Fire and Emergency Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 4 December 2019.)

Clause 23.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, do you have another question?

Mr ODENWALDER: No, we can move on.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 24 and 25 passed.

New clause 25A.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I move:

Amendment No 13 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 17, after line 10—After clause 25 insert:

25A—Insertion of section 105IA

Before section 105J insert:

105IA—Power of direction by police officer

(1) If a police officer is satisfied—

(a) that a person proposes to carry on an activity of a kind prescribed by the regulations or any other activity that the police officer is satisfied may cause a fire; and

(b) that because of weather conditions the fire, if caused by the activity, might get out of control,

the police officer may direct that person to refrain from carrying on the activity during a period specified in the direction.

(2) Before giving a direction under subsection (1), a police officer must take into account any relevant information contained in—

(a) the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice published by SACFS (as in force from time to time); and

(b) any other code or policy prescribed by the regulations.

(3) A person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, a direction under this section is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) for a first offence—$5,000 or imprisonment for 1 year;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence—$10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to speak to your amendment, minister? No. Member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Odenwalder–1]—

Amendment to Amendment No 13 [PolEmerCorr-1]—

Page 17, after line 10, inserted section 105IA(1)—after 'If' insert:

, on the advice of an authorised officer of an emergency services organisation,

Amendment No 2 [Odenwalder–1]—

Amendment to Amendment No 13 [PolEmerCorr-1]—

Page 17, after line 10—after subsection (3) of inserted section 105IA insert:

(4) In this section—

authorised officer means an officer or other member of an emergency services organisation authorised by the Chief Officer of the emergency services organisation to act as an authorised officer under this section.

Before I speak to my amendments, I want to reiterate what I said yesterday, and that is that I have no intention of delaying the passage of this bill. There are some important measures in the bill. I have had a chance to consider them more thoroughly, and I think this bill does some things that are probably overdue. Having said that, I still reserve the right to seek amendments in the other place as we go through and as I continue to consult with the stakeholders concerned.

I do insist on these two amendments, except for the amendment moved by the minister, which essentially replaces the direction powers from the CFS, the local CFS or any CFS officer, to any police officer. It is that which is the crux of the problem. I reiterate that I sought a briefing from SAPOL. I emailed the minister's office last Thursday. I still have not received a reply to that email, let alone a briefing. My knowledge of what SAPOL think of this is partially anecdotal and partially based on the evidence that Assistant Commissioner Bamford provided to the select committee.

I have read some of that into Hansard but I will add what I think is the crux of the matter for the police—it certainly was in February. I remain to be corrected. The police view, as far as I am aware, is, and I quote Assistant Commissioner Bamford:

I think that there's a lot of value in police supporting the CFS, as we do the fire service at the scene of a fire in the metropolitan area, but is it really the job of a police officer to go in and do what you're asking here? My intuitive response is no, it's not our primary job. To support it as a fallback, yes, I get that, but to ask us to make all those determinations all the time I think is outside the role of police.

That is the crux of the problem with the government's amendment regarding police officers. On the face of it, it seems pretty reasonable. The select committee recommended something along these lines, although it was quite a long report and it included, obviously, the transcript of Assistant Commissioner Bamford's evidence. I believe and I believe that the police believe that they are not necessarily equipped to assess fire risk.

For instance, you could have a probationary officer, fresh out of the academy, posted to somewhere on Eyre Peninsula who has to, on any given day, make an assessment according to the way that this amendment is phrased whether some harvesting activity is or is not dangerous. That puts them in a precarious position.

You could have the opposite, of course: you could have a very well experienced police officer who is also a member of the CFS. But, in the case of an inexperienced police officer or an experienced police officer who has no experience of fire and assessing fire danger, they are put in the position where if they believe something is fairly risky they tell the farmer or the harvester that their behaviour is risky and to cease that behaviour, and that farmer goes on to lose money—I do not know how much money a day of harvesting would cost a farmer—for no reason other than the police officer's own assessment of that fire risk.

On the other hand, they could assess that there is no fire risk that day and there could be a fire. Does that make that police officer liable under this section? Is there some liability attached to the police officer who does not, on his own assessment, think there is much risk of fire when it turns out that there is and that assessment is made from a position of inexperience and a lack of knowledge.

What my amendments do is accept the premise of the government's amendment, which is to give police the power to enforce the law—which they do anyway. It allows them to go onto a farmer's land and ask them to cease activity, only on the advice of an authorised officer and the authorised officer would be the chief officer of an emergency services organisation—in almost every case the CFS—or his or her delegate.

I think this strikes the right balance. It gives the police some protection. Of course, the police will always act if they think life or property is at risk of imminent danger. We all know that. They will go in and do whatever they feel they have to do. However, as to making assessments about fire risk on a day-to-day basis, that is not the job of the police. They are happy to enforce it when another more experienced agency in this field gives them advice, but it is not their job to assess fire risk. Therefore, I will accept the government's amendment with my amendments.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I start by saying that the government will not be accepting the member's amendments and I will outline why. Yesterday, I spoke about the select committee and how we got to this point from the Holloway review back in 2013. The question to the select committee was quite clear and it had two parts.

The proposed power to direct was referred to a bipartisan select committee with two specific questions: (1) is the power to direct still required and, (2) if so, who should have the power? That is what was put to the select committee and the select committee came back with, yes, the power to direct was required and it should go to SAPOL.

What the member for Elizabeth is doing, in essence, is giving that back to the CFS, which was the reason for the select committee in the first place. I do not think that is where the intent of this select committee was. I also notice these amendments were filed on Tuesday, and as I have looked over them, that is the position that has been made very clear. I am advised, however, that this was not consulted on with Grain Producers SA. I note in the Stock Journal today that Grain Producers SA have come out saying how happy they are for the select committee—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The Stock Journal? No, that is a media outlet. I can show you where it is. It is a media outlet that is distributed through the country, so you may not see or read it. Grain Producers SA are very supportive of the consultation process and where we have landed. Back to those two points: is the power to direct still required? Yes. Who should have them? SAPOL. That is where we have landed with this. To clarify, in this amendment we are making, the second part states:

(2) Before giving a direction under subsection (1), a police officer must take into account any relevant information contained in—

(a) the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice published by SACFS (as in force from time to time); and

(b) any other code or policy prescribed by the regulations.

(3) A person who contravenes, or fails to comply—

It goes on. There is that opportunity there. I think that is really clear, and I think the select committee made it really clear where they want it to go. The amendment you are putting forward is actually heading back to the CFS, which was again, as I stress, the reason for this select committee.

What we have established and what there will be is a working group between SAFECOM, CFS and SA Police to establish this operational model whereby suitably qualified CFS personnel will assess and interpret information to support when it may be appropriate for a police officer to issue a direction to cease activity. I must also stress that the proposed power will not be implemented for this current harvest season. This is going forward and that is where we are landing.

To add to that for the avoidance of doubt, a working group, as I pointed out, has been established, and that will be pulling together the regulations for this. That will be SAFECOM, CFS and SA Police and that is already underway.

Mr ODENWALDER: First of all, I am not tampering with the idea and the suggestion of the select committee that a police officer has the power to direct. I accept what you have said about a working group and I accept what you have said about (2)(b) 'any other code or policy prescribed by regulation'. The way the government amendment is written does not make any of that clear at all. I take you at your word, minister. I know that you are a man of your word, and I know that there will be a working group set up and these systems will be put in place, but nothing in the act dictates that, so that may not be the case. Things may change and nothing in the act would prescribe that.

At the moment, it simply says any police officer. Presumably, any police officer needs to be familiar with the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice. I do not know if many are right now, so I do not know if that is going to take some sort of training to get every police officer in the state up to speed with the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice. Apart from the working group, what prescriptions do you intend to make in the regulations that will make this crystal clear that a police officer off their own bat is not making determinations about fire risk?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am glad you referred to that working group because that is the fundamental body, as I have pointed out. SAFECOM, the CFS and SAPOL are very involved in that. What we learned through the select committee, and you would have noticed this in reading the report, is the amount of information that is actually out there in the community. This is really exciting on a number of fronts One is, it is giving more information to the emergency service workers, police and communities to help them know the conditions in their local area so that localised decisions can be made, which will be the benefit of what we are talking about here.

The select committee did a great job in unearthing that and that technology is advancing by the day. It is great for the industry and great for everyone, and by sharing that information we will be able to make better decisions. That is what the select committee will be able to work through to make sure that utilisation of all that information in making the decision will give SAPOL all the information they need when and if they need to make that decision.

I stress the point, and we made this early in the committee stage in this conversation—and I have outlined the reasons and the questions that the select committee asked—that this came about because of people who were doing the wrong thing, or the perception they could do the wrong thing, and making sure we could do something before a catastrophic event or something very bad unfolding. Again, through the select committee process, it was made abundantly clear that pretty much everybody felt that, whilst the majority, 99.9 per cent of people, were doing the right thing, there is that 0.1 per cent that having this power would stop doing the wrong thing.

The ability is to use the threat of this power, for want of a better term, for someone in the community to ring and say, 'All the indicators say you shouldn't be doing what you're doing. If you don't stop, we will call the police,' and we have that path to go down. At the moment, they do not have that path. This and what we are doing here is giving them that path. I think that will knock the majority of this on the head, but if someone still does the wrong thing police can then step in.

That was the consensus of the select committee and from everyone I spoke to when I went around the regions and met with a lot of people. Specifically, I had a meeting in the Riverland where they talked about this and they were abundantly clear that that is where it needed to be—and that was very early days—that it needed to be with the police. My concern is that the amendments you have steer it back to the CFS. That is what put us in this position. I appreciate you taking me at my word because this working group, with esteemed experts in this area coming together and formulating the regulations, will land us in the spot that will see us able to deliver what the intention is from the select committee.

Mr ODENWALDER: My amendment does not put it back on the CFS in the same way that the original bill was phrased. The original bill was phrased in a way that suggested any CFS officer—and this was all borne out in the select committee, of course. This was the reason for the select committee and it was the reason the Deputy Speaker here called for the select committee—that it put the onus on any local CFS volunteer, who may well be a neighbour, a friend or an employee of the person on whom they are trying to enforce the law.

I think it is a step in the right direction to give SAPOL the power to direct, but my amendment enhances that. It gives SAPOL the power to direct on the advice of someone who actually knows what they are talking about in terms of fire risk. I do not accept for a second that I am reverting back to the original intention of the bill, which was a nonsense and proved to be a nonsense in the select committee. What I am trying to do is tidy up the government amendment so that everyone is clear.

Minister, the speech you just gave sounds reassuring, but none of that is in here. None of that is written here. There is one subsection (2)(b) which says 'any other code or policy prescribed by the regulations.' I think we need you to be absolutely clear today about what those regulations will prescribe. For instance, will there be a written direction? Will landowners have some sort of notice that, if they do not cease an activity in a certain time frame, a police officer will come marching on their land and switch the harvester off?

Will there be a written order from the police officer to prescribe how long the harvester or whatever it is needs to stay off and the penalties that would apply with a breach of that written order? None of this is in this section, so if we are to take you at your word we need some sort of guarantee that those things will be prescribed by the regulations.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am not sure that is a question, but I will take as one and say to the member again the point that I have reiterated. We have set up the committee to work through with SAFECOM, SAPOL and the CFS to come up with the regulations. They are the experts so we will get them to do that work. To be clear, police do not have to prove anything. It is about a direction power, so that is what it is. It is giving the power to police.

To reiterate the point—and you have raised it yourself, so I appreciate you doing that—(2)(a) and (2)(b) make it abundantly clear in this amendment: 'the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice published by SACFS (as in force from time to time)' and, as you point out in (b), 'any other code or policy prescribed by the regulations'. That is what this expert group will come up with, and I back them to actually come up with the formula that will work for police engaging with CFS, and SAFECOM to have oversight as well, to make sure that we get the best outcome. So that will be done in regulation and that will be the best way to get the best outcome so that we can implement what the select committee found.

Mr ODENWALDER: Minister, you state that SAPOL or a police officer, any police officer, does not have to prove anything. Since there are penalties attached to contravening a direction of a police officer, surely the police officer has to have some sort of evidence that someone has breached some sort of condition. None of this is clear in here. Since there are penalties, there must be a legal avenue for challenge, so the police officer could potentially be brought before some sort of court (you will have to enlighten me on what that is) in order to prove their case that a certain person was given a direction lawfully and has thereafter breached that direction.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will take that statement as a question and reiterate that this is about avoiding a catastrophic event. The situation we have at the moment is that police can act after the event when the devastation has occurred. We want to avoid that. Again, I have gone to great lengths to explain that it is really clear in the community, and this goes back to the Holloway report and the advice there from 2013 when those opposite were in government.

We have a situation where at the moment, after the event, police can prosecute. That is fantastic, but we do not want to get to after the event. That is the whole intent here: we want to make sure that, if there is someone doing the wrong thing, the police can have the power to prevent it happening. It is about avoiding a catastrophic event, and that is why the select committee decided that the power was needed, because that is what came out of the Holloway review back in 2013. So that was still needed. That was a tick. That is what the select committee found. They also found that that power should sit with police, and that is what we are delivering.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have no argument with anything you just said, minister, but that did not address any of my concerns. How many questions do I have left?

The CHAIR: It is your amendment, so you have carriage of it. You can speak as many times as you like.

Mr ODENWALDER: I guess I will ask the minister a question: is he satisfied that SAPOL support this government amendment as it stands?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The short answer is yes. As I have outlined, the detail will come in the regulation, and we have the key stakeholders working through that, which is the CFS, SAPOL and SAFECOM as well. So, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: Further to that, is the minister satisfied that the Police Association of South Australia is entirely happy with this amendment as it stands?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I said yesterday and will continue to say today, this amendment has been on the table for a number of weeks now. Everyone has been engaged in this process. It has been going on for quite a long period of time. Everyone has had a chance to have input into the select committee. Where we have landed here with this amendment and getting a group together to put the regulations in place will give us the best outcome to achieve what the select committee found to be the best way to deal with this issue, and I have every confidence in that.

Mr ODENWALDER: With respect to the minister, Chair, and with your indulgence, he did not answer the question. I asked specifically whether he was of the view that the Police Association of South Australia are supportive and happy with this amendment as it stands?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The Police Association of South Australia have not raised this issue with me.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did you consult on this amendment with the Police Association?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: This is your amendment.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, the amendment that you brought, the one amendment.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As I said, it has lain on the table for a couple of weeks. Any stakeholder out there has had an opportunity—Grain Producers SA reached out to us and said, 'We like what's going on, we like where you're going, it meets what the select committee said.' If anyone else had any issues, they were free to raise that with me.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will not delay the house with any further questions.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I just add that I have just been informed that my office and SAFECOM met with Mark Carroll over this amendment. So they did meet and they have had discussions. To my knowledge, there were no major concerns that came back to me. As I said, I think it was explained to them that work is being done through this group to bring that together. There was no definitive line to question, if you like, because that group—involving, as I have stressed, SAFECOM, SAPOL and the CFS—are working on those regulations.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will just quickly respond to that. I look forward to, between the houses, my own consultation with the Police Association. I also look forward to eventually receiving a response to my request for a meeting with SAPOL so that I can discuss this with them and make a determination about whether this amendment should ultimately be supported in the form in which the government has put it.

Amendments to amendment negatived; new clause inserted.

Clause 26 negatived.

Clauses 27 and 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Mr ODENWALDER: Minister, this is about substantially changing the command structure within SES units. I will not be opposing this actively in this place; however, I reserve my right to seek further consultation with the Volunteers' Association. I have had some consultations with the Volunteers' Association. Anecdotally, I think there is some concern among unit members that this changes the form of local democracy that they have come to enjoy but, as I said, I will not be opposing it here. Can the minister outline what this change does to the basic structure of the SES? Is it intended to reflect the way the CFS works? Who asked for it? What consultation has been undertaken with the volunteer association?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for his questions. I am informed this is another longstanding tidy-up, for want of a better term, that has been hanging around for years and years, back to the previous government. So the opportunity was taken to tidy this up. I think you hit the nail on the head and that is that it is to bring the structure in line with the CFS. I am informed the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 does not provide clarity for the SES regarding the appointment, termination or disqualification of volunteer SES members, and the powers of command and control, as they relate to volunteer officers, are unclear.

While the act provides the chief officer with broad-ranging powers in section 109, similar to those of the CFS chief officer, it does not specify a command structure for the SES. Again, my information is that this is just tidying up an anomaly that has been there for a number of years. Some might say—it could be a little bit harsh—that the previous government never got around to doing this and we are just tidying it up now.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will not dwell on this, but do I take it then that the previous amendment, which deletes any reference to a constitution that relates to this obviously, means that there will be no local democratic structure at all in the SES? As a corollary to that, do any exist in the CFS at the moment?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: In essence, what you are doing is going back to a previous amendment that you have already passed. I am informed that the need for unit constitutions is a legacy matter relating back to a time when SES units were separately incorporated bodies, so that is the reason fundamentally.

Clause passed.

Clause 30 passed.

Clause 31.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, I am interested in the statutory definition to which you turn to for defining 'employment' under new section 127A.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, could you repeat that.

Mr SZAKACS: I am interested in the statutory definition to which you turn to define 'employment' under section 31, or new section 127A.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that section 33 of the Emergency Management Act 2004, section 772(1)(h) of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the National Employment Standards provide volunteers with some protection from dismissal if they are absent from work to respond to an emergency. This section provides legislative protections from dismissal for all emergency services workers and it has been supported by the CFS.

Mr SZAKACS: What new protections or otherwise does this clause provide, in addition to, for example, the codes under the Fair Work Act?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that what this is doing is putting into statute the role volunteers play and, as outlined in the amendment, they are not liable to be dismissed or prejudiced in employment for reasons of absence doing their work as an emergency service worker.

Mr SZAKACS: Is there anything new in this clause then, further to your previous answer, around the fair work code?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No. That was outlined in my previous answer. That is the information I have been given. I have been informed that came from the Holloway review, so that was back in 2013. Were you here? The shadow minister might have been, but that was from that time. Actually, you were probably in high school. Look at your young face.

Mr SZAKACS: Almost. Minister, you may or may not be aware then that under the Fair Work Act there are special provisions which exclude small businesses from unfair dismissal protection. You must, in any instance, have been an employee for six months before you can seek remedy for unfair dismissal. If you work for a small business, that must be 12 months. To what extent does this new clause interplay with the Fair Work Act, and in particular I am interested in the principles of the federal law to any inconsistency overriding state law?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I take your question as I think it is intended, this does not override federal law, obviously. That still stands as it is, as you have outlined. What we are doing here is just putting it in a statute and making it even clearer that a person who is absent from employment on official duties as a member of an emergency services organisation in connection with a fire or other emergency is not liable to be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of that absence. It just makes it really clear that, if someone is out there serving their community, they cannot be dismissed for that reason. The other federal laws would all still stand as they always do.

Mr SZAKACS: I take it then from the last couple of answers that this is more of a statement of principle than a new protection at law, because if you are correct in your answer that the federal law still applies, which it does, then a volunteer is still liable to be dismissed for any reason if they are an employee of a small business or if they have not been employed for six months or 12 months, depending upon the statutory threshold?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: What we probably need to note is that there are some generalisations going on in your question, and we cannot generalise about the employment contracts of different people because there are state-based IR laws as well—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Sorry, if I can just finish, what this does is it shows our support to volunteers, because it is really—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Hang on. Sorry, if I can just finish, it shows our support to volunteers and sends a very important message to employers that we are supporting them. That is the key factor with this, and I think it is something that needs to be made abundantly clear in this place. We need to show our support to volunteers. They do an outstanding job.

We have just been over on Yorke Peninsula, and many people in this place have spoken about what volunteers have done in recent events. Again, there is some generalisation in what you are saying. State-based IR laws are in place and, without going through every one of those, they do stand, but the intent of this is to very much support our volunteers.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, you have had four questions, but I am filled with Christmas cheer today, so I will allow one more because I know this is a passion of yours.

Mr SZAKACS: You are magnanimous in your—

The CHAIR: But this is your last question.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, I appreciate your sentiment and agree entirely. The better protection we can have for our volunteers in respect of their protections to be treated more fairly at work is very important. Should somebody, a volunteer, be wronged or seek remedy under this new section, in which jurisdiction would they seek that remedy—which tribunal and under which jurisdiction?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, that is a very generalised question. It would depend on the person's employment arrangements—how they are employed, what IR set-up they are employed under. So it would be specific to specific people, depending on their industrial relations agreement with their employer.

Mr ODENWALDER: Given the minister's previous answers and his obvious respect for our volunteers, will he be making representations to his federal counterparts about possibly changing federal law so that it reflects the measures outlined in this section?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for his question. Just to be clear, as I am informed, the Fair Work Act 2009 and the National Employment Standards provide volunteers with some protection from dismissal, so that would be federal matter. From the state-based perspective, we are putting this into the legislation to make sure that we show and we are very clear in our appreciation in respect of our volunteers and the work that they do. We are making it very clear to their employers where we stand.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (32 to 34) passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I move:

Amendment No 15 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 20, line 10—Delete 'Related amendments and transitional' and substitute 'Transitional'

Amendment No 16 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 20, lines 11 to 24—Delete Part 1 and the heading to Part 2

Amendment No 17 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 20, lines 25 to 28 [Schedule 1, clause 2]—Delete clause 2

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Long title.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I move.

Amendment No 18 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Long title—Delete 'and to make a related amendment to the Emergency Management Act 2004'

Amendment carried; long title as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (12:49): As a third reading contribution, I want to reiterate some of the things I said. I do not want to delay this bill either in this house or in the other place. There are probably some important changes that need to be made here. As we go through it, it is becoming clearer that there are some important changes that need to be made.

I still have reservations, however, that the police are not given proper guidance and, indeed, proper protection by this bill. The amendments I have tabled would go some way to do that. I am happy for the government to bring further amendments to those amendments in order to tidy them up. I am not convinced that the provisions within the current bill as it stands now properly direct or protect police. Having said that, I do not intend to see the bill delayed in the other place unnecessarily, although I think we will be insisting on at least those amendments up there.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:50): I thank the member for Elizabeth and the member for Cheltenham for their contributions, and I do note that this has been a long time in coming. The Holloway review was in 2013 and it had six years under the previous government. It has now been just over 18 months in this place with us.

I thank again the member for his support of this bill and reiterate his concerns. The group we had of SACFS, SAPOL and SAFECOM working on the regulations will land us, in my opinion, in a very good place to make sure that the intent of the select committee's findings and what we want to do here—to make sure that we keep people safe and we have this ability to prevent things happening in the future—will be a win for all South Australians and add to the safety of our state.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: