STATUTES AMENDMENT AND REPEAL (BUDGET 2012) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:33): I will not speak for very long on this bill, just so that all my colleagues will be happy, but there are a couple of key points that I do want to raise with respect to this bill. We were briefed yesterday by department officials and the Treasurer's senior adviser and, by and large, because it is a budget bill, we have agreed that we will support what the government has here. However, there are a couple of things where we have a real problem. I find that the way in which the government has gone about this is quite a sneaky way of doing business in the parliament. I challenge the government from the point of view of the way in which it has gone about this, because, by and large up until now in the 17 years I have been in here, these bills have been generally pretty straightforward and have not tried to slip in amendments to pieces of legislation that will allow the government to hit the constituents of South Australia in the pocket.

This time it has done this on a number of fronts, and frankly the government is going to have to wear that with the community as these imposts start to hurt the community. That is the government's call except where Family First has made absolute commitments and where I personally believe that I have been possibly misled or certainly where there has not been transparency when it comes to one aspect of this bill.

Before talking about that one, we have been on the public record as expressing some concern about issues that will affect individuals, as the Hon. Mark Parnell highlighted this morning, with respect to District and Supreme Court costs and caps that apply. However, we have to deliberate between that and the government's intent to bring a number of factors into this bill that are going to give it more revenue and the fact that we have to toss up the situation regarding individuals—often smaller people, if I can put it that way—from the point of view of economic opportunity, or people who do not have the opportunities of wealthier people to meet costs when they defend themselves.

On the other hand we have a budget in SAPOL which is terrible for police. If the government is going to try to hit SAPOL further—if this particular part of the bill was not to pass—by cutting its budget further, then that would put safety and front-line police services at even more risk than we are going to see them. Bearing in mind that we have seen a cancellation of the recruitment commitment for at least a couple of years, and given the state of the budget, I am concerned that we may not see police recruitment anywhere like it has been over the last 12 to 14 years into the foreseeable future.

Then, of course, we have the massive recurrent budget cost to SAPOL somewhere to the tune in the forward estimates of about $116 million which will already be affecting front-line services. I know the budget well enough with respect to police to know that you cannot cut $116 million out of that budget without seeing a lot of essential police delivery reduced or programs and operations finished. We will listen to the debate on that particular matter, but, at the end of the day, it is on the head of the government.

We have had representation very late in the piece from the Australian Lawyers Alliance and, again, from the Local Government Association. I raised this with the minister's adviser yesterday. I think this is the second time in a matter of a few weeks that we have been alerted to the fact that the government has failed to consult with one of the most important organisations that represents councils across the state, namely, the Local Government Association.

We will be later dealing with the ICAC Bill, and, again, the LGA was not consulted on the ICAC Bill. I thought that this was not an 'announce and defend' government anymore, but a government that said that it was going to go out there and consult, consider and announce. The LGA for one must be asking whether that is happening in reality, frankly. The issue there is one, again, that the government is going to have to sort out. I know that the Minister for State/Local Government Relations continually claims that he has a good relationship with the LGA. Well, where is that relationship, because we should not even be talking about the LGA sending information to us as late as today expressing concerns about matters like this if the minister does have a good relationship.

If the minister had proper protocol practices through the cabinet, then surely the cabinet—namely the Treasurer on this occasion—should have been alerting the Minister for State/Local Government Relations to this issue and the potential concerns that the LGA may have. However, it is not for our party to build relationships between the LGA and the government: the government will have to work this one out with the LGA, given the lateness of this. I want to put our position on the public record so that the LGA understands it. It is incredibly late when you get representation only last week and again today, and the government has put itself into a real corner if this bill does not get up; the government would be in a major dilemma.

I put on the public record that this is another example of the government taking for granted not only organisations and peak bodies but also this parliament. The government will have to start to change its attitude to this parliament and realise that we still have a democracy here. This is not Queensland and we actually have two houses here, and where necessary the government will cop a bit of pain from the Legislative Council, I am sure.

One area where Family First will not flex is with respect to the amendment of the Hon. Ann Bressington. We will be supporting that amendment. I was incredibly disappointed to find out that a bill we had debated only in the last few weeks—namely, the Livestock (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill—was coming in through the back door to set up a situation where they could still rip $3 million off farmers. As is the protocol in this place, I declare again my interest and my family's interest as farmers, but I also represent farmers, and this full cost recovery nonsense has to stop. Not only does the full cost recovery nonsense have to stop but we have to see a situation where democratic process occurs.

The Hon. John Dawkins moved a motion in this house in private members' time which was supported by the majority of the house, including Family First, to put a reference across to a committee to have a look at this. I thought that made some sense. We were ready and I had an amendment to knock out the biosecurity fees—just blanket, bang, knock them out. To be fair to this minister, she did not start this nonsense of full cost recovery on biosecurity fees; it was started by cabinet before she had the portfolio.

This minister (Hon. Gail Gago) did realise that there was a real issue and concern here, so she initiated, through Dennis Mutton, that there be an inquiry into the issues around biosecurity fees. In fact, as late as last week I received at my home a communiqué from those who are involved in the discussions and who work on the biosecurity fees which said that it was still a work in progress.

I for one am not going to stand up in this house and not protect democratic processes and people who honour their commitment to work through a situation. Those people—I have spoken to some since then—are incredibly disappointed and amazed that, through the Treasurer's bill, they could still potentially be hit for $3 million. To let you know what is happening out there at the moment, yes, we do have a spike, which we hope will hold, in grain prices because of drought in the Northern Hemisphere. However, when it comes to everything else—prices for lamb, pork, cattle, wool, dairy product, vegetables—it is all a slippery slope the wrong way for the farm gate.

In fact, we are looking at a 10 to 15 per cent reduction in opening prices for dairy at the moment. That is not sustainable for farmers, and the last thing we need at the moment, on top of another massive cut to PIRSA, is to try to hit farmers with another $3 million in costs. Those farmers are already paying and contributing, both voluntarily and by virtue of legislation (PIF schemes and the like), into a lot of initiatives to do with biosecurity, research and development, and marketing and growth of their industry sectors. At some point in time a line needs to be drawn in the sand that says enough is enough.

The government have a simple opportunity here with any of these amendments, if the floor of the house here gives an absolute majority to the voting of that amendment, to withdraw those sections and then put back the bill that we can have a look at. They can get that through both houses this week because the other house is sitting on Thursday and we are sitting on Friday, and they can come back on Friday if they have to. There is a clear and easy way for the government not to be embarrassed by the financial structures of the budget and the need to get this bill through this week, and that is to listen to this house.

I got my adviser to check with the committee that the Hon. John Dawkins put the reference to through the support of this house and they did not think that anything was finalised at all and were waiting on the Mutton report and the consultation. That is a parliamentary committee that was waiting for this. For the government and for Treasury to think that they can just bombard through—it is not the fault of this chamber here or the South Australian community that there has been mass mismanagement in this state over the last 10 years. It is not the fault of this chamber here or the people of South Australia that in the forward estimates we face $13 billion worth of core debt and $11 billion of unfunded public sector super liability which the Treasury have allowed to run out. That was being reined back in when I was in ministry. Yes, it was not going to help get re-elected doing that but it was a responsible thing to do. Now we are in a difficult position, but why hit and hurt people more every day because someone messed up? It is not on.

The Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment on this is important to rural people but it is an amendment on principle. There is a way that this can be done. I have said that in fairness to this Minister for Agriculture I would wait and see. I do not believe that the minister for primary industries here now has had anything to do with this. This is Treasury running roughshod; that is what this is about. I believe that the primary industries minister was waiting for the Mutton report and would have come back and consulted with all of us. That is what I believe the minister said when we debated this and that is why I removed my amendment, but I did reserve the right to bring that amendment back in. Now suddenly like a juggernaut we have this here now before us and we are expected to rubberstamp it.

I am sorry but Family First will not be rubberstamping that but we will be supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment. As for the other amendments, I will be listening to the debate but I think the rest of it is on the government's head from our point of view; it is a government bill. But when it comes to this one where we have already had debate a couple of sitting weeks ago. It is not like it was months ago or anything like that. We had commitments and in good faith I believe we honoured the commitment from the government and now we have seen this come through. If Treasury have to miss out on $3 million, I am sorry about that, but farmers have missed out for six years of drought. We have a high dollar. Things are not easy and they need a little bit of relief and they need a little bit of focus from this chamber to show them that they are an integral part of this state. With those words, we will wait and see where the debate goes but we will certainly be supporting the amendment of the Hon. Ann Bressington.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (15:49): I would like to very briefly put on the record a couple of comments in relation to two parts of the bill—part 7 and part 15. Firstly, part 7 refers to amendment of the Livestock Act 1997. This amendment, through what I would characterise as a bit of a sneaky method (and I do not think I am alone), seeks to establish a biosecurity levy. Whilst a levy, a tax, a toll or whatever you want to call it may well need to be introduced at some point in the future, this is actually an issue about process rather than a question of whether or not we should have the levy itself.

There is already a process in place to assess exactly what the industry needs in relation to livestock health and organisations such as the South Australian Farmers Federation (SAFF). Usurping this process and just assuming what the outcome will be in enshrining such a levy in legislation now is incredibly presumptuous of the government and the department, and it does them no service in their relationship with their stakeholders in this industry. For this reason, I cannot support the inclusion of this, and I will be supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment to remove this part of the bill.

The second part of the bill I take issue with is part 15, which relates to the Summary Procedure Act 1921 and which removes the right to claim costs in the Magistrates Court for indictable offences. I will not rehash the issues that have already been canvassed at length by some other members in both the lower and upper houses regarding this matter, but I will say that I think the Australian Lawyers Alliance and other professionals in the area have made a number of valid points, and for this reason, I will be supporting the opposition's proposal to remove this from the bill also.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:51): I also rise to speak briefly to the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget 2012) Bill. I note that my colleague, the Hon. Mark Parnell, has already expressed the Greens' overall position, so I will not labour on the points of the biosecurity fee or the reforms with regard to the awarding of costs. However, I do want to raise the issue of a change in both heart and mind in attitude to public servants, which I do welcome. Members would be well aware that, in the 2010 budget, we saw the removal of industrial conditions public servants had gained through enterprise bargaining, with the removal of provisions with regard to long service leave and so on, which was a complete betrayal of the good faith placed in that process.

I certainly welcome the restoration of those entitlements in this budget bill. I cannot but take note that the CPSU has recently been successful in the High Court with its appeal to be able to have its case heard first in the Supreme Court and then presumably the Industrial Relations Commission with regard to the legality of that original move to strip those employees' hard fought rights won at the bargaining table and negotiated in good faith.

I put on notice that it would be useful for the council to receive information about the cost incurred so far in terms of the legal processes involved in this ill-considered initial measure to strip those industrial rights, both in terms of contesting the matter in the courts and also the initial legal advice that was taken with regard to putting forward that ill-considered initial 2010 budget measure. I also note that not only are further cuts slated in terms of overall employment in the public sector but also efficiency dividends. I also ask the government to confirm that these efficiency dividends will not, in fact, translate to job cuts in any way, and I seek an assurance that that will not be the case.

Although I welcome the rebate in terms of drinking water for tenants, I note with some concern that is intended to be effected through amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, where landlords will be under an onus to pass on the benefits of that rebate. The reason I draw attention to this is that I have grave concerns that it will be the case that tenants will know they can claim this rebate or, even when they do know, the process of getting that rebate from the landlord will be an unduly difficult and onerous one.

I ask the government to give some clarity about the costs of the education process around this that they have planned, some details on whether additional staffing will be made available for the administrative burden that no doubt Consumer and Business Services will carry as a result of this administrative component of claiming that rebate and, in fact, how those costs and investments weigh up against the receipt of the rebate itself—a comparison of those two things and whether or not a simpler method that could have seen tenants be able to claim the rebate straight from government perhaps might have been a better way to go. So, could the government indicate whether they considered that option?

I also note the welcome initiative of the Vibrant Adelaide project. It has certainly been a centrepiece of the Weatherill government and the extension in this particular bill of the stamp duty concessions, not just to the Adelaide CBD but to the whole Riverbank Precinct, is something, I think, to be seen as a laudable measure. I look forward to the Vibrant Adelaide initiative becoming a reality. Certainly, the Greens have been supportive of moves so far not only to encourage residents to live in the city but also for there to be a good balance between business and residential and the needs and desires of those two groups in particular, creating Adelaide as something special, which we know it is.

I will have some further questions on specific clauses and certainly welcome the debate and echo my colleagues' indication that the Greens will not look favourably on the amendments to the Livestock Act and will look favourably on the current amendment put forward by Ann Bressington to this bill. We also have some concerns and I will have further questions with regards to the costs awarding issues.

My final question is again a flow-on from the original 2010 budget, but it is replicated here in some of the further cuts. I seek an answer from the minister with regard to the transition from families and communities to DECD of the 80 positions that had previously been identified as antipoverty financial counselling positions. I am keen for the council to be privy to the information on what has happened to these positions. Are there, in fact, any current positions in government which are dedicated to the antipoverty financial counselling role which, as we know, was lost with the loss of the antipoverty unit? Where they sit in government, how they are resourced, what the full-time equivalent ratios are and so on would be useful. With that, I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:58): I do not believe there are any further second reading contributions to this bill. By way of concluding remarks, I would like to put on record some responses to some of the questions that have been raised in both the other house and this place.

In relation to public sector skills and experience retention entitlement—clause 4(2)(3a)(a)—this provision allows for the Director-General to make a determination to allow the accrual of the entitlement to be calculated in working hours as opposed to working days. This provision does not allow for the entitlement to be increased or decreased. The making of the determination involves operational flexibility to deal with situations where employees have non-standard working hours without detracting from the substantive legislative provisions.

Clause 4(2)(3a)(d) provides that skills and experience retention leave entitlement that is not taken within five years of the end of the financial year in which it accrues will be lost. This provision does not allow for the five-year time period to be extended. If an officer is on extended leave—sick or otherwise—they have the option of converting the entitlement to a monetary amount in accordance with clause 4(2)(3a)(b) rather than losing the entitlement.

It is also noted that the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment determination regarding sick leave—CD 3.4A—provides for an employee to be granted other types of leave for an absence caused by illness or injury. Whilst a determination has not yet been made in relation to the new retention leave, it is envisaged that a similar provision would be made in relation to skills and retention leave, allowing it to be interspersed with sick leave and taken before the expiration of the five years at the end of the financial year in which it accrues.

The budget of $20.3 million in 2012-13 includes $9.929 million for 2011-12 for the transitional entitlement of up to two working days in relation to 2011-12 if the person is employed at 1 July 2012, and $10.326 million for 2012-13. The figure of 26,000 public sector servants is based on workforce data as at 30 June 2011.

In relation to stamp duty concession for purchases of off-the-plan apartments, if the government's scheme is applied statewide, the total cost of the scheme is estimated to be in the order of $80.5 million. As conveyance duty is paid and concession provided upon the transfer of a completed apartment, actual annual costs will vary depending on the time taken by developers to achieve the requisite predevelopment sales, receive final development approvals and complete construction of the apartments. The scheme is expected to continue to incur costs beyond the forward estimates period.

The six stages of construction are relevant for the partial concession which operates for contracts entered into between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2016. In the first two years—that is, from 31 May 2012 to 30 June 2014—stamp duty will be payable on the notional land value of the apartment plus the value of any construction already undertaken at the date the contract is signed.

The notional land value is set by the bill as being 35 per cent of the contract price. This percentage was set having regard to the value of general capital and land values for apartments in the Adelaide City Council area. The value of any construction undertaken is worked out as a proportion of the remaining 65 per cent of the contract value, which varies according to how much of the apartment complex has been completed on the date that the contract is signed.

The bill allows for six separate stages of construction being 0 per cent (not commenced), and 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 per cent completed. For example, where a person signs a contract and the apartment complex has yet to be started, the duty will be calculated based on only 35 per cent of the contract price; that is, duty will be payable on the notional land value component of the apartment. Regarding the inner city rebate administrative scheme, in 2010-11, 112 inner city rebates were provided which cost the government $168,000. To 30 June 2012, 11 inner city rebates were provided in 2011-12, at a cost of $16,500.

In relation to the modelling basis for animal health cost recovery budget measures, overall this cost recovery initiative recognises the importance of Biosecurity SA's animal health program to the health, welfare, quality and safety of South Australia's livestock and livestock products. I also recognise that cost recovery of services may assist with the efficient allocation of resources across the economy where it is consistent with the underlying policy objectives and is a cost-effective and efficient way to do so. It may also improve equity where users of services bear the cost of the provision of those services.

In regard to a specific query on modelling, they underpin animal health cost recovery budget measures. In 2010, the financial estimates produced at the time of the Sustainable Budget Commission in 2010 were based on the understanding of the net costs to government of providing exotic and endemic disease services at the time. The cost of providing these services included both direct costs and estimated overhead costs.

The costs of policy advice in the animal health area are explicitly excluded. The preliminary cost recovery policy review was also undertaken at the time including addressing key questions such as: is cost recovery appropriate; in particular, would cost recovery adversely impact on achieving the underlying objectives of the animal health program; would cost recovery be efficient—that is, can users be identified and potentially charged; and would cost recovery be effective? The preliminary assessment concluded that cost recovery was potentially appropriate. Cost recovery design, including design of a cost recovery mechanism, was not undertaken at the time. The intent was that a subsequent cost recovery design and implementation would align with the PIRSA cost recovery policy, including stakeholder consultation.

In preparation for further consideration of cost recovery, PIRSA engaged ACIL Tasman to undertake an economic analysis of Biosecurity SA's Animal Health program. Industry was engaged in both the selection and consultation to undertake the evaluation as well as contributing to reviews of the study itself. ACIL Tasman's report was completed in June 2011 and is publicly available. ACIL Tasman's report provided an assessment of the net benefits of the program and provided some options for design mechanisms and potential imposts at the industry level that may be of interest.

With the significant stakeholder concern being raised, I asked for an independent review to be undertaken. The Animal Health Cost Recovery Review Reference Group was instigated in April 2012, chaired by Dennis Mutton, and is made up of animal industry leaders to undertake more comprehensive work on the details of a cost recovery model. Key elements of this review include consideration of the cost recovery design issues and have been raised by the member for Davenport and other members in this place, and I obviously look forward to the reference group's findings and recommendations.

This clause within the bill is not something that is deceptive or an attempt to railroad members. It is merely a head of power. It does not have any direct cost implications. It simply provides a capacity to apply a fee, but regulation would be needed in actually determining what that fee would be before any fee would be applied. That is the advice I have received.

In supporting a head of power, members are not, in fact, approving the application of a specific fee; that would need to come at a later date. I gave a commitment in this place that the review being chaired by Dennis Mutton would be completed before I would proceed to design a fee structure. The terms of reference of that group are about a cost recovery model and, if they are asked to look at a cost recovery fee model and to look at the sorts of services they believe are appropriate to apply a cost recovery fee to and decide there are no services that a fee should apply to, that would be the recommendation I receive. I have given a commitment to that process being completed before any fee would be applied, and I stand by that commitment. Passing this bill, and this head of power, would not change that.

Nevertheless, I read the sentiment in this place and can do the numbers, and so be it. We need to proceed and move on, and we will come back to the recommendations from that review at a later date and deal with them at another time. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the committee stage but, as I said, I can read the numbers.

In terms of other issues, I reiterate the changes to the Summary Procedure Act since last year. The government took note of the concerns when another measure was defeated last year, and important changes are being made to the measure. The current proposal is about consistency. It ensures that two people charged with the same offence have the most consistent outcome possible regardless of which court they appear in. The proposal ensures that police are required to act with diligence, competence and care and, in the event of incompetence, obstruction or delay, a magistrate may still award costs with no limit.

I have attempted to answer some of the questions raised. Those that remain outstanding I am happy to deal with during the committee stage at the appropriate time. With that, I recommend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The softness of the minister's voice, due to her ailment, meant that I could not quite hear all she was reading out in reply to the second reading. On behalf of the member for Davenport, can I ask the minister to confirm whether she placed on the record, at the end of the second reading, the answers to the questions the member for Davenport put to ministers in the House of Assembly, which were promised to be provided during the Legislative Council debate?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that answers were given to all the matters that the member for Davenport raised in another place, and some of the matters that were raised in this place as well.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I ask the minister whether answers could be provided to the questions that I put on notice?

The CHAIR: The minister did indicate that some of that related to questions in this place but—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: None of mine.

The CHAIR: Not yours?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I kept the ones that were relevant to clauses for the clauses discussion, and I did the general ones in my second reading. Also, if we could have an indication of where the antipoverty financial counselling positions lie, within what department and the budget allocations and equivalent full-time positions, as well as the cost, so far, of the legal process with regard to the stripping of long service and other entitlements to the public sector in terms of both initial legal advice on taking that matter—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Long service leave—the general stripping of employees' conditions.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that we do not have any detailed response to those questions at this point in time, so I will need to take them on notice. I will return with those responses as soon as I possibly can.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The final specific question is that I am after a firm commitment from the government that the efficiency dividends that have been announced will not be code for job cuts; they will not translate into job cuts.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The fax machine in the Greens' office does not get used very often but it has had a good workout today with correspondence from the Local Government Association in relation to amendments to the Highways Act. Whilst I have not had the opportunity to go through all of its submissions in detail, given that they have arrived within the last hour or so, I will start by asking the government a question about the extent of consultation with the LGA given that it has now provided several pages of amendments it is seeking to the proposed new section 21A of the Highways Act. Was this matter discussed with the Local Government Association?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that no, this is a standard budgetary process where considerations are made by cabinet and then released as a budget bill, and then it is put out for public scrutiny, debate and discussion. This is the correspondence, and I think we received a fax, as well, or an email—no, we got a fax as well. That was the first time the LGA raised those specific issues with us so I am advised.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: We will do our best to explore some of this material. I received two faxes today from the LGA. One of them includes legal advice dated today from Norman Waterhouse Lawyers in relation to the amendments to both the Highways Act and the Local Government Act. Just to paraphrase some of that advice, it appears that the Development Act provisions will not apply to land acquired by the Commissioner of Highways under section 20 of the Highways Act, which is then subject to a determination under the proposed section 21A(12) of that act. First of all, is that correct? Secondly, if it is correct, is the implication that flows from that, that the statement in the minister's second reading speech that development approval would be required for development on these road reserves is, in fact, incorrect?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the first question, the answer to the question is no, the Development Act does apply. Could you please repeat the second part of the question?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Again, we are doing this very quickly and I am as disappointed as everyone else that we did not get this material earlier so that we could digest it, but you are saying that the legal advice is potentially—in fact, when I say 'the legal advice', I do not want to defame the good people at Norman Waterhouse; I am reading from the LGA's summary of the advice and whether they have summarised it correctly. I will perhaps put that caveat in. You are saying that the Development Act will apply to this land. I might leave that issue there and move on to a question of whether, if the Development Act does apply and the land is held in fee simple by the Commissioner for Highways, does that mean that any development on that land would go through the section 49 Crown development process, rather than any development being assessed by the local council under the normal Development Act provisions?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Perhaps to clarify the first part of the question, I have been advised that the Development Act does apply to commercial development on the land. In relation to the second part of the question, the development will be assessed by the council as the development authority.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I might tease that out a bit more. Why would the council be the relevant authority? If the developer is a private enterprise, for example, Shell, and they want to build a service station, if they do it in partnership with the government then they can take advantage of section 49 of the Development Act and can have the development assessed effectively by the DAC, but with the final decision being made by the minister. Have I got that wrong? Is it impossible for the Commissioner for Highways, owning the land, to enter a joint commercial arrangement with a petrol station company and thereby invoke section 49? Is that wrong—can that not happen?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, what the Hon. Mark Parnell proposes would be possible, but only in the same way that any other Crown development in joint partnership with the private sector would be in section 49 under the Development Act. However, it is not the commissioner's intention to develop the land with the private sector; rather, it is to lease the land for private sector development.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I think we are getting there. As I understand it, what we are looking at here is land that would clearly formerly have been under the domain of local councils to make development decisions, some of it now may not, and I think that is at the heart of their criticism. What I will do is I will read a couple of paragraphs from their legal advice onto the record.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will clarify. The Hon. Stephen Wade interrupts that it is the LGA summary. No; in fact, there is a full legal advice, but I was referring before to the summary. I want to put a couple of paragraphs onto the record because it does disagree with the answers the minister has given. I do not expect the minister to have a final answer to this now, but if the minister could take it away and clarify that either she was incorrect or that this legal advice is incorrect. The question the Local Government Association asked of Norman Waterhouse was:

Once the land is owned by the State Government, what planning controls will councils be able to exercise?

The response is:

Sections 20(5) and (6) of the Highways Act currently provide (generally speaking) that the Development Act 1993 does not apply in relation to land acquired under Section 20 of the Highways Act.

In our view, this 'carve out' does not apply to land the subject of a proclamation or regulation made under the proposed Section 21A(1) or 21A(2). This is so because land vested in the Commissioner under these sections is not 'acquired' under Section 20 of the Highways Act. This land will, therefore (subject to the existing exemptions in the Development Act and regulations), be subject to planning control by councils or other planning authorities.

However, the same cannot be said for land acquired by the Commissioner under Section 20 of the Highways Act, which is then subject to a determination under the proposed Section 21A(12) of the Highways Act. In our view, land acquired under Section 20 of the Highways Act and retained under a determination made under the proposed Section 21A(12) may be exempt from the Development Act under certain circumstances. If that is the case, then councils would have no ability to exercise planning controls over the land.

We note the proposed insertion of Section 20(6)(ab) which provides that land will not be exempt from the Development Act when it is to be 'used for the purposes of a lease of licence granted in respect of a road that vests, or remains vested, in the Commissioner under Section 21A'. It appears that the intent of this amendment is to preserve council planning powers over the land. However, in our opinion, on account of the purpose test included in the clause, this exception to the Section 20(5) carve out will only be activated once it is clear that a lease or licence is to be granted with respect to the land. As such, it could be permissible for the Commissioner to undertake development on the subject land before determining to lease or licence the land. In those circumstances such development would be excluded from the Development Act.

They conclude their advice with:

As such, we consider that clarification should be sought as to the application of the Development Act to land subject to a determination under the proposed Section 21A(12). If councils wish to ensure that they are able to continue to regulate planning on this land, then the Bill should be amended to provide, in no uncertain terms, that the carve out in Section 20(5) of the Highways Act does not apply to land the subject of a determination under the proposed Section 21A(12).

Apologies for all of the sections and subsections, but this advice does appear to be potentially contradictory to what the minister has said, and I would appreciate it if we could clarify that situation. In answer to an earlier question of mine, the minister said that, as a bill before the parliament, the Local Government Association had as much knowledge of it as anyone else. Has there been any specific discussion about any of these issues with the LGA?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think, as I have said, that the intention of any development is subject to the Development Act. Obviously, we will take the questions on notice. I have given as detailed a response as I am able to at this point in time, and we will certainly endeavour to provide a greater level of detail. We have only just received this as well. I provide the same answer in relation to consultation with the LGA: we have only just received these; there has been no previous detailed consultation. In terms of the usual process of budget, the usual budgetary process is one of cabinet consideration and then a bill goes out, and that is when the public has an opportunity to provide feedback and comment in relation to that. That is the usual budgetary process.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: One of the forms of development that was envisaged in relation to this if we call it surplus land along highways was the erection of signs, presumably advertising signs, that could be leased out for profit. Can the minister give assurances that no such signs would be erected, for example, along the South Eastern Freeway through the Hills Face Zone?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no, that no such assurance can be provided where highways have been proclaimed. The assurance I can provide, though, is that signage will be placed and positioned in such a way as to be safe to motorists.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On that point, my understanding was that the South Eastern Freeway was only available for road safety related signs. Are there any other signs permitted on highways?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that this provision that is before us at the moment will allow for signage on the four highways as outlined in proposed section 21A(2) and any other highway that might be proclaimed in the future. However, this signage is subject to guideline provisions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: One other question that the Local Government Association asked of its lawyers I think is an interesting one. The question was as follows:

Clause 22 of the bill, the proposed section 21A, subsection 12, of the Highways Act: does this allow the commissioner to purchase land adjacent to a road, declare it as a road, then develop it as a service centre?

The lawyers' response was:

As we note in our response to question one above, we consider that the bill may provide the commissioner with the capacity to acquire land and then develop a road in this fashion under certain circumstances. At least clarification should be sought on this matter and an amendment made to the bill to clarify and strengthen the application of the exemption contained in the proposed section 20(6)(ab).

I will just get the minister to put on the record, if she can, that the government will not be acquiring land ostensibly for roads but in reality for some other purpose.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that that is correct. It needs to be acquired for roads.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Depending on the answer, I think this is my last question on the clause. The minister in her responses, and certainly in her second reading speech, alluded to a number of types of development that might be possible along these highways and freeways. Is there any list or indication that the minister can give of specific proposals that are on the drawing board just waiting for this legislation to go through? Are there any service centre locations, signs or park-and-ride stations that can be identified? Has that work been done and can the minister and share it with the committee?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, no, the department has not identified any specific sites or developments at this particular point in time.

Clause passed.

Clauses 21 to 30 passed.

Clauses 31 to 34.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will be opposing the clauses that refer to the biosecurity levy and, as the minister said, the numbers are there to have this particular section of the bill removed. I think everything has been said in the second reading contributions relating to this matter. I will leave it at that and to the vote.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I will speak briefly in relation to the opposition's position on this matter. Certainly like any matter in a budget bill, we considered this position with some significance. The history of this particular measure is well known and it has been well related today, I think, in some second reading contributions.

The Liberal Party has opposed the introduction of the biosecurity levy in the form presented. As has been said earlier today, on my motion, this council sent it off to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee to be examined. I give credit to the minister because I think she inherited that levy when she came into the job and I do not think she ever felt comfortable with it. Just before the livestock bill was introduced (the day before), her adviser got a message to me—I think I was actually in the President's chair—to say that it would not be in the bill. From that point on we have welcomed the fact that the minister has established her own inquiry, chaired by Mr Dennis Mutton, who is well known to many of us as a longstanding former public servant.

The opposition does not support the introduction of a biosecurity levy in another name, certainly while these inquiries are going on. The ERD Committee has not completed its work and neither has Mr Mutton's reference group completed their work. It seems to me that it is just a way in which Treasury has decided to try to get this through, despite the fact that the parliament has objected to it previously.

I indicate that the Liberal Party will support the Hon. Ann Bressington's motion, as it were, to delete these clauses because we do not think that it is an appropriate measure at this stage. The levy in the form that it was flagged—or in any form, I suppose—is opposed not only by the South Australian Farmers Federation, the South Australian Dairy Association, the Food Producers and Landowners Action Group, Equestrian South Australia, Horse SA, Pony Clubs Australia and Pony Clubs SA but also the many other people who have contacted me and other colleagues. With those words, I indicate that the Liberal Party will be supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the Hon. Ms Bressington's proposition. I have already outlined our arguments in my second reading summary, and I made it very clear that this is an enabling piece of legislation, that there are no direct costs associated with this, so that if we pass this today in itself it would not apply any fees to the industry. Regulation would be required before that could occur—it is an enabling or a head of power only. I have given a commitment to a process of review being chaired by Dennis Mutton and I stand by that commitment. It will not be until those recommendations have been handed down and I have been able to consider that and then land on a potential fee structure that any fee structure would be put forward. However, as I said, I can read the numbers. I just want to put those few comments formally on the record.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I just quickly put the Greens' position on the record. We will also be supporting the removal of clauses 31 to 34, but not for the same reasons as other members have put forward. The Greens are not necessarily opposed to cost recovery. We look forward to the conclusion of the Mutton inquiry, and we look forward to the conclusion of the ERD Committee's inquiry into it.

The difficulty that we have with allowing this to go through just now is that this is the one bullet in the chamber—of the gun, I mean, not the chamber of the Legislative Council. It seems that, once this goes through, the only recourse available to parliament will be to disallow the regulations that actually identify the exact fee structure.

It seems to me that the parliament might want a more fine-grained tool than that, than simply a yes or a no, to what the government comes up with. I want just to clarify briefly some comments I made earlier because it might have sounded as if it was dismissive of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. What I said was that I thought that the Mutton inquiry was an important one to be concluded before this parliament debated these measures further, and I said that any failure on the part of the ERD Committee to complete its work would not necessarily be fatal.

What I meant by that was that, if the ERD Committee, for reasons outside my control, dragged its feet and delayed consideration, did not hear from witnesses and took years to finalise its report, then I would not want to be a party to that sort of delay. However, my expectation would be that the hardworking ERD Committee will conclude its deliberations shortly, that we will have some recommendations for the Legislative Council and that we will also find out the results of the Mutton review.

The Greens reserve our position to ultimately support some form of livestock health programs fund, but we do not believe that this is the time or place to be doing it. As the minister said, this particular measure does not cost anything. She has already agreed to wait until the Mutton inquiry is finished. Therefore, there is no hit on the budget by us not passing this measure now. The bill can be brought back to us when the time is right and we can then consider how this cost recovery program should work in its entirety. As I said, the Greens will be supporting I think the majority of members of the chamber in deleting these clauses from the bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington's proposal to strike out clauses 31 to 34.

Clauses negatived.

Clauses 35 to 42 passed.

Clause 43.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I direct a question to the minister, which I raised in my second reading speech, with regard to the water rebate to be made payable to tenants via their landlords, in terms of the drinking water. Can the government provide information on the extent and the cost of the education program that is planned, with some time frames around that and, as I asked before, whether additional resources for the administration of that have been made available to Consumer and Business Services?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the Consumer and Business Services Division of the Attorney-General's Department is responsible for residential tenancies and will prepare information to be circulated in the lead-up to the application of a water security rebate by SA Water in the first quarter of 2013. The goal of the information is to have landlords automatically pass on the water security rebate as required by the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. If there is a dispute about whether the water security rebate has been passed on by the landlord then the dispute resolution procedures available through the Consumer and Business Services Division to tenants will apply.

In terms of the budget initiative, an allowance of $100,000 has been put aside to aid Housing SA in supporting the water security rebate and also the Consumer and Business Services of the Attorney-General's Department. That is for the communication information strategy. In relation to the details of that communication program, they have not been finalised at this point and will be done so in the next number of months.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I would like to pursue this a little bit further. From my understanding of these insertions into the Residential Tenancies Act, it will not be an offence for a landlord not to pass on the rebate. I will pose that as a question. If the answer is no, that it is not an offence, does that mean that the only recourse for a tenant who believes they were entitled to have the rebate passed on to them (and it was not) is to go to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, assuming that no other advice service of the department was successful? Is that their only option: to go to the tribunal to recover the money?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You are right. It is not an offence not to pass on the rebate. If there is a dispute around this rebate, because it is a very small amount of money clearly it is not in anyone's interest to be wanting to go to court. It is to try to resolve these matters outside of the courts. Initially the dispute would be conducted through the dispute resolution services provided by the Consumer and Business Services. There is an obligation to comply with the passing on of the rebate and ultimately, if that dispute service was not able to resolve it there, it would then be passed on to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal where an order could be made, and there is a penalty then applied if that order is not adhered to.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I think I will finish on this point, because the Greens are actually very supportive of making sure this rebate does get passed on to tenants. But I am not convinced that it has been that well thought through because it involves so many steps. First of all, the tenant has to know that this thing called a rebate exists and the minister has explained that there will be some education program—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: $100,000.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: $100,000 across the whole state—so, good luck letting all those tenants know that this exists. Secondly, as to whether or not the landlord knows that it is his or her obligation, they are not under any penalty if they do not pass it on. They can just hope that the tenant does not realise that there is $45 or $75 waiting for them and just not do anything with it. If the tenant does find out that they are potentially entitled to this, say, $45 rebate, then they can go to the department. The landlord can say, 'I am not interested in negotiating with you.' It can then go to the tribunal. The application fee at the Residential Tenancies Tribunal is $37.25 which is how much you would have to pay to get your $45 back. So, you would make, on my calculations, $7.75.

Certainly, the minister might say, 'Oh, well, you could apply for the fee to be waived.' But, honestly, I think the real situation here is that, however poor someone might be, the effort you would have to make to go to the tribunal to try to recover your $45 back from a recalcitrant landlord means that, in the vast majority of cases, the emotional energy will not be worth it, and it will not happen. We support the government putting in the bill a measure that seeks to do the right thing, by making sure that tenants do get the benefit of this rebate, but, really, it is not going to work, and that is a disappointment.

The Greens would urge the government to do more than the minor education campaign it has going. It will require more money than that, and the stakes are not that high, so my bet is that the government will not want to spend any more than $100,000. It is a well-intentioned measure, but I expect it will be a poorly applied measure. Nevertheless, the Greens support it; we will not be opposing this clause.

Clause passed.

Clauses 44 and 45 passed.

Clauses 46 and 47.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I rise to address clause 46 and indicate my intention to suggest to the committee that it votes to delete both clauses 46 and 47. This is the second year in a row the government has tried to change criminal procedure under the cover of the budget bill. In the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2011) Bill 2011, the government sought to amend the Summary Procedure Act 1921 to establish a presumption that costs would not be awarded against police in a summary prosecution, even where the prosecution had been unsuccessful.

In the opposition's view, that measure was not a genuine budget measure. In our view, this very similar proposal is also not a budget measure; it is a criminal procedure issue. What is actually more confronting this year than last year is that we have a bill before us—in fact, according to the government's Notice Paper, we may well consider it next—that is exactly the sort of bill in which you would expect to see this sort of measure.

If the government was complaining that, given the legislative program, we could not have addressed this issue in a timely fashion to effect the change, it does not apply this year. We actually had a bill before us, and the government did not take the opportunity to address the issue. The very act the government seeks to amend, through clauses 46 and 47, is the subject of amendment by the next bill for us to consider.

The Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Bill will also significantly increase the magistrate's jurisdiction and therefore amplify the impact of this budget proposal. As I said, this is the second year in a row the government has tried to sneak in a change such as this under the protection of the budget bill. Similarly, as last year, apparently it was done by the police minister without engagement but with the Attorney. The Attorney-General told the estimates committee this year that he had no idea about the proposal; he could not even recall whether it had been to cabinet. This may well be the reason it was not introduced in the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Bill. It shows that this government is fundamentally dysfunctional: the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. I was caused to reflect by the comments of the Hon. John Dawkins about whether Treasury perhaps needs to reflect at this point as well.

We have three issues in this bill that have been debated at length by this committee. The Hon. Mark Parnell was highlighting the LGA's issues in relation to the Highways Act; it did not sound very much like a budget measure to me. We have had a discussion about the biosecurity levy, where the Hon. John Dawkins rightly highlighted that the parliament had clearly indicated its desire that it be considered by the ERDC, yet Treasury insisted on sneaking it into a budget bill—and here we have again, second year in a row, a criminal procedure matter being put into the budget bill.

I would stress to Treasury: you have a very important role. You have the custody of the budget bills which have a special status within the parliamentary considerations. Please do not abuse us by sticking in bits and pieces that this government or Treasury thinks would be handy to get through without debate. We have seen that, last year, we had one item knocked out on that basis; this year, we have got two items knocked out on it. I notice Mr Parnell did not choose to amend in relation to the Highways Act, but I think the parliament is indicating its suspicion that Treasury is abusing our conventions. We have indicated that we are willing to act contrary to those conventions if we do not believe that the parliament is being respected. I would urge the council to do that in this case also.

If the Attorney-General has not been consulted by Treasury or by the police minister, it is not surprising that nobody else has been either. In fact, if perhaps Treasury had bothered to speak to others, it might have realised that this savings opportunity is not the pot of gold it might think. When I say 'pot of gold', I understand the Hon. Mark Parnell was told that the Treasury estimates, which we are not even told, are somewhere less than $2 million.

We are not talking about something that is going to wind back the State Bank debt, but still, the net effect, I think, has been sorely underestimated. Many of the people who appear in the magistrates courts are actually represented by the Legal Services Commission, so costs previously awarded against police to clients of the Legal Services Commission, under this proposal, would not be awarded and the commission would need to carry a portion of those costs.

Given that the commission is publicly funded and will have increased costs, the net impact on the budget is likely to be significantly offset by additional expenses of the commission. The ban on police costs is also likely to simultaneously increase demand for legal aid. We asked the Attorney-General in the estimates committee what he thought the financial impact of this provision would be. He was not able to tell us. The Australian Lawyers Alliance commented on the government's lack of consultation in the following terms:

...it is highly desirable for all stakeholders in the criminal justice system to be given the opportunity to make submissions to add balance and perspective...something which is most unlikely if the only representations come from the body who stands to benefit from a change of the law.

The government has, as I said, failed to consult, and you must question whether it is serious about getting it through. The Attorney would not even say whether he supported the proposal in the estimates committees. As the Attorney said during estimates, the first two questions to ask are whether it passes and in what form. To paraphrase his comments, the government has not bothered to think about the impacts it would have on other parts of the justice system because, until then, they are just 'unknown unknowns'. What kind of due diligence is this government applying to legislation if its idea of proper consultation and proper consideration is based on unknown unknowns?

The opposition considers it is unacceptable to trade off justice for police cuts. We believe that the government is being short-sighted. I have highlighted in my public comments the issue about police accountability. Measures which undermine costs undermine SAPOL's accountability and the incentive for police to maintain quality prosecution services. The Law Society considers that the 'risk of cost orders is a major factor in ensuring that only the more meritorious matters go to trial'. If the police are to be immune from a costs order, the 'fear is that a greater number of unworthy matters will be charged and proceeded with'.

The fact is that South Australia is blessed with quality prosecution services, but part of maintaining that quality is to maintain the dynamic of the accountability that costs provide. I note that the Hon. Mark Parnell advised the council that the police advised him that they do not consider costs impacts in deciding whether to prosecute. I may well have misunderstood the comments of the Hon. Mark Parnell and the police might need to educate me but, if that is the position of the police, I would suggest that one approach to save at least the less than $2 million involved would be to introduce policies which assessed the value for money for citizens and taxpayers from a prosecution.

I am greatly concerned that, whether or not it is intentional, the impacts of the 2012 version of this proposal could be much broader than last year's proposal. I draw the council's attention to the phrase 'relating to', which suggests that the courts will not be able to award costs in proceedings where summary offences are joined with at least one indictable offence.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The honourable member is battling against conversations which could possibly be taken outside.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. If that is an incorrect reading of the bill, then I would suggest that it needs to be amended because it was certainly the view of lawyers who expressed their concern to me that that is the impact of the legislation, that the width of the phrase 'relating to' could mean that summary offences joined with at least one indictable might be subject to this ban. The clear impact of that might well be that police would be encouraged to add more offences to bring it into that band of protection.

Other impacts of the bill include that there would be less incentive to finalise a case where costs are not, if you like, under threat. If costs are expected to be borne by the defendant, it may encourage them to take matters to trial, as there is no incentive for them to act in a manner that would avoid an adverse costs order. There may be an increase in civil actions against police from lawyers seeking costs.

One lawyer wrote to me to say that the increase in prosecution costs will make legal representation unaffordable for people who are least able to secure it. He particularly highlighted clients from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds with serious issues such as drug and alcohol problems, disabilities and mental health issues.

This proposal is not about reducing the cost of the system, improving access to justice: it is about shifting the cost of justice onto the innocent. It is somewhat ironic that yesterday The Advertiser reminded us that, under this government, the cost of justice has doubled in the last decade, when inflation in comparison has only increased by a third. Yet, the Labor Party's response is that the next day we are going to consider a bill that says, 'You, poor citizen, may be innocent; you may be finding it unaffordable to come to the courts to protect your rights but, beware! Even if you are innocent, even if you win, you'll carry our costs.'

That is an arrogant government, a government unconcerned about social justice, a government that shows great disregard not only for the cost of living that South Australians face but also for their need for justice. I would urge the council to continue the stand it took last year in saying, 'This is not a budget measure; it is not a just measure; it should be opposed.'

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I just have a question of the minister at this stage in relation to these clauses. Certainly most of the discussion to date has been in relation to prosecutions conducted by the police and we would expect that that would be the vast bulk, but there are other organisations that are able to prosecute, and one that springs to mind is the RSPCA. Can the minister tell us whether or not the RSPCA was consulted in relation to these changes?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised, to the best of our knowledge, no.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will just very briefly put on the record the Greens' position on this bill. I did make these observations in my second reading speech but, for the reasons that the Hon. Stephen Wade gave and for the reasons that we ourselves gave last year when we dealt with very similar provisions, the Greens will be supporting the removal of these clauses from this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I just want to put on record a couple of comments in relation to some of the statements made by the Hon. Stephen Wade. I think it is important that we get back to basics, and that is the main imperative behind the amendments is to achieve consistency, so that the position for indictable matters dealt with in the Magistrates Court will be the same as those matters dealt with in the higher courts. The key safeguards remain, so there is court discretion to award costs in the event that a party has unreasonably obstructed proceedings or neglect or incompetence of a legal practitioner or police prosecutor. The amendments will not create a statutory bar to the imposition of costs against the prosecution in those particular circumstances, so people's interests are protected in those cases.

In relation to clause 46, insertion of section 188A, SAPOL has indicated that it agrees it is appropriate for parliamentary counsel to draft amendments to clarify or confirm the narrow intent of 'relating to' or, in other words, it is SAPOL's position that the term is to be construed narrowly so as to allow courts to award costs in proceedings for summary charges that are joined with minor indictable charges. There will, therefore, be no opportunity for the prosecution to add or maintain an indictable charge simply to quarantine the matter from costs awarded. The Legal Services Commission will still apply its threshold tests to applications for assistance, unless the commission subsequently changes its decision-making parameters. There is no obvious correlation between the passing of the amendments and the increase in demand for legal aid.

The opposition's reference to an increase in civil actions against SAPOL from lawyers seeking costs is mysterious, to say the least. There is no known cause for action that would support this hypothesis, unless they are speaking to a malicious prosecution or a somewhat exceptional case in tort law. The elementary components of that cause are completely unrelated to the award of costs, that is, the plaintiff would not pursue a malicious prosecution for the same reasons they would pursue costs.

In relation to the point that the member made, the intent of the legislation is not to insulate costs where summary offences are combined with indictable offences. Costs will still apply to summary offences. That is the advice I have received.

The committee divided on the clauses:

Majority of 5 for the noes.

Clauses thus negatived.

Remaining clauses (48 to 52) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (17:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.