HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-06-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT AND REPEAL (BUDGET 2012) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 13 June 2012.)

Clause 1 passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Minister, this is the leave provision for the Education Act which flows on to other employees under the Public Sector Act. This is the skills and experience retention leave entitlement. I just wonder what productivity gain the government gets out of this entitlement.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: This is an area that was canvassed by the member for Davenport in estimates. The intent of this particular provision is to ensure that we retain those individuals within the public sector workforce who have a highly developed set of skills based on longstanding experience. It is the view of the government that the productivity gains will actually flow from retaining this cohort of highly specialised individuals.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Minister, given that it is about retaining public servants, I just want to get it clear that public servants who are receiving this retention allowance to keep them in the Public Service can also be offered TVSPs to leave the Public Service.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: That may actually be the case, member for Davenport, but I think, in the larger scheme of things, as the member would be aware, we have a large cohort of baby boomers moving through the Australian economy. I think it is a phenomenon right through the West. I know that China and Japan will be grappling with very much the same issue.

The challenge that we have as a society is to ensure that we actually manage this fairly significant demographic shift and we do so in a way that we do not denude, in this instance, the South Australian public sector of a wealth of experience. So, the proposition is largely in place to ensure that we retain these individuals. There will be some individuals who would be beneficiaries who would be offered TVSPs but I think that, in the overall scheme of things, the intent is to retain a large number of individuals who may otherwise be inclined to exit the public sector.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I just want to check my understanding of it. There is this one set of leave entitlements before the Foley change two budgets ago, then there is another set of leave entitlements that existed after the Foley amendments but before these Snelling amendments and now there is another set of leave entitlements that exist after the Snelling amendments. I assume the way it works is that the public servants accrue the leave under three different schemes and, under this scheme, the accruement is going forward, or is it retrospective?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is going forward.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So whoever is doing the HR in the Public Service will have to calculate their leave under three different schemes as a result of this. Is that right?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: That is correct.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, that should improve productivity! I want to check: you are not looking at introducing long service leave for MPs, are you? Some of us have been here a long time, and we note that the Public Service are getting all these benefits.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Just don't stand again, then you'll have long service leave.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That's right.

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, that's right. Under clause 4(2)(3a), it provides:

the Director-General may make a determination under which the accrual of the entitlement will be calculated instead as a number of working hours leave for each completed month of effective service;

So it gives the Director-General an opportunity to make a determination. I am just wondering how the parliament would know that a determination has been made and whether there should not be an amendment to the act in another place to have that matter tabled by regulation so that the parliament is aware that a different form of calculation has been applied by the Director-General.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Davenport, I will get advice from that section within Premier and Cabinet, the Public Sector Workforce Relations unit, and we will come back to you with advice on that particular matter.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am looking at clause 4(2)(3a)(d), which is about the five-year limit and if they have not taken their leave within five years and the leave is lost. I want clarification as to what happens if the person, say, accrued the leave over four years and then took two years off on sick leave, what happens to the leave at that point, given the person would then be having a six-year period? They would lose their leave at the five-year period because they are on sick leave. I am wondering how the scheme is designed to cater for someone who, for instance, is sick for a long period of time.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The advice I have been given is that the provisions that currently exist for that particular scenario in relation to long service leave would apply. Exactly what they are we have yet to determine, but it is covered under existing arrangements.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I appreciate the minister filling in for the Treasurer, who, for family reasons, cannot be here. Maybe the minister could get the agency to flick me a note on how it is going to work. Under the same part, clause 4(3), which deals with section 19 of the act, is, 'Section 19—after subsection (4) insert' a new subsection (5). New subsection (5)(b) provides:

(5) The regulations may—

(b) fix different monetary amounts according to different classes or categories of officers.

The $180 figure referred to in the second reading explanation, what level of officer is that and what is envisaged under this clause, that someone at a higher level of pay gets a higher dollar amount? Is that the theory, and, if so, can we have a schedule of what those amounts are going to be? The second reading explanation only refers to a $180 amount.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I gave that particular figure some consideration when I read the second reading explanation. That is an amount that applies right across the board. That particular provision allows for movement against CPI movement, but the actual amount will apply to all officers at whatever level.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If the intention of the government is to have the $180, increased only by CPI, then might I respectfully suggest to the government that it amend the act to say that, because this does not say that at all. This says that the regulations may fix a different monetary amount according to different classes or categories of officers. What that means is that a government can come in and do a deal with the public service union and strike a different monetary amount according to the category of officer: ASO1, ASO2, ASO7, executive level 8, you name it. That is the power that you are giving in the act. If that is not what is intended then amend it to say that the fee is $180, amended by CPI each year, and then it is clear what the government means. I think any public servant reading that clause could only interpret it to mean that if they were on a different category they would have the opportunity to obtain a different level of monetary payment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 7 deals with the winding up of the RESI Corporation, under the old Electricity Corporations Act. The briefing provided to the opposition by the Treasurer's agency was that there was a capital surplus of $3.5 million to $4 million which will be returned to government—I will just put that on the record—and that RESI's assets were, at the end of May, $7.5 million in cash deposits with SAFA. I then noticed that clause 11 of the bill, which deals with assets and liabilities of RESI, provides:

(1) The Treasurer may, by instrument in writing—

(b) transfer the amount of $250,000 held by RESI at the time of the execution of the instrument to the Treasury and Finance Operating Account kept by the Department;

I cannot reconcile why the briefing to me was that there was going to be $3.5 million to $4 million returned to government and the bill states that a transfer of $250,000 will apply. Can someone explain to me the difference between the two amounts and why there are two amounts?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The explanation is that the $250,000 will be transferred, really for contingency. There is a figure of $3.5 million, which is a residual, and that will go into general revenue. The figures do reconcile, it is just that the amount is being split with a quarter of a million dollars going to one area—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So the total then is $3.75 million.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Just refresh my memory.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If the figure was going to be $3.5 million to $4 million—what I am trying to clarify is: is the minister saying it is now $3.5 million plus $250,000 making it $3.75 million, or is it $3.5 million including the $250,000?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is $250,000 plus $3.5 million, so the amount that we are talking about is $3.75 million.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the First Home Owner Grant. I wonder whether the minister agrees with the Treasurer who said that the First Home Owner Grant has an impact of making it more expensive for people to get into the home ownership market. I am wondering whether the Minister for Finance has the same view as the Treasurer on that matter.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Sorry, member for Davenport, I just had a side conversation in relation to where the adviser was. Could you repeat that, if you would not mind?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am wondering whether the Minister for Finance agrees with the Treasury's view that having a First Home Owner Grant makes it more expensive for people to get into the home ownership market because all it does is inflate the entry price. I am wondering whether you agree with that view or not.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: That was a view that had some currency, and when the Treasurer made that observation I think it was a reasonably widely spread view of what was happening in the market. However, I think the Treasurer would now be of the view—and I certainly am—that, given the tightness of the market and the fact that it is very subdued, builders and real estate developers are very keen to keep the price of their product as low as they can. So that propensity that existed, say, three or four years ago, to basically inflate the price of the product in line with what was being offered (not only in South Australia but elsewhere in Australia) by way of first home owner grants, is no longer a phenomenon.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can you just remind me about the rules around actually having to live in the home to get the grant: how long you have to live there and those sort of things?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: You have to move into the newly-acquired residence within 12 months and then have to reside therein for a period of six months.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 20 deals with the amendment of the Highways Act. I raised these matters during my second reading contribution, so they should not be a surprise to the advisers, at least. This is the issue about giving the Commissioner of Highways, or the minister essentially, the power to acquire land for purposes other than just building. The briefing we got was that part of the reason is that they are going to put American-style billboards all down the freeways to help fund the budget; McDonald's and Hungry Jack's will be very happy with that, I am sure.

The more interesting aspect, to my mind, was the issue of the retrospective nature of use of land that has already been acquired for the purpose of a road and not for a commercial purpose and how the people who have already had that land acquired from them are now going to be fairly compensated for the land being used for a different purpose from that for which it was acquired. This provision, as we understand it, will go back and change the available uses for the land that has already been acquired from private ownership.

My family has had land acquired from it and so I am familiar with the process. When land is acquired, the entity acquiring the land has to nominate the purpose for which it is going to be used and that establishes the value. If you are not happy with the value, you can go to the Supreme Court and have an argument there, and the court will decide the value. What is happening now under this provision is that some land that has been acquired for a road construction may end up having commercial activity on it, as a result of this legislation. It may have a petrol station or something like that on the land, which, of course, totally changes the value.

I am just wondering how the government intends to deal with the issue of any intent at all to go back to those people the land has been acquired from and reimburse them for the new value of the land, given that you have acquired the land for one purpose and are now using it for a different purpose.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Essentially, what this amendment seeks to do, rather than ownership of the land on a selected number of roads, which are basically the Southern Expressway, the South Eastern Freeway, the Northern Expressway and the Port River Expressway, is to change the existing regime whereby the land would have transferred to local government and they would have been the beneficiaries. Rather than that occurring—and the situation which you have outlined, member for Davenport, would have existed under the old regime, but local government would have been the potential beneficiary—we are saying that on a limited number of roads we will retain ownership rather than transferring across to local government, so that potential benefit accrues to the state rather than local government.

The intention is to allow the construction, particularly of service centres, which not only are a hallmark of the British road system but also of the highway system on the eastern seaboard. I think the member for Davenport is probably aware of them—a service station as such and then a number of convenience stores that generally specialise in fast food. That is the intention and we believe that we are better placed to get those propositions up as opposed to local government because we are the constructors of these quite significant stretches of road.

I have been advised that the Land Acquisition Act provides the ability for compensation to be gained but it does not deal with the enhanced value of the land as a result of a road being built. I think it would probably be unfair for a person who previously owned a section or a body of land to expect that they should be compensated for the enhanced value of that land by virtue of a significant stretch of road being laid through it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let me understand what I am being told. The way I understand your answer, minister, is that currently under the act, the land would transition to local government and they could build a service station on it, or allow a service station to be built on it, and there would be no extra compensation back to the previous owner. Also, that there is no provision under the compulsory acquisition act for the government to declare the purposes for which it is acquiring the land, so that the valuation of the land can be established based on that purpose.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The statement I made about the existing regime whereby the land adjacent to a roadway and on which the roadway sits is transferred and vested in local government is correct. They have constructed these service centres if the development is a complying development. Things are largely unchanged. The only difference, as I said, is rather than local government being the beneficiary, the state government becomes the beneficiary, and the intent for which the land is purchased is for the construction of a road. The construction at a later date in the instances that I have outlined, were not foreseen at the time of purchase of the land and I think are adequately dealt with within existing legislation.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Does the minister accept, then, that the value of land when you are acquiring it for a road is different from the value of land when you are acquiring it to put a service station, fast-food outlets, a car park and a car wash on it?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: In terms of the methodology that is employed, an offer is made on the existing use of land so that if an individual has a factory or a shop situated on the land, he or she or the company, the entity, would be offered—and, in most instances, would accept an offer—based on the current value of land, not future intended purposes.

In some instances I think that it could be argued that the future use, which initially might be just road, may actually be less than current use, which is retail. The methodology is valuation on current use, and that would be fair and reasonable for someone having to sacrifice a business to make way for a road rather than a future use which, in most instances, would be purely for the laying of tarmac.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am not sure whether or not my uncles were involved in this, but I will declare this. I have uncles who, I think, had land taken off them as part of the Northern Expressway project. They are market gardeners out at Virginia. Certainly at one point there was some discussion about the road touching on their property. I am unclear as to whether or not it happened, but I just put that on the record for the sake of the exercise.

Let us take the market gardener out at Virginia who has lost whatever land because the government wants to put a 'road' on it. The market gardener was not allowed to rezone the land to put a McDonald's on it, or a multistorey car park, or a car wash or a Shell service station. They were not able to do that. The land gets acquired at the market garden rate, and then the government turns around and says, 'Well, thanks for that. Now we're going to put a five-storey car park on it, three McDonald's, five service stations and a car wash,' and the government becomes the landlord and the government makes the money out of it.

Why could the government not have simply rezoned the land and say to the private owner, 'Well, there you are, you become the landlord, you become the developer and you be the profiteer out of the exercise'? Why would the government want to take the land off the private citizen so that the government can profit? Why would you acquire land on that basis? The whole idea of the compulsory acquisition act is to acquire the land for a public purpose, not to make money for the budget.

What the clause says, of course, is that 'it is a car park for public transport users'; so that is the public purpose, I have no doubt. However, ultimately there will be a charge to that, and there are a car parks all around the city that charge for people who use public transport. Even the government, down at the Entertainment Centre, has a $2 charge, or whatever it is. My point is: why is the government now entering the field where it wants to compulsorily acquire land off the private citizen so that the government can become the landlord?

If the government wants a development next to the road, then allow the private citizen who owns the land to rezone their land and let them become the landlord and let them grow their wealth; or, indeed, you could cut the land off and sell it to private enterprise and let them develop it. What the government is going to do with this provision is simply become the landlord for Shell, McDonald's and all the On The Run car washes so that it can prop up its budget.

It is compulsorily acquiring land off the private citizen. The government is saying to the private citizen, 'We're not going to rezone this land for you guys. Oh, no, no. We're not going to rezone it for you guys.' In the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale you are even going further than that. You are saying that you are not going to allow them to rezone the land, but as soon as the government's budget gets into trouble the government says, 'What we're going to do is we're going to rezone the land for commercial enterprises, not for a public road.' This is not for a public road. This is not for a public purpose. This is for the government to make money. It is not for a public purpose.

I am not opposed to having a service station next to the freeway or a car wash next to the freeway, or whatever. I am not opposed to that principle. What I am opposed to is the big brother government coming in over the private citizen and stopping the private citizen from growing their own wealth. It is the private citizen who has kept that land for all those decades and it is the private citizen who has been restricted by the government from subdividing and developing the land. Then the government comes along and says, 'We are going to run the road through your property and the government is going to profit out of it.' I know what the government is going to do, eventually, down the track and that is develop it and ultimately flog it off. They will make a huge profit out of it, and the poor old private citizen who had the land taken off him gets dudded in the eye. If the government wants to do that, why not simply rezone the land?

I am aware of cases where the court has ruled that the valuation is based on a certain use and, if the use changes, the family has a claim against the entity that acquired the land because they acquired it for a set purpose and they cannot then re-use it for a different purpose. I am aware of at least one case where the court has actually said that.

I am just interested as to why the government has decided it wants to make the money out of all this exercise, and why not use a different approach and cut the land off and let the private citizen grow the wealth rather than the government?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think, in essence, member for Davenport, why the government would object to your approach is that on a stretch of roadway which, for argument's sake, runs for 20 or 30 kilometres, one particular landowner would be a significant beneficiary as a result of the construction of the road because land that he or she or the company formerly held is now the site of a service centre but every other individual who has had their land acquired over that 20 or 30-kilometre stretch would not enjoy the windfall gain.

I think you would find, in the example that you have given on the Northern Expressway with all those market gardeners, if one individual was to find that the land that they formerly owned was the site of a service centre, their neighbours would take objection to the fact that, first, they were somehow singled out for benefit and, secondly, the benefit was significantly expanded or inflated by virtue of the fact that the state government or federal government committed a significant amount of funding for the construction of the road. So it would be (1) a windfall gain and (2) a benefit that would not accrue to any other individual along that 30-kilometre stretch of road.

I have been advised that this particular model is employed elsewhere in Australia. I think it is a clean way of doing things, and the construction of these service centres is actually a benefit to the motoring public and, from my experience, along the eastern seaboard and throughout Europe and the UK there is a high rate of utilisation. I believe that the government's approach is the most logical one, and I think South Australian motorists will ultimately be the beneficiaries of the provision of these service centres on our major routes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Minister, whatever you do, please do not drive across from Adelaide to Perth. I rode a pushbike from Adelaide to Perth and I slept at all these service centres across the way, and they were all owned by private enterprise and they exist. So the argument that somehow landowners will be treated differently, to me, is a nonsense argument.

Go to any zoning proposal. Why are there only two service stations in Stirling? It is because the zoning says they will not allow any others. All the landowners are disadvantaged. Why is it that in Stirling you cannot subdivide land unless you have four acres? So, there is a disadvantage to other landowners. The reality is that the whole planning system disadvantages and advantages certain landowners. The reality is that all around Australia already existing, not under this scheme, are rest centres, service stations, car parks and car washes—all over the place. You do not need this scheme to deliver those facilities for the public. You do not need the scheme.

My point is this: you say that the landowner who gets this facility built on their land will have an advantage. Well, they are losing an advantage at the initial point of acquisition because they lose their land. I have been through this process. My family lost land that had been in my family for four generations. I am not going to accept the argument for one second that we were lucky because we got compensated. How lucky were we? The land was taken off us after four generations. How lucky were we?

To say that the government can then come in and change the rules of the acquisition and profit out of it in my view is unprincipled. My view is that it is unprincipled. I might be in the minority, but it is my view that if the government of the day is taking your private asset for one purpose and then uses it for another purpose, then the compensation should reflect that.

The government knows the areas. When you design a freeway, where are these car washes at McDonald's going to be? I think they will be at the entry and exits, generally. It is not as if it is not known where these things are going to be. Go to Main North Road and see where they are. All those on Main North Road are privately owned. You do not need this. This is nothing more, in my view, than the government coming in and trying to prop up their budget. I have made my point, so I have no more questions on that particular matter. We can go to clause 31.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a number of questions.

The CHAIR: On this matter, clause 20, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, the whole of part 6, amendment to the Highways Act 1926. I am happy to ask questions on clause 20 or any number of them which go up to clause 30 on this aspect. The representatives from the department and the Treasurer's office provided a briefing shortly after this budget repeal bill was tabled, and I thank them for that. During the course of that presentation I asked to be briefed on the number of other jurisdictions to which this model applied. The second reading contribution indicated—and I am reading from page 6 of the published material:

The revenue from any commercial activities will be paid into the Highways Fund and it is intended that it will be used to fund additional road maintenance. Other States already have such powers, including New South Wales and Victoria.

I have not received any response to the inquiry about other states. It seemed a rather peculiar way of describing it. If it was to be all other states except Tasmania that would be clear, but New South Wales and Victoria are specifically identified as included. I would appreciate it if the minister could now tell me where else this model applies.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The situation in South Australia is currently unique in that there is a transfer of road land to local government, whereas interstate I have been advised that the situation is that the land remains vested in the state government. What we seek to do with these amendments is remove this anomaly and bring ourselves into line with the situation elsewhere in Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: Every other state?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: That is my understanding. We will provide confirmation but that is our understanding.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does every other state currently provide its minister and/or commissioner, with the agreement of the minister, with a model that they can use for commercial purposes?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: My advice is that the financial model, if I can describe it that way, reasonably closely aligns us with Victoria and New South Wales. There is some difficulty making that comparison in that some of the states do not have highways commissions, if I could describe them that way. Their administrative structures are a little different to ours, but in a broad conceptual sense what we seek to do here is to align our practice with the practice in New South Wales and Victoria.

What we seek to do by utilising funds raised through the leasing-out of land for service centres is to have those funds flow across to the Highways Fund. I would have thought that would be broadly acceptable to the opposition in that it has some alignment with the notion of user-pays. As a former executive with the RAA, they are very keen on this proposition, that any revenues that come out of road use, particularly taxes raised on fuel, ought to flow directly to construction and maintenance of roads. That is their strong view.

I would have thought this proposition would be broadly acceptable to the opposition in the sense that the moneys that we will raise through the leasing of land for service centres and other commercial activities will be earmarked for the maintenance of roads, so we have an additional source of funds which will allow the South Australian government to maintain and further develop our road network.

Ms CHAPMAN: I was coming to this question of what provision there is for it to be secured for the purposes you have just stated, that is, to fund additional road maintenance, which is what is described, although I think you have broadened it to be an intention of the government to earmark it in the Highways Fund to provide for safety measures, which begs a number of other questions about what is going to happen to the $10 million a year that the Motor Accident Commission currently invests in road safety measures, etc. In any event, I will stick to the script for the moment.

So, the position really is that this financial model applies in New South Wales and Victoria, and that other states, under whatever model there is, do not currently offer the sides of highways for commercial purposes in which there is a benefit to government.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: At this point in time, member for Bragg, we only have certainty on New South Wales and Victoria and, as I said previously, we will gain advice on practice in the other states. I made the point that doing the comparisons are a little difficult in that there are different administrative arrangements elsewhere in Australia. I think seeking to determine some alignment with broad principle with other states such as Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania should be reasonably easy to do, and we will endeavour to get back to the member for Bragg as rapidly as we can.

Ms CHAPMAN: The other aspect is this question of what currently applies. My understanding, at the briefing, is that the current caretaker obligation is transferred to the local government once the highway or road is built, and they then put a garden on it, maintain it, keep the weeds off it, or put the sheep in, or whatever they do to maintain the proper management of it; they have a caretaker role.

It is not my understanding—and you can make this clear, if it is possible—that they are actually vested with a fee simple title to that property. So, I would just like that clarified, because I think the implication of what you have said previously, in answer to the member for Davenport's question, is that the existing situation is such that the local government, under its current powers, could actually put the supermarket there, or put up a billboard, or any other commercial enterprise that has simply been transferred—which was the way I heard you describe it—to the government.

That does not happen at the moment, anywhere, as far as I am aware. In any event, I think, as the member for Davenport has pointed out, the current planning laws would restrict it from doing that. So, local government might have want to do it, but they have not actually been able to do it. Hence, when we come to this bill, there are a number of amendments which remove the 'under the care of' clause and make provisions for 'vest in and under the care of'.

In fact, what you are getting is a retention of the estate in fee simple, which is the title of that land, and then, with all the other provisions we are about to be invited to pass, the powers of the commissioner will give them to chop down trees, close certain roads, open certain other roads, etc., that will all enable it to facilitate to do exactly what you are saying local governments currently have power to do.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Briefly, the land under the current arrangement is vested in fee simple with local government under the Local Government Act, so what we are saying—and I am reiterating what I have said previously—is that we will retain ownership of the land rather than it being vested in local government.

I have just been given an example of the ability of local government to actually develop the land. A road was closed at Tarpeena and a timber mill was developed on that land, so it can occur. As to why we have not seen local government wanting to develop service centres, I have no indication at this particular point in time. But, if it is complying, they do have the power, and all we are seeking to do is remove that opportunity from local government to state government to ensure that we have an additional source of funding for our road network.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I will come to the Tarpeena example shortly when I refer to another parcel of land the government has acquired in dealing with the current superway. I do not see that as akin to the land that is actually immediately adjacent to the bitumen, which was where these developments were going to be, but in fact another parcel of land they had which was not utilised for the road and which was used to develop a timber mill—not that it would be much use now, of course, with the forests being sold, but that is another matter.

I will just come back then to its application. I am entirely with the member for Davenport here, and I am sure that most South Australians who might have any land interest are going to be keen to hear that, in the event that the government of the day makes the decision that it is important to acquire land, whether it is for a road, hospital or any other good public purpose, under the legislation—which we fully accept is necessary for the public good and services—people will be given proper compensation.

They can only be given proper compensation if, on the table, it is clear that with the valuations that are to be undertaken, and then usually argued about, the opportunity to develop the commercial enterprises on it, whether it is for flashing billboards or service stations, that value is added in. To hear you, minister, suggest that it is really important for the government to be able to be the single landlord here, as an argument to dispel a high expectation or unreasonable unfairness given to other landowners around someone who might get it, is just a complete and absolute nonsense.

If other Virginia farmers in that example were lining up on along the side of the road, and they had land acquired, they should be entitled to exactly the same. If the one on the other side does not, then as the current acquisition rules apply they do not get it. They do not get it now and they do not under any of our acquisition laws. I find the 'we need to be the sole landlord' argument an absolute nonsense and I reject it entirely. However, let us get back to the introduction of this and the opportunity the government sees to make some money out of these road verges and how it is going to be applied.

During the briefing the indication given to us was that it would be to develop service stations, but the primary purpose, stated in the briefing given to us, to start straightaway was billboards, advertising space. In relation to any advertising or structure which potentially could be a diversion to traffic on these major roads, has there been any consultation with the RAA or any other road safety body (I think we have an authority which Sir Eric Neal used to chair—I am not sure whether he still does) as to any road safety aspects, introducing flashing billboards or pictures of people on them, and so on? They are usually pretty ritzy.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The advice I have been given is that the existing road safety protocols that apply to the erection of billboards will be applied in these instances. Certainly, the ability to erect a billboard with a moving image would never be countenanced. The member was talking about flashing lights. The location and type of billboards, I understand, are fairly tightly constrained as things currently stand, and those constraints would apply to the location and type of billboard that would be erected along these roadways.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hate to use an example that is probably not a good one, but at the Britannia roundabout they have billboards here in the city and they move and change and are a distraction. If you are trying to edge your way around the Britannia roundabout at certain times of the day, they can be very dangerous, which is probably why they have an average 2½ accidents a week at that intersection.

Current road rules actually allow for these things, which is why I ask. Of the four nominated roads you have here, in addition to all those that it is proposed you will be able to prescribe—and we do not know what they are or where they might be—let us look at those four nominated in the bill. People will be going along at, presumably, at much higher speed than they will be going around the Britannia roundabout. I wonder what extra provision there will be to restrict that if, as you say, they will be modest in size or in their capacity to move or whatever, so we will not have the football oval-type advertisements rolling over and distracting drivers.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: If it is of any reassurance to the member for Bragg, we are not talking about the Britannia roundabout, which is a reasonably complex proposition. These are on controlled roadways with very few entry and exit points and, for that reason, we believe that the safety aspect is basically dealt with by the nature of the roads. However, I will obtain for the member for Bragg a thorough briefing on that particular matter, so that she can gain some surety that all those matters she has raised in relation to road safety are more than adequately dealt with.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is just that, as I understand it, minister, the current laws in relation to advertising size and what can be on them etc., are going to apply. My point is that under current laws, you can have moving pictures, etc. Secondly, from what you have told us, you have not nominated anyone that the government has consulted in relation to the safety component on this aspect on these major freeways. I am not convinced, on that information, that there is any provision—other than what currently applies in advertising, which has certain restrictions on content and size—that is there to protect.

A briefing is not going to help me. If there is going to be some set of new rules on size, content, distance from the side of the road and all those sorts of things or if there is going to be some level of regulation on this, I would be very happy to hear it. If there is not, then I would be asking the government to ensure that they prepare it and, if the passage of this bill is advanced today, as I expect it will be, to ensure that we have some assurance that that will be attended to and that in fact the government will go and consult with these bodies. That is what we have them for—to ensure that.

I am the world's worst driver—I am happy to admit that—so I do not need any distraction on any road, but what I do say is that, apart from the fact that I think the infrastructure that is being built on these particular four roads is quite impressive and there is a beautiful view out into land at the north and the south and so on, I personally am not actually all that enamoured of the concept that, next time I go driving up there, I am going to have billboards all the way along it or, for that matter, service stations. In any event, if it is going to happen, I would like to think that there is fairly clear regulation and also, as I have already raised with the minister for transport, that there is not going to be some preference given to any party to have access to the advertising.

In estimates, the Minister for Transport, I think made it fairly clear that, in his understanding, the advertising and commercial opportunities would be open to anybody, whether that is a non-government organisation—that is, the private sector—as distinct from other departments, but I can tell you that, if a situation arises where the first preference to advertise is given to other government departments, and I drive along the new superway and have shoved at me every hundred metres some good news message from the government, it will make me choke.

I think it is important that we have an absolute assurance from the government that that is going to be open to other parties, that it will be on the same terms and that there will be some process of scrutiny that enables that to be available because, at the moment, the only billboards that go up are the ones that say, 'I'm from the commonwealth government; this is a great project,' or 'I'm in the state government; this is a great project.' We get flashed with those all the time. I drive past them and think 'It's my taxpayer dollars going into this; I would rather them actually going into the road.' Nevertheless, if you are going to have billboards as well, then I want to know that if the Liberal Party wanted to have a billboard, subject to the political advertising rules, we could do it as well.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: No, we can't. Under the department of transport rules, political parties can't advertise.

Ms CHAPMAN: Then we need absolute clearance. The member for Davenport suggests that, and what I raise with you is that that was also the issue raised in estimates with the minister for transport. I think he said words to the effect of 'You will have the same access that we will' in relation to that. So I want some assurance that it will be safe, and that there will be some regulatory regime to ensure that it is; and, secondly, that it is open to anyone, and that some process will be set in place to ensure that it is.

When we come to the commercial opportunities—car parks, service stations, hamburger shops, whatever—I would like to know that that will also be open, that it will not be just a tender process go out to the whole of the superway to one particular company being able to secure up the opportunities all the way along. As I say, I would like to know that it will be an open, fair and transparent process in relation to that.

That leads me to my next question. Before introducing this, did the minister approach any of the existing operators of these types of facilities along the route of these roads or their representative associations, such as the service station association (if there is one)? I assume there are some representative bodies: Business SA, retailers associations, someone who has an interest in advocating and protecting the interests of those already out there who operate service stations, car parks and the like. Did the government do any consultation with any of those people along the track, or their association or advocacy bodies? If so, whom?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I will deal with the billboard issue first. It is not going to be open slather; there will be selected sites which will, of course, be selected on their advertising potential. That is an obvious proposition. Additionally, the safety considerations would be taken into account. So it will be selected sites, which will be leased; not open slather. The signs themselves will be subject to development control, which is currently the case. The lease arrangements that will ultimately be entered into will have a whole range of conditions attached and that will be the means by which we will be able to ensure there is no road safety impediment, in addition to us having control over the location of the sites.

In relation to the leasing of service centres, these will obviously go out to open tender. It will very much be a transparent process. It could well be that one company tenders for all sites. I have noticed that phenomenon even driving up the Main North Road; I think virtually every service station is under the one banner, so strategically they have made a decision that they want to buy into a particular route.

I have noticed elsewhere in the world that on some motorways you will find that, for argument's sake, Shell have all of the service centres. We have yet to determine the manner in which we will offer the leases, whether it is done as a string on a particular route or offered individually. Even if they were to be offered individually, it could be that one company makes a strategic decision that they want to dominate that particular route.

In relation to the question you asked about the level of consultation, I have been advised that, no, that has not occurred. I think the reason that it has not occurred is that these motorways—if I could describe them that way; this is kind of an all-encompassing term—are such that, if we were to locate service centres, there would not be competitive pressure. From your own experience on the Southern Expressway, the Northern Expressway and the like, any service stations are well distant at this particular point in time, so the view is that, by and large, there would not be an immediate competitive pressure arising from the construction of a service centre.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am very disappointed to hear that there has not been consultation. I think you would also appreciate, minister, if you are on the Southern Expressway and there are five service stations going south and another five coming north, that it will clearly have an effect on the current operators of service stations at the Darlington precinct—just to use that as an example; not to mention chicken shops or anything else. At the moment the motorist knows that once they get onto the Southern Expressway they cannot access a petrol station or anything else, so they use the facilities before and after.

I do not think it would be beyond the understanding of a government—and certainly not you, minister, who has a clear understanding of these things, I am sure—that there is going to be a deleterious effect financially on those existing enterprises. I am disappointed that the government has chosen not to go to them and consult with them, because surely their livelihoods are going to be at risk and I am sure they would want to participate in some opportunity, for example, to relocate, if the government were going to follow this route. It is most concerning that that has been the case. However, I cannot undo it. It has been introduced with this bill, with really no notice to anybody until it has been tabled in this parliament, and that is very disappointing. Anyway, that is par for the course.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Of course.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Cadell ferry springs to mind, member for Croydon. I have not seen anywhere in this bill the fund deposit of these moneys into the Highways Fund. Is there some provision in this bill or some other bill to direct these funds there, because I have not read it? Or is it just a promise; a bit like, 'We will put moneys out of the Lotteries Commission into the hospitals of South Australia as some extra benefit to them.' I do not think Hugh Hudson even believed that, but we are a long way down the track from that. We are starting on this venture and I think the second reading explanation made a commitment to it, and I think in your statement you said that the government is going to put this into a fund for extra road maintenance and now road safety. Where is the provision in this bill to secure that?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is contained within the Highways Act.

Ms CHAPMAN: I would like some clarification on that because we know the fund exists under the Highways Act. I do not know if there is an all-catching clause that says, 'All commercial revenue has to be paid into the Highways Fund,' but this is a new opportunity for the vesting of land with the commissioner, and with the authority the minister has power to lease out, etc. If that exists then I would like to be informed of it.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is section 31 of the Highways Act under the heading 'Highways Fund'.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to read it another time, minister. Can you give me an assurance that the provision is there that all funds received from any activity will have to be transferred into that fund, because the highways fund just sets it up?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I have been advised that section 31 covers that. You are obviously more than free to look at it, but one of the officers will also sit down with you to just explain the operation of that section.

Ms CHAPMAN: The other matter is the superway, which is one of the nominated roads proposed to be utilised in this fundraising opportunity. As you would know, minister, being in cabinet, this project is a jointly funded commonwealth and state exercise. The superway is an $800 million-plus project. In the presentation of this project to public works, it included the government's intention to acquire $30 million worth of property basically to set up a facility for the construction, facilitation and assembly of all those great big blocks out there and all the wiring and an assembly yard to build it.

Whilst I appreciate that you are not the Minister for Transport, being in cabinet, you would be familiar that it is the intention of the government to buy it, use it for the purposes of assembling and constructing all of the planks and so on—or cement blocks—and then sell it. That is what was presented to public works and that is what is in all of the material.

We heard from minister Conlon in estimates that the poor old Land Management Corporation fell flat on its face this year and did not have any dividend to give the government because property sales were low, etc. In fact, its $58 million expected dividend for the government evaporated. He has told us that, although the government has bought up land, it is not planning to develop it—for example, the Caroma site—for a number of years because things are pretty tough out there in the real estate market.

You may also not be aware—so I will just briefly try to summarise the position as I understand it—that the land adjacent to the superway, acquired under the compulsory acquisition legislation for this exercise, was resisted by the owner. It culminated in a Supreme Court action by him—objecting to the compulsory acquisition of this property—against the government. The government won. The owner went to the Full Court and the government won again, and the government has the property.

The owner is unhappy because, essentially, as I understand it, his case was that he was happy to make this land available to the government; the government was perfectly entitled to develop it so that it was fit for purpose and had all the bits and pieces for those great big trucks and things that they have out there—although I see that a pipe speared through some hapless person's windscreen while he driving under the superway the other day—but, in any event, there was a major objection, but it was acquired anyway.

Now that land, under this legislation, as I see it, could be kept by the government and developed. Some commercial benefit could be gained from it—which, in some ways, I hope occurs now that the taxpayers are funding it—pending the hopeful resurrection of the real estate world where it might onsell it down the track. Certainly, if it were facing a massive loss on the disposal sale proceeds of it, one would have to look at it from the government's point of view as to how else it might ameliorate that impending financial poor return.

My concern, which in some ways highlights the issues the member for Davenport has raised, is with people getting fair compensation. Irrespective of the unhappiness of that particular owner in having his land acquired, he is not going to get it back and he is not going to have any opportunity to get any revaluation of that property if the government decides that it is going to go on and develop it as a commercial activity.

My concern, minister (and you may not have this information available to you) is whether there is any other property that has been acquired along these four particular routes which the government intends to sell but may decide now to keep and develop commercially. It begs the other question of whether in future when the government decides it is going to acquire land for the purposes of a roadway it will, in fact, actually buy extra because of the commercial opportunity and use the acquisition powers of the legislation to buy an extra rim of property to exploit ultimately the financial gains from the commercial opportunity.

There are two aspects: first, what other existing property does the government have that it was going to sell and will now keep along these four roads and, secondly, what assurance can the government give the people of South Australia, or anyone out there who has property who might be the subject of acquisition, that its intention in the future is to proceed to buy up land, taking into account not only the necessity for a road but the argument that it is also necessary to have room for a service station, billboards, car parking and commercial ventures?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: That is a fairly lengthy question, so it is probably easiest to start at the end rather than the beginning. The concluding comment you made, member for Bragg, I think has probably been adequately covered in an earlier exchange I had with the member for Davenport: we can only acquire land for the purposes of building a road. The actual superway is not in the bill because, among other reasons, it is an elevated road, so access and egress is non-existent, but that is not to say that, at a later stage—

Ms Chapman: You can't add to it?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Yes, at a later stage, but at the moment just the practicalities probably preclude any opportunities for—

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just clarify this? In fact, this superway example is exactly the situation where the government has bought the road space, quite properly because it wants to do a superway, but it has actually bought this whole tract of land separately to provide an assembly region. We will not go into whether or not that was necessary, as the Full Court has dealt with that. The government has got it and, under land acquisition laws, it is really not that difficult for governments to be able to present an argument that they need it.

In this instance, they did not need it for the road: they just needed it to park their trucks, build their things and do whatever they do. I have seen it all; it is a rather magnificent facility, but is a huge area. We are talking about a $30 million property. There is no road on it, and it could easily have an addition to facilitate its being a great commercial opportunity for the government. It is of concern to me that it is already using its powers to buy other assets, other than a strip of road that is necessary to build it.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: In relation to that particular site, I have been advised that it is within our power to acquire land for roadworks and, as the member for Bragg has observed, that is the purpose to which this large area of land is currently being put. I have been advised to explain it as when the land is no longer required, it is our intention to put it back onto the market. When we no longer require it for the construction of the components of the superway, or for what other purposes may arise at a later date, once those purposes have been exhausted, then the land will be sold.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that, minister, and I appreciate that at the time of presenting the Public Works case for this that was its intention. However, we have heard this week how badly the situation is out there in the real estate market and the Minister for Transport has confirmed that although he is setting up his new Urban Renewal Authority, etc., there are assets that are sitting there, and we have had a really bad year in the last year and it is not looking bright straight away. In fact, he indicates that that is not their expectation to have revenue from a number of their projects, so it may not be a good time to sell. I quite accede that in those circumstances it would not be smart to just put it back on the market and try to get $10 million back for it, would it, from a taxpayer's point of view? I think you would understand that.

Other opportunities are similar to what they are doing at the Caroma site, continuing it as a commercial operation, and it might be four or five years before they develop it. I can see it coming like a semitrailer and I just want some assurance that the government are not going to go out there and buy an extra half a kilometre either side of the area that they want to have for the roadway and the necessary safety slip sides and so on; they buy a bit more because of the money stream opportunity. In the meantime I had a look at section 31 and I see that under (2)(a) the fund consists of 'money paid into the Fund as required or authorised by this Act or any other Act'. There is no other provision in here which I can see which would recover it, but there may be something else in the act. So I will take up the minister's offer to speak to one of the advisers about where that is because it does not seem to be illuminating quickly.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The advice that I have received is that the legislation before us does not give us the power to undertake the activity that you fear may occur. I think it is highly unlikely that it would. I think most of those matters that you have raised have been dealt with by the Minister for Transport, so we will probably just settle it on those points.

Clause passed.

Clauses 21 to 30 passed.

Clause 31.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the biosecurity levy commonly known as the Livestock Health Programs Fund. The government has been out consulting on this for at least two years, and I am wondering: has the government decided how it is going to be charged and how is the money going to be collected?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I have been given some written advice which I will read into the Hansard because I hope it adequately covers the question asked by the member for Bragg. I am pleased the honourable member has acknowledged the long and thorough consultation process. I must admit that I was involved, as the minister for primary industries, at the commencement of this particular process—

Ms Chapman: We want you back.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: —thank you, member for Bragg—that the government has undertaken with the livestock industry in relation to the proposed biosecurity fee, which will result in the livestock industry co-investing with the government in important exotic disease surveillance and emergency preparedness programs. To ensure that the livestock industry understands what is being proposed, and to allow it to have a say in the type and level of service delivery required to have a strong biosecurity surveillance program, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries established a committee, chaired by Mr Dennis Mutton, to engage industry on those important issues.

The committee has met several times and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries attended the most recent meeting to discuss the proposal to cost recover a proportion of the exotic disease surveillance program. The outcome of the committee discussions have been summarised and are available on the website—not that I am asking you to do that, at this particular point in time anyway. In relation to how the fee is being charged and collected, that is a matter still under consideration through the consultative process, and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is looking forward to further advice from Mr Mutton on those issues. However, to enable collection of a fee, new regulations may need to be drafted, which will require further consultation before being finalised, and any regulation would be tabled in the parliament in due course.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is the fund going to be a hypothecated fund, or will it be a fund that the Treasurer can get his hands on for other purposes? The emergency services levy is a hypothecated fund: the money cannot be got at. Is this levy going to be a hypothecated account?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: No; this is not a hypothecated fund. It is a fund that will be managed by the Treasurer. Given the degree of rigour with which this process has been gone through and the seeking of assurance by the rural sector that, one, they are not going to be over-served, and, two, their requirements are going to be met and that the South Australian livestock industry will be protected from exotic disease, I would be of the view that there would be a fairly strict application of funds for purpose, but it is not a hypothecated fund.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The government has provided a briefing in response to some questions I raised in the briefing after the budget was announced and before the debate began. It has provided some estimates of the revenue from this new tax. It says that in 2012-13 it will collect $740,000, in 2013-14 it will collect $1.72 million and in 2014-15 it will collect $3.14 million. What is the 2015-16 figure—the budget estimates go out to 2015-16 and the advice I have does not give me the 2015-16 figure—for the estimated revenue from this new tax?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: My understanding is that the final figure to which you have referred at 3.14 would be the figure for the final year but these figures ultimately are based on cost recovery. That is the central proposition to recover in part these services provided by PIRSA. The negotiation with industry is to determine the level of service, if you like, that is required to ensure that there is not any overservicing but, equally, that there is not an underservicing and that the service provided is provided on as efficient a basis as is possible. However, the work that Dennis Mutton is doing will ultimately determine the amounts that will go into the budget. As I said, member for Davenport, this is a cost-recovery exercise which is going to be very tight and the figures will ultimately be determined by the level of service which is agreed in what I can describe as a co-production model between the South Australian government and the livestock industry.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, let me understand this: there is going to be some agreement—a written agreement, is there—about the level of service between all the different livestock providers? So, the chook people, the pig people, the cattle people, the lamb people, the llamas, the horse people, they all have different disease issues and they all have different management issues; they are all going to be covered by this new levy. So all those individual groups are going to sign off on a service level agreement with the government about what services they are going to be charged for.

What is to stop the government coming in and saying, 'Well, we want to put another 10 bureaucrats into that section and just increase the levy?' There is no parliamentary oversight, like the emergency services levy, as far as I can see. This levy does not go to a parliamentary committee where it can be queried. The natural resources levy goes before parliamentary committees where it can be questioned. Do you honestly expect parliament to sit here and say, 'Don't worry about it. We've had two years of discussion with the industry.' Even after two years they cannot tell us how it is going to be charged, who is going to be charged, what they are going to be charged for or how it is going to be collected.

The reason they cannot do that is because the department itself does not know the answers to those questions. Are they going to have a written invoice, are they going to put it on council rates, are they going to put it on sales—how are they actually going to collect this? Is there going to be a written agreement with each of the different livestock industries for the level of service and, if not, what stops the government from simply changing the level of service when it needs to increase or decrease its budgetary position, given the circumstances of the budget of the day?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: There will be a fund established for the purposes of allowing activities to be conducted by Biosecurity SA's Animal Health program. There will not be a service agreement but there will be created a series of five-year management plans with each of the different sectors.

I have had some experience in fisheries and aquaculture, having to deal particularly with the oyster producers, so I know that these are workable and are really the result of some fairly hard-nosed negotiation. So there will be the plans and they will set out the activities that will be funded from the fund. Livestock advisory groups, and any other people in the industry not represented by an advisory group, will be consulted in establishing and reviewing these plans on at least an annual basis—so there is a process.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Minister, what is going to stop the Public Service or the government from saying, 'Look, under the plan we need to run education programs about foot-and-mouth disease, flyblow or mad cow disease'—take your pick. 'We need to employ another 30 people to do that. We are going to run the world's best education program, so we will just employ 30 people to do that and charge it on.' The plan is not going to have a restriction on the size of the program or the number of people employed or, indeed, the cost. My understanding of these plans is they are simply setting out the type of things they will be doing over the five-year period. They will be managing outbreaks of exotic diseases, they will be looking at the import/export issues for quarantine, they will be running discussions with the veterinary industry, etc.

Is it not true that ultimately it is going to be the minister, through the budget process, who decides how much will be spent and therefore collected? Where is the control, from the industry point of view, about how much can be collected and spent? Is that not solely at the discretion, ultimately, of cabinet? If cabinet wants to collect another $5 million a year to run some program under the plan, they will; and if cabinet wants to cut $5 million a year, because they do not want to fully fund, or do not want to fund to the same extent, something under the program, they will. Where is the control?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The scenario that the member for Davenport has outlined could occur. There could be an outbreak of foot-and-mouth and I think in the first instance there would be a call on Treasury, but ultimately you might find that you have to maintain for a period of many years a regime of high and strict surveillance, particularly with respect to animal movement and the like. In essence, things remaining as is, with no outbreaks of exotic disease, there would not be that call for emergency funding. We are dealing with a cost-recovery regime that would be set out by regulation and any change to the fees under this cost-recovery model would have to come back to the parliament.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So the scheme is going to be set up by regulation rather than by the act. With the emergency services levy, all the details were put into the act and there was a lengthy debate on that, and having spoken against it, the Labor Party then voted for it. Under this scheme, it is all going to be in regulation, which we know is almost impossible to disallow because the minister just reintroduces the disallowed regulations the next day. The government will get its way in the regulation.

You are saying there is going to be one fee? How is the fee going to be structured? Is it going to be a different fee for chooks, a different fee for pigs and a different fee for cows? When you say that the fee is fixed, is it going to be in the regulations? Is it going to be a dollar fee that cannot increase unless cabinet decides so? Is that the story? It is not going to be CPI linked or anything like that?

Just explain this to me: South Australia has one of the best agriculture systems in the world. We have not needed this fee up until now. We have faced all sorts of diseases in Australia and we have had one of the best agriculture systems in the world. This is not about animal health; this is just about budget health ultimately, is it not? This is nothing more than a grab to budget. All of those programs that we speak about—whether it is mad cow disease or fruit fly or take your pick—ultimately they have been dealt with by the system for over 100 years without a need for this levy. You went to the last election saying that you would not introduce any new taxes, how does this not breach that commitment?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Firstly, it is based on the fee-for-service model, and the department of agriculture, I understand, was either the first or one of the first departments established when South Australia was a province. Education may have been the first, but agriculture has always been a significant economic activity in South Australia. I think, among other things, the industry has moved to a position of some maturity.

For the first 50 or 60 years it was the acclimatisation of crops and animals and generally working out the best way to utilise the natural environment for agricultural production. When you get to a point where the industry is largely mature, the principles that apply to other sectors of the South Australian economy, we believe, should also now apply to the agricultural sector, so that if the South Australian government is supplying a business service to this sector, as it is to other sectors, then the sector should make some contribution.

We employed ACIL Tasman to do a study to determine the breakdown in private benefit as opposed to public benefit. That study was given over to industry to consider and to come back to PIRSA with their views. Ultimately, I think there was some broad agreement that the determinant on the public good which should be borne by the taxpayer was X per cent; and the private good, which was a benefit that accrued specifically to business and to operators in the primary industries sector, ought to be borne by the sector.

So, that is the methodology if you like, that has been used to determine the private good as opposed to the public good by the provision of these services, and it is the basis on which the discussion and, ultimately, the decision will be made on the determination of the rates. In response to the questions that you ask, yes, it will be differential. Various sectors will pay a different amount determined by the level of service provided. It is not CPI linked. It could well be that in some areas the level of activity drops over a period of time and there will be a pullback on the fee that has to be paid. I think that, in terms of approval, any increases would have to be approved by cabinet.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I just want to check: could the CRC research centres—from memory, there is the genome research at the Waite—be funded out of this levy?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: No, they would not. I think the research arrangements or regimes that are in place, and for argument's sake, the way in which the activities of SARDI, another research institute, are conducted, are largely in line with the model that we are looking at here. There is a co-contribution by government and the private sector to have research activities undertaken, and this is the extension of that particular model. I am not saying that it is identical, but it is not too dissimilar.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I just want to make it clear that your advice to the house is that this fund cannot be used to fund research?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The control or administration of the fund ultimately resides with the Treasurer, but the intent is that this is cost recovery for the activities of PIRSA. It does not preclude at some time the undertaking of research activities, but it is certainly not the intent. The intent is to fund the activities of Biosecurity SA in relation to the livestock industry.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That might be true. That might be the intent, minister, but the legislation is so broad that I want a clarification that it cannot be used for research. My reading of the application of the fund is that it is so broad that it could be used for research, and a treasurer, 10 years down the track, who is not party to this magnificent debate, may just take the opportunity to transfer costs out of the budget, into this fund and onto the landowners, and that is what I am seeking to establish. Is that possible under this legislation? I do not care what the intent is; I want to know whether it is possible under the legislation?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think the surety that we can give the member for Davenport is that any research activity would have to be contained within the five-year plan. A research proposition could not come out of left field, and to preclude the undertaking of that type of activity may not be a wise thing because it could well be that a particular issue arises where something has to be done fairly quickly in terms of some research activity; and if it is generally agreed by industry that that ought to be undertaken, well, that is probably a good thing to do.

However, the way in which research is conducted is largely on the basis of commonwealth funding for specific purposes, and those purposes in large part are not only determined by the scientists, the CSIRO, SARDI and individuals associated with the commonwealth but by industry, which is a large driver of research activity in Australia—so, highly unlikely.

A five-year plan, I think, would make that difficult. If within the five-year plan there is a call for a discrete piece of research to be done, so be it, but ultimately the Treasurer would have to sign off on that or allow that particular expenditure. Given the way in which agricultural research activities are funded and structured within Australia, I think that we would have recourse to using that particular structure rather than using this particular fund.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, all a future treasurer has to do is to make sure that the word 'research' is included in the five-year plan and then the treasurer of the day can sign off on the expenditure? You can drive a truck through it. Everyone can see what is going to happen ultimately with that.

The Treasurer can sign off on it. The Treasurer is the one who will be under financial pressure to find little hollow logs of money everywhere. It is the Treasurer who will have the interest in trying to push as much cost onto this particular levy as they can. Go and have a look at what happened with the emergency services levy in the first year and see what Treasury tried to do to that. The reality is that the five-year plan is consulted on with the industry and then only signed off by the Treasurer. Is that right? Is that my understanding?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is signed off by the minister but administered by the Treasurer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, regardless of what the industry thinks, you can consult them, then ignore them. That has occurred with government from time to time. You can consult them and ignore them and then sign across any costs you want, ultimately, in the plan. I can understand why the rural community is nervous about where this levy might end up.

Going back to the revenues, minister, you said that the last year it was $3.14 million. On my brief that is provided by the Treasurer's office in 2014-15 it is $3.14 million. When you say the 'last year', are you saying that in the year 2015-16 the revenue is going to be $3.14 million?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: That is the advice that I have received, but those figures will ultimately be determined on the basis of the thresholds that are arrived at through the Mutton consultative process and the level of service that is arrived at as a result of those discussions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: While the bill is between houses, can the minister's office arrange for the opposition to receive the modelling that goes to each of those revenue years, as to what level of service has been modelled? Someone in the bureaucracy must have worked out what that levy is going to cover, how much is going to be charged and what level of service is going to be underpinned to reach those figures. There is a minute somewhere within the agency that says, 'If we charge chooks this much and cows that much and pigs this much, it will come up to the figure of that levy.' I want the modelling that underpins it.

Minister, can you advise me whether these revenue figures are net or gross? Is this the net figure or the gross figure? Are we collecting $10 million and having expenses offsetting it, or is this the total amount collected or the net amount collected?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is the total amount collected under the regulations. Because it is a full cost-recovery proposition, all incidental administrative expenses would be picked up in that amount, so it is a gross, not a net, basically covering all costs incurred by PIRSA in delivering a range of services for the sector.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The modelling I seek is not only the modelling of the levy that is going to be charged and how it is going to be collected and the collection costs but, also, the modelling of what PIRSA is including in the costs. That is the modelling I want.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think what we can supply you with is all the material that we have made available to industry. The process commenced when I was the responsible minister—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: No, if you just bear with me. My understanding, and it was certainly my intention as the minister, is that industry would be fully engaged and have a full understanding of all the issues you have raised so that, when a service level is determined and the costs associated with the provision of that service are known, all parties have a full knowledge of what the service level actually entails and what the internal PIRSA costs are in delivering that service. We will endeavour to provide you with all of that material. Certainly, some of the aspects that you have raised are the subject of discussion that Dennis Mutton is currently engaged in, but I am sure that we will be able to more than adequately answer those matters.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I do not want the information that was given to the industry: I want the information that underpins the modelling in your budget because, regardless of what the industry has been told, someone in the agency has decided there is going to be $3.14 million collected. To decide that, they must have worked out how many cows and horses and chooks are going to be charged, how much the owners of those animals are going to be charged, how it is going to be collected and when it is to be collected; and, to underpin all that, they must have first worked out the costs that were going to be recovered.

By your own language, this is a cost-recovery mechanism. Someone must have worked out the level of cost to be recovered; so I want both sets of modelling that underpin the budget. The fact that the government has spoken to the industry does not mean the industry accepts it. The government needs to get over this issue of claiming it has consulted with people just because it has told them what is going to happen. That is different.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The poor old member for Croydon should get back to Battleships on his computer. The reality is that the government has been painting the picture that the industry broadly supports this, that they ultimately support it. I am not convinced of that. That is the modelling I want, minister.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: We will provide that, member for Davenport.

Clause passed.

Clauses 32 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the cancellation of the promise about payroll tax rebates for apprentices and trainees that lasted two years under the government, the big promise before the election. I just want to know what happens to an apprenticeship that is halfway through a four-year indentured apprenticeship that was getting up to a $1,440 rebate. If the apprenticeship is halfway through, and this has now been cancelled, what happens in the last two years? Do they not get that rebate?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: We are talking about the apprentice; the apprentice is not the beneficiary. If the employer has an apprentice undertaking a qualification in a critical skills list that has been determined by DFEEST, the employer will continue to receive the benefit; if not, then the employer will not receive the discount on their payroll tax bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let me get this right. The government has gone out and said to the employers, 'Trust us. You take on this apprenticeship for four years, and we will give you a rebate on your payroll tax of up to $1,440.' On that basis, some employers have done their sums and employed the apprentices. Then, two years into the apprenticeship, or it might even be one year into the apprenticeship (most apprenticeships are four-year contracts), the government has said, 'No, sorry. We're changing the rules,' so the poor old employer is left out of pocket because he might be in an industry that is important but not critical to the ones the department think are important. It might be a plumbing apprenticeship or a carpentry apprenticeship, not necessarily something to do with the mining industry.

Can you explain to me why those employers should be disadvantaged? Why should those employers be poked in the eye by the government when it is simply because the government has broken its promise, broken its word, and changed the deal? Why would any employer trust the government again on this rebate issue? Why would you as an employer want to take on an apprenticeship based on a rebate from the government, when one year into the contract the employer gets poked in the eye?

The employer cannot just sack the apprentice; the employer just has to wear the extra cost. Having employed apprentices when I was in the building industry, they are damned expensive to employ. It is hard to get single indentured apprentices up in the building industry; hence, the growth of the group training schemes. All this has done is penalised the single indentured apprentice to the single employer. It favours group training schemes, and yet all you have done is penalise the single indentured apprentice. Why has the government designed a scheme that cancels its word, breaks its word, one year after employers have taken on apprentices based on the government's word?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: In simple terms, the government established the Training and Skills Commission to ensure that we were aware of the skill requirements of the state, and that advice was received by the Training and Skills Commission through industry bodies. On that basis, we have been able to determine what areas are effectively underskilled and have significant potential to grow the South Australian economy. I do not think that it will come as a surprise to the member for Davenport that the tight budgetary situation leads to difficult decisions. The decision was made that the funding model provided by the Training and Skills Commission in the identification of critical skills ought to be utilised in the application of the training dollar, and that is what we have done. There are some skill areas that do not fit within the critical skill list.

I was an employer of apprentices myself. I am not going to talk about individual examples, but the rebate I received as an employer for the employment of apprentices had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my intention to employ an apprentice; there was a whole range of other reasons. I believe that, for a large number of individuals, this will have a negligible impact on their business, but that is not to say that for others it may not. The member for Davenport has a slightly different view, but my own practical experience, having employed a reasonable number of apprentices over a reasonable period of time, is that the impact will not be extreme.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Were yours in the retail industry?

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien: Baking.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Baking. Let me explain the building industry to you, minister. The building industry is not the baking industry. The building industry is far more boom-and-bust than the baking industry. Go and ask a couple of carpenters to make a full-year commitment based on their turnover; ask a set of plumbers to make a full-year commitment.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Hence the support for the group training schemes, which is what we are doing.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes; hence the support for the group training schemes. The reality is that, particularly in the country areas where group training schemes are not as strong, a lot of the apprentices are taken on by single indentured builders, carpenters, plumbers or electricians who suffer the boom-bust cycle. I think the government has done a disservice to the building industry and the small builder, in particular, who may not be involved with the industry associations, and most of them are not. It has certainly done a disservice, I suspect, to those groups. I just wanted to get on the record why the government broke its word.

Clause passed.

Clauses 40 to 43 passed.

Clause 44.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am wondering why the government changed its mind on bringing 45 Park Terrace, Gilberton, and the Bowden Village into the provisions of the stamp duty amendments with regard to apartments, because it opens up the question of how randomly you thought about your policy. Originally, this policy was for all apartments in the Adelaide City Council area and North Adelaide to have this stamp duty rebate. Then, the developer for the Gilberton apartments came out and did some media, and said, 'This is outrageous,' because his development left out.

Then, the government was embarrassed to find out, when the opposition raised the issue, that it had left out its own development site, and the advice from their own agency was that not having it in there would actually cause some difficulties for that development to get up. So, the government sat down in cabinet and could not even work out its own mind and that it had left out its own development, and then it was embarrassed into bringing in the Gilberton apartments because one developer complained.

So why is it only the City of Adelaide and North Adelaide areas, plus the developer who complained, plus your own site? I bet you that Newport Quays would have killed for this stamp duty exemption. We have developers writing to us from the Cape Jaffa development and a lot of the country areas asking, 'Why is it that my apartment does not get this rebate?'

Only 15 minutes ago, minister, in the debate about this bill, you were telling us it was really important that all landholdings be treated the same—a 30km freeway, and all the landlords are going to be treated the same. You told us how you could not possibly have one landlord being treated differently to another landlord: that was the advice to this committee.

In this section of the bill, you are doing precisely the opposite. You are favouring one landlord over another landlord. Why is an apartment in Grenfell Street any more beneficial to the city than an apartment on Greenhill Road? Why is Greenhill Road, or any other road outside the Adelaide city square, left out? Why are the apartments down at Glenelg, for instance, on the tramline that comes straight into the city, of less value to the state, as far as economic development goes, than an apartment in the city?

People are going to spend money down at the Glenelg shops; they are going to buy their fish and ships, their dresses and their cars down there, so why is economic activity in that part of the state less valuable to the government than economic activity in the city? I am just wondering why the government has suddenly brought in just Gilberton and Bowden; what was the policy judgement that brought them in?

There are all those Housing Trust units between Adelaide Clinic and the old Channel 7 site, which is now included. If, all of a sudden, those were developed into apartments, they are left out. What about the brewery apartments just up the road? If they were being built now, why would they not be in there? In fact, there is another set of proposed apartments next to the brewery apartments, just near PAC; why are they being left out? What was the policy behind this particular issue?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I move:

Page 25, line 19—Delete 'within the area of The Corporation of the City of Adelaide;' and substitute:

(a) within the area of The Corporation of the City of Adelaide; or

(b) on any land within the area where the Bowden Redevelopment project is being undertaken (Bowden Village) and identified by the Treasurer by notice in the Gazette; or

(c) on any land within the area known as 45 Park, Gilberton, and comprised within Certificate of Title Register Book Volume 5114 Folio 927 or Volume 5114 Folio 955;

In responding to the member for Davenport, I move this amendment, because the member for Davenport has actually been talking about that particular amendment.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: And the reason?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: And the reason? The member for Davenport is probably aware that, in the Governor's speech, the Governor outlined seven strategic priorities for the South Australian government, one of which was what we term 'Vibrant city'. The underlying rationale for that particular strategic objective was to make Adelaide an interesting and vibrant place for people to work in but, more importantly, to reside in.

The consequences of that are a retention of our younger and brighter people, who have an increasing propensity to move to the eastern seaboard or go overseas. In the event that they make that decision, our aim is that Adelaide will be of sufficient attraction for them to actually come back to Adelaide once they have that global experience. Having made that strategic determination, we then set about realising it.

One of the things that we were able to do was to lift the height restrictions in the CBD so that we can turn Adelaide into a more modern, European-style city, with a certain density of population that allows restaurants, smaller bars and retail to flourish. Additionally—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: You opposed retail trading hours for 10 years, Mike.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Yes, but then we pushed them through. This is all part of the broader strategy. Additionally, we are devoting an enormous amount to what could be described as the Riverbank precinct, the remodelling of the oval, the footbridge, the potential redevelopment on the other side of the river, all of the development that is occurring further along North Terrace in a westerly direction—the new RAH, the medical research centre, the upgrades, the significant building that is being undertaken by UniSA.

So we have a whole range of activities and decisions being made to bring about some vibrancy to the City of Adelaide and the decision to basically spread the focus of attention a little further out along the River Torrens to Bowden and to the site in Hackney is to further drive the Riverbank precinct proposition in the full knowledge that those developments, because of their proximity to Adelaide, will actually reinforce our strategic objection of a vibrant city for Adelaide.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Why is the rebate only in place for a two or three-year period? If it is so important for Adelaide, why is it not ongoing, other than that the election is in that period?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: If people take any interest in international, national and state economic matters you would know that globally we are going through a period of tremendous uncertainty. Among other things, that is translating itself into a very subdued level of activity in the building sector. The resale of established and new homes in Adelaide is at something like a 20-year low. I saw that the figure is sitting around where it was in 1984. The fact that we are actually dealing with a difficult budgetary situation within South Australia—

Mr Williams: Your own making.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Oh yeah, sure. We are cognisant of the fact that the real estate sector and the development sector are doing it extremely tough. We have a strategy in place for a vibrant city. We have made the decision as forecasts indicate there will be a reasonable period of subdued economic activity, particularly in the development sector, and this is to stimulate some activity.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: With the First Home Owner Grant you have to live in the house. Does the person who buys the apartment have to live in it or can it be simply overseas investors buying the apartments and not living in them?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Slightly different objective: the first home buyers grant is to get people into their home, particularly young people who are commencing the stage of their life that involves family formation. This has a different strategic objective, and that is to revitalise the development sector in South Australia and give some surety to investors, a large number of whom are actually international investors, that their money placed in the South Australian economy will ultimately work for them. So, it is slightly different in its intent, and that is it, in essence.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yesterday, our shadow treasurer received a letter signed by Mr Peter Louca, Chief of Staff to the Hon. Jack Snelling, explaining this amendment. I appreciate, minister, that you have not had the carriage of this bill and that, by the personal circumstances of a fellow minister, you are having to handle this matter—and it is a valiant attempt, I would have to say, so far in being able to give some explanation. As disclosed in this letter, cabinet took the decision after the bill had been introduced, after it had been approached—and after the opposition briefing, even—by the developer and the representative of the URA.

The URA is the new Urban Renewal Authority, and Mr Hansen is the new CEO. Incidentally, I can see his American influence already because Mr Louca is already starting to spell 'centre' of Adelaide as 'center'. However, the URA, of course, is the new 200-strong real estate agency of the government. It is going to have some Housing Trust in it, some Defence SA—what is left of it—in the metropolitan area, and now this precinct is going to come under Mr Hansen as well, as is referred to in here.

They are approached because they want to sell their Bowden site so, instead of starting with the premise of the City of Adelaide having this arrangement for the commercial reasons you say—to get investment into Adelaide—they have decided that they forgot to put in their own development. They want to put in the Bowden development, even though it is outside the Adelaide precinct altogether. Then, of course, the Western Australian developers of 44 Park Terrace scream from the rooftops and say, 'This is outrageous,' so they are put in. Yesterday, or the day before, when I questioned the Minister for Transport about what other developments the URA had in mind to sell, it included the blocks of Housing Trust properties between the Adelaide Clinic and the proposed development for the Western Australian developer for them to develop.

Of course, we also heard that the government, allegedly desperate for money, was flush with $15 million to go and buy the Caroma site the other day when it wanted to hold it because it could not trust the property developers in South Australia to develop it properly. Inappropriate development could be put on it. I do not know where our development laws evaporated to under that allegation but, as valiant an attempt as it might have been, minister, for you to have to come in here at short notice and manage this for the government, the truth is that they bowed to a developer who was screaming and to an organisation out there that was saying, 'This is not fair.'

The government stood strong when it did the shop trading hours, giving preference to the City of Adelaide for all the reasons it said: it wanted to have a vibrant city, blah, blah, blah, and the 30-year plan. The 30-year plan, remember, was to be part of this, to have our urban infill, not just a vibrant city. We were going to have structure plans around the main roads—the inner rim structure plans, which are still sitting on some minister's desk.

Apart from the developments that have already gone ahead along that rim, is the government going to line up and grant the extension of this concession to any other group that complains as they are developing around that rim? There are plenty of them—Greenhill Road, along the Henley Beach Road area, and out along Prospect Road. We have plenty of developments, both government and private, that are going to be saying, 'Well, we're in this inner rim area, which the government has said on its own planning should be invigorated and infilled and multistoreyed and so on, and we need investors to be able to kickstart it.'

It is just not good enough to come in here the day before we are asked to pass this bill—weeks after it has been tabled—and say, 'Look, we've had a couple of punters come along and explain to us that they need some special provision here. We forgot about one of our own developments,' which has no hope in hell of selling, according to the model that has already been put out there by the minister during estimates. They are struggling. The poor old URA has inherited the LMC mess for the last year and is not making any profit for the government. It is in a hell of a mess, and it comes in here to prop up its own development.

It is bad enough that the government has made a decision to support infrastructure projects deliberately and specifically to boost its own projects above other private sector projects. The Goodwood and Torrens underpass project is a classic example. The number one infrastructure project to underpass the rail under the Bowden development—close to $300 million of a $400 million project—that this state the government is advancing, and kicking in $100 million of its own this forthcoming year and another $100 million past the forward estimates, is clearly there to support its own project.

The government needs to understand that if it is going to be in the property development business, if it is going to cherrypick the best places, if it is going to divert the infrastructure money—whether it is a road to support its Evanston project, which is another one this year, or whether it is to do developments around those projects—if it is going to cherrypick and divert moneys to support its own projects above other private sector projects, it needs to come clean about that.

If and when one or two stand up and scream about it and need to be silenced, that is not an acceptable formula upon which to say to the Western Australian developer, 'Yeah, no problem; we'll put you in. We'll just draw the line around it.' That is not acceptable. It is unfair, it is unclear, it provides no direction, and it discriminates against all those out there in the industry, depressed as it is (as the minister has acknowledged) and needing assistance, to deliberately ensure that we end up with a program which is both unfair and discriminatory to the rest of the sector. That is not an acceptable formula for us.

Be fair, as the government, and say, 'We are going to offer a concession,' and, if everyone within that parameter is entitled to it under the rules, the geography of it should not make any difference. If the government is going to say that it is to do with a vibrant city, then stick to the city. If it is going to say that it is consistent with the 30-year plan—some of the submissions for which, as you know, we have not even seen yet because the government will not show them to us—if you are going to say it is in a rim development and it is Riverbank Precinct supportive, etc., then draw that around that inner rim. Do not come back to us with one or two pieces of legislation.

We have a law that is supposed to be for everyone. We have a rule of law that says that the law is supposed to be for everyone; in fact, we have a special provision in this parliament that says if you actually make a law specifically to affect one person or one group you have to have a special committee sit, analyse it and check that it has not actually been deliberate or positive discrimination in favour of one person. We have a special set of rules for that.

It seems to me that for the government to throw this in at the last minute, after it has hastily met to put out another fire because there is someone out there complaining, is absolutely disgraceful. It is a very bad precedent to set.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: If I can just respond briefly, the member for Bragg mentioned the 30-year plan. I actually chaired the review of the South Australian planning and development system, and I think the review can fairly claim the 30-year plan as our own. All the basic concepts were contained in the final report: the 30-year plan; the geographic boundaries of the 30-year plan; the fact that we sought, I think, 40 per cent of all population growth to be confined to our transport corridors, particularly to our rail corridors; and we enunciated the notion of TODs. I travelled extensively in the United States and had a look at these transport-oriented developments.

The inclusion of both these locations is, I think, an unintended consequence. We really want the Bowden site to work because, I think, it will be our flagship TOD site. It was only after the legislation had been worked up that we realised we were actually jeopardising the ability to get Bowden up as a very vibrant, leading-edge TOD site linked to all the tram infrastructure we invested in down near the Entertainment Centre. It is one rail stop from the city.

I think there have been discussions with the commonwealth for grade separation on rail so, ultimately, we will be able to run rail under the Bowden development. I think those opportunities could not be missed. Similarly, Gilberton sits adjacent to the O-Bahn. It is another good TOD proposition; again, very close to the city. If we can get both of those TODs to work it will in turn reinforce the vibrant city proposition. This set of considerations was the driver behind this particular amendment and I am hoping that it will be supported.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is my last question on this clause, and perhaps, minister, you can get the answer between houses for us. What is the cost if this policy is adopted statewide?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I will undertake to get that advice.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 45 passed.

Clause 46.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Only to reinforce what I said in my second reading contribution. I wanted to speak now so that when it is put we can vote against this provision, because we are intending to try to delete this provision in the upper house, as we did in the last budget. We do not see this as a budget measure at all.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (47 to 52) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Sector) (11:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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