Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 12 September 2019.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question to the minister is: what consultation did he and the government conduct on the bill with regional newspapers?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have been advised that agencies were asked to give feedback on the consultation process with country newspapers. I am also advised that the consultation process was predominantly handled prior to the change of government and that at that time there was no recollection of any direct consultation with country newspapers.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Further to the minister's answer, agencies were to report back on the consultations that they conducted. Which of the agencies reported back on the details of the consultation?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The advice I have here is that the environmental protection agency was consulted. The EPA only publishes notices in regional newspapers on an ad hoc basis for significant matters relating to the Environment Protection Act 1993 and will continue to do so. The Attorney-General's Department only publishes notices related to the Gaming Machines Act 1992 in The Advertiser and will continue to do so. There have been no examples or any objections to notices relevant to the Public Assemblies Act 1972, so there will be no impact.

Notices to businesses regarding local aerodrome fees under the Aerodrome Fees Act 1998 are proposed to be posted on the website rather than in a regional newspaper. Without the simplify bill, freight users will have to keep physical notes of notices placed in regional newspapers, as well as being able to access information online. Notices under the Air Transport (Route Licensing—Passenger Services) Act 2002 will likely remain in newspapers, especially those in wider circulation, as declared routes are of interest to industry in terms of competing for markets.

Notices under section 11B(2)(c) of the Geographical Names Act 1991 currently require councils to advertise major proposals in a newspaper. In future, councils will have the opportunity to place a notice on their website, so if they deem a proposal to be contentious they can still advertise in the local newspaper. The ability for notices to be made in a regional newspaper under both the Impounding Act 1920 and the Livestock Act 1997 remains in both and will continue to be utilised, as they are the best way of reaching the community.

The Essential Services Commission of South Australia has indicated that, regarding the AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act 1999, the Maritime Services (Access) Act 2000 and the Railways (Operations and Access) Act 1997 where reviews or decisions have a strong regional focus the commission may continue to publish notices in regional newspapers. These notices occur on an average of once a year.

Expenditure by the South Australian government on public notices in all regional publications in all departments totalled $171,421 in 2016-17 and $165,425 in 2017-18. The expenditure on public notices in regional publications is considerably smaller than expenditure by the South Australian government on public notices, which totalled $414,459 in 2016-17 and $418,890 in 2017-18. From memory, there has actually been an increase in the amount of expenditure on public notices in regional newspapers since the change of government.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My third question on clause 1 is: what feedback did the primary industries department provide on the details of their consultation?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I provided that in my previous answer.

The CHAIR: We have had three questions, member for Lee. The question before the Chair is that clause 1 stand as printed.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The CHAIR: Clause 2, member for Lee, you have three amendments in your name. Are you looking to move one, two or three of them?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will speak to the first amendment. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Mullighan–1]—

Page 6, lines 10 to 12 [clause 2(2)(a) to (c)]—Delete paragraphs (a) to (c) (inclusive)

I was grateful for the contributions of a number of other members to the second reading debate—not unexpectedly, a contribution from the Deputy Premier, the member for Narrunga and the member for Hammond.

The Deputy Premier, if my memory serves me correctly, spent most of the time extolling the virtues of the capacity to move to electronic conveyancing and that the bill we have before us will in part facilitate that. I indicate that we are not only entirely supportive of those elements of the bill but that indeed it was the former Labor government who went off on the electronic conveyancing initiative, funded the ICT systems replacement and introduced that reform into the conveyancing industry.

However, aside from that, there were some reflections from the Deputy Premier on The Islander newspaper, which is, as I understand it, distributed on Kangaroo Island. The Deputy Premier was the first of a number of those members opposite who extolled the virtues of these small regional community newspapers moving to online distribution, rather than the hard-copy distribution, and how much more beneficial it was for the regional communities they serve.

I am the representative of the demographically oldest electorate in South Australia or, if not, it is very close to it. The other competing electorates in that regard are most usually regional electorates. It is reasonable to say—in fact, there has been a lot of data that has been produced in the last 15 to 20 years as online sources of information and access to them has become more and more prevalent—that it is often the more elderly in our community who are locked out of accessing information online because they may not have either the devices or the capabilities for utilising those devices in order to access that information.

I am sure there are a number of members of the community on Kangaroo Island who are used to their printed copy of The Islander who may feel bereft at the soon to be lack of information from the state government about important notices being published by various departments in that regard. Indeed, the Deputy Premier, much to my interest of course because I certainly have not read the pages of The Islander as much as she, remembered quite fondly that perhaps the most telling remembrance she had of the contributions of The Islander was the column that the 'little old lady used to recount the island gossip in'.

I would have thought that there was a slightly broader role for comments in The Islander in communicating matters of importance to the community rather than gossip, which is really what we are here to talk about, which is important public notices. For many decades this parliament has taken the view that these notices should be published in regional newspapers in order to best disseminate them to the community. The first of my amendments speaks to this. It seeks to remove those sections of clause 2 that provide for the commencement of different parts of the bill.

After the Deputy Premier, of course, we moved on to the member for Narungga, who fulsomely declared to the house that he has a direct interest in the Yorke Peninsula Country Times, and good on him. He is someone who has direct experience with regional newspapers and the importance of publishing regional newspapers. In fact, I think he was telling the house that, of a circulation of approximately 7,000 newspapers, it reaches a fair proportion, more than 25 per cent, of his 25,000 electors in the seat of Narungga, so it is quite a penetrating circulation from that particular journal.

He even went on to tell the house that advertising is an important source of revenue for these papers but qualified that by saying that private advertising is more important than public advertising, which I thought was a remarkable claim to make, really, because we are talking about periodic advertising that happens from time to time. Even given the scant examples the minister just provided to us of agencies regaling the consultation they undertook—or perhaps, if we are honest, did not undertake—with regard to the bill, I would have thought that, whether it is an annual publication of a notice, a seasonal publication of a notice or a more frequent publication of a notice, advertising revenue is absolutely critical.

The figures that we have been provided by the minister already show a declining advertising spend, from $171,000 in the 2016-17 financial year to $165,000 in the 2017-18 financial year. The member for Narungga says, 'Don't worry, you can trust us. You can trust this Liberal government. We will continue to spend money on these ads in regional newspapers.' Well, I do not think we can have any faith in that comment. I do not think we can have any faith in this government to maintain, let alone increase, a spend on regional advertising.

The reason is simple: while the minister, in his opening remarks in his second reading contribution, said that this is a red-tape reduction bill aiming to relieve red tape and costs for consumers and businesses, we know that the vast majority of the changes to the 27 acts that this bill seeks to make are to remove a cost-incurring requirement to advertise in paper form in these regional newspapers.

I think that is a bad thing. We struggle for independent media coverage generally throughout the community in the modern day, let alone through the medium of these regional newspapers. We see the capacity here where ministers will receive written advice from their agencies about how these public notices should best be communicated to regional communities and, by and large, I do not think it is a stretch of the imagination to imagine that a department will recommend a cheaper way of advertising these public notices.

I am assured by the minister, and I think it does give us some heart, that there are some commitments from the agencies to continue with some notices in hard-copy form in newspapers. I think that is a good thing. Air transport routes, of course—a requirement of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure—are really important for people to understand in their regional newspapers. I remember a few years ago we had uncertainty about the air services provider up to Port Augusta, which I know would be a considerable concern for the member for Stuart, for example.

I am sure that the member for Mount Gambier, who also has a regional airport and a community that relies on air services to differing extents, would also feel that that is an important notice but not necessarily the local aerodrome fees, which can be published on the AGD website. It would be unparliamentary for me to ask for a straw poll of members to indicate the last time they accessed the Attorney-General's Department website, but I would wager—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: The last time I wanted to know what the aerodrome fees were.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You do not know what an aerodrome fee is?

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: No, I said, 'The last time I wanted to know what the aerodrome fees were.'

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, it is almost self-explanatory: it is a fee charged to or by an aerodrome. It does not require much lateral thinking to chase that one down and corner it comprehensively. The Geographical Names Act, of course, is important to local communities. That is because the Geographical Names Act is often invoked for the naming of a new suburb or changing the name of an existing suburb.

That is a matter of community interest. There is no question about that, particularly when the Deputy Premier is running around trying to do the work on behalf of the Burnside council to annex different parts of metropolitan Adelaide and bring them into Burnside. This is some sort of Middle Ages, European endeavour here, to annex property and land and bring it under the auspices of a different ruler.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: Imperialism.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a form of imperialism and, given it is Burnside, perhaps even cultural imperialism as well. That is of key community interest. We have even heard the blowback from some of those other communities not wanting to be annexed into the City of Burnside in the way that the Deputy Premier was envisaging, and for good reason, most probably. Maybe they thought they were going to lose their local member and pick up the Deputy Premier. Maybe that is the source of their concern rather than just changing council area, but you can see—

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, can I just interrupt for a moment. Ordinarily, when speaking to a clause, we allow about 15 minutes—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Should we start now?

The CHAIR: —and we are getting close to that. We guessed, but I think there are about three minutes left.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Okay. No worries.

The CHAIR: Can I just add—I will allow you this extra time—that I think 'aerodrome' is a wonderfully old-fashioned word.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is.

The CHAIR: It is much better than 'airport'.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes. I am sure we can all remember the times when people took a zeppelin to the local aerodrome to go on their first travels. I can understand that these matters are of great community importance but, once again, according to the information that has just been furnished to the house by the minister, this will not be up to a minister to make a decision about whether that is advertised in a community newspaper. In fact, now we learn that that is going to be derogated to a council to make a decision about how that is advertised. Indeed, it might be advertised on a council website.

I like to think that I try to gain as much information from my local community as frequently as possible, but I must admit, other than development applications and reminding myself whether it is the green or the yellow bin night on a Thursday night, I do not trawl through the local council website all that often. If somebody was about to be some summarily annexed from Beaumont to Burnside or from Springfield to Heathfield or whatever the nefarious plans of the Deputy Premier were in her local community, I cannot imagine that people should have to rely on that. In the interests of timeliness, I will leave my remarks on my first amendment there.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The government does not support the amendment. When he thought we were going into committee the last time we sat, the member for Lee expressed to me that he wanted these done en bloc. I do not know whether he has changed his mind.

The CHAIR: Really, minister, that is his prerogative.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I just want to put that on the record.

The CHAIR: Yes, okay, but that is his prerogative.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That was the conversation that he had with me prior, which I agreed to. I have a couple of points in response to the member for Lee. First of all, as far as a consultation goes, there was a perfect opportunity to ask the Treasurer, who is responsible for this bill in the cabinet, that question when the bill was passed unamended and without any attempts for amendments from the Labor Party in the upper house just a couple of months ago.

I am advised that the Treasurer did, in actual fact, speak to a number of country newspapers. If it was such a concern to the opposition, they had that opportunity to actually ask that question when they had the Treasurer in the chamber. They chose not to and they actually chose not to have amendments such as these in the bill when they first introduced them to parliament in 2017 when they were the government.

They also chose not to work with Independent members or crossbench members in the Legislative Council to attempt to introduce these amendments in the Legislative Council. Instead, there has been some conversion on the road to Damascus between the houses and one can only speculate as to the motivation of the opposition for doing so.

I will take this opportunity to point out that I am advised that there is no reference to regional newspapers in any of the acts that are being amended. The reference to newspapers is statewide newspapers. I am more than happy to put the Marshall Liberal government's commitment to regional South Australia up against the previous government's commitments to regional South Australia, even for a small thing like where they spend their money.

If we look at the Port Pirie Recorder in the member for Frome's electorate, in the last year of the Weatherill government the government spent $2,859.35 on advertising in the printed paper in the Port Pirie Recorder. In the first year of the Marshall government they spent $6,129.01.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: We spent $5 million building them a new oval in Port Pirie.

The CHAIR: The member for Mawson is called to order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Then, if we look at the member for Mount Gambier's electorate, in the last year of the Weatherill government $5,895.48 was spent on advertising in The Border Watch, and in the first year of the Marshall government, which is committed to the regions, the figure is $8,213.96, so nearly $8,214—just a bee's whisker off that.

Again, in The South Eastern Times, $1,360.90 was spent by the former Labor government in its last year in office, and $2,871.47 in the first year of the Marshall Liberal government. Even something as small as expenditure on classified advertising in regional South Australia illustrates that the Liberal Party backs the regions.

If you look at the difference in the total spend with all the regional newspapers, $165,424.65 was spent in the last year of the Weatherill government, the previous Labor government, and $225,528.25 was spent in the first year of the Marshall Liberal government. I am talking about financial years in all those instances.

The government does not support these amendments because the amendments are not necessary for the advertising to continue in regional newspapers. The reference is predominantly about statewide newspapers. I am not quite sure about the understanding that Murdoch Mullighan has about the bill itself, but I am advised that the major change in this particular bill is the requirement to use a statewide newspaper.

We have shown that we are committed to regional newspapers. There is no legal requirement, as far as I understand, for this government to use regional newspapers, but our record, just in our very first year, shows our commitment to regional South Australia by using those regional newspapers.

I think that one has to question the motivation of the member for Lee and the opposition for raising these amendments at this very late moment when they had every opportunity to do so, first of all, when they introduced the bill when they were in government and they controlled this chamber, and their second opportunity was when the bill was introduced in the upper house.

Since 1975, the government has not controlled the upper house with its numbers. It has always had to work with the opposition or it has had to work with Independent members of the parliament in order to get legislation through. We all know in that situation that if you are passionate about making a change to legislation that is your best chance of actually making that change, but this shows that there was no passion in this from those opposite—no passion whatsoever, just politics. It is for those reasons that we do not support the amendments. The amendments are not necessary, and so we will not be supporting them.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can advise the member for Unley why previously I had indicated that we were prepared to move amendments on particular clauses en bloc. That is because I, along with what I understand to be a majority of other members in this place, on the last sitting day that we were here discussing this bill were hoping to get through it as quickly as possible so we could resume the debate on the Surrogacy Bill, which is a government bill, which unfortunately has continually been adjourned time and again by the government.

I think that is regrettable, and once again we are using the simplify bill now to effectively run down the clock to the end of the day because the government is still not prepared to bring on the Surrogacy Bill—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and withholds law reform—

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, there is a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —from people who are seeking better access to surrogacy arrangements.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, there is a point of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The member is imputing improper motives and I ask that he withdraw.

The CHAIR: I do not uphold that point of order, but I would take a point of order on relevance. I think the member for Lee really needs to come back to his amendment and speak to that, please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In that way, I answer the minister's query about why the change of approach in moving these amendments and doing it individually. I understand that in doing so I am conducting the will of the house to try to push that minute hand around at least one more 360-degree revolution so that we can up stumps without an adjournment debate. That is, as I understand it, what we are here to do. That is why we are moving them one by one.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: On a point of order, you have already ruled—

The CHAIR: Yes, I am going to uphold that point of order this time, minister. Member for Lee, could you come back to the amendment that you have moved, please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I was saying, despite this new piece of information from the minister—that we are now talking about statewide newspapers and not necessarily discrete regional newspapers, which service regional communities—I do not believe that to be the case at all. In fact, we have had member after member of the government benches who have made reference to the importance of newspapers in their electorates.

I made reference to the Deputy Premier before and her comments about The Islander and; the member for Narungga and his comments about the Yorke Peninsula Country Times. We even had the member for Hammond speak about The Border Times, The Murray Valley Standard, TheSouthern Argus, The Times (in Victor Harbor I am talking about there), The Lakelander, a new one to my knowledge, and I thank him for lifting our brow about that, and the Magnum Mag, another one with which I was previously unfamiliar. Who says you don't learn something every day, Chair?

That is why this is important. That is why these amendments are important—to stick up for all these papers and make sure that there remains an obligation on these government agencies to support these regional newspapers. I cannot believe that we now have now a minister representing a Liberal government in this state who is saying that it is no longer important to enshrine in law a requirement for a government to advertise as broadly as possible, including in regional newspapers, and that we should instead leave it up to the discretion of the minister of the day.

As much as they might think that they are travelling well politically at the moment, with one of the most poorly received budgets in recent times and the shambles of land tax reform, I assure those opposite that, as much as they might be enjoying their positions and perspectives at the moment, they will not be there forever. I would have thought they would like protection for these country and regional newspapers to make sure that government agencies, of the $20 billion that is spent each year as a state budget, are making a defined contribution to these papers.

That is why this amendment should be supported by those opposite. I think it will rest heavy on their shoulders if they vote against it because, mark my words, we will be telling all those regional newspapers that have come and spoken to us since this bill was introduced upstairs, raising concerns about a loss of advertising revenue, that it was the minister and those opposite, members of the Liberal parliamentary party, who are making sure there is no longer a requirement for government agencies to advertise in their papers in this way. I think it is a dreadful move by them.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The cat is out of the bag. The member for Lee has just told this place that you cannot trust Labor to look after the regions without legislation. That is what he has just said. That is the only interpretation of what the member for Lee has said.

Our constituents know that we understand regional South Australia. That is why we have increased our spend in regional newspapers in South Australia, and we did not need legislation to do it. There is no legislation there that tells us we must do it now, as far as I am advised. We are also understanding what this is about for the ALP, and that is it is about—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have introduced the amendment. There has been a contribution on it—

The CHAIR: You have moved the amendment, yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and I have made closing remarks on the amendment. Isn't now the time to actually be moving the amendment?

The CHAIR: In fact, I have had a discussion about this with the Clerk and my understanding is that the minister can speak up to three times, up to 15 minutes every time on each and every clause.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This technically could go for 66 hours; if that is the will of the house, no worries, no problem.

The CHAIR: As long as you are both aware of that, I am happy. Minister, you have the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Of course, this was not the first time that Labor could not trust itself to do the right thing. Remember the 'Put your family first' campaign in 2010 to hold the seat of Mawson. Do you remember that? When they pretended—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Point of order.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, minister, and I am anticipating—but away you go.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Relevance.

The CHAIR: Relevance. I uphold that point of order.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Actually, that is a good point. I am upholding the point of order, but you were not in your seat, member for Light. After all that, please let's get back to the task at hand. Minister, I will bring you back to the clause at hand, please.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes, and I thank you for that, sir, but it is obvious now that there is a pattern.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Light, you are called to order. You have had your point of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is a pattern with those opposite: they cannot be trusted to do the right thing; they cannot be trusted to look after regional South Australia. There is no other way of interpreting what the member for Lee said other than the fact, 'You better put this in legislation because we ain't going to do it.' There is no doubt that that was the message that came from the member for Lee, but it is no surprise to members like yourself, sir, the member for Narungga and other regional members. That is no surprise. They have experienced 16 years of Labor government and tokenistic visits through country cabinets.

One has to ask: why is it that none of these amendments were put forward when Labor first introduced the bill when they were in government? They had the opportunity, they had the control of the House of Assembly, they had the opportunity to work with both the opposition and the crossbenchers in the upper house and they also had that opportunity when the bill was reintroduced into the upper house under the new government—not a peep. As a matter of fact, that is one of the shortest pieces of Hansard I have seen for quite some time in the contribution from the opposition in the upper house.

I put it to you that regional newspapers are better off today than they were before 18 March. The figures I read into Hansard earlier demonstrate that. That is real money. No legislation was needed to do that. That is a commitment from this government—that we will continue to support regional South Australia. Unlike those opposite, we do not need legislation in order to do that.

Mr BELL: I rise to support the amendment and inform the house that I will not be proceeding with my amendments because these are more streamlined and articulated in a simpler manner. I have a couple of comments around this. Whilst the minister says that regional areas are better off today than they were under a previous government, there is no guarantee that they will be better off tomorrow.

There are a lot of good parts to this bill, but the part that I take particular issue with is the removal of the requirement for the government to advertise in statewide or regional papers. There is no guarantee that we are going to be better off tomorrow. In fact, it is a perplexing situation when you are trying to defend a position and say, 'Trust us, because we know it's important and we will be directing our departments to advertise in regional papers.' If you think about that, that is a fair enough commitment, so why not keep the clause in the existing legislation that mandates it?

If you are saying that you agree that advertising in regional papers is important, where is the issue in keeping the legislation exactly the same? It is exactly what these amendments are doing. It is perplexing and quite bewildering when you sit back and think about it. You cannot defend the position of, 'We think it's important and we are going to direct our departments to keep the status quo,' which many ministers have come and said to me, yet the amendment that is right before us at this point in time does exactly that: keeps the status quo around advertising in a statewide or regional paper.

The reason I will also be supporting the amendments put up by the member for Lee is the consultation that I have done. I will just read something in our local paper today from Country Press SA.I believe this has gone into all regional papers around South Australia and I find it disturbing that other regional MPs are not fighting actively for this amendment, whether that was in the party room or on the floor.

Quite seriously, if it is so important, this amendment should be supported because it is keeping the status quo, which many ministers are saying they are going to do anyway. This is just an extra level of protection. In a worst case scenario and if the fears of the minister that another government may not advertise in regional areas or in statewide papers are correct, then support this amendment. It forces future governments to do exactly what you are saying you are fearful of occurring. The headline of the article is 'Country Press South Australia opposes proposed advertising amendment'. The article states:

I write to you in my capacity as president of Country Press South Australia in relation to the 'Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2018' being debated in parliament this week.

Our member newspapers totally oppose any changes that relax governments requirement to advertise in regional newspapers.

These aspects of the Simplify Bill are seen as a slap in the face to a medium that serves government on many levels.

We disseminate the government's message on many issues affecting our readers and encourage informed debate on policy.

Over 80pc of regional people read their local newspaper every week.

We are the mouthpiece for the communities we serve and remain the most effective medium to deliver these messages to regions.

The Simplify Bill opens up options for government departments to use less focussed multinational platforms, rather than support the very medium known for its trust and accuracy in regional communities.

I ask you Mr Lucas, should the tax payer dollar be directed this way?

This is not only a slap in the face to regional publishers but also the regional communities they serve.

It might appear to our readers the government is attempting to bury decisions made on North Terrace that directly affect regional South Australians.

It seems ridiculous that sitting Liberal members would want to work against regional press in their own communities.

Newspapers that employ their constituents.

Revenue generated from government paid advertising in South Australia helps fund local jobs for South Australians.

Regional newspapers employ journalists who strengthen the democratic process by stimulating informed debate.

We strongly encourage the Liberal Party to support the proposed amendments to the Simplify Bill.

Darren Robinson,

Country Press South Australia president.

It is for those reasons that I support these amendments. I think it is common sense if we want to have a level of protection baked into the regulations and legislation that the status quo remains, which is effectively what these amendments are aiming to do.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I agree with the member for Mount Gambier that the status quo should stay, because there are no amendments through the bill that will remove a requirement that is there at the moment for advertising in a regional newspaper. The only change is a requirement to advertise in a statewide newspaper. I have been advised that when there is a specific requirement to use a regional newspaper, the regional newspaper requirement remains. Section 6(2) of the Aerodrome Fees Act 1998 provides:

(2) If an aerodrome operator fixes fees under this section, the aerodrome operator must publish in the Gazette and in—

(a) a daily newspaper circulating in the State; or

(b) a periodical publication prescribed by regulation,

a notice setting out the fees.

The proposed amendment states:

(2) If an aerodrome operator fixes fees under this section, a notice setting out the fees must be published by the aerodrome operator

(a) in the Gazette; and

(b) on its website; and

(c) in—

(i) a daily newspaper circulating in the State; or

(ii) any periodical publication prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

It is clear that there is still the option to use those methods of publication as there was before the amendments. It is disappointing that the opposition has chosen to not quite understand the intent of the very bill that they brought to parliament as the government back in 2017, the same one that went to the upper house and was very quickly moved through the upper house without amendment. There was plenty of opportunity for amendment and probably a possibility of persuading some crossbench members who may have been hoodwinked by the rhetoric that the member for Lee is trying to use at the moment to run a scare campaign.

Let's face it, Labor is pretty good at scare campaigns. They have run them successfully previously. It is fair enough to even suggest that they own them when it comes to trying to have a civil debate about improving the regulatory environment, making improvements to the economy, improvements to the training system or whatever it is. There will be a—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The member interjects, sir, and we all sat here patiently waiting for his contribution.

The CHAIR: Thank you for your guidance, minister. I did pick up that the members opposite were interjecting.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, you have had your opportunity and will have many more by the look. So, minister, back to the task at hand.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have highlighted the government's case, I have presented evidence that the government is a friend of the regions here in South Australia and we have demonstrated that with cold hard cash.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: They don't believe it, writing letters in to the minister.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Under the same rules and conditions and the same acts that the previous government was using regional papers for public notices, we were using regional papers for public notices. The only difference is that we spent more money with regional papers than those opposite did.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I should not be, but I am gobsmacked by that contribution from the member for Unley. To say that the requirement will remain after the passage of this bill to advertise in these newspapers, and then inexplicably reads part of the bill out, and he chooses the excerpt from clause 4:

(2) If an aerodrome operator fixes fees under this section, a notice setting out the fees must be published by the aerodrome operator in the Gazette and—

(a) on its website;

And here is the devastating revelation for the member for Unley, the unfortunate inclusion of the conjunction 'or'—not 'and' but 'or'. I would have thought all 47 of us would have somehow made our way here having had the benefit of understanding what the word 'or' means. It indicates a choice between one thing and another, not both things together. It is one thing or another, so it is a website or it is a newspaper, not a website and a newspaper.

If you cannot understand that then you probably do not understand the representations from the member for Mount Gambier reading out letters to the editor circulated across every country regional newspaper in the state imploring the Liberal Party of Australia to swallow just a modicum of pride and do the right thing by country newspapers. That is just extraordinary. Maybe if you want to know, member for Unley, or, Chair, if you would like to know why the member for Unley sits in wonder at why this debate was not had upstairs, perhaps I can avail the house of two facts.

Perhaps we would have made these representations upstairs, and an experienced, wily operator like the Hon. Rob Lucas, somebody who probably knows the dictionary definition of the word 'or', would have realised the problem that he is getting his party into by obliterating the requirement to publish public notices in country newspapers, and maybe he would have found the wisdom to set that aside to save the member for Unley the humiliation that he currently finds himself in, demonstrating to the house the failure to understand a basic definition of a two-lettered, single syllable word in a bill. It is just extraordinary.

This has been sitting on the Notice Paper for the best part of a year. We have had country paper after country paper after country paper—indeed, in my second reading contribution, I read them all out into Hansard—concerned about the impacts that this bill might have on their operations. We hear from the member for Mount Gambier that the president of the Country Press association is now taking the extraordinary step to lobby members of parliament via a broadly circulated letter to the editor in every regional newspaper to implore those members opposite not to go ahead and make this decision. What else do you need?

This could be easily resolved. In fact, not only could it be easily resolved but we could deal with these amendments very, very swiftly. We could even deal with this before 5 o'clock or maybe even just after 5 o'clock, and maybe we could finally get onto the Surrogacy Bill. Maybe those thousands of South Australians who would like greater reproductive certainty could have access to that as well as the comfort of knowing that public notices will still need to be published in country newspapers. However, both those things are what the Liberal government is putting beyond the reach of South Australians, and I think it is shameful—absolutely shameful.

You can dress it up in all the politics that you want and you can misapprehend the basic definition of a simple two-letter conjunction like the word 'or' as much as you like, but that will be the real impact on these businesses. It does not take a genius to know that there has been a massive contraction of media penetration across regional Australia, and indeed in regional South Australia, in the last 30 years. Here we have a government and a minister happy once again to lead the charge, lancing it into country newspapers once more. I think it is outrageous.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 22

Noes 21

Majority 1

Amendment thus carried.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Could members find their places, please. The member for Lee has further amendments to move.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move en bloc:

Amendment No 2 [Mullighan–1]—

Page 7, line 3 [clause 2(2)(f)]—Delete paragraph (f)

Amendment No 3 [Mullighan–1]—

Page 7, line 5 [clause 2(2)(h)]—Delete paragraph (h)

It will not be a surprise to you, Chair, why I move these amendments. These amendments, similar to the last amendment, have the effect of preventing the commencement of sections of the bill that, if not prevented, would in turn mean that it was easier for a government to choose not to advertise in regional papers.

It is important that we on this side of the house, with the support of regional MPs who care about their communities, continue to support these amendments because we have had the extraordinary scene of the Liberal Party of South Australia, formerly the Liberal and Country League political party, vote actively against the requirements to maintain support for regional newspapers.

Extraordinarily, we not only saw the government—a Liberal government—vote against this amendment but we also saw the member for Narungga do the same, which I think is a great pity. For the ease of the house—

Mr Ellis interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, it is a free society, as I am reminded by the member for Narungga. It is also free in the Liberal Party to cross the floor whenever you like. I have moved these two amendments to clause 2 en bloc.

The CHAIR: Amendments Nos 2 and 3, standing in your name, member for Lee, have been moved. He has just indicated that he is moving them en bloc, so, minister, do you wish to speak?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The government does not support the amendments, and I only reiterate that since coming to office the government has proven that it is supporting regional newspapers in South Australia. This simplify bill is much broader than regional newspapers; this simplify bill makes it much easier for businesses to conduct business here in South Australia. That is what this is about. That was the motivation of the previous government when they introduced this into the chamber and it is also the intent of this government: to make it easier for business to be conducted here in South Australia.

We know that many of these acts of parliament that are being amended have been around for quite some time. There has been a lot of new technology in that time. Of course, one of the key things that has changed since the change of government is that by the end of this financial year all our schools will be connected to high-speed fibre. In a period of just over two years, we will be going from the worst connected schools in Australia to the best connected schools in Australia; consequently, we are moving.

Innovation is happening here in South Australia. Technology is spreading beyond Adelaide and the suburbs and we are opening up regional South Australia to technology. We have the GigCity extension down to Mount Gambier and up to Whyalla. We are committed to the regions. We have been investing in the regions through our rollout of fibre in schools and our extension of the GigCity fibre into regional South Australia to create regional hubs so they can participate in the innovation agenda of this government. I know, sir, how important it is to your community to have access to fast internet.

More and more people are even reading the newspapers online, whether they are in regional South Australia or in the city. Remember that the main focus of the amendments that relate to publications and newspapers relates to statewide publications, not regional publications. It is important that this bill does what it was set out to do when it was introduced by the previous government, and that is to simplify the business of doing business here in South Australia and update legislation to take advantage of innovation and technology that has happened since many of those acts were originally written.

It was quite a lengthy process to go through to achieve this outcome, so that is why it is important that we do not push additional burdens onto business here in South Australia by not following through with this legislation that, until it reached this chamber, had bipartisan support.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 22

Noes 23

Majority 1

Amendments thus negatived.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What feedback has the minister obtained from those people who publish regional newspapers regarding the government bill?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If the member was in the chamber earlier he would have heard the answer to that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My further question, then, would be: what is the minister's response to the concerns raised by the publishers of regional newspapers?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There was plenty of opportunity for the opposition to ask these sorts of questions of the Treasurer, who had carriage of this bill through the parliament. My understanding is he did speak with a number of those stakeholders. I was not at those meetings, but I can advise that the Treasurer did in fact speak with those who wanted to speak to him about matters of this bill.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Through you, Chair, just to clarify, is the minister saying that he is not aware of the feedback or that he is aware? I would like to clarify, because it is very important whether he is aware of the feedback and is choosing not to tell this house, or he is not aware of the feedback, in which case he cannot tell this house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I refer the member to my previous answer.

The committee divided on the clause as amended:

Ayes 22

Noes 23

Majority 1

Clause as amended thus negatived.

Clause 3.

The CHAIR: Any questions on clause 3? The member for Light has a question on clause 3.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Am I allowed to speak or just—

The CHAIR: Yes, you can speak, and weave some comment and question into it.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I do not want to use up my three for just questions. I would like to speak to it, too, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: You have the call, member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Chair. In support of this amendment, as I have supported others and I will support the other ones as well, what we have just seen in terms of the minister's earlier non-answers to the questions I asked and also the minister's comments to the previous amendments is very interesting, because he talked about all these things that the government is doing—innovation things—and what he was actually saying was, 'Okay, that's all very good.' The only inference you can draw from the comments he has made is that the print media in regional South Australia does not matter anymore—it does not matter. That is the only conclusion you can draw from the minister's comments.

The fact that he refused to even answer questions and refused to put before this house the feedback from regional newspapers is really a disgrace. He was not even prepared to acknowledge that the opinions expressed by the regional newspapers were valid for this chamber to hear—he was not prepared. He said, 'You want to hear it? Go to the upper house, where they have actually had the debate.' The point he was making was that it was below him and below his party for them to bring those comments into this chamber and for this chamber to hear the views of our country newspapers. That is an absolute disgrace.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, with all due respect, we were dealing with and discussing newspapers during the previous clause. This particular clause talks about rail safety.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am talking about the advertisements required for rail safety in country areas, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: You will weave that in? Alright, thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think he was referring to subclause (1) of clause 3:

In this Act, a provision under a heading referring to the amendment of a specified Act amends the Act so specified.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct; thank you, member for Lee.

The CHAIR: So you will be specific to the clause, member for Light?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Very much so.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: All the acts being amended.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: All the acts being amended, so I can talk about all the acts being amended.

The CHAIR: But we are discussing clause 3. Your call.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct. Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate your wise counsel and direction. What is really puzzling about this whole debate is that throughout this whole discussion in this chamber there is one simple solution to this whole matter. When you strip back the minister's comments and a whole range of other things he has said, the reality is that he could just support the amendments, which would actually give effect to the views he supposedly holds on this matter. The fact that he is not prepared to support the amendments, which would give effect to what he believes in, quite clearly means that he actually does not believe it.

I have had, as have other members I am sure, quite a bit of feedback from regional newspapers about this bill, particularly in terms of the requirements of all the various acts that need to be amended under this clause. The feedback has been quite clear: they believe these amendments should be supported by this parliament in toto. I agree with them, but the minister is not prepared to do that.

I would like to make another very interesting point. On a number of occasions, the minister has told this chamber that the CEOs would be directed to do that, all the requirements of the act. How many times have we stood up in this chamber and asked questions or called a minister and said, 'Why haven't you done this?' and the minister's answer has been, 'Well, I can't direct my CEO. It is a matter for the CEO to make that decision in terms of the budget'? That is the answer we would get in the future when the government does not advertise. The answer would be, 'Well, I can't direct my CEO, I'm sorry.'

The way to rectify that problem or to ensure that does not happen is to support these amendments. The fact is that the government is not prepared to do so and is prepared to see our regional papers die.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I can only reiterate what I said earlier about the commitment to the regions by this cabinet. We have proven that in the time we have been in office in the comparisons of money that is being spent in regional South Australian newspapers. There is no requirement by law to spend that extra money in regional newspapers; it is something we chose to do because the regions are important to us.

I put it to you, sir, that this was so far off the radar of the Labor government when they were in office that it did not appear anywhere in their first bill and it did not appear anywhere when the bill was in the Legislative Council. These amendments have, I would suggest, an alternative purpose for those opposite. If they were interested in regional South Australia, I am sure they would have picked this up with their country cabinets that they say were so valuable to them when they were in office. This would have appeared in the original bill that they had responsibility for when they were in government back in 2017. The government will not be supporting the amendments. We are about supporting the regions. We have demonstrated that we are doing that.

The CHAIR: Minister, if I could just interrupt you, we are actually discussing clause 3, to which there are no amendments. I invited questions and comment on as it is printed.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, sir. I was using this opportunity to respond to comments made by the previous speaker. I have made that response and we can continue with the clauses.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr BELL: Mr Chair, I indicated before that I will not be proceeding with my amendments, so I think we can move on.

The CHAIR: Member for Mount Gambier, a point of clarification: are they all the amendments in your name on both schedules?

Mr BELL: That is correct, yes.

The CHAIR: You will not be proceeding with them; thank you for that. Member for Lee, you could achieve your desired outcome by voting against the question that the clause stand as printed, so you do not need to move an amendment as such.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I indicate that I will not be supporting clause 4, and not supporting clause 4 has the same effect as moving my amendment, which would actually remove the clause from the bill I agree, Chair. I would urge all members, including those opposite who purport to represent country electorates, not to support this clause.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 23

Noes 21

Majority 2

Clause thus passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was hoping that the minister could advise the house about—and this may also extend not just into clause 7 but also subsequent clauses 8 and 9—the treatment of aquaculture leases and what the experience has been in the last two or three years with the cancellation or granting of pilot leases or indeed the granting of production leases and corresponding licences.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Could I have that again, please?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was hoping that the minister could advise the committee what the experience has been in the last two or three years in regard to the number of lease cancellations, as well as the granting of corresponding pilot leases or granting of production leases, when it comes to aquaculture endeavours?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do not have that information with me. If it is relevant and if I can, I will bring it back.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It must be relevant because the government has put parliamentary counsel to the effort of drafting a series of amendments to remove from law the requirement to advertise the cancellation of leases, the granting of pilot leases or the granting of production leases from publication in country and regional newspapers and instead provide the choice by getting a minister to decide between publishing the notices relevant to those types of leases in a newspaper or on a website.

I implore the minister that it is indeed relevant. I would have thought perhaps, Chair, for your electorate, the aquacultural hub of South Australia, that this information would assist the committee greatly in its deliberations on these most important clauses.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The Chair knows and the member knows that the number of cancellations or otherwise is not affected by any amendment to the bill. This has no relevance whatsoever to the operation of such a licence. It has no relevance to the bill at all, other than the method of notification.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry, Chair, but I must disagree with the minister because if I was a resident on Eyre Peninsula, whether it be on an east coast beach like Tumby Bay or heading down towards the southern tip of Eyre Peninsula or heading over to the West Coast with such verdant aquacultural fields like Coffin Bay, Streaky Bay or Smoky Bay, for example, and I was not an oyster farmer or indeed a fisherman but instead just somebody who engaged in recreational pursuits at the water's edge, I might be quite surprised that the government had granted a pilot lease for a new aquacultural activity in the vicinity.

I might feel, for example, in that instance, that the granting of that lease might perhaps deter somewhat my capacity to enjoy my previous recreational activities in those waterside locations and I might find that interesting to the extent that I might read a regional newspaper, one published, for example, on Eyre Peninsula, to make sure that I still had access to those favourite boltholes that I had enjoyed so much for those many years to sun myself at water's edge.

If that capacity were to be removed by a decision by a minister to grant a pilot aquacultural lease and I did not know about it, despite the efforts I had gone to in ensuring that I had read cover to cover the periodicals as published in regional communities by those news outlets, I would be most vexed because I had not had the wherewithal to insert myself into the bowels of the PIRSA website to find that information.

That is why it is relevant. I would implore the minister to perhaps make some inquiries of those next to him about whether there has been the granting of such a lease or perhaps, to improve the betterment of my recreational pursuits, the cancellation of such a lease, which might further extend my capacity to enjoy those sorts of locations.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Does the minister yet have any advice about the frequency of the granting of pilot aquacultural leases?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Sorry, I missed that question.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, could you repeat the question, please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Does the minister yet have any advice about how often pilot aquacultural licences have been granted in the last, say, two or three years?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: No, I do not have that advice.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is it the minister's advice to the committee that he regards such information as irrelevant?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We do not have that information, I am sorry.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 24 passed.

Clause 25.

Mr BELL: I have a question around the sale of land for non-payment of levy. This seems to strike me as an interesting one because it states:

The Commissioner must cause notice of the auction to be published—

(a) on at least 2 separate occasions in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the State; or

(b) on a website determined by the Commissioner.

If it is so important that this is not just a general notice, this is a notice that must be put on two separate occasions, does the minister have concerns that the awareness within a community or a state may not be there because local newspapers or papers are not required to publish that notice?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The way I understand it is that there is no requirement for a legal newspaper to be involved at the moment and this simply gives the option of a state-circulated newspaper—as was previously the case; it was a state newspaper—or a website. Of course, so many more state newspapers are in actual fact using websites themselves.

I know that I and certainly many members in this place do not have the paper delivered anymore, but they read it on their iPad. They subscribe through that and my understanding is that that is also a preferred method of subscription by many of the newspaper providers in Australia and certainly around the world. My understanding is that there is no requirement in the current act for a local newspaper to be used. This refers to an option for a statewide newspaper or a website.

Mr BELL: On a point of clarification, I do not believe that I said 'local newspaper', I believe I said 'state circulation'. So is the minister saying that under the current act there is no requirement to advertise in a state-based paper?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I just need to clarify also that RevenueSA has never enforced any sale for the emergency services levy. That is the advice I have. The amendment is very clear that it is giving an option for a statewide newspaper or an option for a website determined by the commissioner. Currently, as I understand it, there is no requirement for a local newspaper to carry that notice.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is important, I think, the question we have had from the member for Mount Gambier, because this potentially is a very serious matter—to have the government sell a property of a member of the community for the non-payment of a levy. While we might find some comfort in the advice of the member for Unley that this is yet to be done by RevenueSA, in the current environment you could easily imagine that this might eventuate quite quickly, even in the member for Unley's own electorate.

For example, if you were a wealthy property owner, perhaps living in Unley Park with quite an expensive house that attracted a very large emergency services levy, and out of the blue you found yourself stuck with a new aggregation policy for land tax which crippled your investment portfolio, you might find it very hard to make ends meet.

You might not be able to pay your emergency services levy once you have been subjected to the full force of the previously unannounced measure. Indeed, it is a measure previously committed to by the Marshall Liberals to not introduce such a land tax policy. You might find yourself suffering the financial impost of part of the $86 million tax hike in land tax via aggregation and, in not paying your emergency services levy, you might find that your property is to be sold by RevenueSA.

It is important at this juncture to avail ourselves of what the current Emergency Services Funding Act says at section 20(6):

An auction under this section must be advertised on at least two separate occasions in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the State.

Now what we are going to be confronted with, if the government's bill is successful, is a choice, not even for the minister, not even for the minister responsible, the Treasurer, but indeed for the commissioner of taxation, who must cause notice of the auction to be published either in a newspaper circulated generally in the state 'or'—that most vexatious word that is confronting us yet again—on a website.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: Online—online newspaper.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It may be a surprise to the member for Chaffey that a website, yes, is indeed housed online. That is how they generally work.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is generally how websites work; they are generally online. I know that we have had some revelations: conjunctions are not just 'and'; they also include 'or', and websites, yes, are commonly held online. That would be the concern for a landowner to have a property sold out from under them merely by an ad that is published online, and indeed published not even for a minimum duration, just published online. It could be for an hour. It could be for a minute. I think that is regrettable. So I am glad that the member for Mount Gambier has drawn the committee's attention to the impost that this may cause an Unley Park landowner, and I would urge the member for Unley to stick up for his constituents.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: One thing is for certain: there is less risk of people ever being forced to sell their home because they have not been able to pay the emergency services levy—because it is much lower under this government. It is much lower, and $90 million is returned to taxpayers every year. It is extraordinary, the mischief that the member for Lee is up to and the extent of the mischief.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to committee. My recollection is that we are on clause 25. The member for Mount Gambier has asked two questions, the member for Lee has asked his first question and the minister was on his feet, responding. Would you like to continue?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes. I want to raise a point in response to the member for Lee who suggested that someone—I think he used the example of a constituent of mine in Unley Park; whether that was Victoria Avenue or Northcote Street, I am not quite sure—would not necessarily find out that the Treasurer may be going through the process of putting their house on the market because they had not paid their emergency services levy. The act is very clear that 'a copy of a notice must be served on the registered mortgagee or encumbrancee of the land', so there is a proper legal process in managing that.

I think people would be quite surprised to learn from the member for Lee that the only method of communication the commissioner of taxation here in South Australia would have with somebody they were going to enter a very serious legal situation with was through a newspaper advertisement. It is fanciful and I think it just proves the motivation of these amendments by the Labor Party in the chamber.

I can assure the member for Lee that the government would not be conducting the sale. If my experience of watching real estate in the seat of Unley is any guide, it is probably likely to be a company like Toop and Toop or a number of other companies that spend a lot of money in advertising, in both newspapers and other forms of media, so there certainly would not be any lack of knowledge about the house being for sale. It is a frivolous argument from the member for Lee and I think it actually trivialises the concern some members might have about the options that are being offered to government departments to use other forms of media to publish notices in this bill.

Mr BELL: Does the minister have any concerns around the probity of this amendment in terms of reducing it from two separate occasions in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the state to the potential situation where the commissioner is giving cause of notice of the auction, which is just published on a website determined by the commissioner?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is a public notice. The mortgagee is served a notice, so they know all about it. It concerns them and the government. It may be of interest to other parties who might want to buy it, but I can assure you that the sale would be advertised like any other government sale. When an asset is decided to be sold by government, it is handled by agents and they have marketing budgets.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps I can provide the minister with some further particulars about the process. It is not a sale: it is a public auction, and we are not really discussing whether there is any prior notice to the property owner and further opportunities for the owner to make good the debt they have to the commissioner in that regard. Talking very specifically about section 20(6) of the Emergency Services Funding Act, that talks about the process by which property is to be disposed of in the event that the debt is not made good, and that is by auction.

I hope that clears it up for the member and for the residents of Victoria Avenue or Northcote Street. I understand those people who find themselves unable to meet their emergency services obligations to the commissioner are likely to be impacted the most by the land tax aggregation changes. I hope that has clarified it for him.

Indeed, by insisting on the amendment we would make sure that all residents of South Australia would have the opportunity to be advised of an impending auction not once but twice in a newspaper, not merely by placing it on Toop and Toop's website or of some other favoured agent of the minister. That would ensure the widest possible publicity is—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: I ask you, Chair, to ask the member to come to his question.

The CHAIR: The member is allowed to speak. It is quite within the purview of this committee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If I were a resident of the electorate of Stuart, for example—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: You would be so lucky.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would be lucky; depending on how much I desired a good local member, yes, I may be lucky. However, if I were fortunate enough to be a member of the communities that are encompassed within the electoral boundaries that comprise the seat of Stuart, I might find some interest in purchasing a property that was available, via public auction, as a result of some difficulty that a resident of Northcote Street or Victoria Avenue might find themselves submerged in as a result of the land tax aggregation changes.

I think it is a good thing that there be two separate notices of that auction in a newspaper circulated generally across the state and not merely placed on some nameless website at the discretion of a future commissioner to presumably the ignorance of a great many people.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is extraordinary; I cannot believe the member for Lee made that statement with a straight face. You could just imagine people in the market for a house in Victoria Avenue going through the classifieds: 'Is there one there? Is there one for sale in the classified ads? In the public notices, is there one for sale?' This is just extraordinary. It is absolutely extraordinary.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Lee! You have had your opportunity. Minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Give the man some private sector experience, give him some real-life experience. He might understand the market, how things work in the marketplace. It is absolutely extraordinary and you are degrading yourself, member for Lee, and for what purpose? It is absolutely extraordinary.

The CHAIR: Are there any other questions?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister for Energy, they are allowed to make contributions.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: No; I do not think so. I put the question that clause 25 stand as printed.

Clause passed.

Clauses 26 to 30 passed.

Clause 31.

Mr BELL: Regarding clause 31(b)(iii), does the minister concede that giving an option not to advertise, and I quote, 'in a newspaper circulating in the locality to which the order relates' potentially disadvantages regional communities and undermines the government's argument that regions will not be affected by this amendment if it is indeed not printed in a local paper?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is still an option to use a local paper to print such a notice.

Mr BELL: I was not asking if it was an option; I was asking whether or not it potentially disadvantages a regional community and undermines the argument that I have heard in this chamber tonight that regional communities will not be disadvantaged because of statewide publications being removed, not regional papers. Subparagraph (iii) specifically talks about 'a newspaper circulating in the locality to which the order relates'. I take that as being, if it is in a regional area, a regional paper.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do not believe that there will be any disadvantage for local communities. The fact is that the record is very clear: we are supporting local communities in using the measures that are available to us. There has been an increase in the spend in local media since this government has been in office—a significant increase on the previous government's commitment—and we have done that without any legislation in order to do that.

There is nothing in any of these bills that we are amending that told us we had to spend more money in regional newspapers since coming to office, and we did because the regions are important to South Australia and the regions are important to this government. That is why we support the regions.

It is not just the few thousand dollars that are spent in many of the newspapers published in regional South Australia; we support them with our programs: the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development with his growth fund for regional South Australia. We support them through the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure with the road program we are rolling out in regional South Australia. We support them through the Minister for Education with the rollout of fibre to every single school in South Australia within a two-year period—a terrific contribution from the Minister for Education.

Also, of course, the new school we are building in Whyalla will no longer separate year 10 from the senior years. The perception that Whyalla has had over many years is that it is a bonus to do years 11 and 12 because you go to a different school. That will be gone and there will be brand-new facilities.

We are doing work through our Skilling South Australia fund to help our biggest exporters from regional South Australia find the skills they need in order for them to export more to the rest of the world and produce more products for Australia. Fifty per cent of our merchantable exports come from regional South Australia, yet half the jobs advertised in regional South Australia remain unfilled. We are supporting regional South Australia in every possible way that we can, and we will continue to do so. The only threat to regional South Australia is the return of a Labor government.

Mr BELL: Can the minister guarantee this house and regional communities that they will not be worse off because of this amendment to the bill?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I ask the member for Mount Gambier to look at the record of this government since it has been in office and the commitments it has delivered on in supporting regional South Australians. We have done that. We have spent more money with regional media than the previous government did the year before and even the year before that, and we are committed to supporting the regions. It is the aim of this government for the regions to be doing much better under this government than they have for a very long time, and we are working towards doing that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is, I think, a clause that all members should be greatly concerned about. It basically removes the requirement that the chief officer must circulate notices about the fire danger season in publications with reference to a specific locality in the state. I cannot imagine that any member would be comfortable with, instead, potentially requiring members of the community to become reliant on a website for these sorts of notices rather than ensuring that they are published in a newspaper.

Yes, fair enough, they are covered in the Gazette, and there are a small number of us who pay regular attention to that, but that is not the public. Again, most people access the Gazette online. It does not take too much of a stretch to imagine how a regional community would be left in the lurch when fire danger notices are no longer published in local papers.

For example, I am thinking of the Eyre Peninsula Tribune, the Port Lincoln Times and even the West Coast Sentinel. They would all think that the publication of these sorts of notices by emergency services and the chief officer are absolutely essential community information, rather than providing a discretion for them to be made on a website. Even the member for Heysen would probably prefer the retention of the requirement that they be able to be published in publications that service his electorate, whether it is The Southern Argus. Maybe even his colleague, the member for Kavel, would like to think that perhaps notices are still published in The Courier around Mount Barker, for example.

If you were concerned about the vast swathes of forestry down in the South-East, you might be concerned that the Border Chronicle, the Coastal Leader, The Naracoorte Herald, The Pennant or The South Eastern Times would still have public notices from the emergency services advising the community about fire danger. That is what is to be lost through the passage of this clause of the bill.

Having moved past what some members might not think is so serious, such as aerodrome fees or air-route licensing agreements and so on, we are now in the territory of essential public notices and essential community information, which should be required to be disseminated as broadly as possible via as many channels as possible. That is now being removed by this clause of the bill. There is now a new discretion to choose not to publish in those papers but instead to merely place it on a website.

I am not sure what the reaction of a home owner would be if they felt they were about to be confronted with the danger of a bushfire. Given the locations I have lived in around metropolitan Adelaide, I have never had to be confronted with that sort of danger, but I suspect that there are some members opposite who probably quite likely have been in that position.

Mr Pederick: In the middle of it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Or in the middle of them, as the member for Hammond says. I shudder to think what that must be like. It must be absolutely terrifying. To use the colloquialism, if you have not had your ear to the ground in the time leading up to that, but you became aware that there may be some threat, then you might want to avail yourselves of the information that would be available to you.

It might be done at a time, for example, when you are not online, as the member for Chaffey needed clarification on. You might not have had access to a website. For example, you might have the local rag sitting on the kitchen bench and you think, 'I will just flick through that to see if there are any notices in here of public importance about fire danger.' You might try to find out some information like that. That is what we stand to lose now with the passage of this clause.

I cannot believe that the government is insisting so stubbornly—and really so that they do not have to be seen to be supporting any initiative of either a crossbencher or a member of the opposition—that this clause remains and not accept an amendment from elsewhere in the house to strike out this clause. We are now far beyond the realms of politicking and of making petty points about who supports whose amendment or otherwise. This is now a matter of community safety.

I would implore the minister, the member for Unley, who, other than his years—well-versed as they are in this place—as an apprentice, has probably spent most of his time upright in the same way I have, mostly in metropolitan Adelaide. He probably does not know that feeling of discomfort, if not fear, that the member for Hammond brought to our attention about being confronted by the danger of bushfire. Many of their constituents would know that and many of their constituents, if they have not directly experienced it, worry about the prospect of experiencing it.

So I implore the minister: now is a good time to put the politics aside and accept the suggestion from the floor that this clause not be agreed to and that we maintain the requirement for our emergency services to disseminate these public notices via all means available to them, including local newspapers.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Well, that was extraordinary. The member for Lee would have you believe that this clause is about warning people when fire is around the corner. You can imagine, it is Tuesday, The Border Watch comes out on Thursday: 'Oh, I'm going to wait until Thursday to read about this imminent danger.'

The facts are that this is about the fire season and when it starts. That is what this is about. It is not about a bushfire around the corner. This is another attempt by the Labor Party to throw a spanner in the works for political purposes. It is just extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary—that the member for Lee would even attempt such a thing on such a serious matter. It is very disappointing, I have to say.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will not use the term 'extraordinary'. I know the member for Unley has extended himself beyond the single syllable, dual letter term of 'or'.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order, sir: that is just outrageous.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, member for Lee. The member for Unley has taken offence to that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: To which, sir?

The CHAIR: The slight.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which slight was that, sir? Extending himself?

The CHAIR: I am thinking that is what it was, member for Lee. Member for Unley, you would like the member for Lee to withdraw it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to unreservedly withdraw and humbly apologise to the member for Unley for any offence that he has taken.

The CHAIR: The member for Lee has withdrawn. Thank you, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I was saying, the member for Unley would have you believe that a notice of a fire season has absolutely no bearing whatsoever for a member of the community about any proximity to fire danger because, according to the member for Unley, it is always the case that there is an orderly announcement of the fire danger season and of course circumstances know that it is much further down the track after such a notice is published that, if a bushfire is to occur, it will occur.

There are never bushfires, according to the member for Unley, at the commencement of a fire danger season. Of course not. There is always a much broader parenthesis around the dates for the fire danger season, according to the member for Unley. According to the member for Unley, maybe a fulsome notice of a fire danger season could commence, say, in late May. Would that be enough notice for the bushfires to get their act together, to start to gestate and flame up in time for an orderly burning out of a region for the member for Unley?

Of course, it never happens that the fire danger season might actually delineate when there is a danger of a fire happening in a locality of a much higher chance than occurs at another time of the year. No, according to the member for Unley. We learn that he is not just an expert former apprentice at his trade of choice but that he is also an expert in fire danger now. That is remarkable—absolutely remarkable. Not only does he do himself a disservice but he does this place a disservice talking this down as a serious issue that should be dealt with by the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is a saying that politics is show business for ugly people and I think we saw a pretty good performance from the member for Lee when it comes to show business. It is vaudeville over there from the member for Lee. I am waiting for the cane, bowler hat and tap shoes. That is what I am waiting to come out next from the member for Lee. It is extraordinary, isn't it? Absolutely extraordinary.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 23

Noes 20

Majority 3

Clause thus passed.

Clause 32.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Could the minister explain the circumstances by which clause 32 might be activated?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have been advised that the notification comes out on assent.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I unfortunately missed the final syllables of the minister's answer and I ask him to repeat it.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Assent.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I thank the minister for his detailed explanation about how this clause would apply. He has advised us that it comes out on assent. My actual understanding was that this might be of some interest to members opposite and it involves the making of notices by the authorities to a private landowner to take steps necessary to prevent the outbreak of fire on their land, which I would have thought would be particularly pertinent to regional members of parliament, for example.

In fact, I think we had some conjecture in this place about a similar measure and who could instruct landowners about the treatment of vegetation on their land. It was the cause of some considerable brow furrowing for those opposite, yet now I think we are salved with the advice from the minister that it merely happens on assent. My understanding was that currently, under section 105F of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005, a notice given under subsection (5), that is a notice whereby:

…the authorised person may, by notice in writing that complies with any requirements set out in the regulations, require the owner of the private land to take specified action to remedy the default or to protect the land or property on the land, within such time as may be specified in the notice.

This can be done:

(a) personally; or

(b) by post; or

(c) if the authorised person cannot, after making reasonable inquiries, ascertain the name and address of the person to whom the notice is to be given—

(i) by publishing the notice in a newspaper circulating in the locality of the land; and

(ii) by leaving a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place on the land.

It is really (9)(c)(i) which now is to be given the vexed choice for the minister either of the publication of that notice in a newspaper or merely by publishing it on the website. I can almost guess that the minister's advice is going to be that if it is placed on a prominent location on the person's land—it might be, for example, next to a letterbox, or it might be some sort of Led Zeppelin album cover-like crop circle for a larger-type property notifying them of the need to tidy up the troublesome vegetation—publishing it on the website might be okay.

However, I would have thought, once again, that publishing such a notice in a newspaper in circulation in the locality was a good requirement to have legislated to make sure that we are using, once again, every means possible to notify the landowner. Would the minister agree?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The member is actually suggesting that somebody who would not be able to identify a risk like that themselves is a regular reader of a newspaper. The facts are that the act prescribes that an authorised person, a council, the SAMFS or the SACFS may, if they consider it is necessary, write a notice that requires the owner of the private land to take action in order to ensure compliance with the relevant fire prevention requirements of the act. I have every confidence that the Minister for Emergency Services would do everything within their powers to make sure that the notice was available when it was needed to be available to those who needed to know.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps we have uncovered in the minister's answer there the kernel of truth in the government's predisposition on this matter; that is, they believe not everyone reads country newspapers, so why publish the notice in a country newspaper? It seems, I guess, according to the minister, a bit superfluous. You could just post it on their property or rely on the authorised officer from SA Water, as we have just heard, to make such inquiries to locate that person without the need for a public notice.

I would have thought that not only is it a good way to get to the owner but that there is probably a broader public interest in making the notice in a publication published and distributed in that locality, and that is the interest that an adjacent owner might have as well. They might have a particular interest if there is a notice that needs to be served on their neighbour in relation to a property that needs to be tidied up so as to prevent the possible outbreak of fire.

I am a little bit alarmed. I know that in my previous contribution I drew the connection between the member for Unley and me, being that we are members who represent parts of metropolitan Adelaide and that, as far as I am aware, notwithstanding the fabled apprenticeship that the member for Unley has undertaken, he has probably spent the majority of his life in a metropolitan area, much like me.

But in trying to place my feet in the shoes of a true country resident, like the member for Heysen, for example, I just would imagine that I would have an interest in knowing via the public notices, if there was a situation where my neighbour was having a notice served on them, that they needed to clear up their property to prevent fire danger. Does the minister not agree that that is something that is of importance to be published in a local paper in a regional community?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think the important thing to understand here, as I have been advised, is that the notification in a public website or in a local paper is a mechanism that is put there if the person you are instructing to make good or make safe their property cannot be contacted by any other way. So it is a last resort type of situation.

Currently, it is done, I think, at the same time as the notice. In this instance, a notice to take specific action may be published on a website or in a local newspaper if the responsible person cannot be served personally by post. So the public notification is notification specifically for the person who must take action. It is not and never has been the intent of that public notification for those that are not involved to know. It is another means of getting a message to the person that must act on that position. Again, the member for Lee is misrepresenting the intent of the amendments and the act as it stands.

Clause passed.

Clauses 33 to 40 passed.

Clause 41.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can I ask the minister to advise the house what the practice has been in terms of how often these notices have been published?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that the practice has been that the Attorney-General's Department only publishes notices relating to the Gaming Machines Act 1992 in The Advertiser and will continue to do so.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: How many applications, for example, were advertised, let's say in the 2018-19 financial year? Is this something which is used frequently, or something which has not been exercised for several years? What is the import to the community here?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That is something that we will have to bring back to the house.

Clause passed.

Clauses 42 to 66 passed.

Clause 67.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have a question before moving my amendment and that is: which website would be able to be used by the minister?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That will be determined by the minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the minister advise the house whether there is a website in existence at the moment that could be used by the minister if this section were to come into force?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The amendment provides: 'public notice means notice published on a website determined by the Minister.' That really is entirely the minister's role.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It might not be a website under the superintendence of the minister. It might be an ad, say, published on Craigslist; could that be correct, minister?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am not familiar with Craigslist.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Really? It is apparently quite popular with people who are trading in second-hand goods and so on, I understand. Nonetheless, I move:

Amendment No 29 [Mullighan–1]—

Page 23, lines 12 to 14 [clause 67(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

The CHAIR: Do you need to speak further to that, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Given the uncertainty that the house now finds itself confronted with about whether (a) a website exists that may be able to receive a publication or (b) what intention a minister might have in utilising such a website in the publication of a notice, I feel I have no choice but to remove the capacity of the minister to publish a public notice on a website.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That has no credibility whatsoever from the member for Lee, because this was a preprepared amendment to this bill by the member for Lee before he had heard any of the argument on this bill.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The minister may be aware that I had not moved the amendment before seeking the information from him, so it may come as some surprise to the minister that he finds—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It was tabled.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed, yet the amendment had not been moved, had it?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It was tabled.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, not moved. It was not moved for consideration by the committee. I know it is a confusing process for some of us—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: For you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —so it had been filed. No, I am entirely confident and relaxed with the proceedings that are going on here.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: When the member for Heysen provides his counsel, he must think Morry Bailes is here. I am entirely comfortable and relaxed with what is going on here.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, on the government benches! The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I said, given we have no understanding whether (a) there is a website or (b) it is ready to be used by a minister and the earlier clauses of this bill enable it to come into effect on a date fixed by proclamation at the whim of the Governor on advice from the Executive Council, I feel that I have no choice but to move amendment No. 29 standing in my name to delete clause 67(2).

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 68 to 102 passed.

The CHAIR: It has been drawn to the attention of the Chair that clause 2 was not finally dealt with. It is therefore necessary to reconsider clause 2. There is a final question that needs to be put. Minister, you need to move that clause 2 be reconsidered.

Clause 2—reconsidered.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

That clause 2 be reconsidered.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 23

Noes 20

Majority 3

Motion thus carried; clause reconsidered.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (20:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (20:41): I just want to make a few comments on the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2018. I really want to impress on the house the importance of regional papers: in my electorate, The Border Watch, The South Eastern Times and, in Penola, The Pennant. There have been a lot of numbers thrown around, and I have sought clarity from our local publisher around what the state government, in all forms, contributes to the livelihood and running our regional papers in the South-East. I just want to put on record that classified advertising, which includes public notices, actually comes in at about $35,000.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mount Gambier, I might just interrupt. Could members please desist from loud chatter while another member is contributing? Thank you. Member for Mount Gambier, you have the call.

Mr BELL: Classified advertising, including public notices, comes in a little over $35,000. When all state government advertising and contribution is made—and that is from various sources—it is closer to $100,000, so it is vital for regional papers and regional employment that we continue to support our papers. Of course, public notices and information connecting with local communities, particularly regional communities, does enable that connection between what happens here on North Terrace and what happens in regional papers to come together in a more informative manner.

I do know that in The Border Watch—it runs four days a week—there is a state government-based story every day of the week, not always including me but sometimes. However, I feel that our papers also give back to the community in terms of informing and getting our message across. If there is ever a minister in the electorate, they are often on the front page or, if not, page 3, so I think the government gets pretty good coverage in regional papers, and long may that continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (20:44): I would like to echo some of the comments made just then by the member for Mount Gambier. I think it is unfortunate that we have a government which is largely elected from regional communities in South Australia, a Liberal government, which is absolutely intent on removing requirements on government agencies and ministers to continue the decades-old tradition of publishing important public notices in country newspapers.

This evening, during the course of the debate, we heard examples where the publication by the chief officer, for example, of a fire danger season no longer needs to be made in the local paper. I find that absolutely extraordinary. I also find it extraordinary that it is now quite feasible that on matters of genuine public interest to communities—and it might be something as diverse as the application for a gaming machine licence in a community, for example, which may exercise some members of that community who feel very strongly about gambling and the social effects that it can have—they will be denied the opportunity of receiving a public notice in their local paper for that sort of activity.

Even those sorts of land improvement notices that might be served on landowners to tidy up their properties to make sure they reduce the risk of causing a fire hazard no longer need to be published in a regional newspaper. While we are talking about land out in regional South Australia, if there is a decision to increase the footprint of a park or a reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Act it no longer needs to be publicly made in the local paper.

These are matters of significant community interest, particularly amongst local communities where there is likely to be a diversity of views about the decisions being taken which will affect that community. Despite these matters quite reasonably being raised with the minister, he and his colleagues continue to turn their back on regional papers across this state and remove the requirement that they are supported with the advertising revenue from the state government in making these public notices. They also turn their back on regional communities who are genuinely interested about some of these decisions being taken by their government.

I think it is a pretty poor reflection on the modern-day Liberal Party when a city member, like the member for Unley, carrying this bill as a minister, can impose his will on the other regional members and, in doing so, deny the regional communities they represent the right to the information they have come to expect over many decades. I think it is a really poor reflection on where we have got to tonight, and I hear the comment from—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —the minister dressed as Pennywise over there.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, leader! The leader will cease interjecting.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The leader is called to order and the Minister for Agriculture will not respond. Desist. We are nearly there. The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Even those important matters which would affect your electorate, sir—the granting of aquaculture leases, for example, whether they are pilot leases or whether they are ongoing leases or even the cancellation of that sort of lease—apparently are no longer of such interest to a regional community that it does not need to be required to be published in a regional paper. I think it is a very poor reflection on those opposite in taking this decision.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (20:49): First of all, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I thank the public servants who have assisted this evening and those who have assisted in putting this together. I thank the Treasurer, of course, for his guidance and leadership on this issue. There is no doubt that there has been a conversion on the road to Damascus by those opposite on this bill. The very things in this bill that those opposite were supporting just a few months ago they are now voting against.

It is disappointing that the opposition has put politics before good governance. I do assure the member for Mount Gambier, the member for Frome and, of course, the regional members on this side of the house who understand the commitment that this government has to regional South Australia.

We have demonstrated, without any need of legislation, that we have spent more in the regions on classified advertising since we have been in office compared with those opposite. Regarding the expenditure that the member for Mount Gambier spoke about in his local paper, there was no legislation for us to spend that money, that $100,000. That is not legislated. Nowhere does it say that we must spend $100,000. It is a good decision for public policy and for a government that supports regional South Australia, because we understand regional South Australia.

Mr Malinauskas: No, you don't. Why are you cutting regional road funding?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader is interjecting out of his place. We are bringing the evening to a close. Minister, you have the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: He thinks it is a union gathering, where you can do whatever you like.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, minister; you are wrapping up the debate.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: No rules. The bully always wins in those union meetings, and that is what we are seeing from the Leader of the Opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you are wrapping up the debate. Please keep going.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I commend the bill to the house.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Bill read a third time and passed.