Bills

Land Agents (Registration of Property Managers and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2017.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:55): I rise to speak on the Land Agents (Registration of Property Managers and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2017—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As lead speaker?

Ms CHAPMAN: —as lead speaker. This was a bill introduced by the Minister for Consumer and Business Services, otherwise known as the Attorney-General, on 31 May this year to amend the Land Agents Act of 1994. In addition to my duties as shadow attorney, I was recently appointed to assume responsibility as spokesperson for the opposition on consumer and business services. It has been a busy period, I must say, with liquor licensing and other matters to be attended to.

This is a matter that comes before the house ostensibly, as far as the government is concerned, because of a need to have a registration process for property managers. It purports to be as a result of there not being an adequate way to manage the complaint in respect of conduct or misconduct of property managers. This model of registration is to be the basis upon which there will be some relief offered and will provide the opportunity for the commissioner for Consumer and Business Services to be able to deal with those matters, including disciplinary action for the recalcitrants.

In the course of consulting on the bill, the commissioner, Mr Dini Soulio, was kind enough to make himself available to provide information in a briefing arranged by the government upon our request. Today, I was provided with some information about the history of prosecutions and action taken in respect of alleged acts of misconduct or underperformance of property managers. I thank those who attended to the provision of that information.

Essentially, the bill requires employees of land agents to be registered. These are the property managers, sometimes those who are listed as those managing the rent role of an employer. Currently, a person must be registered as a land agent to sell or deal with land or a business and an employee must be registered as a sales representative. The rules relate to commercial property management but not residential property management. I am advised further that we are the only state that does not have a registration of property managers. Bearing this in mind, the opposition indicates that we will consent to this bill.

There is some information I wish to place on the record. The second reading explanation of the minister asserts that there are some 180 calls per month in respect of the service or lack thereof, or the conduct or misconduct of property managers by both landlords and tenants. Essentially, the Consumer and Business Services department can pursue only criminal charges—that is, the stealing of trust money—and, further, can prosecute only the employer and not the individual employee.

Historically, as I understand it on the information provided, of course an employee can be dismissed from their employment and the employer can be prosecuted, subject to there being some level of knowledge, acquiescence or lack of supervision in relation to that employee. The purpose of this registration is to give a direct link with the party whose conduct or misconduct is under question.

The government claim that they are reducing a regulatory burden on commercial property managers as well under this bill, and there will be a lower overall cost. However, I am not sure how that can be either alleged or endorsed, because the Real Estate Institute of SA has indicated that there are no draft training requirements. No regulations have yet been prepared, and no costs or registration fees have been discussed or agreed to. Consumer and Business Services are apparently to arrange a round table with stakeholders, once the bill is passed.

We have just dealt with legislation in respect of liquor licensing, and we had the same promise from the government with no indication of what is going to be charged, just claims that it will be better, quicker and cheaper. That is the usual chant from the government; I have heard it many times. The reality is that the outcome creates a very different picture, and the observance of this of course is more in the breach.

It is a complete mystery as to what is going to be the required level of training and what the cost is going to be. I am told, at present, by the Real Estate Institute that they offer a course for something like $990. It comprises I think three or four units in an area of expertise and is a four-day course. They obviously provide this service primarily in respect of the legalities and ethics aspects of property management.

We do not know who else is going to be a registered training authority or what agency will be. One can only assume that TAFE will be taking up this opportunity. If they undercut the Real Estate Institute and charge $650 for a course, we are yet to see how that is going to work out and what competition there will be in the market, or what unfair competition might come into the market. In any event, the Real Estate Institute, notwithstanding that it is a registered training organisation itself and is, I suggest, approaching this blind, is supportive of the proposal.

The government's claim in the briefing was that, in respect of the allegations of some theft or fraud of the rent or bond moneys or trust account larcenies, these are matters that are referred to the police. There was some concern expressed at the briefing that there had been occasions when this had been referred to the police, but there had apparently been no appetite on the part of the Commissioner of Police to prosecute these matters.

Today, I have received correspondence from the minister's office, signed by the Attorney, with information that he has doubtless been provided with by the commissioner for Consumer and Business Services. I will reflect on some of this information provided because it relates primarily to what action has been taken for prosecutions that have been referred to the SA Police. Firstly, in 2014 CBS issued 314 written warnings and 70 expiation notices. In 2015-16, they issued 438 written warnings and 57 expiation notices. These largely related to breaches arising out of their annual trust account audits.

It does not necessarily mean that there was stealing, but I am assuming, on the basis of the action taken, that these were relatively low-level infringements. However, they go on to say that there are currently 18 ongoing real estate and conveyancing-related investigations. They of course do not necessarily identify them as being specifically regarding property managers but, in any event, these have been raised. What is important to note is that they also report:

In recent years, CBS has referred three matters to SA Police for prosecution, with an additional two matters referred by complainants. Matters referred to SA Police by CBS are generally reserved for serious misconduct relating to major fraud. Four matters include alleged trust account theft and fraud of rent and bond monies resulting in a combined estimated total of $1 million in claims to the Agents Indemnity Fund (with over $600,000 paid to date).

The letter then goes on:

Notable outcomes in recent years have included a successful prosecution, eight public warnings issued, four assurances accepted and a referral to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. Further, three additional matters were referred to SA Police by registered land agents for trust account thefts by employees (unregistered property managers). The agents were subject to written warnings as the Commissioner was satisfied with their actions of self-reporting and personally rectifying the issues (i.e. terminating employment, replacing trust monies and strengthening safeguards against further misconduct).

What is not clear from that information is why only one of these matters was successfully prosecuted, and, more importantly, which commissioner made the decision to issue written warnings in respect of matters that were serious enough to report to the police for prosecution and have been identified as being from a serious misconduct relating to major fraud, yet they were not apparently prosecuted.

It may be that the Commissioner of Police and/or the commissioner for Consumer and Business Services took the view that the explanation given by the employee, or the commitment to repay the moneys or leave the employment and go and work somewhere else (hopefully not perpetuating that conduct anywhere else), was sufficient to deal with the matter. So, I think we need some explanation as to what is going on here.

If on the one hand cases are being referred to the police and they elect not to prosecute, or they make a determination that there is inadequate evidence or insufficient support statements from witnesses or documents to corroborate the evidence in respect to the charge, then I think we should note that. If they have simply elected not to proceed with the investigation and prosecution of these matters, then I think we need an explanation, because if these are—which is stated in this letter—matters of serious misconduct relating to major fraud that are being referred, then we as a parliament need to know that they are being acted on.

Certainly, we have seen fraud in the Attorney-General's own office, in his own department. We have seen a major fraud in recent years in respect of the Victims of Crime Fund, which was under his very nose. More recently, there has been a very significant fraud in the Public Trustee, so, frankly, I do not have a lot of confidence that there is adequate supervision under the Attorney-General's watch. However, I do expect that if an enforcement agency has referred to it serious matters from the commissioner of Consumer and Business Services, particularly serious misconduct relating to a major fraud, it should be acted on and, if it is not acted on, we should know about it. That is not a matter that should, in my view, attract some lesser action, particularly when the government is now coming to us saying that we need to have a registration process with a significant stick, namely, enabling us to empower the commissioner to implement disciplinary action or prosecution, with penalties up to $100,000 and/or five years' imprisonment.

There is not much point in coming to the parliament and asking us to support a regime that may or may not be effective in ensuring that we have a better system in respect of the services provided by property managers, more particularly to provide a means by which there can be adequate discipline in relation to this field if in fact, with the law as it currently stands, they are not actually acting on it. I think we do need some answers from the government as to what is going on in this regard and not just impose another level of bureaucracy, for which the terms and conditions are yet to be defined, on that particular profession.

I say that because this is a professional service provided to the public, in this case to ensure that the rights and entitlements of a tenant and a landlord are properly administered and that there is a process for the payment of bonds, the maintaining of properties in a fit state and, of course, the provision of services in them on a fit-for-purpose basis by the landlords for the tenants. There are interests to be protected on both sides, and the property manager has significant obligations in respect of that in addition to the management of the timely return of bonds and the like when, inevitably, there is a transfer of tenancy or one party seeks to leave the arrangement.

That is frequent in the residential tenancy world for lots of reasons—I am not casting any aspersions on that—but obviously people's employment changes, they go to live in another town, state or suburb and they need to change their residential arrangements. It is a fairly high turnover, possibly much higher than in the commercial tenancy world. I make the point that we offer, and have offered for a number of decades, a residential tribunal-type process for the speedy management of tenancy disputes. Recently, it was absorbed into the new South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, but it essentially operates in the same manner.

Consistent with that, we need to make sure that there is a process to ensure that the standard of the profession of property managers is maintained. I think that members can see that I am not overjoyed at the prospect of having another level of registration and regulation, and I do want some answers in response to why there has been no following through on the prosecutions by the police and/or the commissioner, whoever made that decision, in respect of the information that has been provided. Otherwise, the opposition will not oppose the bill.

In respect of tenancies generally, I think that two things need to be looked at; one is the electronic equipment and program used by SACAT for the purposes of the receiving and return and/or adjudication on bonds. I am told by those who work in the profession that a number of circumstances have been raised with the government in respect of the timely attention to the payment out and/or debiting against and/or refunding of the bond. This is obviously unsatisfactory for both landlords and tenants and needs to be remedied. Multiple concerns have been raised, and I think that matter should be addressed.

If it is not going to be addressed in this week's state budget, I think the Attorney-General needs to beef up his position in the cabinet and make sure that some of these things happen. It is not acceptable in this area of the property world—namely, the tenancy management for which property managers and the real estate industry generally pay very significant fees, and will pay a lot more and be involved in funding the costs of further training and, while we are at it, providing an annual revenue to the state of nearly $9 million net or probably more in this financial year. In fact, this is the only part of the Attorney-General's responsibility that actually makes money for the government.

I just make the point that you cannot rape and pillage those in the industry because they are bound by a licensing-type scheme or registration and expect that they not have adequate and proper services, including the electronic management of bonds, in this case, for the industry in which they are regulated. The Attorney-General clearly needs to step up and say, 'You can't just rape and pillage this industry. You need to make sure that they have proper services that go with it.'

The other matter I want to raise is that, as the Attorney knows, we have passed legislation in this parliament to deal with prescribed addresses that are identified as bikie places of occupation. This was largely to deal with the non-consorting of members of bikie gangs. In that legislation, we have listed a whole lot of proscribed addresses. The purpose of that was to identify them as places where there is not to be any meeting of more than two persons in an outlaw motorcycle gang.

This proscriptive process was a rather novel approach. Nevertheless, we worked with the Attorney to try to make sure that we were not unfairly dealing with not just the subsequent use but whether the government were inadvertently including in their list of proscribed addresses those that had lawful and legitimate tenants in them. In fact, when the list first came to the parliament I think two properties were identified as having families living in them.

For some reason, they were put on the list, and we had to redo the list and they had to be removed. I think there was a list amongst the outlaw motorcycle gangs of a poor, innocent and hapless motorcycle club that was accidentally put on the list, and we had to take that group off the list when it was found that it was just a group of 60-plus blokes who liked wearing leather jackets and riding around on motorcycles in a perfectly lawful way.

Here is the problem now: we have created a system in which the identification of these properties has been made. As best I can see, it has had the desirable effect of breaking up a meeting place for the outlaw motorcycle gang. I drove past one out towards Wakefield Road the other day and saw that it was completely demolished and being rebuilt into another premises, which is pleasing to see. Hopefully, the next enterprise will be lawful, productive and useful to the community.

The process of being able to move on and have that address removed as a proscribed address, as being a place at which there was a fortress or headquarters of a bikie gang, appears to be very cumbersome and can take months and months. If the property is sold and it is determined that the purchaser wants to redevelop the property for the purposes of a lawful enterprise, that exercise is both expensive and time consuming and it needs to be looked at. When the Attorney-General considers the practical implications of that legislation, I would ask him to look at that aspect.

If it is established that the person or entity who has acquired the property clearly has no association with the former group—that is, the outlaw motorcycle gang, most of whom are now operating just over the border in Victoria or in their lounge rooms in South Australia, so we have not got rid of them or their activities per se—they ought to be able to get on with the development of those assets ASAP. That is a matter I ask the Attorney to have a look at.

I want some answers in relation to the prosecution—there is not much point in setting up a new system if, in fact, they are not even utilising the old one—and I would like some commitment in respect of the programming of the material and bond moneys that go in and out of the CBS. Finally, while he is at it, I would ask him to look at the proscribed places for the purposes of serious and organised crime and the impediment that is having on the prospects of redevelopment of those properties in a timely manner for a productive and lawful purpose. With those few comments, I indicate that we will not be opposing the bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:20): I rise to speak to the Land Agents (Registration of Property Managers and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Land Agents Act 1994. Currently, a person must be registered as a land agent to sell or deal with land or a business. An employee must be registered as a sales representative, and the rules relate to commercial property management but not residential property management.

The bill requires employees of land agents to be registered, similar to the sales representative registration, and I am advised that South Australia is currently the only state that does not have registration of property managers in this area. According to the state government, around 180 calls are received regarding this issue through Consumer and Business Services per month, and I know that my electorate office has had some of those people call with concerns in respect to the service or conduct of property managers by both landlords and tenants.

The government claims it is reducing regulatory burden on commercial property managers, and it will be an overall lower cost. However, consultation with the Real Estate Institute of South Australia indicates there have been no draft training requirements, costs or registration fees discussed or agreed, and I am sure that the deputy leader will be asking those questions in her examination during the committee stage.

The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs will have the responsibility to implement, maintain and enforce the registration and/or conduct of property managers under the bill, and if you are seeking to register as a residential property manager you will need to hold the prerequisite qualifications to show that you are fully qualified with the necessary skills and knowledge base to work in the industry. Under the changes to the bill, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs has greater powers to take action against unprofessional property managers.

As I understand it, the registration system will apply only to people employed as residential property managers and not to those individuals with a less formal arrangement, such as managing a residential property for a relative. It is important to note that the majority of landlords and tenants do the right thing, but there are instances where people can take advantage of the system. Stronger powers mean that there are clearly defined consequences for those doing the wrong thing.

In many instances, agents and managers do the right thing. Those who do not do the right thing are playing with people who are trying to sell or move. They are dealing with someone's life savings. They are dealing with something that in many instances people have been working all their working life to be able to afford. If those people put their trust into someone who is not doing the right thing, or who cannot be trusted, they are playing with danger. If I drive past a home or property in the Riverland that has a home-made For Sale sign, it always rings alarm bells with me and sends a message that the sale is not going to be undertaken by a professional agent.

The Real Estate Institute of South Australia CEO, Greg Troughton, has said on the proposed changes to the bill:

Walking the quagmire of balancing the needs of the landlord and tenant is not an easy thing to do, and licensing will better ensure, for generations to come, that they meet the training requirements to undertake this very important balancing act in the South Australian community.

A newspaper column opinion piece by a professional in the industry published late last year touched on the impact of unprofessional agents. It went like this:

It still surprises me that people think you can survive in this industry and be a crook. If you can't believe agents do it for the good of their hearts then understand most real estate agencies survive off peer review. A good experience sees a rush of business, a bad experience sees agents with no homes to sell.

Governing bodies…have done an exceptional job in advancing the level of professionalism in our industry. But obviously, like in any industry, there are some bad eggs.

It is just like in regional areas such as the Riverland; feedback about real estate agents is particularly important for their business, as word of mouth plays a large role. I am sure every member in this house will understand that word travels fast—particularly in small regional communities—and that bad news or a bad experience travels even faster, so it is in the agent's best interest to do the right thing to remain in business for the long term. Again, that really does ring true. In a small suburb in Adelaide news travels quite fast, but it does not travel as fast as it does in a small regional community such as the many in my electorate in the Riverland.

In conclusion, I support any measures that provide further support to ensure that those seeking to work in the residential real estate industry are fully qualified and provide the most professional experience possible.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:26): I rise to speak in support of the Land Agents (Registration of Property Managers and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2017. This is an important bill that seeks to provide a much stronger and professional residential tenancy sector to better protect the interests of all parties, tenants and landlords alike.

I agree with the comments made by other members that, in the main, most property managers act in an appropriate and professional manner; that is certainly my experience in my area. However, there are some property managers where the kindest word to describe them would be 'rogues'; unprofessional, unethical and a whole range of other adjectives would fit their role. Unfortunately, I have one of those in my town. They are quite celebrated in the media (I say 'they' so that I do not give away their gender), and I am sure that the commissioner has heard their name mentioned once or twice in dispatches from tenants and landlords alike. I say that because this particular property manager does not discriminate; they are just as obnoxious towards tenants as they are towards landlords. It does bring the profession into disrepute, and this bill goes a long way to making sure that we have appropriate standards of behaviour in that industry.

The private rental market will play an increasingly important role in the housing system, and is the fastest growing type of tenure in Australia. With an increasing number of people not being able to afford to buy a home, there will be an increasing number of people who will be tenants, and there will be an increasing number of people, obviously, who will be landlords. That relationship between landlord and tenant requires professional mediation at times, and that is where the property managers come in. They must be beyond reproach and must have the skill set to make sure they can manage the business well.

I understand that approximately one in four South Australians rents privately, so we must ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to address any wrongdoing by those who seek to undermine the credibility of the real estate industry. The proposed registration will ensure that property managers have satisfied minimum probity requirements and possess the knowledge and skills required to perform property management duties.

Further, it will ensure that the commissioner can take action against individual property managers where appropriate rather than their employer, the registered land agent. I understand that property managers are required to be employed by a registered land agent unless they are operating as a stand-alone rent-roll business, when they must be a registered land agent in their own right. For employees, there is currently no training or probity requirements; only their employer is liable for their actions.

I have had constituents, both landlords and tenants, share their stories with me. Just the other day I put a message on Facebook asking people to share their stories, and I must confess that it was probably my Facebook entry for the week in terms of people who accessed it, so there are obviously issues that need to be addressed in this particular area of the profession. Also, one of the major stories I hear from both landlords and tenants is about managers in regard to their property management knowledge and entering their home for an inspection, etc. That would be clarified.

All other jurisdictions require some form of licensing and registration of residential property managers. I believe that in South Australia property managers should also be accountable and subject to minimum checks. Similar to builders and electricians, property managers enter people's homes on a regular basis. It is reasonable to ask that they provide a police certificate to the regulator and are deemed fit and proper to work in the profession.

I know that I would not be comfortable with the property manager who has been convicted of dishonest offences or the like in my home, let alone to carry out an inspection. I understand that the commercial property managers in South Australia are currently required to be registered, not like residential property managers. However, they must be land agents or sales representatives. This can be costly, requiring qualifications that are just not relevant to the work they are performing.

I am pleased to see that the government has not revisited the proposal from the former national occupational licensing days when the scope of a sales representative would have included property management. This would have extended the existing regulatory burden and unnecessary qualifications for commercial work to residential property management as well. Rather, the government has achieved a fair balance, in my opinion, between regulation and consumer protection.

The changes proposed introduce a third tier of registration specific to property management. This means that qualifications can be targeted to the scope of work the registration entitles the person to perform. I understand that the new property manager registration will be cheaper and require fewer qualifications in recognition of the difference between this occupation and sales representatives. This will save commercial property managers time and money for both new entrants into the industry and existing commercial property managers who may wish to downgrade to the cheaper registration.

The government has not taken this step lightly. There has been a thorough review of available data and evidence, which has determined that there is a regulatory gap and demonstrable need for this registration. I am sure that many of my colleagues would have heard many stories from both tenants and landlords concerning property managers. However, as I said earlier, I do not wish to paint the profession in a bad light. Most property managers are reputable and skilled and do their job properly.

I believe they would tend to agree with me that not just anyone can walk into the role and perform their job effectively. They need knowledge of tenancies legislation, including the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords, and an ability to negotiate. By 'negotiate', I do not mean hurling abuse at their tenant or landlord. A particular property manager who is infamous in my town is an expert in hurling abuse and invective, not only at landlords and tenants but at any regulatory authority as well. They are not immune from abusing police officers, certainly not immune from abusing my staff or making comments on my Facebook and Twitter in all sorts of descriptions about my personal self.

I must confess that it is water off a duck's back, but I have had people from the Salvation Army come and talk to me about people in need who were almost driven to suicide by the way they were treated by this property manager. It is appalling behaviour. These are the rogue elements in this industry we need to weed out.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I am not going to name them. I take my responsibilities seriously in this place and I will let the law speak for itself when it is passed. The law will do what has to be done. Mind you, I am sure this property manager will go to my Facebook page and out themselves tonight because they just will not be able to help themselves.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, they will not be able to help themselves. One day I will tell you some of the stories that involve this property manager. It is not a laughing matter; it is quite serious. Also, property managers advise on market rents and represent the landlord at tribunal hearings. This property manager is also well known at the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. I am sure they are pretty well known at SACAT as well. In fact, there are special arrangements when this person turns up to hearings.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Sorry?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, just to mention a few of their attributes. While this may come with experience for some, minimum training requirements is how we approach this with other occupations, and for good reason. A person's suitability and competency need to be considered before they can perform the role without supervision. Unfortunately, within any occupation you can get some bad eggs, as I indicated, and this affects people's views of the profession.

These changes will not only protect tenants and landlords but also underpin the professionalism of the sector and help protect the credibility of reputable and trusted property managers. Unfortunately, because they are not registered sales agents or sales representatives, the Real Estate Institute cannot take action against them either, so these people actually have no regulation at all at the moment, in effect.

I understand that some of the evidence and data highlighted that Consumer and Business Services receives over 180 calls a month regarding alleged inappropriate or poor behaviour, or a lack of knowledge and understanding of legislative requirements. The Real Estate Institute of South Australia reports receiving over 150 calls to its advisory service and another 200 direct to their property management expert.

Further, Consumer and Business Services issued 438 written warnings and conducted six investigations throughout 2015-16. I am advised that some of these investigations related to tenants reporting faults but no repairs being done. Imagine not having hot water and the person you are meant to be reporting it to fails to do anything about it. Often, the landlord is at a loss and does not know either.

Yes, there are avenues in place to pursue the matter, such as the tribunal, but first and foremost the property manager should be accountable. I do not believe it is reasonable that a person needs to apply to the tribunal because a property manager has failed to inform the landlord, and that does happen. There have also been allegations of property managers billing landlords for work never performed, etc. This is unacceptable and I strongly support the commissioner having appropriate powers to address such misconduct and re-evaluating a property manager's entitlement to be registered.

The bill also proposes some changes to trust account breaches. Presently, I understand that the commissioner can only take action against a land agent where trust money has been misappropriated, regardless of whether it was one of their employees. Land agents may have the best of intentions, but their livelihood and reputation can be at risk due to the actions of some rogue employee.

I understand these changes will ensure that the person who has misappropriated the money is liable. These are serious breaches. I saw in the news in recent months that an agent in Queensland misappropriated $230,000 in the wake of the 2011 Brisbane floods. They spent the money on propping up a failing business and gambling. The agent abused a position of trust and deliberately falsified records to avoid detection. Again, this is unacceptable behaviour. This behaviour can have serious ramifications for the affected tenants and mum-and-dad property owners.

I think it is very important to point out that this legislation is designed to protect not only tenants but also landlords. If we have a professional group of property managers, they will make sure that, first, properties are on the market and, secondly, that tenants can actually live in peace as well. I strongly support the increased penalties to better address this misconduct, which is $100,000 and/or five years' imprisonment. However, I note that if the matter relates to major fraud then South Australia Police may still consider prosecution, which can attract penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment.

I commend the Attorney for this considered and fair approach to closing this gap with other jurisdictions, with commercial property management and with similar occupations. I am also aware that the Attorney, the department and the commissioner have undertaken extensive consultation and that this proposal is supported by the Real Estate Institute of South Australia. I am certain that these changes will increase protections for all parties in the tenancy sector, as well as support the hardworking and reliable professionals in the property management sector. I think the bill creates a win-win for not only the industry but also important elements of that industry, being the tenants and landlords. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (16:39): I would like to thank all the contributors to the second reading, and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: I raised questions during the debate on this matter as to which commissioner elected to deal with two of the three cases, or it may have even been four of the five cases because two came in via complainants, in respect of alleged major frauds. Firstly, which commissioner determined that? Was it the Commissioner of Police or the commissioner of Consumer and Business Services? Secondly, why were those cases not prosecuted?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As the member for Bragg rightly foreshadowed, I will need to take that on notice and provide the information between the houses.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 24) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (16:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.