HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-10-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify No 2) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 August 2017.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (21:39): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify No 2) Bill 2017 introduced by the Premier on 10 August 2017. I indicate that I will have some questions about some of the reforms proposed, but otherwise the opposition will be supporting the legislation. The Department of Treasury, I think it was, provided a briefing with personnel from various departments, in particular Ms Holmes at DPC. I think she is now in the simplification unit, or whatever it is called, in DPC. In any event, that was provided in September. I thank her and others for that.

The government have kindly prepared a Simplify Day website publication, which has been printed up in beautiful glossy measure, to tell me about how this Simplify Day policy is culminating in bills after the government identified areas of legislation that could be repealed, where reform is needed or legislative and regulatory initiatives undertaken. Overall, I think it is a fairly expensive process. Nevertheless, the government have introduced this second tranche of reform. I understand that a government task force on reducing red tape is to be established this month. This is a joint state and local government red tape task force. We are awaiting the government's announcement as to who is going to be on that and what they are to do.

There are two areas that I would like to address first that I think have been omitted and should not have been. The first relates to amendments to the Development Act. In his second reading contribution, the Premier identified that he would be looking to ease the planning burden for business seeking development approval for things such as permanent orchard netting over fruit trees and a number of other examples he gave. He confirmed that there had been conversations about this and yet, whilst acknowledging the need for it, has done nothing about it in this bill.

The reason I raise it is that it does not seem to me to be a terribly difficult exercise to bring about what has been sought from the horticultural industry in areas across South Australia, this important relief from what is clearly red tape, acknowledged by the Premier, from which he has given no relief. There is no explanation as to why he has not done anything about it. Let me just outline this. Clearly, the Adelaide Hills area, for example, where I represent large areas from Uraidla across the Piccadilly Valley into Crafers, is a contributor to South Australia's horticulture industry, worth about $900 million a year at the orchard gate. There are some 3½ thousand small and medium-sized horticultural businesses employing 13,500 permanent staff and 24,000 seasonal staff.

Many of our horticultural businesses are in the Adelaide Hills. As I have indicated, I have had the privilege of representing a number of these regions for eight years. Sadly, I will be losing that, if I am to continue to be the member for Bragg, as a result of a boundary change. My colleagues in this parliament who represent Morialta, Heysen and Kavel will take up the areas that I have previously represented. I am certain that Mr Gardner, as the member for Morialta, will ably pick up the Uraidla and Summertown regions. They already love him and welcome him regularly. Mr Dan Cregan is our candidate in Kavel and Mr Josh Teague in Heysen, and I have every confidence that they will be in this parliament in 150 days, after the 18 March election.

They will have the honour of representing people who produce an economy for the state and have an international reputation for their cherries, apples, pears, strawberries and figs. They have brought to my attention, I have brought to the government's attention, they have brought to the government's attention and their associations have brought to the government's attention the unrealistic and unacceptable requirement in South Australia to have to lodge a development application at the local council in order to get approval to put up a netting structure over their fruit trees, orchards and strawberries.

This is the only state in Australia which requires standard netting structures to have a development application in a council in order to have approval to put them up. Why did this become such a big issue? It is because we had a late season in early 2016. The ripening of these fruits came at a later stage. Because of the seasonal attraction of everything from corellas to crows, depending on what your fruit is, these fruits came under attack. These people needed to get netting straight away, and when they were told by the contractors, 'You can't put these up. You have to go and get a development application,' they thought, 'How ridiculous.'

After much negotiation, we were able to convince the local council. Obviously, the people there were trying to do the right thing to advance and fast-track these applications to ensure that these people were not wiped out. The government knew full well what the problem was. They had come up against the tension of having a seasonal change and the urgent need to have protection, and the government did nothing. To the credit of the local council, they progressed the applications. Another year passes and nothing is done.

Here we are, in October 2017, with a statement from the Premier acknowledging that there is a problem, but he still will not put it in his simplification bill. That is absolutely outrageous. Of course it is reasonable for people who want to put up a structure which might be three times the height, or with purple and green stripes that might offend the tourism industry, which is another important industry in the Adelaide Hills, or indeed, be so unsightly that certain standards would need to be met, not just for safety but for the aesthetics. I totally understand that.

Every other state manages this by setting out the requirements as to what the standards should be but, no, not South Australia. Here is a government that has been alerted to this for a long time. We are on our way to the third season of the ripening fruit for this industry, and they still do not have relief. It is utterly outrageous that the government have not included it in this simplification bill.

The second matter I want to bring to the attention of the house is the plight of the Auditor-General and the request that he has made for simple amendments to the legislation that provides the legislative structure and authority for his area of responsibility. He confirmed this in his annual report just yesterday and then again this morning in his evidence to the Economic and Finance Committee. He identified in his report that it was appropriate, in his view, for there to be amendments to the legislation to enable, firstly, the regular tabling of his reports—not just his annual report but the supplementary reporting process. On page 4 of his report he said:

We have recently sought amendments that, in my opinion, are critical to ensuring that the Auditor-General has clear authority to report to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

The amendments would affect:

the tabling process

the Annual and Supplementary reporting process.

It is pretty simple. He is not asking for major reform. He does propose other areas of reform in his report, but that is just a simple request. Those tabling process amendments were sought. He said:

Reports prepared by the Auditor-General under the PFAA must be delivered to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly. They must table these reports on the next parliamentary sitting day. Only then is the report deemed to be 'published' (that is, it is available to all Members of Parliament and the public). The availability of the Auditor-General's reports is therefore restricted to parliamentary sitting dates. This impacts on the Auditor-General's ability to report on audit outcomes as soon as possible. For example, in the last election year the Auditor-General was unable to table a report between the last sitting day on 28 November and the first time the new Parliament sat on 6 May.

Here we go again. In a few weeks' time, this parliament will rise at the end of November or early December, depending on how disorganised the government are and whether or not they need that last optional sitting week. Nevertheless, we will not see these green-covered seats then until probably April or May 2018.

Clearly, as confirmed in this report, the Auditor-General is working on a number of other supplementary reports, and he put up this simple request. Quite clearly, it is nowhere to be seen in this Simplify No. 2 bill and, frankly, it should be. That does not mean it is the end of the matter. Of course, it is still possible for the parliament itself to say, 'We will give authority to the Auditor-General to provide that, and publication,' but we should not have to do that.

This is a simple, mechanical, operational matter that should have been tidied up. It has been presented to the government and they have done nothing about it. He has placed it again in his report. In his evidence this morning to the Economic and Finance Committee, he repeated that he had presented this request. In his evidence this morning he said:

In the report, I have recommended that audit reporting provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act be amended in a number of ways to improve the flexibility of the Auditor-General's reporting to the parliament and to improve the government's accountability to the parliament.

I do not think it could be any clearer, yet the government have been completely silent on this. Surely, if the Premier were prepared to deal with this, either he or his representative here in the chamber would march in an amendment to this bill to say, 'Yes, we will act on that. We will open up those acts and we will fix this.' But, no, they have not done that. I think it is shameful on behalf of the government that they should completely ignore the clearly identified areas of reform, which there can be no justification for holding up.

There is a list of various reforms, some of which are legislative changes and some are regulatory changes that have been nominated. There is a list of legislation to be repealed. As I said, the government have then touched on some future reforms that they consider that they will deliver, but who knows when that might happen, and that needs to be looked at.

In future reforms, the other areas which have been clearly identified, but which have not been acted upon, include the provision for the Industry Advocate to investigate whether a single business identifying number for businesses interested in working with the government is feasible and to reduce the amount of information required during a tender process. I would have thought that is pretty obvious. It seems sensible to me. I have no clue why the government want to hold that up.

The Hon. C.J. Picton: It is quite a big IT project.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister's interjection to suggest that there is quite a big IT project just reinforces for me what I had suspected; that is, they do not want to spend the money. They are quite happy to spend $30 million on an advertising campaign to sell a dud of a health policy, yet they are not prepared to do something as simple as that to ensure that we have a sensible and more cost-effective process for those tendering for business contracts.

Reforms to the state planning system, including the application of the planning act through the design code, we have not seen a thing on that. The other areas include the development approval requirements for permanent orchard netting, which I have referred to, and the establishment of a red tape task force with representation from councils and departments. We are still waiting for the announcement as to who is on it and what they are actually going to be doing.

As described by the government, there is the easing of restraints on caravan park operators who are raising finance and gaining approvals in development applications. On that point, there has been some residential park legislation—in fact, we are about to debate it—but it does not address this issue at all. These are two opportunities, in my view, for the government to provide some relief to that industry. Obviously, they have no intention of providing that to them.

I recall Mr Foley, the former treasurer in this parliament, as treasurer electing to charge people in residential parks by way of stamp duty in respect of their occupancy licences and then finding later that there was no stampable interest to do so, and we had a big fight about that. I do not know what they have against caravan park owners or people in residential parks, but it is frustrating to me that they are not getting on with that reform.

Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. C.J. Picton.

Ms CHAPMAN: They say they will look at investigating opportunities to make SA payroll tax definitions consistent with other jurisdictions. I do not know what is holding that up, other than the fact that ours is an outrageous rate and the sooner we have some reform in that regard the better. They are making promises by saying, 'We will look at how we might massage this into some kind of comparable arrangement so that our businesses can be competitive.' Where is that in the bill? It is nowhere to be seen.

Reducing red tape for small-scale artisan food and drink producers is a great idea, but there is nothing in the bill. Tools for employers and employees to better comply with their long service leave obligations, including guidance material and an online calculator seem pretty sensible to me. It probably needs some money; obviously, that is why that is not there. Plant health certification reforms—there is nothing there. Sale of non-prescription glasses' warning labels—there is nothing there. Licensing and collection of low-volume lead waste—they were very happy to introduce in the budget this year some massive new waste levy, but when it comes to relief in respect of lead waste there is complete silence.

I say to the government: please do not give me some red and white glossy booklet to tell me how fabulous they are and what they are doing on Simplify Day when, frankly, there is a long list of major reforms which would be quite easy to initiate, which they have clear notice of and which they have completely ignored. If they spent more time on actually drafting the clauses to fix that than preparing glossy brochures and telling me how fabulous they are and giving me all these pictures with seashells and keys and happy people floating along water—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am a bit jealous, I don't have that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, you are welcome to have one. I have a second copy. Obviously, there was no cap on the budget for this. You are very welcome to have one, Madam Deputy Speaker. I downloaded one and then I was given the beautiful hard copy with all the little stamps over it, reforms that they had already done, big green stamps, 'Delivered, delivered, delivered; to come, to come, to come,' all that nonsense. I want real substance in a bill, and so do the people of South Australia, not a glossy pamphlet.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (22:00): I would like to speak in support of the bill and make a few comments. Simplify Day, the government's annual red tape reduction and simplification initiative was held on 10 August this year. The Simplify Day incorporated the Premier's introducing the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify No 2) Bill, which is the subject of this bill. The government made 27 regulations to support the bill in the same week, and announcements were made about a range of issues that are either committed to or will be further considered in the future.

Simplify Day was supported by an extensive engagement strategy in consultation with the public via a YourSAy process, a survey of businesses and face-to-face meetings with more than 40 industry associations, in addition to collaboration between several government departments, including the current minister, who was then the assistant minister, going to a number of meetings. He came to Gawler one evening and spoke with a range of small business people in the town, as did senior public servants from the agency, and they got some valuable feedback.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A roadshow, was it?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, they came to listen. No, it wasn't a roadshow; they actually came to listen. They were extremely well received, and they received quite good feedback. It was interesting to note that most of the criticism was not actually about the state government, but about another sphere of the government, which I will not talk about tonight.

As honourable members will recall, the government held the inaugural Simplify Day last year, on 15 November, introducing the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Simplify) Bill 2016. That bill was assented to on 15 March this year. I am pleased to advise the house that as of 10 August 2017, the day on which the second Simplify Day was held, all the provisions contained in the inaugural simplify bill and regulations have been implemented, except those enabling electronic licences and permits and those abolishing the need to have heavy vehicle registration label stickers. The public will be able to use electronic drivers' licences and permits from this month sometime, I understand, and that work is continuing, while heavy vehicle registration labels will be abolished from 1 November this year.

This year, Simplify Day was held on 10 August and the bill was also introduced. This year's bill proposes to amend 41 acts and repeal 11 outdated ones. It includes a number of reforms addressing a variety of red tape issues, which will have a positive impact on industry, businesses and the community generally, for example:

enabling irrigation trusts to adopt more efficient and fit-for-purpose business models;

abolishing stamp duty on the transfer of family farms, saving people cost and the inconvenience of having to wind up a company;

increasing consistency across both procurement of goods and services and grants to the not-for-profit sector;

allowing fisheries fees to be collected flexibly by allowing multiyear fee structures to be put in place, saving business time and costs in renewing their fisheries licences;

enabling automatic progression of a motorbike licence after 12 months;

introducing an option for six-month registration for light trailers and caravans, allowing people who only use their caravan seasonally to save up to $35 a year;

and I will say a bit more about that in a moment—

providing more flexibility in verifying a learner's test;

allowing government departments to use photographs taken for drivers' licences for other government licences;

which will be an important reform. One thing people hate is having to go to different government agencies with the same information time and time again. This reform will make interaction with the government much easier, and:

allowing low-risk public events to occur without closing off public roads.

The bill also includes amendments to 29 different acts to include an option for government departments to publish notices online. Government agencies are often required via a newspaper to publicly notify of an intent to undertake commercial activities such as development or an application for a licence. These notices can be used to communicate codes of practice, guidelines or information relating to public safety or public events.

Other public notices relate to items contained in legislation with which businesses or the community must comply. Many of the 29 acts being amended were written when the only way to conduct public consultation was via the newspaper. For these 29 acts, the amendments add flexibility, create an option to publish online and do not remove the option to publish in a newspaper where it is considered the best approach.

The second simplify bill is a testament to the government's commitment to red tape reduction. Not all the reforms included in the simplify bill are high-profile changes, but they do respond to the views of businesses and the community in a practical, substantial and sustainable manner for the people and businesses they impact upon. For example, currently transfers of family farms between relatives are exempt from stamp duty under the Stamp Duties Act 1923, subject to meeting certain criteria. That will be simplified. In response to a proposal driven by the industry, the bill will also amend the Irrigation Act 2009 to reduce market barriers and facilitate new investment in South Australian irrigated agricultural sectors.

Simplify Day reforms will be implemented through this bill, associated regulations and the government's commitment to ongoing reform. We have received strong support from the community. I can share with the house a few testimonials. For example, the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association has announced their support for what we are doing. The Exceptional Kangaroo Island Managing Director, Craig Wickham, has said that the Simplify Day initiative provides a great platform to advise and work with government. The Shopping Centre Council of Australia Executive Director, Angus Nardi, commented on cutting red tape for commercial property owners and stated, 'This is a sensible and practical way of removing red tape.'

I mentioned that there were a couple of things that are dear to my heart, which I would like to talk about now, including the reforms that are not in this bill but have been flagged for ongoing work and will hopefully be part of our bill that we introduce next year when we return to government. One of these things is the paddock to plate reforms. This is something that came up when the minister came to Gawler and also, through another committee that I have been dealing with in terms of primary producers. These are the reforms of various licences, rules and regulations and planning rules around artisan businesses.

Often, a lot of these licences and rules are designed for bigger businesses, and a bit like our small bars in the city, where we have removed some of the restrictions there, removing some of the restrictions or simplifying those rules would actually enable the small businesses to grow in key areas like the Barossa Valley, for example, on the doorstep of my electorate, the Clare Valley and other areas, which would actually promote economic activity, create jobs and also attract tourism. Certainly, I am aware of work being done in the Barossa at the moment through the Barossa collaboration to identify these barriers to growth and particularly barriers to small businesses growing, and I fully support that.

Additionally, in terms of the caravans I mentioned a little earlier, there is one thing in this bill and one that is proposed that I think would be great. Currently, light-vehicle owners have the option to register their vehicle for three months or 12 months, or for one month at a time under the direct debit scheme. Under the bill, we are responding to boat and caravan owners' requests for seasonal registration by providing greater flexibility by offering an additional option for owners to register light trailers, including boat trailers and caravans, for a period of six months.

This is delivering on a commitment made as part of the Simplify Day 2016. In this case, we are responding to the needs of consumers, given that often caravanning and a whole range of water-based activities are seasonal activities and therefore people do not like to spend money when they do not need to. In addition to that, the state tourism sector is a significant contributor to the South Australian economy and it is vital to jobs and incomes in regional South Australia.

One of the things that is going to be looked at through consultation undertaken with the industry is to assist caravan park operators who have difficulties raising finance and gaining approvals to progress their own applications. In the context of these issues, the government will ensure an approach that supports high-quality regional tourism developments so they can be approved in a timely and efficient manner. So we will be streamlining those processes, which I think is very important.

Our approach as a government will be to further consult a number of tourism operators, such as caravan park operators, bed-and-breakfast operators and tourism experience providers, to gain a detailed understanding of the administration hurdles they encounter with tourism development, such as development, planning and environmental approvals and ongoing compliance with regulations. We will ensure that the tourism operators and investment in regional tourism development is supported through the state's planning reforms.

As you can see, there are a range of practical reforms which in and of themselves are sometimes quite minor but, when added collectively, will make a huge difference to those people who work in those industries or those people who actually have to interact with government on a regular basis. I know, for example, that the two caravan proposals and the ones involving the paddock to plate will be well received in my region. I have a caravan manufacturer in my electorate, and I am sure that anything that boosts sales and makes it easier to register a vehicle would also increase production and sales of caravans. With those few comments, I certainly support the passage of the bill through the house.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health, Minister Assisting the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (22:11): It has been my pleasure to deal with the Simplify Day process in my former role as assistant minister to the Treasurer. Due to my delight, the Premier and the Treasurer have allowed me to continue to play this role in my new portfolio and to carry this bill all the way through, so I am very excited about that. I thank the deputy leader and the member for Light for their contributions.

In summary, the deputy leader went through a number of issues that we have highlighted for future reform and basically criticised us on the basis that we have not yet made those future reforms. All I can say is that the bill, the regulations and the reforms that are now in the document represent the work that we have done. We have signalled to the parliament and to the public what our next batch of work is going to be, what our next reforms are going to be, and that is in the future reform section. We are very keen to make sure we change things such as orchard nets. We need to have consultation with industry and other businesses.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We do, absolutely. We want to make sure we get things right when we do them.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I should note that my in-laws live in Uraidla and Carey Gully, and have a cherry orchard, so I am acutely aware of the issues of the cherry—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There are two properties, so there is acute awareness in my household of issues involving the cherry orchard industry, so that is why I am very keen that we make sure that this reform occurs. I also note that after the passage of this legislation, there will be 21 acts that will be completely repealed from our statute book. I like to joke with the Deputy Premier that as soon as he brings them in I am trying to get them out. Getting rid of 21 I think is pretty good for two acts of parliament.

I would particularly like to thank everybody who has helped us in this process. Removing red tape is important, but it is not the sexy end of government work. There is a fair amount of hard slog behind the scenes to get these reforms through. A lot of them are not necessarily very exciting, but they are very important. Each of them in a small way makes a contribution to improving our economy and improving the efficiency of our government, and people on this side of the house believe in government. We believe that government has an important role, hence we want to make sure that it is as efficient as possible.

I would like to thank all the people in the Simpler Regulation Unit who have worked behind the scenes to get this to the place it is, particularly Julie Holmes, as well as Stuart Hocking, Aaron Witthoeft, Frances Thomson, Burcu Subasi, Emmanuelle Sloan, Kevin Cantley, Giselle Oruga, all of the agency red tape champions and Gemma Paech, from my office, who all put in a tremendous amount of work on this bill and who are all looking forward to its passage.

In terms of the glossy pictures in the Simplify Day publication, I say to the deputy leader that I tried my best to get rid of them. I said to the team, 'Look, we're just going to annoy the deputy leader with these pictures. There was a picture of a lobster last time that annoyed her, so let's not put any pictures in.' However, I lost that fight, and so there is, as the deputy leader outlined, a picture of some pipis down at the Coorong. One of the elements of this bill was some reforms to the pipi industry, which I am sure everyone would agree is very important. So we put a picture of the pipis in there, and I apologise to the deputy leader that that ended up in the document. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clause 22 provides for an amendment in respect of the notification and publication requirements under the Environment Protection Act 1993. It is an example of a number of reforms that are proposed in this bill that will significantly change the public notification and community notice procedures, in particular the obligation to publish, sometimes in multiple forms.

Can I say at the outset that it is quite reasonable to ensure that we have notification arrangements that keep up with contemporary modes of transmission of information. It is therefore appropriate that we recognise the website as a reasonable publication tool. It is probably fair to say that it is an unusual sort of person who sits every week and reads the Gazette. We have people who do that, obviously, but I think it is fair to say that whilst we in the parliamentary role have a vested interest in keeping an eye on such things, it is not something that is regular reading for the general populace.

Clearly, these things need to be kept contemporary. We totally agree with that, even from the point of view of advertising in multiple newspapers as part of a notice procedure—that can be streamlined. I use this example under the Environment Protection Act because the notice arrangements in the proposed amendments to section 28 are an example of where I think they have gone a bit too far. Certainly, Business SA brought this to our attention during the consultation.

This is an example where the current act provides for publication in the Gazette. The proposed amendment will delete the obligation for that to be mandatory and state that a notice of a draft policy must be published and that a copy may—as an optional form—be published on the website or in a newspaper circulating generally in the state. We only have one newspaper left, so I suppose it is pretty obvious which one it is. The downgrading in the notification is that it be an option, and the dilution of that clearly has some consequences.

Obviously, the website is an appropriate place to put a copy of the notice. However, as Business SA has pointed out, it is important, especially when you are dealing with an agency such as the Environment Protection Authority, which is obviously our environment police legislative body that has an important role to play and where there are very severe consequences if there is noncompliance with the policy. As members might know, the policies that this body issue have the weight and force of a regulation. They can have very significant punitive obligations and—

The Hon. C.J. Picton interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. The minister has indicated that that perhaps ought to be upgraded, and I thank him for that. I point out that there is another aspect of notice that I think needs to be looked at, and that is that if you are going to just rely on publication on a website and things of that nature or a gazette or the like, the obligation to notify relevant parties still cannot be overlooked—the usual suspects, the people who are going to be directly affected. This varies for each of the reforms that they have in this bill. I suppose it is one where, if it progresses under this process or is at least heightened, as the minister has indicated, for bodies where there is some punitive loss, we need to consider how it will also affect others.

Let me give you an example. In the Ombudsman’s report, which was tabled today, there is reference on page 26 to an investigation into the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. It related to the unreasonable failure to advise the complainant of a tender process. In short, this is what happened: the complainant was the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and for 10 years it had had a certain contract to provide a low-income support program.

In June 2013, a tender process was opened. The department offering this unintentionally omitted to directly advise ALRM of the tender process and, as a consequence, in short, ALRM was not advised that this was going out to tender, had an understanding that they would get notice and missed out on the tendering. Apparently, an email was sent to the chief project officer the day before the tender opened, to inquire about funding arrangements, only to find out what had happened. At that stage, the chief project officer was on leave, nobody answered it and there was a failure to notify ALRM.

Had there been a process where a clearly affected party had received notice—it can be in a modern form, it can be in an email, it does not have to be by snail mail or anything else, but people have to know. The consequence here was that this agency missed out on the opportunity to tender for a program that, on the face of it, they had provided services for appropriately. The consequence was that the Ombudsman found that the department had acted in a manner which was wrong within the meaning of section 25 of the Ombudsman Act.

The only remedy that could be recommended was that the department issue a written apology to the complainant for omitting to notify them of the process dates, etc. However, that does not remedy the ill and the loss of opportunity for that agency to be able to have what should have been their entitlement, particularly as there was an existing contract with the government. That is just one example of what can happen.

The second example I will use is just to deal with the EPA, and I thank the minister for indicating that he will look at making it mandatory to at the very least have some notification to be provided here. Several years ago, the EPA issued a draft policy in respect of air quality. I indicated earlier in the house that I represent people in the Adelaide Hills, and I am very proud to do so. I have found that apparently the minister’s parents live there, too, but I do not expect that they will vote for me. In any event, this policy was circulated and representatives from the EPA attended to advise people, after there had been a complaint, because somebody had noticed that it was actually out there.

At least at that time, the EPA had an obligation to advise relevant authorities, including people such as the local councils. We found out about it. There was general public concern about this because a policy, once committed and signed off by the minister, has the full force and effect of a regulation. As a consequence, the people were able to have a say. Amendments were made, and the ultimate policy was published and decided upon. I still think that it is a ridiculous policy. It costs a fortune to have to deal with some of the obligations under it, but nevertheless we had a process and we had a say.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Could I just signal to the deputy leader that we have actually submitted the amendment that she originally proposed. I am happy to make that amendment if that might curtail some of the commentary.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will just ask, Madam Chair, because there are amendments in the simplification process here that I think will be needed in respect of clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23—

The CHAIR: We have done 1 to 21 already.

Ms CHAPMAN: —24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 65 to 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 81.

The CHAIR: We have already done clauses 1 to 21.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that, but I am just asking the minister to consider, given that he has acquiesced into ensuring that there be a mandatory notification, that at least some review be given to ensure that in each of these other provisions at the very least there is some mandatory obligation to put a public notice. We cannot have an option of 'may'. Go to websites by all means, but we must have some mandatory obligation. I ask you to look at those and consider whether that should be not as downgraded as you have accepted is the case in relation to that clause.

The CHAIR: Could the Chair and the table just ask, in the interests of whatever we are going to finish off doing here tonight, rather than doing this one on its own—

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am just doing that one.

The CHAIR: You are just doing this one on its own. In that case, I am going to move this new amendment to clause 22, which is the clause we are at. It amends line 4, where the (ii) is, on page 12 and replaces 'may' with 'must'. Are you happy with where we are at?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Page 12, line 4—Delete 'may' and insert 'must'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 23 to 39 passed.

Clause 40.

Ms CHAPMAN: This relates to the Government Business Enterprises (Competition) Act 1996 and its amendment, again under a notice of procedure, where there is public notice in this case of an investigation. Here, we are talking about the commissioner's role in the commencement of an investigation under this act. The bill is proposing that there be an obligation to give public notice, but the restriction that is the concern of Business SA with the scope of the organisation individuals who may wish to respond to an investigation of a government business enterprise. They say, and I quote:

Considering such enterprises include the likes of SA Water, and others less known which compete with the private sector such as the wireline logging arm of the Department of Environment/Water/Natural Resources, we would expect a much higher level of transparency around any particular investigations.

I can say that again in my local electorate the wireline logging, which I assume relates to the clearing of tree branches, etc., along a communication line or cable, is a contractual arrangement. I have had local people complain that they have not had an opportunity to compete, to tender, and in fact they have gone to interstate operators to provide this service. Here, the notice may need some more careful drafting, but would I ask at least for the minister to consider that concern between the houses and provide a remedy if so minded.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This clause provides that the commissioner must make a notification in appropriate circumstances. This is not an issue as per the previous issue, where the word 'may' was raising some concern for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There must be communication from the commissioner in the appropriate circumstances. If this was passed, parliament is saying that those circumstances need to be appropriate.

In terms of the previous provision, as the deputy leader said—and we agree—newspaper notifications are not necessarily the most up-to-date way of doing these things. There might be a whole range of different ways which would be appropriate, depending on the circumstances, for the commissioner to make a public advertisement or notification of this. My view and the government's view is that defining it like this allows for a variety of circumstances that might occur and a variety of different communication channels that might be appropriate in the circumstances, depending upon the circumstances of the issue.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question, then, to the minister is: do you envisage that for this new regime, which is going to be entirely at the discretion of the commissioner as to how and who he invites, there will be any kind of public notice on a website, in a paper, in a gazette, or any of the above, or will he just pick out the people who he would like to invite and we will have exactly the same thing as we have seen in the Ombudsman's report if they miss out somebody who should have been told?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It could be all those things. Parliament is saying that there must be a notification, that there must be advertisement of this. We have said that it needs to be appropriate and that the commissioner needs to determine what is appropriate in those circumstances. It could be all the things the deputy leader has outlined. If it is regarding a specific area, then it would be perhaps specific advertisements and notifications in that area or, if it is regarding the whole state, it might be through a medium that help to connect with the whole state. Trying to define that in legislation I think is near on impossible, and hence the wording that has been developed for this section.

Clause passed.

Clauses 41 to 91 passed.

Clause 92.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is an amendment to the Stamp Duties Act 1923 and relates to the interfamilial transfer of farming property. I think that one of the speakers tonight in this debate has commended this as an initiative, and it is important. It is long-awaited, but it seems to be restrictive in this way.

Again, Business SA has raised this with us essentially because it is to exempt stamp duty in these circumstances where there is a familial relationship in existence between the transferor and transferee—a dad to son or mum to daughter or whatever. However, the bill proposes that the circumstances that exist where the transfer to which a company is a party will only be eligible for exemption if the company is wholly owned by natural person shareholders (this is from the presentation) and this is on the basis that only a natural person can constitute a relative of another person for the purposes of section 71CC.

I am sure it will not come as a surprise to the minister that some of these farming enterprises, obviously because of family structure, can be held in a corporate interest, in a partnership interest, in a trust interest. It is clear that is going to cause some problems if a corporate entity is not wholly owned by a natural person but may, in fact, be owned by, say, siblings—two sons or daughters—and the remaining siblings may hold their interest in, for example, a trust or a corporate structure.

If family farming business structures for shares in companies in a given family group are to be held by trustees of a discretionary trust—and that is a common circumstance—then obviously that is something that needs to be taken into account as a common structure. Unfortunately, the exemption provided in the bill currently applies to a wide variety of family business structures that involve the use of discretionary trusts and units, and therefore this exemption does not allow this to be covered. So we are asking the government to consider that the exemption also apply to companies whose shares are held in trust, consistent with the general policy objectives the Premier outlined in his submission.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The intention of this section is about transfer within the family. I should say a particular thanks to the member for Frome, the Minister for Regional Development, who raised this issue originally on behalf of one of his constituents and which has brought us to this bill today. This provision will help a lot of people across South Australia in terms of the transfer of family farms.

The difficulty, in terms of what the deputy leader is outlining in terms of non-natural people, is determining that it is family, and I guess that gets into the questions of what a family is and what a natural person is, and all those sorts of things. It is probably too late at night to spend too long debating that; suffice to say that we think it will add a lot of complexity for RevenueSA to go back through company structures to determine that they meet the criteria of being a family when it is involving non-natural people.

Having said that, it is something we are happy to look at further in terms of the red tape reduction unit and the Department of Treasury to see whether over time, if this provision is passed, there could be any future provisions that could extend it further.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank the minister for his indication and invite him to look at the family company definition that is being proposed in the bill. I think that could be amended to provide a fair opportunity for the shareholders of the definition of a family company to include a natural person or their nominated party. I totally understand the extra burden that might ordinarily place on officers in an assessment process, but it seems with any of these things it is on the applicant to present the material to support the structure.

Obviously, that may be confirmation with a company search, for example, of the shareholders, and if the shareholding is held by another corporate entity, then of course they have to produce evidence of that structure as well to be able to trace it, its control or shareholding, to the natural person, who is the relative. I understand what you are saying, but I welcome the indication that you will at least have a look at that. I think they are the only matters I need to raise; otherwise, I indicate that we will support the balance of the bill.

Clause passed.

Clauses 93 to 98 passed.

Clause 99.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Police–1]—

Part 50, page 32, lines 12 to 14—Delete the Part

The CHAIR: This amendment opposes the clause. Deputy leader, are you happy with that?

Ms CHAPMAN: If he is getting rid of it, it is even better.

The CHAIR: That might be the one you really like.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am happy to explain.

The CHAIR: It has already been repealed once, so we are taking it out of the bill.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: That is right. We discovered something that was already repealed.

The CHAIR: It is not actually still in existence, so we are getting rid of it again. It is definitely not going to be there after this.

Clause negatived.

Remaining clauses (100 to 106) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health, Minister Assisting the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (22:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

What progress the deputy leader and I have made tonight.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 22:42 the house adjourned until Thursday 19 October 2017 at 10:30.

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