(Continued from 10 September 2019.)
The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister outline what, if any, changes occur in this part of the bill before us in relation to water resources compared to the scheme that is in operation at the moment?
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for the question. As he would be aware, the consultation on the legislation has deliberately excluded water at this stage, although there were comments which were received and further reform is planned. Most of the water-related provisions in the current legislation have been carried over unchanged into the new bill.
The government made it clear, through consultation, that landscape reform would include only minor changes to water management to reduce red tape and streamline water-related provisions. Any further water management reform needs to be carefully considered and would require extensive consultation as water is a very complex area. Our intention is to come back to look at water in the medium term.
In part 8 of the bill, only minor changes have been made to reduce red tape and streamline water-related provisions to enable the simplification of regional landscape plans and provide greater consistency and clarity for customers as to where rules on water-affecting activities are. Rules for water-affecting activities such as building a dam or drilling a bore would be set out in either a water-affecting activity control policy or a water allocation plan.
To reduce red tape, rather than requiring a works approval for each type of work such as a well or dam, a change has been made to enable a single approval to authorise multiple works where, for example, a person has more than one well or dam on the same land. A number of minor clarifications have been made to make it clear that existing arrangements for water licences can also apply where water rights and authorisations are held on separate instruments. For example, the bill makes it clear that a water resource works approval may specify a maximum volume that may be taken and may be associated with a management zone. This does not change the ability to regulate, take or use currently through these approvals but will provide certainty to holders and regulators as to how these approvals operate.
A requirement to consult with the Natural Resources Committee of parliament before prescribing additional water-affecting activities by regulation has not been replicated given tabling of regulations is already required under the Subordinate Legislation Act. The NRM Act includes multiple requirements for the minister in making decisions to take into account the terms and requirements of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and other relevant resolutions and to consult and comply with directions of the minister for the River Murray in circumstances prescribed by regulation. These duplicative provisions have been consolidated without reducing safeguards or changing their practical effect.
Provisions requiring an application to transfer a water licence or allocation held by SA Water to be made with the concurrence of the minister administering the South Australian Water Corporation Act have not been replicated. This requirement has been removed with the agreement of SA Water to streamline processes for approval of transfers by SA Water. The NRM Act requires copies of water permits to be available for inspectional purpose. This requirement has not been replicated as these are available at no cost on the Water Register.
The NRM Act's powerful boards to make by-laws with respect to water under their care, control or management has not been replicated. Water allocation plans, rather than by-laws, are always used in practice. Court-imposed penalties and fines, except for forestry-related offences, have been increased by up to 40 per cent, equating to a CPI adjustment since the introduction of the NRM Act in 2004. Forestry-related offences were added in 2011 and are high relative to other offences in the act.
The opportunity has also been taken to modernise and futureproof the method of publishing certain information. Rather than being mandated to publish a notice in a local or state newspaper for an authorisation to take water, flexibility is now provided to publish certain notices in a manner considered appropriate by the minister.
Clause 221 of the bill has also been included to require the minister to consider what form of publication would be effective in bringing a notice to the attention of people likely to be affected. This provides flexibility and will enable the most effective approaches for publishing the notice to be chosen such as online, targeted notification of affected persons or a statewide or local newspaper depending on the circumstances.
Clauses 99 to 201 passed.
The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My question to the minister is similar to the last question I had on clause 98. Can the minister advise in this clause the powers of authorised officers and what if any changes have been made to these provisions under the bill before us compared to the legislation as it currently operates?
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that the powers of authorised officers have not been changed. I can talk more if you like, but I think that probably answers your question, does it not?
The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it helps, I am just asking about clause 202, not any other clauses, just that one clause with powers. If the powers have not changed then that might be the very simple answer.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Maybe if I just clarify: currently, only state authorised officers can exercise powers, such as powers of entry, inspection and seizure, in respect of residential premises. Going forward, all authorised officers will be able to exercise powers in respect of residential premises. As is the case currently, a warrant issued by a magistrate will be required or the authorised officer will need to have a reasonable belief that there is a category 1 or 2 animal present on the premises.
Clauses 203 to 212 passed.
The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:
Amendment No 17 [Parnell–1]—
Page 191, lines 36 and 37 [clause 213(19)]—Delete 'subsection (18), in determining whether to make any order in relation to costs' and substitute:
subsection (13) or (18), in determining whether to make any order in relation to the provision of security, the giving of an undertaking, or in relation to costs under those subsections,
Clause 213 of the bill relates to what we refer to as civil enforcement. This refers to the right that a person or a group has to enforce compliance with the act where a breach is alleged. Cases are often brought by the proper authorities, but in relation to third-party civil enforcement this only rarely arises in situations where the proper authorities either decline or refuse to do their job properly. The provisions are very rarely used and they have been brought across unchanged from the NRM Act.
These rights of civil enforcement also exist in planning and environment protection laws. I do not know if they have ever been used under the NRM Act since 2004 and they are used rarely under other legislation. I have used it once in relation to environment protection matters on behalf of the citizens of Whyalla, who were impacted by red dust from the steelworks, but they are very rare cases.
My amendment No. 17 simply provides that, before a court makes a decision about requiring security for costs or undertakings as to damages for non-government applicants or before it awards any legal costs against an unsuccessful applicant, the court should consider whether the case was reasonable and brought in the public interest.
The ability of a community group to mount a civil enforcement action is what I think of as a silent sentinel. While it is very rarely used, it does keep decision-makers on their toes and it promotes better decision-making because the decision-maker knows that, if they go outside the law, they can be held to account by a watchful third party.
This amendment seeks to ensure that a court does not prematurely kill off a legitimate public interest case by ordering a community group or others to deposit potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars into a court trust account as a precondition for bringing the case. That is the effect of security for costs and undertakings as to damages. The court is already required to consider the public interest in deciding in relation to regular legal cost orders, so I have simply, through this amendment, extended that consideration to the two other methods that can be used to keep people from having their day in court.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: If I could address the two amendments Nos 17 and 18 [Parnell-1] together and make some preliminary remarks to both clauses 213 and 214, given that they have parallel objectives. The amendments seek to greatly expand the ability of third parties, such as the conservation sector and others, to seek orders and to lodge appeals against the merits of decisions made under the bill, with further delineation of how that might impact any costs orders made by the court against those third parties. I would encourage members to recognise these interrelated objectives and consider their merits together and whether this is the appropriate time for these significant changes to be progressed.
The first amendment would further prescribe matters that the Environment, Resources and Development Court may already have regard to when deciding whether or not to require a party to litigation to give an undertaking or security in relation to costs. The second amendment would introduce a significant change to enable third parties, such as conservation interest groups, to step in and appeal a broad range of water-related and other decisions.
Decisions which usually impact between a person making an application and the regulator would now be open for third parties to be involved through a full merits review. This would enable the initial decision to be entirely reviewed, involving considerable delay and complexity to these appeals. These appeals would involve a range of matters, including significant commercial decisions, such as for an irrigator to trade their water or allow a farmer or mining company to construct a well or dam to take water. These appeals may also relate to decisions made in accordance with publicly-consulted water allocation plans, to grant water licences and other approvals. The capacity to seek review on procedural failure is already provided to third parties.
The government's view is that this proposed amendment is fundamental to how water resources are managed in this state and is best explored through a comprehensive consultation process as part of any future water reform. This reform should consider the water provisions of all relevant water-related legislation.
The far-reaching impact of these amendments should not be underestimated, as should not the risk and impact of introducing significant changes without them having been properly tested through consultation with those affected and the community and industries generally. In short, the role of third parties in challenging decisions about access to water by individuals, its trade and security on a full merits review is an issue that should be subject to broad-ranging consultation before being implemented to understand its true impact.
I would invite the honourable member to advise the chamber what consultation he has undertaken in order to reach a position of moving these amendments, whether he can outline which stakeholder organisations support it and whether he is aware of particularly some of the primary producers groups and those organisations that would more than likely be opposed to them.
The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I only addressed the first of my amendments, but the minister has addressed the second, so I will as well. The first relates to civil enforcement. The second relates to joinder and appeal rights—third-party appeals. As the minister has pointed out, the situation to date has been that, when there is a dispute, the decision-maker, the court, should only ever hear from the disgruntled applicant for a water licence, for example, and no-one else.
So it does not matter, with a permit that might be given to extract groundwater, which the scientific experts know will dry up a wetland and send a species extinct, that those people have no right to engage either in a joinder capacity or, by initiating an application, to challenge the merits of that decision. That is just wrong. It is wrong for the environment.
In terms of consultation, I think I probably first raised this in relation to the Natural Resources Management Act in 2004. It has been part of the agenda of the conservation groups. It has been part of the agenda of the Environmental Defenders Office forever that third-party rights should be incorporated as a matter of course into public interest environmental litigation.
The minister invites me to say whether farmers like it. Some will and some will not. The farmer who wants to have just themselves and the regulator in court and no-one else having a say, they are not going to like this, but the farmer next door whose rights are impacted by someone else getting permission to do something in relation to water, they absolutely want to have their day in court.
I think that these measures, whilst they are separate—civil enforcement is different from joinder and the ability to institute an appeal—the minister has addressed them together. In fact, if you want to go right back to the 1990s, the founding principles of good practice in environmental law are the Aarhus principles. They require that best practice environmental law requires access to information and access to justice as two of the main things.
Access to justice includes the rights of people on whose behalf these laws have been written to be able to access decision-makers in the courts. That is what access to justice is all about. These provisions relate to access to justice. Sure, it might be a conservation group. It might also be another landholder whose interests are directly affected. It is giving those people the opportunity, not an automatic right. They have to go to the court and convince the court that their stake in this game is significant enough to allow them to participate.
On the other hand, the applicant for some permit or licence who is knocked back has an unfettered right to go to the umpire to get a second opinion. Third parties have more hurdles to overcome, sure, but why should they not be able to add their information into the process that the court goes through to determine what the right outcome is?
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will grant that the honourable member is consistent. I have heard him in this place talk about third-party appeal rights before. My understanding is that he has unto this point been unsuccessful in sneaking that into legislation in his previous attempts. As I stated when we first started, given that water matters largely are unchanged from the existing legislation in recognition of the sheer complexity of water matters, these amendments really are potentially a can of worms. There are potentially a range of completely unintended consequences that may arise.
In his response he did note that adjoining landowners may have appeal rights. That may well include bordering Victorian and New South Wales irrigators. These clauses that the honourable member is attempting to include are highly untested and highly dangerous in our current situation, and I would urge honourable members to reject them. If you can at least take the view that they have not consulted and it has not been considered by the community or any other stakeholders, apart from perhaps the conservation sector, in terms of their impact.
Some of the other potential examples include decisions relating to the transfer of environmental water. If the courts decided to suspend a decision to grant a transfer, this could have significant impacts on environmental outcomes that are dependent on the delivery of water by a specific time in line with environmental water planning. With approvals regarding constructions of dams or wells, an appeal could be made on the grounds that the decision would impact on the flow regime of a surface water resource. There is also temporary water trading at the start of seasons—a whole range of areas. If the honourable member wants to include those in the mix then, fair enough, he should in good faith put those forward when these matters are further consulted on when we consider this legislation in the future, but it is highly problematic, as I hope I have articulated.
The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the benefit of the chamber, we will be supporting this amendment and the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments 17 to 22.
The Hon. C. BONAROS: We have considered these amendments at length and whilst I acknowledge the issues that the Hon. Mark Parnell has pointed to—and I do not disagree with the intent of the amendments, especially when it comes to issues of access to justice—I have to say that I was somewhat convinced by the minister's arguments when he put them to me. In fact, the first question I asked the minister when this bill was raised was, 'What are we doing in terms of water reform?'
It was made very clear to me that there were only going to be limited changes to water management in terms of reducing red tape and streamlining provisions in this bill, and that the issue of water reform, more generally, would be up for debate in a subsequent piece of legislation that the government would introduce to this place. As such, we have come to the decision not to support these amendments, not on the basis that we do not necessarily agree with their intent, but because we were concerned about opening a Pandora's box, if you like, in terms of bringing the issue of water into this debate, particularly given that the level of consultation that has occurred has been one that has not included water.
I think it is for that reason that we have been able to come up with the legislation that we have and have left out the issue of water, which is much more contentious than some of the issues that we are dealing with now. Our position remains that there ought to be full consultation in relation to the issues that have been raised, particularly in the context of these amendments, with the community and all stakeholders.
Putting all that aside, I am also a little concerned by some of the arguments that the minister has just raised in terms of the potential breadth of the amendments, just who could be seeking these appeal rights and the fact that we are actually dealing with a full merits review entirely revisiting a decision that has been made, which could potentially result in considerable delay and complexity in the appeal process.
If I can again make the point to the Hon. Mark Parnell, this is not an issue of whether or not we agree or disagree with the intent of the amendments at hand; it is more one of whether we ought to have and whether there is scope for, even between the houses, further consideration of the issues that we are actually now contemplating in these amendments.
The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I indicate that I cannot support these amendments at this time.
The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have heard the will of the chamber, and I will take the Hon. Connie Bonaros up on her suggestion that we will do it when water comes back. The minister I think did protest a little too much, because there is no way that an upstream irrigator has interests that are affected by a downstream decision in relation to water. The only possible exception to that might be the areas covered by the groundwater agreements between the Victorian and South Australian border, but there is no way that an irrigator in Queensland is going to say, 'I am unfairly treated,' because someone in South Australia got a water licence. Water licences in Queensland have nothing to do with who does or does not get a water licence in South Australia.
Having said that, I have heard the will of the chamber. I will not be dividing on it. For the benefit of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, we cannot deal with it between the chambers unless you support it. So we are not going to be dealing with it between the chambers, but I will come back and have another look at this when water is put back onto the agenda more substantially. The question is: who are the stakeholders who should have a right to agitate a dispute over how water is allocated? Currently, it is sweetheart deals between applicants and the government, and no-one else gets a look in. I will revisit this, but I will not be dividing today.
Amendment negatived; clause passed.
The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:
Amendment No 18 [Parnell–1]—
Page 193, after line 24 [clause 214]—Insert:
(1a) A person (other than a person referred to in subsection (1)) who can demonstrate an interest in the matter may, with the permission of the ERD Court, exercise a right of appeal against—
(a) a decision referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i) or (ii); or
(b) a decision to vary or revoke a notice under section 107(10) that imposes a restriction under section 107(5); or
(c) a decision to grant or issue a water management authorisation, a forest water licence, a well driller's licence or a permit under Part 8, or the imposition of conditions in relation to the authorisation, licence or permit (other than in the case involving the allocation of reserved water within the meaning of Part 8 Division 4); or
(d) a decision to grant an application for the transfer of a water management authorisation, or a decision to vary the conditions of the transferred water management authorisation; or
(e) a decision to grant an application for the transfer of a water allocation attached to a forest water licence; or
(f) the variation of a water management authorisation, licence or permit in the case where the holder of the water management authorisation, licence or permit under Part 8 is authorised by a specific provision of that Part to appeal to the ERD Court against the variation; or
(g) a decision to vary a water management authorisation referred to in subsection (1)(b)(vii); or
(h) a decision referred to in subsection(1)(c)(ii); or
(i) a decision of a relevant authority to grant an application for a permit under Part 9 Division 2 Subdivision 2, or to impose particular conditions, or a decision of the relevant authority to vary such a permit, or a condition of the permit, or to impose a new condition; or
(j) a decision to vary an order issued under Part 10 Division 2 Subdivision 1.
(1b) Before the ERD Court may grant permission for the purposes of subsection (1a), the Court must be satisfied that the proceedings on the appeal—
(a) would not be an abuse of the process of the Court; and
(b) raise an issue or issues of significant importance; and
(c) are in the public interest.
(1c) A person other than a person referred to in subsection (1), may, with the permission of the ERD Court, appear and be heard on an appeal of a matter under subsection (1).
(1d) Before the ERD Court may grant permission for the purposes of subsection (1c), the Court must be satisfied that—
(a) to do so would not be an abuse of the process of the Court; and
(b) the matter raises an issue or issues of significant importance; and
(c) it is in the public interest that the person be heard.
(1e) A decision of the Court to grant permission under subsection (1a) or (1c) may be made subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit (including that the person provide security for the payment of costs).
We have agitated that issue already, so I will not speak any further on that.
Amendment negatived; clause passed.
Clauses 215 to 246 passed.
New clause 247.
The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:
Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—
Page 209, after line 38—After clause 246 insert:
247—Review of Act
(1) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the expiry of 3 years from the commencement of this section, appoint an independent person who has, in the opinion of the Minister, extensive knowledge, skills and experience in relation to the management of natural resources, to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act since that commencement.
(2) A report on the review must be submitted to the Minister within 6 months of the commencement of the review.
(3) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after receiving the report, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
This is one of those standard review provisions that we are familiar with now in terms of requiring a review after three years from the commencement of the sections that we are debating at the moment. But it does require that that review be undertaken by an independent person who has the requisite skills, knowledge and experience in relation to the management of natural resources and is consistent with review provisions that we have moved in other pieces of legislation, particularly where we are looking at a new set of rules.
I think it is fair to say that, when I had this particular amendment drafted, I had in mind some of the issues that we have just discussed but I also had in mind the issue of the strategic plans and the five pillars, if you like, and whether or not there ought to be more than five, whether we had landed on the appropriate number or whether there was scope for more than five priorities to be considered by the boards. So, again, it is a review provision similar to what we have inserted into many acts so that we can have some form of independent review of the provisions that we are considering today and I suppose test their reasonableness or otherwise.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The government supports the amendment for the reasons outlined by the honourable mover.
New clause inserted.
Schedules 1 to 4 passed.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:
Amendment No 4 [HumanServ–1]—
Page 227, after line 8 [Schedule 5 Part 16]—Insert:
48A—Amendment of section 65—Use of poison
Section 65(3)(a)—delete 'in pursuance of the Animal and Plant Control (Agricultural Protection and Other Purposes) Act 1986' and substitute:
under the Landscape South Australia Act 2019
This amendment is a consequential change to the National Parks and Wildlife Act to update a reference to pest plant and animal control legislation that predates the Natural Resources Management Act to instead refer to the Landscape South Australia Act.
The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:
Amendment No 19 [Parnell–1]—
Page 233, lines 1 to 4 [Schedule 5, clause 88(2)]—Delete subclause (2)
This amendment relates to the issue of the election of people to boards. Before the winter break and again yesterday, the minister referred to the extensive consultation that the government had undertaken in relation to this bill. The words I wrote down before the winter break were, 'We have undertaken comprehensive consultation in good faith'. When I read the results of that consultation, I read the recommendations from the Becky Hirst Consulting report, one of the recommendations relates to these community elections. I will read a couple of sentences. The report says:
The cost, effectiveness and risks of a community election process for three of the board positions was met with great concern by many people. The process of forming the Landscape Boards needs to result in a strong, equitable, skills-based board with good representation and diversity.
It is recommended that the Minister explore options alternative to community elections to form the membership of the Landscape SA boards, including the suggestions within this report.
We could just have knocked the elections off on the back of what the community told the government through the consultation process. I understand the government said that elections were part of their pre-election commitment and so they were wedded to elections. So the solution I have come up with is to leave the elections in there but postpone the election until 2022 so that it can be held—if it is held at all—in conjunction with the local government elections. That will substantially decrease the cost.
So there is not a standalone election; if you are going to have an election, do it in 2022 when the local council elections are on. In the meantime, appoint people to the board. That is what the community asked you to do. Just appoint them. You will get better diversity. You will get a better range of people without going through the election process. This amendment—and I am speaking to amendments Nos 19 and 20, which are both amendments to schedule 5—does not do away with the elections but it postpones them until 2022 which, of course, will be after the next state election. Whether it is the same government returned or a new government, there will be an opportunity to revisit whether elections are in fact necessary at all for these boards but, in the meantime, let's postpone them.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will address the honourable member's amendments Nos 19 to 22 as some of them are consequential. The government opposes these amendments. We believe it is unacceptable for communities to have to wait until November 2022 to be able to elect community representatives. To be effective in shaping and influencing the future directions of boards in terms of their planning and business priorities, the community's voice should be represented in board decision-making from the outset.
As has been previously stated, the government's election commitment was to give regional communities a voice about who sits on the regional board through community elections, which is consistent with a 2017 statewide survey where 95 per cent of survey participants believed that local communities should be able to nominate board members in their own region.
By aligning the eligibility to vote and stand with local government election arrangements, the bill provides scope for elections to be conducted in conjunction with local government elections if it is cost-effective to do so. Providing for a combination of elected and appointed members provides a mechanism to ensure that there is a good mix of skills on boards. The bill also enables all members to be appointed if special circumstances apply, for example, if for some reason it is not practical to hold community elections in a given region.
Statutory boards comprising all or some elected members are not uncommon in South Australia and elsewhere. For example, the New South Wales local land services boards, which play a similar role to the landscape boards, have a mixture of minister-appointed and elected members. I understand that the most recent local land services board elections held in 2017 were conducted by an external provider using online voting technology.
In South Australia, the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board is just one example of a board comprising a mix of ministerially-appointed and elected members. In line with developments around elections nationally and in other jurisdictions, the state government is looking at how technology and other innovations can be utilised to encourage participation while minimising costs.
Efficiency and cost-effectiveness will be a key consideration in engaging the services of a provider equipped to run the elections. Deferring the elections until 2022 is a missed opportunity to test these arrangements, and holding the first elections separately to local government elections will enable lessons learnt to inform ongoing election arrangements.
The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to clarify and assist the chamber, I moved amendment No. 19. I will also move amendments Nos 20, 21 and 22 for completeness. I move:
Amendment No 20 [Parnell–1]—
Page 234, lines 23 to 32 [Schedule 5, clause 88(8)]—Delete subclause (8) and substitute:
(8) In relation to any other board established under this Act—
(a) elections for the purposes of section 15(1)(b) will not be held until 2022; and
(b) the Minister must ensure that the elections held in 2022 are conducted so that voting closes at 5 p.m. on the last business day before the second Saturday of November 2022; and
(c) a person elected in an election in 2022 will take office on a day determined by the Minister; and
(d) until the day determined under paragraph (c), the board will be constituted by 7 members appointed by the Minister.
Amendment No 21 [Parnell–1]—
Page 234, lines 37 and 38 [Schedule 5, clause 88(10)]—Delete 'before the day determined by the Minister in relation to that board under subclause (8)' and substitute:
until the Minister determines to constitute the board with 7 members
Amendment No 22 [Parnell–1]—
Page 234, lines 39 and 40 [Schedule 5, clause 88(11)]—Delete 'until the day determined by the Minister in relation to that board under subclause (8)' and substitute:
until the Minister determines to constitute the board with 7 members
The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The opposition will be supporting the Parnell amendments.
The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be opposing the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments.
The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will be supporting the amendments.
Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas.
The CHAIR: We remain on schedule 5. The remaining amendments are amendments Nos 1 and 2 [Pangallo-7]. I ask the Hon. Ms Bonaros to move those amendments on behalf of the member.
The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:
Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–7]—
Page 237, line 13 [Schedule 5, clause 94(4)]—Delete 'amounts or contributions' and substitute 'levies or amounts'
Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–7]—
Page 237, lines 19 to 22 [Schedule 5, clause 94(5)]—Delete subclause (5)
The CHAIR: You move that it be a suggestion to the House of Assembly to amend schedule 5.
The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is correct, Chair.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will just say that, as previously articulated, the government is opposed to these amendments for reasons already outlined.
The CHAIR: If I correctly understand the will of the chamber, this will find favour when I put the question. Honourable members have indicated that it is likely to find favour.
Suggested amendments carried; schedule as amended and as suggested to be amended passed.
Bill reported with amendment and suggested amendments.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (18:33): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and passed.