HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-08-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Budget Measures Bill 2014

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

The CHAIR: Okay. Minister.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you. Of course—and it is not unusual—the Leader of the Opposition has completely either misunderstood or mistaken my remarks. I did not mention the word donations. Donations are quite a different thing to a group of businesspeople being prepared to fund and advertise an advertising campaign against a tax which was going to hurt their financial interests. That is what I said. And we all know—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, if you want to use that sort of language, leader, you might get a response, because we all know—

Mr Marshall: So now you're coming into the parliament threatening?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I'm not threatening anyone; I am simply stating the facts.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: No; I simply said you might get a response. You're the one—

Mr Marshall: That is a threat.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I'm glad ‘a response’ is now a threat. Listen carefully, leader—just listen carefully—because you well know that an advertising campaign was run against this tax by financial interests who own the car parks.

Mr Marshall: The Adelaide City Council.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, you know the advertising campaign was run because it ran publicly and openly, and I am simply saying—

Mr Marshall: What are you asserting?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I think that was perceived to be—I know for a fact that was perceived to be—in the political interests of the Liberal Party, because it was an advertising campaign being run by the business community against the car parking tax. It was, in effect, free advertising, I suppose you could say, against the government; so why would one want to get in the way of that, the argument went. Why would we not be seen to oppose it? We were getting pressure to agree to oppose the car parking tax so the Liberal Party could be fuelling this campaign.

Now, you asked me the question, leader; I did not offer this information. You came into the parliament shortly after my decision to join the government and you asked me whether I still supported the car parking tax, and in so doing you invited me to reflect on those decisions. I have now reflected, and I am telling you what happened. I could go into a lot more detail, because I could probably give you the date, the meeting and the place when that was openly discussed. Members opposite know very well the discussions that went on, and I was around the table with them, so do not try to deny it.

I am not suggesting that the opposition is not genuine in its opposition to this tax—alright? Frankly, I do not like any new tax. If you ask me objectively, I would be opposing this tax increase and any other tax increase, because I do not like tax increases. In a perfect world I would like to see no tax increases; but if you ask me to choose between this one and some other tax increases that I think would be far more hurtful to far more people I would choose this one ahead of, for example, land tax, where I know members of the leader's own electorate are in significant pain. I am simply making the point—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: You can interject as much as you like, leader, but I will just say this: I have made decisions that I have made, and one of them is not to belt up the Liberal Party. But I will say this: you ask me questions, be prepared for the answers. If you come in here and ask me whether I still support the car parking tax, I will tell you. If you invite me to reflect on decisions made when I was a member of the opposition, I will reflect on those decisions. But if you do not invite it by attacking me, you will not get the response.

I will say this: I know for a fact that a very big influence on the Liberal Party's considerations when it decided to oppose this tax was the knowledge that business interests would be running an independent advertising campaign against the tax, which was perceived to be in the political interests of the opposition. I know that for a fact, and so does every member opposite. So, let's just get that truth out on the table.

If you want me to reflect on those things, I will. But I simply say that I lacked confidence in this decision from the outset. I also add that I think that it would have been much better to look at land tax, payroll tax and some of the other taxes first. Can I also say that I think that it would have been better to consider an overall tax reform plan, as an opposition, rather than to cherrypick this one first, another point I made at the time, so that we had a balanced approach to tax reform.

We knew what we wanted to do for land tax, payroll tax and other tax concessions, we understood where the parking tax levy fitted into that and came out with a balanced array of offerings, rather than to run into this, which we did, months before other tax reforms were offered. I am simply making that point because you asked me a question. I make this point: if the opposition wants to ask me any question that invites me to reflect on decisions made when I was a member of the opposition, be prepared for the answers. There is a further reason why I will be opposing this measure. Although I do not like it, and I freely admit that I do not like it, I am opposing your amendment.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: If you would like to listen intelligently—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —you might benefit from the contribution.

The CHAIR: Order! I think we all know what the minister meant.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The other reason is that I have made a commitment to the government and to the Premier that I will support the government's budget, that I will support the government on supply and confidence. You may not like it, but this is part of the government's budget plan. I make this point in the firm view that it is extraordinarily important that this government reaches a surplus. I know that the Treasurer understands that, I know the Premier understands that, and I did hear the leader, in his earlier contribution, signal that he also thought that was important—and it is. Frankly, it will be difficult, but it must be done.

If the committee supports the amendment moved by the leader, we will be blowing a massive hole in that proposed budget surplus of over $100 million. Last time I checked, $100 million was an awful lot of money. So, if the leader would like to suggest an alternative to that $100 million—does he have a suggestion as to where that $100 million might come from?

Mr Marshall: Yes, further savings. We have outlined—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Further savings? Well, would he like to outline $100 million worth of savings right now?

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, but in the context of his amendment, would he like to come forward specifically with a proposal—not a general one—that adds up to exactly the same amount of money that he is proposing to slash out of the budget with this measure? If he is, I would be very happy to hear it—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —because the important part about running a budget is that, before you remove revenue, you need to find a saving. It is called balancing the books.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Actually, I can share with you that the Treasurer is already very sick of my making this point in cabinet, if I can reveal that confidence. Believe me, they have their worst nightmare—an Independent Liberal in their own cabinet room, and I keep harping on about tax reform and WorkCover reform, small business and a few other things. I am like a record that does not stop. So, I am already driving the poor old Treasurer mad, but that is what happens when you have a Liberal in your party room. I must say—

An honourable member: Party room?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: In your cabinet, I should say; thank you for correcting me. In your cabinet, I beg your pardon. He is already sick of me banging on about this, and he already knows that if he tries to lift any more taxes I will probably rugby tackle him. However, to be fair, this car parking tax and the amendment we are discussing, along with some of the other measures in the budget, have been tough decisions for a Labor government to make, particularly decisions about cuts to health and particularly the decisions that I know will be forthcoming soon about WorkCover that were promised prior to the election.

It would have been very easy to further run up the credit card and run us further into debt, but the government held its nerve on this issue. I do not like the car parking tax any more than I like any other tax. I would like a world where we paid the bare minimum, and I am sure every member of the house would, but I do not want to see the punters faced with higher electricity or water bills, higher registration fees, or suffering small businesses paying higher land tax or small businesses paying even higher payroll tax because a $100 million hole has been blasted in the budget and something else needs to be cranked up. I do not want to see our health system or our education system suffer any further than they are already as a result of $100 million worth of cuts having to be taken out because this amendment was agreed to.

That is not to say that there is no scope for further government efficiency: there is. That is another thing I am driving the Treasurer nuts about, but that is something the cabinet is working on. However, I would say that blowing a $100 million hole in the budget is not the way to do it.To summarise, I was uncomfortable with opposing this from the outset. The leader knows that, and so do others in the shadow cabinet. I argued against opposing it; I felt that other tax cuts were more important.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: That is, I am afraid. If you would like me to come in with the dates of the shadow cabinet meetings, not only—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, you were.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, where was I?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Was I? Because we had a very lengthy discussion about it—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I beg your pardon?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Order! The Treasurer has a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I ask that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw the word 'lied'.

The CHAIR: Yes, I heard the word 'liar'. Leader?

Mr MARSHALL: I withdraw that comment.

The Hon. P. Caica: Stand up when you are talking; come on.

Mr MARSHALL: We are in committee.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P. Caica: He can show a bit of respect, can't he?

The CHAIR: Order! The leader has withdrawn the offensive word.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Madam Chair, this has been a defining moment in the parliament—

The CHAIR: We need to move on.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —because now I know who tells the truth and who doesn't. That is the first time the leader has directly or indirectly said something that I know and he knows is not true.

The CHAIR: Before we go on I want to make sure that everyone understands—

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Are you listening? Listening sticks over here. We are talking about clauses 4 to 23 inclusive, that they be deleted. Does anyone else need to speak on these clauses 4 to 23?

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: If you put clause 4 through it is a test clause, and they all go through. So we just need to make sure everyone is happy.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I want to thank the member for Waite for his support in opposition to the opposition's amendments, and make this remark to the opposition. There has been a fine tradition in this parliament—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You can sit or stand, whatever you like.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Follow my example—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let's all just get along; follow my example.

The CHAIR: Could we return to the bill?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Madam Chair, I think it is important to remember that there has been a fine tradition in this parliament, displayed by past Liberal oppositions and Labor oppositions as well as the current Liberal opposition, to allow the government to set its budget.

There has been talk of mandate on both sides and I understand the arguments, but the reality is this: the government was able to form a majority in the House of Assembly. We are the executive. We have set a budget. The precedent that you are setting by attempting to remove this revenue measure from our budget will haunt you because there will be a time when you will form government and you will attempt to impose revenue measures.

I plead with members opposite to think of future Liberal governments and future Labor governments in a state of our size—that we have a legislature that allows the passage of budgets unfettered. It has been a very good guiding principle, one set by the Hon. Sir Thomas Playford and followed by subsequent premiers ever since. I think it is very important that we take a moment of pause. The election is over. The Liberal Party can relitigate its case at the next election. I think it is an important principle that we stand on here.

I think the Independent members of the government have stated that the government, the executive, is entitled to set its budget. If you attempt to change it—if you attempt to change revenue measures, if you attempt to change royalties and you attempt to change the way the measures are set without the corresponding savings or other budget measures—you are guilty of what you accuse us of and you are changing the way we govern. I say this to you, without it sounding like a threat: we will pay you back in spades.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, I am serious. The moment the precedent is set, the practice changes. You have to think to yourself what it is you are asking the parliament to do. I would say to you again that, if you want a form a government and sit on this side of the house and form your own budgets, you are setting a dangerous precedent by attempting to remove revenue measures from a government's budget and I would ask you to reconsider your position.

The CHAIR: We need to apologise: you must stand in committee. We have just checked all the rules, so that information given to you earlier was incorrect, and I apologise for that. I just want to again clarify that everyone understands that we are talking about clauses 4 to 23 and that we are going to be voting on them to stand as printed; therefore, if anyone has anything to say—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Are we voting on his amendment or on the clause as it is?

The CHAIR: His amendment is to delete, so that means we are voting that they stand as printed, which gives the opposition the opportunity to vote against them. Is everyone with me? No-one wants to speak on clauses 4 to 23 in any other way?

Mr Gardner: They may, after the amendments.

The CHAIR: No, after we put this through no-one can speak on clauses 4 to 23; it is finished.

Mr GARDNER: So, any further questions on matters relating to the car park tax must indeed be asked prior to us voting on them?

The CHAIR: If they are before clause 23; if they are after clause 23, you can ask them.

Mr GARDNER: In that case, just before we get there, can I identify to the Chair that I think the member for Hammond has something he wants to say.

The CHAIR: What does it relate to, member for Hammond?

Mr PEDERICK: In relation to deleting these clauses and amending budget measures, the Treasurer has indicated that there have not been precedents. Well, there have been precedents. I just wonder whether he can check the record because I know that two years ago we knocked out a fee in regard to biosecurity from the budget and—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You are making precedents, not us.

Mr PEDERICK: Well, let's just be honest about what has happened in the past. It has happened in the past. There was also a police court costs part of a budget that had been opposed. So, this has happened before and we certainly—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Regret.

Mr PEDERICK: —well and truly won the day. No, I do not regret standing up for my primary producers. I ran the lobbying on this side of the house in regard to the biosecurity fee because our primary producers have had the guts ripped out of the primary industries budget in this state since Labor have been in here for the last 12 years. They have had the lowest net amount of money spent in primary industries for 12 years. I just want the Treasurer to perhaps check the record. To make statements that none of this has happened before is completely wrong.

The CHAIR: Does everyone understand that once we put clauses 4 to 23 as printed there is no further opportunity? The question is that clauses 4 to 23 stand as printed.

The committee divided on the clauses:

Ayes 22

Noes 19

Majority 3

AYES
Atkinson, M.J. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Brock, G.G. Caica, P. Close, S.E.
Gee, J.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Hildyard, K.
Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. (teller)
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R.
Snelling, J.J. Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W.
Wortley, D.
NOES
Bell, T.S. Chapman, V.A. Gardner, J.A.W. (teller)
Goldsworthy, R.M. Griffiths, S.P. Knoll, S.K.
Marshall, S.S. Pederick, A.S. Pengilly, M.R.
Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D. Tarzia, V.A. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
Wingard, C.
PAIRS
Digance, A.F.C. Evans, I.F. Hughes, E.J.
McFetridge, D.


Clauses thus passed.

Schedules 1 and 2 passed.

Schedule 3.

Mr PISONI: I have some questions in broad terms, Treasurer, on schedule 3. Are you able to identify how many employees of the Education Act are affected by these amendments?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the Australian Education Union has identified 991 people affected by this, but I expect that number to be larger. We are attempting to calculate the total number of teachers—or subcontractors or contract teachers—who have been affected by this.

Mr PISONI: I was aware that that 991 figure was union members; I was not sure that it was total.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that they are AEU members, but I am also advised that the AEU represents the majority or a very large percentage of teachers. However, we are attempting to get a much larger number. There may be people who the AEU have not identified and there may be people who are not members of the union, but we are attempting to find that out and, when we have a number, I will report it back to the house.

Mr PISONI: And the total value of the budget measure itself?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised it is $15 million.

Mr PISONI: Are you able to identify what impact this measure will have on those who have already taken the entitlement?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that employees have not been paid the entitlement on the basis of the two-year rule.

Mr PISONI: So are you saying is that none of the temporary teachers that qualify for this at the moment have actually taken their entitlement? Can you just clarify that for the committee?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the two-year rule has not been implemented because of the ongoing court cases.

Mr PISONI: Even prior to the legal action being taken?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it is accurate.

Mr PISONI: Subclause (10), minister: there is reference that the section has effect despite a term of contract or enterprise bargaining agreement undertaken or other instrument or agreement. Are you able to confirm that amendments to the Education Act can actually null and void elements of an existing enterprise bargaining agreement?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the long service provisions are not covered by the enterprise agreement. They are covered by the act and are therefore subject to parliament's deliberations.

Mr PISONI: So, are you able then to advise whether the amendments to the Education Act in regard to this measures bill are the only ones that can affect the enterprise bargaining agreement, or can other amendments to the Education Act also have impact on the existing enterprise bargaining agreement?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the amendments in the Budget Measures Bill will have no impacts on the current enterprise agreement now or in the future.

Mr PISONI: I am asking you, minister, if you are also able to use this opportunity to advise whether any amendments to the Education Act can have the same effect as this subclause (10) of schedule 3.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you repeat the question? We are finding it difficult to understand what you mean.

Mr PISONI: What this actually says here is, 'This section has effect despite...a term of contract, enterprise bargaining agreement undertaking or other instrument or agreement'. I am just asking whether any other amendments to the Education Act will have the same effect and could override an enterprise bargaining agreement.

These amendments are about the Education Act and the question is whether any other amendments to the Education Act are able to override any existing enterprise bargaining agreement? You have referred to this one—and I understand that because it is in the bill—but I am also asking you whether that intention or ability is exclusive only to this particular measure or this particular case that went to the High Court or whether the parliament has the power to override (through legislation or amendments to the Education Act) any contracts or enterprise bargaining agreement for those employed under the Education Act?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the legislation before the house in the Budget Measures Bill is exclusive to this provision. If you are asking me a question about whether the government sought advice whether it has the power to override enterprise agreements through legislation not being contemplated in this bill, I cannot answer that.

Mr PISONI: With due respect, minister, you have an adviser sitting next to you. Schedule 3 relates to amendments to the Education Act so I am talking in general terms about amendments to the Education Act and asking whether amendments to the Education Act can override an enterprise bargaining agreement?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not want to be difficult but it seems to me that what you are asking me is: exclusive of the legislation being considered now, does the state have the power to override enterprise agreements through legislation? That is, I suppose, a hypothetical question.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, the advice I have given you is that our legislation does not interfere with the advice that I have received on the enterprise agreement.

Mr PISONI: If it does not interfere with the enterprise bargaining then, why is there a specific part in this clause that refers specifically to the enterprise bargaining agreement? That would tell me as an 'Average Joe' reader of the act that there is a risk that it may, so it is the intention of the writer of this bill to make it absolutely clear that it was the intention of the parliament for this to be removed regardless of what is in the enterprise bargaining agreement and I am asking whether that application is uniform throughout the Education Act?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised by the department that that is a safety clause in the Budget Measures Bill to ensure we can deal with any unforeseen arguments made by the Australian Education Union in the courts.

Mr PISONI: Now we are getting somewhere. There is some concern with the government that the enterprise bargaining agreement or any existing contracts may have some effect on the government implementing its Budget Measures Bill and this clause or this part was put in place to articulate the fact that it was the intention of this Budget Measures Bill not to allow the enterprise bargaining agreement to override or have precedence over the Budget Measures Bill. Again, I ask you the question: is that measure available for any other changes to the Education Act?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My advice is no; it is exclusive to the long service provisions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Forgive me if I cover a matter which you may have already addressed, as I have not been following the entire debate. As I understand the situation in relation to the amendments under the Education Act, a couple of years ago, the High Court determined against the mechanism used by successive governments to appoint teachers since 1972, which had an effect on their long service leave entitlements, and struck it down.

It is your understanding that it was not the intention of your government or the government since that time to give teachers a more generous entitlement to long service leave than other public servants had? That is the situation, as I understand it. Independent of what enterprise bargaining agreement you have with the teachers employed by the education department, in anticipation that there might be some claims by current or former employees for funds consistent with the situation we are left in as a result of the High Court decision, you are introducing this legislation to ensure that it suffocates those claims. Is that as I understand the situation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised we are attempting to clarify the original intent of the Education Act.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the purpose of that is to ensure that the government does not have to pay out a whole lot of money that otherwise might be claimed by those former employees, or current employees, for that matter?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that is accurate and through a quirk of the legislation.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is the legislative remedy to protect against these claims. Obviously, we have heard from the Australian Education Union representatives, in recent time, about their concerns about this legislation having an impact retrospectively. I suppose implied in that is their view that their members as employees ought to have been able to have access to this if they are able to establish the other threshold entitlements. The Australian Education Union, in their plea in relation to this, have asserted that the education department has done some calculations and that they would estimate the claims are somewhere between $100 million and $200 million. That is as I understand it. Is that consistent with what you understand they are claiming?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not have with me accurate numbers, so I do not wish to speculate.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let me ask this then: irrespective of what the Australian Education Union says, who within the education department has actually been responsible for producing the estimate, whatever that might be? It may be between $100 million and $200 million, it may be some other figure. Who in the education department has prepared the modelling and assessment of this for you?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will have to take that on notice and get back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: To the best of your knowledge, has anyone in your department done that assessment?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is fair to say Treasury does assessments regularly, but I am not at liberty to discuss those. I am happy to give a briefing to the member.

Ms CHAPMAN: Leaving aside the AEU and anyone possibly in the education department, what is your understanding of what is the range of liability that the government would be up for in the event that they remain unprotected by this legislation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, Treasurer, you are asking us to make a decision on legislation having retrospective applicability in expectation that there may be some liability for the government, and therefore taxpayers, without giving us any clue as to what the liability might be?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not want to be difficult in terms of the opposition because I am seeking their support on this measure, but you are asking me detailed questions in light of ongoing litigation in the courts, but I would—

Ms Chapman: Where is this going to be heard?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand that it is in the Supreme Court. They are still pursuing their claims. In light of that, I will take the question on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just so that I am clear about this: there are current claims for entitlements under long service leave that are pending. Obviously, they then would have been encouraged by the High Court's decision and probably prompted to go and make their applications as a result of it. I take it then that, as there are already some pending claims, you want this legislation to go through so that you can extinguish those claims as well?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the High Court decision was about the appointment basis of teachers. It did not deal with long service leave or other conditions of employment. The effect of the High Court ruling is currently the subject matter of litigation before the Supreme Court. It is inappropriate to discuss the details of the matters that are the subject of this litigation as to do so would prejudice the state's position.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I clarify whether the Supreme Court action is in relation to claims that teachers consider they may be entitled to as a result of the High Court application?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given that I have the first law officer alongside me advising me on these matters, I think that it is fair to say that I will be very cautious in my response, given that there is ongoing litigation. Again, I do not want to be difficult. I understand that what is occurring now is that the High Court has determined whether these applicants had continuity of service for the purpose of the calculation of long service leave entitlements. It did not individually determine any entitlements for any individual claimants. What is occurring now in the Supreme Court is that they are litigating that aspect of it, and our legislation's effect, I think, is self-evident, and I mean that with all due respect.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I understand that, Treasurer. Let me say that, on this area, I was with you completely. I am just getting a bit concerned with these answers as to where we are going with it, so I want to clear it up because—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You had a private briefing.

Ms CHAPMAN: We did have a briefing; let me put that on the record. The Hon. Rob Lucas organised that with a number of your representatives, and we had specialty people from various departments, including the Department of Transport and Infrastructure, so I had a lot to ask them about the car park levy and other things, and we went through a number of these taxes. There was no-one there from the education department to tell us about this, or specifically in relation to that. Let me say that we took the government at face value as to what was said in the second reading in relation to this; there seemed to be some significant merit in what you were presenting, particularly as there is potentially a 40-year lot of claims. We are not big on retrospectivity on this side of the house, I can tell you that, and I have said it plenty of times before, but sometimes it is meritorious. In this instance it may still be.

In fact there are already claims, and I always get a little bit concerned when particular claims are going to be crushed out as a result of introducing legislation, to sort of snuff them out. So we are back to what you said in the parliament in your second reading, which is, I think, consistent with what you are saying. We had the High Court decision, and it opened the door for a number of these people to say 'Well, on my calculation of long service leave, sorry, the High Court says you didn't do this properly in the sense of the mechanism of taking into account whether it is three months or two years, etc., and therefore I am going to claim the higher amount.' So, you have a log of these in the Supreme Court by the sound of it.

The bill before us will have the effect of extinguishing any scintilla of hope these people have for getting their better termination, and they will be stuck with what you want them to have. So I think we are all of the same understanding now. Do we know how many pending claims there are in the Supreme Court?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that we are aware of 991 claims but there may be more, and there may be others.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the Supreme Court?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes; I understand it is a class action. In terms of the concerns you have about the retrospectivity of this matter and people who have current claims before the court, the government did announce a fund.

Ms CHAPMAN: The 991 is an estimate of what the AEU says is the expected number, on their records of members—most of whom are in the union, as I think you have already said in the debate—as potentially being entitled to this under the class action. Is that where we are at?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: As I understand it, there is also some litigation in the Supreme Court. I am sorry that I do not have the exact details with me, but I am sure the Attorney-General, who is giving you excellent advice at this point, may be aware of this—although there is so much litigation in the Supreme Court and other courts against the government that it would hardly be surprising if he does not. Anyway, let me just go to this. Rose Park Primary School has raised some litigation matters which were referred from one of the tribunals across to the Supreme Court for determination on the question of entitlements of employees in after school hours care.

We all understand that there are significant ramifications to taxpayers—in the first instance to government—if they are successful in certain determinations in respect of those proceedings, culminating in a multi-million dollar claim against the government for employees and former employees of these after school hours care services, not just in Rose Park Primary School but in any of the other public schools that operate after school hours care. Is that litigation, or the outcome of that litigation, going to be affected by these amendments in any way?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand attempts are being made to resolve that matter, but I do believe that the advice I have received shows that this matter currently before the house and that matter are not linked. However, I suppose you could argue that they are similar in nature.

Ms CHAPMAN: But at this stage the amendments you are proposing here will not have any impact, to the best of your knowledge or the Attorney's, in respect of that litigation? I appreciate it is an employment matter. I do not have all the detail with me, so I cannot recall whether it was all long service leave or the five minutes off they have at recess time or what, but to the best of your knowledge they are not—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: To the best of my knowledge, no. The matters are not linked.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the fund you are referring to the $15 million fund for ex gratia payments to 'some teachers whose LSL entitlements will be brought into line with other public sector employees' in the budget?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the event that this bill goes through, why is it necessary to have the $15 million? Is that to cover the costs of litigants or those who have put in claims and will have their claim wiped out, or for some other reason?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is fair to say, in thinking of a way to answer your question, 'Why a fund?', that it is in recognition of the length of this dispute. I think it is in recognition of the government's attempt to show goodwill towards the litigants and people who may have an entitlement, but it will be a discretionary account. The ex gratia funds will be administered in an entirely discretionary way, and applicants will be identified for the consideration of the decision-maker. That is the most I am prepared to say on the fund to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, who is going to have the discretion as to who gets the money and who does not? We have 991 potential applicants in a class action. Presumably, we have the accumulated legal costs of their representatives in this class action. I am assuming, for the purpose of this, there is only the class action, but obviously there would be accumulated costs.

If you were to say to me, 'In all fairness to the litigants, we are not going to be leaving them with a bill. We are legislatively extinguishing their capacity to be able to argue their case, so we want to pay off their legal costs,' I would understand that. That would be fair in the circumstances.

What I am not sure of now is whether you are going to keep this fund to be able to hand out to some who you think have been more aggrieved than others, in which case that can produce some inequity. I would like a little bit of detail about who is going to have control of this money, or whether you are going to hand it over to the AEU or some other entity who will make determinations themselves about who gets the money—but $15 million is a lot of money.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there is no uniformity in terms of the type of person who would be making a claim to this fund. Most claims will be individual in their nature, and they will be wide and varied. The fund, I am advised, will be administered in the same way as the fund was administered for the children in state care.

In terms of who will administer the fund, cabinet will be deliberating on which minister, if a minister indeed will be responsible for it. The fund, as I said to you earlier, will be administered in that similar way, given the very varied nature of the applicants to the fund. I think it is unfair to categorise the applicants as being uniform in the length or amount they may be claiming, so it is difficult to structure a fund to deal with this. The best advice we have is to manage it in a similar way to that of the children in state care because of the varied nature of the claims being made to the fund.

Ms CHAPMAN: For the children in state care, as you would remember, minister (and I am sure you can be prompted by the Attorney sitting next to you), there is a provision for up to $50,000 to be paid to those who can establish that they have some damage as a result of their experiences, and the Attorney-General is the minister who is in charge of hearing those and, obviously, giving the directions for ex gratia payments.

Obviously, just like that, we accept that, of the 991 potential claimants, there will be some who have worked for a short time and might be missing out on a few dollars if they do not have the pre-High Court determination amount and others who would be missing out on a lot. We might have claims of $10 to $10,000, or more. I perfectly understand that. But, apart from the amount that they might lose, the principle is the same. They are supposed to be getting only the same as any other public servant and some of them might have pre-spent the money, for example. They do not have it yet, but they have already bought a house in anticipation of getting the money, for example.

Are there going to be some criteria upon which the entitlement is going to be assessed? Is there a threshold over which there has to be an entitlement that has to be assessed? The Victims of Crime Fund, if it is going to be the same, does have a minister responsible for it, in this case the Attorney-General—and, frankly, I do not really mind who is in charge of it as long as a minister is in charge of it. But, if you tell me it is going to be a fund that is handed over to the Australian Education Union for them to put in recommendations for distribution, then it is completely outside the education department and it is completely outside the Treasury and I would have some concerns about how that is going to be administered.

I am really looking for some assurances here. I appreciate that you have put this money in the budget and cabinet might want to work out the detail—I understand that—but we certainly want to have some assurances about how this distribution is going to be scrutinised and what the criteria are going to be for someone to apply and be eligible.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are all very good points the Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes. The details of the ex gratia scheme are yet to be finalised. Once they are finalised, the details will be brought to the attention of all DECD employees and also will be made publicly available.

Payments from the ex gratia fund will be entirely discretionary using criteria such as length of service, and potential impacts of the amendments to the Education Act and the individual circumstances of an applicant will be identified for the consideration of the decision-maker—who, in all likelihood, will be the Attorney-General. We will make all the criteria public. It is yet to be decided, given we are awaiting the parliament's decision on our amendments.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am pleased to hear that you are moving towards making sure some minister is in charge. That is great. Can you assure the house that the money is not going to be going out of government hands to some other entity, like a union or other body, to process these claims for ex gratia payment?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No. The advice and the intent of the ex gratia fund are not for it to be handed over to any entity, whether it be a union, law firm or otherwise. It will be for individuals to make applications. It has not been designed to appease one group or another.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any provision in this fund, or any other part of the budget allocation, to cover legal costs of the class action to date? If so, is there some provision—I do not need to know the amount because you might still be working out some taxation costs, or something like that in your negotiations—for the covering of the costs of this claim which is going to be extinguished by the passage of this bill?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am glad I have been a justice of the peace for 17 years because—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It does. I understand that it is an arrangement to be made between the parties, and any disclosure of those costs or discussions about it would be subject to legal professional privilege. That is the advice I have received and, as a justice of the peace of long standing, I concur.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given that you are probably not a party to those proceedings at this point, I find it difficult to see how you could concur to that. That is why I am not asking the amount. You are asking us to support legislation which is going to extinguish their claim—you know, all over in the Supreme Court. That has an accumulated cost that goes with it. I would agree that it is not unreasonable, if we are being asked to do this, that the government is going to be saying, 'Look, we will meet the reasonable costs to date of this application.'

That would be quite reasonable—and the Attorney-General is nodding. That is not an uncommon situation. It is the sort of thing that we look at, as legislators, to make sure that we are not picking off some individual's right or entitlement and, if we are, that we are not going to be punishing them for taking what was otherwise their lawful avenue for recovery of benefit. I am really looking for some reassurance that there is at least an opportunity for the litigants in this class action (which is the only one as I understand it) to be given some consideration to having those costs met.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have received is that it is not appropriate for us to publicly discuss any terms we may reach with parties who make applications to the fund before we have settled, indeed, if the fund will exist, and any costs in relation to making an application, not only just to the fund but through the court. That is a matter between the government and the parties that we will be dealing with. We cannot discuss those until we have the agreement of the other parties making the applications to release those agreements.

Ms CHAPMAN: You see, what is going to happen is that, with the passage of this bill through this house and before it gets to the other house, undoubtedly the opposition and probably other parties are going to have presented to them some argument that this issue needs to be resolved. For you to satisfy us as a parliament that you are going to extinguish this avenue for these people, we need to have some satisfaction that you are doing the right thing; that you are being the model litigant and you are doing the right thing by these people.

As you know, and I think as you have indicated, there is good reason to have a bit of a catch-all fund there to deal with ex gratia payments, because some of these people quite reasonably might have relied upon an entitlement and they are not going to get it, and there will be some ill as a result of it, and so the Attorney-General or someone will have the right to say, 'Well, we hear that and we're going to give you some money for it.' That is different.

What we are looking at is the fact that we have pending litigation in the Supreme Court for a class action, and you want us to be able to pass a law which is going to cut it out from under their feet. At the moment they are on pretty good ground, by the sound of what the High Court has said. This is why I respect the fact that you do not want to be disclosing figures, but it is reasonable that the parliament has some explanation and some assurance that we are not going to be doing that.

Normally, if we pass a law which has an effect on individuals, we have to go into a special committee process here, because we have a principle that says that all people who line up before the law get treated the same. If we are going to pass a law that affects just one person or a narrow group of people, we have a whole parliamentary process that we go into to deal with that. I am not advocating to have a hybrid bill process interrupting the due progress of this bill, but you are not giving me a lot of comfort, Treasurer, in relation to what you are asking us to do in a circumstance which, on the face of it, is meritorious but may well be disadvantaging a certain group in the community.

The Treasurer can sit there and repeat, ‘Well, I’ve got the Attorney-General telling me that I have to be careful about what I say; we are in negotiations’ and all that other nonsense. It is nonsense in light of the fact that you are asking us to pass this legislation. It will go through today, but I place on the record my concern that the government, having the opportunity here to be full and frank in their disclosure about what they are doing to make sure that people are not aggrieved under this process, have not been forthcoming. I expect we will get it from other parties between here and the other place and we may need to deal with that in another place but, in the meantime, we note the High Court’s decision and the government’s decision to deal with it in this manner. We otherwise will not be objecting to it progressing.

I have just one other matter in relation to the same issue. If between the houses there is some capacity for the government to be a bit more accommodating in relation to this information, we would like to receive it. Secondly, in answer to the questions of how and who—not particular names, but there are people in the departments, yours or the education department, who have actually done the assessments on the cost of this. Remember, the AEU is saying that it is a $100 million to $200 million claim.

They could have it completely wrong, but they say that that assessment has come from the education department. Now they could have it completely ballsed up for all we know, but I just make the point that you do not have any information on that. We would like some information between the houses and we would appreciate some clarification on whoever has made this assessment, what assumptions they have relied on, and the number of possible teachers that have been taken into account in that modelling, apart from the AEU’s estimate from their records.

The other matter on which I would like some assurance is in respect to where the employment records of all these teachers are. You may not know the answer to this but, again, I would ask you to take it on notice and inquire of the education minister—assuming we still have one—essentially where all the employment records are kept, if they are kept centrally at the education department, or whether some of the employment records that relate to our teaching staff are kept locally by schools or in regional offices. I would like to have that clarified.

In the event that any of the potential claimants are relatives of deceased teachers—which, of course, is another category—a family member may have been in employment and had a legal entitlement. They are not here to put anything to either you or the parliament. If that teacher had died but had otherwise been eligible for a payout, are their relatives expected to be in a class of persons who will be eligible to apply for an ex gratia payment?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First of all, I agree with a lot of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said. I understand her frustrations and I wish to allay those frustrations and to work with her to give her a better understanding of what it is the government is attempting to do. I will remind her that the Crown is bound to be a model litigant and that it takes this very seriously, and the Attorney and I will ensure that we behave accordingly.

I accept the criticism that the deputy leader has made of the government and my own shortcomings. I apologise to her if she somehow feels that I have not been able to allay her fears, but this is a very complex matter and the government is attempting to walk through it in the most respectful way possible. However, I understand the position that we have put the opposition in and I understand the deputy leader’s frustration. I apologise to her if she feels as though we have not given her all the information she needs.

I will endeavour to give the deputy leader a full and thorough briefing between the houses to make sure that she is given all the information she needs to give her a better understanding of what it is we are attempting to do, and to better inform her and her party room between the houses of what the government is looking for as an outcome through the parliament. With those reassurances and apologies, I thank the deputy leader for her contribution.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have questions on page 20, part 2. I asked some questions in estimates about this issue and I think I recall that the situation of the government is that there is no eligibility for this for retirement villages. Is that the position?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, the deputy leader is absolutely right: a right to occupy is a different criteria from ownership.

Ms CHAPMAN: Was any consideration given to retirement villages being in this category and, if so, was there a cost attached to it that might have been so prohibitive that it was rejected, or was it not considered at all?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, it was not considered at the time because of the cost (it was very expensive), but I have had discussions with the industry and I am looking at it for them, because I understand their argument. The intent of the grant is to stimulate activity but, again, through a quirk of the law, they sell a right to occupy rather than a title, so I will be looking at it and there may be something else that we can do to stimulate that industry.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of course, we could change the definition and make it broader, but I understand what you are saying. So, you are having a look at it. What modelling has your department done and what is the assessment of the cost of this annually if we were to consider supporting it, assuming the government even wants to present it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that a specific final costing has not been done on that. I do not have that with me so I will take it on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Again, we ask to have that prior to it being debated in the other house so we can deal with it.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have a series of questions, and I will start at clause 18. I see that the intent is to change the royalty on extractives from 35¢—I am not sure whether it is per tonne or cubic metre, actually; I think it is per tonne—to 55¢. It is my understanding at the moment that, of the 35¢, 10¢ goes into the Consolidated Account and 25¢ goes into the Extractives Areas Rehabilitation Fund. It is also my understanding that the whole of the extra 20¢ increase will go into the Consolidated Account. Can the minister confirm that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you. I wanted to get that on the record. Can I say that I personally have some issues with this on behalf of the industry. It has been expressed to me that the industry has been caught out on this. They were not aware and they were not warned that this was coming, and a number of the people operating major quarries in particular have already written significant contracts and all of a sudden this is going to impact on their contract and on their bottom line.

I heard what the minister said earlier about giving the executive government their way with their budget, otherwise I would be arguing very strongly that the house not accept this at this instance and would urge the minister to have delayed this for at least six months, if not 12 months, to try to overcome that issue for the extractives industry, which is a very important industry. Notwithstanding that, I wanted to get onto the record those couple of points.

With regard to section 73E and private mines, I have a series of questions there. I understand that up to date the current situation is that royalties are only paid on extractive minerals from private mines, they are not paid on any other minerals extracted from a private mine. Basically, the new section 73E(1) through to (1g), on my reading of it, will create a type of transition where a relevant event occurs with regard to a particular private mine and that particular private mine will thereafter be liable to pay royalties on all minerals. Can the minister confirm that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that is accurate.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, are you able to inform—and this is really interesting in the context of the debate that is going on in the community at the moment with regard to landholders' rights versus mining—the house of how many private mines are in existence, how many of them are mined for extractive minerals and how many are mined for other minerals?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there are 245 private mines listed as active on the department's tenement system. Only 80 of the private mines have operated in the last several years. Of that 80, only nine have produced minerals that are classified as industrial minerals and did not pay a royalty. Two of the private mines, out of the nine I just mentioned, produced 85 of the potential royalties, if royalties were payable. The biggest non-royalty paying private mine is from a Penrice mine.

Mr WILLIAMS: I understand that that mine has transferred and that will be captured by these changes?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, it will, and so it should be.

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

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, personally I agree with what you are doing; I do not have a problem with that. I just want to make sure that I am clear on what you actually are doing. With regard to new section 73E(1c), which says:

If a private mine has 2 or more proprietors, a change in any of those proprietors will be taken to be a relevant event for the purposes of subsection (1a)(a).

That must mean that all of a sudden the private mine will be subjected to royalty if it is on industrial minerals. So, would that capture the circumstance where, for instance, a married couple owned a private mine—I don't know whether this circumstance exists—and one of them became deceased and the ownership reverted to the surviving partner? Would that be a relevant event?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I am given is that if no other parties are entering into the arrangement, then no, but if a daughter or son entered into the arrangement, then yes. So, if you passed away and Leonie inherited the mine, she would be much happier.

Mr WILLIAMS: We won't go there. Minister, subsection (1d)—are you able to explain to the house what that means, because I tell you, I have read it a number of times and I can't get my head around it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have received on this exceptionally well-written piece of amendment is that it is a catch-all. So, it is the government's intention that a relevant event will occur that, where there has been a change in propriety rights, the minerals recovered from the private mine and/or where there has been a change in the person claiming under the proprietor of the mine, including whether the claim is of legal or equitable kind. Simple!

Mr WILLIAMS: I just wanted to get it on the record, because at some stage in the future somebody might ask us the question. I will go back and read your answer and try to put the two together. The only other question I have is with regard to clause 21, new section 73EA, where it says:

If a relevant event within the meaning of section 73E occurs, the person who, as a result of the relevant event, becomes a proprietor of a private mine or acquires a right to carry out mining operations at a private mine (as the case may be) must, within 30 days after the relevant event, notify the Minister of the relevant event.

Maximum penalty: $5 000.

That seems to me to be a sledgehammer to maybe crack an acorn, and what really concerns me is, is there likely to be a situation where somebody might trigger that new 73EA subclause (1) and have no knowledge that they have an obligation under that subclause and thus would I guess be in danger of capturing a $5,000 fine?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I half agree with the member for MacKillop. It is a lot, but we have halved it. It used to be $10,000, so we have made the sledgehammer slightly smaller. This is an opportunity for us to be able to notify people who may have ignored us in the past and be told the relevant act, but we of course will act in the very best interests by re-notifying everyone and giving them every opportunity to comply. I am not interested in the fees or the penalties; I am interested in compliance.

Mr WILLIAMS: This will be my last question, Madam Chair. Just in a more broad sense, as I said, I think you are transitioning what are currently private mines—and you have put on the record how many there are—to be more like mining leases under the Mining Act. Is it the intention of the government, over a period of time, to get rid of the notion of private mines altogether? From my understanding, I think the private mines predate the legislation of 1886. They have been around for a long time and there are not a lot of them, but it has concerned me for a long time that we have two management systems within your agency—private mines and mines under the Mining Act, which are managed under two different systems.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it would be a lot of regulation for very little gain. We do have inspection rights on all mines and there is a turnover, but I think it was an arrangement reached in 1971 when the Mining Act was first introduced and then there were amendments made in 2001 by, I think, Wayne Matthew. I think we have the balance right. In a perfect world, yes, you would probably change it, but the world is not perfect.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the interests of time, I will just make some comments in relation to this matter and also the events levy. In relation to the mines, I thank those who provided us with the briefing. There was an indication that there were some 230 current mines. I think there was a slightly different figure given today, but I would have to say that I am surprised there are so few because obviously the history of our state is littered with what were mines operating, most of them unsuccessful.

It does concern me that the transfer of land on which these are accommodated—and often they have not been touched for a hundred years—could at some future date attract some attention if something is found which would be identified. I have not seen the principal act as to what the definition of a private mine is, but if it is some scratching or hole in the side of a hill where someone has abandoned the attempt, there are plenty on Kangaroo Island, I can tell you, most of which people have left poor trying to find some silver or gold. I am not suggesting that they are going to have any luck in the future, but if they do they will attract some attention, so I think we do need to tighten up this question of who this is going to apply to.

I think the intent is to cover those who have stone and quarries operating, and there are a number of private ones. One of them is in my electorate at Stonyfell. It is a big one and it is one which, if it is subdivided off, and that portion is not used for quarrying, I do not think will attract the royalty, but if it is potentially able to be utilised for that purpose, it will affect the value of transfer and may attract the attention of your department. I just put on notice that I appreciate what you are trying to do and, in general principle, we are not opposing the initiative, but you might have some people inadvertently captured.

In relation to the events levy, can I just say this: I listened with interest when Mr Hook announced during the election campaign that there was going to be free travel to various events, only to have that crushed, of course, when it now seems that a proposed levy on major events related to that, particularly at the Adelaide Oval, is going to raise revenue of around about $4 million a year. Currently there is about $800,000 going towards the ticketing costs for that, of course, but I think that is about $2½ million from football and $1½ million from non-football Adelaide Oval events, which means there is going to be a significant cost for someone to pick up. I am assuming that that will be people who want to go to these events.

The thing I just wanted to raise about this—and it has not transpired in any form of a foreshadowed amendment—is that I had asked during the briefing about the fact that whilst there is an obligation to notify of events that are likely to be of a certain size and expected population, I had pointed out that there is no penalty clause in not providing that. Of course, the concept goes along the lines that, if you do not notify, then you are not going to get any help to get transport services and other security and extra police personnel and so on down there to help your event run smoothly, and therefore it is expected that it is in the interests of these big event operators to notify under this mandatory process, even though there is no penalty.

The problem is this: let us assume the event operators say that they do not need to have other services, that they are making provision themselves or that everyone is going to walk. It is a guitar festival, say, and all the people who go to the guitar festival catch the bus or do not catch the bus or walk or whatever. There can be circumstances where they either elect not to or inadvertently do not notify and then find that they are served with a notice—the event is coming up and someone in the department has assessed that it is going to have an impact on services. Those services are provided and suddenly they find they have a bill.

I would like there to be some tightening of the process in relation to this. It seems a rather heavy-handed and clumsy way to mandate that these people do these things, but it also seems a bit inconsistent that there is no actual direct penalty other than the fact that they run the risk that, even if inadvertent, they are going to have a notice served on them to pay a huge amount of money for services they have not asked for.

I do not have any problem with people who operate private events when they secure the services of a government resource, whether it is transport or whether it is extra security, like police at major events, that there is a user-pays contribution. I do not have any problem with that at all. When I do have a problem, though, is when they do not ask for it and they get it and/or there is some cost shifting over there for the cost of the services on the day. So, with those comments I indicate that we will not otherwise be impeding the passage of the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will just make one remark at the end—that we do negotiate directly with the venue managers on this issue so, hopefully, the issues the deputy leader raises will not occur. I thank members for their questions, their debate and their views and, of course, all the staff who have made their time available to help out; indeed, can I thank once again parliamentary counsel for the exceptional work they have done.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 4 passed.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (18:12): 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