REAL PROPERTY (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (12:01): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the introduction without notice and passage of a bill through all stages forthwith.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:03): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Real Property Act 1886. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

A Register Book of land holdings, 'the Register Book', is maintained by the Registrar-General under section 65 of the Real Property Act 1886.

Section 65 provides:

Search allowed

65. Any person shall have access to the Register Book, and to all instruments filed and deposited in the Lands Titles Office for the purpose of inspection during the hours and upon the days appointed for search.

The four principal entry points to access information held in the Register Book about title to land under the Real Property Act are the:

name of the registered proprietor;

address of the property;

certificate of title reference number;

plan and parcel reference.

The effect of section 65 is that the Register Book is an open public register that may be searched by anyone and may be searched electronically. As a result, it is possible to search the Register Book by name and obtain the residential address of the registered proprietor of real property.

The Registrar-General's office regularly receives correspondence from registered proprietors, including victims of domestic violence and members of SAPOL, concerned that a search of the Register Book will reveal their residential address to someone wishing to do them harm. Many have asked that their names be suppressed from searches of the Register Book. Owing to section 65 the Registrar-General cannot comply even where he is of the opinion that the safety of the person, a member of their family, or some other person is at risk.

After targeted consultation with industry and within Government, the Registrar-General has recommended that section 65 be amended to enable him to prevent access to a person's particulars via the Register Book where the person's personal safety, or that of a member of their family, is at risk.

This Bill contains the necessary amendments.

Clause 3 repeals section 65 and replaces it with a new provision. New section 65 provides that a person whose particulars are, or are to be, contained in the Register Book or in any such instruments may apply to the Registrar-General to prevent or restrict access to their personal details. The Registrar-General may grant the application if he or she is satisfied that access to any such particulars would be likely to place at risk the personal safety of the applicant, a member of the applicant's family or any other person (and the Registrar-General may take any measures he or she thinks fit to prevent or restrict access to any relevant particulars while the application is being determined).

Clause 4 amends section 93 to provide a statutory right of access to the Register of Crown Leases that, like section 65, is subject to the Registrar-General's power to prevent or restrict access to particulars on the Register where he or she is satisfied that access to any such particulars would be likely to place at risk the personal safety of the applicant, a member of the applicant's family or any other person. Although the current structure of section 93 is different from section 65, in practice the Register of Crown Leases can be searched and thus presents the same problem as section 65.

The power conferred on the Registrar-General is consistent with the power conferred on an electoral registrar under section 21 of the Electoral Act 1985. I would expect that many electors whose details are suppressed under section 21 will apply to have their personal details suppressed under section 65 or 93.

I understand that Members of this place have been consulted about the Bill and have agreed to support its passage forthwith. For the reasons explained during the briefings on the Bill, the Government is grateful for this support.

I commend this bill to members.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal

Part 2—Amendment of Real Property Act 1886

3—Substitution of section 65—Search allowed

Section 65 of the Act gives the public a right to have access to the Register Book and to instruments filed and deposited in the Lands Titles Registration Office. This clause substitutes a new section 65 to provide that a person whose particulars are, or are to be, contained in the Register Book or in any such instruments may apply to the Registrar-General to prevent or restrict access to their personal details. The Registrar-General may grant the application if he or she is satisfied that access to any such particulars would be likely to place at risk the personal safety of the applicant, a member of the applicant's family or any other person (and the Registrar-General may take any measures he or she thinks fit to prevent or restrict access to any relevant particulars while the application is being determined).

4—Amendment of section 93—Execution and registration of Crown Lease

This clause amends section 93 of the Act to give the public a right to have access to the Register of Crown Leases and to allow for suppression of details in a manner corresponding to the proposed new section 65.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:06): I rise to speak on the Real Property (Access to Information) Amendment Bill 2012, which was introduced today. I confirm that the opposition has had an opportunity to peruse a draft of this bill. There has been some communication and correspondence with the Attorney-General and his office to progress this matter by way of introduction of the bill and debate in this house today, and subsequently in another place, on the basis that the bill progress through both houses today, the reasons for which I will outline, and I indicate the opposition will accommodate such request.

There are a number of areas, though, of concern, which I wish to place on the record. This is a bill which purports to address the need of protection of certain persons by way of both their profession and/or the safety of victims of domestic violence and the like. The bill introduces a procedure where some names that are currently on the South Australian land information system can be suppressed.

The effect of the bill, in amending the Real Property Act, will be undertaken when the Registrar-General has purportedly received 'regular correspondence from individuals concerned that their residential address details may be accessible via a names research on the registry', the claim being that it creates a problem for individuals, such as victims of domestic violence, South Australian police officers, court officials and the like, who may not wish for their home address to be publicly available. That there is a register that is able to be accessed to ascertain the name, address and occupation of the residence of a party, let alone other property that might be owned by them, is probably not well known.

It is important, for those who follow the very significant laws that we have in respect of property in this state, that we have a public register for the very reason that it supports the principle that, if you are the registered proprietor of an interest—whether that is in fee simple or fee tail or any of the other modes upon which people can operate the ownership of property, or indeed under leasehold interest or crown lease and the like—it is notice to the world that they are the registered proprietor and it has the effect of granting to that person what they call an indefeasible interest which cannot be challenged.

There are always exceptions to some rules but essentially it is the method by which there is an assurance given to the owner of property that the integrity of that ownership will not be under fire and will not be subject to claim. It is to avoid things such as someone coming along and saying 'I am actually the owner of this property,' and someone else has purported to sell it as though they own it, claim their ownership or claim a legal interest which might be saleable or which might become the subject of a mortgage or some other liability against it. Instead of having to produce all the documents by the owner, the public register is there to create that clarity and security for the registered owner.

The Torrens title system, in fact, was introduced in South Australia after settlement and it is renowned around the world as providing a level of integrity and protection in the property ownership world. Those who are familiar with that and those who work in the transfer of interest, sale or encumbrances that are on titles will understand the importance of having this public register. If someone who might be interested in acquiring a property ever wants to go and identify the owner of a property, again, they can search the title and have that interest disclosed to them and reliable information would be provided to them.

It is very important that all registered proprietors under our Real Property Act 1886 are listed on the South Australian land information system and that it is publicly available. Some in this house will understand that that was not always an easy process. Certainly in my lifetime, you always had to pay a fee to access a title, to be able to search it, but it used to have to be done manually. I think there are probably some titles still left in South Australia that have to be viewed manually to actually identify the original or the duplicate certificate of title.

Certainly in my professional life prior to politics, they had graduated to a fiche system where you could go along and search the electronic photographs of titles and it was a little easier, a little more accessible. You still had to pay a fee but there was access on a personal visit to the Lands Titles Office. Subsequently, access to that information became available electronically and you could register, sign up to a subscription either as an individual or as an organisation—whether it was a legal firm or a land broking firm or the like—to access that information from your office.

Probably, there are not a lot of people out there on an individual level who subscribe to this service but, even if they do not, they can quickly attend and access that information or pay for someone else to provide that service to them and, almost instantaneously, people can access that information, again for a fee but, nevertheless, it is very available.

Whilst a number in the public may not be aware of that, the reason for advancing any process upon which there might be some suppression of the address of certain parties in information that is publicly available, the government is concerned to not alert someone who might be mischievously trying to find information for a less than worthy purpose that we should advance this through the house today. For that reason on the basis that there is a prima facie case to actually have this process at all, the opposition is prepared to support the progress more quickly. It does bring about some difficulty because we do not have the answers to a number of things, and I will just place them on the record.

Essentially, I will just indicate that the bill proposes to allow individuals at risk to apply to the Registrar-General to have their details suppressed. If the Registrar-General is satisfied that access to any such particulars would be likely to place at risk the personal property of a person or any other, they would be able to take such measures as they see fit to prevent and restrict access to those particulars. Similar provisions apply under the Electoral Act 1985 at section 21, the Emergency Services Funding Act 1988 at section 12(2) and (3), and the Local Government Act 1999 at section 172(4) and (5).

As many members would be aware, companies, associations and other incorporated bodies will not be eligible for the suppression service. It is worth noting at this point that companies themselves are also able to be searched under a national record, and the Australian securities office keeps a register of companies, their shareholders, their directors and their registered office. Sometimes the registered office is not the workplace of a director but a nominated accountant or secretary to the company, or a public officeholder in an association. That also often provides a wealth of information about the addresses of certain parties, particularly shareholders and directors. That is not within the ambit of this act; it would need to be addressed under commonwealth legislation if it were considered to be a problem.

The process is one where the suppression would apply to particulars contained in the register book, the register of Crown leases or in any instruments lodged or deposited in the Land Titles Registration Office; however, it would only restrict the ability to identify a title through a name search. Access to suppressed records would still be available through alternate search criteria, such as an address, certificate of title or a Land Titles Office document reference.

Here is the interesting aspect. One way is if a reverse search is done as distinct from a request to search anything in the name of the Hon. Steven Griffiths and, if there was a suppression on his address, as I understand it, that address information would not show up. However, if someone knew of a property, or believed a certain property to be owned by the Hon. Steven Griffiths, and searched his home address, they would get the information as to who was the owner. So, it is the reverse that we would be concerned about.

We would need to have some understanding of how that is going to work, because I would not have thought it would be uncommon for a member of parliament or a police officer, for example, to be a potential victim of an egregious act by a party who searched to find their address. That person could be followed or their address identified and then checked under the electronic process by doing research on that particular title. As members would be aware, the title would show up with the details of the owner and any registered interests on it: a mortgage, caveat, lien, etc. So, there are some queries there about how that might be addressed.

We have been provided with some advance copies of information, including the application forms that the Land Services Group intends to provide to the public. The Electoral Commissioner of South Australia has prepared a draft letter dated September 2012 to send to around 3,500 silent electors across the state to advise them of the appropriate suppression service. Some guesswork has been done, I think, as to how many might take up that option. I am aware—and other members of the house, as members of parliament, may well have found, in their time in office—that constituents have feared for their life. They may have been involved in litigation, they may have a partner who is in prison, they may have been the victim of some assault, domestic violence, or other activity, or they may have been a witness, and they wish to keep their name and address off the public electoral record. At present, an application can be made to the Electoral Commissioner.

Some of those 3,500 may be constituents of members here. I have certainly made applications on behalf of former clients and constituents for their name and address to be suppressed, so that they are not potentially the victim of any illegal or aggressive behaviour by others. That process is not lightly granted; quite a significant amount of effort needs to be gone through by way of declarations and corroborative evidence to satisfy that the person may be, especially, hiding from a particular party. The most common one I have had to deal with is the risk of someone who has been convicted and gaoled, and due for release, and the party wants to be able to keep their address private.

As I said, the guesswork around the 3,500 or so who are silent electors cannot necessarily be translated to the operation of what the Registrar-General might be doing under this bill, because a good number of those parties are not likely to be the registered proprietor of the property they occupy. For those who are renting, or living in a property and in a personal partnership with someone else who is the registered proprietor, they may not be successful in having the address suppressed.

For example, if there were a victim of domestic violence who had repartnered with someone else, or even remarried, and that other party was the registered proprietor of the property, in that situation he or she could apply to the Registrar-General, as the owner. The ambit of the claim of this, in the capacity to have a suppression application successful to the Registrar-General, could include them saying 'Look, I'm married to someone and my new partner has been the victim of certain violence and they need to be protected.' Therefore, they make the application.

So we have no idea how many of the 3,500 who are silent electors across the state would avail themselves, or would need to avail themselves, of this process, but we understand that the Electoral Commissioner is ready to issue a letter to advise them of that opportunity, that is, to apply for suppression on the basis that this legislation is passed. The Registrar-General has advised that they would expect the change to cost about $50,000 and take about six months to implement.

I will come to the briefing and information that was provided to the opposition by the Registrar-General. We have appreciated his advice on this matter because, after all, he is the party proposed to actually execute the terms of this bill once it becomes law. Back in late August the Attorney-General wrote to our leader, the Hon. Isobel Redmond, to advise her of the introduction of this bill, requesting that the standing orders (which we have now dealt with) be suspended to allow the matter to be dealt with through the house.

That was, of course, a ridiculously short period of time, and the government ultimately agreed to deal with this matter today, after allowing a couple of weeks for us to have a briefing and the like. We are concerned about that; nevertheless, the government did acquiesce and provide that. In itself, though, it is concerning; this is a bill that had been drafted two years ago, back in August 2010, and the government's desire, at least initially, two years later to introduce this bill and to have its passage through within a few days is, I think, quite unacceptable. I think that the government needs to accept that if we are truly as a parliament going to undertake any scrutiny of the bills and not just rubberstamp what the government wants, even when it is a very good idea, we need to have some time to consider these bills properly.

I think the parliament is due some explanation as to why there has been such a delay in not only the introduction of this bill since it was drafted but also since the apparent complaint that has been received apparently over the last decade. That brings me to the consultation that the government says it had undertaken. There is a Registrar-General's consultation report and recommendation that says:

Consultation with the general public was not undertaken because publishing the existence of this search could exacerbate the problem.

The opposition totally accepts that. At the time of the consultation, which occurred between July 2002 and February 2004, there were a number of submissions presented. We do not know how out of date that information is now, to be honest, but this is what occurred. At that time, 57 consultation letters, briefing papers and questionnaires were sent to 33 government agencies and 24 businesses. Eighteen government agencies and 10 businesses responded.

The following businesses and associations were consulted and provided a response: Adelaide Bank, Association of Consulting Surveyors, Australian Institute of Conveyors (SA Division), ANZ Bank, Australian Central Credit Union, Australian Property Institute, Law Society of South Australia, Police Association of South Australia, Urban Development Institute of Australia and the Real Estate Institute of South Australia.

Obviously, I think members will be familiar with why all of those bodies would have been relevant to this process of suppression, as it could adversely affect their capacity to search, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, not the least of which because they are party to and frequently involved in the sale and financing of real property and therefore this was dear to them.

Only 38 per cent of the above who put those presentations supported the suppression of names. Fifty seven per cent were of the view that, if the suppression of details was introduced, it should be determined by the judiciary, and 29 per cent thought it should be done by the Registrar-General. Seventy three per cent of government agencies responses indicated that they had no alternative information other than a name to search for the information they required.

This is likely to have a significant impact on 88 per cent of the agencies that indicated they conducted name searches. The Valuer-General had also been consulted because suppression would also be required for Valuation SA searches on the PropertyAssist service. However, no legislative amendment would be required for the same suppression service to apply to name searches.

In regard to the consultation by way of a briefing from members of the Attorney's office and the Registrar-General's office, in particular, I acknowledge Kevin O'Callaghan, Brenton Pike (Registrar-General) and Matt Carroll, who is a project officer managing this, who provided the Hon. Stephen Wade and me with a briefing on this bill. We did run through a number of these issues. I will go firstly to the costs.

The guess of $50,000 may well be an estimate of what it is going to cost to process some of these, but the detail which will be applied or necessary for the purposes of information that is put in the application for scrutiny of the Registrar-General, I would suggest, will have a significant impact on whether or not, in fact, that $50,000 is realistic.

Let me give this example. Assume for the moment that it will be within the expectation on an application that anyone who is a police officer, a member of parliament, a court officer, a member of the tax department or anyone who might come within the firing line of someone in the public is going to be granted an application merely by a disclosure of their occupational profession. Is the Registrar-General expected to take it as a given that just because you are a member of parliament, or just because you are a police officer or just because you are a member of the tax office you are vulnerable to unhappy campers out there who might cause you some ill-will (and that is probably a reasonable presumption to make for some)?

Let me just use the police force, for example. Clearly, I think that everyone in this room would accept that for some people in certain divisions in the police force—particularly in the CIB and drug and firearms management—there would be a high degree of risk that they or members of their family could be vulnerable to some unpleasant response by someone who might have been investigated by them, or that they have given evidence against in a hearing or felt aggrieved that they are languishing in gaol as a result of that police officer.

But there must be thousands of the 3,500 police officers, I think, that we have in South Australia who would never be in that situation and that they are undertaking duties which would not attract a level of vulnerability in that regard. So, the Registrar-General could take the view that he or she would need at any one time (it is a 'he' at the moment) to actually consider additional information—not just because they were a police officer—before the authorisation would be granted on that application for the suppression to occur.

I think that it is a bit of an open-ended situation at this stage because we do not know what the criteria are going to be for that, and whether or not it follows a process that is similar to the Electoral Commissioner we are yet to see. As I say, in a number of these categories, just by profession or occupation, they may not be living in a property which is vulnerable because their residential address is not actually registered in their name.

The concern I have is that, further at the briefing, it became clear that, over the 10 year lifetime of this government, when there had been complaint apparently by individuals by letters to say that they felt vulnerable and that they would like to have some kind of protection, it appeared to fall on deaf ears. Except for there being a review in 2002 and 2004 (which nothing happened from) they seem to have been ignored, and the direct precipitating event prior to the drafting of this bill in August 2010 was a submission presented by the Police Association.

It seems clearly from the previous presentations that they were supportive of this back in the review, and there is no criticism of the Police Association presenting a submission to support this type of action occurring. What concerns me is that it appears that ordinary people have presented letters and pleas for protection and it has gone unheard by this government. Until the Police Association say, 'We will have this for our members,' nothing happens. It is very concerning to us; and then when the government finally does act, it wants to whiz it through without us having a chance to have any consultation. It worries me that this is an issue which has apparently—and acknowledged—been going on over the last 10 years, yet it takes one of the unions to actually prompt any response.

Not surprisingly, as was also evident from the briefing, a number of the other people who are involved in the real estate and financing of real estate—banks, land agents and so on—have a number of concerns. They do not need to have their lives made more complicated by the access to information, to check whether someone is the registered proprietor, which they have a legal obligation to do before they hold out a piece of property as being available for sale, which is then subject to a contract for their entitlement to a commission, etc. They certainly did not want this level of suppression being exceeded in any way past what was absolutely necessary for the purposes of a few, rather than whole professions.

I am also advised that the process will be that automatic data will continue to be available to all rating agencies. So, the application goes in, the information is subject to determination by the Registrar-General, but the information will still go to all the rating agencies such as SA Water, RevenueSA, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and the local councils. These agencies will all still have access to this information, for obvious reasons: because they rely on this data for their own revenue streams. For anyone else who is applying, the name search will give the response—as I used in the Hon. Steven Griffiths' example—where no information will come up about the address.

The other aspect that concerns us, which we would like some explanation from the government on, is why there is no appeal process. We have an administrative determination, in this instance by the Registrar-General—and this is no reflection on him, of course; he is being asked to undertake this duty. However, where administrative decisions are made, the public are usually entitled to some review or appeal process to a court or judicial officer in order to protect them against inappropriate, unacceptable or plain wrong decisions of bureaucrats. I think we need some explanation from the government as to why there is no appeal process available.

The final matter is in regard to the other jurisdictions that have picked up this idea. We are told that three years ago Western Australia brought in a similar process by way of application. Victoria have a capacity to suppress addresses, but that is through a court order system, if it is granted at all. I think this is where there could have been an alternative for the government and, again, they need to explain to us why they did not go down this line. It is a process that is used interstate, seemingly effectively.

I am talking about categories of people here. If a police officer, for example, has given evidence in a hearing or has participated in the arrest or detection of somebody who is subsequently convicted of an offence, then there are court hearings. It seems to me that there is no reason that a police prosecutor or the DPP's office could not apply for suppression orders at the time of those hearings. Similarly, if there is an individual person who is at risk, such as a victim of domestic violence, then it could be done at the at the time that they are applying for either an injunction or an intervention order, which is the new process that this parliament passed a few years ago to allow a police officer to impose an intervention order, which subsequently can be sanctioned and processed through a court.

We have a number of hearings in those situations, aside from what may be a prosecution of an offence against a party for an offence which forms the basis of the risk and vulnerability of that party. At that time they could apply, as they do now, for other types of protection. Even at the time of the bail application, obviously when applications are made—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member for Bragg is straying a little bit.

Ms CHAPMAN: No; I am suggesting that the alternate option is that at the time of that any aggrieved party could apply to the court, as they do in Victoria, rather than through—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are getting into bail applications, etc. I am not sure we are going to go that far.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let me just explain.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; I do not need an explanation, that would make it worse. We will take it as read.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think to avoid confusion to others who might be reading—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; I am sure everybody else has understood it.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Little Para has had lots of experience.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You understood it? Every member has indicated that they understood it.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Little Para is nodding furiously that he understands perfectly that when applications for bail are made and everyone is there, everyone is lined up, they can ask for it then. They do not need the Registrar-General to make it. That is an alternate process which is familiar to everyone in this place. I think the government needs to explain to us why it did not go down that line which has been adopted in the Victorian jurisdiction.

With those few words, I indicate that we hope there will be people who have increased protection as a result of this type of process. We hope that this is not going to be such an onerous or expensive process for the Registrar-General that he, or she, at any time is swept away from other important duties, although I understood that Mr Carroll (the project officer), who was present, will not have much to do after this has gone through so he could probably do a bit to help out. In any event, we are going to be imposing this extra administrative burden on the Registrar-General. I think we need some explanation from the government of the issues I have raised, and I am sure the Attorney can provide us with that. We otherwise support the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:41): I thank the honourable member for Bragg for her contribution. As always, I have been admonished. This time for apparent tardiness, some eight years of which I cannot say that I could have done much about it. I make the following very brief responses. I take the honourable member at her word, that in August of 2010 PASA wrote to my office. I do recall this matter having been raised at some point shortly after my being given the opportunity of serving as Attorney.

Since that time, if the honourable member goes through the remarks she has already made, in particular about the number of people who have an interest in this type of matter, it would be self-evident that this was not something one could deal with in five minutes because one had to consider a complex range of issues. I will not repeat everything the honourable member said about people in the real estate industry, etc., but obviously some consideration of those matters needed to take place and that was not going to happen overnight.

Secondly, I am advised that the Registrar has been coping with what I think in the trade is referred to as legacy systems, and questions about the practicality of transferring information from one place to another have not been insignificant. It would have been both inappropriate and unwise to have pursued this matter, were it ready for pursuit in its present form, in the teeth of the knowledge that the capability to actually perform the task was absent. So, I hope that, to some degree, explains the question of alleged delay.

As to the question of appeal, I have some good news for the honourable member for Bragg. The first thing is, as she would be aware, there is always available to any person who feels themselves to be aggrieved by an administrative decision the capability of judicial review. In addition to that—there is more. There is, in fact, a provision contained in the Real Property Act, in section 222, which gives any proprietor a right of review in respect of a decision by the Registrar-General to which they object. That review is heard by reason of the issuing process of a summons. I will read some of section 222 to give a flavour of it. It provides:

Such summons shall be issued under the hand of a Judge, and shall be served upon the Registrar-General six clear days at least before the day appointed for hearing; and upon such hearing, the Registrar-General, or his counsel, shall open and have the right of reply, and the Court may, if any question of fact be involved, direct an issue to be tried to decide such question...

That is a general right of review that is already embedded in the legislation, and the provision to which we are referring now will have equal access to that opportunity as well as judicial review. I do not think I wish to say anything further. I gather from the honourable member that the opposition will be supporting this amendment. I am hopeful that it will receive speedy and favourable consideration in another place.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.