Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Real Property) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (REAL PROPERTY) BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 6 March 2008. Page 2139) The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:54): I do not intend to speak long, as the opposition supports the bill, and our position has been put by my colleague in the other place, the member for Heysen, the shadow attorney-general. I note that one of the purposes of the bill is to bring the management and transfer of real property into the 21^st century by computerising the system, and for that I commend the government. As I said, the opposition supports the bill; however, we do have concerns in relation to clause 68, which were expressed in another place. The history of clause 68 raises concerns about consultation. I understand that the government has continually asserted that it consulted widely with the business community in relation to this bill and made some amendments to it accordingly. Nonetheless, my colleague the member for Heysen made contact with relevant professional bodies to seek their views on the bill, and she was surprised to learn that, in fact, these two organisations had concerns relating to clause 68. The Australian Institute of Conveyancers has indicated that it and the Law Society were given the draft of the bill only the day before their meeting with government representatives, leaving them no time to consult with their members. These two organisations advised the government that they would need to consult with their members and would then provide the government with their response. However, the government instead chose to introduce the bill without waiting for the responses of these organisations. It is the opposition's view that this is indicative of the arrogance of the government and the way that it approaches consultation—well short of what would be expected in a respectful relationship with the community. To address this issue and the concerns of the industry, the opposition moved an amendment in the other place to delete clause 68 from the bill, in line with the concerns of the AIC and the Law Society. Unfortunately, the government refused to support the amendment and used its numbers in the other place to negative the amendment. Should we be surprised then to find in this house that the government is proposing exactly the same amendment—identical to the amendment moved by the opposition in the other place and rejected by the government? The government is now moving it in this place. While we are obviously pleased that the government is finally listening to the concerns of relevant stakeholders, we believe that it is indicative of the arrogance of the government. As far as this government is concerned, if the idea is not its own it is not worth considering. The government needs to remember the purpose of this parliament: the parliament is not here to simply rubber-stamp the government's every idea. We regard ourselves as having a duty to have informed debate and to seek opportunities to improve. We also take the opportunity between the houses to consult with the government. It is high time that the government acted in a more consultative form with its community and with the opposition. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.