Radio Broadcast

John Darley, MLC, Advance SA (5AA 10.08-10.17) Land tax & property valuations

(Byner: There was a big story over the weekend that Adelaide home values have hit an all-time high … the problem … we have this very futile system in South Australia where if you are notionally wealthy … if your house sits on some dirt whose value increases, it is decided your capacity to pay is commensurate with that increase in value … all the levies you pay … are all based on this number that the Valuer-General will give you … are you wealthy enough to pay these extra taxes? Have you had an increase in your wages or your pension to match this? No, oh your building’s worth more. What, so you can go out and hock it? Not exactly … John Darley … our rates and taxes are about to skyrocket …) first off, I was encouraged to hear the Premier say this morning that he’s going to de-corporatize SA Water, how long have we been arguing about that that SA Water should be de-corporatized and put in charge of the Minister? Anyway … this situation where the Valuer-General says ‘property values have increased,’ we know that with SA Water rates, sewerage charges, Emergency Services Levy, NRM levy and council rates those agencies set their own budget and the valuation of the property are used to apportion the tax … with land tax it’s the other way; whatever change occurs in land tax it’s reflected in the land tax that’s paid … a couple of weeks ago I had a person coming in and told me … they had a residential property that they were renting out, the valuation had gone up 15% and the land tax increased 30% … we know also that the Valuer-General’s embarked on this crazy scheme, the Government’s allocated $50.4m … over four years and she’s going to do an annual review of a fifth of the State every year to bring their valuations up to speed … that’s going to be in contravention of her own act … the act says her valuations have gotta be consistent or relative each year because she’s doing annual valuation … (Byner: if that’s in contravention of an act, bet you can’t do it.) Well no-one seems to worry about that … (Byner: oh really?) And she doesn’t even understand it’s in the Act [Byner laughs] but the real impact is going to be we all know that land tax, were it paid by non-residential properties other than rental residential properties, you’ve got commercial, industrial, you’ve got supermarkets … they pass this land tax on so that every [unclear] you buy or you achieve from a service agency is going to have a component of land tax in it … (Byner: that’s not quite right because I spoke to Peter, he showed me his land tax bill and I said ‘Have I got your permission to make this public?’ He said ‘Yes’ … I said ‘When you pay this nearly $3,000 a week surely you would have to factor in all of the product you sell at money.’ He says ‘I can’t afford to … mate, if I’m not price sensitive my customers won’t buy, so guess what it’s gotta come off the bottom line.’ How the hell do you run a business and sell anywhere near enough just to cover that? It’s impossible.)[inaudible] (Byner: Hit your phone, John, it’s playing up … I’ll get my producer to get you back.)

Daniel Gannon, Executive Director, Property Council SA (5AA 10.12-10.15) Land tax & property valuations

(Byner: Now Daniel Gannon … tell us about these increased taxes and charges as a result ‘oh, you’re wealthier now, your property’s worth more, therefore your capacity to pay is commensurate,’ what do you think of that?) Look, it’s completely outrageous … if you rent or own a property in South Australia … you pay property taxes … loaves of breads, cartons of milk, nappies for your toddlers even if they’re at your local these costs can be passed onto consumers by owners of property and owners of buildings … there is a question about price sensitivity for a lot of these landlords and owners … the reality is that these costs can be passed on … the most damaging property tax that we have in South Australia is land tax … it unfairly punishes owners and households … not just tax as the Government might have you think … it’s a tax on all South Australians … we really don’t have a top end of town, we’d love to have a top end of town, an investment destination that investors look at and want to sink their capital into our State but we’re not quite there … property taxes can be a trigger for higher land tax bills and they’re already the most anti-competitive in the country, they can be a trigger for higher council rates and they’re already the highest per capita in the nation … we’re not against recalibrating valuation … the property sector is not against resetting valuations, if they need to rise then that’s obviously the will of the market … if we improve valuations of property without improving our land tax regime, our anticompetitive land tax regime, we’re only fixing half the problem; it’s like buying a bucket for the leak without fixing … (Byner: what is it you’re advocating?) … if you look at retail properties the average combined cost for land tax and council rates per square metre in South Australia, it’s 161% higher than New South Wales, 73% higher than Victoria; what we want is a fairer system … our top tier of land tax is 3.7% so we charge 3.7% for owners of land above $1.176m cumulatively … even if it’s just two or three average priced properties in South Australia you are sitting in the top tier of taxation when it comes to land tax in South Australia … our top land tax rate is 3.7%, the average for other jurisdictions around Australia that charge land tax … 1.9, so we are double the national average when it comes to land tax and what that means in a market like South Australia is that we are punishing those … who own property as part of their superannuation, we are eroding nest eggs for South Australians because we have an anticompetitive land tax … we need to drop that rate … to a more competitive level in line with the national average at 1.9% to encourage investment in our State.

Back to John Darley

(Byner: So John, what are you gonna do? Is there anything you can do or advocate … what do you think is the answer to this?) I’m pursuing the Valuer-General and Treasury to modify … to change this situation … with business generally as land tax and other taxes increase if you can’t pass them on you go broke … we know for a fact that people are buying houses to rent out and providing rental accommodation, by the time you take into account land tax and these other taxes your return rate, your net return is around about 1% … no-one is going to invest in those … it’ll be less rental accommodation available, if businesses can’t afford to pay their taxes they’re not going to subsidise people, they will just close the business and that’s what’s happening … (Byner: the person who gave me his bill which is nearly $3,000 a week, he said … ‘I can’t make a living out of this’ and they’re already working 16, 17 hours a day … we really have to have a good look at this.)

With the Government’s announcement of an upgrade to the Paradise interchange’s park ‘n’ ride facilities, John Darley MLC is calling for the government to rule out reintroducing the controversial car park tax to pay for it.

In December 2012 the Government announced the introduction of a new Transport Development Levy which was budgeted to raise $25.7m in it’s first year from 1 July 2014. At the time, the government indicated they would allocate $21.1m over two years for additional commuter car parking spaces.

However, the car park tax failed to pass the Upper House in 2014 due to concerns that the tax would damage the CBD. At the time, Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis stated that the Paradise park ‘n’ ride would be the "first victim" of the car park tax’s defeat as the upgrade was to be funded by the new tax.

Yesterday, the Government announced that it would commit $18.9m for an addition 350 car parks at the Paradise park ‘n’ ride if they were re-elected to government.

John Darley says:

"The Government have not indicated how they will pay for this newly announced upgrade to the Paradise park ‘n’ ride. Given their history on this issue, they need to rule out reintroducing the car park tax to pay for the upgrades if they are re-elected."

Radio News Broadcast

John Darley, MLC, Advance SA Party (5AA 9.47-9.56) Government agencies owe $320m to SA businesses

(Byner: When you get an Emergency Services Levy bill or a council bill … or any other government charges … you fall foul of the date due, they’re over you and you pay a late fee and you might even pay a penalty as well … SA Government’s accounts which are outstanding for more than 90 days – and this is information that I’ve got from John Darley who … used to be a Valuer-General … not only is there money owed but there is an attitude within Treasury … “We will pay when we’re ready,” unquote. Now has this been challenged by the Government … we have over 90 days, $320m … money owed to business – unpaid accounts cause significant problems for business’ cash flow. There are currently two Government agencies which are exempt from paying their accounts within 30 days … the Central Adelaide and Country Health SA Local Health Networks – why are they so special? Questions should be asked as to why these agencies are exempt from the 30 day timeframe which other agencies have to adhere to … agency CEOs are responsible to a Minister or Premier, outstanding accounts which do not meet key performance indicators should be reported to the Minister/Premier along with reasons for the delay in payment … these Independents, they’re on the ball, John Darley … tell us what you did?) … I spoke to Business SA about whether they’d had any complaints or concerns about non-payment of accounts after 30 days … they’ve outlined a whole list of things and they did indicate that, sure, there’s interest that can be paid if the account is outstanding but a lot of the supplies of goods and services to the Government are reluctant to claim that because of the attitude of some Government agencies who say … ‘You won’t get anymore tenders so we won’t deal with you anymore’ … that is just irresponsible and cannot continue. (Byner: Does that happen?) Apparently it does … the agencies that are exempted from this payment of bills within 30 days there is absolutely no reason on earth why anyone should be exempted from that … when the Government secures goods and services they are responsible … that responsibility is delegated to, or the authority is delegated from the Premier to the Minister to the CEO of the department … the CEO delegates to the responsible offices … interest should be paid but why should the taxpayer have to pay the interest? … the key performance indicators that should be included in the review of CEOs performance should include this report on unpaid accounts, outstanding more than 90 days … the CEO should be required to report to the Minister every month, by exception on how many accounts of that nature are outstanding … if that continues there should be a report made on the CEOs performance arrangements whereby every year the performance of the CEOs is reviewed by the Minister and the Premier … if a CEO continues to report that there are outstanding accounts for no apparent reason … something should be done about that … we could go one stage further and say if the CEO is reluctant to have his department follow up on payment of these accounts … part of the interest should be paid by him. (Byner: Look, that’s all very nice … you’d have trouble changing an agreement or KPIs with those already signed … there’s something in the culture of these senior public servants that they give themselves permission to withhold funds owing to businesses and service providers; where is this coming from?) Absolutely … you have CEOs who are on salaries of up to $600,000 a year … (Byner: not every public servant is a dud, there are some great people in that organisation right across the sector so what’s happened here?)… there’s just a reluctance to carry out the responsibilities they have … there has to be a penalty in there for a CEO who continually refuses to accept the responsibility for paying these accounts. (Byner: $330m outstanding after 90 days, John, that is a very significant amount of money out of the private economy, this is really bad.) And that could be particularly bad for … small business … they’re relying on cash flow and if their cash flow is tied up with unpaid bills from the Government their business could be in doubt … (Byner: does anybody care about this?) Well there are some departments where they don’t care too much about anything. (Byner: Who are they?) Well Primary Industries would be one, Department of Transport would be another … (Byner: you’re telling me they owe a significant amount of money and they don’t care that they do?) … I’m talking about general responsibilities for a whole range of things … (Byner: on this matter of owing money and not paying it this is very bad for the people of SA and it’s hypocritical … if you owe them they’re all over you …) the way it works at the moment, if the Government pays interest on unpaid accounts who’s paying that? The taxpayer … (Byner: what do we do about this? … the public would be concerned … the businesses would be concerned. I was contacted by a small business person yesterday … he’s got a few shops and he’s owed quite a bit of money, in the tens of thousands and he said ‘I’m not going to go and get a bridging loan because they’re not paying me, I just wont’ deal with them next time’ so he’ll find other means, not everybody can do that) … I’m going to make an appointment to speak to the next Premier, whoever’s the Premier after the 17th of March. The Premier of the day is responsible for reviewing the performance of CEO and I’m going to talk to the Premier about … how do we make sure that that authority that’s delegated CEOs is formally carried out in the most effective manner. (Byner: Do you believe there is an implied instruction … which has been given to some public servants to pay slowly?) Well I would hope not but the other day when this matter was discussed … that was suggested. (Byner: … this is a serious matter … I’m not asking the Government to do anything that is just somebody’s opinion or party political, they’ve gone out and they’ve got goods or services or both from providers, given in good faith and they’re not paying on time, do you reckon that’s kosher?)

Please contact our office on 8237 9114 if you would like a free copy of The 10 Step Guide to Reducing Your Energy Bills by Energy Smart South Australia.

Radio News Broadcast

John Darley, MLC, Advance SA (5AA 9.11-9.24) South Australia’s property valuations system: land tax

[Robin Hood theme music] (Byner: Well there’s a reason I’m playing that … there’s been a rigorous discussion … about changing the valuation system back to what it was in 1979 … the Valuer-General is arguing more information on properties needs to be collected in her database … the sting … some property values may skyrocket, particularly in the city, by 100% … it’s city properties in the firing line where values will massively rise but … your Emergency Services Levy, sewerage, land tax, council rates, zero waste, NRM are all based on these values … massive cost increases if you cop it … in a few weeks this is likely to start … a cost impost that will ripple through the entire community … the wealth of a person or capacity to pay has very little relationship to the value of their property because most home owners … couldn’t sustain a loan based on today’s value. Businesses … have got to pass on all costs they incur which means we could well be in for a big tax hike … we made a request to talk to the Valuer-General … she’s not available … a State Government spokesman has said that this program will reset the valuation base to market levels … no comment at all on the expected revenue windfall … this needs to be out there and openly discussed before an election … John Darley … a former Valuer-General … explain this to us) … the first thing we need to understand is that the Valuer-General’s valuations have absolutely no impact on the revenue raised by SA Water, Emergency Services Levy or council rates because they all work for their own budget … the Valuer-General’s valuations are only used to apportion the tax burdens between taxpayers … the thing that concerns me … it’s a $15.4m project that was due to start in July 2016, we’re now told it will start later this year … the five year project it says they’ll be collecting additional information … that’s in order to enhance their computing systems … the problem with that is that we looked at that over 20 years ago … it’s a labour intensive exercise where the value and property services officers have to pick up more physical information about properties and the cure becomes worse than the disease. The current computing system they have does the job and they can quite easily adjust where there’s differences in relatively between valuations … the other interesting thing … if you’re gonna spend … $15.4m on this project what was the justification for doing it? Is there going to be an increase in valuations or a decrease? And the Valuer-General says she doesn’t know … which Government is prepared to punt $15.4m on a system that they don’t know what the outcome is going to be? (Byner: … the Valuer-General as I understand it … says that they were told that some city valuations could be up by 100% so they do know …) yeah … in the question that I asked they had no idea … following that revelation to the Property Council with 100% … the increase … in some residential properties this year … a property that – and this is a house for rental properties – the valuation increased 16%, the impact on land tax was a 30% increase in land tax … if you look at properties in Rundle Mall … if they go up, increase up to 100% the corresponding land tax increase is going to be absolutely phenomenal. (Byner: Does the Government understand what this is going to mean?) I don’t think they do … the Valuer-General doesn’t really care.

Daniel Gannon, Executive Director, Property Council SA (5AA 9.17-9.20) South Australia’s property valuations system: land tax

(Byner: Daniel Gannon … what did the Valuer-General tell you?) … this exercise … won’t just hit owners and tenants of commercial properties, it’ll also have a direct and massive impact on every South Australian who owns a property and on every South Australian who rents a residential property … we know that property taxes everywhere you go they’re a trigger for higher land tax bills, a trigger for higher council rates … we already have the highest council rates per capita in the nation … they’re a trigger for … higher water bills and ESL, they’re a trigger for more taxation … we’re not against recalibrating valuations, if they need to rise then that’s the will of the market. But improving valuations without improving land tax is only fixing half the problem … it’s like buying a bucket for the leak without fixing your roof … the way the Government’s been behaving for the last six months, they’ve been behaving like the three wise monkeys … refusing to lower land tax rates or even discuss a lowering of land tax rates at the same time that they’re looking to increase valuations … double valuations in some cases in the CBD … here’s the bad news for your listeners: more than one million South Australians have a stake in the property industry through their superannuation fund … an anti-competitive land tax regime has a direct impact on the mums and dads across South Australia therefore eroding their nest eggs … this has far greater consequences than the Government has cared to acknowledge to this point. (Byner: So what’s your belief that this five year valuation is gonna do?) … like any tax on business costs have to be passed onto consumers whether you’re a tenant in a commercial or retail building or whether you’re a tenant in a residential property, land tax increases your rent … renting will be more affordable if this tax was more fair and more equitable … the solution … is a very simple one; the Government needs to lower the top land tax threshold, it needs to reform land tax to a more equitable level, to a level that actually reflects the national average which is about 1.9% at the top end, we pay 3.7% … we need to do this to increase the attractiveness of South Australia … a national case study … let’s look at retail property. The average combined cost for land tax and council rates per square metre in South Australia is 161% higher than New South Wales, 73% higher than Victoria and 66% higher than Queensland, this is out of control.

Back to John Darley

(Byner: John Darley, what do we do about this? This is going to happen isn’t it?) Well we’re going to have to put pressure on whoever is in Government to review the situation … would you spend $15.4m of taxpayers’ money on a project that you don’t know what the outcome is going to be? I mean, certainly not. And the situation is at the present time … the objection rate to valuations is less than 1%, 8,000 property owners object each year to their valuation out of 800,000 … what’s the justification for this? … I cannot find any evidence of any research that they’ve done that suggests … by wasting money on collecting all this additional information is going to add one iota to the accuracy of the valuation. (Byner: Is it your view … a lot of property values will rise and this is going to put an extra cost burden on those people who own those properties?) … we don’t know, some will rise, some will fall but we don’t know what the net effect is … for land tax if property values rise we know that the multiplying effect that’s going to have on land tax … the Under Treasurer’s said if that happens the Government is going to have to rapidly adjust the rates in the dollar for land tax … land tax is always passed on through businesses to the purchaser of the project … if land tax increases 30, 40, 50, 100% I mean, who’s going to pay? This is the point … (Byner: this is also planned for all properties not just business, isn’t it?) No and it’s for all properties over a five year period … what the Valuer-General doesn’t understand … they’re currently doing valuations every year … that’s what the Act requires. If she starts doing … a fifth of the properties each year she’s going to be in breach of her own legislation because the valuations will not be consistent. (Byner: … has there been a complaint against you with Treasury and Finance?) Not that I’m aware of. (Byner: No? Just a question that was put to me that’s all.) Yeah … we’re trying to find out what the issue is. (Byner: So your advice to the people of SA? Surely this is an election issue isn’t it?) Absolutely … we should … make sure that every political party, Labor or Liberal or Xenophon is aware of this situation and all hell will let loose if land tax increases as a result of this process. (Byner: … thanks John Darley … I took the liberty of talking to Michael O’Neill … I asked him what his take on all this is … he said the Valuer-General can enrich the database and get more information on properties without the necessity of a five year rolling valuation … we already have some of the highest costs in the country and this would only make it worse. Let me read you some of the comments attributed to the Valuer-General: “This process will facilitate the opportunity for consultation with stakeholders” … “As is currently the case property owners will be encouraged at this time to bring any of their valuation concerns to the Valuer-General where they can object.” Well that’s hardly news … “The re-evaluation program seeks to improve the quality and accuracy of the existing database.” Look, I think everybody with half a nose can tell that you wouldn’t do this if you weren’t going to get more revenue.)

Radio News Broadcast

John Darley, MLC, Advance SA (5AA 9.11-9.24) South Australia’s property valuations system: land tax

[Robin Hood theme music](Byner: Well there’s a reason I’m playing that … there’s been a rigorous discussion … about changing the valuation system back to what it was in 1979 … the Valuer-General is arguing more information on properties needs to be collected in her database … the sting … some property values may skyrocket, particularly in the city, by 100% … it’s city properties in the firing line where values will massively rise but … your Emergency Services Levy, sewerage, land tax, council rates, zero waste, NRM are all based on these values … massive cost increases if you cop it … in a few weeks this is likely to start … a cost impost that will ripple through the entire community … the wealth of a person or capacity to pay has very little relationship to the value of their property because most home owners … couldn’t sustain a loan based on today’s value. Businesses … have got to pass on all costs they incur which means we could well be in for a big tax hike … we made a request to talk to the Valuer-General … she’s not available … a State Government spokesman has said that this program will reset the valuation base to market levels … no comment at all on the expected revenue windfall … this needs to be out there and openly discussed before an election … John Darley … a former Valuer-General … explain this to us) … the first thing we need to understand is that the Valuer-General’s valuations have absolutely no impact on the revenue raised by SA Water, Emergency Services Levy or council rates because they all work for their own budget … the Valuer-General’s valuations are only used to apportion the tax burdens between taxpayers … the thing that concerns me … it’s a $15.4m project that was due to start in July 2016, we’re now told it will start later this year … the five year project it says they’ll be collecting additional information … that’s in order to enhance their computing systems … the problem with that is that we looked at that over 20 years ago … it’s a labour intensive exercise where the value and property services officers have to pick up more physical information about properties and the cure becomes worse than the disease. The current computing system they have does the job and they can quite easily adjust where there’s differences in relatively between valuations … the other interesting thing … if you’re gonna spend … $15.4m on this project what was the justification for doing it? Is there going to be an increase in valuations or a decrease? And the Valuer-General says she doesn’t know … which Government is prepared to punt $15.4m on a system that they don’t know what the outcome is going to be? (Byner: … the Valuer-General as I understand it … says that they were told that some city valuations could be up by 100% so they do know …) yeah … in the question that I asked they had no idea … following that revelation to the Property Council with 100% … the increase … in some residential properties this year … a property that – and this is a house for rental properties – the valuation increased 16%, the impact on land tax was a 30% increase in land tax … if you look at properties in Rundle Mall … if they go up, increase up to 100% the corresponding land tax increase is going to be absolutely phenomenal. (Byner: Does the Government understand what this is going to mean?) I don’t think they do … the Valuer-General doesn’t really care.

Daniel Gannon, Executive Director, Property Council SA (5AA 9.17-9.20) South Australia’s property valuations system: land tax

(Byner: Daniel Gannon … what did the Valuer-General tell you?) … this exercise … won’t just hit owners and tenants of commercial properties, it’ll also have a direct and massive impact on every South Australian who owns a property and on every South Australian who rents a residential property … we know that property taxes everywhere you go they’re a trigger for higher land tax bills, a trigger for higher council rates … we already have the highest council rates per capita in the nation … they’re a trigger for … higher water bills and ESL, they’re a trigger for more taxation … we’re not against recalibrating valuations, if they need to rise then that’s the will of the market. But improving valuations without improving land tax is only fixing half the problem … it’s like buying a bucket for the leak without fixing your roof … the way the Government’s been behaving for the last six months, they’ve been behaving like the three wise monkeys … refusing to lower land tax rates or even discuss a lowering of land tax rates at the same time that they’re looking to increase valuations … double valuations in some cases in the CBD … here’s the bad news for your listeners: more than one million South Australians have a stake in the property industry through their superannuation fund … an anti-competitive land tax regime has a direct impact on the mums and dads across South Australia therefore eroding their nest eggs … this has far greater consequences than the Government has cared to acknowledge to this point. (Byner: So what’s your belief that this five year valuation is gonna do?) … like any tax on business costs have to be passed onto consumers whether you’re a tenant in a commercial or retail building or whether you’re a tenant in a residential property, land tax increases your rent … renting will be more affordable if this tax was more fair and more equitable … the solution … is a very simple one; the Government needs to lower the top land tax threshold, it needs to reform land tax to a more equitable level, to a level that actually reflects the national average which is about 1.9% at the top end, we pay 3.7% … we need to do this to increase the attractiveness of South Australia … a national case study … let’s look at retail property. The average combined cost for land tax and council rates per square metre in South Australia is 161% higher than New South Wales, 73% higher than Victoria and 66% higher than Queensland, this is out of control.

Back to John Darley

(Byner: John Darley, what do we do about this? This is going to happen isn’t it?) Well we’re going to have to put pressure on whoever is in Government to review the situation … would you spend $15.4m of taxpayers’ money on a project that you don’t know what the outcome is going to be? I mean, certainly not. And the situation is at the present time … the objection rate to valuations is less than 1%, 8,000 property owners object each year to their valuation out of 800,000 … what’s the justification for this? … I cannot find any evidence of any research that they’ve done that suggests … by wasting money on collecting all this additional information is going to add one iota to the accuracy of the valuation. (Byner: Is it your view … a lot of property values will rise and this is going to put an extra cost burden on those people who own those properties?) … we don’t know, some will rise, some will fall but we don’t know what the net effect is … for land tax if property values rise we know that the multiplying effect that’s going to have on land tax … the Under Treasurer’s said if that happens the Government is going to have to rapidly adjust the rates in the dollar for land tax … land tax is always passed on through businesses to the purchaser of the project … if land tax increases 30, 40, 50, 100% I mean, who’s going to pay? This is the point … (Byner: this is also planned for all properties not just business, isn’t it?) No and it’s for all properties over a five year period … what the Valuer-General doesn’t understand … they’re currently doing valuations every year … that’s what the Act requires. If she starts doing … a fifth of the properties each year she’s going to be in breach of her own legislation because the valuations will not be consistent. (Byner: … has there been a complaint against you with Treasury and Finance?) Not that I’m aware of. (Byner: No? Just a question that was put to me that’s all.) Yeah … we’re trying to find out what the issue is. (Byner: So your advice to the people of SA? Surely this is an election issue isn’t it?) Absolutely … we should … make sure that every political party, Labor or Liberal or Xenophon is aware of this situation and all hell will let loose if land tax increases as a result of this process. (Byner: … thanks John Darley … I took the liberty of talking to Michael O’Neill … I asked him what his take on all this is … he said the Valuer-General can enrich the database and get more information on properties without the necessity of a five year rolling valuation … we already have some of the highest costs in the country and this would only make it worse. Let me read you some of the comments attributed to the Valuer-General: “This process will facilitate the opportunity for consultation with stakeholders” … “As is currently the case property owners will be encouraged at this time to bring any of their valuation concerns to the Valuer-General where they can object.” Well that’s hardly news … “The re-evaluation program seeks to improve the quality and accuracy of the existing database.” Look, I think everybody with half a nose can tell that you wouldn’t do this if you weren’t going to get more revenue.)

For each of the past five years, what is the average, minimum and maximum time for patients to be seen as an outpatient after referral from a GP for category 1, 2 and 3 patients?For each of the past five years, what is the average, minimum and maximum time patients have waited for surgery after being seen as an outpatient for category 1, 2 and 3 patients?Has the government purchased, leased or entered into another arrangement to use the operating theatres of private hospitals for public patients? If so, what are the details of the arrangement (cost, duration of agreement, detail of hospitals, how many theatres)?Has the government purchased, leased or entered into another arrangement to use private hospital bed space in private hospitals for public patients? If so, what are the details of the arrangement (cost, duration of agreement, detail of hospitals, how many theatres)?How many doctors practising in South Australian hospitals who have been with SA Health for over 10 years have resigned since 2014 to present?How many doctors practising in South Australian hospitals who have been with SA Health for over 10 years have resigned from 2004 to 2007?What is the current wait from GP referral for a colonoscopy to be done for each of the SA public hospitals?How many people are currently on the waitlist for a colonoscopy to be performed at Flinders Medical Centre?At the Flinders Medical Centre, how many people have been waiting for a colonoscopy for over 3 months?At the Flinders Medical Centre, how many people have been waiting for a colonoscopy for over 6 months?At the Flinders Medical Centre, how many people have been waiting for a colonoscopy for over 12 months?At the Flinders Medical Centre, how many colonoscopies have been performed from 1 January 2016 to 1 January 2017?At the Flinders Medical Centre, how many colonoscopies have been performed from 1 January 2017 to present?

The Federal Government’s National Bowel Cancer Screening Program aims to detect bowel cancer death and disease. This relies on early detection.

However, many people are faced with a wait of over a year for a colonoscopy following a positive test result.

Advance SA have made longstanding enquiries to the State Government regarding waiting times for colonoscopies:

- 1 September 2017 – letter sent to Minister Snelling (then Health Minister) regarding extended waiting times for colonoscopies

- 28 September – Questions on colonoscopy waiting times asked to Minister Malinauskis directly via staff

- 17 October – Questions on notice tabled in Parliament

https://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/LegislativeCouncil/BusinessoftheCouncil/NoticePaper/Pages/QuestionsonNotice.aspx

- 5 December – Meeting with Minister Malinauskis where lack of response was raised.

There has been no response to any of the above.

"We are heartened to hear that the government plan on doing something about the waiting times for colonoscopies however the devil will be in the detail" Peter Humphries said.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:24):My question is to the Minister for Employment representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. With regard to the Adelaide Festival Centre demolition site, can the minister advise whether there was or is asbestos at the site and, if so, what is being done to ensure the public safety of exposure?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (15:25):I thank the honourable member for his question and, as it was a question for the Minister for Industrial Relations, I will pass those questions on, but rather than undertaking to bring back a reply for the honourable member, what I will do is undertake to ask the Minister for Industrial Relations to contact the member directly with correspondence in relation to the answer to that question as we are rapidly running out of runway for replies to be brought back.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 18 October 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (19:56): I rise to indicate Advance SA's position on the bill. I understand the intent of this bill is to ensure that individuals who commit a serious domestic or family violence offence will face a mandatory term of imprisonment. I have a lot of sympathy for the intent behind the bill. I, like many others, have received emails from constituents who have shared stories of their experiences with the criminal justice system. On the face of it, it seems that there were certainly some anomalies with the outcome when compared to community expectations. However, in this instance I cannot support mandatory sentencing.

The courts need to have discretion to impose sentences that they believe are appropriate. These are often complicated matters, and applying a broadbrush approach can itself lead to injustices. As I said before, I have the utmost sympathy for those who have contacted me and those in similar positions. I am very sorry to hear these stories; however, I cannot support the bill.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 1 November 2017)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:11):I rise to indicate support for this bill which amends the Local Government Act, which currently provides that fixed charges cannot be charged for certain categories of sites—those being at the moment caravan parks, residential parks and marinas. The bill amends this to include retirement villages, the reason being that retirement villages are often on a single title, and residents are given a licence to occupy their particular units. Councils do not actually provide direct services within retirement villages but do provide amenity for rubbish removal, road maintenance and so forth adjacent. The impact of this should be to reduce the amount of council rates being paid by retirement village residents overall, and therefore we support the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (22:13):I had not put myself on the list, but I just want to say for the record that the Greens also will be supporting Hon. John Darley's bill for the reasons that he offered when he introduced it and also for the reasons that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has just elaborated.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (22:13):I would like to thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Mark Parnell for their contributions to this bill and commend the bill to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN:Mr Acting President, I draw your attention to the state of the council.

A quorum having been formed:

Third Reading

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 18 October 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (22:19):I understand this bill will create a new defence for individuals who have been victims of family or domestic violence. The bill is based on a recommendation from the South Australian Law Reform Institute and will enable those who have been victims of family or domestic violence, who commit an offence as a result of their victimisation, to use this as a defence against their crime.

Domestic violence is a scourge on our society, and whilst I am glad there is more awareness of the matter, it is clear that much more needs to be done. Many people do not understand domestic violence and often wonder why the victim does not leave. Physical violence is much easier to understand and empathise with; however, it is often emotional and psychological manipulation that weighs heaviest on a victim. Everyone knows that it is unacceptable to hit or beat someone, but when the abuse is silent and has no physical evidence, there may be doubts that it is occurring, even from the victim themselves. This is why I am pleased that the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill specifically includes psychological, social, cultural and economic factors in determining domestic abuse.

The bill also makes it clear that a person is still able to rely on the defence even if a person is responding to a threat that is not imminent and that the cumulative effect of the abuse is to be taken into consideration as evidence of abuse. This is very important because I know there are situations where it may seem that a person suddenly snaps for no apparent reason or reacts in a disproportionate manner to a seemingly innocent event. In these situations, a person may be painted out to be unreasonable or as having gone crazy. However, if a person is continually in a pressure cooker situation, it is absolutely understandable that they might suddenly respond or behave in a manner that might not seem rational. This is often simply frustration, fear and anger manifesting itself in a physical form.

Domestic violence victims may not always present as you would expect. They may seem intelligent and together on the outside but inside be filled with self-doubt. In my view, it is up to the community to support those who have the courage to speak out about their experiences and assist perpetrators to acknowledge the damage they have caused. That way, perpetrators can get help and be educated on what is a healthy, respectful relationship. Unfortunately, there are some perpetrators who see nothing wrong with their behaviour. This is disturbing. Even more disturbing is when bystanders choose to do nothing by turning a blind eye or, even worse, support the perpetrator.

People who commit these types of offences are often master manipulators. I have encountered situations where a perpetrator has managed to turn a family against the victim. This is why organisations such as the White Ribbon Foundation are so important, as they continue to educate and raise public awareness about the issue. As they say: stand up, speak out and act to stop domestic violence and abuse. Advance SA is very happy to support this bill and congratulates the Greens and the Hon. Mark Parnell on bringing this to the parliament.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 27 September 2017)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (22:37):I rise on behalf of the Liberal members to speak to the second reading of this bill. It has been my privilege to have worked with the Hon. Mr Darley on the Budget and Finance Committee for a number of years. His forensic knowledge of valuation has caused much grief to some witnesses before the committee, on occasion. There is nothing like having a former valuer-general on the committee when you are questioning the current Valuer-General. To use a colloquial expression, I 'dips me lid' to the Hon. Mr Darley's greater knowledge in relation to issues that relate to valuations.

I am familiar with some of the issues the Hon. Mr Darley seeks to address in this particular piece of legislation. It is the Liberal Party's position that we will support the second reading of the bill, but for reasons which I will outline, if the Hon. Mr Darley decides to pursue it through to the third reading, we will not be supporting the third reading this evening. I will explain one of the reasons for that now. One of the questions I have, with the hat of shadow treasurer on, is what, if any, impact these changes might have in relation to revenue that might be collected for the state. The honest answer I have is: I do not know.

Before we were in a position to support the third reading of a bill like this we would want to get some evidence or some statement from the Under Treasurer or the Treasury as to what the potential budget impact might be—it might be very small—and at the closing of the debate of the second reading I would be interested in the Hon. Mr Darley's perception of that and what he thinks the impact might be. From my viewpoint, the honest answer is that I am not sure.

The other issue is that we would be interested in getting evidence from the Under Treasurer or the Valuer-General, or a combination of both—ultimately from the government—about whether there are any unforeseen consequences of what we are being asked to support here. The one thing that I am aware of in relation to issues of valuation is that as you make a change in one area there are potential implications in other areas. This might be a case where there are none, but before I and my party sign off on this at the third reading we would want to have had that evidence and be fully aware of what the arguments for and against might be.

The way the government generally approaches some of these debates is that we do not generally get a too-detailed response from the government to these sorts of private members' bills in terms of the arguments for and against and therefore I am not expecting that we are going to get a detailed analysis of the potential implications of the bill from whoever speaks on behalf of the government.

For those reasons, I indicate that the Liberal Party will happily support the second reading of the bill. As I said, if the honourable member does wish to pursue it through to the third reading we would be indicating that we will be opposing the third reading at this particular stage.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (22:41):I rise briefly to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the second reading of the bill. If the member were minded to move it through all stages, we would support the third reading as well.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (22:41): I rise to also support the second reading but indicate that the government will not be supporting the third reading.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (22:42):Firstly, I would like to thank all honourable members—the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Tung Ngo. I can say that, from my understanding, the financial implications of the bill would be significant in terms of the fact that there would be 11,000 residents in retirement villages—and this is based on advice from the Valuer-General—who are currently being overcharged water and sewer rates to the extent of 770 per cent over what they should be charged. I suggest we put it to the second reading vote only.

Bill read a second time.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 24 February 2016)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (00:34): I rise to indicate Advance SA's position on this bill. I understand this bill will see a minimum gaol sentence of eight years imposed against those who cause a death by making physical contact while intoxicated. The bill addresses what is colloquially known as a one-punch attack. The problem we as a community have with alcohol-fuelled violence is alarming. My office undertook research a few months ago and found that, in the last few years, more people have died as a result of being attacked by a person who is impaired by drugs or alcohol than soldiers who have died while serving our country at war. This is disturbing.

The fact that there is a cohort of people out there who think it is okay to attack someone once they have had a few drinks or otherwise is alarming, and I agree with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that something needs to be done. However, I believe the focus should be on education and early intervention. The government has focused their efforts on this issue and there seems to have been a slight improvement. I hope it is something that will continue over summer when a higher number of people are out and about.

I do not think that mandatory sentencing is the answer. The courts need to have the discretion to impose sentences that they believe are appropriate. These are often complicated matters and applying a broad brush approach can itself lead to injustices. Whilst I acknowledge that there is a problem here, Advance SA believes that preventative measures through mentoring, education and early intervention programs for substance abuse would be much more effective than simply locking people up.

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 16 November 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:40): I rise to indicate Advance SA's support for this bill. In a nutshell, the bill will see those who have been charged with a terrorism offence have bail or parole presumed against them unless they can provide a compelling reason for why they should be bailed or paroled. The bill also provides mechanisms for a terrorism notification to be made against an individual, in which case bail or parole will also be presumed against them. This is the government's response to protecting the community from terror suspects. It is unfortunate that we live in a day and age where this is necessary; nonetheless, it is necessary and I support these measures.

With regard to terrorism notifications, I have a question as to what stage people are advised that a notification is being made against them. I understand it will not be a matter of course that people will be told when a terror notification is made against them. I am not suggesting that this should be the case; I can see that this would, in fact, be counter-productive for intelligence-gathering purposes. However, if a person has had notification made against them, and is arrested for an unrelated offence—say, armed robbery—they will have bail presumed against them and they will not know why.

Similarly, if a terrorism notification is being made against a person who is already incarcerated, their application for parole will be kiboshed for reasons they are not aware of. I would appreciate the government advising whether people in these and similar circumstances will be told or otherwise made aware of the terrorism notification made against them.

Radio News Broadcast

John Darley, Former Valuer General (5AA 9.35-9.48) Land tax valuations

(Byner: If you run a business and you pay land tax you are likely to very soon say a very loud ‘ouch’. Let me tell you why: the Valuer General is undertaking a re-evaluation exercise where the valuation of every property of the state will be reviewed over a five year period, commencing with Adelaide City Council where the majority of land tax comes from. City of Charles Sturt, West Torrens, Norwood, Payneham, Saint Peters and Unley, during 2017 / 2018. This is because it is thought there are inconsistent valuations across the state, with some valuations being very conservative. The Valuer General has given an indication that some properties may face increases in valuation from, listen to this, 50 to 100 per cent. Concern about the impact this will have on land tax especially for commercial properties. Increase in property values will see a dramatic increase in land tax and remember this state has some of the highest scale of rates for land tax, especially for holdings over two million. Some may say that only the wealthy have holdings over two million however a dramatic increase in the land tax for these owners will only result in an increase in goods, services, for everybody else. Now the increase in land tax will not be absorbed; they have no choice but to pass it on. The cost of everything will go up. The Government will receive a windfall gain from this exercise, they need to change the scale of rates for land tax to prevent inflation from going through the roof, and by the way the system of this five year business was gotten rid of years ago because it was deemed by the then government as unfair, and unrealistic. Where did I get this information from? I got it from a guy who isn’t known for bum steers, he’s a former Valuer General, I’m talking about Advance SA’s John Darley. … tell us about this.) … there seems to be some confusion about the place as to what the Valuer general is doing. In the budget papers last year that’s 16-17 she was allocated $2.8 million to embark on this five year re-valuation program. Now as you’ve quite rightly said, five yearly re-valuations disappeared in South Australia in 1979 because at that stage one fifth of the state was valued each year and because of the escalation of the property values back in those days it was considered to be unfair that one fifth of the state would be [unclear] and others would be left. And so the Government of the day initiated what they called a valuation equalisation system whereby one fifth of the state was valued and then the remaining four fifths were indexed up to relative levels to the fifth of the state that had been valued. From 1982 that system was dispensed and replaced with an annual valuation system which is done mainly by computer systems techniques. Now it would seem to me that in the last ten or fifteen years there’s been some slippage in that process, for one of two reasons: either the Valuer General didn’t keep up to speed with what was happening in the market place or possibly the Valuer General was starved of resources and was unable to do the job that they committed to do. But I understand they weren’t prepared to prepare a work measurement exercise to demonstrate that they needed more staff. Now, just to look at the individual rates the Valuer General’s valuations have really no impact on water and sewer rates, emergency services levy or council rates because those agencies set their own budget and then the Valuer General’s valuations are used to distribute the tax burden. However when it comes to land tax any change in valuation made by the Valuer General has a direct impact on the level of land tax. Now if you look at the scale of rates that currently exist, the scale of rates for up to 323,000 dollars, that’s exempt and then 50 cents rate in every hundred dollars applies from that point. Well then the next jump … to 230%, then it jumps 45% on top of that, and finally 50% on top of that to a rate of $3.70 for every hundred dollars of property [unclear]. (Byner: So what’s that going to mean for businesses around the city and suburbs?) Well if what the Valuer General is saying, that there could be a 50 to 100 per cent increase in site values in the City of Adelaide that’s going to be an astronomical increase. You could have properties increasing, their land tax could increase, 500 or 1,000 per cent in one year, and that would be enough to kill business in the CBD. (Byner: I can see what the Government will do. I know the way they argue. Well Leon; this is just proof that we under taxed in the first place; that’s what they’ll say.) Well, well , that’s not correct because we have one of the highest tax rates in the country so it’s no good using that argument. But what the Valuer General is now talking about doing is this five year revaluation where she’s going to readjust valuations for a fifth of the state every year and unfortunately for the Adelaide City Council that’s going to be done over three years. Now there’s a section in the act that says, valuations have to be consistent or relative; in other words if you look at a property that’s worth x dollars in the City of Adelaide, that would command Y dollars land tax. If the same value property in the suburbs, that should command the same sort of land tax if the valuation’s the same. Well she’s going to have a differential in valuations for three years just on City of Adelaide values, without looking at other property values in the state. (Byner: So really what the Government is doing via this process is by stealth getting more money for land tax and again they don’t have to go to the Parliament to do it. It can be done by regulation.) … no, they would have to … what you said is correct: they don’t have to do anything to get that money but what will inevitably happen, there’ll be an outcry against land tax, and as previous governments have found they’ve had to adjust the rate in the dollar downwards. (Byenr: There’ll only be an outcry if people know, that’s why I’m doing this segment this morning.) And they won’t know until about November next year. (Byner: Stay on the line.)

Nigel McBride, CEO, Business SA (5AA 9.43-9.44) Impact of land tax revaluations

(Byner: Nigel McBride … what do you say to this?) … our members are already facing what they believe they’re caught in a cost spiral with energy prices, utility costs, Local government rates, penalty rates. You know, in one sense we understand that land needs to be revalued but John’s absolutely right, we’ve got the highest … land tax rates in the country as soon as you get above $2 million. Let me give you an example – in Western Australia a $1 million site will pay $2,730; the same site in South Australia today is going to cost $9,446. That’s a massive gap. Now … this is good old fashioned bracket creep … we hope the land values go up because it’s part of economic growth, but you can’t apply land tax rates when we had really probably in many ways flat … commercial property prices. Frankly at 3.7%, which is the highest in the country, they really now need to be adjusted to stop this kind of bracket creep because … it’s going to hurt ordinary consumers because it’s going to get passed on (Byner: Alright)

Daniel Gannon, Executive Director, Property Council of SA (5AA 9.44-9.46) Impact of land tax revaluations

(Byner: Let’s talk to … Daniel Gannon … what do you say …) Look, it must be said that the property sector is not against recalibrating valuations. If they need to rise then of course that’s the will of the market. But improving valuations without improving land tax is fixing half the problem. It’s like buying a bucket for the leak without fixing the roof. And … we do have the highest rates of land tax in the country; at the top end we are 85% higher than Sydney, 64% higher than Melbourne, 200% higher than Canberra, even Tasmania is more competitive than South Australia. And that’s before you even start considering things like council rates, utility bills and other types of taxes. Now what this means, what we’re talking about this morning, this means a tax on the places that we live and work, but of course it’s also a tax on jobs and investment. So wherever you live … and work the Government is trying to slap those taxes on top of you each and every single day. It’s a tax on business. And look, this isn’t just about the top end of town because the reality is we don’t have one. We’d love to have a top end of town that’s punctuated by headquarter companies but we don’t. But this will impact mum and dad investors across South Australia trying to build their own financial security. It also applies to the residential sector … in South Australia we have 130,000 residential landlords; 90,000 of those landlords use negative gearing. That means any wild increases to valuations without any reduction in land tax will have a direct result in South Australians either being forced to sell their investments or having to pass on costs to tenants and consumers. Now landlords don’t want to do that but when governments put in place high punitive taxes at times, in fact more often than not it’s the consumer that is hurt the most. Now last week we hosted an urgent meeting with 30 commercial property owners in Adelaide, they’ve told us that if land tax is not reformed it’ll make it very hard for those same owners to keep investing in South Australia. Now they’ve seen wild increases over the last five years and that’s even before this state-wide revaluation program is put in place.

Back to John Darley

(Byner: So John Darley where do we go to from here?) The situation quite clearly at the moment is that the Valuer has to be stopped from doing what she’s going to do because – (Byner: Whose idea is it?) Well I think it was the Valuer General’s idea, and Treasury adopted it, accepted it, and hence gave her the $2.8 million last year rising up to I think it’s $15.4 million over five years. But it’s quite – you cannot have – where the principal is, to value all properties in the state every year and that has been the case since 1982, you cannot then just start picking out one fifth of the state and doing something about those valuations without touching the others. Now, the other thing is that if a person is not happy about their valuation when they receive their account they can, one of the avenues, is to appeal to SACAT, the South Australian Administrative and Commercial Tribunal. Now I notice that even those fees have risen this year to appeal to SACAT for a residential property is, it’s risen from $71.00 to $545.00. (Byner: That’s a huge wallop isn’t it?) Is it ever, and let me tell you even if you got a reduction in your valuation of $100,000 on a $400,000 property you’re still behind the eight ball in terms of the cost. (Byner: Alright. We’ll have a good look at this and … this has got to be an election issue. I just make the point it is not true that only people with property pay land tax. When you go to your supermarket and you buy your Cornflakes, your butter, your margarine, your milk, do not think for one moment that the price of any article you purchase doesn’t factor in all of those costs.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:13):I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation a question about low-flow bypass systems.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:13): As outlined in the 2017-18 budget, $13.5 million has been allocated over three years to install up to 500 low-flow bypass systems in strategically located dams and watercourse diversions in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, in the Angas and Bremer River catchments. I previously asked a question about low-flow bypass systems in December 2016 as to how many of these systems had been installed. In his answer, the minister advised that 11 trial sites had been installed, utilising $340,000 in funding from the Murray-Darling and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges natural resources management boards. My questions to the minister are:

Is installation of these systems voluntary or compulsory?How are sites for low-flow bypass systems and the associated funding identified?How is the level of funding determined?Can the minister advise how many low-flow bypass systems have now been installed and the amount of funding allocated?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:15):I thank the honourable member for his most important question, and I think it is inherent in his question that we understand—or he certainly does—the importance to the environment when we are talking about water. It is not just for irrigation purposes: it is also to maintain healthy ecosystems from which water is then extracted further downstream for other irrigation purposes. You can't see a stream, a river or a creek, for example, in isolated pockets where you just talk about taking the water out of one area—the top, the bottom or the middle. It is one contiguous system and it needs to be dealt with in that way.

If you think about it, we have been in this discussion previously, led again, I think, by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in the past. Everybody downstream from an irrigator upstream has a very real interest in having these low-flow bypasses in place because, unless you do that, there is no water coming downstream unless it is a very large flow. You have to wait until all the dams up the top of the stream line are full before any trickles down to the next person, and the same applies to the people further downstream, so there is a question of equity involved as well.

Healthy catchments are crucial for the sustainability of irrigated agriculture all the way through our watercourses. They are very crucial to the productivity of the Mount Lofty Ranges communities in particular, and we need to make sure that the health of those river systems, those watercourses, is not adversely affected by failures to meet the environmental needs of those ecosystems that transport the water down those watercourses for irrigators to use who are further downstream from those upstream.

For that purpose, a number of water allocation plans have been constructed on the basis that environmental flows will be provided to maintain the health of those watercourses. In the Mount Lofty Ranges, water allocations to existing water users are underpinned by the requirement for environmental flows to be passed by some licensed catchment dams and watercourse diversions. Without this provision of environmental flows, the volume and the timing of flows to the environment remain significantly altered, and catchment health cannot be maintained in the way I outlined in my opening remarks.

The provision of environmental flows allows for a greater allocation of water for consumptive users such as irrigation and for it to be better managed and a more equitable approach taken. This is particularly important during periods of low flow. Environmental flows result in significant environmental benefits, if you have these bypass systems in place, for the cost of only a very small reduction in the volume captured by dams. Current research is supporting the concept of providing environmental flows from strategic locations within particular catchments rather than around each and every existing dam. Low flows are only a small proportion of total flows. Medium and high-flow events can still be expected to fill a dam, as is normal business.

As the honourable member said in his question, 11 trial sites have been established to test a range of different methods to pass environmental flows from farm dams. Several of these sites are used for production, and business has continued as per usual, I am advised, after the installation of these low-flow devices. Some of these sites provided a demonstration opportunity, and I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has taken advantage of that and gone out to visit a couple of these sites, along with the member for Mayo, Ms Rebekha Sharkie. Some of these sites provide a great demonstration for the community to see how they are meant to work.

I am advised that during the process to select the sites, the project engaged in one-on-one conversations with over 50 individual landholders as well as with key industry partners and NRM groups. In August 2016, to assist landholders in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board has supported a two-year pilot project to secure low flows at required dams and watercourse diversions in the Carrickalinga catchment. Community engagement with stakeholders in the Carrickalinga catchment has been undertaken and on-ground works commenced in October 2017.

To assist landholders in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges during late 2015 and throughout 2016, a business case was developed by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources seeking funding through the Murray Futures program for state priority project funds from the commonwealth. These funds sought were to support the implementation of low-flow projects in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, the project named Flows for the Future.

The Flows for the Future business case process was successful in gaining Australian government funding support for a project in a section of the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. On 16 December 2016, the Australian government approved funding of a bit over $12 million for the Flows for the Future program. This represents 90 per cent of the total project cost, with the remaining 10 per cent to be contributed by South Australia, bringing the total investment to almost $13.5 million.

Flows for the Future will provide funding for devices designed to pass low flows and their installation at up to 500 strategically located dams and surface water diversion points across the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, beginning, I am advised, with the Angas catchment. The program is taking a strategic approach to get the best outcome for resources invested. Some dams and watercourse diversions have more influence on the pattern of flow than others, I am advised, so are the more effective places to secure the low flows. That goes to the Hon. Mr Darley's point about how they are selected and why.

By securing low flows at these strategic locations, the environmental flow requirements described in the water allocation plans for the project region will be provided at critical times, improving catchment health and maximising the amount of water that can be allocated to support primary production and the wider community.

I am further advised that a tender for businesses to join a panel of suppliers for the design and/or construction of low-flow devices for the Flows for the Future program has opened and will close on 20 November (just past). Discussions with local industry and other representative groups in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges are continuing, I am advised, as part of the Flows for the Future program. Discussions with participating landholders began in July, as I said earlier, and the installation process has also begun. The Flows for the Future program will continue through to July 2019.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:21):Supplementary: my first question was, is the installation of these systems compulsory or voluntary?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:21): I believe I made that answer fairly clear, but clearly not clear enough. The way this process has been run out is that we are talking to landholders and working with willing partners, so it is voluntary participation.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 16 November 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:03): I understand that the impetus for this bill was the ABC Four Corners program that exposed the unscrupulous practices of some labour hire companies. I have seen this program and it was very difficult to watch so many people being exploited by these companies. I understand that it is within the federal government's jurisdiction to monitor and enforce the existing laws around the exploitation of workers. Clearly, the system has failed.

The South Australian government has recognised that there is a problem here and, through this bill, is attempting to address the issues. Whilst I applaud them for taking this step, the mere fact that we have five sets of government amendments indicates that this bill was not very well thought out or consulted on before its introduction to parliament.

I support the principle of this bill to license labour hire businesses, which will lead to greater oversight and regulation of the industry. I have met with many stakeholders and understand the main point of contention is the definition of labour hire, which is primarily outlined in clause 6 of the bill. The two schools of thought are either to leave the definition broad to capture as many businesses and provide exemptions as needed, or to refine the definition so the bill is restricted on which businesses will be included.

I have considered both arguments but believe that dishonest labour hire operators are very clever in finding loopholes in legislation to continue their unscrupulous business practices. As such, I support the government's position to have a broad definition. However, I acknowledge the concerns from some stakeholders that this might be unworkable and have filed amendments for review of the act after three years. This way, any problems will be identified and can be rectified.

Radio News Broadcasts

John Darley, MLC & Leader, Advance SA (5AA 10.14-10.18) Late payments to businesses from Government

(Byner: Leader of Advance SA is John Darley … this is not the first time this has happened but it’s ballooning out again, all this money being owed.) Exactly … I’m on the Budget and Finance Committee of Parliament … when departments come in to us I have been in the past in the habit of asking them how many bills do they have outstanding more than 30 days … amazingly enough the answer is none … I think Kate Carnell’s idea is a brilliant one, ordinary Members of Parliament can’t put up a money bill that would cover this situation, but the thought that John Chapman, the Commissioner for Small Business, he could put a proposal to the Government … he should do that along the lines that Kate Carnell has mentioned, but in addition we should adopt the same approach that Government approaches to people that owe them money … there should be a mandatory late fee payment and if it’s not paid interest would automatically accrue. (Byner: Yeah, you’ve got to ask for it and people don’t and the Government have said, ‘oh they don’t because they’re happy’. No, they don’t because they’re afraid of being bullied … what can we do about this … because it’s just not acceptable?) … I’ll have a talk to John Chapman … and suggest to him that he should talk to Kate Carnell about this and actually get the wheels moving. (Byner: I reckon if we had mandatory payments of interest all of a sudden Treasury would be a little more looser with their purse. If they owe the money they should damn well pay it … what else goes on, and this happens and I’ve heard this from a number of sources that when somebody tells a department, ‘you owe this and until such time as you settle this debt or give me part payment I can’t provide you’, they go to another provider and open up an account and get credit there. Are we that desperate, we’re not broke are we, we’ve got money haven’t we?) … there’s money rolling in that’s for sure … at least the Government should do what every person in South Australia does, pay their bills. (Byner: Alright, so if people have got a fair bit outstanding … there’s no question about whether the service was delivered or whatever, then what should they do, go to John Chapman?) Absolutely … I’ll talk to John Chapman this week. (Byner: Alright … thanks John … this is a really important story because it’s about jobs … if you work in a business and they don’t get paid for their work and they have to go out and get a bridging loan that’s not fair … I don’t know whether there is a deliberate withholding of this money … but I can remember when Michael O’Brien was the Minister this nonsense went on and he said he was going to convince public servants, give them some training about how important it is to pay bills … obviously that training has been forgotten or maybe the people concerned who were trained have moved on but this is not a good look … the Crown is supposed to be the model citizen … again, they’ll tell you that you must do this … you got your ESL bill and if you don’t pay it on time there’s a warning that comes with it … they’ll never make their rules reciprocal to you and me but the least they can do is follow the lead of the Feds, 15 business days … that’s a lot better than 90.)

Radio News Broadcasts

John Darley, Advance SA (5AA 9.24-9.29) Safety on public transport and criticism of the tramline extension project

(Byner: We received a number of emails across the weekend about violence on our transport last week. This one for example: “I was horrified to hear of the violence on a Seaford train which was nasty enough to bring the line to a standstill. This incident highlighted a serious flaw with security on our public transport services, something that I’ve been mentioning for a long time. The vicious incident happened at half past one in the afternoon not 10 o’clock at night. There is virtually no security around at half past one in the afternoon or any day because the ruling elite seem to believe that felons are only active at night and as you and everybody saw this is not true.” The Leader of Advance SA, John Darley, has called in. Good morning John.) ... I’m interested in this issue of safety on public transport. Now obviously the Government would have a public risk policy – perhaps they insure themselves – but that would cover any issue caused by the transport system. Now it seems to me that any other criminal act that occurs on public transport is not covered at all, according to the Department of Transport, and I think it should be ... I mean we have ... transport officers on trains, buses and trams ... you probably can’t afford to have one on every tram just waiting for something to happen, but my view is and my party’s view is that there should be some protection for people who are attacked criminally on public transport. What we’re doing at the moment is researching what happens around the world because this is not just a South Australian problem it would be a worldwide problem ... if we can find somewhere in the world where they have taken some appropriate action we’ll certainly be suggesting to the Government. On the matter of the tram turning right into North Terrace does that mean that all the money that we’ve wasted that we’ve spent on putting the tramlines down to the east has now been wasted and also with the tram going to the Festival Centre does it mean that tram can only go straight back up King William Street and not turn right into North Terrace or left into North Terrace? (Byner: Well they’re questions that we would have asked the Minister. By the way, we did invite the Minister on this morning but he wasn’t available, just so you know. As a courtesy we always do this. We’re not obliged to do it but we do because we often say, and we’ll stick to it, that we give everybody a chance ... here’s another email: “The driver of the train has to watch the tracks obviously not be glued looking over his or her shoulder to CCTV. Old style guards need to be reintroduced on to our rail system with the utmost urgency. Guards will have the ability with today’s technology to call SAPOL if and when the need arises. In the old days of SA Railways and State Transport Authority the guard ruled the train. The guard was responsible for it and the passengers. The driver’s job was simply to drive the train. The guard could and often did make the decision to make an unscheduled stop to remove people from the train that were causing trouble. The guard could hold that train for as long as he or she saw fit and they were the ones who dictated the terms to train control not the other way around ... on the subject of security guards it’s a token gesture. Their primary function is the safety and welfare of the Passenger Service Assistant not the passengers.” Did you know that? Did you know that? “As previously highlighted in the media with vandalism attacks at Seaford the security guard could be clearly heard telling a member of the public that they’re not allowed to do anything.” This is true. “Security guards are instructed to look after the PSA only. So if a train pulls into Elizabeth station say for example and there’s a bus driver being assaulted the security guard on the train is not permitted to assist the bus driver as the train must keep moving as instructed by train control.” Now I’ve got to tell you this all goes back to the way this department is managed and led by Mr Deegan and he can sit there in his bunker and say nothing and put up people who hardly know anything and make them look even more stupid but ultimately somebody will have to pay the piper.)

Radio News Broadcasts

Mark Parnell, SA Greens & John Darley, Advance SA & David Ridgway, Shadow Agriculture Minister (ABC NORTH & WEST 12.07-12.12) Extension of SA’s GM moratorium

(Presenter: South Australia is set to extend its controversial ban on the growing of genetically modified crops until 2025 after a bill put forward by the Greens passed the Upper House by a single vote. While it’s yet to pass the Lower House, the move caught many politicians and the grain sector by surprise … ) (Reporter: The state’s ban on the growing of GM crops will be extended by six years. The motion sponsored by the SA Greens was put to the Upper House of State Parliament overnight … ) Parnell: There’s a lot of farmers in South Australia who are nervous about the technology and what the marketing evidence shows is that there’s a price premium for not growing GM crops …the price that farmers get for their traditional canola is much higher. (Reporter: The GM ban was due to expire on September 1st, 2019 and whether to extend it was meant to be debated later next year. The bill is expected to pass the Lower House given it already has the support of the Government. Mr Parnell says when that happens the state’s farmers will be the big winners.) Parnell: There are lots of farmers who want to grow GM crops but there’s an equal number who don’t. And in fact even the grain producers themselves admit that it’s about 50/50 and that’s why it’s important to make sure that if any decision to change the status quo is to be made it’ll be made by parliament. (Reporter: John Darley … who cast the deciding vote does have some hesitations and will now consult more with growers and grower groups.) Darley: When we came to that decision we discussed matters with grain producers’ organisation and others and the merit I saw in the bill was that the decision to take either introduced GMO in SA or not would be up to the parliament … in my second reading speech I indicated that I would be introducing a motion next year for a committee of inquiry … to get a hold of all the experts in this field and get all the facts about genetic modification of crops. The bill suggest 2025, but the bill also includes a provision whereby any member of parliament can introduce a bill into the parliament to change the situation … and that’s the other attraction; it’s not up to the Government anymore to make that change, it’s up to the parliament and any member of parliament can introduce a bill for that purpose. (Reporter: …it has been a week of wins for the Greens on the agricultural front. On Wednesday the Greens put forward a successful motion that will see the Parliament of South Australia issue a formal request to the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to split the Federal Agriculture and Water portfolios into separate government departments. It crossed party lines to get the support of Labor and the Liberal Opposition. But while the Opposition supported that move, it was blindsided by the extension of the GM ban … ) Ridgway: We knew that it was going to come to a vote yesterday but very surprised that the Government was prepared to – in fact the Government want to take it further, they wanted to actually increase the moratorium to 2028. Very surprised that both they and … John Darley were prepared to support it when clearly we’ve had no review, we’ve had no sort of … check and balance to make sure it’s the right thing to do for South Australian producers. (Reporter: The South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill is a strong and vocal supporter of the GM ban and earlier in the said he would not be pressured by the grains industry to scrap it. In July he told the ABC’s ‘Landline’ program: ) Premier: The truth is … there are not a lot of votes out there in country South Australia for us … so in some ways we’re sort of free of the electoral imperatives about this; we’re trying to do what’s right rather than what’s popular. (Reporter: Right for the consumer or the farmer?) Premier: Right for South Australia, putting South Australia first. (Reporter: Mr Ridgway says the Premier’s attitude is arrogant.) Ridgway: And I think there was a classic example last night that was just an arrogant, out of touch approach from the Government … we know that the people want us to have a look at it, they know that we want to have a review just to quantify what the benefits are and right now we’re not going to have that. (Reporter: The ABC has contacted South Australia’s Agriculture Minister Leon Bignell for comment but a spokesperson said he’s too busy today to respond.)

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 19 October 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:17): I rise to speak on the Retail and Commercial Leases (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The bill makes a number of changes to the Retail and Commercial Leases Act in response to a review of the act which was conducted by retired District Court judge, Alan Moss.

The bill clarifies the issue of when GST should be included, gives direction on what information is to be provided to lessees, and inserts provisions for the government and the Small Business Commissioner to provide exclusions from the act. I have no issues with the above provisions and believe it will assist to clarify matters for both lessors and lessees; however, one aspect of the act which I have issue with is the matter regarding the rent threshold which is used to determine whether the act will apply or not.

Prior to 2011, the rent threshold was $250,000. I understand that this was the threshold that was originally in the bill when the original act was passed, and that it had not changed. Essentially if the rent was under $250,000, then the provisions of the act would apply; however, if the rent was over $250,000, then the act would not apply.

One of the provisions concerned was the ability to pass on land tax. If the rent was over $250,000, then landlords were able to pass on land tax directly to the tenant; however, if the rent was under $250,000, they could not pass on land tax directly but land tax could be taken into consideration when calculating the rent. This does not make sense to me as it seems it is just another way of indicating to landlords that land tax can be passed on, albeit as part of the rent rather than a standalone charge. I would be grateful if the minister could clarify to me what this means.

As mentioned before, the rental threshold for the application of the Retail and Commercial Leases Act was $250,000 but, in 2011, it was changed to $400,000. I understand there was no particular impetus for this change and that it was almost a matter of a public servant suddenly waking up one day, realising that the threshold had not changed since the inception of the act and deciding that it should be changed. By changing the threshold overnight, the government have caused significant issues to landlords who are now faced with having to pay land tax when previously it was the responsibility of the tenant.

I have had regular communication with one such constituent who is by no means a big-time landlord. She is akin to what is colloquially known as a mum-and-dad investor and now faces a loss of $35,000 per annum from her income due to the government's change in the threshold. At the time of signing the lease, the terms were understood by both the lessor and the lessee. A price was negotiated for the rent and, because this price was above the threshold, the lessee understood that they would be liable to pay the land tax. This was fair and transparent. However, because of the threshold change, the rent now came in under the new $400,000 threshold and the onus to pay the land tax was put back onto the landlord. To me, this is inherently unfair.

As such, I introduced a bill to rectify this, and I understand the opposition have amendments that emulate the provisions of my bill. Essentially, the amendments will mean that if a lease was over the $250,000 at the time the threshold was changed in 2011, then it would be deemed that they are not covered by the act and land tax is able to be passed on to the tenant. For clarity, this includes lease renewals. I understand the government will argue that it was always envisaged that the threshold would be a fluid figure and that landlords should have anticipated that it would change; however, the threshold did not vary for many years after the introduction of the act, and the market responded accordingly.

My position on this matter is that land tax should be able to be passed on in an open, transparent manner for all leases regardless of the rental amount. Lessors and lessees would be able to make decisions on leases with the full knowledge of what is expected. However, given these are problems currently with our land taxes accounted for leases that fall under the threshold, it would be very difficult to unscramble the egg and prevent landlords from double dipping. I think more work needs to be done on this matter to make the process more transparent. It should be no surprise that whilst I will be supporting the bill, I will also be supporting the opposition amendments.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

Second Reading

Adjourned debated on second reading

(Continued from 27 September 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:37): I understand this bill is to streamline the process by which the government is able to establish linear parks. I have no issue with this and am generally supportive of linear parks. However, I have been contacted by the Coastal Ecology Protection Group, who are extremely concerned at the effect this bill would have should a linear park be established along the coastline and particularly the effect it will have on sand dunes.

Sand dunes are an important part of the ecology of the environment. We have seen instances where they have been interfered with and it has had a detrimental effect in regard to shifting sands. Whilst I appreciate that the government has filed amendments which provides for public notification of any proposed linear parks and gives the community an opportunity to provide their views, this does not seem to go far enough to address the concerns that have been raised with me.

Of particular concern to me is the fact that there does not seem to be a requirement for an environmental impact study to be undertaken before a linear park is constructed. I would like to hear from the minister as to why they have chosen not to include this in the bill. It seems peculiar that such a provision is not made in such a bill, especially when it has the potential to destroy sand dunes that have been in existence since the English settlement.

Whilst the government amendments allow for community consultation, we all know that it is entirely at the government's discretion as to whether submissions are taken on board or not. I could not see an avenue for aggrieved persons to pursue, should they be unhappy with the government's decision. I am happy to be corrected by the minister on this, but if no such appeal mechanism exists, I would like information as to why the government did not think this was necessary. I reserve my position on the bill until the third reading and look forward to hearing more from the government.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:07):I am pleased to rise to speak to the report of the Select Committee on Chemotherapy Dosing Errors. The committee was established to inquire into the dosing errors which occurred at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Flinders Medical Centre in 2014 and 2015, with particular focus on what contributed to the error, the response from SA Health and the government, the suitability of SA Health's risk management and the impact this risk management had on affected patients.

Evidence heard by the committee really painted a bleak picture of the entire debacle. It was not only the fact that such a crucial mistake had been made, it was also the subsequent mishandling of the matter. The committee found that a mistake was made because proper protocols within SA Health were not followed. Not only were they not followed, it became clear to the committee that staff, including management, had little or no knowledge of the protocols. Clearly, there is room for improvement there.

Once the mistake had been identified, protocols to report the error were also not followed. As a result, underdosing continued for some patients. When patients were advised or discovered that they had not been receiving the correct dosage the manner in which they were treated is, quite frankly, appalling. No information was provided to them, nor were any notes made on their medical files that they were the victim of underdosing and would require more intensive medical monitoring.

Some patients were told via the media of how widespread the problem was, and others were forced to sign a gag order as part of receiving their compensation. This was incredibly insensitive, as comfort and support could have been found in other patients who were experiencing the same issues. Psychologically this would have been invaluable to patients during their time of need.

Patients overwhelmingly reported that SA Health's handling of the matter lacked empathy and sensitivity. The government seemed more concerned about covering themselves rather than what was best for the patients, patients that had already been through quite a traumatic event.

Patients gave evidence that they faced a fight throughout every step of the process. Even though the government had made public statements that the matter had been addressed, in reality, issues continued and it was often not until there was further scrutiny through the media that things got moving. This is clearly not what is needed at a time when a person is trying to fight cancer. The last thing they want is protracted argument with SA Health and the government over compensation, reimbursement of legal fees or even an apology. This is especially so given that they know their time with their family is limited and precious.

The committee has made a number of recommendations and, frankly, it cannot be difficult to improve on how this entire matter was dealt with. I only hope that the report will give some comfort to the victims and their families who have struggled long enough with this issue and provide impetus for the government to implement changes in line with the recommendations.

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon J.A. Darley: That the report of the select committee be noted.

(Continued from 21 June 2017)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (23:23): I rise to make a few brief comments in relation to the Select Committee on Compulsory Acquisition of Properties on the North-South Corridor Upgrade. It is an interesting topic. We have progress. I think everybody is happy that, after many decades of traffic congestion, we are seeing some significant upgrades on the north-south corridor. But, of course, with progress there are always landowners who feel like the system has worked against them and they have not been fairly compensated or fairly dealt with. We had a number of witnesses who felt that they had been harshly done by and one particular family that I recall who had a large, four-bedroom house on quite a large block on South Road. They believed they were entitled to a similar property in the same suburb. Of course, it is very hard.

As you would appreciate with a large property—a big family home with a number of bedrooms, a big garden and chickens in the backyard—its value on a main road is significantly less than if it was back in the suburbs a bit. So they had this property, and they were very happy to live on a main road and suffer the noise and inconvenience because they wanted a big property. When it is compulsorily acquired, it is valued at a certain price. They are then offered another house in the same suburb at that same price, but of course it does not offer the same amenity. Then when they look for another house of that size on a main road, it is often a long way from the suburb they are in.

I felt for that family. They had chickens that they had to have destroyed because they could not take them to the new property. The children were distraught and the parents were upset, and I can understand the real concerns of the price of progress. There needs to be better management of people when dealing with these projects. We do want progress, but we do not wish to have people stalling out. Of course, we cannot have one person or two or three house owners holding the progress of the state to ransom.

We heard of some other examples where things were done poorly, such as negotiations. There is always two sides to every story. Maybe information was not shared in an appropriate way, or maybe the advice given to people whose property was being acquired was not given in an appropriate manner and transparently enough. There were some significant issues, and certainly it is important that the government takes into consideration the report from the select committee because it is very important that we try to get these things right.

I must also make the comment that we had some land set aside for a north-south corridor in the MATS plan, but of course the Labor Party sold that so we could never have a freeway through the suburbs. Again, that was a very short-term political gain that now means that we have a huge expense to build this road through the city, and there is also the pain of people having to be relocated. In some cases, businesses have not been able to get the business amenity they would have liked. But it was an important inquiry.

I thank all those who gave evidence, and I thank the Hon. John Darley for bringing the motion to the chamber to have the inquiry. I look forward to the government, in the very short period of time before the next election, responding to that particular report. Or, if we have the good fortune of being in government after the next election, I hope that the responsible minister takes notice of that report.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (23:27): I would like to thank the Hon. David Ridgway for his contribution and I move that the report be noted.

Motion carried.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 1 March 2017)

I will be brief also on these two bills and will address them at the same time. Firstly, I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for bringing forward these bills. It is about 28 years since life tenure leases were provided to lessees situated on Crown lands and in national parks, replacing terminating tenure, which existed for a further 19 years. On reflection, I believe these shacks should continue to exist and lessees be given the opportunity to transfer to transferable leases. With that, I support the bill.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 27 September 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (22:59):I want to thank the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. Justin Hanson and the Hon. Andrew McLachlan for their contributions. I also thank the Victims of Crime Commissioner, Mr Michael O'Connell, for the assistance he has given on this bill and his tireless work to support victims of crime. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (23:01): I move: That this bill be now read a third time.

Third reading negatived.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 18 October 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:02): First of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Andrew McLachlan for their contributions and I ask all members to support the second reading of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:04):I move: That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:06): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Employment representing the Treasurer a question about the expected 2017-18 land tax revenue.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY:I understand the Valuer-General is currently undertaking a revaluation of the state's properties. I have been advised that this is necessary because over time property values have become skewed relative to market value, with some areas of South Australia being at market value and others being well below. I understand the revaluation is likely to result in increases of up to 100 per cent in site values for various geographical locations and for certain classes of properties.

I have been contacted by constituents who have recently experienced a 15 per cent increase in site value of residential properties, which in turn has resulted in a 30 per cent increase in land tax this year. My question to the Treasurer is: in the circumstances where there is a dramatic increase in the overall site value across the state, will consideration be given to lowering the land tax scale of rates to avoid a massive increase in land tax revenue?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (15:07):I thank the honourable member for his question directed to the Treasurer. I will refer that to the Treasurer and bring back a reply for the honourable member.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:48): I rise today to speak about the Marksman firing range and their recent experience with SAPOL. To provide a bit of history on the matter, in 2008, Julia Morris purchased a shooting package at the Marksman and used the guns at the facility on herself to complete suicide. She had earlier been discharged from hospital as she had attempted suicide. In 2009, Raymond Jast completed suicide in a similar fashion at the Marksman facility.

A coronial inquiry into the deaths found that, although doctors reported over 800 individuals as being medically unfit to have a firearm, only 54 were banned. The inquiry recommended that the Marksman facility develop and install tethering devices that would ensure that the firearms could not be reversed.

In response to these recommendations, the Marksman developed tethering devices in 2012 and applied to the SAPOL firearms branch to vary their licence so that the tethering devices could be installed. I understand that the Firearms Branch needs to approve any changes on any active South Australian range. However, they could not get SAPOL to approve the tethering devices as Firearms Branch had begun proceedings to cancel Marksman's licence. This decision was appealed through the courts, which found in favour of the Marksman facility. However, SAPOL still would not inspect or approve the tethering devices.

Sadly, in 2015, Marksman had another suicide on its premises when Brenton Winton McConnal turned one of the firearms on himself. In the resulting coronial report from the inquest into Mr McConnal's death, the Coroner was scathing in his criticism of SAPOL and their handling of the matter. The Coroner found that Mr McConnal's death could have been prevented had SAPOL worked in conjunction with Marksman to approve the tethering devices. Instead, the Coroner found that SAPOL was committed to one course and one course only, namely to put Marksman out of business as a commercial firing range.

It is disappointing that this was the course of action that the Firearms Branch decided to take, and it is little wonder that there are some who question whether SAPOL has the best interests of the community at heart. Unfortunately, I have had other dealings with the Firearms Branch where their actions and behaviour have been questionable. I acknowledge that the Firearms Branch need some improvement, but I do not want to tarnish the reputation of all sworn officers of SAPOL, as I acknowledge that most do an excellent job under the current framework.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 27 September 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (22:26):This bill will make bullying a criminal offence with maximum penalties of 10 years' imprisonment. I commend the Hon. Dennis Hood for taking action on this matter of bullying, especially in response to the tragic death of Libby Bell. Whilst I am supportive of the bill, I am concerned that more is not being done on this matter.

Advance SA does not think that simply having a big stick to punish people will be enough to tackle the issue of bullying. Unfortunately, the reality is that children can be very cruel and this is not something that is new. However, the considerable increase of exposure to bullying through social media means that this cruelty can be spread further, longer and can creep into traditional safe havens such as a child's home.

Advance SA believes that there needs to be more education to teach children about the effects of bullying and how to switch off. Resilience should be taught so that children learn how to cope with these matters. I am not at all suggesting that Libby Bell, her parents or teachers did anything wrong. I am simply saying that those who perpetrate this sort of behaviour, children, often do not think about the consequences. Turning bullying into a criminal offence is unlikely to have a definitive positive effect without more work to prevent this behaviour in the first place.

Advance SA sees merit in having bullying as a criminal offence, especially when the deterrence is used in conjunction with education programs for children. I understand there are examples where adults have bullied children online. The typical scenario for this is when a parent of a child involves themselves in a dispute between schoolchildren. This behaviour is absolutely abhorrent, and these people, these adults, should know better and should be prosecuted for their behaviour, especially if their actions result in harm. On behalf of Advance SA, I support the bill.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 18 October 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:45): This bill will extend the current moratorium on growing genetically-modified crops in South Australia. At present the moratorium is due to expire in September 2019. I understand it is the Hon. Mark Parnell's intention to not only extend this expiration date but also to provide a mechanism whereby a parliamentary debate will occur should the decision to lift the moratorium be made.

This matter has been one of great conflict to me. The safety or hazards of GM crops have not been determined. Farmers argue that they want GM crops as they have a higher yield; however, I have received information to the contrary. I have spoken to a farmer who is concerned that the moratorium is a hindrance to South Australia because it may impede us from accessing new technologies which would be advantageous to the agricultural sector; however, I understand that by incorporating the moratorium into legislation rather than leaving it to regulation, it will provide any member of parliament with the opportunity to present a bill to remove the moratorium. This is in contrast to what would occur now, whereby the decision is entirely at the discretion of the government of the day.

Notwithstanding the above, I understand the moratorium is based on whether there is a marketing advantage to being GM free. I do not think there is any dispute that there is a worldwide marketing advantage to be able to say that products are from a state that is entirely GM free. As such I support the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill to extend the moratorium, but indicate that next year I will refer the matter of the GM moratorium to be investigated by a committee. I am not sure yet as to whether this would be referring the matter to one of the standing committees or establishing a select committee, but I am putting on the record that Advance SA believes this matter requires further investigation so that the parliament can make an informed decision about the matter.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 18 October 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:53):For the record, I indicate that I will be strongly supporting this amendment. It is absolutely essential in the peri-urban areas of South Australia that on the commission you need someone with rural planning or agricultural experience. I have had plenty of examples in recent days in the Barossa area where decisions have been made by planning assessment panels. They have had no rural experience and they just completely ignore any aspect of agriculture when it is up against urban areas. With that, I support the amendment.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 31 October 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:04): The proposal we are considering today is a result of a review of court fees undertaken by the Courts Administration council. Essentially, it has been suggested that lodgement fees for civil claims in the Magistrates Court should be tiered and a new setting-down fee should be introduced for listing civil matters for trial in the Magistrates Court. Although there is no suggestion that fees be tiered for any of the superior courts, the bill makes the relevant changes to allow for this in the future. I understand this has already happened in most other states, with the exception of New South Wales and Tasmania.

In the Attorney-General's second reading, he said:

"Introduction of a fee for listing a civil action should encourage more parties to attempt to settle civil claims before trial and reduce the number of civil claims being listed for trial".

I am not convinced that this is the only outcome it will have and am very concerned that increasing fees will only serve as a barrier to justice for those who cannot afford it.

I thank the Attorney-General's staff, who have been very helpful in providing information—comparing the fees South Australia currently has, what the proposed changes are under this bill and how this compares to other states. The fee increases will result in South Australia having the highest fees for civil claims in the Magistrates Court. This is even the case when we compare our fees with Queensland, which has an upper threshold of $150,000; that is, $50,000 more than South Australia's threshold.

I am alarmed at the increases the government is proposing. Advance SA would like to know why the court fees in South Australia are so much higher than interstate. Why does it cost more to seek justice in South Australia than it does in any other state in the country? Unfortunately, it is not only court fees where we are the most expensive; we have some of the country's most expensive speeding fines, stamp duties on property, land tax and workers' compensation premiums, not to mention the cost of electricity.

The tiered civil claim lodgement fees and new setting-down fees are expected to generate an additional $607,000 per annum. I would like to know what the revenue is going towards. Will it be put back into the courts to upgrade the facilities, which definitely need maintenance work undertaken? I am yet to see a compelling reason as to why I should support this bill and reserve my right to oppose it in later stages.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 28 September 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:00):We will talk about that, too. This bill will broaden the powers of the government to recover debts and expand the circumstances whereby community service and intervention programs can be undertaken in order to service a debt. The bill will also enable all debts that are owed to the government, including civil debts, to be dealt with by the fines unit.

I am supportive of the provisions in the bill; however, I hold some concerns that the chief recovery officer will now be able to terminate a payment arrangement if they are of the opinion that a person's circumstances have changed and they are of the opinion that the person is now able to pay the debt.

The paperwork required by the fines unit to enter into a payment arrangement has increased in the past few years. It is no longer simply a matter of requesting a payment arrangement and having it granted. Individuals need to demonstrate that they would suffer financial hardship should they be required to pay their debt up-front, so it is not easy for a payment arrangement to be granted.

I understand that payment arrangements would only be terminated in circumstances whereby the CRO becomes aware of a person's increased capacity to pay. However, I would hope that the CRO would consult with individuals before terminating such agreements.

After confirmation of registration from the South Australian Electoral Commission, Advance SA will be officially launched today as a new political party for the people of South Australia.

Advance SA will be the first South Australian political party to have assisted dying as a policy platform.

“We understand that assisted dying is a divisive issue but Advance SA believes people should have a right to a choice” Peter Humphries said.

Further policies for Advance SA will be made throughout the election campaign.

Advance SA is a centralist party which will examine the merits of each issue and compare it against the standards of honesty, good judgement and fairness.

On 15 September John Darley MLC announced that he would be forming a new political party with retired lawyer, Peter Humphries.

“I am very pleased to announce Jenny Low as my running mate for the 2018 election.” Peter Humphries said. “Jenny has 10 years parliamentary experience as part of John’s team and will be a great asset to the campaign and South Australia”.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Employment, representing the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, regarding the Festival Plaza redevelopment. In an article in The Advertiser last Monday, the headline was 'Walker to reveal tenants in plaza 23-storey tower'. Can the minister advise whether the South Australian government is negotiating with Mr Lang Walker, or any other proponents, to lease office space for SA government employees in the proposed new office tower that will be built by the Walker Corporation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for his question and I will refer it to the minister responsible—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Oh, have a go at it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER:—as he has asked in the question—and bring back an answer for the honourable member.

(Image Credit: http://sagreens.markparnell.org.au/festival_plaza)

(Image Credit: https://theadelaideriverbank.com.au/projects/adelaide-festival-plaza-upgrade/)

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 27 September 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:03):First of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Gail Gago and the Hon. Rob Lucas for their contributions. I have taken note of the comments made by the Hon. Rob Lucas and what I suggest we do is take the second reading vote and then I will move an adjournment.

Bill read a second time.

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:43): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:44): I move: That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to amend the Local Government Act so that councils will not be able to charge a minimum rate for an individual living unit in a retirement village. Currently the act provides that a fixed charge cannot be charged against individual sites in caravan parks, residential parks and marinas. This bill will see retirement villages added to this list.

Like the properties that are already included in the Local Government Act, individual living units are small portions of a whole, namely the retirement village. Retirement villages are often on one title, with residents being given a licence to occupy by way of a contract. Councils provide no services within the retirement villages; street lighting, rubbish removal, road maintenance and verge maintenance are all the responsibility of the residents or the village owners, depending on the contract.

I know the issue of council rates has long been a bugbear for the South Australian Retirement Villages Residents Association (SARVRA), who have campaigned for reduced council rates in recognition of their unique circumstances. It seems unfair to charge a unit in a retirement village the same rates as a comparable residential unit which is not in the village when residential units receive so many more services from council.

I am not saying that retirement villages should pay nothing for their council rates, as residents still have access to many of the facilities that council offer. Much like caravan parks, residential parks and marinas, councils will still be able to attribute rates to a retirement village as a whole. It will then be up to the village management to determine how this cost is to be apportioned to individual units.

Retirement villages house some of our community's most vulnerable people. These people have worked their entire life, and do not deserve to be unfairly treated. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 28 September 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:35): This bill will give the courts the ability to use the sentencing principles of adult offenders rather than youth offenders when sentencing juveniles who have been tried as adults. I understand that the primary sentencing consideration for adults is to protect the community from harm, whereas for young offenders rehabilitation is the key sentencing consideration. Rehabilitation should be the key principle for the sentencing of young people, except in the most severe circumstances. Advance SA recognises that there are exceptional circumstances where the safety of the community may be placed at risk if rehabilitation is the primary sentencing consideration. It would be unacceptable to allow for there to be a risk to the community for the sake of rehabilitation.

During briefings on this matter, I was advised that the courts will have discretion as to whether they sentence youths as adults or not. I am glad that this is the case, as Advance SA has serious concerns that this bill could see 10 year olds and 11 year olds being sentenced as adults. I think there are very few people in the community who would think that 10 year olds and 11 year olds should not have rehabilitation as the primary sentencing consideration except in very rare and exceptional circumstances.

I am glad the courts will have discretion and that it is not automatic that youths tried as adults will be sentenced as adults. We will rely on the court’s discretion for this but it is important that these concerns are put on the record.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

Radio News Broadcasts

John Darley, Independent MLC (5AA 9.25-9.27) Calls for reforms to the South Australian Parliament

(Pantelis: Talking reform of the Parliament, John Darley …) … first of all I was around in the final days of the Playford Government … the leader of the Opposition and the Premier at that stage worked together collaboratively in the best interests of South Australians and that’s how it should work … this issue about the number of politicians, the number of Ministers, all that sort of thing … Parliament firstly should be a place of all good ideas and so the Parliament and the Government of the day should work collaboratively towards that end … if you’re running Government, Government is nothing more than a business and with any business no matter what you’re doing you measure what you need to do and you staff it accordingly … that should be the basis for the Members of Parliament … I was around in the Xenophon Team when this idea of reducing the number of politicians, the number of Ministers came up and it was based on nothing more than fresh air. I haven’t had time to look at Robert Brokenshire’s ideas but there’s a saying in business, ‘if you can’t measure it it’s not worth doing’ … if you’re going to look at the size … of the Parliament, the number of Ministers, etcetera, you really need to do a study on what you need to do and base it accordingly. (Pantelis: Alright … thanks for your call.)

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:55): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Limitations of Actions Act 1936. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:56): I move: That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to rise to present this bill on behalf of Advance SA. This bill will amend the Limitations of Actions Act to remove the statute of limitations for civil claims relating to child sexual abuse. I understand the member for Bragg has introduced a similar bill in the other place; however, it is worth noting that this bill goes further. The member for Bragg's bill removes the statute of limitations only for claims of child sexual abuse that were committed in a government institution. This bill goes further and removes the statute of limitations from all claims of child sexual abuse, regardless of where it is committed. This was a recommendation of the federal Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

In 2016 the royal commission produced the Redress and Civil Litigation Report. The commission made a number of recommendations, including that all states should remove the statute of limitations for civil claims against child sexual abuse claims where the child was in institutional care. I quote:

"Recommendation 85. State and territory governments should introduce legislation to remove any limitation period that applies to a claim for damages brought by a person where that claim is founded on the personal injury of the person resulting from sexual abuse of the person in an institutional context and the person is or was a child".

While the recommendation is limited to child sexual abuse committed in institutions, the report also says:

"While our recommendations relate to institutional child sexual abuse, we have no objection to state and territory governments providing for wider changes".

I cannot see a reason why the statute of limitation should be removed for some victims of child sexual abuse and not others.

When sexual abuse is perpetrated against a child the abuser often manipulates the child to ensure their silence. They threaten that something bad will happen to them or their family or they prey upon the playful innocence of a child by presenting the abuse as a secret game. This abuse has a long-term effect that often extends well into adulthood. Children are often not competent enough to report these matters to other adults for fear that they will not be believed—after all, who would believe a child over the word of an adult?

This is what they are told, and it is their truth. Once it gets to the stage where a child or young person realises that what is happening to them is not acceptable, they are essentially having their truth completely perverted. What they thought was right is now wrong, and what is wrong is actually right.

To undo years of psychological manipulation is very difficult. Therefore, a lot of cases of child sexual abuse are not reported until many years later, far beyond the current statute of limitations. The statutory limitation period for criminal prosecutions has been removed; however, there is still a time limit for personal injury claims. This limit is three years. However, I understand the limitation period does not begin until the child turns 18, which effectively means that a person has until they turn 21 before the statute of limitation runs out. I will read a quote from the royal commissioner's report as to why a statute of limitations is inappropriate when applied to child sexual abuse claims:

"…the delay in a survivor's capacity to report child sexual abuse, particularly when it occurs in an institutional context, is now well known. Many survivors are unable to disclose their abuse until well into adulthood. Analysis of our early private sessions revealed that, on average, it took survivors 22 years to disclose the abuse. Men took longer than women to disclose the abuse. These delays are not surprising. It is common for survivors who were abused in an institutional context to tell us that they were unable to report the criminal acts of a person who had authority over them. Their compromised psychological position often means they wrongly blame themselves for the abuse and are grossly embarrassed and ashamed, all of which make it difficult for them to tell anyone about the abuse for many years".

Whilst I acknowledge that the courts have a discretion to grant an extension, the royal commission found that the mere idea of the limitation is often obstacle enough to dissuade a claim. I quote:

"[Survivors] have told us that limitation periods are a significant, sometimes insurmountable, barrier to survivors pursuing civil litigation…

They create the risk of lengthy litigation—sometimes years of litigation—about whether or not the claim can be brought. This involves substantial legal costs without any consideration of the merits of the case. Many survivors and survivor advocacy and support groups have told us that this risk is enough to prevent many survivors from commencing civil litigation".

There has been very little done to address this by the state government, and Advance SA believes this is unacceptable. The government have not opted into the national redress scheme that would allow victims of child sexual abuse access to compensation, instead referring people to make a claim from the Victims of Crime Fund. This in itself is problematic as any claims are dependent upon the police prosecuting the matter and attaining a successful conviction. If there is no conviction, it is up to the abused person to prove to the government that the offence occurred beyond reasonable doubt.

I understand that New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria have already removed the statute of limitations for civil claims and that Western Australia is looking into it. There has been no movement in South Australia and it is about time that this is done. Advance SA wants to provide justice for child sexual abuse victims, and I commend the bill to members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading

(Continued from 26 September 2017)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:52): The government is extending the grants from previous years for off-the-plan apartments. A $10,000 grant is available to certain eligible transactions for off-the-plan apartments. A stamp duty concession is also available to these transactions.

From the information provided by the Valuer-General's office, 22 per cent of apartments that have been bought and resold in the past five years have sold at a loss. The data provided showed that those who made money did not make a large profit from the resale of their property. However, those who did suffer a loss tended to incur a significant loss. The banks are generally reluctant to loan on single-bedroom apartments that are less than 60 square metres in area, and any apartment that does not have a car park allocated is difficult to sell.

This indicates that apartments are not the best choice for a property purchase when accounting for resale value and equity. As such, Advance SA believes it would be beneficial to extend the stamp duty concession and the $10,000 grant to all new house and land packages in the state to help stimulate the building and retail sectors associated with this area. I understand that with each new house and land package there is a significant multiplier effect with regard to associated industries.

Further to stamp duty concessions, as part of the 2015-16 budget the government progressively abolished stamp duty on the transfer of business premises. I recently encountered an issue with a constituent who purchased a property zoned commercial; however, it was being used as a residential property by the previous owner. I understand that, prior to historical rezoning, the entire area was residential, and that the previous owner had lived in the property prior to the commercial evolution of the area. That is to say that the previous owner had been there for many years, and over an extended period of time the use of neighbouring properties changed from residential to commercial to a point where the entire area was rezoned.

My constituent intended and, indeed, now has converted the property for commercial use, however is ineligible for the stamp duty concession as the use at the time of the settlement transfer was residential. The government should give consideration to providing a stamp duty concession in these circumstances by way of application if the property owner can demonstrate within a specified time frame that they are using the property for business purposes.

For those who have purchased an off-the-plan apartment, and have been eligible for the stamp duty concession, the government will also give them an exemption for land tax for the first five years. Whilst on paper this looks positive, it should be noted that most of the apartments purchased would be exempt in any case because the site value would be under the threshold where land tax is payable. Further to this, apartments that are purchased and used as a person's principal place of residence would also be exempt. The government advised during my briefing that they expect to forfeit $100,000 per year by providing this exemption—this really is an insignificant amount when compared to the government's total budget.

The government intends to introduce a surcharge on residential properties that are purchased by foreigners. I understand that most other states have already introduced similar measures; however, I find it curious that this surcharge is limited only to residential properties. I understand there is concern in the general public about foreigners purchasing land in Australia, and this may lead to an increase in housing prices. However, I understand there is concern about foreign ownership of Australian companies and particularly farming land. It will be interesting to see if the government will react to these community concerns in the future.

Finally, the government's bank tax. I believe that introducing this tax will impact on the cost of doing business or housing, as bank loans will be affected. Retirees, pensioners and others who rely on bank profits will also be affected. It will put South Australia into reverse gear, and that is the last thing we want. By introducing this tax, the government has sent a clear message to businesses that they may wake up one day and be faced with an additional arbitrary tax at the whim of the government.

Just because a business is successful does not mean that they should be the government's cash cow. While it is only the banks that the government currently have in their sights, we do not know who could be next. It might be Coopers, Vilis, Rossi Boots or even the Shahins. I have never supported the bank tax, and I want to put on the record that Advance SA does not support it either, even though my former colleague, Senator Nick Xenophon, did support it until I convinced him to do otherwise. As it stands, I will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:40): My question is to the Minister for Health. I understand the pains unit and the chest clinic and some administrative staff are still located at or adjacent to the old RAH? Can the minister advise if and when these units will be relocated to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital or adjacent to it?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (15:41):I thank the honourable member for his question. This issue that the honourable member raises has been the subject of some public interest for some time. That is understandable. The whole health sector has been busy trying to make sure that the move to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital has been as smooth as possible. By and large, I think that is something that has been achieved and a lot of people within the health sector can be incredibly proud.

Of course, the issue regarding the chest clinic remains an ongoing issue. We have stated already publicly—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT:Order! The minister is on his feet.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: We have already stated publicly that we are engaging in a process to ensure that the chest clinic services can be delivered in a location ideally that is located very close to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. It is unfortunate that this issue remains unresolved, but there are a number of people—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:—who are working incredibly hard to resolve this. Ms Jenny Richter, CEO of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, is meeting almost on a weekly basis, I am advised, with the relevant clinicians to try to establish a revised location so these important services can be maintained and delivered in a location that is close to the new RAH.

The PRESIDENT: Obviously, the Hon. Mr Dawkins is upset that he did not get the final question. I gave it to the Hon. Mr Darley. I did make it quite clear at the beginning that I expect the crossbench to get a minimum of questions. They had three today. The opposition had four. The fact is, though, that the minister may take a bit of time to answer his question, but I am sure he would have answered his question a lot quicker if there wasn't the interjections from the opposition.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:52): Advance SA is supportive of this bill as we understand there is an urgency for it to pass to address a particular urgent situation that the Department for Correctional Services has notified the government about. From time to time parliament is asked to put aside normal procedure and conventions and consider bills as a matter of urgency, as is the case with this bill. However, I want to put on the record that this is not good practice and does not allow for full consideration or consultation on matters. We in this place cannot be experts on everything that comes before us, and we need time to consider the implications of what the government is proposing.

Today I received an email from Ms Penny Wright, the Guardian for Children and Young People, that essentially echoed this. She said that neither she nor the regular stakeholders were consulted about this bill. Notwithstanding this she raised a number of issues, and one particular issue that I thought needed attention was with regard to the expiration of extended supervision orders. Essentially, Ms Wright said that one of the framing principles of an order should be that it is a measure of last resort and should be for a specified and limited amount of time. I believe the government has addressed this first measure; however, the bill does not seem to address the issue of the expiration of extended supervision orders or whether rolling orders can be issued against an individual continuously. I would be grateful for clarification on this from the government.

I understand the matter that this bill seeks to address concerns a juvenile and, as such, only a few details as to why this urgency is needed can be divulged. In short, the government is asking us to trust it with the information it has without providing that to us. In my time here I can recall this situation of being asked to simply trust the government occurring on several occasions. Each time I have been very uncomfortable about giving my blind support to the government, but I have done so because I have been told that it is in the interests of community safety. I want it noted that while I agree on this occasion, this may not always be the case going forward.

Radio Broadcast News

Inmates at Yatala jail are being fined as little as $50 for being caught with drugs

It’s been revealed inmates at Yatala Jail are being fined as little as $50 for being caught with illegal drugs; the fines are set by a visiting tribunal which tours prisons.

Independent MP John Darley uncovered the information under a Freedom of Information application and he’s told Leon Byner prisoners are being slugged a lot less than people not in jail:

John Darley, Independent MLC (5AA 10.08-10.15) Discrepancies between the fines which offenders pay in prison versus out of prison

(Byner: My next guest did an FOI on what happens in prison when someone is detained at the Government’s pleasure uses drugs. Now you might expect that if you’re already in prison and you might even be there on drug offences that the tariff for using drugs or having drugs in prison would be high. But you would be wrong because it looks as if sentenced criminals at Yatala are being penalised as little as fifty dollars for being caught up with illegal drugs. Now the only reason you know this is because of an FOI by Independent John Darley which reveal the penalties imposed by a visiting tribunal which tours prisons to pass judgement on bad behaviour Alright? Internal Correctional Department documents, smallest fine was thirty dollars and in some cases mere reprimand. Let’s talk with the bloke that did the FOI … why did you do the FOI? Did you smell something not quite right.) Well it was basically by accident because we were looking at the comparison between fines imposed in South Australia as opposed to the other states, and as we all know, the fines here are much, significantly higher, than interstate. And then because in the last week of Parliament we were dealing with a bill that we were trying to get amendments up for mandatory rehabilitation of prisoners affected by drugs ,that we started looking at the situation there and fond that the fines, as you’ve mentioned, are significantly lower for prisoners in prisons than they are for people outside. Now if you take the comparison: a pensioner who drives through a red light camera – and the fine is around about $400, there’s no concession for them – and so we thought well why should there be a concession for these people who, for some period of time, are in prison? (Byner: Yeh, stay on the line will you? I want to talk to the Victims of Crime Commissioner Michael O’Connell.)

Michael O’Connell, Victims of Crime Commissioner (5AA 10.10-10.12) Discrepancies between the fines which offenders pay in prison versus out of prison

(Byner: Michael thanks for joining us today: do you find this a little strange?) Well I find it strange for two reasons: one of those is that I don’t see any reason why people who are in prison who commit like offences to people out in the community should be treated any differently; I think that creates an in equity in our system and I’m sure there would be other people who would see it that way. Secondly is that in my view if a prisoner has been [unclear] while in prison then … I emphasise that this is a possibility, then they ought to have some consequence or to be called to account and to either pay that fine as they do some community service or they do some other form of punishment, the same as you and I would have to do if we were given a fine out in the community and refuse to pay it. (Byner: Michael can you explain to the people listening today how this can happen? Why it happens?) Well I’m assuming for two reasons: one is that for people who are in prison they don’t have the capacity to earn or to receive unemployment benefits or other forms of social security, if they do earn any sum of money it’s usually about $20 per week to cover expenses above and beyond the fundamentals of food and so on. And we already do tax a proportion of that; that is, we take a proportion of that if the offender has a debt such as a Victims of Crime levy or they owe victim compensation. So from a prisoner perspective I suppose there’s always an argument as to whether or not they have the capacity to pay the fine, but many, many people out in the community, especially in low socioeconomic areas don’t have the capacity to pay fines and they have to enter into payments schemes and other ways or face the prospect of losing their licence or having motor vehicles seized and sold. So … I just think we need to discuss this in the context of what is fair to all citizens. (Byner: So what would you suggest the Government do?) Well my suggestion has been to either look at … in the same way we would with a person out in the community, either the payment of the fine is made by way of an instalment, that the person has to do community service, or that the debt carries with the person when they’re released from prison and once they’ve got suitable employment they can start paying their debt off. I don’t see the difficulty with that and I would be surprised if there would be very many people who would see that that’s unreasonable.

Back to John Darley

(Byner: Michael O’Connell thank you, so John Darley we tried to get Chris Picton on the program today. You know what his media people told us? … talk to Corrections.) Oh yeh, talk to anyone else. (Byner: Yeh, but hang on.) Good luck. (Byner: Yeh you see but this is a pol-icy-ma-tter, Mr Picton sits around the table with Ministers, who discuss the scourge of drugs.) Yes, and we talk about equity and fairness in the state; this is a joke. (Byner: Yeh so what’s got to happen next?) Well I’ll have a talk to Chris Picton about it and … if I need to I’ll talk to the Premier about it. But this has to be a change. (Byner: Alright John Darley thank you … I get the ‘capacity to pay’ thing but isn’t it sad that on the face of it you commit an offence in jail, you get a much lesser penalty, than you’d get if you weren’t in jail. And again there’s absolutely no point in putting things on the statutes if they can be hotwired by other means. Simple as that. And this is the second time that if the - … as I said, I keep telling you this: when it is a matter of policy we will talk to a minister. We’ll give the Minister an opportunity to come on or give us a statement. We didn’t get either this morning, so we’ll keep a note of this because people want answers. If you’re in government, you’ve got the levers, you’ve got the controls, people expect you to have something to say. Not fob us off to a public servant. That won’t happen.)

Question asked in Parliament 19 Mar, 2015

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY ( 15:19 :59 ):I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister questions about water and sewerage rates.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY:It is well over two months since SA Water were alerted to the issue of an enormous increase in water and sewerage rates for a retirement village at Para Vista. As previously outlined, residents in this village were hit with rates for the 2014-15 financial year which were 677 per cent higher than the previous year. I understand from previous answers that the minister is very concerned about this issue and has asked SA Water to investigate a solution to the issue. My questions are:

Can the minister advise what, if anything, SA Water have done for the specific village in Para Vista?Can the minister advise the progress of SA Water's investigations, when he expects a response to this problem and if it is likely to be before the end of this financial year?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) ( 15:21 :02 ): I thank the Hon. Mr Darley for his most important question and for his continuing interest in this community and the response to the changes to rating on properties, particularly in retirement homes such as the one that he raised with us previously. I have talked about this before in this place in response to questions from the Hon. Mr Darley.

I advised the chamber of the Valuer-General's policy. The Valuer-General, of course, as an independent statutory authority, cannot be directed. The Valuer-General's policy for assessing retirement units has changed over a number of years and has, unfortunately, resulted in changes to how SA Water and other organisations charge independent residents within those villages, including councils in terms of council rates. That's not an area in which I have any control, of course, but I do have some ability to discuss with SA Water how they apply changes arising from the Valuer-General's policy.

As I have said in this place before, I don't accept that SA Water would unilaterally just apply the changes to those retirement villages and their separately titled units without considering first the consequences to those residents and how that might impact some of those people who are quite vulnerable. So, as I have said before, I have asked the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to consult with the Valuer-General's office and SA Water and other agencies to discuss a way forward on this matter.

I am aware that a number of meetings have been held at a high level across many agencies. I have asked them in their deliberations to put the interests of the residents at the forefront and the bureaucratic determinations that flow from the Valuer-General's determinations as secondary items and, when I get a satisfactory response, I will bring it back to this chamber for the honourable member. But again, I say that I am not so much interested in a quick and hasty response but in getting the right one.

Response

April 14, 2016

In reply to the Hon. J.A. DARLEY (19 March 2015)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) :

Since July 2014, SA Water has been providing the Para Vista Retirement Village with a water and sewer rebate for the difference between the amount charged based on individual ILU assessments and the amount that would have been charged if SA Water were to issue a single bill for the village. The Village has not been disadvantaged by the change in valuation process.As of 1 July 2015, SA Water introduced a limited period Retirement Village Discounted Single Assessment (RVDSA) charge to apply to the Para Vista Retirement Village and other Retirement Villages impacted by the change in the Valuer General's policy regarding the assessment of Retirement Villages. This RVDSA will run for a period of ten years ending on 30 June 2025.

Question asked in Parliament Mar 9, 2016

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (14:59:30):I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Water and the River Murray questions in regard to pipe maintenance.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY:I understand that a number of years ago SA Water undertook a preventative maintenance program which included inspections of the pipe network, a register of the age and condition of the pipe network, and information pertaining to soil reactivity in areas across the state. My questions are:

Can the minister advise if SA Water still have a preventative maintenance program or if this has been replaced by a breakdown maintenance program?Can the minister provide details as to whether SA Water still maintain a register for the age and condition of the pipe network and how often this is reviewed and updated?What was the date of the last review of the pipe network, including pipes and pipe joints, in Campbelltown, Newton and Paradise?When was the pipework originally laid?Can the minister table the last review results?Can the minister advise if SA Water conducts regular soil testing on soils that are known to be particularly reactive? If so, can the minister advise if the soil in Campbelltown, Newton and Paradise has been tested and, if so, the date of that test and the type of soil found, including the extent of expansion and contraction?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:01:02):I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. It was incredibly detailed, and some of it I will have to take on notice and come back with some answers for him, but I can put some general remarks on the record for him.

Over the past four years, 2011-12 to 2014-15, SA Water has spent $51.4 million per annum on average, I am advised, on direct routine maintenance repairs, including breakdowns to its infrastructure right across the state. This cost is directly attributable to maintenance activities, I am advised. Those activities are undertaken on individual assets and do not include the cost of operating, monitoring and managing those assets on a day-to-day basis.

In addition to the asset maintenance cost, SA Water also invests significant capital in the ongoing renewal of its infrastructure. Over the past three years, SA Water has invested on average $325 million per annum, I am advised, on the renewal and upgrade of its pipe networks, treatment plants, water storages and other related infrastructure. The 2014-15 spend, I am advised, has reached approximately $243 million.

The results of SA Water's Customer Engagement Program have determined that customers were satisfied with the level of service and reliability provided by SA Water. In terms of the condition and age of the network, SA's water pipe network is in good condition, I am advised. The average age of the water mains is 51 years, with those water mains in regional areas being slightly older than metropolitan Adelaide water mains on average.

The Australian water industry anticipates that water pipes will have useful lives, between an average of 80 and 150 years, depending on soil conditions, pipe material and construction standards. SA Water's pipe network is therefore relatively young by urban water industry standards. SA Water owns 27,078 kilometres of water mains with a gross replacement value of $7.3 billion, I am advised, as of June 2015, in order to supply water to 682,749 metered connections across the state. I assume that relates to the same date.

I can also say that in terms of comparing the failure rate of water mains of interstate providers, it does demonstrate how favourably SA Water performs in this regard. The national performance report compares the failure rate of water mains of utilities between comparative interstate providers, that is, those with a customer base of over 100,000 customers. I am advised that for 2013-14, South Australia statewide had a failure rate of 11.5 failures per hundred kilometres per year and, in comparison, as I said earlier, Western Australia experienced 17.3 failures, Victoria experienced 32.2 failures and Sydney Water experienced 30 failures. I read into the record previously what those actual figures were and, again, they show that SA Water performs remarkably well in comparison to those other utilities.

I don't think you asked a question about wastewater mains. I will undertake to take those other detailed questions the honourable member asked and bring a response back to the chamber on his behalf.

Response

May 17, 2016

In reply to the Hon. J.A. DARLEY (9 March 2016).

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change):The Minister for Water and the River Murray has received this advice:

I am advised that SA Water's maintenance program follows both preventative and breakdown maintenance methodology.As per the previous point, the entire water system including the suburbs of Campbelltown, Newton and Paradise are analysed between the months of February and March to set the capital programme. Outside that period SA Water investigates individual pipes and set priorities for either replacement or inspection.A State of the Assets Report is tabled in parliament twice a year which reflects the performance of water main assets.Within the metropolitan area, SA Water uses soil data that was collected and tested by the Department of Mines and Energy in 1996. Between 2006 and 2009, SA Water undertook an extensive investigation into soil movement and water main failures. This relationship between soil and pipe failures is still monitored by SA Water today with failure patterns observed in 2009 consistent in 2016.

Soil within metropolitan Adelaide is separated into two horizons. The A horizo n is the higher level and the B horizon is the lower level.

There are 21 soil classification categories identified within the A soil horizon, which ranged from sandy alluvial material to the aggressive red brown and black earth clays and a variety of clays types within the lower (B) horizon. They include the Keswick c lay and Hindmarsh clay to name a few.

Across Adelaide, Gilgai formations commonly occur when the increase in moisture content of a lower soil horizon (B) causes the soil to swell and heave itself upwards through the upper soil horizon (A) to provide micro relief. Within Adelaide the most significant occurrence of Gilgai formations would occur within a Keswick or Gley clay B horizon and a black earth A horizon.

Unfortunately the suburbs of Paradise, Newton and Campbelltown are predominately located within Black earth soils as an A horizon and Keswick clay as a B horizon. As a result, the majority of failures within this region are attributed to circumferential cracking and ground movement.

The influence of aggressive soil movement, due to changes in moisture content in both horizons, has the potential to apply multiple forces on the water main. First frictional forces from soil cracking can pull against the main, and second, swelling of soils can cause uplift and result in negative bending moments applied to the main. This supports the monthly failure trend within the network and sees peak number of water main failures in March to June and significantly lower number of failures in October and September.