought to us, but because either more work needs to be done in terms of the drafting to get things in order or there is more work to do in some of the consultation that needs to take place, we have listed all of those things as future reforms. We look forward to, hopefully, bringing the vast majority back to the house next year. I note that a large number received support in contributions from the other side so, hopefully, we will get broad bipartisan support for a lot of them.

Once we worked out what were going to put in this bill, we produced a Simplify Day booklet that outlined all the different proposals we were working on that were in this bill, the regulations or in the future reforms. We have sent that out to all the people who had contact with us during that consultation process. As we go into the next stream of work with future reforms and other ideas that are coming forward to us, we will continue to make the call open to the public and to those key non-government organisations to make sure that we have their input in its planning.

The member for Mitchell outlined a couple of things that he said he was supportive of, whether it was bus lanes, Segways, some of the six-month licences or a significant amount of transport reforms that have been flagged for future work. He said that he supported them but asked why we were not doing them quickly enough. That is because some need more work on their drafting and others need more consultation before we bring them back to the house. Credit goes to the Minister for Transport, who has been very willing to look at some innovative ways to reduce red tape in this area.

There was also discussion about the removal of some of our redundant acts. I think that nine pieces of legislation have been slated for complete removal, and we are always looking for more ideas if people have them, and we are willing to consider them. The member for Schubert's contribution questioned what this was really doing, getting rid of these acts, and that maybe we should not bother at all. I was interested to note that one act he highlighted as serving no actual purpose in getting rid of was the Y2K legislation, otherwise known as the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act, which we are looking to get rid of. He questioned whether this would make a difference and whether we should be bothering with it.

I note that the South Australian Liberal Party previously announced that this was something that they would want to get rid of, so I thought it was an interesting contribution. Their press release, 'Reducing red tape for business', states:

State Liberal Leader Steven Marshall has today released a policy to repeal redundant and out-dated laws if elected to government in 2014.

Still on the Statutes are antiquated laws such as the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act 1999.

The member will be well reassured, I hope, that that is something that is own party was supporting only a couple of years ago. Hopefully, that puts his concerns to rest.

The contribution from the member for Heysen ranged over a wide variety of areas, shall we be clear. She said that she will oppose the bill even though the opposition said that they will allow its passage through this house. Yet again she is putting herself at odds with the rest of the party. Certainly, a large number of her comments were about crown land law, suggesting that somehow our changes are a part of some sort of conspiracy to dispose of the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site as part of its redevelopment.

I have sought some very quick advice because this was certainly news to me. I have never heard of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and this section of the act being mentioned in dispatches. The Royal Adelaide Hospital is not currently listed as crown land; it is currently listed under a title. Even if it were to change and be transferred to crown land in the future, it would still fall under the provisions of the Adelaide Park Lands Act, which has a series of provisions that need to be met about that land. This simply tries to address some of the processes in regard to the Crown Land Management Act. This has nothing to do with the Royal Adelaide Hospital. I hope that she will be reassured, although I suspect that she will not be.

It is important to note that this is part of a suite of work that the government has been doing over number of years. One of the big things we have done over the past 12 to 15 months, of course, has been the planning legislation that addresses a large number of red tape issues that developers and people in the property industry have found. The government has recently announced significant changes in terms of liquor licensing reforms as well. Of course, with the changes we have achieved in terms of small bars, we can see what an impact removing some of the red tape there has had. Likewise with another bill I brought to the house, we are hopeful of seeing similar changes in terms of removal of food truck red tape as well.

So it is not just this bill; we are working on a whole range of other things across the government, but this is certainly an area where we are looking to pick up any of those minor works to bring them to the parliament to try to simplify those areas. We are always very happy to consider more ideas, and we have a Simplify unit, a Simpler Regulation Unit, in the Department of Treasury and Finance. They are available and very keen to talk to any business or NGO out there who has ideas.

I would particularly like to thank those members of the unit, headed up by Julie Holmes, as well as Aaron Witthoeft, Tyson Miller, Kate Jackson, Burcu Subasi, Giselle Oruga as well as other people from the Department of Treasury and Finance such as Stuart Hocking, Wayne Hunter from the Premier's office, Bia Delaney and Callie Bryson as well as Gemma Paech from my own office, who did a tremendous amount of work on this bill.

We look forward to consideration of this matter both here and in the Legislative Council. I know members have raised a few issues they would like to deal with in the other place, particularly in regard to some of the fisheries matters, and that is something we are very happy to continue discussions on and provide whatever briefing information we can to make sure there is full understanding of the changes we are looking to bring in.

I hope this piece of legislation will go a long way to being the start of our Simplify Day process, which we hope will be a very successful annual event in making South Australia the best place to do business. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.