Bills

Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 46.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question to the Deputy Premier is: why is section 47B being deleted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the clause repeals section 47B as the requirements of the commissioner to consult with the Casino licensee have now been incorporated within section 47A. I think I answered that question in relation to clause 45 to indicate why we were putting in a new paragraph (e).

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So there will be a double-up.

Clause passed.

Clause 47.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Section 50(3), which is to be amended by this clause, deletes the reference to both the Treasurer and the commissioner and just leaves the reference to the Treasurer. Why does the commissioner not have this same role under the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The clause reflects that, due to the IGA and the IGA Board being dissolved through amendments to the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1985, the present responsibilities of the IGA to keep information about the licensee’s audited accounts or financial affairs confidential will transition to the commissioner. This is also an administrative amendment to remove any duplicity where the commissioner is already mentioned in this section.

The CHAIR: Are you happy with that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I must have my Road Runner earplugs in today. Perhaps could you—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Repeat it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, could you, at a somewhat more loquacious cadence.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This clause reflects that, due to the IGA and the IGA Board being dissolved through amendments to the Independent Gambling Authority Act 1985, the present responsibilities of the IGA to keep information about the licensee's audited accounts or financial affairs confidential will transition to the commissioner. This is also an administrative amendment to remove any duplicity where the commissioner was already mentioned in the section.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So the commissioner already has separate obligations elsewhere about needing to maintain the confidentiality of the audited accounts?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct, in that section.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In that clause or elsewhere?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just reread section 50 and it does not appear to be in that section, so we will find it and give you that advice.

Clause passed.

Clause 48 to 50 passed.

Clause 51.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can I ask why there is the removal of the appeal provision within this part?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that, consistent with the Authorised Betting Operations Act changes as well—and we have canvassed those in some detail—we are moving to a process of review, by the Licensing Court, of a decision of the commissioner, so it is no longer a review on an appeal process, which previously went to the authority and then to the Supreme Court as a provision within that act. Now we are moving to a review process of the commissioner's decision by the Licensing Court. Then, of course, it takes care of itself after that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate that explanation. Essentially, it mirrors the provisions that were talking about before the lunch break—about the Authorised Betting Operations Act. In that context—and I am paraphrasing, if not slightly altering what I said beforehand—I was questioning why we were going down from a two-stage appeal process to only having the capacity to appeal to one other body, with no further avenue of appeal, and why that avenue was not the authority—it was just straight to the Licensing Court?

My recollection is that the Deputy Premier said that the types of bodies that might be appealing decisions under the Authorised Betting Operations Act are probably those people who have been authorised to offer betting or gaming-type activities in South Australia, and they should not find it particularly onerous, given the nature of those organisations, to navigate a Licensing Court process. In any event, the Licensing Court process is—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Flexible.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —flexible, not as formal as, say, regular District Court proceedings. I am sorry for that preamble, but the reason I raised it is that we are now contemplating a different type of appellant, including, as set out in the legislation, somebody who might be barred from a premises—perhaps an individual—for a poor type of behaviour. Under the current regime, such a person can currently appeal to the authority—again, presumably in a reasonably simple, perhaps written, form—but now would have to front the Licensing Court. Is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding in relation to this, and I think it particularly relates to parties who are aggrieved with the decision that maybe a person, not some corporation, for the reasons you pointed out, at present has to attend a hearing before the authority under the current regime. It is not a question of just putting in an application online and getting some review of it. It is a formal matter. I am sure the member would recall Mr Alan Moss, a former chief magistrate himself. These were not matters where you would simply turn up in the office and say, 'How about you reconsider? I really am behaving myself now. Can you tick me back on the list?' They are proper hearings, with some level of informality.

I think I have already undertaken to the committee to provide some particulars in relation to any change of arrangements under the Licensing Court rules, although I am advised that, in that regard, they are flexible as to the change of format. In essence, they are the same circumstance. We are moving from a hearing before the authority to a hearing before the Licensing Court judge.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I forget how many questions I have raised on this, so perhaps I will condense this one into one question with two parts. Is there a fee to appear before the authority to appeal against a decision to impose a barring order, and what is that fee? How does that compare to the fee that will be applicable in the Licensing Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I don't have exactly those figures, but I think I would put those into the category of any differentiation between the old regime of review and the new regime. As to the areas of difference, we will provide that.

Clause passed.

Clause 52.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Again, in regard to section 65, do we know whether there is a fee at the moment to appear before the IGA?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not for IGA, no.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do we know whether there is a fee to appear in the Licensing Court about a matter?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are fees there, but what it is going to be for this we will ascertain. I assume if there is a difference in relation to the regime of process, all fees we will take on notice.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is there any advice or statistics you are able to provide to the committee about the number of barring orders and the number that have been appealed, perhaps in the last financial year or in some other period of time, that provide some indication to the committee how likely this scenario will be?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Of course, it is the authority that currently does that. I think I have already signed or at least seen a copy of their annual report, so if it has not been tabled already I am sure it will be. In any event, if it is not already in the public record, then we will arrange to get that for the last financial year. So I am clear about it, that is the number of barring orders issued and the number of reviews?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, appeals or reviews heard by the IGA.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Appeals or reviews heard by the IGA. I certainly recall meeting with Mr Moss and he indicated there was a cleansing of the list, as I would describe it—they are my words—of the barring orders and there appeared to be a very significant reduction in the last period, which I assume to be the last 12 months. I think that is more by identifying that people are no longer in the state or might have passed away. I cannot remember the full detail of it now, but there is quite a significant drop, apparently. I am sure you will read that annual report with interest.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: People had been passing away before they have had their appeal heard for a barring order?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, before that, while there was a barring order in existence.

Clause passed.

Clause 53.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I assume that clause 53, which repeals section 66 of the act, is to make a decision by the commissioner only able to be appealed to the Licensing Court and then that is it, there is no further avenue of appeal to the Supreme Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think we have been through this issue before, but I will repeat it. This current legislation, which sets out the rules that apply in relation to the authority's decisions, essentially says that the authority's decision is final, except in certain circumstances. There are some qualifications. I think this gets to the nub of what had previously been alluded to by the member, namely, in what circumstances is a party able to appeal the authority's decision to the Supreme Court? That is set out in the qualifications that are set out in section 66(1)(a) and (b).

Then it sets out a time obligation in relation to being able to commence that without permission to appeal. There is a one-month qualification there. That sets out the regime that is to operate under the authority's review process. We do not need any of that anymore because now, of course, that review process will be to the Licensing Court.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate the Deputy Premier's very last advice in her response because my next question is whether indeed those provisions, albeit referring to the Supreme Court, are replicated elsewhere for the Licensing Court. If that is the case, whereabouts are they?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I mentioned before that decisions of the Licensing Court do have an appeal process where they might go to the Supreme Court, and in what circumstances. The member asked me previously if there are certain circumstances where there is an appellant capacity from a decision of the authority, are those same circumstances restricted in relation to an appeal from, in this instance, the Licensing Court to the Supreme Court? I have undertaken to identify whether there is any change or restriction in relation to that. I am expecting not because we are deleting that process. We will then be relying on the appellant provisions under the District Court Act, which of course relate to appeals against Licensing Court decisions.

I have undertaken to provide the committee with information of any change of the extent of which an appeal is to be allowed between the authority regime and the Licensing Court regime. I think that is clear.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate that because, in the instance that we were discussing earlier, under the Authorised Betting Operations Act changes, there were a number of specific requirements that needed to be met to enable an appeal to occur. What the Deputy Premier very kindly agreed to follow up was whether those same restrictions on what could be appealed would continue on given the provisions of the District Court Act.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Given what is in here.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and I am essentially asking the same question for this appeal in the Casino Act—just so that we are 100 per cent clear.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Got that.

Clause passed.

Clause 54.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I struggle to follow the amendment to section 66A because it seemed that without the words that are to be deleted, 'Authority or the Supreme', there was no requirement on anyone to maintain the confidentiality of criminal intelligence. I am just wondering whether I have misread it or whether it is a drafting error. To whom will the requirements around the confidentiality of criminal intelligence apply?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member might note that with the removal of 'Authority or the Supreme' we are still left with the word 'court', and that is the Licensing Court.

Clause passed.

Clause 55.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have a similar query to the one I raised earlier in looking at the bill's amendments to the Authorised Betting Operations Act about the requirement to give reasons. The Deputy Premier was kind to point out to me that, although a particular clause deleted a section which, had it stood, required reasons to be given, here we have the deletion of the change to provide reasons. Is it on the same basis as what we were discussing earlier?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised the amendments to section 65(3) which were passed in clause 52 identify a new section 65(3)(3a). About halfway down the page which we are dealing with in the bill, the member will see the words, 'If the reasons of the Commissioner are not given in writing.' That is the similar clause which provides for the obligation for the commissioner to provide reasons in certain circumstances, obviously at the request of the complainant.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So it is an issue of duplication.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, that is correct. We have just put in this new review of decisions process, so we no longer require this.

Clause passed.

Clause 56.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Section 68A seems a peculiar section in the existing act and there appears to be a genesis behind this clause with which I am not familiar around giving the capacity to a minister to direct or otherwise the authority with regard to precommitment regimes. I am wondering if there is some further information or history which might better inform the committee, firstly about the existence of this clause, and secondly as to why we are getting rid of it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that it is now to be removed because it relates to previous amendments that were made and it is now obsolete. Obviously, if we are not going to have an authority, then we do not need ministerial directions. But it is fair to say that it is a little unusual to establish an authority or a commission and then have capacities to direct, but they exist. We even have them for the police commissioner. Certain rules apply to various circumstances in which an appointed person under statute is to be directed or not.

The DPP, the police commissioner and the like have these special protections against ministerial direction being completely without check. There is one I can think of that does not have any restriction on it, and that is that there is complete protection of the statutory officer against any ministerial direction, and it relates to the preparation of the annual report by the guardian for children.

In fact, it was the member's late father who recommended that whatever person held that office should not be under any interference or direction by a minister. He specifically recommended that it be included in the child protection law at the time, and that was followed through by the government of the day. But largely, for different sets of obligations and checks and balances in relation to ministerial direction, sometimes they have to be published in the financial accounts; sometimes they have to be tabled in parliament. There are all sorts of rules that go with that.

In any event, we are getting rid of the authority, so the minister does not need to issue directions. The commissioner has a certain level of independence already under his law of appointment, and I cannot recall immediately what the rules are in relation to any ministerial direction to him or her in that position, but we can identify if there is. My understanding here is that the precommitment system arrangements have been brought into effect. This was to deal that, ministerial directions dealing with that, and it is now completely obsolete.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Will the commission have the capacity to make directions to a licensee around precommitment arrangements?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that is no longer necessary, but we will check on that just in case there is some residue there. It is twofold: one is getting rid of the authority, but the precommitment arrangements no longer require it. Whether they are obsolete themselves I do not know, but we will check whether there is anything else to add to that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Supplementary to that question, if the commission will have the power to impose obligations around precommitment on a licensee, under that regime will the minister retain the capacity to direct the commissioner about that precommitment regime?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is exactly what I have offered to find out, and we will do so.

Clause passed.

Clause 57 passed.

Clause 58.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the Deputy Premier advise what type of person or class of persons is likely to be prescribed by the regulations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the clause amends section 70(2) to extend a prohibition on gambling in the Casino, in addition to the person defined as an authorised officer—that is, like a CBS inspector—also to include other staff of a class prescribed by the regulations. It is also anticipated this would be extended to include, for instance, persons responsible for conducting barring hearings.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So those persons conducting barring hearings will be in the office of the commissioner, or do you mean judges in the Licensing Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In the commission.

Clause passed.

Clause 59.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am just wondering why the extra month from the end of August to the end of September has been provided by this clause.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the extra timing is not required because the previous process was that the commissioner had to report to the authority, and the authority to the minister. Time was required, but now that step has gone and it is direct to the minister—and I will be pleased for you to get a freshly minted copy of the annual report.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So less time is required, but they have an extra month?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apparently, it is the other way around.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I read 31 August in the act.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My adviser will check on that and report back.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am also wondering why, in clause 59(3) of the bill, paragraph (c) is being deleted. Does the commissioner not have any observations that are worthy of noting?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not see it quite that way, because I think the current section 71(3)(c) of the Casino Act reads:

the Commissioner's report on the administration of this Act together with any observations on that report that the Authority considers appropriate.

I see it as an overlap of the two, rather than exclusively of one, because the commissioner will still have to give an annual report. This is one of the problems Mr Anderson was very appropriately looking at, and that is that you end up with two regulators and you do get overlap. That does provide not only inefficiencies but potential for inconsistencies. The direction under the current act, while we have this dual regime, was to make sure that the commissioner's report included in it the provision of where there have been observations by both. That is the way I have read it, and I understand that is the correct interpretation.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So there is no longer any requirement for the commissioner to report on the administration of the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, that is already in subclause (1).

Clause passed.

Clauses 60 and 61 passed.

Clause 62.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Subclause (3) provides for the continuation of investigations that may be underway. Are there any investigations underway?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of, but we will check and let you know.

Clause passed.

Clause 63 passed.

Clause 64.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that clause 64 is to allow the EPA to recover costs of some of their activities from those who are being regulated. Is there a schedule of costs, or has one been determined to be implemented on the passage of this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The question relates to whether a schedule of fees has been allocated yet for the purposes of the operation of the action under this new regime to deal with the costs of site contamination, assessments, clean-ups and the like. I am advised that there is a $1.5 million expense allocated to this. This is largely to deal with parties who operate, or formerly operated, petrol stations.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It doesn't seem to relate to that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are on clause 64.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So this relates to petrol stations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. I am advised, and I was informed previously, that whatever fee structure is going to apply in relation to these cases is yet to be set. That is being considered. It is to be on a cost-recovery basis. Assuming there is a level of contamination that might attract a $50,000 cost for assessment, clean-up, soil removal or something of that nature, then I suspect that will be part of the cost imposed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Does the agency have an idea yet of how many sites might be captured by this regime?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not at this stage, I am advised, because at this stage in this category we are talking about sites that are unknown in relation to who might be responsible and who is the owner. As the member would be aware, we passed legislation some years ago to essentially say that, if you contaminate a property, you are going to be responsible for that no matter how many times it is onsold to newer owners.

We have established some connections to liability through other legislation. How to work out who is responsible for the clean-up or the restoration of the soil or whatever is going to be restored is yet to be identified. We know that, from time to time, we have breaches in relation to underground water, for example, and damages arising from escaping odours and all those sorts of things. The extent of that is yet unknown.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: How was the revenue amount in Budget Paper 5 attached to this measure arrived at? It is $800,000 a year.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As an estimate?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is what is in the budget papers.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the answer to that question. We will find out for you.

Clause passed.

Clause 65.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand that this next clause applies to petrol stations. The revenue amount estimated in the budget is $750,000 in 2019-20 and then $1.5 million in the years after that. Is there an estimate yet of what the fee per petrol station will be, or is that to be arrived at?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that is what I commenced before. Regarding the recurrent amount of $1.5 million, it is yet to be identified how many stations this is going to apply to. My understanding is that there will be a recovery in relation to that. It will depend on the number of stations, as to what each of the individual costs will be.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In the briefing that I received from the Treasurer's office and various agencies, there was some discussion about some influence on the fee based on how many sites there are, as the Deputy Premier just said, and also the particular arrangements or circumstances of those petrol stations. I am just after some advice on those other elements that will inform what level of fee is charged to a petrol station site.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This may have been provided in the briefing, but I am further advised that there is an estimate of 550 to 600 stations—I assume that is across the state—and that the fee structure is yet to be determined. But there are two things that the committee might note: one is that consideration is being made for very small regional or remote stations, which might be in the Chair's electorate.

The CHAIR: They may well be.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am trying to think of some outpost of Ceduna or somewhere. What was that little town you had that had a school that closed down that—

The CHAIR: Port Kenny?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —minister Lomax-Smith put a new sign on when it had already closed?

The CHAIR: I am not familiar with that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Koonibba had a lovely little school.

The CHAIR: There is still a school at Koonibba.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No students, that is all. They just go and camp there occasionally.

The CHAIR: No, there is still a school, I can assure you, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The second issue is in relation to the actual fee structure for other considerations being given to the volume of storage. This is, I assume, the volume of the storage of the tanks underground in petrol stations. I do not know a lot about this, but I certainly recall in a farming situation that underground tanks were quite common, until we were alerted to this question of contamination. It is now not as common, of course, with the theory being, I am advised, that the bigger the volume of storage, potentially the bigger risk in relation to contamination.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So there is some consideration of a different regime or a differential fee applying to regional areas of South Australia. I assume they are just the regions as defined by the government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So we are clear on this, I am advised that there may be a zero fee attached to some very remote small sites. The member might know that, in some parts of South Australia, there may only be a small bowser with a very small storage facility that is there as an emergency backup and the level of contamination may not be very much. It may have been abandoned for decades. That may be the type of situation where it would be reasonable not to have a fee attached but just make sure it is cleaned up. The second matter was in relation to the variable rate; it is in relation to volume and not a variable rate according to how many service stations you might own or anything like that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is there any consideration of a different fee arrangement depending on the age of the service station or the tanks that are being effectively regulated for the first time?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apparently not, but I am sure that whoever reads these notes assiduously might pick it up as a good idea of the member.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Someone in the other place, then.

The CHAIR: That is the second dig you have had at the Legislative Council, member for Lee. You are treading on thin ice. Pushing a third question becomes a fourth, does it not? Thank you.

Clause passed.

Clauses 66 to 84.

Clause 85.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question relates to clause 85(4), a similar question to the one I raised earlier. Are there appeals underway or on foot at the moment and, if there are, how many?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will take that on notice. I am not aware of any, and I recently had a briefing in relation to the distribution from this fund for, I think it is the current financial year, in the Department of Human Services. I am not aware of any, but we will check on that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 86 and 87 passed.

Clause 88.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the Deputy Premier provide some advice to the committee about how the wording of proposed new section 2 was arrived at?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that, obviously, it makes provision for the consolidation of the regulatory functions as indicated and, as I have said, follows Mr Anderson's recommendations. I think it is fair to say that the objectives are consistent with what we have had for a good number of years, and that is to ensure that we have responsible gambling, that we protect the vulnerable, that we support the weak and that we ensure that there is a viable industry that is both economically and socially responsible in our state.

I do not see these as any new initiatives that suddenly add in a new objective of the legislation: it is just written in a contemporary manner.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Deputy Premier, some might suppose that elements of those clauses, in particular proposed new subsection (2)(b) may at times be difficult to reconcile, and whose role is it to reconcile those and how will that reconciliation be made?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I want to be clear that the commissioner is going to have the primary responsibility for the regulatory role in relation to these matters. It is one thing to maintain the economic viability; it is another thing, of course, to ensure social responsibility.

The rules and regulations that are established around licensing permits, opportunities to be able to have the use of and to make money out of these products, is an important one and one which is enveloped with rules that attract a level of protection for the vulnerable. This is not a new situation.

The commissioner, for example, has to already make a decision when he approves a certain event where there is liquor and other alcohol sold, as to the opportunity for young people to have fun, the protection and security of the public, along with ensuring that order is kept in relation to the distribution of alcohol. There are always tensions with these things, which is exactly why we are having a new, reformed regulatory role with the commissioner to do the job.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Once again, I apologise for not recalling its correct name, but will the newly formed advisory committee also play a role in managing the delivery of these imperatives?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Certainly, as the minister responsible for a number of aspects of this act, very much so. We would expect that the advisory committee would be cognisant of the objectives of the legislation and working towards ensuring that as the minister, or any subsequent minister, I am fully apprised of contemporary demands and protections that need to be considered within the envelope of these principles and objectives.

Clause passed.

Clause 89.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Regarding the membership of the advisory council, would that membership reflect the requirements to deliver these objectives?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At this stage, there has not been an identified membership, but we have set out its establishment under clause 89.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Under subclause (3), just to make it clear, which is the welfare agency? Which agency in the current government will be the welfare agency?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think all those are yet to be determined.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, sorry. Subclause (3) sets out that the welfare agency is the agency within the government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, sorry.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was inquiring which particular agency that is.

The CHAIR: I will take that as an explanation, member for Lee.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That falls within the Office for Problem Gambling, which minister Lensink has responsibility for now, under the Department of Human Services.

Clause passed.

Clause 90.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question relates to new section 4(1)(c) and 'client-centric'. Who is the client around whom everything will be centred?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The whole of industry—I think that is obvious. The term 'client-centric' relates to the consumer, as distinct from the client being the hotel or the Casino.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: A gambler, effectively.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, a gambler, in this case.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On that same clause, but jumping over the page in the bill to paragraph (h), at the top of page 26, is any specific resourcing being provided to the Office for Problem Gambling in the Department of Human Services to carry out that function?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That agency already exists, and I recently saw a list of how the funds are being applied to deal with services for people who have difficulty with gambling. One of them was quite a lot of money towards a survey in relation to problem gambling. My recollection is that the office itself and its operational cost is also met from the Gamblers' Rehabilitation Fund.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I ask because the bill seems to set out in greater detail the functions and powers of the commissioner beyond what the soon to be replaced provisions of the bill do. Hence, I asked whether there is any additional appropriational resourcing that has been provided to that albeit pre-existing agency. Is it just that they will manage to absorb those?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I hope I am correct here, but I was referring to the operation of the Office for Problem Gambling within the Department of Human Services, and my understanding is that the cost in relation to their costs of dealing with requests and the distribution of money out of the fund, is met out of the fund. In relation to the advisory council under paragraph (h), CBS would meet that out of its existing budget.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Has CBS set aside a level of resourcing for that purpose?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I already said that some questions ago, probably about three or four hours ago, when I indicated that when the authority goes a number of personnel from the authority will transfer across into accommodation with CBS. They will provide the services and, of course, receive revenue and all the things that need to go with the regulation of this role. There will be no board and there will be no cost of accommodation of the authority, which currently sits in other premises.

Clause passed.

Clauses 91 to 105 passed.

Clause 106.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I know for clause 106 to become effective that clearly the bill needs to pass, but can the Deputy Premier indicate a time frame by when this review will be established?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that work is underway to start preparing for this. It may take up to a year to deal with it. We are looking to discharge the responsibility of the authority by 1 December, so obviously they need to get cracking. In short, we cannot pre-empt the legislation. Remember that the commissioner for consumer and business services, Mr Soulio, already has a significant regulatory role in this space. The authority has some extra aspects of this, and it has had an increasing number of areas of responsibility over the years, but it is not a whole new regime of licensing that Mr Soulio's division will inherit. He is ready, keen and able.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That may have answered my question. Will it be the commissioner, Mr Soulio, who will undertake the review?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The bill says 'undertake a review of the functions of the Commissioner'. He will certainly be involved in that, but the detail of that is yet to be determined.

Clause passed.

Clause 107.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The clause, as we have looked at previously with the other acts that are being amended, steps through some transitional provisions. With regard to subclause (4), are there inquiries underway by the IGA; if so, what are they?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, we will take that on notice. I was not aware of any, as I say, at the time I met with Mr Moss in relation to this matter. If there are, obviously we will report to the committee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The same with barring orders?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I take it that is the same question, that is, the number of barring orders in existence and whether there are any applications for the review of them; is that correct?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes. Are there any exemptions, looking at subclause (7); if so, could the detail of those be provided between the houses?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Similarly, we will take that on notice.

Clause passed.

Clauses 108 to 110 passed.

Clause 111.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: While we are waiting for the officer, who I understand is on his way, earlier in the committee hearing the member asked a question in respect of clause 111, on economic modelling. I will answer in respect of this area of land tax, the announcement identified by the government that cuts to land tax will return around $47 million per annum to taxpayers from 2020-21. These changes—and this is well known to members—are expected to benefit over 50,000 land tax ownerships, including around 8,000 that will no longer have a land tax liability. What modelling has been done around this initiative? It is exactly the same process that has applied with previous budgets in the development of these types of announcements.

The former Labor government's budgets have included a range of measures that have not had specific economic modelling underpinning them. We were lucky to get any information about the State Bank tax, the car park tax, the Future Jobs Fund and Fund My Neighbourhood, for example. What is very interesting is, and I suppose this indicates what government is all about, they come and go, and those in charge—all the Sir Humphreys we enjoy the privilege of having working for us—stay.

It is often very interesting to read the estimates committee representatives and members who arrive. There is sometimes a newly minted minister sitting at the desk, as there was this year in estimates, but surrounded by all the usual suspects. Often the names are exactly the same. They not only have some historical knowledge about how these things work but they also maintain an independent and consistent approach to these. I am advised that what has been done in relation to the work to identify the estimate of the return of funds that it is likely to be, given the number of land taxpayers, at the $47 million, has been modelled and undertaken in exactly the same fashion as it has in the past.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I preface my question by saying that I think it is unfair to refer to Danny as a Sir Humphrey.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, he is not.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Good. Now that we have that cleared up, does RevenueSA or the relevant branch of Treasury have the capacity to identify regarding the land taxpayers, who have been estimated to be liable for land tax at the thresholds as they are to be when these land tax changes come into effect, which of those are resident in South Australia against which are resident elsewhere around the country and against those who are resident overseas?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Leaving aside whatever has happened with the data in the Land Services office sale—and who knows whether or not the Korean government have got it by now, but we have certainly heard a million properties have been hacked into—I am advised in relation to this matter that, because this is for a year 2020-21 estimate, that breakdown could not be provided. It is yet unknown who is going to own which of the 55,000-odd properties that operate in South Australia, whether they are foreign owned, interstate owned or an indigenous South Australian ownership. So, that estimate could not be provided.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can it instead be provided for the ownerships as they are at midnight 30 June 2018, which is when the land tax liability is calculated?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apparently not. It is going to require an assessment of each of those properties to be able to give you that breakdown. I do not know what fees have to be paid to this new regime that owns all the Lands Titles Office sale income stream, but it is some entity out there.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier will be relieved to hear that it is entirely irrelevant to the manner in which we are acquiring it at the moment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the member wants to do that exercise, then he is welcome to go and pay the fees if they apply.

The CHAIR: Let's get back on track here. Thank you, Attorney.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can RevenueSA provide an assessment of the billing data that they would have for how many bills, particularly above the top marginal threshold, sent to South Australian residences? How many are sent to other Australian residences and how many are sent overseas?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised we will have to take that on notice, and I will let you know what the bill is.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I ask that that information is provided between the houses, please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate to the member that we will take it on notice, but if the provision of that information is expensive to identify and report, and/or there are fees attached to it, then I will report to the committee accordingly.

Clause passed.

Clause 112.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I also ask that that same inquiry be made, but for ownerships that relate to residential property, ownerships that relate to commercial property, ownerships that relate to industrial property, and mixed ownerships.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That would relate to billing information. I will make note of it: residential, commercial, and industrial; is that it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And mixed, where there may be ownership of residential plus commercial—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not interested in farming?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Fortunately not, under your regime. Luckily, we escaped that, except for the ESL.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In fact, you have not had to since 1886.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, backdoor ESL; I thought that was land tax. In any event we will look at it. We certainly identify that that is a very significant charter of work to be done, to be able to identify it, but we will assist the committee as best we can.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can I ask that the amount of revenue estimated to be forgone from these land tax changes be broken down by land tax threshold? That would be helpful.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised this is a little easier, and it may be able to be provided without too much difficulty. We will at least provide estimates in relation to those categories.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This may be trickier, but if it is possible can that also be provided on that same basis of disaggregation between those different property types of residential, commercial, industrial and mixed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, we will have a look at that. It may be too hard an ask, but if it is easily accessible we will provide that. However, I am getting some rather worried looks from Danny, my especially brilliant adviser here; I think he is starting to sweat, getting beads on the forehead, about all the work you are asking him to do, but we will certainly have a look at it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have full confidence in how assiduous the Department of Treasury and Finance is.

The CHAIR: Absolutely.

Clause passed.

Clause 113.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that clauses 113, 114 and 115 are necessary for the imposition of the changed liquor licensing fees; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Clause 115 is in relation to these. The first two relate to IGA.

The CHAIR: We are actually on clause 113 at the moment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just letting you know then, on 113 IGA, 114 IGA, 115 the fees.

Clause passed.

Clause 114 passed.

Clause 115.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can I ask if the Deputy Premier remains committed to implementing the full quantum of fees, as set out in the budget papers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The answer to that is yes. The member will be aware, from contributions that have been made in relation to the budget debates already, that this is a fee structure that is modelled on the recommendation of Mr Tim Anderson QC in his report. This is the formal report, just so we are clear, in relation to liquor licensing, of which there was substantial statutory reform under the previous government, and the question of the fee structure was left for consideration this year. So it was always going to be dealt with after the state election.

The new government looked at the model, looked at the amount that was recommended and thought that it stretched too high and that it should be less, so this total amount of anticipated revenue is based on a similar model to the one recommended by Mr Anderson but on a less take basis. All this is currently under review as to how that is to operate, and there is consultation with the industry and the like.

It is a model whereby the longer you open in your trading hours to sell alcohol—that is, the really late-night traders, early morning, etc.—the higher rate you will pay and, if you have a large area in which you sell alcohol, that is part of the formula. The two areas that have been identified as a result of that are: what happens when you have a function where you have a massive area? I am thinking of somewhere like the Hilton Hotel, which provides a magnificent function event centre for huge crowds. They might all go home by midnight or 11.30 when they have finished their awards night or whatever, so there is not an extended trading time. However, because of the massive area that they occupy, that may attract a much larger fee.

Similarly, there are those who might ordinarily trade until 2am, but they have a licence that enables them to trade until 5am. So most nights they never trade past 2am, but maybe once or twice a year they will go all night. There might be an international event. In my day, the only thing that was on overnight that you could get televised was the FA Cup, but nowadays, of course, we have 24/7—

The CHAIR: Not Wimbledon?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, Wimbledon was not usually at that time in the morning. Wimbledon would be at 11 o'clock at night.

The CHAIR: Later in the evening, yes.

Mr Duluk: About 9 o'clock it starts.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That's right, so at 11.00 or 12.00 you are getting onto the final match and, if it went for a couple of hours, you might be up until 1.00 or 2.00 in the morning. That was my recollection of Wimbledon.

The CHAIR: You are quite right.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Once in my lifetime I have actually been there in the summer, in London and watched it, which was a great treat. The circumstance brought to our attention is: why should someone who has a licence until 5am be penalised at this high end of contribution when, in reality, they do not use it? If they do, it may be only once or twice during the year to offer the service to their patrons of an extended trading time. These are the sorts of issues that are being raised, and we are considering how we might fairly address them in the application of the new fee regime.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney—a very fulsome answer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It was very detailed indeed; what different lives we lead. Deputy Premier, what consultation occurred with licence holders between March and the delivery of the state budget at the beginning of September this year?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot answer that specifically in relation to this issue, but I know that I have met with representatives from the liquor industry since coming into government on a number of occasions to deal with a number of their issues. The invitation to contribute to the consultation in that regard has largely been managed by Mr Soulio as the commissioner. In due course, he will no doubt report to us on how he thinks the refinements of that model should apply.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The second half of new subsection (1b) in the amendment moves on from some of the factors the Deputy Premier referred to: the location, the opening hours and so on. It talks about whether the licensee holds any other licence under the act or under the Gaming Machines Act. If the licensee holds licences under the Gaming Machines Act, is that likely to increase or decrease the fee they will pay under this new regime?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the answer to that specifically. I am happy to get that information.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think the Deputy Premier prefaced her remarks by either directly saying or implying that this is largely a risk-based regime. Does the Deputy Premier have a view or any advice to date that would inform her view about whether holding gaming machine licences increases or decreases the risk for a venue?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have a particular view. I have certainly received advice from time to time. Our gaming facilities within licensed premises are in a separate area. I am told that there have been some experiments to allow gaming machines to be out in a bar area, for example, and they were found not to be very successful. It appears that people who like gaming machines—in hotels, for example—like to be in their own little quiet area.

They like to be in a discrete area. They do not want to be out in an area where others might be enjoying other services of the premises in their social interaction or otherwise. That may have something to do with the general age group of those who continue to participate in poker machine activities in licensed premises. I am advised, and I think the member himself knows full well the situation, that poker machines are not necessarily seen as immediately attractive to younger people; perhaps I will say to the age group under 35.

Mr Pederick: How do you go? Do you make it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He doesn't—that's why I picked 35. They like to do everything on their device: meet for a date, buy things, bet, etc. The profile of the person engaged in premises that sell alcohol and provide a gaming service who may affect the model that will apply for the fee structure for liquor licensing may not make any difference whatsoever. It may be that that older age group sits there and drinks coffee; I do not know. I just make the point that I do not know the answer to whether an additional gaming service licence holder might attract a higher fee or a lower fee. I simply do not know.

Clause passed.

Clause 116.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is the Deputy Premier or the government aware of whether any councils that currently operate borrow pits, or other facilities where they obtain rubble, sell that rubble to the private sector?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that they are aware of.

Clause passed.

Clause 117.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would just like to know the commencement date for these provisions should the bill pass?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am ably advised by Nick, who is going to assist the committee with the Local Government Act reforms and Mining Act reforms. In response to this question on the date of proclamation, I cannot tell you exactly when the date of proclamation is, but it is intended that a commencement of applications for project planning and traditional arrangements will be put in place to include a deadline of 30 June 2020 for companies to lodge their new applications for the 2 per cent rate. Either the operation of five years or 30 June 2026 is the cut-off point.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry, I was still on clause 117.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is what I am answering.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: About the royalty regime for rubble?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry.

The CHAIR: Would you like to ask your question on 117 again please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I know that I asked this previously, but I just want to be absolutely clear that the government is not aware of, or received any advice, councils selling any of their rubble—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and that they are solely using it for their own purposes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are not aware of any councils that are selling it to private operators from their own rubble pits.

Clause passed.

Clause 118.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just confirm that the information I gave in relation to the commencement date for lodgements by 1 July 2020 with the cut-off after five years or 30 June 2026, whichever first applies, relates to the Mining Act rubble royalties.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It does apply to the rubble royalties, does it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Mining Act, clause 118.

The CHAIR: So that contribution, Attorney, relates to clause 118?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: Do you have questions on clause 118, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do, thank you. Is the government aware of how many prospective mining operations may be captured by this measure?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, we are not able to provide that information, or that estimate, but obviously with this initiative being introduced we will hope to see some positive response.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Have any mining companies that have mines previously forecast to be developed over the coming years contacted the government about the impact on their projects?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that a number of companies have contacted the government about how this is going to operate when it was announced, and they are working through it in their planning on what they might do.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the Deputy Premier provide, perhaps between the houses, the names of those companies and the developments they relate to?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that would be entirely inappropriate, but if it is appropriate and available we will consider giving it to the committee.

Clause passed.

Clause 119 passed.

Clause 120.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding of this clause is that it relates to owner-driver contracts, as I was briefed. Could the Deputy Premier provide some advice to the committee to whom this applies and how the arrangement changes from the present to the arrangement under the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Owner-driver contracts, yes, is correct. I am advised that, under the current contractor provisions, the respective persons under a relevant contract are taken to be employer-employee, with payments made under such contract taken to be wages for payroll tax purposes.

Although most contracts for the provision of service initially come within the meaning of the relevant contract under section 32 of the 2009 act, there are certain types of contracts that are especially exempted from the definition of a relevant contract. I think it is important that I also advise you that the intent of the exemptions provided under section 32(2)(d)(i) of the 2009 act is to exempt a contract under which a person provides services ancillary to the conveyance of goods by means of a vehicle owned by the contractor, that is, contract owner-drivers.

If the contract also requires the contractor to perform services other than the conveyance of goods and services ancillary to that conveyance, it is not intended that the contract qualifies for exemption under the owner-driver exemption. The exemption does not apply where the Commissioner of State Taxation determines that the contract was entered into with the intention of avoiding payroll tax.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate that explanation. What I am trying to get clear in my mind is whether this is a measure that makes some modification to the current arrangements as it relates to the types of owner-drivers with which we have been familiar for a long time, such as couriers and delivery drivers, etc., or whether there is some extension to drivers for new services being offered in what is loosely called the gig economy, with organisations like Uber, Uber Eats or Deliveroo, and so on.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member may be aware of this, but there was a case in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Smith's Snackfood Company Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW), 2012 NSWSC 998 (or the Smith's case, as it is apparently commonly known), which considered the owner-driver exemption. That made it clear that you could not just have a part operator. They had to be exempt or non-exempt. This legislation introduces a model to make sure that we will not fall foul of that decision and hopefully makes it clearer for the purposes of identifying payroll tax exemption or application. Does that make it clear?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 121 to 131 passed.

Clause 132.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry, I think I was slightly misleading. Perhaps I will ask a question and you can perhaps better inform me of whether or not I have been misleading. I understand that clause 132 is just to make sure that transfer fees are recoverable at the actual property value for property transactions or conveyances that are otherwise exempt from stamp duty.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apparently, it is for all transfers, rather than just those identified by you, to ensure that the proper payments are made.

Clause passed.

Clause 133.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Regarding the interfamilial transfer of farming property, can the Deputy Premier provide some advice to the committee about how the new exemption will work, as opposed to the current provisions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the same model applies. The new aspect that this introduces is that it allows for either the transferor or the transferee to be a company. At present, companies in that role are not able to receive the benefit of this. As I understand it, it has to be person to person. Family trusts are allowed already.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier has answered some of my subsequent line of questioning, whether it is just between natural persons or whether trusts can be involved in the transactions. Can the Deputy Premier provide some further detail to the committee about whether there are any requirements or restrictions on the nature of those trusts. For example, must all the trustees or the majority of the trustees be members of the family? Is there a stamp duty definition of who a family member is?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to trusts, this amendment does not make any difference to the existing regime. I am tempted to say that, if you want to identify whether your trust qualifies under the current law, that is a legal assessment. This amendment does not change that. Natural persons and trusts already have the capacity to give and receive under these interfamilial transfers. The only thing this is doing is allowing for the corporate structure to be available to do that, to be involved either as a transferor or transferee. So there is nothing new on trusts.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My recollection is that for the first time the corporate transactions are to be exempt from duty and there are no changes to the requirements for family trusts. Is there any requirement that the members of the family must be resident in South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No residency is required in South Australia apparently. Gina Rinehart, good luck to her.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: She took the words out of my mouth.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed. That was my next question. Is there any information that the government can provide to the committee about the number of these transactions from which non-residents of South Australia will benefit?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Clause passed.

Clause 134.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: When is the commencement expected to be? Has a date been identified or is it just dependent upon the passage of the bill through the parliament?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: From 1 January 2018, so it is effectively retrospective. Fortunately, it will not depend on how long this committee goes for.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Does RevenueSA or Treasury have any understanding of how many transfers are likely to be captured between 1 January 2018 and 4 September 2018, when the budget was delivered?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: An error from my adviser, Greg, who has otherwise been excellent. This transitional clause is to become effective as of the date that we get proclaimed. So, yes, time is of the essence, so let's move it along.

Clause passed.

Clause 135.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding of this clause is that it gives effect to the provisions included in the last Mid-Year Budget Review regarding multi-peril crop insurance; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, both—that and the Liberal commitment prior to the election.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is there any information about the number of policies likely to be affected by this change?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: An estimate of 100.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: One hundred policies?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 136.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The 1 January date is not a new provision that was identified in the state budget, is it? It was a commencement date identified in the Mid-Year Budget Review; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am expecting both. Again, the Mid-Year Budget Review indication and the commitment by the now Liberal government prior to the election.

Clause passed.

Clause 137.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the Deputy Premier provide some advice to the committee on the purpose of this clause?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the purpose of the amendment under clause 137, I am advised that the provision in this bill makes a number of minor amendments to the Stamp Duties Act 1923 to facilitate the collection of data as part of the commonwealth government's initiatives on third-party reporting and the national register of foreign ownership of land titles. That might be very helpful for you in getting some of that data in the future.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed; we believe that there should be different dutiable arrangements for foreigners purchasing residential properties in South Australia. Has the commonwealth provided comfort to the government about the manner in which this data will be managed, stored and kept confidential?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not aware specifically of it. As the member would be aware, there are privacy laws that apply at the commonwealth level. We do not have privacy laws in South Australia and some would say more is the pity. Nevertheless, obviously the integrity of data is important. If there is any suggestion that this data would not be kept secure, we would like to hear about it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am entirely comfortable with the declarations we have to make each year. That is why I do not operate a trust.

Clause passed.

Clause 138 to 145 passed.

Clause 146.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Are there any other protections for the government which would entitle the government to withhold certain information which it has not previously provided to the commonwealth. If the commonwealth Commissioner of Taxation were to make a new ruling about which data it would like to collect? Or does the commonwealth have carte blanche to request and receive any information from the state?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the exact answer to that, but what I do know is that there are various intergovernmental agreements that operate to ensure that there is a provision of information between state and federal agencies. Usually it is for the mutual benefit of the parties. That includes, for example, the capacity to identify someone who is in receipt of a commonwealth pension, who may owe money to the state of South Australia, and the conveying of information on the recipient of that entitlement and the capacity to garnishee it. This is the type of arrangement where there is an exchange of information.

This reform, as I understand it, relates to a regime of protection, I suppose, in relation to when you are collecting the data how it is stored, who it is to be disclosed to and the restrictions on it, for good reason. I would think it sits alongside a number of other regimes of data protection. In South Australia we have it in all sorts of odd pockets—for example, in the health act for health records and things of that nature.

We also have data-sharing legislation in South Australia, which is state legislation introduced by the previous government to enable the facility of transferring information between departments, even to universities and the like, usually with the Attorney-General's approval. I understand I am the person who is supposed to approve some of these things. We have a number of different information-sharing agreements or protections under statute, depending on what the nature of the data is. Here in relation to reportable information, there is a regime for protection of it under this new structure. In addition, we have a whole lot of legislation, privacy provisions and data security protections in the Taxation Administration Act 1996.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just to be clear, if the Commissioner of Taxation of the commonwealth has provided the power to do so under the commonwealth Taxation Administration Act 1953, he can require data to be provided by the state and the state must oblige; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If it is within the definition of 'reportable data', I am advised, and that is defined in the proposed 81A—Interpretation under the definition of 'reportable information'.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

The CHAIR: I thank all those involved in today's committee.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would like to place on the record my appreciation to you, as Chair of the committee, for your forbearance.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.