HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (BUDGET 2010) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am sure that the minister would not be surprised that I would ask this question because, if he were in my situation, he would be asking this question. Can the minister table legal advice that his government has received that says that what we are actually debating here now in the parliament is legal?

I understand that there is a contract, namely, an enterprise agreement, that deals with a lot of these issues that the government is now asking us to override and pass as law. I therefore ask the minister: how can we actually vote on matters such as this when I understand a contract is a contract at law—in this case involving an enterprise agreement. How can the minister ask the parliament to actually override that and break a legally binding contract?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member may not be aware that the PSA had raised some issues within the industrial court in relation to this matter but they have been rejected. That is my advice. The government obviously has put this bill forward on the basis of advice given to it. It is not the normal practice of government to release legal advice but I point out to the honourable member that the Industrial Relations Commission has rejected the PSA challenge to this matter.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a copy of the Industrial Relations Commission handing and I would not dismiss their handing lightly and I will be incorporating some of it into Hansard at a later date. The point is that I would not just say flippantly, 'Well, the IRC has endorsed what the government is doing', because that is not what I read, particularly when you look at page 7.

If it is not available now, I ask that the minister make available any legal advice that the Treasurer or the government may have had prior to this decision to cut entitlements under a legally binding contract, namely, an enterprise bargaining agreement. You are now asking us as the parliament to support what the government is doing in this respect. How can we be supporting you (if, indeed we go that way) when you have a legally binding agreement signed to protect those workers' entitlements?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Since the minister has raised the statement made in the Industrial Relations Commission yesterday, I pose the question that was posed—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is about a commencement date, is it?

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister has raised the judgement and the issue of legality. I pose the question that was posed by Deputy President Parsons in the commission yesterday: how can a fair and certain negotiated outcome in future bargaining be achieved if the chief executive and the PSA know from this experience that his word is not final but that it may be overridden by parliament?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It has been passed on to me what the decision was. I am not going to comment on what the details of that particular case were. They certainly do not have any relevance, I would suggest, to the commencement clause in this bill, but the fact is that this government has had to make some difficult decisions. We have done that. As I have said, the Hon. Mr Wade really wants to consider the alternative.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Presumably he would be quite happy if we got rid of another 600 jobs, because that is the alternative. Put up an alternative. The member is on the front bench of the opposition. He wants to be in government in 2014. Yes, he can criticise, he can be a critic, but one of the problems the opposition faces is ultimately they have to have an alternative. I would argue that this is fairer. This is a fairer measure than taking other decisions that would be the alternative to the government's.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: My option is to expose hypocrisy.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What is hypocritical is coming in to this parliament without an alternative and pretending to be in opposition.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the committee.

A quorum having been formed:

The CHAIR: I must remind members to keep their eye on the Notice Paper. It happens too regularly that people are not here to move their amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 5, line 7—Delete subclause (2)

I move this amendment with some degree of disappointment in this government. I should not have to move this amendment at all. Had this government kept its promises to the Public Service, which it made in good faith when it entered into enterprise bargaining negotiations with our public servants, who are very good, hardworking servants of our community, we would not be here discussing this matter.

As we are all aware, these amendments go to the measures in the budget which withdraw access to leave loading and long service leave, which have been enjoyed by public servants for many years but were never, in fact, put into any negotiating table discussions as being something that the government would like to take away from them.

I move this amendment in defence of the spirit of enterprise bargaining, where one enters into a bargaining arrangement between employer and employee with all items on the table and in the spirit of good faith which we would expect in this country with a strong, robust and healthy industrial relations system.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This is, obviously, a test clause for the issue relating to long service leave. As I said in my second reading contribution, my understanding is that the long service leave provision was introduced as legislation following an election promise, which was at a time when we also had superannuation schemes and the like that were considered affordable at the time—they are not now.

Just as superannuation schemes were modified during the mid-nineties and mid-eighties, some of those schemes were closed off because they were no longer seen to be affordable. That is why this benefit, the long service leave provision, which is under legislation, is being amended.

Yes, it is a difficult measure but, as I also said earlier today, if one looks at the austerity measures that are being implemented by other governments around the world, this is a very modest one, because we are not freezing wages and doing the sorts of things that are being done in other parts of the world. This particular measure—the provision of 15 days long service leave after 15 years of service—is recognised as being very generous, by any measure.

The options are to continue, for a lesser number of people, the generous benefit, or to try to spread the load a bit more over the public sector workforce and ensure that they do not have to suffer the sorts of cuts and austerity measures that are made elsewhere in the world. They are our choices, and the government has made its choice.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: When the enterprise bargaining agreement process was occurring, was it flagged at that time that these measures might be taken?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: At any one stage there are a number of enterprise bargaining measures in various stages of completion. There is not just one for public sector employees across the board. Obviously, there are a range of other workers—ambulance employees, police and other workers. I do not believe that this measure was flagged. As I said, it was part of the budget discussions. It was considered by cabinet, and I fully support that decision.

It is a fairer measure than the alternative, where you would put the whole pain on another 600 or 700 employees with all of the impact for the community, or we could have raised taxes that hit the entire community, the people who never get these sorts of benefits. They are the choices you face.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My question to the minister relates to long service leave entitlements. I understand that, on behalf of the government, the Premier has, on at least three occasions, written to the Public Service Association and other unions confirming the enterprise bargaining agreement and all the entitlements—some of which include the 15 days that they are now trying to knock back to nine—which have been in existence for three decades. Can the minister explain to the committee why the Premier, after he has written on behalf of his government, is now breaking those government commitments?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The key commitment that I think the Premier gave was in relation to tenure, and one of the key considerations of cabinet in the whole process was to see how we could minimise the impact on the number of public servants. That is why we have come up with one of the most generous severance packages ever offered. We believe that will enable us to keep the promise that the Premier made about no forced redundancies.

In relation to these other conditions, as I indicated to the honourable member, long service leave was, from my understanding, not a measure that was achieved through bargaining at any stage; it was just like what happened when the superannuation schemes were changed back in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s because of the financial problems that were then faced. They are benefits that were put in legislation. This is really dealing with it, I believe, in the same way and for the same reasons.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just want to work through this a little more so that we may start to get some idea of what is going on here. The minister talks about superannuation. I have been here in this council for 15 years and have seen four changes to superannuation—from the old scheme to the then new scheme, to the further new scheme and to the other scheme now. The fact of the matter is that none of that ever had an impact on those members who were already working here in the council, and for the right reasons. They came in with that particular superannuation scheme just as these workers have signed up to work for your government, sir, with those conditions in place. So, I do not see how you can say that superannuation changes are a comparison to this at all. This is actually ripping apart something that was agreed to. It is not going forward creating a different situation for new workers: this is affecting workers already in the government workforce.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It was put by the then government of the day in legislation and, just like the superannuation schemes, in relation to long service leave this measure takes effect from 1 July 2011 and, of course, leave that has already been accumulated under that will be retained.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Surely the minister is not saying that somebody who has been working for 14½ years will not be getting the 15 days when, say, on 1 August next year it would have rolled into 15 years, like a police officer, for example. They are actually going to be going back to nine; so is that not a cut? Of course it is a cut.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister indicated in his reply to an earlier question that that was one of the reasons why this government has introduced one of the most generous separation packages ever seen. Is it correct that this separation package introduced by the government is exactly the same as the separation package that was last on offer to the public sector about two years ago, that is, a maximum number of 116 weeks if you have served the maximum length of service?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is the same as the 2009 scheme, and that is a very generous scheme if one compares it with what has been offered elsewhere previously.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think that is the point. The government has sought to pat itself on the back and say that it had introduced the most generous separation scheme that had ever been seen. It is not the most generous scheme, as the minister has just been forced to concede. This is the scheme as it has existed for some time. It certainly was the scheme that applied, supposedly, to up to 1,700 public servant full-time equivalents two years ago. I am not sure if the minister is aware whether or not it also applied to earlier TVSP rounds, but I put that question to him as well: did it apply to any earlier rounds of targeted separation packages?

I do not think that the government can pat itself on the back and say, as the minister sought to do in his reply, that it has introduced the most generous separation package arrangements. Indeed, he has been forced to concede that is not the case. To round off that line of questioning I ask: is the minister's adviser, through the minister, in a position to indicate when the current scheme was first introduced? We know that it was operating in 2009; did it apply to any earlier round of separation packages in the public sector? If so, when?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that that particular scheme ran from 1 July 2009 to 30 September 2009. I will just see if we can get information in relation to how that compares with previous schemes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: While the minister is getting information about previous schemes, I recall that in schemes which operated under the former government the maximum payouts were certainly in excess of 100 weeks. I cannot remember whether or not they went to 116 weeks, but my clear recollection of the schemes that operated through the 1990s is that long serving public servants were entitled to maximum payouts of about 102 weeks, I think. However, the minister's adviser is back, so we shall wait and see.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that there have been some variations in the different schemes as they have come down, but we would have to go through and look at each individual scheme to see it. Certainly, by any standards offered elsewhere I think this is a generous scheme. You can argue about whether or not it is the most, or the second most, or the third most, or nearly the most generous scheme, but it is a generous scheme.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not interested in delaying the proceedings. I am happy if the minister gives some indication that he is prepared to take it on notice and provide or table a written answer giving a comparison with previous schemes. If he is prepared to do that then I am prepared to move on.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, I am.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Further to that and with respect to the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment, in the Sustainable Budget Commission's report there is actually a comparison of LSL entitlements in Australian public sectors. At the moment South Australia is equal second worst for 10 years of service and for 15 years of service, but for 20 years of service and 30 years of service—which is where I thought the whole intent of this was aimed, to stop the brain drain and keep that experience in the public sector to provide the best possible services for our state—we are second best. Is it the government's intent, with this bill, to put us at worst, or equal second worst, for all the 10, 15, 20 and 30 year periods of service?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the honourable member is being a little bit technical. After 10 years of service it is 90 calendar days, and he says we are the second worst. Victoria is 91, Queensland is 91, Western Australia is 91, Tasmania is 91, the Commonwealth is 90, and New South Wales is 62. There is one day's difference, presumably because our leave has been pitched a little differently. However, I think that one day after 10 years' service is not particularly significant, in relation to the honourable member's arguments.

Obviously, if we come back to that nine days, we will be on a par. When you look at those other states, after 20 years: Victoria, 183; Queensland, 182; Western Australia, 182; Tasmania, 182; and the commonwealth, 180. We would presumably at that time be on 180. We would be on a par, give or take a day, with those other states, whereas now it is 210 days here, compared with 180 to 183 as it varies in other states.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, New South Wales is much lower in the early stage. Those figures are there for the honourable member to see.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can the minister just outline the reason the government took the decision that this particular section would come into operation on 1 July 2011, as opposed to any other date?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I cannot give you the exact reason why it was proposed by Treasury that way, other than to give people adequate notice; to be fair. Obviously, because it is in legislation it can only be changed by legislation, and that has to get through, but I just think it would be fairer to have this introduced with sufficient notice. As 1 July is more than six months away, I think it is reasonable that we provide that advance notice.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (7)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Franks, T.A. (teller) Hood, D.G.E. Parnell, M.
Vincent, K.L.
NOES (14)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I seek your guidance, Mr Chairman. It would be good if we could consider my amendment to this clause after consideration of clause 58. My amendment 3 is to clause 58 and deals with the cuts to leave entitlements. It would be going backwards if we were to do clause 4 first, which deals with teachers' entitlements but does not deal with all the others. Could we do that?

The CHAIR: It is a test case: the honourable member should move it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 5, lines 17 and 18—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) the officer is then entitled to long service leave as follows:

(i) in the case of a prescribed officer—the officer is then entitled to—

(A) 0.75 of a day's leave for each subsequent complete month of effective service until the end of the 15th year of effective service; and

(B) thereafter, 1.25 days' leave for each subsequent complete month of effective service;

(ii) in any other case—the officer is then entitled to 0.75 of a day's leave for each subsequent complete month of effective service.

In moving this amendment I believe that in a democratic society when an employee, either through their own particular negotiation with an employer—in this case the government—or through collective bargaining through the unions, signs an agreement it is a legally binding document. I understand that there are six essential elements of a legal contract, and I also understand that all six essential elements of a legally binding contract were fulfilled in good faith by the unions and the government as the employer.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Hon. Bernie Finnigan disagrees with me, but an enterprise bargaining agreement is still a contract, a legally binding agreement.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do not understand why the Hon. Bernie Finnigan is so upset about this when he actually used to represent workers.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! This is not a conversation, and other members will have the opportunity to make a contribution.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We have a situation where, in good faith, an enterprise bargaining agreement was entered into. People went home and spoke to their families about what that enterprise agreement was, and they planned their future based on that enterprise agreement. In fact, I will reinforce that the element of the enterprise agreement that I am talking about with respect to long service leave entitlements goes back a long time; it even precedes enterprise agreements.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: It goes back to the statute when it was passed.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That's right, and that is back in the 1970s, I believe. The intent of that—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Mr Finnigan are out of order. I have reminded you a minute or two ago: if you want to put that on the record, you have the opportunity to do so when the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has completed. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has the call.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. The point is that they went home in good faith with their families and they planned their future. I have had public servants right across all sectors of government contact me—and I know my colleagues have, including my Labor colleagues—saying that this is unfair and saying that this affects their future planning. Some of these people have actually made conscious decisions not to leave the Public Service and work elsewhere, because one of the benefits to them was that they knew—and does not matter whether it is July next year; that is irrelevant—under the agreement, and not only under the agreement but under statute going right back into the 1970s, that after 15 years of service they got 15 days a year. That was their enticement in many cases to stay.

I put it to you like this, sir: if I come and work for the government tomorrow, and the government says to me, 'Robert, your conditions are that once you hit your entitlement threshold for long service leave, you have nine days a year accruing. If you work for 10, 20 or 30 years, it is nine days', I sign off on that. I agree to that and I expect that it would stick with their agreement, too. But another scenario is where you have been working with the Public Service and you are planning your future, and all of a sudden the government says, 'We have stuffed the budget.' Well, it is not that it has stuffed the budget; it is that it has made so many promises in marginal seats at the election that it has to recoup $1.4 billion of money in the forward estimates to deliver projects to marginal seats in an attempt to hold government. That is what this is all about. How can we do that? We need to save tens of millions of dollars. What is an easy way to do that?

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It is a statement of fact, and the Hon. Russell Wortley saw it. I would like to think that the Hon. Russell Wortley would vote for this amendment and would then get absolute support on behalf of those workers.

The ACTING CHAIR: I would like to think the Hon. Mr Wortley would keep his mouth shut until he gets the call.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would like to think that the Hon. Mr Wortley, who has worked so hard for workers prior to coming into this chamber, will actually support and vote with Family First and other colleagues who are voting for this amendment. That way he will be guaranteed to be re-elected when it comes up in 2014, because those people will see him as an honourable member who stood by his convictions and did not want to see workers' entitlements ripped apart, so there is an opportunity for the honourable member.

I want to put this on the public record with respect to why I am so passionate about this clause. If a private employer was to sign an enterprise agreement—and private employers sign enterprise agreements just the same as the government—do you know what would happen? This government, with taxpayers' money, would take the private employer to the Industrial Relations Commission, and it would tear them apart until such time as the Industrial Relations Commission forced that private employer to honour that enterprise agreement.

So I ask: what is the difference between a private employer and a public employer, namely, the government? There is no difference when it comes to a contract with an enterprise bargaining agreement. I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise. I have talked to people even in this house who, we all know, are incredibly dedicated workers, are pristine in the way they approach all of us. You would never know what their political alliances are, and they are absolutely dedicated. This is one example in this parliament, and they are going to be done over by this. Where is the thank you and acknowledgement for the hard work that public servants do?

I will not hold the committee too much longer but I think it is really important that I just read from the decision of the Full Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia, comprising Deputy President Judge H.W. Parsons, Deputy President K.M. Bartel and Commissioner M.J. Doyle, delivered on 27 October 2010, in the matter of an appeal of the Public Sector Association of South Australia Inc. v Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

I know that the honourable member is speaking on behalf of his government, not himself personally, but we have heard the Leader of Government Business in this house today say that the IRC vindicated the government. That is wrong and that is misrepresentation and that has to be put on the public record. In fact, we would not be debating this amendment today if the government had done the honourable thing and gone down to the Industrial Relations Commission and sorted this out, rather than expect the parliament to sort it out. That is where it should have been sorted out. That is what the Industrial Relations Commission is set up for.

If the government said it could no longer afford to honour its enterprise agreement, it should go down to the Industrial Relations Commission. But it did not do that; it has been brought in here and now the government want us to fix its mismanagement. The government is saying that the Industrial Relations Commission supported the government. Well, sir, the IRC did not, in my opinion. I read this into Hansard from page 6:

Further observations

35. Although we accept the respondent's submission and would dismiss the appeal we respectfully voice certain concerns to the Chief Executive about the implications of the Government seeking to override clause 2.2.6 of the Agreement by legislation.

Here is the IRC saying there is an agreement between the government and workers. It is saying that the government is seeking to override it by bringing legislation in and expecting the parliament to rubber stamp the government's breaking the law. That is what it gets back to: breaking the law. It continues:

36. In our view, such action may tend to undermine the currently productive industrial relationship between the PSA and the Chief Executive. The PSA entered into the Agreement negotiations in good faith on the basis that the terms of the Agreement would apply for the life of the Agreement...

If you want to change the agreement, the time to change it is when you have your next agreement. Trade it off. That is what enterprise bargaining agreements are all about. If you give them a good enough reason and actually put some fair money in their pocket, they may well trade it off in a couple of years. Remember, by the way, if the government can get its budget back in order, that in 2015 there will be hundreds of millions of dollars—they say—of surplus. So the government could manage and work through this and trade it off then, if that is what it wants to do. I am not sure you will be here to do it. To continue:

The PSA entered into Agreement negotiations in good faith on the basis that the terms of the Agreement would apply for the life of the Agreement and that prior to its expiry date the parties would renegotiate the terms and conditions.

The IRC is saying, in summary there, that the government is trying to break the agreement.

37. We are concerned about the effectiveness of such future negotiations. A likely consequence of legislation overriding terms negotiated by the parties in good faith is that the Chief Executive's role may be undermined. The question arises how can a fair and certain negotiated outcome in future bargaining be achieved if the Chief Executive and the PSA know from this experience that his word is not final but may be overridden by Parliament?

It is not a bad clause. Clause 38 states that there are also implications for the statutory role of the commission, so they are even worried about the implications of this. That clause continues:

The general objects of the act require that the Commission promote goodwill in industry and encourage the prevention and settlement of disputes that cannot be resolved by amicable agreement and provide a means of conciliation for that purpose. The Act also contains specific objects related to the regulation of industrial matters by enterprise agreements. The Act seeks to encourage and facilitate the making of agreements governing remuneration, conditions of employment and other industrial matters at the enterprise or workplace and in that regard the Commission fulfils an important role in the provision of a framework for fair and effective negotiations and bargaining between employees and employers with the view to making such agreements.

39. The important statutory role of the Commission in implementing those Objects of the Act while assisting the parties in their negotiations may be rendered far less effective and impact on the Chief Executive's desired outcomes if the parties come to the Commission with a lack of confidence about the binding nature of any compromises reached...

Pretty strong words. Continuing:

40. We direct these comments to the Chief Executive for his consideration, understanding that it is not our role to interfere with Government policy and with an acknowledgment of the separate role of Parliament. However, we regard it as appropriate to highlight the importance that the parties have confidence in the bargaining process and the potential to undermine the effectiveness of the Commission in assisting parties to reach a binding compromise.

In clause 41, based on all I have read there, that appeal was therefore dismissed, as the honourable minister said. In conclusion, you can easily see what the commission is really saying there: its hands are tied, because the government has overridden all the processes put in place and expects us here to rubberstamp the loss of entitlements for employees.

I do not believe that it is fair and reasonable. This clause, in summary, gives an opportunity for the government to actually have the rest of its budget go through—because I am not advocating, and the chamber is not advocating, that we actually try to block it or make it incredibly difficult for the government to get back on track with all its other initiatives.

What this clause simply says is: stick to your word, stick to your contract, stick to your promises, stick to the letters and the intent of those letters that the Premier wrote on behalf of his government to the Public Service Association prior to the election, and if you have a problem with your budget, well, you sort it out at the next enterprise agreement, or you start to make some of the other budget savings that you could make—and an easy one for a start is $6 million a year recurrent by getting rid of three ministers, because we have the most over-inflated ministry in the nation. I commend the amendment to honourable colleagues.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government opposes the amendment. It is a bit of a variation that effectively seeks to reverse the measure in relation to long service leave. We have had the debate on the substantive issues. I repeat what I said earlier: that the full commission of the industrial court had dismissed the appeal. I did not put any other flavour on it.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire said that the reason we have to do this is for marginal seats. Let me just again point out a figure I gave earlier today. In this budget, my understanding is that Country Health is increased by 13.5 per cent. We have members opposite saying that is not enough and that even within that budget there still needs to be some contingency. It is going up by 13.5 per cent, because that is what is happening to the health demand around the country. When your revenues come in by five, something has got to give, and that is not just this year: multiply it out by four years' time. It does not matter who is in government: that is the reality, and it is the same with disability.

If we do not get money from areas like this, then where do we get it from? It is $30 million a year: $30 million a year is what this measure will save. What it will mean is that it will still bring us back so that the position concerning our public servants, as we have just discussed, is round about that in the rest of the country, not just other public sectors but also private sectors, in terms of the long service leave they get after 15 years. That is what we are talking about. It is a matter, whether you like it or not, of the lesser of evils.

Yes, this is a difficult measure, certainly for every member of the government. We would rather not do this, but what is the alternative? If we do not get $30 million from this, then what else do we cut? Where else do we go in relation to those issues? You can see this debate that is going around in the budget. People are trying to talk about capital works, trying to compare capital works with recurrent expenditure.

When health goes up by 13½ per cent, that is just this year; it will probably be up by the same amount next year, and it compounds. Capital works are one of the measures in the budget. They can be accommodated by readjusting the capital budget and pushing other projects further out, but here where you are talking about ongoing budgets, year in and year out, compounding, the budget has to be balanced. That is why in countries like the UK, as I said, their alternative was to have a pay freeze for two years.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. A. Bressington: They are dead broke: no more money left.

The ACTING CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We will be dead broke too if we do not get our budget in balance, and that is exactly why we are doing this. These are the choices you have to make. If health is growing by these sorts of levels, and if you do not make an adjustment to your budget, then it will not balance; that is the reality. It is no good being in some sort of pretend world where you can pretend these issues away. They are there, whether you like it or not. Health and other sectors, which are now 35 per cent of the budget, are growing at 10 per cent a year. It is not just here: it is everywhere else in this country and in most of the western world. The disability sector is growing for all sorts of reasons.

If you are going to meet those needs and your revenues are growing at 5 per cent and they are growing at 10 per cent then something has to give. What we have to do is work out the fairest way to do it. There is no easy way to do it. You can have difficult ways to do it and more difficult ways to do it, but it is the lesser of two evils. The government opposes the amendment: it simply reverses the measure. It is a difficult issue for every member on this side but, as I said, we have to choose between very unpleasant alternatives here.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment. In saying that, I would like to make a couple of points. We keep hearing that this was a difficult decision, which absolutely everybody in here appreciates. The Hon. Bernie Finnigan said earlier that we have to change the superannuation entitlements in here because they are in the statutes, made law because the unions wanted them there. I wonder why the Labor government—I imagine it was a Labor government—agreed to put it in law, because it would have given the unions some sort of security that it was rock solid, that a Labor government would never go back on that, if it is in legislation. Point No. 2—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Never trust a Labor government.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: No; we are learning—prior to the election there would have been ample opportunity for this government to go to the chief executive of the Public Service, whoever it is it deals with, flag this and go through the right processes to make these cuts and to prepare the Public Service for what was about to come, but that would probably not have been politically wise before an election. So, what do we do? We wait until after the election—for as long as possible, mind you, until September—and then we whack them with it.

I do not think anybody would argue that the government has had tough decisions to make—we all get that. It is not what has been done, it is how it has been done. It has been done dishonestly and deceitfully, and it has been done simply to win an election in 2010, to get past that and then whack everybody as hard as you can. That is what people find unpalatable.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We are not whacking people as hard as we can. One only has to look at the budget commission for some of the alternatives.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You didn't say that before the election. You said everything was hunky-dory before the election.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We did not say everything was hunky-dory.

The ACTING CHAIR: The Hon. Rob Lucas will have his turn in a moment, if he wants it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This is part of the reinvented history of members opposite. The government made it clear that we were facing significant budget challenges; that was all made clear before the election. We set up the Sustainable Budget Commission, and there were a number of recommendations that the Sustainable Budget Commission made. One might not like this, but that is the financial reality that we face. As I have said, you only have to look at Europe to see that they are doing it far tougher than we are here.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question for the minister on that answer. The Sustainable Budget Commission—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, but the minister made a point and I want to qualify the point. The Sustainable Budget Commission, which was announced way back, delayed the budget until just a few weeks ago. Was the intent of the government to actually hold over the Sustainable Budget Commission past the election so that it would not be embarrassed by bringing the truth into the parliament before the election?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I was a member of the budget committee. This committee was sitting right up until a couple of weeks before the budget. It sat on numerous occasions going through all the recommendations and all the alternatives before the government. The government announced late last year—about 12 months ago, I believe—the establishment of the committee and why it was needed. It was clear that there were some ongoing financial issues.

However, the point that I am trying to get across—and I think that everyone needs to realise it—is that these issues do not just stop today. You get your budget balanced in 2010, but it does not mean that it is going to be balanced in 2014 or 2018. These are going to be ongoing issues because there is an underlying restructuring of our economy. The population is ageing. For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, there are more people leaving the workforce than coming into it. All these things are going to have big effects. More people are dependent on welfare payments, transfer payments from others, than at any other time.

Fewer and fewer people within the workforce are paying for more and more people outside it. The populations are living longer and the demographics are changing. This is all going to impact on the budget. So, just because we balanced it last year does not mean that we will be able to balance it next year or the year after.

When one looks at the differences in the budget and sees what was spent when this government came to office eight years ago in various areas relative to others, there have been some huge changes. Health has grown massively, absolutely massively. Some areas, such as education, have grown, but not quite as much, because the number of people at that age and the demographics have been in relative decline. There have been these big structural impacts, and the public sector has to react to them. That is why it has to change in relation to workforce targets and so on; you cannot avoid it. It would be great if it would go away. I would love it to go away. I wish we could just have the same thing year in, year out, but we will not. I think the sooner parliaments here face up to that fact, the better.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I oppose the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I think it is important to remember, yet again, the context in which this budget has been framed, that is, that the global financial crisis hit the state and, on my understanding, it led to a $1.4 billion fall in projected revenues over the forward estimates. That is an extremely large sum in the context of the South Australian budget.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That's not right anyway, Bernie.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Honourable members opposite seem to believe that the global financial crisis did not happen. They are in denial about it. I do not know what they think, or whether they think we are just making it up, but it is very clear that it has had a significant impact on government revenues not only in South Australia but around the country and, indeed, the world, and we simply must face up to that reality.

The other major context we have to remember is the growth in health spending. While we continue to provide the services that South Australians demand and expect through our health system, there is always going to be pressure on the health budget. We simply cannot have a situation where we start telling people that we cannot provide health services or that, because of budgetary constraints, they cannot get access to the health care they are entitled to. Obviously, we need to manage our health budget responsibly, but we cannot just put a cap and say, 'Well, that's it as far as health spending is concerned. We are just going to have to fit within that. If your needs are outside that, that's just tough.' That would be a grossly irresponsible way to approach the budget.

In relation to the comments on how this is all some sort of con after the election, the government announced the Sustainable Budget Commission a long time ago, after the GFC hit. It had been deliberating for a long time before the election, but we were facing the judgement of the South Australian people, and we respect that judgement.

We did not assume that we would win the election. I can just imagine the howls of outrage that would come from opposition members if we had put down a budget in April. They would be saying, 'You knew all this, you had this budget all locked away. You were presuming that you were going to win the election. You have no respect for the judgement of the people.' Of course, we did know that we were facing an election, and it was entirely up to the people of South Australia whom they elected; they may well have elected a Liberal government, which I am sure would have then been very grateful for the time to frame its budget and take into account the work of the Sustainable Budget Commission in determining how it would go about its budget priorities.

We were very clear about the fall in revenue that was projected, we were very clear about the Sustainable Budget Commission and its work, and we respected the judgement of the South Australian people in relation to an election. To suggest that we are somehow pulling the wool over people's eyes is just absurd. I know that members opposite like to think that the election was somehow stolen, even though the government won 26 of the 47 seats in the House of Assembly. As we all know, under the Westminster system—

The CHAIR: The honourable member should stick to the amendment.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: —you may not have had the benefit of the debate of other honourable members who, I can tell you, have ranged widely, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Not while I am here, Hon. Mr Finnigan. It is all yours.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Thank you for your guidance. I would like to respond to what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and I think some other honourable members were saying about industrial relations in a general sense; about 'a contact is a contract'.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: It would take an awfully long time. Basically, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire talked about a common law system, where you would have a common law contract between employers and employees and that would be it; the Jeff Kennett model. Maybe he advocated for that when he was in the Liberal government cabinet, I do not know; certainly, it put up very anti-worker industrial relations in its time, and it was blocked by this place.

Enterprise bargaining occurs within the statutory framework that applies for industrial relations. I would be shocked if the PSA, or any other union, said that it wanted to abandon a statutory framework for industrial relations and have a completely common law contract system. That is what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and other honourable members seems to be alluding to, that an EBA takes precedence over everything else and that anything an employer and an employee agree should be law.

We know that is not how our industrial relations system works, and I am sure that workers would be gravely disadvantaged if it did work that way. We have a system of industrial relations that relies on a statutory framework that governs how it works. We have laws about how enterprise bargains are made and what may and may not be in them, and so on. We are all aware that they have been very topical issues over the past several years, particularly at a federal level.

I think honourable members must turn their minds to the alternatives to these measures. We acknowledge that it is a difficult budget, a tough budget, and one that will cause pain for people in the community and their families. We accept that; we know that. The alternative is that we act irresponsibly and face a position—one that the UK, the US and most of Europe faces—in five or maybe 10 years, when the deficit is out of control. As the Leader of the Government alluded to, in the UK they are talking about, I think, 25 per cent cuts in recurrent expenditure, wage freezes and extremely high numbers of layoffs.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: They have a different banking system there.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The Hon. Michelle Lensink says it is a different banking system. I am glad that she approves of the Rudd government's swift action in guaranteeing bank deposits during the GFC. The member is obviously aware that the GFC happened in that context, but apparently not when it comes to the projected fall in state revenue.

Honourable members need to ask: what is the alternative? If they want to blow a close to $60 million hole in the budget (if you take the two entitlement measures together), they would have to ask themselves what it is that they want to get rid of or change. Do they want our trains to stay diesel and not be electrified? Would they like to have dirty diesel trains continue? Would they like the $70 million of disability funding to be cut? Would the Hon. Mr Brokenshire like the Southern Expressway to stay one way—the way that his cabinet invented it? Would they like public hospitals to put up a closed sign in April or May and say, 'Terribly sorry; we have run out of money. The budget has ended and we have got no more money for health spending, so you will just have to go home'?

This is the sort of absurd situation that the honourable members who support this amendment would put the government in, of blowing a hole in the budget and threatening the AAA credit rating, which saves the state a lot of money and attracts a lot of jobs. Instead, the government would need to decide what it is going to cut or what taxes it is going to raise.

We hear lots of—I won't use the word bleating; that would be most impolite, but we do hear much criticism from honourable members about this budget and about these measures. None of them have been able to say what their alternative is and what they would do. What is it that they would cut in recurrent spending, or in capital spending, that would enable the budget to be in the shape that it is because of the measures that we have had to take?

As difficult as those measures have been, as painful as we acknowledge that they must be, the government has a great responsibility to bring down a responsible budget that plans for the future and ensures that the state is not going to be in an invidious fiscal position into the future. That is what this budget is about, so if they want to go blowing holes in the budget, let us hear their alternative. Let us here where it is that they think spending should be cut or taxes should be increased.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The record cannot be allowed to stand with the statements made by the Hon. Mr Finnigan and the leader in relation to some of the claims that they have just put on the record during the committee stage and in the debate on this clause. Whilst I do not have the time or the patience this afternoon to point out all of the inaccuracies and errors in what they have just said, let me just quickly refer to two of them.

Firstly, the Hon. Mr Finnigan and the Hon. Mr Holloway both have said that they were honest and transparent with the Public Service in South Australia and the community prior to the election, because they had established the Sustainable Budget Commission. That, in fact, is palpably untrue. Firstly, they told the community that the budget was in a strong position, they had established a budget commission and it was going to look at $750 million worth of savings over the forward estimates period.

The reality is, what they concealed from the people and the Public Service was that they were in receipt of advice from Treasury which indicated that the work of the Sustainable Budget Commission would be looking for savings not of $750 million over the forward estimates, but well in excess of $2 billion over the forward estimates period. That is where the deception and duplicity came from the government to both the Public Service—its own employees—and to the people.

Yes, the Sustainable Budget Commission was there, but the task, the extent of the cuts and savings, were significantly more than double the size that they had revealed, even though they knew. The leader indicates he was evidently a member of the budget review committee, so he too would have been privy to that sort of information, so it was not just the Premier and Treasurer. The leader in this house would have been aware of that sort of information and deliberately kept that from the people of South Australia and the Public Service. That is the first point.

The second point is that the Hon. Mr Finnigan said that the opposition was misleading the chamber in relation to the impact of the global financial crisis. He said that the global financial crisis was going to cost the state budget $1.4 billion over the forward estimates. That is untrue. What the Treasurer has actually said—and this was a clever deception from the Treasurer—was that the $1.4 billion figure was not over the forward estimates period: it was from the year 2008 through to the year 2013. He took two of the past years and then he took this year and two of the forward years. He did not take the forward estimates period; he took a five year period, of which two have already passed.

As I said in the second reading contribution, we are still waiting for the reply in the Appropriation Bill debate. We certainly have our view and our information about a significant portion of this $1.4 billion financial pressure that he keeps talking about—and even his own members do not understand the deception, because the Hon. Mr Finnigan stands up in this chamber and attacks the opposition and says, 'We are going to lose $1.4 billion over the forward estimates.' That is not what the Treasurer has said. The Treasurer has actually said $1.4 billion over a five-year period, two of which have already passed, and because the global financial crisis, to the extent that it impacted on South Australia, impacted on us during that period, this period is significantly different from that first two-year period.

There are many others, and I will not delay the committee stage of the debate, but I do not believe members should stand in this chamber and listen to palpable nonsense from the leader and the putative leader as of next year in relation to the various claims they make about what the opposition has said and its supposed honesty prior to the last election. They would be two of a very small group of people limited to some members of the cabinet and caucus who believe this government has been honest on anything, let alone on these particular issues.

My question to the Leader of the Government on this clause is: in relation to the staff employed at Parliament House, do the reductions the government has introduced impact on all employees in Parliament House, in particular the employees of Hansard, the library, the Joint Parliamentary Service Committee and the employees of the two houses?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We are actually on clause 4, which is an amendment to the Education Act and we were using it as a test. I thought we were debating Mr Brokenshire's amendment, which basically was to restore the long service leave rates, so I am not quite sure in relation to Parliament House where that—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I thought we are debating all these issues.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: But it was in relation to long service leave?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The categories are specifically that the change will not apply to executive employees as they do not currently receive recreation leave loading.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I am talking about long service leave.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that that measure will cover all public sector employees, or that is the intent of it anyway.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I know the intent. I am asking whether, if this bill is passed (and this clause is one of many we will be asked to address), it will therefore impact on Hansard employees, library employees and employees of both houses of the parliament in relation to the government's intention to reduce long service leave?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The obvious answer is that, if they are employed under the Public Sector Act, that would be the case, but if they are not employed under that act that would be a different matter. My advice is that they may not be employed under the Public Sector Act, so it may not apply. We will have to check that out, but obviously for anyone who is employed under the Public Sector Act or, alternatively, under any act this bill is amending (because the clause we are technically debating is the amendment to the Education Act), it will apply. We will have to check through whether that is part of one of the acts, but it may not be. We will confirm that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Will the staff employed by members and ministers in their electorate offices be impacted in any way by the reductions in the long service leave that the government intends?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The advice we have from parliamentary counsel is that the only exceptions—and this would probably apply to those under the Parliament (Joint Services) Act because that is outside it—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: So what do you mean when you say 'the only exceptions'? What does that mean?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: These provisions will apply to everybody else in the Public Service other than those employed under that particular act.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I think you had better take advice.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have taken it but obviously the advice is being disputed. It appears as though the Parliament (Joint Services) Act is not being amended. Whether that is anomalous or not, I do not know, but it is not being amended and, therefore, it will not impact on that because they are not part of the act. But for others, my understanding is that it will because they are covered under the various provisions in this bill or the Public Sector Act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The latter question relates to electorate office staff. The electorate office staff are clearly not employed under the Parliament (Joint Services) Act; I am not sure what act the electorate office staff are employed under. Is it the government's intention to reduce the long service leave entitlements? I am not sure what the long service leave entitlements for electorate office staff are, but should they be the same? Is it the government's intention to reduce their long service leave entitlements as well?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My understanding would be that, yes, they would be subject to the same provisions as everybody else, other than this exception.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister advising this committee that those staff are employed under the Public Sector Act or one of the acts that are being amended?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have a partial answer. My advice is that the conditions that relate to people such as those in electorate offices is by a combination of regulations under the Public Sector Act. I am advised that the intention was that the same provisions would apply to all. That is certainly our expectation. If we can get more advice, I am happy to get it, but my advice is that it applies under a combination of both regulations under the act and the act itself.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can the minister advise the committee of the long service leave provisions of the ministerial staff in his office who are employed under ministerial contract (about which there has been some controversy in recent times, but I will not enter into that) and under his employment arrangements? If they are of a similar nature to those currently enjoyed by the public sector, is the minister proposing to reduce the long service leave entitlements of the ministerial staff employed under contract in his office?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Unquestionably, the intention of the measure—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I don't want the intention. I want to know what it is you are doing.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, that is the intention of it. That is what it intends to do.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It's not the intention; we want to know whether you are doing it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They would be in the same boat, as I understand it, with similar conditions as—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Are those ministerial contracts?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think the contracts are with the Premier. It is a long time since I have seen one of them, but I believe that the conditions of those relate to the public sector conditions, but I will check. My advice is that section 71 of the Public Sector Act, which is 'Employment of ministerial staff', it states:

71.1: The minister may engage a person as a member of the minister's personal staff on conditions determined by the Premier.

So those ministerial staff are, in effect, employed under the Public Sector Act. It is section 71 that gives the head powers for that to happen, so the advice I have is that, therefore, these changes that we are discussing will apply to them through that part of the act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Having had some recent discussion about section 71 of the Public Sector Act as it relates to the requirement of the Premier to reveal the total remuneration of Mr Alexandrides and indeed other ministerial staff, all that section says is that they are employed under the act. It does not say, upon my reading—and if the government is prepared to get legal advice I would like to hear it—that they must be employed under the same terms and conditions as all other public servants.

Indeed, their salary is one example; it is obviously different, as are their benefits in terms of access to mobile phones for 'reasonable private usage' or whatever the phrase is that is incorporated into that contract. Home broadband is another example. These are conditions that are not available to most, if not all, public servants.

Yes, they are employed under section 71 of the Public Sector Act, but what I specifically want to know is: what are the current long service leave entitlements of the ministerial staff in minister Holloway's office and people like Mr Alexandrides and others in the Premier's office? If they are of a similar quantum to those in the public sector, what commitment is the government giving to making similar changes to their own ministerial staff in relation to long service leave entitlements?

There is nothing that I see or have just heard from the minister that would indicate that these particular legislative enactments, if they go through the parliament in the next days or weeks, would apply to the ministerial staff in minister Holloway's office or, indeed, in the Premier's office. I seek some assurance from the leader that, prior to the passage of the bill through this chamber, we get a definitive response rather than 'This is the intention' or 'This is our belief' or 'This is what we think'.

It may well be that the minister needs to take advice. We are sitting tomorrow, obviously, and he may well need to take advice on this issue and I would understand that that might be the case. I am happy to accept that and if it were the will of the committee then at some stage if need be, in relation to ministerial staff, the clause could be revisited upon recommittal so that it does not delay our continuing debate in the committee stages.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I do not think there is any need to recommit it. It is quite clear that the government's intention is that it will apply to all state public sector employees, including ministerial staff. The honourable member would well know the way staff are employed, that in relation to their conditions they are all handled by the department, and the conditions that relate to annual leave and the like are administered through the relevant departments and in accordance with the public sector standard. That is my understanding of how it works. The pay and so on of those staff, although the pay might be set, is actually administered through the relevant departments and they would apply the long service leave in the same way as they do for other public servants. I would expect that will continue.

In relation to the actual legal instruments that do it, I guess that is the only issue here, but certainly the way that ministerial staff are employed, for as long as I have been here, has been that the departments administer it and they administer conditions in accordance with public sector standards. Of course, the same applies to the electorate office. All those members with electorate offices—the Hon. Gail Gago and myself are the only ones who do not have one because we are ministers—would know that it is the Department of Treasury and Finance that administers it and it administers their leave in accordance with the public sector standards. That is how it is done, and I expect that that is what will apply here. I can say, yes, it is the government's clear intention that it should apply and it will apply in terms of the administration.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You can't ask us to trust you, surely?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas can always move an amendment to cover ministerial staff if he is so worried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I might not have to, if it is covered and we can get some advice that indicates that it is. All I am saying is that this minister surely cannot stand up in this chamber and say 'Trust us' after what the government is just doing. I will not enter into that debate, but surely he cannot stand up in this chamber and expect members to trust him and the Premier in relation to an assurance on the issue. In relation to ministerial staff, we need something more than 'Trust us. This was our intention.' Sure as eggs the legislation is passed, they will say 'Oops, that was not really the case, we did not expect it to be, but they are going to hold on to their entitlements.'

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The only thing we are all agreed on is that the only group of employees that have nothing to lose in relation to this are members of parliament, who, of course, do not accrue long service leave for some curious reason, and do not receive the leave loading, again for some curious reason. I think the argument used to be that we were getting such extraordinarily generous superannuation—

The Hon. M. Parnell: Too generous.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —too generous, evidently—that we were not entitled to long service leave and leave loading, but that will be a debate, I guess, for another day.

As I said, we are obviously going to be sitting tomorrow, debating the budget bills. I again seek from the minister that he takes advice and at some stage before the passage of the bills we receive some clear advice from him that it is covered specifically by some provision in this bill, which he can refer to, or if it is not, some indication as to how it will be implemented by the government as it relates to their own ministerial staff, because I think it would not be a good look for the Premier and the minister in this house if they were implementing these changes for the Public Service and yet their own highly paid ministerial staff, in some way, by happenstance or circumstance, were not going to have the same restrictions applied to them. That is why I seek that assurance from the leader.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I thought I gave it, that it will apply. If the honourable member wants further details as to mechanisms, that is one thing, but as I have said, it is covered. They are employees. My advice, and I have given it to the chamber, is that, under that section 71, because they are employed, the authorising head power is the Public Sector Act and the conditions therefore will be administered to conform with the government's decision that all public sector employees will now have nine days' long service leave after, I think it is ten years, and that it will continue.

If the honourable member wants to go beyond that, I am not quite sure what I can do. One can have a look at particular contracts, but if you are suggesting that those contracts in some way exempt people, I do not believe that is the case.

Parliamentary counsel has been very helpful: he has given the assurance that this is the intention, and he believes it is covered with a combination of regulations. I certainly believe it is. We all know that staff have their salaries administered through the departments in accordance with public sector standards. That is what we expect would happen. If the honourable member wants to get the exact reference to regulations then we will try to do that before the end of the debate.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My question is in connection with messengers in this place and the other place. I would have thought those staff would be classed as shift workers and on that basis their conditions would not change.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think there are two issues here: one is long service leave and one is leave loading. The particular clause we are debating at the moment applies only to long service leave, and that is why the debate has been in that context. In relation to leave loading, there are special conditions. I presume that for those people employed under the Parliament (Joint Services) Act, if they are employed under a separate act and that is not amended by this bill, then presumably the same thing applies for leave loading as it does for long service leave. No, it does not; it is more complicated.

The CHAIR: Stick to this clause.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Let us deal with that one later. There are two issues here; we are talking about long service leave, and just on that issue that is where it is separate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this amendment by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. We take great pleasure in standing up for our public servants, in particular our teachers; we believe that they work long and hard and that we need to retain them in the teaching industry. We know that we will have a shortage of teachers in the future, and we know that we have trouble retaining good teachers, so why should we be making a rod for our own back?

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (7)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. (teller) Darley, J.A.
Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E. Parnell, M.
Vincent, K.L.
NOES (13)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.

Majority of 6 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 5, after line 18—Insert:

(2) Section 19—After subsection (4) insert:

(5) A person is a prescribed officer under subsection (1)(b) if the person is holding office in the teaching service immediately before the day on which the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) Act 2010 is assented to by the Governor.

(6) However, a person within the ambit of subsection (5) ceases to be a prescribed officer under this section if the person has a break in the officer's effective service in the teaching service.

This amendment relates to the Education Act, and it cuts off future Public Service workers from the protection concerning leave entitlements. I have already spoken to the general principles of this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment is essentially a follow-on from the debate we have just had, and the government opposes it.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will address my comments to both clauses 6 and 7. Clause 6 inserts a new part 6A and clause 7 is that new part 6A. I have a number of questions on this clause. The first one might seem an odd one, but I think it still deserves an answer: what on earth is this doing in the budget bill? This is a provision that relates to a variation, if you like, in EPA licensing. No doubt the minister will say that there are provisions in here that refer to an additional payment being made for one of these sustainability licences in addition to the regular licence fee, so perhaps that is the answer. However, my initial question is: have regulations been drafted or contemplated, and what type of additional fees are envisaged for those who are successful in their application for a sustainability licence?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The whole of new clause 7 enables these fees to be established. My advice is that it is a cost recovery measure, and the estimated revenue is $200,000 per annum in total.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. The other question is—I raised it a bit earlier today and now is the time to ask it again: why are these provisions being legislated when the government has, for at least the last year, been issuing sustainability licences?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that this was started as a trial to see how it went. It is now being legislated to entrench the measure, but it did begin as a trial and presumably it was successful.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am referring to the mechanism in clause 7, the new Part 6A. The notion, I guess, behind these licences is one that I support. That notion is that the EPA can work cooperatively with industry to reach agreement with industry, so that industry takes specific and substantial measures in an agreed time frame to do all sorts of good things: to protect, restore and enhance the environment; to facilitate consultation with the community; to facilitate auditing of what they are doing, and a range of things—all good things.

The flip side of the coin is that the authority can also agree with industry that the authority will help them and undertake to provide support to the holder of the licence, to facilitate implementation. This is all good stuff, but again my question relates to the need to legislate because the bottom line, it seems to me, is the proposed new subsection (3) of the proposed new section 57C, which says: 'An undertaking made under this section is not enforceable.'

In other words, an undertaking by the company to do all these good things is not enforceable. An undertaking by the EPA to help them is not enforceable; therefore, we really are in the realm of the EPA's general powers to seek cooperation and offer assistance. Why on earth do we need to legislate for unenforceable provisions?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the essential part of this bill is to enable the fees to be applied—that is 57E— but this program does provide certainty to those industries.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Environment Protection Act already has mechanisms for doing this sort of thing. Environment improvement programs are legislative mechanisms, it seems, to do exactly the same things as expressed in these sustainability licences. Now, maybe the minister's answer will be the same, that the only real difference is that you are allowed to charge more for reaching this sort of an agreement with the company. Is that the only difference between the measures envisaged here in sustainability licences and the existing measures, such as, for example, I think they are called EIPs (environmental improvement programs) under the act?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The answer to the question is no. My advice is that environmental improvement programs are used to bring industries into compliance. Here we are talking about a program that is beyond compliance. It is applied to companies that are already complying.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am grateful to the minister for those answers, although I am not much the wiser about sustainability licences. The budget papers actually mention other sustainability products, such as Eco-mapping. I understand that there are some companies and other organisations which are already operating in this space.

Eco-mapping is a term which was first mooted by the founder of this process, Mr Heinz-Werner Engel, who has come to Adelaide to give presentations on the process. His website actually states the conditions of use of Eco-mapping, which I understand is a proprietary term, and indicates that it is (quoting from the website) 'a copyrighted tool developed by Heinz-Werner Engel and distributed in the framework of the INEM project "EMAS Toolkit for SMEs"'. The website further states:

Mr Engel [and INEM have] decided to make Eco-mapping available free of charge to any interested individuals, companies, organisations and local authorities for personal [or individual] use. The Eco-mapping tool may not be repackaged for profit-making purposes without the express consent of Mr Engel. Furthermore, organisations shall report on their experience with the Eco-mapping tool to feed experience into the loop of continuous improvement for the Eco-mapping tool. By downloading this tool you…agree to the above conditions.

Will the minister outline what exactly this comment in the budget papers is anticipating and what services the government will be providing? Is it providing an Eco-mapping service, or where is it going with this?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This is not seeking to make a profit from it, but I understand the agency has the support and endorsement of the owner for this program. It is not seeking to make a profit from it, but it is to recover the costs involved with running the program.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The business sustainability unit is not actually part of the EPA but sits under DTEI somewhere.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that sustainability programs are run under a group called the Business Sustainability Alliance, of which the EPA is one of four agencies, along with Zero Waste SA, DTED and SA Water. They are all part of that alliance.

Clause passed.

Clause 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I really do not understand this clause. In clauses 6 and 7 we have been talking about the new sustainability licences. Clearly, the regime created is a relationship of good faith between the companies and the EPA. I say that it is a relationship of good faith because there is nothing binding in it. The company is not bound to do any of the things it promises to do, and the EPA is not bound to do anything it promises to do. Yet in clause 8 we have the ability for a company to go to the Environment, Resources and Development Court and appeal in a court of law against the EPA's refusal to enter into this good faith arrangement that is not binding. It beggars belief! The question is: why would you allow an appeal—and the fundamental part of it: what could possibly be the grounds of appeal?

Look at it like this: the company goes along to the court and says, 'Court, we offered to give the EPA the extra money it asked for, and we offered to enter into a non-binding agreement to do all sorts of things, and the EPA refused.' What will the court say? Will the court test what the company was promising to do against some sort of world's best practice standard and say, 'Well, sorry, company; we agree with the EPA: you're not up to it, therefore you don't get one of these licences that isn't binding anyway.' I think the minister gets where I am coming from. I can not understand why this relationship is the proper subject of an appeal to a court.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it could give a company the opportunity to appeal against a decision by the EPA not to give a licence.

The Hon. M. Parnell: That's exactly right, but only a sustainability licence.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes. It is simply to provide that capacity, but obviously one would not expect that this provision would be widely used. I suppose we have lots of legislation that is in there for completeness. We do not expect it to be used very often but we try to anticipate all possible eventualities. Essentially, my advice is that it is there because that could be the situation where it could be used if someone wanted to appeal against not being given one of these sustainability licences because the authority thought for some reason they were not worthy of it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just a comment on that response: I think the minister is exactly right. It will not be used very often. This will never be used, unless these sustainability licences attain some sort of currency in the business community like 'by appointment to Her Majesty the Queen' or some boxing kangaroo or some form of endorsement that is so valuable that companies are prepared to go to court to fight for the right to have this non-binding endorsement on their licence. I just cannot see for the life of me that it will ever be used.

I understand that what parliamentary counsel has done at the request of the government is that companies have the right to appeal against the refusal to grant a normal licence, so we might as well give them the right to refuse one of these sustainability licences. But I would be absolutely gobsmacked if this section were ever used because the relationship between the EPA and the company, which is this relationship of good faith, clearly will have broken down if you have the company taking the EPA to court arguing over these environment protection measures. So I do not propose to do any more with it but I make that point that this is a misplaced appeal provision.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is not the place to argue it here but I am aware in some areas that companies may want to 'greenwash' their credentials. I know there are some examples where obtaining certain green credentials can be worth an awful lot of money, just like 'GM free' and 'organic'. Those certifications have a value because they create a certain value in the marketplace.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 9 is consistent with the regime in the act, and that is that licences are put on the public register, including these new sustainability licences. I raised the issue earlier and now is an opportunity for me to ask the minister: when will the EPA move to put these licences online (freely available) rather than require members of the public to go through the rigmarole of a public register application and pay, as I indicated this morning, $100.80 per hour of computer time simply to extract what is already an easily accessible electronic document to all the staff at the EPA? Why cannot that be made available to the public for free now?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that all of the EPA's 2,200 authorisations—that is, licences, exemptions, works approvals—are available to the public via the public register. The EPA is not required by law to have an electronic public register but it is required to provide information on the public register at the request of the public, which it does. The EPA charges for provision of copies of these documents to cover the cost of the resources needed to copy them.

Sustainability licences have been placed on the website, as this was a new initiative that integrated a company's commitment to go beyond compliance measures with their statutory licence. Companies that hold sustainability licences were keen to make public their commitments to 'beyond compliance' sustainability measures. The EPA board resolved at its last meeting to commit to a long-term strategy to place a range of information on the EPA website. However, it understands that this requires significant resourcing to build an IT system to support and keep the information up-to-date.

Through the 2010-11 budget, the EPA was successful in gaining funding to replace its outdated IT systems. Over the next three years, the EPA will work to integrate its IT systems which will further support the commitment to make information, such as licences, available electronically. I trust that that good news will be appreciated by the honourable member.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for that response and for his information about the rapid pace at which the EPA is moving into the 21stcentury. Just for the benefit of members, I have been having this discussion with the EPA since 1993 when it was first established, because some of us were using computers back then.

The minister said that the sustainability licences have been freely available on the internet because it was a trial and because the companies were keen to have broadcast to the world the fact they had one of these sustainability licences. My question is: in the immediate future, is it the EPA's intention to put only the licences of the best performers on the internet for free, such as the Castalloy licence, whilst the licences of perhaps the less well performing companies need to be obtained on the public register via the payment mechanism that the minister described?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that that is not the EPA's intention but, given that there are 2,200 of these licences, exemptions and works approvals, it will obviously take some time to get them all up. I think the honourable member has asked about discrimination, if you like, between companies.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just a final point: I offer to the minister that myself and a couple of friends could put them all up in an afternoon, if the EPA would like.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. B.V. Finnigan): The committee thanks the Hon. Mr Parnell for his generous offer.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 16 passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This provision covers the issue of ex gratia payments in relation to the first-time owners grant. My first question is: in the transitional provisions, are there to be any changed arrangements under what the government is proposing in relation to ex gratia payments compared to the current arrangements for ex gratia payments?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it is the government's intention to pay an additional bonus grant for new homes from $4,000 to $8,000 when this legislation is passed and ratified, but there is no entitlement to pay those grants at present. This measure ratifies that payment of grants now before the act is passed. In effect, it is just a retrospective measure to enable those grants to be paid currently; otherwise, there would be no mechanism.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I understand what the government is saying, for a period the government will make the payments as if the act applied and they will just call them ex gratia payments; is that correct?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They will be ex gratia payments until the act comes into effect.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that clarification. My question then generally applies: I assume there are also different categories of ex gratia payments that the Treasurer is occasionally asked to provide, not as part of a transitional arrangement as envisaged here. Can the minister indicate approximately how many ex gratia payments through a financial year the Treasurer would pay under the First Home Owner Grant provisions?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is there have been very few, perhaps one or two over the life of the grant itself.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can the minister indicate, through his adviser obviously, the small number of ex gratia payments, the approximate range of payments, in terms of the size or the quantum that the Treasurer has paid during the life of the scheme?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I can only recall one grant that I think was $7,000. It could have been up to $21,000, the maximum amount.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy if the minister's adviser is able to take this on notice. I do not want to delay the proceedings. Would it be possible for each of the last two years to provide to the committee, or to me, the number of ex gratia payments made under this scheme and the individual quantum in each case? As I said, I am happy for that to be taken on notice.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is clarified, so yes, we can provide that.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 14, after line 28 [clause 18(1)]—Insert:

(1aa) However, if an unregistered motor vehicle other than a heavy vehicle is driven or caused to stand by a person in prescribed circumstances, the person is guilty of an offence against subsection (1) only if the person knew that the vehicle was unregistered.

Amendments Nos 2 to 4 are in essence consequential to amendment No. 1. For the sake of convenience, I will speak to all of these amendments together. The amendments relate to the proposal to abolish the use of registration labels for light vehicles effective as of 1 July 2011. As we all know, this change will mean that owners of light vehicles will no longer be required to display a registration label. As a result of this new measure, the government has inserted a defence into the bill for those drivers of light vehicles who are not the registered owner or registered operator of the vehicle, where the driver can establish that they did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the vehicle was unregistered.

That defence is contained in clause 18 of the government bill, which amends section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. I applaud the government for introducing this measure. These measures extend to all drivers of light vehicles, other than persons who take a vehicle on hire, and they extend to those drivers, irrespective of whether the vehicles are being privately used or in the course of employment. The proposed amendments seek to address the issue of employees driving a vehicle in the course of their employment.

The effect of the first amendment is that if an unregistered light vehicle is driven or caused to stand by an employee in the course of their employment, and at the direction of their employer, then that person will be guilty of an offence only if they knew the vehicle was unregistered. In terms of establishing that the person knew the vehicle was unregistered, the onus of proof rests with the prosecutor, so it is, in effect, the reverse situation of that in clause 18 of the government bill.

It is important to stress that the amendment extends only to employees driving the vehicle that requires to be driven in the course of their employment. For instance, mechanics are required to drive vehicles that have been brought in by customers for servicing and valet drivers are required to drive vehicles that have been dropped off for parking by customers. That is part of their job, and they would be covered if those vehicles were unregistered. On the other hand, the amendment would not extend to an employee who uses their own vehicle, or a family member's or friend's vehicle, during the course of their employment or to get to and from work.

The amendment also allows for these provisions to be applied to individuals, or a class of individual, other than employees as prescribed by regulation. The reason for this is to make it easier for the government to extend the application of these provisions to any other class of drivers who may be affected by changes regarding registration labels. The amendment overcomes the need to further amend the legislation if it becomes apparent that other vehicle drivers, such as volunteers, for instance, ought to have the benefit of these provisions.

The Motor Trade Association of South Australia Incorporated has been particularly vocal on this issue on behalf of its members. They have lobbied both the government and the opposition in relation to their concerns about the impact that the removal of registration labels will have on their members. They make the point that it would be extremely time consuming and inefficient for busy dealerships and their service departments, which may have dozens of cars being dropped off and moved on again on any given day, to have to check whether the vehicle is registered by using an online or telephone service. Events out of their control, such as DTEI computing system errors, would further complicate this matter.

I appreciate that the defence in clause 18 of the bill would apply to those drivers, but this will not alleviate the potential for unnecessary disruption to be caused to both employers and employees. There are many other drivers who in the course of their employment are required to drive vehicles they do not own or are registered to operate and who could also find themselves caught up in a situation of unknowingly driving an unregistered vehicle. They include: valet drivers, taxi drivers, chauffeurs, couriers, tradespersons and delivery drivers. It is hard to imagine requiring all these drivers to check a website or make a phone call to make sure that the vehicle they are driving has been registered, particularly if they are not always using the same vehicle.

The aim of the amendments is simply to make it easier for those drivers to go about their ordinary business during the course of their employment in an efficient manner. It should not be the responsibility of those drivers to ensure that the vehicle they are driving is registered; that responsibility rests with the owner.

I have met with the minister and departmental officials in relation to the proposed amendment, and the minister has indicated that the government will not be supporting it. The reason for this is that it is the government's view that the defence inserted by clause 18 will be enough to ensure that employees are not unduly prosecuted for driving an unregistered vehicle. I might add again that I applaud the government for taking this step in inserting such a defence for drivers.

I think it is also fair to say that, based on our discussion, the minister believes that we are only talking about a small proportion of people who will be caught up in this and that she is concerned that the proposed amendment will allow employees to maliciously drive a vehicles knowing it to be unregistered without facing any consequences. The reason provided for this is that it would be too difficult for the police to prove a case against the driver.

My response to this would be that this is no different to any other offence that requires the police to prove a case against a defendant. I am not convinced that it will be as easy as the minister claims for employees to prove to police on the spot that they were unaware that the vehicle was unregistered and therefore avoid the need to make out a defence against any subsequent charges.

This is not intended to be a criticism of police doing their job: I just do not think that it will be as easy as the minister suggests to meet the defence on the roadside, particularly in view of the fact that it is not a requirement to carry a driver's licence at all times. I am also not convinced that the pool of individuals who could potentially be caught up in this is as small as has been indicated. In any event, the police will still be able to charge the owner of the vehicle with an offence.

I think it is completely unfair for the minister to suggest that if these amendments are passed the government could withdraw its insertion of a defence for drivers and revert to the ridiculous situation of drivers being fined in all cases. To reiterate, I support the government's insertion of a defence for drivers who were unwittingly driving an unregistered vehicle. These amendments are really an extension of those provisions. This is a very sensible amendment, and I urge all honourable members to support it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment which seeks to exempt people, such as dealers, mechanics, employees, etc., from prosecution if driving someone else's car during the course of their work. We oppose this amendment because we believe that it is unnecessary and will complicate prosecutions. Currently, the driver offence applies even if there is an expired label, or no label, on the vehicle. The government amendment relaxes that position to acknowledge the removal of labels and shifts the responsibility to the owner of the vehicle through a new owner offence. So we have created a new defence and a new offence provision.

This gives police an alternative offence if the driver can explain that they could not reasonably be expected to have known the vehicle was unregistered. It is likely that employees of car repairers, taxidrivers, etc., will be able to provide such an explanation to police, who would then, in turn, pursue the owner instead. We believe that, on most occasions, this is likely to be quite a straightforward and very simple exchange, probably at the roadside.

The Hon. Ann Bressington raised the issue of an emergency. We believe that an emergency would also be a circumstance where it may not be reasonable to make inquiries. The amendment will unnecessarily complicate the offence and will make it difficult to prosecute, because it will require the police to prove that the driver knew the vehicle was unregistered which, I am advised, is an almost impossible position to prove. It will also require police to prove that the driving was in the course of employment and was required by the employer, adding to the complexity of the prosecution.

SAPOL does not support these amendments, nor does the Motor Accident Commission. The Motor Accident Commission said very succinctly:

Our view remains that we do not support the creation of an exemption for one class of drivers of vehicles or a separate standard of defence. The phrase 'could not reasonably be expected to have known' is used elsewhere in the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in section 116 with respect to the recovery rights of the nominal defendant. To create a lesser defence, as proposed, would result in there being an inconsistency with section 116.

The other issue in terms of problems with this amendment is that it inadvertently—I am sure it is inadvertently—creates a loophole. It creates a situation which enables drivers to escape prosecution, where they could have quite deliberately and knowingly driven an unregistered or unlicensed vehicle, by simply remaining silent.

This amendment would require police to prove that the driver knew the vehicle was unregistered, and this requirement, as I said, is difficult for police to prove, particularly as a driver could choose to actually remain silent. So, if a driver simply refused to comment, there would be no ability, I have been advised, to prosecute this type of offence. It would inadvertently create a loophole where an employee who knew that the car was unregistered, and therefore uninsured, could deliberately drive that car knowing that they could get away with it simply by refusing to make any comment to the police.

This bill provides $5.7 million in savings. It creates savings without having to cut or reduce services, which, unfortunately, a number of our budgetary savings measures have had to do. This is a red tape reduction initiative. It works really well in Western Australia, where it has been in place since the beginning of the year and, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no reported problems or adverse consequences as a result of this provision being put in place. A number of other states are also looking at removing registration stickers. A number of other countries and states within the United States do not use registration stickers, and they have not done so for some time. So, there is plenty of recorded evidence regarding this system.

I know that people often feel uncomfortable with change, and it is a change, but registration stickers are unnecessary. This is a red tape reduction saving; it is not reducing services to consumers. It is $5.7 million in savings, and if we were to reduce this, it would create a budgetary shortfall and we would have to find other initiatives to fill that gap. I think it is very sensible. I know that it means change, and I know that some measures would have to be put in place to deal with the transition arrangements so that the industry and consumers get used to the idea of not having a registration sticker, but it is not required.

We believe that the bill adequately provides for a defence, and for the first time. Currently, employees who are caught driving an unregistered vehicle that they do not own are prosecuted; they are fined. Employees currently have to wear that burden. This bill provides a defence for those employees. For the first time, employees will not be automatically pinged. At the moment, employees—car mechanics, valets, and all those sorts of people—who are unfortunate enough to drive an unregistered vehicle are automatically fined. They have no defence. They cannot go to court and fight it out on the grounds of this type of defence, they are pinged. This bill—

The Hon. A. Bressington: Their boss can sign a statutory declaration and then the boss pays the fine.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Let us be clear about this. It is currently an offence for anyone, including an employee, to drive an unregistered car. They are automatically charged. This new provision says that they are not going to be automatically charged. There is a defence: if they did not know or could not reasonably have known, they can now get off having to pay the fine.

The Hon. A. Bressington: They can still get off.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You cannot get off on the grounds that you did not know or could not reasonably have known. The only way you can get off is if, for instance, the car is found to be registered—as in Mr Darley's brother's circumstance. I hope I am not divulging any confidences there.

The Hon. J.A. Darley: No.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank you. Sorry, whew! That was a situation where the accusation was that the car was not registered but when they checked the records the car was, in fact, registered. In circumstances like that people can get off but you cannot get off the offence of driving an unregistered car in this state just because you do not own the car or do not know that the car is not registered or someone did not inform you.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You can have a look at the sticker.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: But almost no-one looks at the sticker. We can say the sticker is there but it creates a false sense of security.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, it is not the spin doctors. I have been doing poll testing and talking to people for months and there is not one person that I have asked who can fess up to routinely or regularly checking their rego sticker. They take it for granted. Let us be honest with ourselves: some people do it, sure, but very few people do. It is a false sense of security.

We will be putting in place some very simple and easy mechanisms for people to be able to check registration. This is a red tape reduction saving. It is not resulting in service cuts. It would create a budget shortfall if we were to remove it and, therefore, we would have to be looking at other, possibly much more severe, savings initiatives to fill that budget hole.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Earlier today I said that I was sympathetic to moving towards a system that relied less on pieces of paper and stickers and things like that, but I did say, in that context, that it has to be workable and that if it is not workable then we should not do it. Let us go back to first principles. Most people would accept that we want all cars used on our roads to be both registered and insured. The question then becomes: if that is the expectation, where does the liability lie when cars are used on the roads that are not registered and insured? Should primary responsibility rest with the driver, should it rest with the owner or should it be some mix of the two?

I have practised briefly in the criminal jurisdiction and one of the most common scenarios in the Magistrates Court—certainly in Victoria when I was doing this 25 years ago—was a situation where, for example, there is a husband and wife and let us say the wife brought home the pay cheque, gave the money to the husband and said, 'This is for the rego.' The husband goes to the pub and uses it for drink, gambling or whatever and then the wife drives the car and she gets pinged. Most people would ask, in terms of culpability, has she done enough? Should she be badgering her husband and saying, 'I gave you that money. Has the sticker arrived yet?' and he says, 'No, dear; it's been delayed in the post.' You can imagine the scenario where culpability really ought not lie with that driver.

Coming to Mr Darley's amendments, I do not see that they fundamentally upset this new regime that the government is creating. What they do is implement some of the changes that the Motor Trade Association has suggested. On Mr Darley's own admission, they do not completely eliminate the range of circumstances where people—who most of us would think of as innocent—are, in fact, protected by a defence. For example, Mr Darley's defence talks about someone who is being required by his or her employer to drive the vehicle. Now, of course, that does not pick up the situation of panel beaters, for example, who are self-employed and who themselves may be driving a vehicle around.

Notwithstanding that it does not cover the field completely, it does cover those people who are in what I would say the completely innocent category of people who are just doing their job. I do not think that support for this amendment undoes the government's regime. Having said that, I am also now growing towards the idea that, in the absence of a workable system across a range of scenarios, maybe the labels, for all their expense, are still what we need. But that is not before us at the moment: what is before us are these extra defences and the Greens will be supporting them.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member states that one of the requirements for change is that it be workable. Well, this is workable and it has been proven to be workable. It is working in Western Australia with, as I said, at this point in time no adverse consequences in relation to the changes, and with significant savings. So, it is working well there, albeit there was concern at its introduction and its transition. They are over that hump now and it appears to be working well.

It operates in a number of states in the US and has been operating there for some time. So, it is workable in the US, in states that have millions of people and cars. It is workable in Denmark and Brazil—countries that have had this in place now for some time. So, it has been proven to be workable. I challenge that there is something to indicate that this is not workable. We actually have proof that this is workable.

In terms of the example that you are concerned about, with the husband who drinks the rego money, nothing will change with this legislation. This legislation would not address that situation. Currently, that woman would be found to have committed an offence, so she would be found guilty of driving an unregistered vehicle under the current legislation because she is the owner of the vehicle.

Under the bill, that would remain unchanged. The bill does not affect that; she would remain the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, the offender in those circumstances. It is unchanged, so it is not creating any extra or additional burden for this so-called innocent category. Perhaps you should be saying that we should be looking at amendments to address that. Maybe, but I am saying that this piece of legislation does not bring about any change to that particular group of people.

I reiterate that the amendment creates a loophole whereby people can deliberately and knowingly drive an unregistered car and avoid being charged with an offence. Now, I think that is outrageous. We are legislators, and I know that some of us are concerned about change and what that will mean and how the industry will cope with that. I believe that we have adequate explanations about that, but to completely dismantle a red tape reduction initiative that creates significant savings and leave this legal loophole through which people can deliberately and knowingly drive an unregistered vehicle is really bad legislation. That is an outrageous situation for us as responsible legislators to be putting in place.

I know the Hon. John Darley does not intend it to have that effect, but that is the effect it has; it leaves a loophole. The Hon. John Darley and I have spoken about this and I accept that the number of people who would get off scot-free under this would probably not be large, but that does not matter. We would be creating legislation that we know would create a whopping great loophole for people to do illegal things. We know that the consequences of driving an unregistered and uninsured car are diabolical for some people. It can ruin their lives and the lives of their families; it can have enormous consequences. To sit here and knowingly allow someone to fall through that loophole I think is irresponsible.


[Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 19:50]


The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I indicated in the second reading when this initial issue was raised by the Motor Trade Association, one of the issues I raised on behalf of Liberal members was the potential for a wider group of people possibly to be impacted rather than just motor vehicle dealers. In particular, I raised the issue of persons involved in valet parking at the casino or at hotels. In his normal efficient way the Hon. Mr Darley has drafted amendments, which have now catered not only for the motor vehicle dealers set of circumstances but also those in relation to valet parking and, as he has outlined, some other examples as well.

In determining our position on these amendments, we have not received from the government, despite our invitation during the second reading, any information as to whether there would be any impact on the budget bottom line. No evidence has been produced to the committee of any impact on the budget bottom line for the potential support of the amendments that have been moved by the Hon. Mr Darley. The minister has indicated—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Mr Darley's amendments were only tabled today.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: And your point?

The Hon. G.E. Gago: How can we deal with the budget's impact on something that was only tabled today?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Because I raised the questions in the second reading about four days ago.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes I did.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: No, not these provisions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes I did. I raised the issue—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I don't know—

The CHAIR: Soldier on!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am being viciously attacked by the minister in intemperate fashion. She has enjoyed a good dinner, but she has the opportunity to speak after I have concluded my remarks.

The CHAIR: Well, carry on.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If you could just keep the minister under control just for a smidgen while I indicate the position. Just to repeat, having just received a vicious barrage from the minister, I raised this issue during the second reading contribution when I spoke earlier this week on Tuesday, I think, and I outlined the issues in relation to the Motor Trade Association. I indicated that the association had written to the Treasurer, I think, on 22 October. They provided a copy of that letter to the opposition and, indeed, to other members. As a result of the motor vehicle dealers' submissions to us, I said that one of the problems was how you would cater for valet parking and other occupations which might be an issue as well.

As I said, my invitation to the Treasurer was to indicate to the committee what the government's position was in relation to the submissions from the motor traders. I accept that government's position was not relayed back to me, but I know there were discussions going on with the Hon. Mr Darley, and the minister and her advisers have met with the Hon. Mr Darley on this issue. At the first opportunity during the second reading debate we raised this issue. The minister has come back today and raised a potentially substantive issue, probably on her advice, that there is a potential loophole. We are not entirely convinced of that, but we are prepared, as always, to be reasonable with these sorts of things. It is our intention to keep the matter alive.

The House of Assembly evidently has gone home, Mr President—and I guess that would not have escaped your attention—and I am not sure why we are still labouring here late at night. In fact, I am not sure how they put their hands out at the end of the month and accept their salaries with a straight face. However, given that the House of Assembly is not here, this bill will not be able to pass both houses of parliament, particularly if it is amended, until the House of Assembly deigns to come back and do some work, which will be on Tuesday in two weeks' time. Of course, the House of Assembly could have suspended their proceedings and come back tonight or, as the Legislative Council is doing, actually sit tomorrow if they wish, but they have decided not to.

They obviously have more important issues to attend to than the passage of important budget legislation through both houses of the parliament. In the interests of keeping the issue alive, we indicate that we will support the amendments of the Hon. Mr Darley. However, we invite the government, if they believe there is a loophole, to draft or suggest alternative amendments during further consideration in the House of Assembly, should the bill pass the Legislative Council, and see if it is an issue that can be resolved, given that we now have two weeks potentially to resolve the issue between houses. I also understand that there is every likelihood (one of the other issues I raised earlier) that the government may well have to amend its own bill anyway—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Clearly, all we can say is thank goodness for the Legislative Council in relation to proper review of the proceedings of the parliament and proper oversight of legislation. We had a situation where what the government was doing was removing benefits from the Legislative Council staff but, for some reason, it decided that other staff in Parliament House were going to be treated differently. Our own hardworking staff here were going to be impacted through reduced entitlements, but for some reason the government had taken the view that other staff in Parliament House were not going to be impacted.

Whichever way the government was going to go, clearly there was an argument either not to impact on all Parliament House staff or to impact on Parliament House staff, rather than for some reason selecting our own Legislative Council staff to be impacted and for some other reason deciding not to impact on staff in other parts of Parliament House. As the Hon. Mr Parnell has pointed out to me, the government has now tabled an amendment, which we will obviously need to consider. Given that our House of Assembly colleagues are long gone, I am not sure why we are still sitting here at 8 o'clock at night doing this.

One could understand if it was all going to be done this week and the House of Assembly was going to reconvene tomorrow because there would be some good argument for our still being here at 8 o'clock at night. If the government is going to amend its own legislation, which means therefore it cannot pass both houses of parliament tonight, for the life of me, I cannot understand what this government is doing in terms of its management of the business and the proceedings of the house. Perhaps caucus members from the government may like to take that up with their own leadership in the government in terms of managing the processes. The bill potentially will be amended anyway, if the government's own amendments are supported by a majority.

In the interests of keeping this issue alive—we do not lock ourselves into a permanent long-term position, if there is a better way of drafting these amendments, and I am sure that would be the Hon. Mr Darley's position as well—if there is a better way of achieving what needs to be achieved and closing off any potential loophole, then certainly on behalf of Liberal members we are prepared to listen to the government. Being ever reasonable as we are in the opposition, we are prepared to consider any further amendment and, while the Hon. Mr Darley can speak for himself, I suspect he would be similarly disposed to consider any potential tightening of the amendments that he has drafted. So for those reasons, at this stage anyway, we indicate our support to allow further consideration of the issue.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (13)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. (teller)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Parnell, M. Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L.
Wade, S.G.
NOES (6)
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS (2)
Ridgway, D.W. Zollo, C.

Majority of 7 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 15, after line 14 [clause 18(6)]—Insert:

(6b) A motor vehicle is driven or caused to stand by a person in prescribed circumstances for the purposes of subsection (1aa) if—

(a) the person is not an owner or the registered operator of the vehicle and he or she is required by his or her employer to drive the vehicle, or to cause the vehicle to stand, in the course of his or her employment; or

(b) the motor vehicle is driven or caused to stand in circumstances declared by the regulations.

For the reasons already outlined, I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Leave out this clause.

The reason I move this amendment is that, although I agree with the Hon. John Darley's sentiment on this, I do not believe it is in the spirit of this place to grant exceptions to the people who are members of the MTA or who perform certain jobs that require them to drive cars.

The majority of people out there are not in favour of the removal of registration stickers, head's up. I have spoken to about 300 people as a bit of a poll—they do not want it. They just do not want it, and they believe that when registration stickers were brought in in the first place it was, No. 1, an aid to police to be able to flag cars that may not have been registered, which is fair enough.

They also believe that the other reason for bringing it in was as a reminder, as a bit of a service to them as well and they were paying for that service. The Hon. Gail Gago issued a press release, which I have here, that states that admin fees are going to go up $1 to $2 and that will bring in a modest $13.7 million in revenue. If people do not want registration stickers removed, put those admin fees up another $1 or $1.50 and reap yourselves another $6 million and we still have the same system in place. People are not going to feel like they are being corralled in.

I can see the Hon. Bernie Finnigan over there smirking yet again at another rise but, let's face it: third-party rises in car insurance and all the rest of it, if this was going to tip people over the edge, they were cost increases that were going to be hard-hitting on average families, and they have survived that.

As I have said from the very beginning, that this is a trap. It is another foreseen revenue stream and I just think that we are being totally unfair by granting an exemption to certain groups of the community to assist them to avoid a $2,000 fine and then saying to the rest of the community, 'Well, bugger you—wear it.' I have moved my amendment and I ask members to consider carefully.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First supports the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment. We also supported the Hon. John Darley's because we have to get some common sense into this debate about looking after people who are caught inadvertently driving an unregistered vehicle. We supported the Hon. John Darley's amendment in case this amendment was not supported.

I would hope that the Liberal Party will consider the fact that this is not breaking a convention; they would still be supporting the budget. The Liberal Party agreed with the Hon. John Darley because it was worried about people in working situations (for example, a mechanic) driving a vehicle not knowing whether it was registered or unregistered and then copping a fine. The Liberal Party is supporting the budget bill, by and large. This is not a Liberal Party amendment; it is an amendment of the Hon. Ann Bressington, but it is an amendment—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: By and large, they are. They will not be rolling you on it. They are voting with you on the big ticket items. This is not a big ticket item in the budget, but it is something that will cause enormous stress and concern for many constituents. I agree with the Hon. Ann Bressington. We also have constituents who are very concerned about the fact that these disks are going to be removed from motor vehicles. I think that there are some things which you can save money on and some things which you cannot. At the end of the day, with the massive increases in registration and registration costs generally, the cost of the sticker is built into all of this. What the government is looking to do now is looking at a small amount of money—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: But they are not returning that to our constituents. Our constituents will still have to pay exactly the same fee. Again, because of the ineptness of this government, they are attacking the community. I remind members that, parallel to this, there has been this massive increase in expiation notices and potential fines, and, in a lot of circumstances, they will be issued to innocent motorists who have driven an unregistered car. The government should be focusing on all those people who deliberately never register their vehicles and never get a licence, and drive around day in and day out—that is where the focus should be. I would like to see the stickers made available again, and this is probably the only opportunity we will have to see that happen. We will be supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I support the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment, but I do have a question: is the effect of the amendment likely to delete the defence?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: The legal advice I have is that it will revert back to the status quo of what it was before. The Hon. Gail Gago has said that there is no way that you could get out of being pinged or charged if you were driving a vehicle that was not yours. You would get a statutory declaration filled out by the person who owns the car and have it signed and that ping would go to the person who owns the car. That process has been in place forever, and it has been used quite often. Although it may not get rid of the initial fine, it certainly transfers it to the person who owns the car.

This thing is about all roads leading to court, and that is what bothers me. If somebody is pinged for this and faces a $2,000 fine, do they then have to give up a day's pay to go to court to fight it? I remind members in this place that, not so long ago, there was a big kafuffle about the motor registration office's computer. There was a week on the Leon Byner Show, where people were ringing in saying that they could not get through, that the computer did not work and that it crashed and was not up to date. As the Hon. Robert Lucas said to the Hon. Paul Holloway: do we just believe you that this is all in place and that it is all going to work well?

On the subject of call centres—what a great fallback that is. We all know that you can sit on a queue for 25 minutes just to get through to a child protection worker, for God's sake! So is this actually going to work any better? It is this fairyland of how things 'might' work. We do not have any trial basis for this, that this is all going to go as smoothly as we are being promised here. There are costs and benefits to everything we do in here, and, so far, government computer systems do not have a great record. Call centres and phone-in lines do not have a great record.

An honourable member: Shared Services.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Yes, Shared Services, no great record. So, we are supposed to just sit back and go: 'We'll wipe out rego stickers. We will actually put people at risk of copping a $2,000 fine. Then they can go to court, pay the court fees and fight it in court, and miss out on a day's wages as well, all because we thought it might work better.' I am sorry; it is not acceptable.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the amendments of the Hon. Ann Bressington. The effect of her amendments, I have been advised, would be to completely remove the provisions in terms of the registration label that are in the bill, which would include the provision of a defence, so the advice that I have is that—

The Hon. A. Bressington: It doesn't exist now. Don't tell me you introduced this so that you could have a defence.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That's right, that is exactly what I have just said, that is, that it would remove all the current provisions being proposed around the removal of the registration sticker—

The Hon. A. Bressington: So we would go back to the status quo.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —and it would go back to status quo, but the question that the Hon. John Darley asked was, would it delete or remove the defence provision, and you said—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Let me finish. You answered him, no, it would not impact on the defence provision. I am letting you know that the advice I have is that it would, it would impact on the defence provision that is within this bill, because it completely makes null and void all of that provision around the registration. It would remove the defence provision and it would remove the offence provision as outlined in this bill. That is the advice that I have received here, and I have been advised that the answer that the Hon. Ann Bressington gave the honourable member was in fact incorrect. That is just the advice I have received.

Most of the issues around our opposition to this I have already put on the record in general statements that I made in respect of the Hon. John Darley's amendment, so I will not go over all of those. Very quickly, the most important of those, and again it has been asked, is this going to be workable, and again I stress that it is workable, and we have proof that it is workable. We have proof that it is working so far in WA. We have proof that it works in a number of states in the United States and other countries in the world, so we know that it can work.

The other advice I have received is that, again, the Hon. Ann Bressington's statement about a person being able to get off the offence of driving an unregistered vehicle when they do not own the car by simply signing a stat dec is incorrect. It is not so. The times when a stat dec can be used are when, for instance, there is photo evidence of an unregistered vehicle, the notice is sent to the owner of the vehicle and, in fact, the owner was not driving the vehicle; someone else was driving their vehicle. What happens is, the owner can then do a stat dec to say that someone else was driving their vehicle. So it is in fact the reverse of what the honourable member stated. The advice that I have received is, no, you cannot get off this type of offence simply by signing a stat dec. That is incorrect information.

Finally, I have to say that I am gobsmacked to hear Family First—Family First, the party that is supposed to be representing families—stand up in this chamber and say they support an increase in a fee which is basically overall adding to the cost of living of families. They accept that instead of removing a red tape reduction initiative that has no impact on customer service. So, I am gobsmacked that they are happy to see the cost of living go up instead of removing a red tape reduction initiative which, as I said, does not impact on direct customer services. The other points are already on the record so I will not waste the chamber's time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The minister previously said that this would be a budget savings measure of $4 million. Can I clarify over how many years that would be, and that that was the figure?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It will be $5.7 million over three years, I have been advised.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister clarify how many million cars this would apply to?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that just over 1 million light vehicles are currently registered.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So, in WA when this was brought in, we were looking at $500,000 or $2 million over four years ($500,000 per year) for 2.2 million cars. Does that mean that WA was already a lot more cost effective with their registration system than South Australia?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there are different systems in place and, therefore, they have different cost impacts.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does that mean that we are adopting a WA system but it is a different system probably with different outcomes? I will leave that because it is not necessarily a question and is probably more rhetorical. My final question is: how will this lower the cost to families? Will it lower their registration fees each year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member has obviously misunderstood the debate. This is a budget savings initiative and that money is returned to general revenue, if you like, which is spread across government. So the savings here are not being returned directly to motorists. It is a saving that is being derived from a red tape reduction initiative that does not have an impact on customer service—it has a very minimal impact on customer service. So, it is a red tape reduction and that saving, basically, I have been advised, goes back into the general revenue of the budget and efficiencies around that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To clarify, particularly for those members of Family First and their supporters, this measure will not save anything for any family out of their hip pocket in terms of their registration fee, which is what I was led to believe it would do from the minister's previous statement.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, as I said, the member has misunderstood the debate. This is a budget initiative that seeks to make savings that go into the general budget revenue. These are not savings that are passed on directly to motorists. What we are saying, I guess, is that if we did not have this budget saving initiative we would need to derive some other savings to the value of $5.7 million. So, if this initiative is voted down, which is what is being proposed, the government would be in a position of having to find another $5.7 million of savings. Given the exhaustive menu of initiatives that have been looked at, this is one initiative that, as I said, does not create a cut or any diminishing of customer service directly.

It is a red tape reduction saving that we would have to find somewhere else. It is most likely that if this were voted down the government would have to find another initiative. Given the menu that I have seen and what has been reported in the press, it is likely that it would have to come either from increasing fees—so, we would have to put up fees so that people could keep their registration stickers but increase fees somewhere; that is one option, I guess—or cut direct customer services somewhere.

I think it is unreasonable to be replacing a red tape reduction provision with either of those alternatives when we can achieve those savings without impacting on customer service. Family First and the Hon. Ann Bressington are proposing that instead of doing this we increase fees. They are saying, 'Keep the registration sticker but increase fees.' An increase in registration fees or administration fees does impact, eventually, on the cost of living. Why would we want to drive up the cost of living when we can, in fact, deliver those cost savings somewhere else?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a question and a suggestion for the minister. The question is that, as I understood it, the minister was asked about the consequences of removing clauses 18 and 19 and if I recall her answer it was to say that, 'We would be losing the defences.' I can see that we would be losing the new defence in subsection (4a), but I cannot see that we would lose the defences in the Motor Vehicles Act, section 9, where there is a defence in subsections (2), (4), (5) and (6). I want the minister to clarify that those existing defences remain and that what we would be losing would be the proposed new defence. That is my question. I will give my suggestion after I have heard the minister's answer.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is what is in my answer. What I said was that we would revert to status quo, and I supported that statement. We would go back to what exists today under the current provision. That is what I have answered. The Hon. John Darley asked a question, and my answer was that we would lose both the defence provision and the offence provision as outlined in this bill, and I stand by that answer.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I said I had a question and a suggestion. My suggestion is that the minister can count the number of people who have already risen saying that they are supporting this, but she has also heard that there are some people who are sympathetic (including me) to the idea that we could go to a stickerless system provided that the liability issues were sorted out and that it was a fair system that did not penalise innocent victims. As the minister has admitted, there are already people who we might think of as innocent, who are caught unwittingly by this system and who are prosecuted.

So, given that we are not going to pass this bill through the parliament today, because the other house has risen and there are new amendments that it has not seen, so even if its Speaker has the ability to accept a message from us, it is not going to be enough for the bill to pass, the minister may like to take my suggestion, for what it is worth, that some more work on this provision may, and I can only say 'may', result in a different outcome if it were to come back in a fortnight.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I want to put on the public record, before I ask a question of the minister, that Family First is all about saving families from financial negative impact due to the absolute incompetence of this government that could not manage taking the rubbish bin out on the day that it is supposed to go out the front for the rubbish collector. The bottom line is that, on behalf of Family First, I am supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. R.P. Wortley): Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —because, No. 1, Mr Chairman, there is nothing in that amendment that advocates an increase in cost to the families with their registration—nothing at all. Read the amendment. There is nothing at all about that. I am advocating this because families will get hit in the hip pocket inadvertently, because they will get up in the morning, dad will go to work and mum will jump in the car to take the kids to school to discover that their car is unregistered.

With the pressure on South Australian police to become revenue raisers at the moment, that family is subjected potentially to a $2,000 fine. Family First is here supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington because we do not want families being hit. I ask the minister, because also in the budget papers—by no surprise—quite—

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. The Hon. Gail Gago is repeatedly calling the Hon. Robert Brokenshire a hypocrite. I believe that is most unparliamentary and I ask her to withdraw that.

The ACTING CHAIR: Can I just have the Hon. Mr Brokenshire back on his feet to finish his contribution, please.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you for your protection, sir. If members look at the budget papers they will see an increase that SAPOL must go out and get with respect to revenue collection. Given that the government has brought this amendment in to hit families and drivers with up to $2,000 if inadvertently they are driving unregistered, because they will not know because the disc will not be there, what is the projected increase in SAPOL revenue from this initiative through fining these families?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there is no expected income in revenue to SAPOL from this initiative, so no expected increase in revenue for SAPOL. The advice is that it will be pretty much cost neutral. I need to pick up the honourable member on his claim that someone will be fined $2,000—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: 'Up to,' I said.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member is wrong. It is complete nonsense. Not only is he a hypocrite but also he is misleading this chamber. The expiation is $258.

The committee divided on the clause as amended:

AYES (12)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lucas, R.I. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.
NOES (7)
Bressington, A. (teller) Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E. Parnell, M.
Vincent, K.L.

Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Clause as amended thus passed.

Clauses 19 to 30 passed.

Clause 31.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 18—

After line 2 [clause 31(1)]—Insert:

(1aa) However, if an uninsured motor vehicle other than a heavy vehicle is driven or caused to stand by a person in prescribed circumstances, the person is guilty of an offence against subsection (1) only if the person knew that the vehicle was uninsured.

After line 24 [clause 31(5)]—Insert:

(3d) A motor vehicle is driven or caused to stand by a person in prescribed circumstances for the purposes of subsection (1aa) if—

(a) the person is not an owner or the registered operator of the vehicle and he or she is required by his or her employer to drive the vehicle, or to cause the vehicle to stand, in the course of his or her employment; or

(b) the motor vehicle is driven or caused to stand in circumstances declared by the regulations.

For the reasons already outlined, I urge all honourable members to support these amendments, which relate to uninsured vehicles. As already mentioned, they are, in effect, consequential to my first amendment. Briefly, these amendments relate to clause 31 of the bill, which amends section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That section relates to the duty to insure against third party risks, and provides that a person must not drive an uninsured motor vehicle or cause an uninsured vehicle to stand on a road.

Again, the government's amendment to that section corresponds with the amendment in relation to section 9 of the act by inserting a defence for those drivers that did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the vehicle was uninsured. Similarly, the proposed amendments correspond with my first amendment by inserting a defence for employees required to drive a vehicle in the course of their employment where that vehicle is uninsured. I urge honourable members to support these amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: These amendments are consequential.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 32 to 39 passed.

New clauses 39A and 39B.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: On behalf of minister Holloway, I move:

New part—After clause 39 insert:

Part 5A—Amendment of Parliament (Joint Services) Act 1985

39A—Amendment of section 20—Long service leave

Section 20(1)(b) and (c)—Delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute:

(b) in respect of each subsequent year of service—9 days leave.

39B—Transitional provision

The amendment to the Parliament (Joint Services) Act 1985 made by this part does not affect an entitlement to long service leave or payment in lieu of long service leave that accrues before 1 July 2011.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Before the dinner break, the Hon. Mr Lucas raised the issue of staff appointed under the Parliament (Joint Services) Act. As I indicated then, after we had considered the matter, it was clear that, because those staff were employed under that act, the changes being made in this statutes amendment bill would not have applied to them. I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for drawing that to our attention. Clearly, it was always the government's intention that all public sector employees should be covered by those provisions relating to long service leave. I have tabled some amendments that will cover that situation. What we are dealing with here is a new part to be inserted in the bill to amend the Parliament (Joint Services) Act to ensure that those employees, as well as all other employees in the public sector, are covered.

That will also require an amendment to the title of the act, and we will also have to recommit clause 2 in relation to the commencement provisions to bring that in. I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for drawing that matter to the attention of the council. I am not sure that the joint parliamentary staff will thank him for doing it but, in fact, it does correct an obvious anomaly. It would have been unfair if one section of the public sector had been exempted from that provision relative to others. With this amendment we are seeking to correct that so that those employees should be covered by the same long service leave provisions.

The Hon. Mr Lucas also asked about the situation concerning ministerial staff and we have been able to get a copy of the standard contract. Under the leave provisions, these contracts provide:

You shall be entitled to the same recreation leave (excluding the payment of any leave loading), sick leave and long service leave (hereinafter referred to as 'leave rights') as a person appointed to the South Australian Public Service, and may be granted special leave and be paid allowances in circumstances similar to that in which special leave may be granted and allowances be paid to a person appointed to the South Australian Public Service.

Your entitlement (if any) and the extent to which your leave rights hereunder shall be adjusted to take account of prior employment (including prior appointment as a Ministerial Officer) shall be determined pursuant to the Act as if you were a person appointed to the South Australian Public Service.

As I indicated earlier, under section 71 of the Public Sector Act, with ministerial staff—that is, the head power that allows the employment—the terms of contract ensure that the same leave provisions apply. I said that they are not eligible for leave loading, as with other contracted persons, I should say, for when we come to that section. In relation to the long service leave provisions, they are to be the same as those under the Public Sector Act. So, as we amend those, the conditions will change.

I should also point out, of course, that to get the benefit of these provisions, you would have to be in the Public Service for 15 years. Unless they have served over the course of different governments, it would be pretty unusual that too many ministerial staff would be around for 15 years anyway. In any case, it would be a case that would fall there, but I can assure the committee and the honourable member that the terms of the contract deem those conditions to be the same as the public sector so, as this bill changes those, so will those conditions change for ministerial staff.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for the information he has provided to the committee. The two questions that I raised were, initially, how staff at Parliament House were to be treated under the government's legislation, and then there was the question in relation to ministerial staff. So, perhaps we can just address the answer to the ministerial staff question first. The minister says it is unlikely that someone might serve for 15 years as a ministerial adviser. That is possibly right, although the Hon. Mr Finnigan, with the hubris and arrogance known only to the Labor right in South Australia, says that will apply to the current government.

What the minister does not realise, and certainly the Hon. Mr Finnigan does not realise—and we have seen the example in relation to Mr Nick Alexandrides, supposedly, in his superannuation entitlements—is that, if you are in the public sector, prior to taking an appointment as a ministerial adviser, the entitlements are cumulative. So, you continue with your aggregation, whether it be for long service leave or other.

So, whilst your service as a ministerial adviser is unlikely perhaps to be 15 years, it continues to accumulate. So if, as with Mr Alexandrides evidently—and I am sure there are others the minister would be familiar with—you have served in the public sector and then as a ministerial adviser, you would have a number of people potentially serving and therefore covered by that. Anyway, the minister has read onto the record—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No; I said—this is the easier part—the minister has read onto the record the relevant section of the current ministerial contract. I accept his assurance, which he has now given, rather than before dinnertime when we were talking about the intention being the assurance and the contract provision which would make that apply. So, I think that is the easier part.

Coming back to the first question, as I said, my first question was not in relation to Joint Parliamentary Services staff: it is all of Parliament House. Now, Mr Chairman, I think, as you would realise, and those who have been in this chamber for a while, we have, maybe more but certainly, I guess, three broad employers of staff within Parliament House. We have the Legislative Council staff, the House of Assembly staff and the Joint Parliamentary Services staff.

Now, my understanding, and I seek guidance from the minister, is that the government's bill actually removes the entitlement for our staff—that is, the Legislative Council staff—and removes the entitlement for the House of Assembly staff, but it chose to exclude, by intent or otherwise—only the government can answer that—other staff employed at Parliament House. The government is now moving an amendment, as it relates to that other provision.

In terms of workforce relations, it was completely open to the government either to treat all of the staff of Parliament House—that is, the Legislative Council staff, House of Assembly staff and Joint Parliamentary Services staff—in one way or the other; that is, apply or not apply the provisions of the legislation to all the staff. That is a decision for the government.

I do not see the parliament as part of the public sector. We see the parliament as being different. The staff, in many respects, are treated differently, although we acknowledge, in other aspects, some of their employment conditions may, on occasions, mirror employment conditions within the public sector. It is a policy decision of the government's in relation to how the three different groups of staff within Parliament House were to be treated. It appears clear that the government, either through intent or otherwise—and only the minister can answer—was removing some entitlements from our Legislative Council staff, removing entitlements from the House of Assembly staff, but decided not to do the same thing to other staff employed at Parliament House.

As I said, the government could correct that in two ways: it could either remove the provisions of this bill as it relates to the Legislative Council staff and the House of Assembly staff, or it could seek to include the other staff employed by the Joint Parliamentary Service. As I understand it, the government is seeking to adopt the latter course. This is a policy decision of government to which they are asking the rest of us to respond. The responsibility for this rests solely with the government in relation, firstly, to the bill and, secondly, to how it applies to staff within Parliament House.

Given that this issue has only now been acknowledged by the government, we have the situation where the government is amending its own legislation. I do not think the leader was here earlier when I made the point that the House of Assembly has chosen to go home; they are not working this evening. They have chosen not to come back and be available tomorrow to consider the passage of this legislation. The government is now seeking to amend its own legislation and, if this house agrees, the bill cannot pass through both houses of parliament tonight, obviously, or tomorrow. The first opportunity now will not be until two weeks' time, when the House of Assembly deigns to return to work and commence sitting on Tuesday of that week.

From the party's viewpoint, we have not had an opportunity to consult with our lower house colleagues or, indeed, take submissions from anyone who might be impacted in any way by what the government is seeking to do. Certainly, prior to my asking the questions tonight, I had no knowledge of how this legislation impacted on any staff in Parliament House, whether it be Legislative Council staff, House of Assembly staff or the Joint Parliamentary Service staff; indeed, that was why I asked the question in the first place.

Given that the bill is not going to pass, the government has two options: it can either report progress at this stage, which is probably the most sensible alternative, or the other alternative is that we press on and, if we do, I think all we would do at this stage is, potentially, indicate that we proforma support the amendment but reserve our right in relation to a reconsideration. I have had a quick discussion with crossbench colleagues. We would certainly be opposing finalising the debate on the whole of the committee stage tonight and tomorrow. We would want to be able to reserve the right to recommit this particular clause or clauses if we receive advice that this does not do what the government says it is going to do.

That certainly will not delay the passage of the bill because, as I said, the House of Assembly is not sitting now for a two-week period. That would at least keep this particular issue alive. As I said, one option is to include everybody in the bill, which is what the government is seeking to do; the other option is to exclude everybody at Parliament House from the provisions of the legislation, and there may well be argument both for and against those options.

Given the fact that this has only just been tabled, we have not had the opportunity within the Liberal Party either to consult with our colleagues or take submissions from those who might be impacted by the intentions of the government with this legislative amendment. I think it rests with the leader. The more sensible course I would have thought would have been to report progress, but if his intent is to push on, we will reflect on the further debate this evening. Potentially, the best position we would come to would be to support it just to allow further consideration, while reserving our right at a later stage either to take the same position or to adopt a different position through recommittal and further consideration at a later stage in committee.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It was the clearly stated intention of the government that changes to the long service leave provisions should apply to everyone. It would be anomalous if, by a simple act of omission, the Parliamentary (Joint Services) Act was overlooked in relation to that provision. All the other acts of which we were aware where there were long service leave provisions were amended as part of this bill.

It was my intention that tonight we would at least try to deal with the leave loading provisions. We could report progress then. At this stage, it would be helpful if we could at least go on and deal with those provisions. There would have to be recommittal at some stage in any case on clause 2, which is a key clause, but if we can deal with this now and the leave loading provisions, we could at that stage report progress and see where we are tomorrow or later.

At this stage, given that we still have some debate tomorrow on the Appropriation Bill, it would at least be useful, while we have had this discussion on leave loading provisions, to substantially get that debate out of the road and we could pick up tomorrow. If the council is happy with that course of action, that would be my suggestion.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First would prefer to see progress reported because these are serious amendments. This is no reflection on the Leader of Government Business, the Hon. Mr Holloway, as he is only the messenger in this place for another minister who had instructions to draft this. It concerns me immensely that we are getting these sorts of amendments by the government this late in the debate.

Also, late this afternoon when I looked at my correspondence—and I will be following it up with the constituent tomorrow—I had had a public servant contact me with some information where he believes that there are anomalies in what the government is doing and that maybe some people, depending on their situation within the department, will have better conditions than some others within his department.

It is particularly concerning also that, through the good investigative work of the Hon. Robert Lucas, we have seen this anomaly. Having said we would prefer to see progress reported, as the Hon. Robert Lucas also rightly said, the House of Assembly members are up again being part-timers, the urgency of this legislation no longer exists. No matter what we do, whether we stay here all night or all tomorrow, nothing will happen.

In the meantime, I have a question the minister may be able to assure us on now, or he may want to come back to us tomorrow or the next time we debate this bill: can the government absolutely categorically guarantee to this place that there are no other anomalies like this where there will be circumstances where there will be some haves and some have-nots within this draconian legislation?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No-one can ever give a guarantee in life, I am afraid, about anything. Obviously the government's officers and the government has done its best to ensure that everything is included. The whole purpose of the Public Sector Act (when introduced) was to try to dispense with a situation where we had public sector employees employed in a whole range of areas under a whole range of acts. We have been trying to bring that together.

I think everyone would agree that those people employed under the Parliament (Joint Service) Act are in a very special position in parliament, but in principle I think everyone would agree also that their conditions, in relation to long service leave, should be the same as those of other public servants. The only reason they fall out of the act, of course, is because this parliament is historically, traditionally, outside the Public Service.

Whereas we would not expect there to be any others, one only has to look at the acts that have been amended in this bill to see that we have covered the major areas. When you have 100,000 public sector employees, and still many of them employed under different acts, you could never categorically say that there are no exceptions; but when they are drawn to your attention you are duty bound to deal with them.

In terms of adjourning debate, as I indicated earlier, we have to come back in any case. We would have to recommit clause 2. While we are discussing these issues of leave, I think it would be in the committee's interest to at least try to finish that part of the debate. We will revisit, but in case other issues come up, surely it would be better to deal with them now.

We will not complete debate on this bill this evening, so there will be the option, through a recommittal of clause 2, to completely revisit these issues if members wish to reconsider them. However, at least for now I would suggest that we go on and complete that part of the bill that deals with the leave service loading. As I said, we have already had a significant discussion on related parts of it. Let's complete that, and we can then investigate the alternatives at that stage.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We are happy for further debate but we certainly would not want any further voting on these types of clauses.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Just as a matter of interest, can the minister advise what is the position with ministerial drivers?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My understanding is that they are employed under the Public Sector Act. Remember, we are only talking essentially about the catering service, library, and other people who are employed under the Parliament (Joint Service) Act. They are in a very special group. Because they work for the parliament, they are under that act. That is the only reason they have fallen outside the bill that we are debating.

Drivers, parliamentary staff and the like—that is, staff of members of parliament as opposed to the staff in here—are employed under the public sector provisions. My advice is that they are weekly paid employees; so, there is again a different group who are weekly paid employees, but they do come with the long service leave provisions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: From the Liberal Party's viewpoint I indicate that, given the commitment from the government and other members that we will not proceed to finalise the committee stage at the very earliest tomorrow and possibly in two weeks, we are prepared to proforma support this amendment with the proviso that I gave earlier that we reserve our right, on further consultation, to change our position and vote against it on recommittal. Given the commitment from the government and crossbench members that we will not finalise the committee stage certainly tonight, tomorrow and possibly not until the Tuesday of the following week, we will support it at this stage, but reserve our position.

New clauses inserted.

Clauses 40 to 60 passed.

Clause 61.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 26, line 22—After 'subclause (2) insert:

or to any class of employees employed under the Parliament (Joint Services) Act 1985.

As we have just been discussing, the Parliament (Joint Services) Act was overlooked in the original drafting of this bill and the handful of employees who are covered under that were not covered. That was not the intention of the government in relation to the long service leave and leave loading measures. This amendment enables them to be covered in relation to the leave loading provisions. Again, this brings employees under that act within the ambit of this part of the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For similar reasons to those I gave earlier—although the earlier provisions related to long service leave and, as I understand it, these relate to the leave loading provisions—I will indicate at this stage that we will support it, but we reserve our right on further consultation to reverse our position or to reinforce it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 62 passed.

Clause 63.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This is the first clause in the section that relates to new fees for radiation protection licensing, some $2.6 million over three years. While the bill does provide some information about new licences, I was wondering whether the minister could outline what it is intended to raise these fees from and, indeed, how they are to be expended. I am interested to know whether they relate in any way to the BHP Billiton expansion and whether other companies may be impacted by these fees.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that these fees are based on cost recovery, as they are now, and that consideration is being given to revising the licence fees to ensure that there is full cost recovery for the existing, and any future, uranium mines.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the minister outline which companies are likely to be affected; and is this an existing activity for which the government is now seeking cost recovery or is it a new activity?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The three operating mines are Olympic Dam, operated by BHP Billiton, the Beverley Mine operated by Heathgate Resources and the Honeymoon Mine operated by Uranium One which, although it is not yet commercially producing, is licensed. They are the three existing mines for which costs would be recovered. As the mining minister, I can say that we hope there will be more in the future. In fact, another mine near Beverley, we hope, will be operating fairly soon. I am advised that the fees for cost recovery will relate to existing activities, not new activities. However, if there are new activities that are required in relation to the operation of this act, they would be covered by this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the minister advise whether those three companies were consulted prior to this and, if so, what their reaction was?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the fees have not actually been set at this stage, and the companies will be consulted in relation to that process.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (64 to 87) passed.

Long title.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

After 'the Motor Vehicles Act 1959,' Insert—the Parliament (Joint Services) Act 1985

This follows on from the amendments we discussed not long ago. It changes the long title to include 'the Parliament (Joint Services) Act 1985'. Again, this is part of that package of measures. It is obviously necessary to facilitate the other amendments we have considered.

Amendment carried; long title as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

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