Bills

Budget Measures Bill 2014

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 August 2014.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:29): I rise to continue my remarks in the second reading of the Budget Measures Bill. Prior to the break I outlined the Liberal Party’s view and then a number of questions to the government in relation to some aspects of the Budget Measures Bill. To briefly summarise the Liberal Party’s position, which we have already outlined in the House of Assembly and I have already outlined on behalf of my colleagues in the Legislative Council, we (the Liberal Party) strongly oppose many of the measures in this particular budget and also in the Budget Measures Bill. Certainly they would not have been part of any budget brought down by a potential Liberal government.

As we outlined at the last state election, our policy package was promoted on the basis of reducing the cost of living, reducing taxes and charges on families and on businesses and also cutting out waste and financial mismanagement within the system. Be that as it may, this government has proceeded with its policy package—some of which was known before the election, much of which was not—in relation to further increases in taxes and charges on businesses and on struggling South Australian families.

In summary, there are broadly five key areas in the bill. The key one in terms of ongoing costs to the budget is the car park tax, which has a financial impact of $26 million to $30 million a year. There is a separate provision in relation to long service leave for teachers, which has potentially a significant one-off impact on the budget and a lower impact in terms of ongoing costs, depending on whether or not the measure is passed. The remaining three parts of the bill essentially offset each other. They are smaller in nature.

A financial benefit in terms of stamp duty relief is to be provided, which will cost the budget about $7 million a year, and then there are two additional imposts: one is the fun tax, which will collect about $4 million a year, and the other one is some royalty increases, which will collect about $3 million a year, or a total increase of about $7 million a year. So there is an increase of $7 million a year in tax collections and there is various stamp duty relief of $7 million a year. As I said, they broadly offset each other.

The key financial impacts of the Budget Measures Bill are the car park tax, obviously, and our views are well known on that, and the long service leave provision for teachers, which potentially has a significant one-off impact, at least up-front.

I want to address some comments to the fun tax that the government has introduced. There has been widespread opposition to the fun tax, but I suspect that at this stage that will be minor compared to what we are likely to see when the actual impact is felt by consumers in a variety of areas.

The area I want to place on the record at the moment is the issue in relation to the impact on Adelaide Oval, for example, and on football, and in particular information provided to my colleague, the member for Mitchell (Mr Wingard), from one of the two AFL clubs, the Port Adelaide Football Club. I understand that the information provided by that club on behalf of its supporters is reflective of the views of the other football club, the Adelaide Football Club, and is also supportive of information that the Stadium Management Authority, which is the venue operator, has provided.

The information provided by the Port Adelaide Football Club indicates that the potential impact on ticket prices varies between $2 and $4 extra per ticket as a result of the Weatherill government’s fun tax. The information provided by the Port Adelaide Football Club—and, as I said, I understand it is also supported by the Stadium Management Authority and the Adelaide Football Club—indicates that the levy impact on general admission public ticket sales will be $4 each. For members’ guest passes, it will be $4 each, and for members who have an11-game membership, it will be $22 extra (or $2 a game).

For those members who have access to Adelaide Oval for 22 games, the impact will be $44 (again, $2 per game). For various corporate suites, the additional impact again works out at $2 per game depending on whether it is 11 games or 22 games. The impact for the ticket category for SACA, Adelaide Football Club, Port Adelaide Football Club and the away team patrons is $4. I am not sure what that particular category exactly describes, but it is another one of the $4 per game impacts. So, that is the assessment in terms of the impact of the fun tax on football followers in South Australia.

Given the heightened degree of interest in the football finals, it is probably going to be of some interest to supporters of both the Port Adelaide Football Club and the Adelaide Football Club for next year. These imposts will not become apparent until next year. We are told the venue operator, which is the Stadium Management Authority, will be charged, we are told, a total of about $2½ million, so the vast bulk of the increased collections will come from football followers or Adelaide Oval patrons, and will impact on their ticket prices next year.

I do not know, but I assume that, given that they will run various other events such as the occasional soccer game, possibly rugby games, rock concerts and also the occasional SANFL games for finals, the venue operator, the Stadium Management Authority, will also have to allocate some element of the $2.5 million extra to those particular bodies, and they will have to ratchet up the ticket prices for the concerts, soccer games, rugby games and SANFL games by some margin as well. I have not been provided with estimates of what the impact of that might be.

Given that the general admission public ticket sale price goes up $4 a ticket, one might assume that the impact might be closer to the $4 per ticket than the $2 per ticket, which is the increased cost attributed to 11-game and 22-game memberships at Adelaide Oval for the two AFL football clubs. But, that aspect is a supposition, as opposed to information provided to the shadow minister from the Port Adelaide Football Club.

South Australian families will not see the impact of these cost imposts until next year. The interesting question, I think, for the Port Adelaide Football Club, the Adelaide Football Club and the Stadium Management Authority will be to make it known what the potential cost impacts of this extra $2½ million will be, particularly as these are additional imposts unknown at the time that the Stadium Management Authority was established and the approval for the Adelaide Oval project was provided by this parliament and by the government. These are additional imposts unknown to all involved until the announcement in this year’s budget.

The minister has provided some answers to the questions that I put in my comments some five weeks ago, and I will address some of those answers now. I asked: who in the Department for Education and Child Development had prepared the modelling and assessment for the state’s potential liability under the long service leave arrangements? The minister advises:

The Office of Human Resources and Workforce Development in consultation with Finance in DECD prepared estimates…These estimates are broadly based for reasons including…the precise number of potential claimants is presently unknown.

What is the potential liability? The minister says that:

Given the unknown number of potential claimants, and the fact that liability has potentially been accruing over 42 years…an exact figure is unknown. It is clear, however, that given the factors mentioned above, the potential liability is extremely large.

In calculating potential liability DECD has assessed the entire spectrum of potential liability. It is not appropriate at this stage to publicly disclose potential liability figures given the state of the proceedings in the Supreme Court…which remain on foot.

The minister has not responded to the question which I put, and that was: what is the nature of the legal advice that indicates that it is not appropriate to publicly disclose the potential liability figure? As I said, I placed on the record my view that, given that a potential liability figure has already been quoted and the AEU have indicated that they were advised by departmental officers of potential liability of between $100 million and $200 million, I think the number was, why, if the AEU negotiators have been provided that particular number, can the parliament not be provided with that particular number or an indication as to how that was calculated or why that particular number was just a back of the envelope number and it had been done on a particular basis and it perhaps is not relevant if that is going to be the department's argument on this?

So, I will pursue in the committee further detail as to whether they firstly concede, as the AEU have claimed, that they were told this number by departmental people and then pursue that particular issue in committee. I asked questions about details of the ex gratia scheme. The answer is:

Cabinet has approved the establishment of an ex-gratia scheme…At this stage, the details of the Scheme have not been put to Cabinet, as this is dependent on passage of the Bill.

While I cannot provide details of the Scheme prior to them being approved by Cabinet, I can tell you that:

$15 million has been approved for the Scheme and will be available for discretionary payments to eligible teachers;

the Scheme will not be used to pay any legal costs associated with Proceedings;

the fund will be controlled by DTF. It is expected that DECD will review applications and provide relevant information to me, as Attorney-General, to exercise discretion as to who will receive any payment out of the fund. Following approval, DTF would release the funds necessary to make the payments;

all eligible temporary teachers will be able to apply for payments out of the fund.

I do not accept that response from the minister. I do not believe that there has been no work done on the broad principles that might apply to the ex gratia scheme by the department. They would be negligent if they had not already done so. Someone must have done some work to have justified the allocation of $15 million for an ex gratia scheme. I am assuming that someone has done an estimate of the potential number of successful claimants and an average cost per claimant and has estimated $15 million to the department and to Treasury.

It is my view that during the committee stage of the debate this chamber should insist on greater detail from the minister, and if it is true that nothing has gone to cabinet yet, and I have no reason to doubt that issue, then either it needs to go to cabinet before we discuss this issue or there needs to be authority given to indicate the potential options that are being considered by the department and the government for the provision of payments under the ex gratia arrangements.

I can see no good reason why this chamber should not be provided with more detail in relation to how this particular ex gratia scheme should operate. Many of us are getting questions from people to ask who will be eligible and what will the department take into account. They are not unreasonable questions.

If the government is seeking the support of the Liberal Party to approve the retrospective changes to the long service leave arrangements for teachers, then the responsibility rests on their shoulders to provide greater detail to convince a majority of members in this chamber that this ex gratia scheme is pitched at an appropriate level and will be applied fairly and reasonably in terms of meeting reasonable claims to the department. There is a further example. I asked, 'Are there any previous examples of parliament retrospectively correcting an anomaly?' The answer was:

In 1991 the government amended the act to reflect the practice and understanding of payment when teachers were engaged for part day. This was following a civil claim that resulted in a judgement that granted a full day's pay for any engagement of part day. This prompted the Education (Part-time Remuneration) Amendment Act 1991, which inserted a new section 101A into the act with retrospective application.

I have also been separately advised. I raised the issue that I had a recollection that, some time in the last 10 years, we had retrospectively approved some amendments as a result of a court case that might have applied in the stamp duties area. I have been advised and referred to a debate on the Stamp Duties (Trusts) Amendment Bill in 2008 in this chamber, where, as a result of a court decision, this parliament (or certainly the Labor government and the Liberal opposition—I am not sure that there was opposition from the minor parties, but I stand corrected on that if there was) approved a retrospective change in relation to the stamp duties arrangements as a result of a court decision.

So, whilst the Liberal Party's position has been not generally favourable to retrospective legislation, as I indicated before there have been occasions in the past where we have supported some elements of retrospective application of new laws. The 2008 stamp duties act is a recent example. The 1991 legislation, which was again at least partially retrospective, was supported by the parliament in 1991. My further question was, 'Where are the employment records of the relevant teachers kept?' The answer was:

Most records are available in the DECD central office; other records are archived in boxes off site. For teachers who combine their service with lecturing in TAFE, some records are in the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

I note that I did ask questions about the employment of staff by schools out of funds provided in a grant to schools. Whilst this answer does not specifically refer to that question (and I will clarify it in committee), I am assuming that the answer by inference is that, even in those circumstances that I have outlined, part-time teachers, employed in the way I described, have their records available in the department's central office, but I will seek clarification in committee on that. My next question was: 'How would the government make the calculations in order to pay out all teachers?' The answer was:

Payments from the ex gratia fund will be entirely discretionary. Applicants will be able to submit information documents in support of any application. I anticipate that DECD will also provide to me information about the service history of claimants. Calculations would be largely manual.

That response was from John Rau, Deputy Premier, dated 10 September, provided to me and copied to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Certainly I will pursue a number of those where I do not believe all the answers have been provided in that letter. However, I do thank the Deputy Premier for his response and answer to some of the questions that were there.

The other issue to which I had not addressed comments was the senior housing grant eligibility, which is a $7 million concession in the Budget Measures Bill. I am aware that my colleague the member for Bright wrote to the Treasurer on 7 August on behalf of his constituents, highlighting his constituent's concerns and his concerns that this particular concession will not be available to persons who downsized from their big family home and who purchase into a retirement village. I seek from the minister confirmation of that, but the member for Bright says that he has had it confirmed that that in fact will be the case.

The member for Bright, in his letter to the Treasurer, highlights that in 2013 when the Housing Construction Grant was introduced it originally excluded homes in retirement villages or residential parks. However, after lobbying, this was later deemed an oversight and ex gratia relief was granted to such homes in retirement villages and residential parks due to the underlying policy for the Housing Construction Grant being to encourage the construction of new homes. The member for Bright’s argument and his constituent’s argument is, given that explanation from the government he has asked the government whether it should not also be the case that ex gratia relief be provided for this particular concession for residents who move into retirement villages and residential parks. His argument is:

For many, retirement village and residential park living is the most obvious and suitable option for elderly residents looking to find an age appropriate home due to the access to facilities and strong sense of community provided in such settings, as well as the size and manageability of properties in these establishments.

He argues:

Given the precedent set by the amendment to the HCG, the Housing Construction Grant, to include homes in retirement villages and residential parks, I would suggest ex gratia relief should also be extended in these circumstances in order to ensure that the government legitimately delivers on their election promise to find ways to create more affordable age appropriate homes in South Australia.

I seek a response from the minister at either the committee stage or the end of the second reading stage to that submission from the member for Bright, and if the government’s position is that they do not agree with that request for further ex gratia relief, can the minister, on behalf of the government, outline why they do not believe it is appropriate and why this is different to the circumstances that apply to the Housing Construction Grant?

The final comment I want to make in my second reading contribution deals with the car park tax. As you would be aware, Mr Acting President, the Liberal Party for 18 months or so has strongly campaigned against the car park tax. We believe it will add to the costs for families and businesses, and for all those reasons and others that have been placed on the record we have and continue to strongly oppose the car park tax. We have tabled in this chamber amendments to seek, during the committee stage, removal of the car park tax from the Budget Measures Bill.

I was intrigued to see a story, one would assume sourced to Treasurer Koutsantonis, in the Adelaide Advertiser this morning under the heading ‘Wheels in motion on car park tax’, which was written by Sheradyn Holderhead and says:

A deal to reinstate some Emergency Services Levy subsidies could help the state government save its proposed car park tax in a last-minute deal with key crossbench MPs. The Advertiser understands that Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis has met crossbenchers in the past week to try to convince them to support the controversial tax.

It is quite detailed in terms of what Mr Koutsantonis has done.

Mr Koutsantonis is understood to have told crossbenchers the government would be willing to negotiate on a range of issues, including winding back the ESL increases for some property owners.

It then goes on to outline some of the propositions the Treasurer, Mr Koutsantonis, has evidently discussed with key crossbenchers in this particular chamber. The Liberal Party’s position on this is resolute, we are resolute. We do not believe in imposing additional taxes and charges on South Australian families and businesses. We have tabled the removal of the car park tax, as we took to the election and subsequently have publically debated since the election, and will seek the support of key crossbench MPs.

Whilst it is not part of the Budget Measures Bill, the impost from the emergency services levy will be a hammer blow to South Australian families and businesses. The Hon. Mr Darley has been super active, as have my leader and members of the Liberal Party, publicly explaining, via the media, the horrendous impact on some families and businesses of the government's heartless increases in the emergency services levy; but they are not part of this particular Budget Measures Bill.

The Premier and the Treasurer believe that, because they have included with the emergency services levy a dodgy letter that goes out to every ESL payer in South Australia seeking to blame the federal government, this is a clever strategy and they will successfully pass the blame for the increase in the ESL from themselves to the federal government. Well, I have got news for them. Already it is quite clear that South Australian families and businesses are not buying that dodgy argument. They do not believe what the Premier and Treasurer are seeking to tell them through this dodgy political letter being sent out with the emergency services levy notice.

If the government does not back off of its own volition in relation to the emergency services levy, then this will be at political cost to itself over the coming years and leading up to the 2018 election. If it remains as it is, I can assure the Premier and Treasurer that South Australian families and businesses are not stupid. They know that this is an impost being applied as a result of 12 years of financial mismanagement and waste by the current state Labor government.

They know the responsibility rests with the state Labor government and, come 2018, if there have been no changes, they will fairly and squarely be blaming Mr Weatherill and Mr Koutsantonis, the Premier and the Treasurer, for this massive increase in their cost of living and the cost of doing business in South Australia. South Australian families and businesses in 2018 certainly will not be blaming the federal government for the increase in the emergency services levy and the other increases in taxes and charges that we have seen.

The Premier and the Treasurer have massively underestimated the political impact that this particular decision has inflicted on them and on South Australian businesses and families. There are certainly members within the Labor caucus who are only just beginning to realise that they have been sold a pup by the Premier and the Treasurer. They were told during the budget debate that this was a progressive tax, that this was a good thing in that the wealthy would pay more and the poor would pay less.

They were sold a pup, and there are one or two within the caucus already who are openly questioning in the corridors of Parliament House the advice they were given by the Premier and the Treasurer, the Treasurer in particular, because they know that there are lots of people and organisations out there squealing at the moment—screaming at the moment—about the impact of the emergency services levy.

It is certainly my view that if the car park tax is defeated in this and the Budget Measures Bill proceeds there will still be direct pressure on the Premier and Treasurer from the community, from the Liberal Party, from the crossbenches, and from increasingly some of their own backbench members to back off to a degree from some elements of the emergency services levy.

The massive increases on schools, which will see significant increases in school fees for many struggling families, is just one example. With the massive increases in the Emergency Services Levy on some non-government organisations, we will see either a massive reduction in services that can be provided by those organisations or increased cost of the services that they provide.

None of this was thought through by the Treasurer. We saw, when the issue were first raised by the Hon. Mr Darley and others in relation to the impact on retirement villages, that the Treasurer had no idea what the impact was. It was only when it was explained to him on radio by others that he realised and then proceeded to back off with a message that went onto the Revenue SA website saying that he was going to try and protect the pensioners within the retirement villages.

That is the way to put pressure on the Treasurer and the Premier: through their backbenchers, through their members. That is the way the pressure needs to be kept on in a considered and comprehensive campaign. In my humble submission, it is not to be done by trading off one bad tax for another through a backroom deal with the Treasurer as the government just loves to do when they can. ‘Have we got a deal for you. We will get rid of part of one bad tax and replace it with part of another bad tax if you just agree to do this particular deal.’

Let's defeat the car park tax and keep the pressure on, as we have already done with the retirement villages, to force the Premier and the Treasurer to realise the error of their ways and to force them to realise that they have not thought it through, and to force them to provide the sorts of concessions that they need to provide and that used to be provided under former governments both Labor and Liberal for many years under the Emergency Services Levy.

That is the way to tackle this particular issue and not through any prospective backroom deal which clearly, it would appear, the Treasurer or his supporters have provided or leaked to the morning Advertiser. With those comments I support the second reading.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:02): I rise very briefly to speak on the Budget Measures Bill 2014. The bill proposes five main measures, namely implementation of a transport development levy, changes to the Education Act that remove entitlements for temporary officers of the teaching services, the Seniors Housing Grant, the implementation of fees for special passenger services to commercial events and, lastly, increases to mining royalties.

I want to focus on the first three measures mentioned. I have made my position regarding the transport development levy known but, for the record, I remain strongly opposed to this measure, and I am not alone. The government cannot rely on the support of one single organisation for this measure, not the Property Council, not the Rundle Mall Management Authority, not Business SA, not the Real Estate Institute of SA, not the Urban Development Institute of Australia, not even the Local Government Association. Why? Because they all know it is a bad idea.

Not one organisation has contacted me and said, 'Please support this measure' but I have received plenty of phone calls, emails and letters asking me to oppose it. The levy will not reinvigorate the city. It will not help already struggling businesses and retail outlets. It will not make more people catch public transport and it will not help workers who are already struggling to make ends meet. What it will do is keep people as far away from the city as possible and add yet another expense to the hip pocket of those who cannot avoid coming into the city.

I have to ask, has the government advised its stakeholders that Parliament House will be exempted from the scheme altogether? How does this government think workers will respond to this? ‘It is okay for you to pay but not us.’ This measure is nothing more than just another slap in the face for people and for businesses who are trying to make a living. It is unfair and it is unjust.

For the record, I also reiterate my opposition to changes that will result in cuts to entitlements for temporary officers of the teaching service who have more than a three-month break in service. The government has tried to justify this measure on the basis that it was never the intention of successive governments that contract teachers have access to an allowable break in service of up to two years for the purposes of long service accrual, and that it will bring them into line with other public servants, who are entitled to only a three-month break in service. It says that the bill is confirming what is applied and what has been understood to be the law since 1972.

On the issue of the 2012 High Court case AEU versus DECS, the government says that the case only went as far as considering whether or not temporary teaching staff fell under section 15 of the act. It did not consider the question of entitlements. As members would know, the argument put to the High Court by the union was that the appointment of teachers under subsection 9(4) of the act, which provides a three-month break in service for the purpose of long service accrual, was unauthorised.

The government also says that the letter sent to the Department of Education and Children's Services by the government's HR and Industrial Relations Services Director in 2005 goes no further than confirming that temporary relieving teachers are to be appointed under section 15 of the Education Act on a temporary basis. As I mentioned during my contribution on the Appropriation Bill, there has been no recognition of the fact that contract teachers face different conditions to other public servants.

For instance, one of my constituents has raised the point that, as a contract teacher whose contract concludes on the last day of term four, it is virtually impossible for him to get another contract position for five weeks due to school holidays. This is markedly different to other public servants, and would leave him with just over two months to find another position before his leave entitlements were affected.

The fact that the proposal to extinguish the two-year rule is retrospective, and would apply to entitlements that have accrued since 1972, is absolutely outrageous. I am advised that employees have also been told they could not access their entitlements because the matter is before the courts: again, outrageous. What measures will the government take to address this injustice? What measures will the government take to address the fact that people have forward planned their futures, thinking they have these leave entitlements, which will now, all of a sudden, be wiped away?

As I understand it, there has been very little information made available about how eligibility for the ex gratia payment scheme the government has proposed will be determined. All we appear to know is that on 19 June the government indicated $50 million for discretionary payments to some—not all—teachers whose long service leave entitlements were brought into line with other public sector employees following amendments to the Education Act. Do we even know how that figure was arrived at? Why is it that the payments will apply to some but not all teachers? Is the estimated figure accurate? As I said previously, this is an outrageous call by the government and I will not be supporting it.

Moving on to the Seniors Housing Grant, I have to say that whilst I am not opposed to this measure I fail to see how it will result in any real benefit, especially given that the scheme scales down from $400,000 and cuts out at $450,000, and excludes purchases of licences to retirement villages. Take the case of a couple living in a four-bedroom home in the suburbs which is worth about $500,000 or $600,000, for instance. Elderly people who want to downsize usually prefer to move to premises in the same locality, and they would normally want a new house like a duplex so that it is easily maintainable. That would cost them roughly $500,000, which would command stamp duty in the order of $25,000. Given that the purchase price is above the $450,000 they would not benefit from the scheme at all.

On the other hand, if we consider a person who has a property worth $500,000 who decides to move into a one-bedroom apartment in the city—if they can find one for less than $450,000—the stamp duty payable will still be in the order of $20,000 unless they purchase off-the-plan, in which case they are exempt from stamp duty. That is a lot of mucking around for a saving of $12,000, if you are lucky and if you can find a property that falls within the cap. The benefits simply do not add up.

As I understand it, since the announcement four applications have been made by seniors seeking to downsize. I am advised that, even though it is very difficult to cost, the government has estimated that the scheme will cost around $7 million. The scheme will only run for a period of two years, so I suppose we will see what kind of take-up it results in.

I understand that we are living in tough economic times—we all understand that—but the Budget Measures Bill is not the solution. I said it before and I will say it again: when is this government going to learn that kicking those people who are already down is going to make things worse? Our state is in a very dire position. We pay the highest taxes, we pay the highest utility rates, we have the highest unemployment rates and our car industry is about to close its doors for good.

There is uncertainty over defence contracts, our submarine contracts are far from settled, we have the Courts Administration Authority saying that it is no longer viable to operate suburban and some country courthouses. There are vacant shopfronts at all of our shopping precincts. Landlords are doing it tough and tenants are doing it tough. Many are on the verge of financial disaster. Families are doing it tough. People are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes. We cannot afford to be saying, ‘Well, the state needs more money so we will just increase taxes or impose so-called levies.’ People cannot afford it; that is the bottom line. When is the government going to realise this?

Make no mistake: these problems did not occur overnight; they have been a long time in the making, yet our government, which has failed for years to cut its coat according to its cloth, is asking us to wear the cost. Business confidence is not up in this state; it is at an all-time low. I have not had one business come to me and say, ‘Business is booming,’ but I have had a heck of a lot say, ‘We are struggling. We are struggling under the increasing costs, increasing expenses, increasing competition and increasing taxes.’

It is a great pity that the emergency services levy could not be dealt with without the need for legislation reform, because I am sure that a reverse of that decision would go some way towards alleviating not only the financial squeeze but also the anger that our community is feeling at the moment. But I will not give up on that front. Just because the government has found a convenient way to sneak this measure through does not mean we will give up the fight. In closing, I urge the government to rethink its budget measures, rethink the reversal of the remission on the emergency services levy and give up on the notion of trying to tax ourselves into prosperity.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:12): I rise today to speak in favour of the Budget Measures Bill announced as part of the 2014-15 state budget. This bill follows a mandate that the government was given at the last election. This was a mandate to keep building South Australia. As part of the bill, the government is introducing a car park levy in the CBD and the money raised will be put in a fund so that we can continue to upgrade our state transport infrastructure and provide vital services for all South Australians.

In the 2012-13 Mid-Year Budget Review the government proposed a city car park levy. It took the Liberal opposition five or so months after this proposal was announced to start campaigning that the government did not have a mandate to do this and that it was not part of the Labour Party’s election policy in 2010. They campaigned strongly that this proposal should not be introduced until after the election in March 2014.

Last year and leading up to this year’s state election, the Liberal Party and many members opposite have campaigned very hard trying to persuade the public that this was a toxic tax, a bad tax, that a vote for Labor would be a vote for this car park levy. Both major political parties had a very clear and transparent election campaign message: the re-elected Labor government would support the levy and the Liberal government would scrap the levy. It was the central campaign message from the Liberal Party, and I assume the Liberal Party spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising to promote this message. Now the Labor government has been re-elected, this debate should be finished and settled.

Let me speak more about this levy and what it intends to do. Honourable members would be aware that the levy will be set at $750 per annum per car park space in the Adelaide CBD and will be indexed annually to the Adelaide consumer price index. Unfortunately, not all our friends in other states are so lucky. The levy in Melbourne is set at $1,300 per year and has been in place since 2006. The cost gets higher the further you travel, with Sydney’s central business district parking space levy set at $2,210 per year, and they have had their levy since 1992. Even Perth, a very wealthy city flushed with funds from mining royalties, introduced a car park levy in 1999.

Adelaide has more car parks per capita than any other major Australian capital city, and every day traffic congestion is increasing on the roads leading into the city. As our state’s population increases, our traffic congestion will only increase. Based on the CBRE May 2013 report—CBRE is a international real estate firm which did some work on the levy:

There are 22,879 car parking spaces within major multistorey car parking stations in the Adelaide CBD. The Adelaide City Council have estimated that there are a further 10,400 on-street parks and 23,749 commercial car parks. Of the 10,400 on-street car parks, only 5,267 car parks are ticketed, which will attract this new levy.

An article by Michael Milnes from The Advertiser, dated 14 September 2011, states:

Adelaide has 41,000 public parking spaces. Sydney has 30,000, Perth about 10,000 and Brisbane has about 20,000.

In an Adelaide City Council report called ‘Smart move: the City of Adelaide’s transport and movement strategy 2012-22’, I noted the Lord Mayor Steven Yarwood’s message:

Adelaide is the most car-reliant city in Australia and has the greatest number of car parks of any capital city.

I am told that currently, on average, a person parking in the city all day will pay roughly $23, and that figure is nearly halved if they access early bird parking. With occupancy rates factored in and on a five-day-week basis, the government believes that the levy will only increase the cost of parking by $4 a day, or roughly about 40¢ per hour based on a parking meter operating 8am to 6pm. A simpler calculation is: $750 divided by 365 days, which is about $2 per day or 20¢ per hour. Members will note that the levy will apply to parking spaces which have a charge, fees or some other value benefit or consideration on a regular basis, including parking spaces set aside for employee-only parking and fleet vehicle parking.

Honourable members will however be happy to know that resident car park spaces, car park spaces provided by customers of businesses that have no fee or charge, short-term parking for the public at a hospital site, and spaces located at sites that do not contain more than five parking spaces where the owner does not own more than five car parking spaces in total in the CBD, will not be charged a levy. I hope this information about the levy shows members why this levy is fair to local residents and small business owners. As the mentioned CBRE report into this levy states:

…it is unlikely to have a discernible impact on the broader value of commercial property.

One of the major benefits of the levy is that the revenue raised will be directed to a state transport fund (STF) which will be used for transport infrastructure projects. The most obvious example of these benefits is much-utilised park-and-ride stations. Four of these stations have already been built or planned around Adelaide and South Australia, and the benefits provided to motorists are remarkable. These stations facilitate the easing of congestion into the central business district by providing parking outside the CBD and easy, accessible public transport options.

The government has provided $21.1 million for additional park-and-ride facilities at Tonsley Park, Mount Barker, Paradise and Tea Tree Plaza. This will provide 1,331 additional car parking spaces and improved parking facilities. The government is also planning on installing super stops along Currie and Grenfell streets to enhance services to public transport passengers.

We have seen that, despite an increased population, there is actually a very low number of people using public transport. The Labor government is committed to increasing the number of people using public transport. This government is in the process of upgrading public infrastructure across South Australia. This is all about the future of this state and this levy is integral to that future.

We need to focus our road transport and infrastructure away from personal motor vehicles and into public transport. The May 2013 CBRE report shows that 84 per cent of people who work in the CBD drive and only 8.2 per cent of people are catching public transport, and that trend is decreasing. In 2006, the figure was 8.4 per cent. If our modern road infrastructure and quality of life is to continue improving, the governments of today and tomorrow have to take action. This government has the foresight to take action and this levy and the fund it creates is that action.

The government is expecting the fund to collect over $100 million over the next four years, and so far we can only imagine the benefits. South Australians of today and tomorrow will enjoy the fruits of this fund. The government is not putting the money collected into general revenue. The STF will enable the government of the day to invest in long-term transport infrastructure, more park-and-rides, more trains and trams, more buses and O-bahns, and dare I say the long-desired tramline to Port Adelaide. This transport fund policy is not dissimilar to the government's future fund policy and other far-reaching visionary work by this government. The Premier expects that the future fund will raise roughly $500 million over seven to 15 years and this transport fund will raise over $100 million over the next four years, as I mentioned.

What these funds demonstrate is that the government of the day can build the capital necessary for the future development of this state. The benefits of the STF do not just extend to transport infrastructure; the STF will continue to help grow the overall vibrancy of our state. With the lessening of congestion and easing of associated costs, we can continue to see more foot traffic in the CBD as part of the government's renewal of central Adelaide. This also provides better environmental outcomes with reduced traffic and a more aesthetically pleasing city.

This government has already started its investment for the long-term. Extending and electrifying the light rail network, renewal of the bus fleet and extending the tram to the Entertainment Centre are just some examples of this government's plan for the state's future. This is just another example of forward planning by this government. The STF shows that the government is thinking and planning for the state of tomorrow, and all members of this chamber, including any potential future Liberal government, will thank this government for the work. Just say the Liberal Party gets into government in four years time: potentially it will have $100 million in the STF to play around with.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: We will hold you to that.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Potentially. However, if they prefer to be in opposition again until 2022, they will potentially have at least $200 million in the fund, on top of the $500 million the Premier has estimated will be in the Future Fund by then. I am sure the future treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas, will be rubbing his hands together with glee. These compelling reasons I have outlined are the reasons we need to support this bill. The government has been up-front and transparent all along. I therefore urge honourable members to support the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:25): I support the second reading of the bill. The Budget Measures Bill, as other speakers have said, contains five particular measures; I want to address one of them today, and that is the question of the car park levy. As has been said just now, Adelaide has more car parking spaces and cheaper car parking than any other Australian capital city, and we also have lower penetration of public transport. Alternative forms of transport are struggling for funds, particularly cycling, which had its miniscule funding slashed to almost nothing in the last budget.

Prioritising private motor cars over other forms of transport is not a trend that can continue indefinitely if we are serious about living in a more sustainable city. One of the questions that have been posed is that the imposition of this levy will kill the city of Adelaide, drive people away and leave a wasteland behind. Whilst I was not here at the time, I certainly have read much about reports of when Rundle Mall was first proposed, and the traders in Rundle Street, as it then was, cried blue murder that their businesses would be ruined if motor vehicle traffic, and in particular motor vehicle parking directly outside their shops, were to come to an end. But the rest, as they say, is history. Rundle Mall was built, and it now has some of the most expensive retail real estate in South Australia.

The car parking levy is really a form of hypothecated levy, that is to say that the funds raised are earmarked or directed to a particular purpose. I think these types of levies are a very useful tool that reminds the public of some of the good things that governments can do with tax revenue. If the proceeds of a particular levy or tax are earmarked to a purpose the community supports, then the tax will be more palatable. An example that comes to mind is what was originally called the catchment water management levy. It became the Save the River Murray levy, and it was generally accepted, not universally (no levy or tax ever is), but generally accepted because the public could see that the money was being earmarked for useful works.

I would also say that the emergency services levy is another that fell into that category, possibly until the recent very large increases, but it has been accepted over the years because most people understood that it would be spent on things that we value, like fire services, ambulances, the SES and things like that. Governments are always judicious in their use of hypothecated levies, because so much of what governments spend money on is not necessarily valued by the community. To the extent that the government wants to receive advice from the Greens, I would suggest that a special levy to fund chauffeur-driven cars for the chairpersons of government committees would probably not be received warmly in the community. So, hypothecated levies have their place.

In terms of this car parking levy, the Greens do support it, but we want to make sure of two things. We want to make sure that it does not apply in situations where people do not have much choice or where people are actively trying to reduce their environmental impact. The second thing we want to achieve is that the money that is raised is actually spent on worthwhile projects, programs and services that actually help to mitigate the impacts of the levy.

In relation to the coverage of the levy, I understand that car parking spaces that are earmarked for people with disability permits are exempted from the levy, and I think that is a good thing. The two additions that I will propose through amendment to add to that list of exemptions are, first of all, the parking of electric vehicles. There are not a lot of dedicated electric vehicle car parking spaces in Adelaide, but there are some and there will be more as electric vehicles become more popular.

What distinguishes these car parking spaces is the location of a charge point, in other words, a power outlet which the owner of the car can use to recharge their vehicle, perhaps while they are at work or wherever the charging point is. Given that these people who own or use electric cars are already doing their bit to minimise their ecological footprint, particularly as electricity is increasingly generated in South Australia by renewable means, I think they should be exempted from the levy.

The second category of exemption that I will be moving by way of amendment is for participants in carshare schemes. These schemes, if members are not aware, basically are designed for those people who live in the city and will need a private motor vehicle on occasion, but not sufficiently to warrant owning, keeping and maintaining a private vehicle of their own. There are a number of schemes around the place which basically involve, if you like, the time-sharing of motor vehicles, which is probably a good description.

They are different to regular car hire through, say, Budget or Avis or any of those companies that we are familiar with. These schemes basically involve people using an online tool to book a car in advance, and they pay an amount per time or per kilometre, and then return the car to a dedicated car parking space.

The reason I believe these should be exempted from the car parking tax is that it is basically catering to those people who are already doing something to try and minimise their over reliance on private vehicles, whilst recognising that for some trips there is no alternative and you do need a private car. Whilst most of these spaces are currently on street spaces, I think as these schemes develop they will expand into multistorey car parks and elsewhere and they should be exempt from this tax.

I said that was the first set of amendments. The second amendment is to make sure that the money raised by the car parking levy is actually spent on worthwhile projects. The way the bill is constructed is that what is called a state transport fund is created by Part 4 of the bill. The fund will consist of a range of moneys, including moneys derived from the car parking levy, but the bill at clause 16(4) sets out a list of areas where the fund may be applied.

For example, ‘(4) The Fund may be applied towards—(a) research or planning relevant to the provision of transport infrastructure or transport services.’ In other words, it is very broad. As long as it is to do with transport then it can be funded from the transport levy via the car parking tax, and that includes building transport infrastructure. To cut to the chase, without amendment, the state transport fund could be used exclusively for the construction of freeways. I do not think that is what the government has in mind, and I do not think that is what the legislation should allow.

When Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that if the fuel excise could be indexed again, as it once was, he made it very clear that that money would go directly into freeways. The state government, on the other hand, has said that if the car parking levy goes through they will be earmarking the money to park-and-ride stations and to public transport.

I want to make sure that the bill holds the state government to account, and that is why I will be moving that there be an overriding consideration in the allocation of money from this transport fund; that is, that any of the programs or infrastructure to be built needs to encourage or support alternative modes of transport that reduce reliance on the use of privately owned cars, particularly in urban areas. Included within that broad definition would be all of the things that the government has said that it wants to spend this money on, including the creation of park-and-ride stations.

They are the amendments, and I will speak to them in detail when we get to the committee stage of the bill. I do want to point out that a community group that I have been working with for a number of years now, Community Alliance, held a forum on transport at the Burnside ballroom just a week or so ago. A number of members of parliament attended, and I was given the opportunity to speak. One of the things that I pointed out to the gathered group there was that the idea of reallocating transport funding away from private cars and towards more sustainable forms of transport is not new. I drew their attention to the 1994 UK royal commission into the impacts of transport on the environment.

Without reading the 500 pages of that report into Hansard (I do not think that would be helpful), I can summarise the findings in a couple of sentences. First of all, abolish the national road program; that was their first recommendation. Secondly, stop building freeways because they do not work; traffic expands to fill the available space. Next, they said that the road building projects should be approximately halved and the priorities should be on safety, bypassing villages, but not simply creating extra lanes of traffic on wider and wider roads. So, these ideas are not new. The idea is that we can reallocate the transport budget to a more sustainable future.

I will say, finally, because I know a number of members here are very fond of the book that I wrote back in 1994, entitled Greening Adelaide with Public Transport, that I have been reminded on more than one occasion that in those pages I actually advocated a car parking levy in almost identical terms to the one that is now before us in this bill. Back in 1994, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the organisation I was working for, advocated a $1 per day levy on all city car parking places, with the funds raised to be used exclusively for the provision of public transport, walking and cycling. I am glad that the government has finally caught up with ideas that were already circulated back in 1994. Whilst the amount has increased from $1 per day to $2 per day, I think this is a worthwhile initiative, and the Greens will certainly be supporting it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:38): I rise to briefly speak about the Budget Measures Bill. This is a bill, obviously, over and above appropriation. It is a bill that deals with a range of budget measures, but at the end of the day it still shows that the state is in a precarious situation when it comes to its finances, and, clearly, the government is struggling with that. I note in the budget papers that the government talks about the fact that they will return to surplus, but in returning to surplus the government is proposing a number of measures that increase the cost of living in the state of South Australia.

Family First has concerns over that given that we have seen more and more South Australians complaining about the fact that there is no flexibility left in their household budgets. We have seen businesses closing as a result of the cost of doing business here. An example of that in my own area, that I was very disappointed to see announced, was 69 jobs at McLaren Flat at Inghams, where some of the best quality turkey production in Australia is now being withdrawn from South Australia and going into New South Wales. So there is a classic example where you take 69 jobs out of a regional situation and that affects 69 families and that is clearly about rationalisation.

I got back from a private overseas trip only last week having had a look around Europe, which is an eye opener where you can see that even in difficult times with good government management quite a lot of prosperity, notwithstanding that some of those countries are still doing it hard, and still doing it tough. You go to places like Germany and you see cranes not only in the cities but also in the regional towns. You see a lot of work being done on road infrastructure, rail, buses and the like. You go interstate and you see the same thing but you come back here and you are not seeing that spend because of the way the mismanagement has occurred.

I was advised on my way home that Arnott's are now going up to Queensland. Why can't they produce biscuits here in South Australia? What we see of concern with this Budget Measures Bill that we are trying to work through at the moment is additional taxation hikes. Call them levies if you want to, but a levy is still a form of tax and the fact is there are people now paying hundreds of percent more for the ESL as an example. For 14 years there were no complaints about the Emergency Services Levy but just in the week since I have been back there have been complaints left, right and centre as people start to get their bills.

There are a range of other measures in this bill and Family First is working through those at the moment, but the key point that I want to leave this second reading speech on is that South Australians are hurting after 12 years of this government. Let's just quickly look at the history. The previous Labor government left the state in a diabolical position, in came a Liberal government and, to be fair and give credit where it is due, everything changed and turned around. Debt was dramatically reduced. Credit ratings were improved after the State Bank debacle, the job front improved, and, within the means and capacity of the government at the time, infrastructure projects were strategically considered and built across the state including in rural and regional South Australia.

We see a situation now where we are back to enormous core debt issues. Half of that core debt is because recurrent spending went through the roof over and above income and, as a result of that, now people are hurting. When it comes to this Budget Measures Bill, Family First is having real difficulty in assessing these budget measures and we are still deliberating on that front and we look forward to further debate on this as it proceeds through the house.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:44): I do not intend to delay the chamber with a lengthy second reading to this bill today but I will speak in support of the second reading of the Budget Measures Bill 2014. I would like to start by thanking the Treasurer's acting chief of staff, Ben Tuffnell, for arranging the comprehensive briefing that my office received on this bill.

One of the controversial measures in the bill relates to the car park tax. My office has received a lot of lobbying in both directions on this particular issue and we have considered that diversity of opinion very carefully. Having done so we have reached the decision to support the car park tax.

Car parking in the central business district of any major city must be valued at a premium. We need to encourage more people to be public transport users as they come into our CBD, and support more people coming on foot as pedestrians, or indeed as cyclists, into our city centre. To do this we need to make our city car parks a premium. At present we have the most car parks, in simple volume terms, of any city in Australia, and they are not at a premium.

I realise that this measure, a car park levy, only encourages people out of cars, and that much work needs to be done to make our public transport more reliable and more accessible to all South Australians so that it can be used as an alternative. We also need to make the city precinct more user-friendly for those with mobility aids, bikes and prams or those travelling on foot. We need them to feel safe navigating our city streets, laneways and paths outside of cars.

We appreciate that the government has excluded accessible car parks from this tax; indeed, that was one of the ideas that Dignity for Disability took to the government. An extra impost on people with disabilities trying to park in our CBD is not what our community needs at the moment. Our buses are still only 60 per cent accessible to mobility aid users on some bus routes, so some people with disabilities have no choice but to drive to the city.

Still on the car park tax, I intend to support the amendment that the Hon. Mark Parnell is proposing regarding car parking spaces for electric cars. I believe they should also be exempt from tax to support their further adoption.

A second controversial measure in this bill relates to retrospectively removing leave entitlements for contract teachers. I am afraid that Dignity for Disability cannot and will not support the government's proposal here. In an increasingly casualised workforce it is very disappointing to see the government further removing workers' leave entitlement rights. I will be supporting the amendment of the Hon. Tammy Franks on this issue to ensure that workers' rights are protected.

On behalf of Dignity for Disability, that is all I will say on this Budget Measures Bill at the moment. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate, to further working out the ramifications of the measures in this bill, and to some of the questions already raised being answered.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.