Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (11:31): I rise today to indicate that Labor is generally supportive of the bill but that we will continue to consult on the measures contained within it. I also indicate to the house that I will be the lead speaker for the bill. The bill was introduced by the former Labor government on 28 September 2017 and reached the Legislative Council on 1 November 2017; however, it did not pass the Legislative Council before parliament was prorogued.

The bill had an extensive history of consultation with the community, including a discussion paper, several community forums and lengthy consultation between residential park owners and Consumer and Business Services. The bill sought to find a balance between the interests of residential park owners and residents, but ultimately the extra protections afforded to residents meant that the park owners were not completely satisfied with the bill.

I congratulate the Attorney-General on bringing this bill back to parliament. However, there appear to be differences, and there are differences, between the Labor bill and the bill the Attorney-General has introduced. I am advised that clause 7, parts of clause 12, clause 13, parts of clause 18 and parts of clause 25 insert new sections that did not appear in the Labor bill or in amendments filed in the Legislative Council. We are concerned that there may be provisions that give additional powers to park owners rather than to residents, so we will continue consulting with residents on the bill. We intend to unpack this amendment during the committee stage.

I also understand that the member for Taylor, Jon Gee, has raised a series of concerns with the Attorney-General, but at this time I do not believe that a response has been received. I want to talk a little bit about residential parks. I come to it from the position of being the former minister for ageing during a time when we introduced reform to the Retirement Villages Act. At that point, many people thought I also had responsibility for residential parks, which I did not: it was always under the Attorney.

They are quite different propositions; nonetheless, what they offer is a diversity of housing. One of the things I want to talk about in regard to residential parks is how important that balance is. When we amend this bill, as we intend to do, we need to consider how we get that balance right. When we think about affordable housing, that is one of the elements that might attract someone to residential parks.

As much as it is about affordable housing, it is also about a sense of community. When I had the opportunity in the past to visit residential parks in the member for Taylor's electorate, there was a keen sense of connectedness and community and that it was a choice people had made. Something I think we should remember when we debate this bill is that this has been a choice that people have made because it is right for them.

However, there continue to be key issues, when we consider residential parks, around the insecurity of tenure and making sure that there is an adequate disclosure of information prior to purchase. One of the key things I think people must realise is that, because it is a lease arrangement, they do not own the land. That is quite different from other experiences people generally have in life whether they have been a renter of a property or an owner of a property. It is a different model.

Although different, it was a similar situation in the retirement villages space, where people did not always understand the arrangements or the financial arrangements that were there. When we reformed that act, we spent a lot of time making clear to people what they were signing up to when they made this commitment. One thing I would encourage, as we go forward in the debate on the bill, is making sure that we have clarity for people prior to purchase and that they know absolutely what it is that they are agreeing to because it is quite a substantial financial agreement.

Often for people it is their final major financial investment of their life. For many of the people I met with, they were very satisfied with the arrangement. They enjoyed the sense of community and expected that they would be there for the rest of their life if their health was able to be maintained, which was great.

Because of the situation, another thing I think we need to understand is the balance and competing interests they have with the park owners. Often, particularly interstate, we are seeing a lot of pressure where suddenly the residential park becomes more attractive to turn into short-term tourism accommodation, or sold for development where there is pressure on the land value. So it is really important to us that we have clear lease arrangements and that people are aware of what their rights are.

Another concern that was brought to me was understanding shifting if their lease comes to an end, which is what they are entitled to do because they do not own the land. We must consider that access and the costs of relocating are quite considerable. When people choose this type of housing, we need to make sure that is laid out clearly. As residential parks develop, we need to make sure people can actually relocate. Some of the concerns I have read are that, because of the built-up areas now, with the residential parks increase, it is actually going to be very, very costly to move house, so that is something to take into consideration.

I am very pleased to see that there is a focus on residents committees because some of the conversation is about the balance of power and control of the park owner. What has been raised with me in the past is the role of the park manager and how he or she interacts with the residential park people. Sometimes they have not always felt that they have been respected or listened to, and I think that is an area where we need to have very, very clear rights and responsibilities.

I was pleased to see that there was a focus on safety evacuation, as the member for Finniss talked about, as people sometimes have mobility issues. I think one of the challenges, going back into the realm of the residential parks, was access for ambulances to come in. It was a balance between the security of having a PIN to get through and into the park and having the ambulance not obstructed at all. We must prioritise that, and I think that has been supported in the bill.

What we see when we look at this type of housing is that not one size fits all. For most people, the great Australian dream was to buy your own property, but sometimes, with the cost of living or the breakdown of relationships, people have to make different decisions. I know that the ability to rent the land in residential parks but own the property on top of it gives people diversity of options.

I spoke to many women, many of whom had been widowed and lost their partner, who said that in their previous place, which they usually owned, they felt a lack of safety. More importantly, a challenge for them was the loneliness they felt and not being connected to other people in their street. In the past, particularly for those who had lived in their own street for decades, they used to know everyone, but people had moved away and they were the last one standing, so they made the choice to move to a residential park to have that connectivity with others.

When we look at this, we have traditionally thought about people who own their own home or traditional renting arrangements, but these other kinds of arrangements give people a variety of options. With those brief words, I once again indicate that the Labor Party is generally supportive of the bill, but we will continue to consult.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (11:41): I also rise today in support of the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill because I believe that the proposed reforms within it offer some increased protection and improved security of tenure for people who choose to live on permanent van sites in residential parks due to the affordable housing such parks can provide to those people.

Since the commencement of the act, there have been significant changes in the nature of the terms of the type and constitution of residential parks now operating in South Australia. Therefore, we will put forward these amendments, which are in practice similar to the ones put through this chamber during the last parliament, which we, and hopefully those opposite, will support. It is pleasing to hear that they will support most of this bill, if not all of it.

We on this side of the chamber argue that these proposed amendments strike a fair balance between residents and park owners and managers. I am led to believe that this legislation has the broad support of the South Australian Residential Parks Residents Association, SA Parks, state government agencies and park residents, which shows me that this is indeed a good thing. The Marshall Liberal government recognises the concern many residents have over the insecurity built into residential park agreements.

I myself have had multiple constituents contact me with concerns about the lack of long-term security in residential parks under the current Residential Parks Act 2007. I particularly welcome the increased protection for long-term residents who have been living in their park for more than five years. Many of these constituents have invested significant money into their homes and they deserve a greater level of security than is afforded them under the current act.

The stories I have heard from such people who are evicted suddenly from a local caravan park for seemingly no reason at all are harrowing, with all the upset, upheaval and financial loss that such decisions naturally bring. Today, I will take the opportunity to share with the house some of those experiences from residents of the Narungga electorate to highlight the impact this act can have on the daily quality of life of people in such residential parks.

It is estimated that less than 3,000 people live on such sites, many of them in rural and coastal locations, and for them the experience is very real; any increased protections we can provide in this amendment bill will be welcomed reform indeed. Within the Narungga electorate, there are 20 such sites at the Kadina Caravan Park, with others available at Pine Point and Ardrossan.

What a wonderful place to choose to live, at either the Ardrossan Caravan Park or the Pine Point Caravan Park. I note that Bourne Engineers recently built quite a large shed, which seems to me to impede the view of the Pine Point Caravan Park out over the ocean, so that may well detract from the living amenity that those who have chosen to live there have enjoyed for so long. Perhaps the Hon. Emily Bourke from the other place might have a word to the proprietor of Bourne Engineers to have that shifted. Anyhow, I digress.

Those who choose to live at such sites do so mostly in solid non-transportable structures, given the expectation that they will live in them for many years. They are mostly low-income, older residents, often single, who see it as a good option as opposed to living in a Housing Trust unit. I am led to believe that weekly lease fees can range from $113 per week to $160 per week. As has already been discussed, for that fee they get the van and the water supply, not necessarily the patch of land underneath it. That should be made clear to them upon their new agreement.

For park management, it is a good, reliable, long-term income stream and allows them to continue to operate the park effectively. One would think it would be in management's best interest to keep law-abiding, good, quiet tenants happy for everyone's sake, and for harmonious park living. Yet, the stories that have come to me include management stipulating which visitors could come and go, discouraging grandchildren because they were too loud, forbidding certain tenants from visiting other tenants, refusing tenancies for unemployed people because they could be lazy, and keeping people with disabilities out of sight because they did not want to see them.

These truly disgusting stories have already come through my office. There have been other stories of retaliatory termination notices being issued after park residents raised concerns about tenancy matters, and of managers entering rented properties without authorisation, sifting through residents' rubbish to see if residents were drinking too much and bullying, threatening and even roughing up elderly tenants who then have to call the police for help.

Perhaps worst of all is hearing about how permanent residents shut themselves away and are too frightened to complain about anything for fear of sudden eviction. Another elderly gentleman told me that after many years of living within his solid-structure van and annexe, which he purchased when he came to live at a residential park some years ago, he received an eviction notice stating that he had 90 days to leave. No reason was given, and no reason was required to be given. The gentleman sought advice and had a hearing with SACAT to try to stay, but he lost the hearing. After all, when there is no reason given for eviction, it makes it awfully difficult to appeal that eviction.

This gentleman then had four weeks to sell his site and van, which were valued at $20,000. It did not sell, so he was forced to dismantle what he could, smash down the rest and clear the site to make way for the next tenant. Luckily, he managed to find emergency housing, but many do not. As you can imagine, the whole experience carries considerable emotional distress and impacts upon health. He advised me that a lot of people around the state are in the same boat and, whilst he is now okay in a Housing Trust unit, what happened to him is on his mind every day.

There is a feeling of hopelessness and a lack of help and support, and residents feel like they are second-class citizens. This gentleman related to me that a blind man had to leave the site despite having broken no rules. Even with letters of support and character references from community and charity leaders (including his local minister) all imploring a change of mind by the park lessors, he still lost the appeal and had to move. It is clear that amendments to the Residential Parks Act 2007 are required in order to improve support services for residents and management.

I am pleased that this bill means that tenancies of long-term residents of more than five years cannot be terminated without specific grounds and with merely 90 days' notice. There will have to be statutory grounds to do so—for example, misbehaviour. I am also pleased that Consumer and Business Services will provide advice and conciliation services, and that a clear set of rules will be part of the agreement sign-up process, thus eliminating confusion and offering better balance of rights between the park owner and permanent resident.

Currently, under the Residential Parks Act 2007, there is no requirement for park rules to be in writing or that residents are to be notified of any rule changes should they be made. This new bill provides vast improvements in that area, with all rules required to be in writing and presented as part of the agreement within the park management and residents when they commence tenancy. Support for residents facing eviction is also vastly improved by the bill. It is a requirement that parks with more than 20 long-term residents will be required to have a residents' representative committee as liaison between residents and management. Any matters of concern can be discussed with the committee and brought to the attention of the park owner, who will be required to respond in writing within a month.

There have also been instances in the past relayed to me of park managers allegedly falsely accusing park residents of noncompliance of the site conditions and similar. It is proposed under the new bill that a detailed disclosure statement and site condition report, approved by the commissioner, will need to be presented to anyone entering a new agreement in the interests of full transparency. The Marshall Liberal government wholeheartedly supports full transparency.

There has also been in the past uncertainty of tenure when a park is to be sold or change hands, or if it is facing liquidation or is to be redeveloped. Currently, if a residential park is sold, the new owner may terminate a residential park site agreement without specifying a ground of termination. Agreement can also be terminated if a mortgagee takes possession of the residential park. These are unfair outcomes that are unfairly balanced in favour of the park owner.

Under the amendments proposed, it will no longer be a ground for termination if a residential park is sold or transferred to new owners. If an owner becomes insolvent, the long-term residents do not have to leave, as they do now. It is proposed that the mortgagee takes on the obligation as if they are the park owner. It is also proposed that if the dwelling is to be sold by the estate, park owners will be given first option to purchase a dwelling for an agreed amount, but the estate does not have to accept that offer.

Under the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018, if the park owner intends to redevelop a site, it is proposed that homes may be relocated to perhaps another site in the park or in a park owned by the same owner if the residents agree. The park owner may also offer to buy a home for an agreed price and, if the resident and owner are not able to reach an agreement, the resident or owner may apply to the tribunal for a resolution of the dispute.

While this amendment bill does take into account the resident, and evens the balance between park management and resident, it is important that there still is the ability for park management to continue to offer these tenancies and that they continue to be a viable source of income for them. In the case of the Ardrossan Caravan Park, which is the holder of such sites, the progress association owns and operates that caravan park and benefits greatly from the income stream that that provides.

The work that the Ardrossan Progress Association is doing in the town of Ardrossan is tremendous. It truly is a shining light in terms of progress associations. There is a full-time executive officer, Margie Gaisford, who does a great job in writing grant applications and developing ideas for its next project. One of the more recent ones was a new information tourist outlet that I was fortunate to open recently. It sits right next door to the Ardrossan museum, which is now experiencing increased patronage as well. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement that was essentially born out of the Ardrossan Caravan Park and the progress association's ability to derive income from that caravan park.

A lot of these amendments are evening the balance, which is wonderful and much needed, but it is important that we to continue to make owners and operators of these caravan parks able to offer permanent residency because, as touched on by a number of different speakers, this is the preferred option for people. People make a conscious choice to move into these caravan parks as a preferred mode of living. For some, it is for the cost; for some, it is the lifestyle.

As touched on earlier, it would be wonderful to live on the foreshore of Pine Point, Ardrossan or in the seat of Morphett, where I am sure there are some tremendous site vacancies and hotly contested vacancies when they do become available. It is important that we continue to afford people the opportunity to live in these caravan parks for a variety of different reasons and that the balance does not get skewed too far one way or another.

To briefly summarise, the bill makes it an obligation to disclose information in the establishment of a residential parks agreement. This will include requiring an agreement to be in writing and providing a signed copy of the agreement and the written park rules to the resident. In addition, it will apply punitive measures to discourage those contemplating disobeying those measures. It is very important that we set the parameters early so that the resident and the park owner both know exactly what they are getting themselves into, which should reduce moments of controversy and make it a more amicable agreement between both owner and resident.

We are also introducing a 14-day cooling-off period to ensure that prospective residents have sufficient time to properly consider an agreement and obtain legal advice. Importantly, we are providing greater security of tenure at the end of a fixed-term agreement. Residents of more than five years are entitled to have their agreement reissued at expiration unless there are statutory grounds to do so. Park owners also have to give 90 days' notice prior to the expiry of the site agreement of any changes to the terms of agreement so that the residents are fully informed of all happenings in the park.

We have mandated residents committees for parks with more than 20 long-term residents and obligations on the park owner to facilitate meetings and respond to issues raised in a timely and formal manner. We have improved the safety measures, including mandating a safety evacuation plan, copies of which will be and have to be provided to residents and reviewed annually.

Finally, we are ensuring that Consumer and Business Services will be equipped to provide conciliation services and advice. They have undertaken to update material for both parties, which will be made available on the CBS website, including providing best practice park agreements. They will also do a direct mailout to residents and host several stakeholder forums. Overall, this new bill offers improved transparency and fairness to the residential park agreement process, which should result in fewer disputes and increased harmonious living for permanent, rule-abiding residents in residential parks.

In my opinion these reforms are well overdue. The stories that have come through my office already in my seven months as the member for Narungga have truly been harrowing, with particular focus on the one gentleman whom I referenced earlier in my speech. He was evicted, he believes, for no reason other than just a disagreement with the park manager and then was made to sell his caravan within a fixed time, which he was unable to do such is the nature of the asset he was trying to sell. He was then made to remove it, causing him great financial distress.

With all due respect to this gentleman, he was not a man of great means and this caravan park was his home not only by choice but by necessity, and this great financial distress that was caused to him by the rules that are currently in place resulted in, perhaps, more impact on him than it may well have on other people in a better position.

It was truly a harrowing story, and I am pleased to see this reform go through. It was one of the first things that came across my desk and one of the things that I have been really eager to see happen. It is pleasing to see not only that the previous government was already onto it in the last parliament and able to get these reforms started but that we picked up where they left off. There seems to be bipartisan support for getting these reforms through.

I would like to applaud the work undertaken by the South Australian Residential Parks Residents Association, by SA Parks, government agencies and, importantly, by park residents having their say in helping form the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I would like to commend this bill to the house, and I look forward to seeing its speedy and timely passage through both houses.

Mr GEE (Taylor) (11:58): I rise today to talk about the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018, an important piece of legislation that will make significant change for people living in or owning residences in residential parks. The Residential Parks Act and its regulations were last assented to on 14 June 2007. The act was subsequently proclaimed on 5 November 2007. However, house owners and residents at that time felt that they had very little time or opportunity to have input and consultation in crafting the act and its regulations.

So a group of concerned residents from these dedicated residential parks in and around Adelaide got together quickly to form an association, and the South Australian Residential Parks Residents Association (SARPRA) was incorporated. It had formal incorporation status on 8 December 2007 and its chief goal was and still is to represent the interests of house owners in residential parks.

Such parks provide an affordable lifestyle and secure environment for those people aged over 50. Every residential park uses transportable or manufactured or relocatable or build-on-site types of homes which structurally are not meant or designed to be moved after being placed on site. They look like many well-presented other homes, if you have visited these residential parks. Ownership of the house remains with the resident and only the house site is rented from the owners by the residents in the park. There are currently around 2,500 people or residents or home owners affected by this legislation. These parks provide the residents with an opportunity or an alternative option to spend their lives in a safe and quality environment over the age of 50.

I have a special interest in this bill because the president of SARPRA, Mr Chris Sloper, is a resident of The Palms Residential Village in the electorate of Taylor. Mrs Chris Caraille-Allen is the vice-president of SARPRA and Margaret Wudtke is the secretary of SARPRA, and they are both located in the Northern Community Residential Village in the electorate of Taylor. They have become good friends of Taylor. They are often in our office and I spend time in their homes. I would probably be in trouble if I did not mention Margaret's cooking skills with her scones and different things that she puts together when I have been able to visit the park.

Membership of SARPRA is available to any person who is a permanent resident of a residential park who accepts the objectives and rules of the association. Membership ceases if a resident leaves the park. Since 2007, the elected committee has worked hard to establish recognition of the lifestyle. Many meetings have been held with relevant members of parliament, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, the Council on the Ageing (COTA) and other bodies involved in developing affordable housing for seniors.

One of the important things about SARPRA is that this amendment bill goes a long way to their achieving their long-term goals. SARPRA is connected to similar bodies interstate. With such colleagues, SARPRA supported the foundation of a national body following a meeting in April 2013 in Sydney. The National Alliance of Residential Parks and Communities (NARPAC) is developing as an organisation and gathering more knowledge about how all residential parks are growing into well-managed operations, obviously with satisfied home owners. The objective from SARPRA is that it expects that NARPAC will unify the various state organisations to give weight to address their concerns and increase their lobbying power.

The overall objective for SARPRA is to have a set of rules and a set of legislation that will apply to residential parks across Australia. Overall, that is the objective. Following the recent reintroduction of the bill to the parliament, Mr Sloper and Mrs Cairalle-Allen outlined several changes they wished to see made to the bill to strengthen rights and protections for residents. In new section 50A, they wanted to add 'market value' after 'purchasing the dwelling' so that it would provide:

the personal representative or other person must inform the park owner, in writing, of the intention to offer the dwelling for sale and give the park owner a first option to purchase the dwelling for market value.

That is a really important change. On this side, we are supportive of these amendments and I understand, as is normal, there are negotiations that go on between here and the other place which are yet to come.

SARPRA wants to see section 7 amended to ensure that the residents committees are elected by the residents of the relevant park and are not appointed by the park owners. In relation to agreements between park owners and residents, they want to see a basic standard agreement across all parks, one agreement as a base standard across all parks, so that people considering moving into a residential park have a standard set of rights and expectations.

Residents want to see the end of embedded networks. I am not sure if members know what embedded networks are, but they are one of the things that really annoy residents. They have been there for a long time and are probably left over from when of a lot of these places were actually caravan parks. It is where utilities such as electricity are provided to the park and individual bills are then distributed to the residents, with each resident having to pay an amount or fee to the park owner for him passing on that bill to them. That is what embedded networks are and, hopefully, this bill will address that—or, through negotiation, will see that addressed.

In relation to new section 138A, they want to see safety evacuation plans developed in consultation with the residents committee at each park, each park having a committee. They want to include the provision of an emergency warning system and evacuation plans. Currently, at a lot of these parks a resident will just drive around beeping their horn if there is a problem, and residents are not even sure what the emergency is. They really have to get on top of that; people want that safety. The changes provided in this bill are about cutting residents cost of living, strengthening their rights and improving their safety.

A lot of people do not understand the difference between residential parks and retirement villages, and it is important that people do understand the difference—especially if they are considering that sort of environment as a new change. In a residential park, you own your own house but you do not own the land. There are no entry or exit fees, other than real estate agent fees, and there are concessions for rent assistance. You can sell your house to anyone who meets the criteria and you can keep the profit.

With a retirement village, you do not own anything; it is just an agreement to live. Entry and exit fees apply, there are no concessions for rent assistance and you pretty much have to sell back to the owner at the end of it. So there is quite a bit of difference between residential parks and retirement villages. One issue we had at one of the parks at Waterloo Corner was a significant fire. Jeffries soils has a massive compound where they receive all sorts of organic material that over a long period of time breaks down. A fire started underground or in amongst this organic material, which resulted in smoke and a particulate kind of ash that floated over the residential park for probably a week.

The fire department could not get on top of the fire because it was so deeply embedded in this material. In that particular village, we were able to set up a roundtable meeting with the EPA, council, government representatives and the company to see what sort of communication we could set up in relation to early warning systems. I think now there is a quarterly meeting between those parties to make sure that the community around that area is consulted.

We helped both those parks, their presidents and the people they represent, with their newsletters. At the end of last year, along with the member for Ramsay in her previous role as a minister, we organised a seniors forum in the park that several hundred people attended to talk about all the current issues they were facing. One of the biggest issues with both these parks, and it is a feature in the Playford council area—and I hope not everywhere—is illegal dumping on all the roads. Probably 50 per cent of Taylor is rural, and we see cars, beds, tyres, you name it, dumped alongside and outside these parks.

The residents have worked a long time for this legislation. They put their committee together in 2007,11 years ago. They are going to welcome these changes, getting a standard agreement with their interstate colleagues and eventually getting a national standard agreement so that people do not have to worry about moving from one residential park to a residential park somewhere else in Adelaide, maybe in the seat of Narungga or wherever. People who do not want to be messed around at this stage in their life can move interstate knowing that they have a set of arrangements that will be very similar to or the same as those they have been used to.

I thank the president, the vice president and secretary of SARPRA for their hard and lengthy work to bring this about. I commend the amended bill to the house.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (12:13): I rise today to speak to the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which amends the Residential Parks Act 2007. The existing act regulates the relationship between park residents and owners of parks within South Australia. Tenants regulated by this act include those living in caravans and other demountable or movable structures, which are the forms of accommodation first envisaged under the act. Additional accommodation options are now more often used, including fixed annexes attached to caravans and even manufactured homes.

These options are quite immobile to the point where the caravans are put up on blocks, with wheels and axles becoming rusted and in no state to be moved easily. Residents of these parks essentially pay for the lease of the site on which the structures reside and therefore the residents do not incur any other ongoing fees, unlike retirement villages. Hence, the park resident can live in affordable accommodation in often scenic locations, depending on where the caravan park is located, with many caravan parks being in rural and coastal locations and offering a relaxed lifestyle.

The site, including the accommodation structure, can be transferred or assigned to another party. In effect, the purchaser is being assigned the remaining lease and the structure. Depending on the period left in the lease, it may be for a fixed term or, in fact, be periodic with no agreement in place. In either circumstance, security of tenancy is an issue. The purchasers might expect that they are able to reside on site, under their time frames, for as long as they wish, which is contrary to the terms of the site arrangements, which do not include provisions for this perceived tenancy security.

While part of the consideration paid is for the accommodation structure, the purchaser may not place a priority on the ability of that structure to be able to be located elsewhere at the end of a fixed or periodic term should it need to be moved, as the visual nature of that structure suggests permanency, meaning the temptation for the purchaser to treat any assignment and consideration paid is more akin to a house purchase, and the security of tenure and price multiplier that come with that, when really it should be treated as assigning a less secure residential park site agreement.

This perception leads to inflated prices being paid for the structure because it factors in location and scenery. This is where information, as with all significant purchases, is so important and the 14-day cooling-off period also assists. The introduction of the bill comes at a time when the appeal of residential park living is steadily growing due to its affordability and relaxed lifestyle. The current act does provide owners with the ability to offer long-term site arrangements, but there is no legal obligation to do so and therefore residential parks often choose not to offer longer leases and opt for fixed terms of 12 months.

Agreements can be negotiated between the two parties to reach a mutually acceptable decision; however, it is also the case that there are instances where no agreements or periodic short-term agreements are in place, affording little to no protection for residents' interests and long-term security. It is important to reach the right balance with these tenancy agreements in residential parks by protecting both the rights and interests of park owners to have a competitive business and develop the park where necessary and make a profit, as well as the residents' rights to have long-term security for their accommodation plans.

Currently, within the existing act, a fixed-term residential site agreement can be terminated at the end of an agreement with only 28 days' notice. However, the bill proposes that residential site agreements for a fixed term will no longer be able to be terminated at the end of the agreement for those agreements of more than five years or, in fact, if the resident has been a resident of the park for more than five years. The existing act also fails to provide residents with protections from periodic tenancy agreements, which begin at the end of a fixed-term agreement if a new fixed-term agreement is not entered into.

These current periodic tenancy agreements can be terminated on a 'no specific grounds' basis with 90 days' notice. The bill proposes that long-term residents' agreements of more than five years can be terminated only under statutory grounds and must be reviewed and reissued on the same terms and conditions or new negotiated conditions agreed by both parties. The statutory grounds for termination of agreements include a breach of the park rules, which would form part of all the site agreements, or if the park closes or intends to be redeveloped.

Park owners also have to give 90 days' notice, prior to the expiry of the site agreement, of any changes to the terms of the agreement. This provides for the residential security of long-term tenants, but does ensure that there is a mechanism for negotiations to be held to reach an agreement that both parties will benefit from. The bill proposes to introduce a waiver to this section if the resident and owner agree.

Under the existing act, if the residential park is sold, the new owner may terminate a residential park site agreement without specifying a ground for termination. Similarly, if a mortgagee takes possession of the residential park, the agreements terminate. The new bill proposes in these circumstances that the new owner or mortgagee takes on the obligations of the previous park owner in regard to site agreements.

Importantly, there is an obligation to disclose information in the establishment of residential park agreements. This includes requiring an agreement to be in writing and providing a signed copy of that agreement and the written park rules to the resident, with penalties applying for failing to do so. Additionally, the bill introduces a 14-day cooling-off period to ensure that prospective residents have sufficient time to properly consider an agreement and obtain legal advice to really understand the implications and security of tenure of that agreement and therefore the price they are paying.

There will be mandated residents committees for parks with more than 20 long-term residents and obligations on the park owner to facilitate meetings and respond to issues raised. This will serve as a forum for owners and residents to resolve issues or disputes in a consistent manner and to understand upcoming issues, therefore improving the understanding of each other's rights and obligations. Consumer and Business Services will advise and provide conciliation services. They have undertaken to update material for both parties and for it to be made available on their Consumer and Business Services website, including providing best practice park agreements, a direct mailout to residents and hosting several stakeholder forums.

The bill also provides for improved safety measures, including mandating a safety evacuation plan, copies of which are to be provided to residents and reviewed annually, because in some residential parks caravans are in close proximity to gas bottles at the next site. Should a fire break out, for example, it could quickly take hold and destroy or damage caravans quickly leading to loss of life.

A similar bill to this one was introduced to parliament by the previous government in September 2017. The bill before us today improves on the 2017 version by providing more clarity around termination of agreements for redevelopment, providing increased disclosure for any new resident and making several minor administrative amendments. The proposed bill has been developed in consultation with key stakeholders, including SARPRA, SA Parks, state government agencies and park residents.

In her second reaching explanation, the Attorney-General mentioned recent cases that highlighted the need for clarity around the rights and obligations of owners and residents, including Brighton Caravan Park. In relation to Brighton Caravan Park, I was deputy mayor at the time and saw firsthand the sensitivities around residential parks and site agreements in action. The Holdfast Bay council owned the prime land at Kingston Park that fronted directly onto the beach and had as its backdrop the picturesque Kingston Park cliff face.

The caravan park was leased to, managed and operated by a third party and a portion of the caravan park was made available to renters on annual fixed-term residential park site agreements. For years prior to the actual redevelopment, the park had minimal improvements and was in need of redevelopment. To that end, plans were put out for discussion with the community and it was known that at some point the caravan park would be redeveloped.

In addition, the entire area was part of a wider strategic plan to improve Kingston Park for the benefit of the wider community. A master plan was developed that consisted of seven stages. One of the stages was the upgrading of the caravan park. In addition, the plan included the extension of the coast park from the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club to Burnham Road. Another stage returned and revegetated the Kingston Park cliff face to the indigenous plantings of pre-European settlement, making it the first cliff face in metropolitan Adelaide to be returned to pre-European plantings.

To promote this, the walking paths through the cliff face were upgraded and re-fencing was undertaken. The nearby Tjilbruke Spring is a very important cultural site, and the stairs leading to the Tjilbruke monument were upgraded, as were parts of the coastal foreshore surrounding Tjilbruke Spring. There are also plans for further indigenous work around there, in consultation with the local Indigenous community.

The caravan park itself was suffering from declining revenues, dropping to $550,000 per annum. The Holdfast Bay council was looking to make use of the fantastic location and develop the entire caravan park and surrounding area as a premier seaside holiday destination and fully realise its role as a community asset, which in turn would revitalise the area, provide many benefits for the broader community and boost the local economy.

To that end, in January 2013 the council made a decision to upgrade the caravan park and initially gave the renters notice that the agreements would not be renewed after 30 June 2013 to facilitate the redevelopment. As previously stated, the council had been discussing the redevelopment for a number of years prior to the decision being taken. Following that announcement, the council sought to communicate with the people who were renting sites under annual agreements at the park, and to support and assist them with their relocation and find new accommodation, as they were understandably disappointed. Housing SA and other agencies also worked with them.

Some people accepted this assistance and some did not. Subsequently, the council agreed to give them further time to relocate, extending the time for them to relocate to November 2013. The council also offered generous financial assistance of $8,000 to assist people to either relocate their caravans or find alternative accommodation. Ten people took advantage of this assistance. Unfortunately, the then federal senator Nick Xenophon had by this time inserted himself into the matter, without any knowledge of council's overall strategic plan and the benefits it would have for the broader community.

Even knowing that Holdfast Bay council owned the land and had acted fairly and appropriately in trying to redevelop the caravan park, stunts were held comparing the situation to the movie The Castle to try to make council reverse its decision. The council, as the landowner, rightly did not relent. Rather than take the compensation package, some of the renters were advised to pursue court action, which the council sought to avoid but which unfortunately occurred in November 2013. In December of that year, the judge granted an injunction until the case could be heard in full at a later date.

A condition of this injunction was that the 16 plaintiffs gave undertakings as to damages to the court to protect the council from any damage it might suffer as a result of the injunction in the event the court ultimately found that the injunction was unnecessary. The trial commenced on 7 April 2014. It is worth noting that Nick Xenophon withdrew from representing the plaintiffs and the case was soon exposed as without basis.

Renter after renter was exposed as having been aware that they were in fixed-term rental agreements. Most admitted in court that they did not hold the assumptions alleged in their claim. After hearing from nine of the renters, they were forced to settle. Had they not settled, they would have been liable for the council's significant legal costs. As part of the settlement, judgement was entered in Holdfast Bay council's favour and the 16 people agreed to abide by the termination notices they had lawfully received to vacate the park by 30 June 2014.

The council provided an additional month free of rental charges for people to move to new accommodation. Tellingly, all renters lawfully complied and vacated by the due date. The appellants received no monetary compensation, no legal costs, and did not receive the rental assistance package paid to other renters who did not pursue legal action. This shows that there was no legal merit to the case. The council did not seek legal costs from the 16 plaintiffs; rather, each party bore their own costs. Holdfast Bay's legal costs were met by the local government's mutual liability scheme. As such, the council's costs were met by the insurers and not by the ratepayers of Holdfast Bay.

Since this time, the caravan park has had a $3 million upgrade, including where the renters previously resided, and the entire park is available to the broad community and tourists. The income from the park has increased to $850,000, which helps to keep down the rates burden for all Holdfast Bay ratepayers year on year. The income is projected to continue to increase, as well as additionally boost the local economy because of an increase in visitation to the area. Income-producing assets such as this are a mechanisms which allow councils to be able to continue to provide services is a cost-effective manner.

The council is also looking to commit a further $1 million for an upgrade of the coast park to create further benefit for the broad community. Nick Xenophon, without knowledge of council's overall strategic plan, sought to identify an issue for political means and create a stunt around it at the expense of the broader Holdfast Bay community when it was proven there was no legal basis. He then walked away once he had extracted political mileage and then lost the rental assistance package for all those who went to court on his advice.

The good people of Kingston Park and Seacliff—who are in the electorate of Black; Brighton and Hove in Gibson; Somerton Park, Glenelg South, Glenelg and Glenelg East in Morphett; and Glenelg North in Colton—remember this all too well. I say on their behalf that they wanted substance over stunts in 2014 and they still want it in 2018. That is exactly what they voted for in March of this year, and it is what they will get with Liberal government members along the coast in Colton, Black, Morphett and Gibson, and more generally throughout the state. This bill is about substance and it strikes a fair balance between protecting the rights of resident and the interests of park owners to support the growth of their parks.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (12:32): I will make a few comments on this bill and indicate the Labor Party's support. I do so because approximately 450 to 500 people live in Hillier Park, which is a major residential park in my area. I have a couple of other smaller parks in my area that would also be impacted by this bill. Firstly, I would like to thank the staff from Consumer and Business Services who, as I recall, came out last year to talk to residents about the former draft bill proposed by the then Labor government.

The issues the residents raised with me at the time are still important to them today. These include the security of tenure, which is addressed in this bill; the disclosure of information prior to purchase, as it is very important that people actually understand what they are buying; the safety of the parks; and payment of compensation when a resident exits the park. The residents were keen to know about what happens upon exiting the park, particularly in the case of an unplanned exit—for example, when a resident passes away.

The residents raised a few other issues with me as well. Some of these issues do not need to be addressed by this bill, but I think it is still important to mention them. For instance, residents are concerned about the structure of ongoing fees, and how fees are regulated, in order to ensure they are maintained at a reasonable level. Another more recent issue is the provision of energy and power to individual zones. I think the member for Taylor touched upon that. Hillier Park has grown over the years.

The older part has one meter for around 80 units, so those residents buy their power through the park and do not have a choice of retailer. As such, they often do not get the benefits or opportunities of independent consumers. We are seeking to address that, and we are working closely now with SA Power Networks. I hope to have a discussion with the Minister for Energy and Mining to see whether we can use the virtual power plant concept to assist those residents, which would be a good way to reduce power costs for those residents in parks.

We have to remember that, in the main, people who come to residential parks are generally on the age pension or some sort of pension. They are generally people who have less wealth. They pick the parks because they provide security, which is important in terms of personal safety, and they also provide a sense of community. I do quite a bit of work with the park committee and residents to ensure that their wellbeing is maintained. I should also mention that I have an excellent working relationship with the park managers and park owners. Martin Banham does a really good job in what can be a difficult market as, on the one hand, parks need to get a reasonable return on their investment but, on the other hand, you need to make sure you protect the rights of tenants on that site.

In March 2016, the previous government released a discussion paper in regard to this and progressed the bill through parliament in September last year. It then elapsed when parliament prorogued. On my understanding, about 2,600 residents across the state were impacted by the proposal. As I understand it, stakeholders consulted included the South Australian Residential Parks Residents Association, SA Parks, state government agencies—particularly Consumer and Business Services—and residents themselves.

Comparing this bill with the one proposed by the previous Labor government, there are some differences at clause 7, and parts of clause 12, clause 13, parts of 18 and parts of 25, and there are new sections that did not appear in the Labor proposal or in the amendments filed in the Legislative Council. We will work through those changes. We will certainly analyse them during the committee stage to make sure that they do not dilute in any way—and I am not suggesting they do—those protections we seek to provide to residents in those parks. I am sure that my colleague the member for Ramsay will address those issues during the committee stage.

The bill improves things, and we clearly want to support that. One thing we also need to mention, though—and it is something I had cause to reflect on when we were in government—is that we often forget this group of residents in a whole range of other programs. For example, we have a number of programs to deal with people downsizing, etc., and there are a whole range of programs across government, but we seem to forget this group. This group is probably one of the more vulnerable age groups in our community because, generally speaking, they have less personal financial wealth and also need some support. With those few comments, I indicate my support for the bill, subject to any changes we may wish to make during the committee stage.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:38): I thank all members for their contribution to the debate in considering the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018. Particularly, as the contributions have identified some areas of concern, I will traverse a number of these in the contribution I am about to make.

Whether those matters raised reflect a mistaken understanding of what is before the parliament, and what has been before the parliament previously, or whether there is some mischievous intent, I do not know. But I will try as best I can to deal with a number of them. The legislation is important. It is essentially to amend 2007 statutory law that was established to protect the interests and define the entitlements of both the occupiers and owners of property in this form of accommodation.

Residential parks, put simply—and this has been much more eruditely identified in previous contributions, especially by the member for Morphett, who was the former mayor of Holdfast Bay, and what a spectacular mayor he was—relate to people who live in their own dwelling on someone else's land. They are quite distinctive as a type of accommodation arrangement. They are probably best described as an affordable option of housing arrangement, particularly more accessible because generally they are cheaper than a number of others for those who are in limited financial circumstances.

However, if one looks at where the residential parks are around South Australia, they enjoy an opportunity to reside often in lovely rural and/or coastal locations, which means they have an amenity of looking at scenery which is often idyllic and which in itself, I am sure, has a therapeutic value if nothing else. This is where, I suppose, it is a type of accommodation which, because of this combination, attracts some interesting dynamics; that is, the dwelling itself may be seen as relatively basic, some might even argue substandard, but in a circumstance where it is utilitarian and where the caravan or transportable is the more common example of the type of dwelling that is on these parks.

In the contributions in debate, we heard that they can go across to a three-bedroom brick home, as applies in some of the facilities explained by the member for Finniss in his electorate, and have the look and feel more of retirement village rather than a residential park. So the observation of these arrangements, together with how they apply and what agreements and licensing or permit arrangements sit behind them, is quite diverse. However, I think it is fair to say that on balance they are modest accommodation in great locations for an affordable price.

As I say, the complication comes with these because sometimes the transfer of ownership of the entitlement enjoyed by the owner at any one time to a new owner may in fact reflect a higher value than one might expect for the value of the dwelling itself; that is, the caravan might, if sold on its own, attract a value of $2,000 but, because it is already in situ in a residential park, in a desirable location, the price that is paid for that in consideration of the transfer of the interest in the residential park to a new owner maybe we would see as inflated relative to the value of the dwelling that one would otherwise receive.

This is where it starts to unravel when we start to look at some of the recommendations put by the member for Taylor, for example, who wants us to add in 'market value' to the bill. Anyway, let's just go to the bill itself.

The residential park laws that are being changed largely are as follows, and there are only a few of them, so I want to recount them for when we look at how they were to be amended under the previous bill. Firstly, under the current law, we have residential site agreements for a fixed term that can be terminated at the end of an agreement with only 28 days' notice. These new reforms will ensure that residential site agreements for a fixed term will no longer be able to be terminated at the end of the agreement, if those agreements had been for more than five years or if the resident had been a resident of the park for more than five years. That is a major change in relation to security of occupancy.

Under the current law, at the end of a fixed-term agreement, residents are placed on a periodic tenancy agreement which can be terminated on no specific grounds with 90 days' notice. To some degree, it is a little bit like residential tenancy arrangements for tenants otherwise under different forms. This new reform proposes that for residents of more than five years, agreements will only be able to be terminated under statutory grounds and must be reviewed and reissued on the same terms and conditions, or new agreed conditions if they seek to, with a further review date.

If the owner proposes to change the terms of agreement, 90 days' notice will be required prior to the expiry of the agreement. Penalties are proposed to ensure the agreements comply with the act. It is proposed under this bill to expand the available statutory grounds for termination of agreements to include a breach of the park rules, which would form part of all site agreements, or if the park closes or intends to be redeveloped.

If the park owner intends to redevelop a site, it is proposed that homes may be relocated to another site in the park or in a park owned by the same owner, if the resident agrees. The park owner may also offer to buy a home for an agreed price. If the resident and owner are not able to reach an agreement, the resident or owner may apply to the tribunal for resolution of the dispute. Of course, the bill proposes to introduce a waiver to this section if the resident and owner agree. So this is a major area of reform, providing for a substantial rewrite in favour of the security of the tenant.

Thirdly, under the current law, if the residential park is sold the new owner may terminate a residential park site agreement without specifying a ground of termination. Under this new law, it will no longer be a ground for termination if a residential park is sold or otherwise transferred to new owners. Similarly, agreements are terminated under current law, if the mortgagee takes possession of the residential park. Under the new law, the mortgagee takes on the obligations as if they were the park owner. Again, I think they are two very important initiatives in favour of the tenancy.

Following the death of a resident, the agreement is assigned with the park owner's consent under current law. Under the new law, it is proposed that if the dwelling is to be sold by the estate the park owners will be given the first option to purchase the dwelling for an agreed amount. The estate does not have to accept the offer. Next, under current law, prospective residents are given a Form J and a copy of any park rules, if in writing, and this may only happen at the time of signing the agreement. The new strict obligations that are going to be under this new law require a detailed disclosure statement and site condition report in the form approved by the commissioner together with the new education publications to be given to all prospective residents before signing a new agreement or taking over an existing agreement.

Again, this is very much modelled on the consumer protection laws that were established way back under the Residential Tenancies Act, which has had a number of iterations since which require absolute full disclosure—identification of what is there, what is damaged, what is not, who owns what—and a very clear notice in that regard. At present, there is no cooling-off period. The new law provides for a 14-day cooling-off period, proposed to ensure prospective residents are not pressured and can seek advice.

Currently, there is no requirement for park rules to be in writing or residents to be notified of any changes when they are amended. Under the new regime, if there are any park rules in place, they need to be in writing, they have to form part of the agreement and residents will be advised of any changes to the park rules. Two other important initiatives are that at present there is no requirement for a written plan regarding the safety evacuation of the park under the act, as has been pointed out by a number of the contributors to this debate. That produces major problems, especially if someone is frail or aged, in the event of an evacuation or other emergency. The provision in this bill is to introduce measures to ensure a safety evacuation is in place and reviewed once a year.

At present, residents committees may be formed under the current provision. Under the new rules, there will be amendments to mandate residents committees in all parks where there are more than 20 long-term residents, and it is proposed that any matter raised through a committee and brought to the attention of the owner will need to be considered and responded to by the owner in writing within one month. There are penalties that apply to all these, and I urge members to view them.

Let's quickly consider what happened with this bill, and why I am a little puzzled about why some of these issues have been raised late by members of the opposition. First, this bill combines the previous 2017 bill that the former Labor government introduced to the parliament last year, which did not pass the upper house before the conclusion of the parliament and caretaker mode commenced. Amendments to that bill, which are in this bill, consistent with the then Liberal opposition's position and which have been added back in, do four things:

1. They redraft section 70A to make the provision clearer to understand regarding options to be offered by the owner and the right of either party to make an application to SACAT if agreement cannot be reached.

2. They insert section 14(1b) to allow for an exemption from providing a resident with the disclosure documents within the 14-day cooling-off period if the agreement is for a short term and, due to unforeseen circumstances, a resident may need to move in immediately.

3. They insert section 17B(3a), that a party to an agreement subject to review does not withhold consent to a variation in terms unreasonably, and if one of the parties thinks consent has been unreasonably withheld they may make application for an order from SACAT.

4. They make some other minor administrative changes.

Even then, since the change of government and the further consultation with park owners and residents in respect of the current bill, there are three more amendments. One is for a provision of sections 17B(8) and (9), which allows a resident who would prefer to have or remain on a periodical agreement to later change their mind and enter into a fixed-term agreement. A waiver in accordance with section 17B(7) will also no longer apply to an agreement assigned to a new resident.

Secondly, new sections 48(12) to (15) have been inserted to ensure that a prospective purchaser of a dwelling is advised to contact the park owner to request the disclosure information. Thirdly, section 70A(4) has been inserted regarding terminating an agreement for redevelopment to ensure that a resident does not unreasonably refuse an offer made by the park owner.

This is a bill that had its birth and gestation in the era of the Labor administration. There are changes in it that reflect what the then opposition proposed to support if the then government had progressed this bill with any diligence at the time. They did not; for whatever reason they saw fit, this was not important enough and they let it lapse. Bear in mind the last day of the 2017 legislative agenda, when we spent almost the entire day arguing about whether or not we had the fairness clause in relation to electoral boundaries. That was the priority of the then government.

This was legislation that we had largely agreed on, largely supported back in 2007, and the amendment of which we supported. We were happy to move it on, but the former government did not. That is why I find it a bit—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Point of order: how is this relevant to the bill at hand?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I bring the Attorney back to the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am now responding to the submissions made. That is why I find it rather galling to find circumstances before us, presented again here today, that suggest that in some way there needs to be further protection or that it is a situation where people are left vulnerable because of our not progressing this bill.

We have not only progressed the bill but have done everything responsible that the previous government failed to do. To give the best example of that, I found it laughable when I read the member for Kaurna's comments in the local paper just before the state election in relation to a local residential park in his electorate, the Moana caravan park, where the permanent residents were worried about their continued occupancy entitlement immediately prior to the election.

The situation is that it is a residential park, obviously it is a caravan park as well, in the member for Kaurna's electorate, but there were residents who had been residents for some time and who were going to be offered a two-year continuation of tenancy agreement to enable them to continue to occupy. According to media reports, they apparently went off to the member for Kaurna to get some advice about this because they were worried about their long-term occupancy. Some of them had been there for many years. Quite reasonably, they go to their local member.

He does not say, 'I am terribly sorry. We didn't give this much priority when we were in government. We sort of let it lapse. I sat in the cabinet and this was such a big deal and so important to you that we do it.' No. According to the local paper at the time, he talks to them about the council's agenda and what they might be doing and makes the point:

We've been in the process of introducing new legislation of these parks to provide greater rights for residents so when their contracts come to an end, there will be automatic renewal of their contracts.

This is what he told the people in his electorate via the media in March 2018, minutes before the election. This is after they have dumped it the year before. How obscene. That is not what he had done. He had sat in a government that had sat on its hands that did bugger-all for these people and failed to give them the protection—

Mr PICTON: Point of order: reflecting on a member. We have heard some diatribe from the Attorney-General in terms of this. The previous government did pass this through this chamber and was trying to progress it through the other place. My comments were absolutely accurate. I ask her to withdraw her comments and get on with debating the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is?

Mr PICTON: Reflecting on a member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not know that it was too seriously, honestly, member for Kaurna. Have you taken offence at what the Attorney said?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What did the Attorney say?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was quoting what was reported in the local paper as to what Mr Picton said. If he wants to give a personal explanation to say that he was misquoted in some way, he is welcome to.

Mr Picton: Wait for the Speaker to make his ruling.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He asked me a question. Did you not hear that bit?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What I might suggest is that in the interests of this debate—it is two minutes to one—the Attorney, for the sake of the decorum of the house, withdraw her comment and continue until 1 o'clock and then adjourn the debate. Please, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure what I am actually withdrawing. I read the quote out, 'We've been in the process—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order was a personal reflection on the member.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to withdraw that—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —because it gets better. The member presents publicly and to his electorate as though in some way he is progressing the support for these people. If his government had progressed this through the parliament, this would have been law and these people in March 2018 would have been protected.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Point of order: my concern is relevance, given that this bill in its previous form did pass this house. I think the comments are inaccurate.

Mr Picton: I voted for the legislation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, order! Attorney, I will just deal with this point of order. Member for Ramsay, what is your point of order?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: It is relevance to the debate. I would like the Attorney to wrap up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not accept that point of order. The Attorney-General's contribution is relevant.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And, for the benefit of the member, remember that the parliament does comprise two houses of parliament and legislation also requires the approval of Executive Council. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.