HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSIONER BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (15:52): I am glad to be continuing my remarks. Thank you for those seven minutes, Mr Clerk, I really appreciate it. I was addressing the issue of franchising and making the case that there was no need for the government, at the cost of many millions of dollars, to establish a new bureaucracy or a new position to intervene in what are essentially commercial negotiations between two commercial parties. I was urging that the government should look to ensure the business associations and the court system were optimised to resolve such disputes.

I have to say that there are winners and losers in the issue of franchising. There are arguments that franchisors can ably use to support their case as there are with franchisees. There is no doubt there are disputes but, generally, disputes between commercial parties need to be organised and sorted between the parties. My overall point is that, if there is money to spend here, that money should be spent on tax cuts, sorting out WorkCover, industrial relations and things that really matter to small business and, most particularly, reducing red tape.

There is only one role that I can see in the government's explanatory paper on this where there may be a weakness in the system, and that is to assist small businesses on request in their dealings with state and local government bodies. Here, I think there is an issue, particularly with nonpayment of bills, commercial disputes where the customer—the government—is refusing to pay for one reason or another, and any host of another number of issues that could result in dispute.

I ask the government: is it necessary to create a new bureaucracy and a new commissioner in order to sort out that problem or would it be better to get government, its departments and local governments to act properly and to be open to dispute resolution processes with businesses as they arise, just as any other entity is?

Again, my natural inclination is for small government; where there is not a compelling case for government to stick its nose in between commercial agreements or activities between commercial parties, government should stay out of the way.

That is not to say that we do not need regulation to make sure that there are appropriate codes of practice and that businesses conduct themselves in an orderly and proper way in accordance with those codes of practice. That is not to say that we do not need to ensure that there is access to information and that we provide, or point businesses in the direction of, places where they can receive assistance and help. We need those things, but do we need a new bureaucracy? I am not convinced. That is why I think that this bill and the millions of dollars it will spend is not necessary and that the millions of dollars would be better spent doing something meaningful for business.

I find the government's approach to small business confusing. They scrapped the Centre for Innovation and Business Management (CIBM). They have scrapped funding support to the Council of International Trade and Commerce SA (CITCSA). They have pulled funding from business enterprise centres. They have been decommissioning funding support for small business wherever they can make the cuts and slash the knife. Yet, we then have this proposal to set up a new bureaucracy to perform functions which may well have been performed, to some extent, by the bureaucracies that they have ripped down.

I am looking for some steady consistency here from government. It seems we are decommissioning certain functions and wrecking certain things, and then seeking to re-establish them in the next breath. I thought the signal the government was sending—by taking funding away from Business Enterprise Centres and CITCSA and then in the next budget giving funding to Business SA to set up and replicate many of those services—was a signal that the government wanted to use business associations like Business SA more in those roles. Yet, now we have a proposal to establish a new government bureaucracy to conduct mediation services that organisations like Business SA and the Master Builders, as I mentioned earlier, already provide.

These are confusing signals. What does the government want? Does it want to get itself out of the way and rely on associations—give them funding to assist them in helping with mediation—or does it want to impose itself by setting up new bureaucracies to do just that? The government is sending mixed messages.

In winding up I draw the house's attention to the government's general lack of direction on business. I note it has recently put out a discussion paper which purports to be a discussion paper to commence a process on manufacturing which repeats a lot of what we have heard during the budget about where we need to focus and where we need to concentrate, and it seeks to get people together, etc. All of that is good, but these things are, essentially, admissions of failure.

This government has been in office for 10 years. They have had 10 years to sort things out with small business and manufacturing, and to get the economy going. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about mining and defence, but we have not had much on-the-ground delivery on manufacturing, on employment growth in primary industries, and in the small business sector. Now, all of a sudden, there are signs of life, but confusing signs of life.

If there is money to be spent for small business, spend it on tax cuts, sorting out WorkCover, cutting red tape and helping to ease the industrial relations burden; do not create new bureaucracies to get in the way. Yes, the government has identified some problems that need fixing, but this small business commissioner is not the best way to do it.

They will run away now and try to play politics with this and tell franchisees that they are being frustrated by the parliament; wrong! They do not know how to best help these organisations. This is not the best way. They need to come back with something more cogent, affordable and workable.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:59): The bill that we are discussing today does not have wide industry support. Despite what the small business minister has put out in his press release and what he is telling us, the bill was put out for public consultation and has been dramatically changed with amendments since that time and those amendments have not gone out for consultation or debate.

The government could in fact be misled about the level of support that it feels it has for this bill because of the fact that the consultation process was not continued once amendments were put into the bill and, despite the fact that the government was holding up the Victorian model, it no longer mirrors the Victorian model. Changes include the introduction of a new and Draconian penalty regime which goes well beyond powers in the SA Fair Trading Act and the federal Competition and Consumer Act.

The bill will enable the introduction of substantive legislation by regulation. We have not seen those regulations yet and the cost of setting up such a body was looked at when Western Australia looked into similar legislation leading to the WA government—and that is a real get go state; regardless of who is an office over there they really do know how to look after business and make sure that they are out of the way—deciding that they were not going to proceed. At no less than $4 million over four years, they came to the conclusion that they are not going to go ahead.

The Minister for Small Business is wrong in saying that small business wants this. I ran a small business for 22 years here in Adelaide and I have to say that it was a very modest beginning. I started at the ripe old age of 21, only just after completing my apprenticeship. It was an opportunity that I thought I would take up, and I do remember that I took some advice from my mother. My mother said to me, 'David, have a go. If you don't do it now, you might go through your whole life wondering if you'd ever be able to achieve it.'

Then there were other people in business; I remember Farquhar Kitchens were very friendly. They came in and said, 'David, come and have a chat. We hear that you're looking at starting up your own business. Come and have a chat. We think it's a great industry to be in and we'd like to at least warn you about some of the traps that you might find yourself in once you're in business.' Of course, it evolved from there.

It evolved from a very hands-on position into a position of manager and that of employing staff: 20 apprentices in 22 years. When I look back at that period, I am very grateful for the opportunity that this state gave me to move from being an employee to an employer and what I do not want to see here in South Australia is that jump made any more difficult.

In small states like ours, we want to encourage new and emerging businesses because we know that new and emerging businesses will give more back to the community here in South Australia. If they start in South Australia and they grow in South Australia, we know that there will be much more community benefit for that South Australian business rather than for a branch office of a larger corporation.

There are many examples of that in the United States. For example, the state of Iowa is probably, I would suggest, a very similar state economically to the state of South Australia. It has a fairly large agricultural base, a heavy industry base and about three million people. It is a small state compared to many of the other states in America and the North Iowa development board understands how important it is for them to encourage new businesses to start and they want to make the pie bigger.

They are not really interested in competing with each other for a bigger piece of the same pie. What they want is a larger pie so there is more for everybody, and that is the philosophy that I have always had about providing opportunities in South Australia. Let's make more opportunities for everybody and, in order to do that, we need to get out of the way. The example that they gave me was the local community college was putting on an additional wing for computer design and so they approached businesses to contribute.

We would all know the name of Winnebago: it is the largest motorhome manufacturer in the world. It is the only motorhome manufacturer that manufacturers on a moving conveyor belt. They have about 5,000 employees. Again, they started off in a very modest manner about 60 years ago. They wrote out a cheque, no questions asked, for $100,000 towards this new wing.

In comparison, the local branch office of Walmart, which is the largest retailer in the United States, agreed to hand over a cheque for $1,000 on the proviso that they also got a photograph on the front page of the local paper. So you can see a true comparison of the benefits of having home-grown businesses in South Australia. What we need to do as a state is make that as easy as possible.

Small business people and aspiring small business people—young entrepreneurs—do not want to have to go to a government department so that department or commissioner can hold their hand or shepherd them through the hurdles of bureaucracy in the government sector. They want those hurdles kicked out of the way and to have a clean run to start and then grow their businesses. They want to be able to employ people without being punished.

Our threshold is amongst the lowest for payroll tax and that has the effect, of course, of keeping businesses of five or six employees at five or six employees, because they simply do not want to enter that payroll tax regime. It cuts in very early here compared to some other states, even in Tasmania where you need a $1 million payroll for that to cut in.

We are, in fact, a state of small business. We are the small business state. The majority of our employees are employed in the small business sector, and it is important that it is made as easy as possible for new businesses to emerge, grow and survive. I would like to see the however many millions of dollars this function is going to cost used in reducing the state tax burden.

I think we need to remember that small businesses have a much higher proportion of their turnover gobbled up in state taxes than bigger businesses. That is pure mathematics. If your turnover is only $500,000 or $600,000 a year, or maybe it is $1 million a year, your land tax and stamp duties that you paid to buy new properties are a much bigger piece of your turnover than if you are, say, a company that turns over $100 million a year. It is a flat tax. It is the same, regardless of how much you turn over and how much you pay. You pay your tax based on the value of that property. Small businesses, because the payroll tax threshold kicks in at such a low level, are paying, effectively, the same tax as big businesses on payroll tax.

Then, of course, we have the uncompetitive nature of WorkCover here in South Australia. If the government was really serious about helping small businesses, it would not penalise businesses and not make it ridiculously difficult to get out of the WorkCover system and let them be self-insured; but the penalties and the costs are restricted only to big business.

We know that WorkCover is broke and it is expensive. The member for Waite mentioned some of the very high levies that are paid in certain industries here in South Australia and, of course, that makes it harder for us to tender on government contracts and it makes it harder for South Australians to tender on private sector contracts—not that there are many of those around at the moment. The concerning thing for small business in South Australia is the cost of doing business here in South Australia, and it is the red tape involved in doing that business.

I support the member for Norwood's proposed change to the small claims court that will lift the threshold. It is likely that when you are in business for 22 years you might have to use that facility, and I would use the small claims facility when I was in business. I have to say that the $6,000 cut-off certainly restricts it to a very small number of cases, particularly when you are looking at the fact that a month's rent could be $18,000, $20,000 or $25,000 for a small business. A single delivery could be $10,000, $12,000 or $20,000 and there is a dispute when the recipient does not pay. Rather than them having to go to the full court system, the Small Claims Court should be available to them so that that can be dealt with in that situation.

I think that this bill is more about the fact that we have a government that is embarrassed about the state of small business in South Australia and wants to put out the perception that it is actually doing something for small business. It is a bit like Claytons; remember the drink you have without having a drink? Well, this is a little bit like the assistance you give business without actually giving them assistance. I think that, on that basis, I am very happy to stand here as an advocate of small business and as a member of the Liberal Party and not support the bill.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:10): Madam Deputy Speaker, certainly as you, the minister and everyone here knows, other members have put our perspective from the opposition very clearly. We will not be supporting this bill. I say very clearly that this is not because we do not support small business; it is just not an appropriate bill. The member for Unley mentioned a Claytons support. The way that I look at this is, really, that it is poor treatment versus good prevention.

We have got problems and we have got issues in South Australia that are hurting small business, and rather than fix up those issues the government would like to bring in this bill and pretend that it is fixing them up. It is actually a bandaid solution for a very serious disease. What small businesses really want is not a small business commissioner: they want tax reductions. They want to remove red tape. They want the government to get out of the way and let them get on with their job. They want their lives and their business environment to be freed up so that they can do what they do well.

They do not want all the impediments that the government has in a place and then just be told, 'Oh, well, we'll give you a small business commissioner to help you out if you run into any trouble.' We all know that business confidence is very low. The Financial Review released statistics making it very clear that South Australia is the highest taxed state with small business being hit with a whopping 34 per cent higher impost of tax than in Queensland.

We know that WorkCover is in a dreadful situation. It is no secret. The unfunded liability is completely out of control. As an article that I read recently made very clear, there is an issue with the cost of WorkCover on small business but there is also the WorkCover culture problem. I am contacted fairly regularly in the electorate of Stuart by small business employers who are dreadfully concerned about the fact that they are having to deal with people participating in this unacceptable WorkCover culture where they think that they can just use it as an excuse and they try to avoid their responsibilities as an employee. WorkCover is in a dreadful situation.

Taking funding away from the BECs is a decision that this government really should be very disappointed in. Another very important issue for small business is access to employees. That is a growing problem, and the small business commissioner is not going to fix up any of that. What we really have here under this bill is an offer of poor treatment rather than good prevention, and good prevention would be addressing and taking care of those and other issues I have just mentioned.

This bill is being used as an excuse for the real problems. What we really need to do is to set up a business environment in South Australia where small businesses would not need, would not even contemplate a desire for, a small business commissioner. That is what we really need to do—fix the root cause of the problems.

I would just like to take a couple of minutes to address this absolute rubbish and nonsense that the minister is putting out about Liberals not supporting small business. All through our opposition ranks we have a very strong spread of small business background. We know what we are talking about in this area. From our leader, Isobel Redmond, all the way through to a brand-new member of parliament such as myself, many of us—and I would say the majority of us—have small business experience as opposed to the government members. So the minister is being misleading and mischievous—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is—yes, I am with your point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The naive and new member of parliament has accused me of misleading the house. I would ask that he categorically withdraw that remark and apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I am sure he will, as I support the minister's point of order. You cannot do that; that is unparliamentary.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I said 'misleading' and 'mischievous', and I withdraw and apologise for 'misleading'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Is that all right?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that sounds good.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And add that the minister is completely incorrect, in my opinion. Is that—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's fine.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Fair enough; okay. Completely incorrect. To say that the Liberal opposition does not support small business is just flat wrong. Small business is the most important sector of our South Australian economy. We know that, the government knows that, there is no debate about that. It is the most important sector of our economy for many reasons, including the fact that it is the most important employer. As the minister has said, we have 136,000 (I think, a little bit over) small businesses in our South Australian economy. When manufacturing is declining these businesses become even more important.

The difficulty, though, I think the minister has on this issue is that while he tries to say publicly that the Liberals do not support small business, the small business community just does not believe the minister. The small business community does not believe the minister when he says that the Liberals do not support them, and I do not think they believe the minister when it comes to his suppositions on this bill. The minister was installed in his job by unions and he will not be trusted by small business.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were there before me.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member is now imputing to me corrupt motives, saying that I have been imposed in this house somehow unconstitutionally. That is a flagrant misrepresentation of the facts and, I think, offensive to all of us in this house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold that. I think you will find, member for Stuart, that the minister is here thanks to the positive vote of about 20,000 people in his electorate—the democratic vote.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Finniss, if you don't believe that, that is perhaps something you need to bring up in another place. So, member for Stuart, if you could just—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you for that correction. I think probably what I should have said is that the minister is in his role in the Labor Party thanks to union support.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, your point of order?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This bill is about the small business commissioner. It has nothing to do with the internal workings of the Australian Labor Party and preselection matters.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What do you mean: 'here you go'? We are here to discuss this particular bill; this is true. The minister not having made an actual point of order in terms of indicating the number of that point to me—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Irrelevance, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Irrelevance. That would be 128. I believe that was the number that the member for MacKillop was talking about earlier on today. Let us not go back in time. However, I think what we will do is we will just move on. Member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The relevance here is the fact that the minister has stated publicly that the small business community should be very disappointed in the Liberal opposition, and he has tried to make a case that we do not support them, so I am making it very clear that we do support them and I am also highlighting the fact that they just do not believe him.

With regard to unions, I actually have no trouble with unions. I proudly support union members throughout my electorate. I oppose unionism but I have no trouble at all with unions. I support union members as hard as I possibly can when they come to me with issues in the electorate of Stuart—power station workers, railway workers, prison workers, many more people throughout the electorate of Stuart—so I have no trouble there whatsoever.

But the reality is that the business community knows that the minister is making it up when he says that we do not support them. As has happened in this state with the Premier and nationally with the Prime Minister, if the unions were not happy with the minister's performance it is very possible that he would not get to keep his job.

Let's look at the two key components of this bill. The small business commissioner and franchising are the main aspects of this bill before us. With regard to the small business commissioner, this is a suggestion that really will not solve the difficulties and challenges that small businesses face at the moment.

As the member for Bragg put it, there is no point in spending all this money just to set up a call centre for small businesses to get in touch with and actually have absolutely nothing done. The definition of small business is unclear in this bill, but I do understand that that is something that has been addressed before, and the minister will come back to us with information on that at a future date.

I would like to add a question to that, minister. Where would very small, often one person contractors fit into that? I understand contractors do like to have it both ways at times. On the one hand, contractors want to be considered as businesses and often they also want all the benefits that an employee would get. If you could clarify that, it would be good.

I also worry about the possibility that the fees for access to this service could be increased. I understand that they are relatively low at the moment, but 'relatively low' is a relative term. It depends on the size of your business as to whether you can afford in the order of $200 for support. There is nothing I am aware of that would limit any possible increase in that fee. I also worry about the possibility that there might one day be a levy on small businesses purely to fund the existence of the small business commissioner.

Mr Gardner: They wouldn't do that, would they?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Well, they might. I would be grateful if the minister could clarify that that would never happen. There are all sorts of other industries and other businesses that are paying levies that never imagined they would ever pay them.

The other aspect of this bill is franchising. As far as franchising goes, I worked for 10 years for a franchisor and I have also been a franchisee. I think that puts me in a good position to have some insight on this issue from both perspectives. As we all know, there is already a code of conduct in place for franchising. I do not deny the fact that from time to time a franchisor might step out of line. I suggest that that would be a very small fraction of situations. It might happen, but I do not think that this bill will solve all of those problems.

The most important issue when it comes to dealing with franchisee/franchisor disputes is that the franchisee does all of their homework and fully understands what they are getting themselves into when they enter into a franchise. I can tell you, having seen it for many years from both sides, that is really what happens.

If we had a large number of situations where the majority of franchisees had serious complaints about a franchisor, that is one situation. If we have situations where a minority of franchisees have a complaint about a franchisor, that does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the system.

It has been my observation that the majority of issues that franchisees have with their franchisor are because they did not do their homework up-front. They did not study it, they did not look at all of the things they needed to know or, very often, they would like to change something that they did know, but it turns out that they did not like it, and they would like to change it, but the franchisor will not let them change it. I am not removing the fact that there may well be situations where a franchisee on occasion is unduly influenced by franchisor, but I think this will be in the vast minority of situations.

The other thing that is very important to point out is that of the 136,000 or so businesses in South Australia a very small percentage of those are franchisees. It is probably worth the minister thinking about the fact that most small business people enter into a franchise agreement because they are looking for the protection, the support, the business systems, often the premises, the branding of the franchisor—all of those sorts of things. That is generally what they are looking for, but it does not guarantee that their business will be successful. They are very important issues for us to look at.

We do, in the Liberal opposition, support small business, but we do not support this bill. The minister, at the beginning of his second reading explanation, said, 'The development of a more competitive and fairer environment for small businesses in South Australia is the goal of the government.' He also said that functions of the business commissioner that are designed to facilitate the continued viability and expansion of the small business sector are important. I certainly agree with him, but the reality is that dealing with taxes, WorkCover and red tape will do that far more effectively than this bill will.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:25): I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Small Business Commissioner Bill 2011, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about some of the things that are very close to my heart, in particular in relation to the small business sector. As previous speakers have flagged, the opposition will not be supporting this bill, because the money that the government proposes to spend on the small business commissioner could do a great deal more for small business if it was directed into any number of other directions.

The minister, unfortunately, seems to have decided to use this bill at every opportunity to politicise small business. I heard him on the radio yesterday urging the opposition to support his bill because—and forgive me if I am misquoting, but I certainly got the sense—'small business needed a mate'. All I could think was, 'Yes, small business does need a mate when the Labor Party is in government because it doesn't have one in the government.'

On the other hand, as other speakers have detailed, the opposition has a deep understanding of small business. This is the issue that got me interested in politics in the first place. I apologise to members who have heard me tell this story before, but the reason I joined the Liberal Party was that, as members may know, I grew up in a small business family. My family's business manufactured water treatment equipment in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide, and did so for four decades until we sold it a couple of years ago.

Anyone who has grown up in a small business family with 10 or fewer employees will understand that everyone in the family gets involved at all times. I was about 13 years old when we had the accountant around for dinner and talked about whether or not to accept a couple of orders, which would have involved taking on a couple more staff, which would have pushed us over the payroll tax threshold so that we had to start paying payroll tax. As a 13 year old, who had never really been interested in politics or public policy up until then, I thought it was an absolute disgrace that government might be imposing things on businesses that would stop the employment of people who might want a job and might want to do something because of such an unproductive impost such as payroll tax.

Payroll tax was a tax brought in during the war when we were actively trying to discourage businesses from taking people who might be available for the armed forces. As tends to happen, unfortunately, governments of both sides in the decades since have not got rid of it. That is what drove me to get into politics. I look at other new members on this side including the member for Adelaide who ran her own small business; the members for Flinders and Chaffey who have been farmers; the member for Stuart who just spoke and who, as he said, has been a franchisee, worked for a franchisor and worked in every level of the small business field; and Steven Marshall, the member for Norwood, whose expertise in the family business, small business and other businesses is unchallenged.

The fact is that members on this side of the parliament—those are the new ones but certainly others who have been here longer—understand small business because we have been involved in small business all our lives. For the minister to say that the opposition is not a friend of small business through his radio comments and his inane interjections throughout all of our members' speeches is highly irregular.

I should also say that small business does not believe the minister when he says that. Small business does not have faith in this government. The NAB's Monthly Business Survey for August showed South Australia recording the lowest business confidence of all states for the March and June quarters. Business SA, which the government has recently given some money to—which is not a bad thing in itself—released their survey for business expectations for the June quarter and found that 68.5 per cent of respondents expected South Australia's economy to weaken in the next year.

Now, this sort of canary in the coalmine is being ignored by the government who, in their budgets, have ripped money out of the business enterprise centre, the Council for International Trade and Commerce and Regional Development Australia. This comes upon previous ministers like former minister Lomax-Smith who, as I understand, cancelled funding for the Centre for Innovation and Manufacturing. The core issue is that small business knows that this government is not there to support them and will not do so.

In opposing this bill, we are a bit heavy hearted because it seems like the first money that this minister and this government has put towards small business since I have been here, but they are putting it in the wrong place. Any member who is actually out there speaking to small businesses regularly, asking what government should do to help them get new investments, employ more people and to survive, would be lucky if they had ever heard one of them mention the idea of a small business commissioner. It simply does not rate. It does not come up. It is not a suggestion that the small business community comes up with first and foremost.

There is a whole range of other things that are more important. The member for Stuart before suggested that the minister's solution is like a bandaid solution, but it is a bit like going to the doctor and being given a bandaid when you have actually got the flu. Small businesses' problems are not going to be fixed by the introduction of a small business commissioner as outlined in this bill. Consequently, they would be much better off putting money towards issues that really do affect small businesses.

Other speakers have mentioned land tax and payroll tax. I had a constituent come to me just in the last week with their land tax bills from the last three years. In 2008-09, the land tax bill was $25,110. In 2009-10, that had increased to $28,070. In 2010-11, due to the bracket creep and the way that valuations change, it had increased to $46,250.

It may be that that landlord has potentially a more valuable property now than it was two years ago, but that is only the case if he sells the thing and who would buy it in this sort of environment? In the meantime, he has got a small business operating out of that premises that has to pay increased rents.

That small business is constantly reassessing its position. They manufacture high-tech goods in South Australia that are used in South Australia and elsewhere. Right now, they are considering what they do in terms of their componentry. Up to now, they have always bought from within South Australia. Because of the increasing costs of business across the board, they are looking now to confirm that they will only be buying the cheapest product because that is what they have got to do to keep their business viable.

The second thing they are looking at is, if that does not save their business, they are going to look at moving altogether. They want to keep manufacturing, but, if they cannot keep manufacturing in South Australia because, as was reported recently in the Financial Review, South Australia is the highest taxed state in Australia for businesses, then they will have to look at moving.

These things build on themselves. Other government decisions also add to the cost bases that small business has to face. Recently, the Leader of the Opposition and I visited Adelaide Towel Service in Newton in my electorate, who have faced spiralling SA Water bills. In 2010, it was $8,059.80 for the year. In 2011, it was $12,896.80 for the year and those water bills continue to increase.

This government is not doing anything for those businesses whose actual costs, the things that drive whether or not they can employ people and continue to go about their businesses, are spiralling out of control. Then, their services become more expensive and the other small businesses that use their services or their products or components find increasing costs too.

The surveys of business confidence are the canary in the coalmine that this government is ignoring and having this dispute resolution mechanism is not the first place we should be putting money. On the topic of dispute resolution, I can only commend the government to the bill that is being proposed by the opposition, but I will certainly not dwell on its content because that would be inappropriate. But I would say that raising the threshold at which small businesses can take matters to the Small Claims Court would do a great deal to make processes easier for them.

To demand that you need to engage lawyers if you want to chase down a debt of $6,001—in this day and age, 20 years after that threshold was set—is absolutely outrageous; it is appalling. Increasing that threshold to something like $25,000 to have small claims resolved, is clearly a positive outcome that the government would do well to consider much more favourably than the public statements that the Attorney-General has suggested.

Other sorts of costs that small businesses are facing at the moment include significant increases in staff costs as a result of the federal government's new IR arrangements. If the small business minister was talking to small businesses in his electorate every day—I am sure he does talk to a lot of them, but I am sure equally if he was doing so—he would be hearing from a number of them of concerns about the wages that they have to pay, that maybe larger businesses can cover but small businesses find it hard. Small businesses in some industries are dealing with very serious problems with WorkCover.

Finally I get to the issue of red tape. Small businesses will often tell any member of parliament that red tape is their number one headache, because everyone is willing to pay a fair level of tax, and everyone understands that sometimes bracket creep gets things out of control and they would like that addressed and that would be great. I remember when we were in business one of the great challenges that we faced as we installed water treatment systems in embassies and consulates around the world, particularly in the developing world, and in Navy submarines.

Getting federal government contracts and getting contracts in townships interstate was something we could manage because we had a great product. Actually getting anything through SA Water was a great deal harder because of the hoops that they required any South Australian business to jump through. It gets down to this point: if as a South Australian parliament we want the South Australian small business sector to do well—and I am sure that all members do—we need to understand that we need to go and ask them what they are seeking, what they need, in order to employ more people.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: We have.

Mr GARDNER: The minister says that they have, and if they have come back with the answer that the small business commissioner is the number one issue that small businesses are concerned with, then I will go he for chasey. It is just a nonsense. No one believes that that is the case. The minister lacks credibility when he says that this is the number one issue, and there are far better things to spend this money on. I am happy to stand up for small business at all times because, as I said, it is probably the driving reason that got me interested in politics.

This bill does very little for small business and it is not the priority that the government should be focusing on. They need to be focusing on lowering the tax rates, reducing red tape, reducing the costs of doing business, providing assistance to things like the BECs and RDAs which actually help new small businesses get going and help small businesses develop new markets, and assist small business in dispute resolution by doing something about the Small Claims Court, which is a fairly easy change to make. I urge the government to reconsider that, and, with that, I oppose the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:38): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I speak on the Small Business Commissioner Bill 2011. I have never been a taxi driver and I'm probably not likely to ever be one. It is an area of experience which I am sure the minister will always be able to proudly boast that he's made a contribution to in his employment. I am not sure whether he was employed in that capacity or whether he was actually operating his own taxi and driving it as a small business proprietor, one of those 136,000 small business operators in South Australia. If it had been the latter, he might have had some understanding about what the rest of the 135,999 small businesses in South Australia want, and if he had heard from any of them, or even listened to any of them, the last thing that he would be bringing into this place would be the Small Business Commissioner Bill 2011.

In the 40 years I have operated small businesses, and I am going to detail them in a moment, I can tell you that not once did I ever ask any minister of any government to consider establishing a small business commissioner, and if I ever knew what one was going to do in 2011 as proposed by this minister I certainly would not have asked for it. In that time, overlapping interest in political matters outside and inside of the parliament, not once in 40 years has anyone come to me and asked me to advocate for a small business commissioner.

What has been asked for in the advocacy areas is some reform in consumer protection and protection in respect of credit arrangements in respect of what is now the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs and the inadequacy of some of the areas of jurisdiction that it lacks power to administer and, therefore, the deficiencies of that office as a result. They have asked for a lot of other things in relation to the financial viability or survival of their businesses, which I will refer to later, in particular, how some of the experts have defined what that should be.

Never in that time have they asked for this job. The minister is going to appoint someone to do this job, presumably with some staff, and to undertake a number of functions. Largely, they are to receive and investigate complaints on behalf of small businesses (essentially like a call centre, send them off to be dealt with by somebody else) and to assist small businesses in respect of their dealings with state and local government bodies. Well, hello! What is the department which the minister is in charge of for if it is not to assist small business in dealing with all the other impositions imposed by his colleagues' portfolios?

Other functions include: to disseminate information to small business—what on earth is this department doing at the moment if it needs to have that job; to administer part 3A of the Fair Trading Act and the Australian Consumer Law in respect of the responsibility for that administration as assigned to the commissioner under the Fair Trading Act—in my view, we already have bodies which could equally undertake that role; to monitor, investigate and advise the minister—and there is a whole lot of other reporting to ministers, giving him advice. He obviously needs it but, nevertheless, the appointment of a small business commissioner is not going to resolve this.

Another function is to consult with industry. Honestly, what are all the industry bodies out there doing if they are not putting submissions to this minister about what needs to be done to help small business? He does not need to appoint one of his mates to be a small business commissioner in this state, give him a highly paid job to be able to report to him and to give him advice on matters which are already within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a multitude of other industry bodies and government departments which are supposed to be doing this job. It is a nonsense.

We have not even heard, in this instance, who this commissioner is going to be. We usually do, of course. When we have had natural resources management legislation and we have had new structures established, the government has already chosen who it is going to put into these spots. It has already worked out who the board is going to be. It has often sent out invitations and notices to members of incoming councils and boards telling them all about what their new job is going to be and that they are looking forward to their appointment. I will be asking the minister whether there has been any process of selection, appointment or invitation to anybody in South Australia to undertake these positions.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You would be good, Vickie!

Ms CHAPMAN: I can tell you I won't be applying for it, minister. Even if you were offering, I wouldn't be accepting it. I think it is important that the minister understand that, if he looks a little way outside of his department, he will see that there is a myriad of public servants and competent people to undertake all of these objectives. The other aspect that is important is that we already have some very significant operators out there providing for dispute resolution.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Like who?

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister asks, 'Like who?' I will give you one which I suspect will be very important—the Dispute Resolution Centre at 314 King William Street in Adelaide.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What do they charge for mediation?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not going to outline the attributes of this particular one. They might be one of the tenderers, when the tender is put out, to provide for mediation. I simply make the point that appointing a dispute resolution organisation which is going to be selected by the government as the institution or advisory body or mediation facility that one is going to be required to be sent to once they have won the tender from the commissioner is not acceptable. Why should small business have to go and see somebody that they are referred to by the Victims of Crime Commissioner when there are a whole lot of other mediation services out there?

He says quite clearly in his presentation to us and the parliament that they are not going to be stopped from undertaking court dispute aspects that they are already entitled to have by court dispute resolution. Thankfully so: he would certainly be going outside his jurisdiction if he tried to do that. However, apart from pushing the barrier too far there, it is important for small business to be able to have access to and make a selection about whatever dispute resolution entity they wish to engage for the purposes of resolving their disputes.

It is a nonsense that we are going to be asked to approve legislation which is then going to enable the minister to appoint one of his mates to a cushy job to become a call centre to existing services and to be able to access the myriad other departmental advisers and capacity which are already there.

I return briefly to confirm the work history. Others have mentioned in this debate the contribution of those in the opposition who have undertaken small businesses in their working lives. There is hardly a person on this side who has not in one way or other had exposure to the risks, the challenges, the opportunities that are there in small business. I started at 10. I bought and sold pigs, fattened them up, made a profit and invested it in calves. I then went on to milking cattle.

Let me tell you the difference between milking a cow and being paid for it every morning or every week at $0.20 to do the job or alternatively taking the risk yourself. You can either buy or lease the cow, with or without borrowed moneys. You can actually milk the cow and you can negotiate in your own contract, which I did, to take the calf full price for the year's work. Let me say this: not once did I lose one of those calves, and every year I made more profit than my brother, who lost a couple of his, I might say. Another successful small business, and he is of course now a farmer and I am here, so that should tell you something.

However, through university, I made bikinis, bridesmaid dresses, whatever was necessary to pay my way through university. I did not have to pay GST in those days, which was fairly fortunate, and as a home business it meant that I did not have to pay rent. A bit of wear and tear on the sewing machine, but it can work. You can create opportunities for yourself if governments and other people do not interfere and cause a problem.

I did have one small hiccup. I remember going to a bank that I had been with, with my little Elders accounts and my ANZ bank account, and I am going to name it now—the ANZ Bank—because 30 years ago I went to it for a $5,000 loan to open my own practice in the law, and the bank manager looked at me and said, 'What does your husband say about this?' Now, I might have been seven months pregnant with a second child and he may have wanted to have an understanding of the availability of income in the household but, let me tell you, I was so incensed at that question, I turned and said to him, 'What husband?' He nearly fell off the chair.

Anyway, he did not give me the loan. I went down the road and I have been with the National Australia Bank ever since, and I want to tell you that they gave me the money and they have been extending those loans ever since. I want to say to you, Madam Speaker, and to the minister very clearly that the people on this side of the house have a very clear understanding of the risks that people in small business take, the opportunities they have if they are prepared to take those risks and work the long hours etc. to be able to achieve that—and good on them.

This government should not be wasting money on appointing a mate of the minister to become the small business commissioner in this state to become a referral centre to existing services. It is a gross waste of money, and I will not support it. Let me just leave on the record the 10 most important aspects that Business SA says are important for South Australia. No. 1, of course, is the economy. That is pretty obvious. They have some fairly scathing things to say about the current circumstances of South Australia and, unfortunately, the performance of South Australia. They say this in a recent publication:

South Australia has not performed as well as other parts of the country over the last year or so, with higher levels of unemployment than the national average, slower retail sales growth than the national average and very volatile building approvals.

They go on to say the Business Expectations March 2011 survey shows a fall in business confidence in this state—unlike all the glossy material we get from the Premier's office about how fabulous everything is. This is the reality, and this is an issue that has to be addressed.

No. 2 is the high levels of taxation. Other members in this house have made contributions in that regard but, clearly, we are the highest taxed state in the country. In particular, in the case of land tax, businesses in South Australia with property valued at $3 million pay between 82 per cent and 325 per cent more in land tax than their interstate counterparts. Again, there have been submissions put by small business and big business across the board on payroll tax, stamp duty and other impediments to successful business capacity.

No. 3 is education and training. We have heard a lot from the government about the problem but diddly-squat about how they are going to fix it. The federal government has made an announcement of an investment. The government here has had written yet another report, as usual, published in February this year, advocating that we need to adopt a skills-for-all approach and this is an important initiative. I say, after nine years: where the hell have you been? Let us get on with it and do the aspects that need to be followed up in that.

The skills shortage ought to be obvious and is No. 4. Whilst the Olympic Dam expansion, which is proposed and subject to the indenture bill passing, is likely to be a beneficiary of very significant employment opportunities, we have had an increase of 16,000 migrants, as announced in the federal budget, through a regional sponsored migration scheme, of which the whole of South Australia is a part, and we are pleased that that Amanda Vanstone amendment has been maintained. New regional migrant agreements and enterprise migration agreements have also been announced. It is important that we deal with what is clearly going to be a shortage. Again, we want more action and less talk from the government on that.

The Fair Work Act has been referred to as No. 5 of the most important issues that need reform, particularly given the extra cost and burden that has placed on small business. No. 6 is the national wage case. In June 2011, Fair Work Australia handed down its decision on the national wage case, increasing minimum wages and all award rates by 3.4 per cent. There is no issue about having a tribunal that has responsibility to manage and intervene and make determinations on this, but the expectation of the ACTU in its claim for this year, if it were in any way to be accepted, will completely and utterly destroy many small businesses in this state, and the government needs to understand about realistic expectations of what burden small business can carry.

No. 7 is the workplace health and safety changes. We are about to debate some of that aspect of the national reform. Both the federal and state parliaments are, one by one, addressing these issues and these are matters to be considered. Personally, and I will be saying this later in the week, I do not think the state government has got it right about what it is presenting but, nevertheless, reforms are necessary.

No. 8 is the rising electricity prices. Small businesses face the highest regulated electricity price, and larger businesses that source their electricity from the National Electricity Market frequently face the highest wholesale electricity prices. We have a problem in relation to access to electricity and the question of investments not going into the distribution networks to generate a higher amount of electricity, so we have got rising electricity prices in this state combined with a number of other factors, some of which are federal, which are going to, in the estimate, continue to increase our prices.

We have the carbon price uncertainty. It seems that the current bill introduced in the federal parliament is going to go through. We are looking at $23 a tonne in extra costs to a number of industries. Clearly, that is going to trickle through. What I think is very interesting here is that the most recent Business SA survey of business expectations (and this is in relation to carbon price) states:

69 per cent of the businesses indicated that they did not support the introduction of a carbon price, 16 per cent supports the introduction of a carbon price and 85 per cent of businesses believe that a carbon price will have a negative impact on their businesses.

If this government was smart and if this minister was of any use he would actually be on the phone to his federal counterparts making sure that, if we are going to have any kind of carbon price or an ETS of any form, it ought to be at least commensurate with what is happening out there in the real world and actually bring it back to a level where an impost will not be an unfair burden on small businesses in South Australia.

Finally, very importantly in this state is water security and prices. In this regard Business SA makes the point that Riverland irrigators were only allowed 67 per cent of their entitlements up to the end of June 2011, that urban potable water prices have increased by almost 62 per cent in real terms in the last three years and that a 26.3 per cent increase in water prices was also recently announced for 2011-12.

We have not only a very precious resource of water in South Australia for the reasons which are well known but also we have a cost impost now on businesses, particularly those that might be in agriculture, primary industry, horticulture and manufacturing which have a high use of water. This is an extra burden which is just simply oppressive on the small business proprietors in this state.

If the minister was serious about helping these people he would actually listen to the stakeholders and he would listen to small business—probably in his own electorate—who are not bounding down to the front door of his office and saying, 'We demand to have a small business commissioner.' What these small businesses want is water, electricity and services to be at a price which is affordable and which is generated or provided in a manner which is accessible.

They want some relief from the burden of taxation. They certainly want the government to be honest about the economy in this state and our relative position in Australia and stop trying to pretend that everything is rosy and that we are all swimming in gold here. The reality is that there are people out there hurting and they want answers to these real questions, not some puffed up extra person that you are going to put in as a small business commissioner and give them an enormous wage to enable them to direct out the services for mediation and dispute resolution in existing forums. That is not acceptable to me, and that is why I will not support this bill.

Finally, on the question of franchising, the minister will be relieved to know that I am not going to address that at any length because other members and the sterling contribution made by our lead speaker on this matter, of course, have covered this issue comprehensively. It is a useless proposal that you have put in this regard—absolutely useless. I can say that I have never been a franchisee or a franchisor, but I will say that others here have, like the member for Stuart, and they have made a contribution.

I have read with interest our lead speaker's contribution—a very, very comprehensive and excellent contribution. I thank him for the extraordinary amount of work that he did in trying desperately, minister, to find one little shred of a useful part of this bill that might save it—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member Bragg—

Ms CHAPMAN: —but even the first clause, I cannot support.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, before you speak, member for Bragg, I would like to concur with you on one thing, which is that I am a woman with no husband and the National Australia Bank has been very good to me. So, thank you for that. Minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Should we have an extension of time? Does she need more time?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No? Is everyone happy? The member for Light.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (16:59): I rise to indicate my support for this Small Business Commissioner Bill. First, I would like to apologise to my colleague the member for Goyder for my interjections yesterday. It is one of those issues which I feel passionately about, and I do apologise for that. What is this bill about? Put simply, this bill is about justice. It is about justice for small business; that is the essence of this bill. Whether it is a corner deli, a farm, a newsagent or a franchisee, once this bill is in place, South Australia will become the safest place in Australia for small business to operate.

Why would the Liberal Party, which proclaims to be a supporter of small business, be opposed to this bill? Why would the Liberal Party oppose justice for small business? When debating the motion to receive the Economic and Finance Committee report into franchising, the lead speaker for the opposition said on this matter:

I hope the parliament takes up the challenges the report recommends. A lot of work needs to be done in the future, but I sincerely believe that if we take action on it we will improve opportunities for Australians.

What did the report recommend? The report recommended alternative dispute resolution processes, good faith dealing, penalties for breaches of the code—all these recommendations are adopted in this bill. We can go further, though. The lead speaker then stated, when debating franchising, after a motion put by me in September 2009:

This motion is quite sound, and I confirm that the opposition supports it.

This is about franchising. He continued:

If the federal government were to support more small business opportunities in Australia, it would do all it could to ensure that the code of conduct which controls the relationship between the franchisee and the franchisor was improved. There is an opportunity now to do it. Reports have been done in two states and federally. Let us ensure that the recommendations from the all those reports are acted upon so that we get a vastly improved system in place as soon as possible.

It gets better, though. When we discussed that report when it was tabled in May 2008, the member for Unley said:

Franchisors in turn complained to the committee [the Economic and Finance Committee] that especially with regard to large commercial shopping centre landlords they suffer disparity of bargaining power.

That is what this bill is about—bargaining power. It is about looking after the small people in the economy. He went on to say:

I think this is a very important and fundamental problem that we need to address if we are serious about supporting small business and encouraging enterprise in South Australia.

That is what he said, the member for Unley, when we handed down the franchising report about franchising legislation, which the opposition have said today they oppose in addition to this bill. So, why have the Liberal Party cowered to the Franchise Council of Australia (FCA)? Why are the Liberal Party supporting the FCA and not small business in this state? The Liberal opposition have relied heavily, if not exclusively, on the opinions of the FCA to try to torpedo this bill. The FCA states that the Shopping Centre Council supports their view. That is what they said in their recent release which was read into Hansard yesterday and today by the lead speaker. This is what the Shopping Centre Council said about the FCA's campaign against this bill:

Forgive us, therefore, for being cynical about the report that the Franchise Council is preparing a retail leasing code of conduct. The FCA (while furiously resisting moves in WA and SA to introduce legislation to further regulate the franchising industry) wants even more regulation of retail leasing in Australia.

In other words, they relied on an organisation that does not even support them. That is how much credibility the FCA has—zero credibility in this area.

There are 136,000 small business operators in South Australia, as has been mentioned by other speakers, and each one of those is important to our local economy—not just the big end of town, the small end of town. This bill looks after the small end of town. This is the area which the Liberal Party is now set to abandon. This is a space in the economy the Liberal Party is now set to abandon.

While this bill has its genesis in the recommendations made by the Economic and Finance Committee, it will be the culmination of a four-year campaign to provide franchisees with a fairer playing field, and more recently to assist farmers in their disputes with machinery manufacturers, and just as importantly for those people in the farming community who have a dispute with grain handling and storage places.

In terms of dispute resolution the report talks about looking to the government for direction, for legislation to protect farmers against those in the marketplace who wield enormous power. This morning Liberal members were saying that perhaps we need to look at more legislation, yet when we talk about small business, they oppose it. Clearly, I must say, either farmers are not small business or they have abandoned both small business and the farming community to look after the FCA. One can only assume that they are looking after the FCA because they represent the big end of town, and perhaps that is where the donations are coming from. One can only speculate that that is where the donations for the party are coming from.

Minister Koutsantonis, who introduced this bill in his capacity as Minister for Small Business, was an integral part of the initial Economic and Finance Committee inquiry, which he chaired, and has led the way in forming this new legislation. I congratulate him on that. In fact, this bill is better than my private members' franchising bill, and I accept that. Once again, South Australia will lead the country in providing support for our small business sector. This bill will raise business behaviour standards, and that is another important thing. The bill provides for the creation of a small business commissioner as well as a legislative framework for prescribing mandatory codes of conduct under the South Australian Fair Trading Act.

The bill also provides for civil monetary penalties for breaches of prescribed codes of conduct under the Fair Trading Act and for civil expiation penalties, that is, infringement notices or on-the-spot fines. Once this bill is enacted in South Australia the minister will have the ability to prescribe mandatory codes of conduct under the Fair Trading Act, including a statutory duty of good faith, as well as other standards of conduct in franchising, as well as other sectors such as farming, farm machinery, grain handling, retail leasing; you name it. Any smaller players in an industry who believe they are under threat from predatory behaviour from bigger players can come to the minister and ask for support.

This is what the Liberal Party is opposing. The Liberal Party opposes the smaller person being able to defend themselves. The Victorian Small Business Commissioner has found that their processes, which this bill is modelled on, have saved the small business sector around $200 million since the office was created. Mum and dad business owners work incredibly long hours and often invest all their savings to set up new businesses only to be brought down by rogue franchisors and other big players in the market place. This bill and subsequent codes will go some way towards correcting the current huge power imbalance between small and big business.

The member for Norwood said that I have a bee in my bonnet about franchising, and I plead guilty to that—I really do plead guilty to that. After 4½ years and after two inquiries in this parliament, after a WA inquiry and after a federal inquiry, it all came to the same conclusion: the power imbalance in franchising leaves small business people (whom these people across the chamber pretend to support) in a vulnerable position. I first raised this matter in February 2007, which then led to the Economic and Finance Committee inquiry, and there was also the WA and federal inquiry.

It is interesting to note that—and I stand to be corrected as I am not on the committee anymore—a recently received supplementary report by the Economic and Finance Committee did not repudiate the findings of the earlier inquiry. The member for Waite this morning and the member for Bragg this afternoon said that we on this side should listen to small business and take advice from small business in what we do in our dealings with small business. Well, I agree. Let's see what the small business sector has said.

The following small business organisations have indicated their support for this bill: the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Independent Contractors Association, the Motor Trade Association, the South Australian Farmers Federation, the Business Development Council and also, I understand, Business SA. What have these small business organisations said? It is interesting to note that not one speaker for the Liberal Party mentioned them.

All they mentioned was the FCA, the big end of town. Not one speaker from the Liberal Party today or yesterday during this debate referred to any of those organisations that speak on behalf of small business. The only organisation referred to in their speeches was the FCA. It is disgraceful that they have abandoned small business in the state. This is what the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia said:

This legislation [in this bill] reflects the fact that that small business is really a person with all the rights that other people have in law. We know this legislation is good and will provide fairness because the Franchise Council of Australia have objected to it.

That is why it is good. Every other small business organisation understands that, if you have the FCA on one side, all the good people are on the other side—except the Liberal Party. For some reason the Liberal Party have decided to get nice and snugly into bed with the FCA. Why? The Council of Small Business Organisations says:

The access to quality dispute resolution and the opportunity for real sanctions to be forced on unscrupulous franchisors and big businesses is welcome news and will only add to the effectiveness of the small business community and the economy.

They go on to say:

Too many small business people have become prey for unscrupulous franchisors, large businesses, large landlords and uncaring government departments. This action by the South Australian government means that we can run a business knowing that, when a fight has to be had, we have friends in high places who may not protect us but will certainly ensure fairness prevails.

Who do the Liberal Party get into bed with? The FCA. Not the Small Business Council, but the FCA. The Independent Contractors of Australia is certainly not an organisation that you might call a natural ally of the Labor Party. They said—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: A hotbed of socialism.

Mr PICCOLO: That's right. The Independent Contractors of Australia said that South Australia is:

Potentially looking most attractive for small business franchisees. The SBC—

Small Business Commissioner—

...will provide voluntary, cheap mediation services for small businesses with a dispute. Importantly, the government sector and private business will be subject to the legislation. The SBC will...have powers in relation to retail tenancy. It makes sense for businesses to contact a state authority rather than a Federal one. I would have thought they (the FCA) would have welcomed an enhancement of the small business commissioner model, given that this is a good thing for small businesses.

Even the Independent Contractors association do not support the FCA; only the Liberal Party do. The South Australian Farmers Federation made the recommendation that the minister adopted through the consultation process to introduce the provision for mandatory codes of conduct or practice. That decision was based on the feedback from the South Australian Farmers Federation, who represent all those small businesses in the farming area. Did the Liberals mention that? No, they did not. Who did they mention? The FCA. This is what Carol Vincent of SAFF said in her letter to the government:

The SAFF applauds the government initiative in developing the office of the Small Business Commissioner and will endeavour to continue to work collaboratively with government and values the support and assistance received from—

in this case, myself, modesty aside—

Tony Piccolo.

As I said, the industry code of conduct was suggested by SAFF. What did the Business Development Council have to say about this? The lead member would know that, because the Business Development Council actually wrote to him. I do not recall the letter quoted in his speech. I may be wrong, but I do not recall its comments quoted in his speech. Why would he not quote from the Business Development Council, made up of all small businesses and representing them in this state, right across the board. This is what they had to say:

The Business Development Council support the concept and intent of the Small Business Commissioner, its roles and responsibilities.

More importantly, part of the claim by the Liberal Party has been that, if we do this, we cannot do other things. Their defence has been, 'If we do this, we cannot do something else.' This is what the Business Development Council said:

The Business Development Council is not aware of any connection between the establishment of the Office of the Small Business Commissioner and the budget cuts announced in 2010. The BDS is of the opinion that the decision not to fund new contracts for the BEC's could have happened regardless of the Small Business Commissioner project.

So, the Business Development Council of this state has basically shot down the arguments of the Liberal Party.

Mr Griffiths: No, they haven't.

Mr PICCOLO: Well, you got the same letter I got. What do the Motor Trades Association, who represent all those dealers, particularly small businesses in rural and regional Australia (machinery dealers, car dealers, etc.), have to say?

The loss of a franchise means the loss of the business and the ability to earn income to pay legal fees to fight the franchisor. It is this unfairness Mr Piccolo wants to stop by the appointment of a Commissioner...who will have real teeth and a legal system to enforce a fair and proper outcome to disputes.

That is what the Motor Trades Association says. We come to the FCA—my friends, the FCA. The FCA opposes this bill. They claim to represent the franchise industry. Sadly, the Franchise Council does not. The Franchise Council has actually diminished the level of debate in this whole issue by making outrageous remarks and comments regarding this.

The reality is when franchises are set up, most of the risk is actually borne by the franchisees. What people do not understand is, in the marketplace, all those franchises you see in shopping centres, the fit-out is paid for, in the main, by the franchisees. We heard that evidence in the committee. It is not the franchisor; they just sell their rights. The risk is taken by the franchisees. So who does the Liberal Party side with? The FCA—the owners. This is what the Shopping Centre Council of Australia said—this is the big end of town talking about the other big end of town, the FCA:

When the FCA (which, despite its claims, represents franchisors, not franchisees)—

this is what the Shopping Centre Council said—

accepts the same level of regulation imposed on retail landlords, its lobbying might be taken seriously.

In other words, all the lobbying the FCA has done on this issue is a joke. That is what the Shopping Centre Council said. The FCA is a joke. They have no credibility in the marketplace. An interesting thing here is that the FCA enlisted the Shopping Centre Council to support them and this is what the Shopping Centre Council said about them. They actually labelled the FCA's reaction to all this as just a media stunt.

This bill is consistent with federal law. Importantly, it complements federal law and so it deserves our support. What I would like to do now is just summarise. One more point I would like to make is that, despite what has been said, the consultation was listened to by this government. As a result of that consultation, this government amended the bill. Had we not done that, we would have been accused of just lip service. We have done that and we are accused of not consulting enough, yet the bill now reflects the consultation.

In conclusion, I would like to make the following points. The case put by the Liberals against this bill has been insipid and, at best, a rehash of old arguments. We have heard them all before. In fact, we heard the same thing eight times today. It was like watching Days of Our Lives. You came back in, the same place; you come back the next day, the same thing. It is like a scene from Days of Our Lives.

The Liberals can run from this issue but there will be nowhere for them to hide when people in the farming sector understand what they are doing in here, despite the rhetoric out there. The Liberals have sold out. They have caved in to big business. They are denying small business justice.

Why would the Liberals back the predators? Why would the Liberals deny the farmers an opportunity to have their farm machinery warranty issues addressed, as the SAFF has recommended? Why would the Liberals deny farmers an opportunity to have their disputes with grain handling addressed, like this report that came out today said?

Why would the Liberals oppose good-faith dealing, which is available in many provinces in Canada? Look at those provinces in Canada—Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick—which have good-faith dealing, they have franchises. In fact, they have no fewer franchises than the provinces that do not have it. So to suggest that somehow good-faith dealing will wreck our state is just a nonsense, if you look at the international situation. Importantly, America has the Uniform Commercial Code which imposes a duty of good-faith dealing.

How can we have a fairer playing field without an umpire? That is what the Liberals want us to believe. With their decision to oppose this bill, the Liberal Party has sacrificed the soul of small business on the altar of self-interest.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services) (17:19): Behind me is a portrait of Sir Thomas Playford, the man of the Liberal Party whose principles, they claim, they are founded on.

Mr Venning: Up there is Stephen Baker.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And Stephen Baker, I understand, a former great Liberal Party activist—two great Liberals looking down disapprovingly on their old party. Why are they looking down disapprovingly? Because the Liberal Party of today is lost; it is lost in a sea of disillusionment. They do not know for whom they stand anymore. The Liberal Party was formed on individual enterprise. The Leader of the Opposition tells us that she left New South Wales Labor to join the Liberal Party of South Australia because she wanted to speak her mind. She wanted to speak freely, and she did not like the idea of solidarity, locking people into one position.

I know that there are honourable men and women in the Liberal Party. I know that there are men of good conscience and women of good conscience in the Liberal Party. I know that there are members who secretly hope that this bill passes, because they have seen the suffering of traditional Liberal voters at the hands of unscrupulous master franchisors. And yet, where is their voice today? Where is their advocate today? Where is the once great political party for which Thomas Playford and Stephen Baker stood? Where are they? Lost. They are lost. They are lost because they are no longer a party of small business. They are now the party of big business. They are the party of the landlords, of the land barons. They are the party that supports the big end of town.

I have heard speaker after speaker personalise this about me—not the current speaker, not the shadow spokesman. I will talk about my experience. My parents are migrants. My parents came to this country with very little knowledge of English. Both worked for other people and both wanted to fulfil the Australian dream and own a small business. My mother was a cleaning lady at a hospital. My father worked in a glass factory on Port Road. They saved and they scrimped and they bought a business.

They mortgaged their home to buy that business. They know the pressures of having a mortgage to risk your livelihood in a business. They know the value of goodwill. Goodwill is something you can sell. What I am trying to preserve and protect is the risk that those families take. I know what it is to live in a mortgaged house that relies on the income of a business, and I do not appreciate Liberals telling me that I do not understand that risk because I am in the Labor Party.

I can tell you my father ran a small business for 25 years of his life, and every single election voted Labor, because he knew that the people who stood up for him, the little guy, was the Australian Labor Party, and today is no greater example of that, because today those mum and dad families look towards us to protect them.

I have sat on the Economic and Finance Committee—a great committee—and had the pleasure of being the chair when the member for Light came to me and said, 'I want to hold an enquiry into franchising', and I thought, 'Okay'. He said he had heard some horror stories about franchising, so we held the enquiry: submission after submission after submission of broken marriages, suicide, lost homes. Why?

I will give you some examples. My parents worked in a business to create goodwill and turnover so that when they decided to sell that business they could sell some of that goodwill. Master franchisors get the franchisees to take all the risk, then want to own their goodwill as well. Imagine working in a franchise, building it up from nothing—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure it does, but there are protections worldwide other than in Australia. That goodwill is then taken from them by a master franchisor relying on a contract that was signed, their being told to whom they are going to sell their business and for what price.

How about the franchisee who is told, 'You will renovate your business to this standard, regardless of the need'? Or the franchisee who is then told, 'You will purchase this stock at this price regardless of what you can get it for competitively in the market'? Or how about those franchisees who are told to employ staff they do not need and cannot afford? Who stands up for them? The Australian Labor Party. We are there within lock step.

I can tell you that the Farmers' Federation is not a hotbed of Labor Party activism. Business SA is not a hotbed of Labor Party activism. I can also say that the Council of Small Business of Australia contacted the Liberal Party today, urging it to change its stance on this bill. The Liberal Party stands alone, and it has one ally in this debate—one—the Franchise Council of Australia.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Point of order: the minister continues to express a statement that is not my position or, indeed, the Liberal Party's. I have continued to put in every submission that I made in relation to this bill the fact that change, for it to occur, will need to be on a federal basis.

The SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, that is not actually a point of order, it was more a statement, and probably you need to make a personal explanation. However, minister will continue.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Liberal Party stands alone, and it stands alone from its base. I will make the Liberal Party wear their position on this like a crown of thorns. I know that every Labor member in this house will go along The Parade, will go along King William Road, Hyde Park, will go to those shopping districts and talk to those tenants who are having to renegotiate their rent—

Mr Griffiths: And the farmers, in my electorate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And the farmers who, under very difficult retail circumstances with a high Australian dollar—who are seeing Australians save and not spend their discretionary income—tell them that the Liberal Party do not want to give them a level playing field to renegotiate their rent; they do not want to give them somewhere to go when their rents are increased unfairly. Instead, the argument I am given today is, 'But landlords have to pay a land tax so they have to pass on their land tax increases to their tenants.'

That is unlawful and if the Liberal Party have examples of landlords passing on land tax increases to their tenants and have not given those to the proper authorities, they are derelict in their duties. No landlord can pass on land tax increases.

Mr Piccolo: You could recognise them as outgoings that form part of—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is exactly the reason why they need an independent umpire who can stand with them. I understand that the Liberal Party are opposing good faith dealings—they want to oppose stamping out unfair and unconscionable conduct; they want to oppose making codes of conduct regulations. When I sent the bill out for consultation, the opposition was right to say that the bill that was sent out for consultation was different from the bill that was tabled. Why is that? Because heaven forbid that this government would listen to those it consulted with!

Who did we listen to? It was not Trades Hall. It was not SA Unions. It was not the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association or the Transport Workers Union—the boogiemen of the Liberal Party who they keep on bringing up as if to try and scare children—who did we listen to? Business SA, the Farmers Federation—their mates—people who serve their constituents.

Mr Venning: Not my mates.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Schubert, honest as always—not his mates—that's fine. These are the powers that the government wants the small business commissioner to have:

to allow for civil action and enforcement powers against corporations failing to comply with prescribed industry codes under the Fair Trading Act;

That is not rampant socialism, that is fairness.

to receive and investigate complaints by or on behalf of small businesses regarding their commercial dealings with other businesses and to facilitate resolution of such complaints through the measures considered appropriate by the Commissioner such as mediation or making representations on behalf of small businesses;

How outrageous is it to allow small businesses to mediate the disputes of other small businesses to avoid court costs? How outrageous, how dare we!

to assist small businesses on request in their dealings with state and local government bodies;

We could have exempted the government from the small business commissioner, but we did not, I am advised.

to disseminate information to small businesses to assist them in making decisions relevant to their commercial dealings with other businesses and their dealings with state and local government bodies;

Apparently, according to the member for Bragg, that is a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

to administer Part 3A of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (which relates to industry codes) and the Australian Consumer Law (SA) to the extent that responsibility for that administration is assigned to the Commissioner under the Fair Trading Act 1987;

to monitor, investigate and advise the minister about—non-compliance with industry codes that may adversely affect small businesses; and market practices that may adversely affect small businesses; to report to the minister on matters affecting small businesses...; to report to the minister on any aspect of the Commissioner's functions at the request of the minister...; to take any other action considered appropriate by the Commissioner—

I am making the commissioner independent of the government—

for the purpose of facilitating and encouraging the fair treatment of small businesses—

Fair treatment of small businesses is what the opposition are opposing—

in their commercial dealings with other businesses...

Let me paint a picture to you: small business has a supplier which is a large business. Who holds all the cards? Mum and dad or the large business? It is pretty obvious, isn't it? Even Kevin Foley knows that it is the large business. The reason I say that is that the minister has been a champion of free-market enterprise in this state, making sure that the market is what dictates business. He also recognised the unfairness in the marketplace and has stood up and supported the small business commissioner as treasurer.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, you did, and I want to thank you for it. The small business commissioner will administer the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995. The member for Bragg, the member for Norwood and others have said to me, 'No-one has ever come to my office and wanted a small business commissioner.' I wonder whether anyone has ever gone to her office and said, 'Hi, I'm in small business. I'm being treated really badly by my landlord.' I know I get plenty of them, and I am sure members who have very large shopping centres in their electorate would know all about the complaints and some of the unfair practices that go on in negotiating retail tenancies but, apparently, according to the Liberal Party, all is well.

In fact, I heard one member say, 'Even if there was a vast minority'—and I am not sure what 'a vast minority' means—'of unfair, unconscionable conduct going on, it's really not necessary to change the law because it might disenfranchise the good franchises.' 'A vast minority'—I think it is a new term that has been made up by the member for Stuart. I will be using that a lot—vast minorities. Ultimately I think in his heart of hearts the shadow minister and many Liberals support this legislation, but there are dark forces at work in the Liberal Party—dark, unseen forces.

Mr Griffiths: It's a party of open debate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A party of open debate, yet not one of the members who sat on the Economic and Finance Committee which came back with the unanimous report calling for these reforms is supporting the government in these reforms. That is how open the Liberal Party is today. While Sir Thomas Playford looks down on all of you disapprovingly because he knows that you have abandoned the very principles that the South Australian Liberal Party was set up for, have no fear: the Labor Party is here.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that under clause 3—Interpretation, you have a definition of 'commissioner', 'deputy' and 'industry code'. In my review of the 57 submissions that were proposed to you and in discussions with other people since then, there have been questions raised with me as to why 'small business' itself has not been defined. Can you comment on why that has not occurred because I am rather interested?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is no agreed definition of what a small business is. For example, the ABS uses 20 FTEs or less; the Fair Work Act, 15 FTEs or less; and the ATO (Australian Taxation Office), $2 million turnover or less (potentially changing to $5 million or less). In Europe it is 50 FTEs. In some American states it is 500 FTEs or less. Given these variations, it was decided not to have a definition. That is also the case in the Victorian SBC legislation, I am advised, and it was intended to give the greatest access for all businesses.

For example, if we decided on 20 FTEs and it was adopted, does that mean that a 21 FTE business has to sack a worker to be able to obtain assistance from the small business commissioner? 'Small' is a relative matter. For example, a civil operator sees a 10 FTE business as big, or a 150 FTE business sees a Woolworths or Coles as big. It is relative. By having no definition I think it leaves it open for as much leeway as possible.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for his explanation, and I can certainly appreciate some of the complications involved in trying to determine what it would be. As a result of that, though, my question therefore becomes: is there an upper limit on turnover or number of employees so that the commissioner will say, 'Sorry, but we are not here to assist you'?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That will be done on a case by case basis by the commissioner.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So there has been no policy thought from within the project team to give some direction to the commissioner, or is that going to be one of the interpretations that that person makes?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would like the commissioner to have some autonomy on this, quite frankly, because I think it is important. There are hypothetical scenarios I could give you which can play out in many different ways but, ultimately, the more discretion you give the commissioner about what he sees as his role, the better.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can see the minister is unable to provide a definite answer on size, turnover or numbers. I appreciate that, but what about industry-specific? There is no qualification on the type of industry that small business, by lack of definition, is involved in, so it can be anything, basically—the full spectrum of businesses that exist in South Australia?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are a universal organisation. We want everyone to have access to equality.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Clause 4 states that there will be a small business commissioner. I am trying to identify anywhere else in the bill where there are details on the skills specific to the role. This seemed to be my only opportunity to ask this question. Can you confirm to the committee what experience you would expect of a person that you would appoint to this role and the skill set they would have before you would consider an appointment being made?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In government there is a wide variety of positions. If you look at the Victorian example, I think the advice I have is that their first commissioner was someone who was their liquor licensing commissioner previously. I think if you are looking at the functions, it is investigative, it is running a budget, it is an executive role, it is someone who has the tertiary qualifications that are required and the breadth of experience—mediation experience and, obviously, some business experience.

Obviously, there would be a nationwide search for the role; despite what the member for Bragg says, it will not be one of my mates. I am hoping for someone with a bit of authority to gain the respect of the industry pretty quickly. If you are looking at the type of qualifications, you can look at from ombudsman and magistrate right through to liquor licensing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, a position brief, in fact, has not been prepared yet?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not know whether a position brief has been prepared internally by the department. I can find that out for you, but I can say that I think that it is inappropriate for me to begin a search for a commissioner until the parliament has given its consent to the bill. I think that would be arrogant.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I would concur with the minister, and far be it for me to say that he would ever be arrogant. Do you envisage or has the project team determined anything, because the person you attract will be attracted by the remuneration that is available to it? Are you able to give us within what band of the senior executive service it will be?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is up to about $250,000 per year, but it could be more, it could be less.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There will be some general questions in this clause also, minister, that might not be directly specific to a particular clause, but if I can refer to a couple of specific ones. In clause 5(1)(a) appear the words 'receive and investigate complaints'. Can you actually define 'receive'? Is that through any method? Is that via a personal visit to the commissioner or his staff, a telephone call, an email, a facsimile or a letter? Is it any method of transportation of the concern? Is it going to be specified as to how that will occur?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The explanation that I have is that the function provided is that the commissioner is able to receive complaints from or on behalf of small businesses regarding any commercial dealings with any other businesses. In terms of the format that the complainant receives, I imagine there would be some sort of proforma form or inquiry. It could be email, it could be fax, it could be telephone, it could be a shopfront visit or It could be anonymous.

These are all operating matters, and, while it is important, I think that the logistics of receiving the complaint are not as important as the investigative powers to deal with the complaint and the commissioner's statutory role in dealing with that complaint. I imagine that it could be in person on behalf of a legal firm or it could be a fax. It could be a member of parliament, for example.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you for clarifying that, and I thought that would be the answer. However, I do have some concerns when you use the words 'on behalf' or 'anonymous', because there has to be a validity to the concern that has been lodged. If it is a small business where it may not be the owner of that small business but someone acting on behalf of the business, there has to be an alignment back to the boss who authorised that, I would assume.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I talked about dark forces. You might remember even when we were on the committee the reticence of some franchisees to give evidence on the public record. I think that it is important that there be an anonymous function because the complaint could be about your accountant, the complaint could be about your master franchisor. Until the franchisee or the complainant gets an idea about the validity of their complaint, or, perhaps, does not want to involve themselves personally in the complaint but just wants to inform the commissioner on a type of practice that may be inappropriate or in breach of the codes of conduct, I think it is entirely appropriate to have anonymous types of complaint mechanisms.

I will say that, as a member of parliament (as we both are), I am sure that you get letters sent to you. Some letters are sent to you with your name and address and some are sent anonymously. I throw the anonymous ones away. People who sign their names get the full attention and the privilege they deserve. I protect their identities, of course. The people who send me anonymous complaints, that is a very different matter. Of course, it depends on what is in the complaint, but, generally, anonymous letters are treated as anonymous letters unlike letters that have names to them. But there has to be the scope and ability to keep some complaints confidential. It could be just an informing role rather than a complaint role.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I agree with you entirely. If you are willing to sign a name, it has validity in my eyes also. But that is my concern where a complaint comes to the commissioner anonymously; it could be an entirely frivolous and vexatious issue. I know the commissioner will have staff who will think it is impossible, but then sometimes the impossible is true. I know there is no perfect situation to that but I would be concerned about a priority being given. I would attach a very low priority to anonymous complaints.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We have that with our police force. Police operate Crimestoppers through a private sponsorship program. They receive anonymous complaints constantly and police make a judgement call on whether they think those complaints are worthy of investigation or not, but those anonymous tips that they receive often go a great way to helping solve crime. I would be reticent to see the ability of—for example, I will give you a hypothetical—a farming family making a complaint about a farming supplier who is the sole supplier in that industry. If they want to inform about a type of practice that is going on rather than actually make a complaint, I think it is entirely appropriate that it be anonymous. It is up to the commissioner to decide then whether it is worthwhile.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the same clause, you talk about commercial dealings. Is there any form of definition on that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: 'Commercial dealings', I am advised, was used because it allows greater flexibility for the commissioner to investigate complaints or assist in their resolution as compared to the Victorian legislation which uses 'unfair market practices'. It allows the commissioner to assist the parties to preserve their commercial dealings through the timely resolution of disputes. The expression of 'commercial dealings' is also common to other functions and this ensures consistency across the commissioner's functions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am interested to see to what extent you intend to use the expertise available within the commissioner. Is it intended that legislation that would have some impact on small business will actually go via the commissioner for comment to you as part of your policy, your preparation of legislation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the government is fortunate enough to carry this legislation through both houses of parliament and gain the Governor's assent, I would absolutely be consulting with the small business commissioner about future legislation regarding small business policy—indeed, industry policy generally. Why wouldn't you? If they are at the coalface, why wouldn't you seek their views? The same way I have sought the views of the Farmers Federation, the MTA, the Council of Small Business of Australia—all of those representative bodies that represent small business that are supporting this legislation, other than the Franchise Council of Australia and the Liberal Party.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is my understanding that the commissioner intends to establish links with organisations, and I think that 'memorandum of understanding' was a term used, but I might be wrong on that. Is the intention to establish links across all sectors? I am not sure. How many formal agreements do you intend to have to ensure that there is dialogue between industry associations and the SBC to make things work? As time evolves, is it going to look at every opportunity to get the message out there about what the commissioner does?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it depends on the industry association and the industry groups. I am advised that some industry groups want formal arrangements; others want informal arrangements. I think that once the bill passes and is assented to and we have a commissioner, that is something we can work towards. I think it is important to allow a cooperative approach rather than a mandated approach. I think it is important that cooperation be at the forefront of the commissioner's mind because no system of legislation can overcome bad will. You need good will for these things to work.

That is one of the reasons why—and I am surprised I have been criticised—the original bill given out to consultation and the bill presented to the parliament are different because I actually listened to the industry groups that were talking to me about the concerns that they are facing, what they actually need to resolve the problems. So that is why I am surprised I got some criticism. What I want is a cooperative approach with those industries, and that is what I have done in the formulation of this bill, and that is the standard that I want the commissioner to continue.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The questioning about the consultation and this bill is due to the substantial changes that have come about, but we have all talked about that. You and I would both recognise that any business failure is a great shame to the people involved and to the state's economy—and any level of failure. If a business is in administration or receivership and they are defined as being a small business and, therefore, the commissioner is willing to assist them in some way, will support still be available to them?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There are many reasons businesses fail. It could be selling a product that no-one wants or a bad location. I am concerned about businesses that fail because of unconscionable conduct, not dealing in good faith, or unfair dealings; that is, if a business is operating profitably and because of contractual obligations and unfair market practices they are made uncompetitive, because all of a sudden their costs are increased because they are buying stock they do not need, they are employing people they do not need, or they are renovating a store that has just been renovated. You know what I am talking about.

However, if there is already a legal argument that is before the courts, the commissioner obviously has no jurisdiction because it is before those courts. You cannot have two concurrent inquiries into the same thing, especially if judicial bodies come into it, so there are those restrictions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to ask you a question raised by a member for Stuart. There was a concern from his point of view, not just today but in our party room discussion, about whether in this legislation there is any levy or tax to be raised to fund the commissioner's activities.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I can rule out comprehensively the government introducing any new levies to support the role of the small business commissioner on a statewide-based taxation system.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to clause 5(1)(c) and the words 'to disseminate'. I am seeking clarification on how it is intended for the commissioner to disseminate information to the state.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The function, I am advised, of the commissioner is to provide small businesses with relevant and useful information to assist them in their decision-making in relation to commercial dealings. This information will be available on the commissioner's website and through a variety of information brochures produced by the commissioner.

The provision of such information should assist small businesses in making informed decisions and minimising the likelihood of disputes wherever possible. The information can also be disseminated through relevant industry associations. It would be expected that the commissioner will have strong industry links so as to facilitate the wider dissemination of information relevant to small businesses in a particular industry.

One example is in the area of retail leasing, where it is vital that the potential retail tenants understand what information they should be provided with by landlords under new law. The commissioner will also be able to provide other information that retail tenants can usefully consider when entering retail leases. A further example involves the commissioner assisting franchisees or prospective franchisees in understanding the nature, benefits and potential pitfalls of franchising.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Part of the reason I asked the question is that in my recollection Business SA also raised the point about the dissemination of information. It leads back to the question I asked you before about relationships that you will have with associations to ensure that there is a commonality of information that goes out, not necessarily duplication, so that either the association does it or the commissioner does it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My view and the government's view is that the premier business representative body in this state is Business SA. We have recognised that by helping them with government grants to do certain work that we feel is their role. However, if we have a government website that provides information and Business SA wants to put a link on its website to information we have, or the commissioner wants to run information evenings with Business SA industry bodies to educate them on what is going on with codes of practice and industry codes that are being regulated, well, I am sure that he or she will do that. If I was a business in South Australia I would join Business SA.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Subclause (e) talks about noncompliance with industry codes. I am certainly aware of the efforts that have been made in franchising. As part of the contribution you and the member for Light have made, you have talked about the farming sector. When I had the briefing with Professor Zumbo and Mr Sinkunas you talked about the fact that farming was going to be a target area, but are there any other code areas that you are giving thought to?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I foresee, obviously, independent contractors developing industry codes with the commissioner. Motor trades are very interested in developing industry codes. I understand the farming and grain handling industries will be interested in developing industry codes, as I assume will other small businesses across the state with generic types which are similar and which have associations that represent them. I would see that they could be voluntary or they could be enforced. This is all about developing them with the commissioner.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That was going to be my question. Will the development of additional codes be either voluntary or enforceable? If they are voluntary by nature, who determines that? Will it be the particular sector itself or will you and the commissioner have control over that?


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis]


The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not want to mince words about this, because I understand this has caused some concern within the Liberal Party. The minister will have the ability to prescribe codes. I will give you an example of that. Business SA, Optometrists SA Association, the Motor Trade Association, the South Australian Farmers Federation, the Housing Industry Association, the Hardware Association of SA, the Business Development Council, the Regional Communities Consultative Committee, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Oceania, the Council of Small Business of Australia, the Independent Contractors of Australia, family businesses, service industry (various), Restaurant & Catering SA, the Australian Meat Industry Council and the Australian Medical Association have all been made aware of the ability of the minister to prescribe these codes. Ultimately, I will do that, or all ministers will do that, on the advice of the commissioner and the industry bodies.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Will whether they are voluntary or compulsory be the determination you make on an industry by industry basis?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Absolutely. If I have the Small Business Commissioner and the industry group saying, 'No, we just need a voluntary code', why would I prescribe it? I have to reinforce this to the shadow minister. You can find boogiemen in every piece of legislation. Okay? I understand that, being a former opposition MP myself, but I can assure you that is not how government works.

Ultimately, prescribing a mandatory code is a political decision that will bring about political consequences. So, if I prescribe a code that is exceptionally unpopular amongst that industry for a small vested interest, there will be a political price to pay. Now, I assume that the shadow minister wants to be a minister one day in a Liberal government.

Mr Griffiths: I live with that dream.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You do live with that dream. I like being a minister in a Labor government and wish to remain a minister in a Labor government because I want to govern, as do you. Small peripheral parties are the ones that are afraid of these powers given to ministers. I say to the Liberal Party: do not be afraid of this if you want to be a mainstream political party that is there to govern.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just so I can get on the record also, it is my understanding that the introduction of a code will be done by regulation, which is—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: —yes, notice of motion to disallow. Okay. The minister has acknowledged that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. To the house, there is no secret ability for the government to regulate a code of practice without the industry knowing about it and there is always going to be a mechanism to disallow it through the parliament—qualified.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is the qualifier, I am advised. Mr Sinkunas will be the one who gets in trouble.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, it will be me.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. Westminster system, minister; very true. Just a question that might be covered later on in the clauses but if I can just ask it now: where mediation is occurring and the mediation itself has been entered into voluntarily by both sides, but a resolution cannot be found, the mediator or the professional mediation service that is employed will never make an arbitrary decision, will they? It will just be an inconclusive result and then left up to one side to determine if they want to pursue legal proceedings.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: With any mediation, I do not think arbitration works in these matters. If we are going to have arbitration, go to court. What mediation is there for, and the reason it is so successful in Victoria, where they have over 80 per cent of disputes resolved in mediation, is that all the parties are brought together, they have their mediation, they have their dispute and then they sign a binding agreement that is legally enforceable in a court. That is the best way to solve business to business disputes.

The alternative is straight to court with no mediation, or mediation that is not meaningful, and, obviously, a great cost. My fear is for the weaker party. When I say the weaker party, not in legal terms, not in terms of legal right or position in law in terms of their argument, but in terms of income, which is usually the mum-and-dad-investor who has got the house mortgaged to have the business and cannot afford the QCs that the larger corporations can. I assume a court would view any dispute that did not take advantage of the mediation in a certain way.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have another question on mediation. It is my understanding that the government does provide some level of financial support to mediation services that already exist. While it is quite likely that those mediation services will tender for the primary role that the commissioner is going to have available, for those other mediation services that are unsuccessful, that do get a level of government support, is there any intention to, as part of the forward planning, take the dollar support away from them and only focus on—I get nods of the head. Okay.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will put on the record there are no plans of the government to do that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I need to pose this question in relation to subclause (2) where it refers to 'good faith'—and I know that has been discussed at length. I am advised that the original intention had been for that expression to be in the following words: 'to act fairly, honestly, reasonably and in a cooperative manner' but now it has been changed to 'fairly and in good faith'. I am interested as to the reason for the change, minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I need to make it clear to the opposition that the wording of clause 5(2) is not an enforcement power; it is a broad statement encouraging parties to business transactions to act cooperatively, objectively, fairly and reasonably in their dealings with each other. The law is very familiar with the word 'reasonably': it is one of the great leverage points of law, I am advised. However, in this instance it is simply a statement of what the commissioner encourages in business-to-business transactions, but it is not an enforcement power.

A statutory definition of 'good faith' may be included in an industry code some time in the future, but the wording of clause 5(2) is not a defined statutory duty of what it is to act in good faith. I want to be very clear on this to allay any concerns—you are voting against it anyway—you may have. A concise definition of what it is to act in good faith is something which we are currently looking at and which should be required in potential industry codes in the future, so I want to make that clear to you so you understand that.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, just to seek clarification on behalf of one of my colleagues who posed a question to me that this clause gives you the opportunity for a ministerial direction but then subclause (2)(a) says 'may not give a direction'—and the chair has probably answered it—'in relation to'. Can you put on the record the distinction between your opportunity for a ministerial direction and the intent of that subclause?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let's say, for example, that the commissioner is conducting an investigation into a business of which I know the proprietor. It would be inappropriate for me to cease that investigation. Let's say he was investigating the dealings of Catch Tim. It would be inappropriate for a minister of the Crown to stop that investigation. I think it is entirely appropriate that my powers in terms of investigations should be about directing an investigation, but not ceasing an investigation.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Or influencing it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Or influencing it. I do not want to create a political body: I want to create a regulatory body, and that is why, I am advised.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I love the inclusion of the words 'I am advised'. I seek an explanation as to why you have included this provision because my assumption would be that regular dialogue would occur between the commissioner and the minister and, therefore, I cannot even imagine a situation where the commissioner says to a minister, 'There is this issue that I think I need to investigate'—or vice-versa—and it was not done. It might be just to ensure that due process is upheld, but it says here that it has to be in writing when you communicate, I believe.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, in writing. Is there an intention to have a regular dialogue between you and the commissioner to ensure that there is an agreement in place?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: With any statutory officer—when I was minister for gambling, I would meet with the gambling commissioner weekly. There is no statutory requirement, I understand, to do that, but it was in the interest of good government that he and I (it could be she and I) met regularly to discuss what was going on. But I think it is important that if a political officer gives a direction to a permanent regulatory body that it be recorded and open to the public. The best disinfectant here is sunshine.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I agree entirely with that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Good.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, I agree with that aspect of it. You are going to catch me out. Madam Chair, that is the end of questioning on clause 6.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In subclause (1) where you talk about a term not exceeding five years, can you give an indication as to what the initial appointment period is likely to be?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I assume it would be five years. I think that is a standard process in government—five years, three years and two years—is it not? So that is the standard process. I do not think it should be appointed for life. I like the idea of five-year terms. That is what the former Liberal government brought into place to start with.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that, but I am seeking an indication of what the first time might be, but you have stated that it would be up to that. As part of that, my assumption would be that some form of performance review would be undertaken. It is an annual reporting process; I understand that, but will there be a performance review and who would conduct that? Is that where a consultant would come in and do that for you?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Parliament of South Australia. The annual report is tabled here annually, and the parliament will peruse that annual report and if they wish to make comment on it, of course they can, like any other body—like the Auditor-General. Like any regulatory body, if they provide an annual report to us—us being the highest court in the land—we will sit in judgement of them.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I understand that, and that is an important process to be upheld, but, on the way in which the commissioner manages staff—the office related stuff that we in this chamber do not get the chance to observe—is there intended, as part of the position description, to be a performance review opportunity where KPIs have to be met—you know all those buzz words, that sort of thing—not just the yearly annual report review that parliament would conduct, where indeed there are questioning opportunities but, more importantly, the administration of the office review?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the Public Service Management Act will apply to all staff. It is a contract position. Ultimately, if the parliament is unhappy with the commissioner's performance, he or she can be dismissed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is the end of my questioning on clause 7.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister you refer to the possibility that you may appoint a deputy or acting commissioner. Certainly I can see an acting commissioner as being a definite situation, but is it envisaged as part of the setup structure to appoint a deputy?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think the clause provides that the minister may appoint a person who may be a public service employee to be a deputy. As well as the commissioner, I imagine there will be probably be someone in the office, or someone of similar standing in the department, much like it operates with other commissioner roles such as liquor licensing or consumer affairs.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The reason I asked the question is because of the use of the word 'may', not 'shall'. I seek some clarification on that especially in the first instance. It is the use of the word 'may' and not 'shall'; I took your answer as meaning that it shall happen.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The discretion is with the minister. Obviously there are budgetary implications, annual leave implications and illness provisions; people get sick, they go on holidays, budgets increase, budgets decrease; things happen.

Clause passed.

Clause 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Mr GRIFFITHS: With staffing, minister, I understand from the briefing that it could potentially be between $1.1 million and $1.5 million in total operating costs Can you confirm if that is the range and how many staff you envisage appointing over the course of the current financial year?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the resourcing will be in the range of approximately $1 million plus—up to $1.2 million or $1.3 million. Obviously, resourcing is a matter for the budget and the government makes no apology for making its decisions based on that. The parliament's role here is to—and I am not trying to tell you how to do your job—decide whether or not you want the commissioner, and the way he or she is resourced is a matter for the government. Ultimately, it would probably be five to seven staff.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question on subclause (2) where it refers to making use of other staff who work within the Public Service. It is an accounting issue, I know. The expertise that is taken from other departments, is the wages cost of that intended to be brought back within the SBC budget or is that just a completely separate issue absorbed by that department as part of the intergovernmental relationships?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We want the ability for the commissioner to second expertise in and out of the office as necessary. DTED being the supporting agency (that is the Department of Trade and Economic Development) obviously will support the commissioner. These are internal discussions that they are going to have. If the commissioner wants to bring in a team of 85 forensic experts, that will be a question for me and the Treasurer, no doubt, to discuss about SBC. Ultimately, it will be DTED's role in conjunction with the chief executive to sort this out.

Clause passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, you are probably not surprised that I have some questions on this clause about the requirement to require information. I seek some clarification. I understand that the commissioner 'may by notice served in writing personally or by post require a person to give the commissioner information'. Is that across all levels of the investigation? Is the information required for mediation to occur or is the information only required where the commission decides to issue a court action?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have received is that it is the experience of the Victorian Small Business Commissioner that the reason the remaining 20 per cent of mediations are not solved in the commission is because of the intransigence of some people who do not supply information on a timely basis (or at all) and wish to exercise their options elsewhere.

This is a way of the commissioner actually having some teeth. I will give you a few examples: if the commissioner is deciding to run an investigation, before he or she makes that decision, he or she may request some written response about the accusations made. Obviously, you are entitled to know what the accusations against you are. The commissioner may write to a business and say, 'These are the accusations against you. We require this information, that information and this information.' It is on a case-by-case basis.

I anticipate generally that the majority of businesses involved in disputes will be willing to work with the commissioner. The inverse of this is: if the commissioner does not have this power, what use are the investigative powers at all? The ability to require information is paramount and it came out in the consultation that a lot of businesses wanted the penalties to be a lot higher.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can imagine that the position of people involved in a request for an investigation is going to be somewhat different depending on whether they are being told that it is going to result in mediation or whether there is a strong possibility of going to court in the early stages if it is determined that there might be strength for that to occur.

The reason I pose this question is as a result of feedback from you that the Law Society comment on this as I understand it was that the ability of the commissioner to require that this should only be in the case where criminal proceedings are commenced by the commissioner. I pose that question on behalf of the Law Society. It is from the feedback and the consultation that you undertook and it is an important issue.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand that this is the same power that the ACCC has and, quite frankly, I do not think there is any way that we are infringing on people's right to silence in a criminal investigation. If there are criminal matters, they would best be referred to the police rather than the small business commissioner. If the small business commissioner uncovers criminal activity, I would imagine that it is incumbent on him or her to report that immediately to SAPOL.

Like any statutory officer who has the ability to require documents, such as a parliamentary committee, the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, whoever has the ability to get information, if that information uncovers criminal activity, good, and they refer it to police. In terms of the legal rights here, I defer to those who speak Latin rather than those of us who speak Greek and English but I would imagine that, if the commissioner uncovers criminal activity, it is a good thing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that and support that concept. If I can ask this then: will there be a structured request for information to be provided in some legally recognisable form or is it intended just to be in a letter form?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I imagine that the commissioner will take advice through crown law on how best to require this information. I do not think it is a couple of lads in a ute turning up any more. I think it is probably through a letter or email.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question on subclause (3) then where the word 'incriminate' is used. It provides that 'a person cannot be compelled to give information under this section if the information might tend to incriminate the person'. That is an easily objective assessment made by a person in deciding, 'No, I don't want to give that information because I believe it might incriminate me.' Is there any intention for some other party—the commissioner or whoever—to have the ability to adjudicate on 'incriminating'. I do not know how you would do that without actually reviewing the information either, but it is just a question I am seeking some details on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would imagine that if someone is claiming legal professional privilege or they are claiming that they do not want to give any evidence against themselves because it is a criminal matter, the commissioner will then pass on all that information to police and the DPP, and the DPP will take the appropriate action.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This clause does not refer to whether it is information being sought for mediation or for the prosecution of a criminal matter, so that is where my question comes about.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the commissioner wishes to have mediation between two parties and one of the parties writes back and says, 'I'm not going to give you any information because the information may incriminate me,' the commissioner has decisions to make and would seek advice from the Crown about how best to pursue that. That may be through SAPOL, it may be through the DPP, it may be through the ACCC or it may be through some other avenue, but the commissioner will seek advice.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On subclause (1), the last line provides 'the administration of this act except', but then subclause (3) below provides 'in connection with the administration of this act'. I posed this question during the briefing, and I wondered whether it was an unnecessary duplication.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that this is entirely appropriate, according to parliamentary counsel, one of the most esteemed legal chambers in the country. I offer the shadow minister another briefing on the matter, but I understand that the first part of section (1) will relate to one of the subsections. I am advised that it is valid and I urge the shadow minister to gain a more detailed briefing from parliamentary counsel. I am advised that subsection (1)—how can I say this, not being a trained lawyer—is excellent.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It may be appropriate, if a briefing is arranged, that we both attend. The maximum penalty set is $20,000. Where did that figure come from? Has some precedent been set for that to be used?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that that is the standard penalty applied in South Australia for this type of infringement.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to subclause (2), where it talks about 'regulations may fix fees in respect to measures designed'. I understand the Victorian experience that it is about $195 per party involved, with a total cost of $700, and the rest of that is absorbed by the commissioner's budget. Can the minister outline what the fees are intended to be?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is currently on my desk. I will be considering it, but I can advise the house that it will be very similar to the Victorian model.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In relation to Part 2 section 3(5), I have a question where it refers to the deletion of the word 'Commissioner' and the substitution of 'Commissioner for Consumer Affairs or the Small Business Commissioner'. Looking at it in isolation, the use of the word 'or' creates some confusion about who is going to have responsibility. Can the minister give an indication that that will not be the case?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have received from parliamentary counsel is that the use of the term 'or' is for a clearer demarcation of the roles of the two bodies. Rather than there being any ambiguity, the term 'or' clearly states who has the roles and functions of the particular dispute.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As opposed to the word 'and', which can mean both?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. That is the advice I have received, and I am sticking by it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I can go to clause 14, which is the insertion of a new clause under part 3A, section 28E talks about 'A person must not, in trade or commerce, contravene a prescribed industry code.' What happens where it is a voluntary code?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is only a penalty in place for a prescribed code.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I can ask some general questions, we have talked about additional codes that you may implement and the level of consultation that occurs there. I think you have already commented that you have not considered any others yet. Have you given an outline of the areas where they might be attracted?

The question that has been posed to me, and it goes back to the premise of the contribution I made to this, is that it should be done on a national basis. Can you outline briefly, and I know you have probably done that as part of your second reading finalisation speech, the reason why this has all occurred for industry-specific codes?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Due to the consultation. The advice I received was, and the consultation brought about, that industry groups were searching for greater protection because of unconscionable conduct needing good faith dealings. I notice the 'opposition bencher' shaking his head in agreement with the government's view, and I welcome his support.

Ultimately, I would love the federal government to step into this space. Until they do, it is incumbent on me and this government to ensure that South Australian businesses are trading fairly, that there is no unconscionable conduct, that everyone deals in good faith and that franchises are allowed to be confident, outward-looking businesses that employ South Australians and go on to do great things. The problem is that, in Australia, franchising is giving the ability to master franchisors to churn. I want to end churning. I would love the federal government to stop churning. I would love the federal government to step into this place; alas, it has not.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I just seek clarification. I presume there is a ministerial council for small business ministers. Have you put this issue on the agenda in an attempt to have a national resolution to it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have spoken at length with Senator Sherry about this. I have spoken about it with other ministers. I have not spoken about it with the new New South Wales minister or the new Victorian minister, but South Australia's views are well known around the country. This government is very proud of its stand on this issue, and I encourage other jurisdictions to follow South Australia's lead.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Jumping forward to the very top of page 15, subclause (2), minister, where it talks about civil penalty proceedings that are undertaken, are the costs of those actions met by the commissioner's budget or, indeed, by the small business activity that is involved?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Any legal proceedings through a court are run through the Crown Solicitor's Office, and the costs are borne by them and are awarded by the courts. That is the advice I have received.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I can jump forward to page 17, where it refers to late payment. Is there any form of penalty attached to a late payment of an expiation fee?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that proposed section 86E authorises the commissioner to accept late payment of an expiation fee at any time before proceedings are commenced for a civil penalty order for the alleged contravention to which the payment relates.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just on that, how long does the commissioner wait before they commence proceedings?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I want the commissioner to be not as rigid. Having some experience in expiation notices, I think it is important that there be some flexibility given to the commissioner in this pursuit. I do not want to see the commissioner being too rigid in the way he deals with small businesses. Ultimately, these are small businesses so, if there is a penalty put in place and the business wants to negotiate the payment of that expiation fee with the commissioner, we should allow that negotiation to proceed and give maximum flexibility to the commissioner. If the commissioner is then frustrated, he can take civil proceedings.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I indicate that that is the end of my questioning on this bill.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services) (18:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 18:41 the house adjourned until Thursday 15 September 2011 at 10:30.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT