Shop Trading Hours (Extension of Hours) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

(Second reading debate adjourned on 18 October 2022.)

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, has the public had an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal post the election?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thank you, member for Colton. I might indicate, with the indulgence of the Chair of Committees, that I may sit. Mr Chairman, just formally, may I not stand or not rise?

The CHAIR: Given your physical situation at the moment, I am happy to give you permission to stay seated. It would be improper of me to impose that on you.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That is very good of you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that. Member for Colton, I am happy to advise that this was widely consulted on with the electorate when we took this as a well-articulated and well-ventilated policy to the election, to the people. We advised and disclosed and ran this through as a policy well and truly before the March election and I think the results of that election somewhat speak for the community's support of our initiative.

Mr COWDREY: So the public have not had an opportunity to provide any feedback in regard to the proposal post the election?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Insofar as we have got on with the job of delivering a commitment that we have made to the public, we have not sought to revisit that commitment or to test the temperature of the public since making that commitment to them.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can you advise how the hours from nine to 11 for Sunday were ascertained as being the only extension to Sunday shopping for this bill?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This was twofold. This is a consistently held policy of the Labor Party since 2018. In the four years that we were serving in opposition, as the then opposition we consulted widely with members of the business community, employee associations and retail groups, both registered and otherwise constituted. One thing that we did extensively in opposition was to engage with the business community. We took this policy with nine to 11, as put by the member, to the election and we bring that in execution of that election commitment by virtue of this bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Was the bill itself developed in consultation with the SDA, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I refer to my previous answer to the member for Colton in his inquiry.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Did members of the caucus who are members of parliament who rely on support from the shoppies union for their preselections excuse themselves from the decision on this policy during any party room debate as a conflict of interest?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is a ridiculous question from the member for Unley but not one that I am surprised about. I would see no reason to give anything further in response to it other than to say it is a ridiculous, ill-informed proposition.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr COWDREY: Are you able to provide a full list to the committee in terms of the parties who were consulted by the then opposition when producing this policy position?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will take on notice the question from the member for Colton but I can provide, as I did to the member for Unley I think, confirmation that this engagement and consultation was wide and it was with various and extensive bodies across the business community, including Business SA. It was across the trade union movement and employee associations. It was also across associations like independent retailers. Later in the questions, we may get around to the consultation required by the bill itself in respect of ministerial exemptions, but the consultation was wide and it was with registered and unregistered or non-registered associations.

Mr COWDREY: How many of those parties consulted actually agreed with the position being taken forward by the government?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This was a widely supported and popular policy that the then Labor opposition and now, I am proud to say, government took to the people of the state. Again, not to rub salt in the wound, but I think it was widely supported by virtue of the result at the March election.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr COWDREY: Can you confirm whether or not the shop trading hours legislation applies to businesses located on federal land?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will take some further advice and hopefully I can provide an answer to that, member for Colton, as we sit here. I will take that on notice specifically in respect of those businesses operating on federal land.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can the minister advise whether the legislation would prevent the Chapley family Foodland at the Pasadena Shopping centre from trading on Boxing Day but allow international company, TK Maxx, which also trades at the Pasadena Shopping centre, to open on that day?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Member for Unley, I am not familiar with TK Maxx and their operations whatsoever. I will take on notice, if I can, specially about TK Maxx. Are they a supporter of yours? Is that the lobbying that has been provided or are they a donor?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: They are a clearing house for brand names.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I have not frequented TK Maxx, but obviously you have. I will take some advice.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I will be correct: no, I have not; I am just aware of what their business is.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will take that on notice.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, can you provide the committee more information as to how the provision around changes to exemption came about? Can the minister provide further information to the committee about how the exemption process will actually work in practice, what the consultation process will actually look like, how many of the entities listed in both categories will need to be consulted? If you could just give the committee an overarching understanding of how the provision will actually work in practice, because at the moment it is very, very unclear.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As a point of clarity, do you mean that the current exemptions process is unclear, as exercised by the former Treasurer?

Mr COWDREY: No, I present it as the actual potential application of the exemption process outlined in this bill in regard to consultation that must take place, and then the minister being compelled by the outcome, of which there is very little practical explanation as to how that would work in practice.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I appreciate, member, that much of the question is trying to get some context, but much of the question is around hypotheticals. I will not err into the side of hypotheticals.

But in respect of some of the clarity regarding the application of the clause, and particularly regarding the ministerial exemption process, I can give the member some comfort that this bill, and the policy approach of this government, is a dramatic diversion from the overt political execution of exemptions by the former government, led by commander-in-chief the Hon. Rob Lucas. We are very clearly and proudly moving from what is currently a subjective test when it comes to matters of which the minister must be satisfied and moving to an objective test. If there are any specifics that the member has, I will be happy to try to answer those or take them on notice.

Mr COWDREY: I do note the position of authority that the government has in this house, but it is not necessarily reflective of that to continue to demean previous people who have served in roles. In any case, my question to the minister is in regard to those organisations that meet the criteria outlined within the clause regarding parties that need to be consulted or can be consulted. Can the minister please provide us with the list of parties or organisations that the government currently sees as fitting the descriptions outlined within the clause, both on the side of organisations that represent workers and also on the side of organisations that represent business?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I may give you a real-time example. I am advised that the Hon. Kyam Maher, who has been exercising his exemption discretion under the current act, has been applying a test as would be provided under this bill. Recently there was an exemption sought for the purposes of Fashion Week in Rundle Mall. I am advised that the minister consulted with bodies or associations including Business SA, the National Retail Association, the Rundle Mall Management Authority, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, and SA Unions. In that instance, all of those organisations and entities were supportive of the granting of an exemption.

If I may add further, member for Colton, as for other examples, because the nature of exemptions being sought will be or is dynamic, and there is not one size fits all, there is not a definitive list of organisations or associations that must be consulted with, other than the guidelines provided within new subsection (7) of this clause, and that is industry parties as broadly defined.

Mr COWDREY: As a point of clarification, in regard to the example the minister has given, is it up to the discretion of the minister to determine how many parties or which parties are consulted as part of that from an agreed list of organisations that may meet those requirements? We understand that those requirements, particularly in regard to organisations that represent workers, are obviously prescriptive in the way that they are written within the clause.

There would be limited numbers of organisations that would meet those requirements in regard to peak organisations. They may be many or different depending on the situation, as you have said, but we are generally talking about the retail sector more broadly, so I would suspect that the government has a view or at least a guide as to how many organisations and what those organisations are. Can the minister provide, to the best of his knowledge, the organisations that would meet those criteria?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Further than the prescriptive nature of the bill, which says that the minister must consult with interested parties, as you rightly pointed out in respect of my previous answer which gave that example, I think the nature of my answer gives a broad framework of the nature of parties with whom the minister intends or deems appropriate to consult.

I think of note there is the Rundle Mall Management Authority—not a registered organisation. There are, in fact, quite a few registered organisations. As you have said, there are those who are registered in industrial matters, including from business as well as unions, organisations like the Rundle Mall Management Authority. There may be other associations within particular geographic areas or otherwise, but it is right to say that the example I have given you gives guidance on the minister determining who he must consult with, as provided for under the act.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, but the point of clarification I was seeking was with regard to the discretion as to how many are chosen from each group purely with the minister. Is it an opt-in process? Is it a process where somebody who believes they met the criteria who has not been asked by the minister could then add themselves to the list? Is it purely in the minister's discretion to seek out these organisations? Is there the opportunity for organisations that have not been sought to join the consultation? How exactly is that list of organisations that are consulted arrived at? That is the point I am seeking to clarify.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Insofar as the limited discretion that is available to the minister under the act, it would be for him or her to determine, but I would expect and assume that under any ministerial discretion, as is usually the case, they would take the best advice available to them to the infinite capacity of the public sector advisers. This is not about a process of exclusion; it is a process, as we determine under this bill, to enable the best consultation with the most appropriate industry groups determined on the circumstances.

Mr COWDREY: To be clear, the minister can consult with as many or as few organisations as he wishes?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I cannot—

Mr COWDREY: Technically, under the regulations. We have the clauses in front of us. As they are written plainly, the minister will have the opportunity to consult with as many or as few organisations as they wish.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That number and the quanta are defined by the act in the way that it is constructed in respect of the consultation with interested parties.

Mr COWDREY: I will move onto my final question. With regard to the need for the minister to be assured that there is a majority of consulted parties agreeing to the exemption that is being sought, can the minister make it clear whether 'the majority of parties' means that the majority of one category needs to be assured, whether the assurance needs to be provided of a majority of both categories or whether the number of parties, whether it be seven on one side and two on the other, is combined and then the minister must be assured that the majority of that combined number of interested parties are for an exemption being provided? Can the minister make that clear for us?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can, member for Colton. It is a two-tier approach. The first is a majority of all parties consulted by virtue of this bill, act. The second qualification is at least one employer body and at least employee body.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps for my benefit and the benefit of those watching along at home and following the debate and for the benefit of posterity, I am turning to clause 4(3), which would delete subsection (8). As I understand it, there are presently no subsections (5), (6) and (7) and that this is 'delete (8)'. The opportunity there is to sub back in as new subsections (5) and (6) the contents of what was caught up in the old (8)(a) and (b), so that bit is largely replicated.

As the member for Colton, my colleague the shadow treasurer, has been testing, the rubber seems to hit the road in terms of this particular proposed reform in terms of the words that are proposed for new subsection (7). That really imposes a new prohibition against the minister granting or declaring an exemption unless the proviso is met.

Then, as I understand it, we are faced with a term that is defined in the singular in the previous clause, that is, of an interested party. There you have an interested party that, on the one hand, is a fairly broad notion in new paragraph (a) 'any industry association representing the interests of shopkeepers in shops that would be the subject of the exemption or notice;' so it is defined according to the particular circumstances of the contemplated exemption, so that is a potential class which may or may not be capable of being determined with certainty.

Then, paragraph (b) states 'any of the following entitled to represent employers, or employees, in shops that would be the subject of the exemption or notice' and then their organisations as may be registered under the relevant acts. They can be partially identified, but again they are identified by reference to the particular exemption that is being contemplated by the minister at the time.

If I am right about those things, turning back to what will be new subsection (7), first of all, (a) has an obligation to consult with, and now we are met with the plural, so one presumes there is more than one of these interested parties that are going to be involved in each case, although it contemplates by saying 'if any'—there might not be any—and 'in such a manner as is determined by the Minister', so that one might be capable of being achieved on the face of the record. I think the minister has given some sort of an answer there as to how the minister make about satisfying herself or himself about that.

Then at paragraph (b), and bear in mind this is not just a discretion, the minister also has to be satisfied that the proposed exemption is supported by a majority (that is, 50 per cent plus one, I presume, as I understand it at least) of interested parties, if any. So if there are not any, then it could be zero, I suppose, on the mathematical analysis. If it is one, it would have to be 100 per cent; if it is two, it would have to be 100 per cent again; if it is three, it would have to be two out of three, and so on, including, and this is where I think we understand—one such defined body that is representing employees and one such body that is representing employers.

My question is: first of all, is the minister satisfied that the clause on its face is capable of anything remotely sufficiently certain in terms of its application? How could any minister be able to satisfy themselves with relevant legislative vigour that they had possibly complied with their duties pursuant to this proposed clause?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thanks, member for Heysen. As to your final question, the answer is yes. The question that you asked, albeit a comment, regarding the parties, if any, I am advised that there are not circumstances that have been identified where that is likely. However, it is a drafting redundancy to not require consultation if there is not any, but I am advised that there are no circumstances as determined. I will take much of the rest of your contribution as comment.

Mr TEAGUE: What about answering the rest of it? Much of it was comment. Much of my contribution was comment. It was endeavouring to elucidate common ground as to how we might go about understanding together what is proposed, but there was a question at the end.

The CHAIR: That is what I thought you answered.

Mr TEAGUE: No, you answered the bit about 'if any' and the drafting point about an example where there are no interested parties, as far as you are advised. I get that.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Is this your second question?

Mr TEAGUE: No, I am trying to get the fact that I asked a substantive question. The substantive question, and I will repeat it, was: how can a minister possibly satisfy themselves that they have applied the test that is set out in subsection (7)? Leaving aside the 'if any' bit, how can they, according to the interaction between the definitions in the operative clause, satisfy themselves that they have consulted with interested parties sufficiently and, secondly—and perhaps, as it were, more mathematically rigorously—satisfy themselves that they have the agreement of a majority of such interested parties, assuming that in many cases there might be many?

I only spelled out the circumstances of zero, one, two or three, but let's say there are 35. How does the minister satisfy themselves as to having achieved the acquiescence of 18 of them in that particular example? That is really just to repeat the question that was at the end. What I was really endeavouring to step through was a means of understanding if there is anything I have missed in terms of what is planned here.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It probably goes more from a question to a comment. Let me try to provide some greater explanation. The minister, in executing his or her obligations under the act, will determine the cohort of interested parties, first step. As I have already advised, in the discretion available to the minister the minister determines that cohort. The minister may then write—likely write, probably write—to interested parties setting out the proposed determination and seeking their opinion.

As the member rightfully commented, a majority of 50 per cent plus one is the way that the act would be interpreted. As I previously advised the member for Colton, that would be a simple majority. If there were 10 parties, five parties, one party, it is a simple majority of all those parties. The further qualification is then that, of the cohort of interested parties of whom the minister seeks opinion, one employer group and one employee group must be supportive.

Mr TEAGUE: Maybe just to assist the minister, my understanding of the intent of that answer was to say that the relevant majority there (the 50 per cent plus one) includes amongst them at least one of the employer representative bodies and one of the employee representative bodies that are the subject of subsections (1) and (2). Is that correct?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That is correct, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: I was going to say that the next question was going to be how. I might get there. Perhaps then focusing on the new subsection (8), bearing in mind this is now replacing the old subsection (8) and the new one does not bear any relation, it is the opportunity for an interested party to seek judicial review. That begs the question: given the minister is going to have to determine from exemption consideration to exemption consideration who, for the purposes of that exemption consideration, meets the definition of an interested party?

You do not just meet the definition of an interested party for all purposes because you happen to be an industry association representing the interests of shopkeepers. You have to be one that represents those interests that would be the subject of the particular notice. The same goes for the bodies that are entitled to represent employers or employees in shops to be subject to the exemption notice in (b).

The minister has to say, 'Alright, well, you were an interested party last time, but I am having to determine whether you are an interested party this time for this particular exemption notice,' and then work out what their list is to work out what the majority is, including other purposes. 'That's the list I have to consult, that's the number, and that's the nature of the majority that needs to be determined before I get there for the subsection (7) purposes.'

Does a party, whether or not previously participating in this process as a defined interested party, have the opportunity to avail themselves of the proposed subsection (8) for all purposes, including whether or not the minister has decided they are an interested party for the purposes of the proposed exemption, or do they first have to be determined as on that list for that particular consideration and then go and seek their judicial review or not pursuant to subsection (8)?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the determination of a body or an association being an interested party for the purposes of one exemption does not, by virtue of that determination by the minister, give them cause to be an interested party for subsequent and further exemptions. As I have previously advised, there is the case-by-case basis of this. I have pointed to the Rundle Mall authority, which has a particular interest in that geographic cohort but may not for another geographic cohort.

Regarding subsection (8), which gives the capacity for judicial review for the interested party, the determination of the minister on a previous matter of them being an interested party will not necessarily give them access—I am hesitant to use the word 'standing' because that is another matter—by virtue of subsection (8) to judicial review.

Mr TEAGUE: The question was whether the scope of subsection (8) extends to a body that considers themselves relevantly an interested party for the purposes of the particular decision, that might not have been consulted because the minister might have formed a view that they were not an interested party for this purpose. Do they get to avail themselves of subsection (8) in order to determine that question or do they have to first be an interested party before they can then avail themselves of subsection (8) for a judicial review on the merits of the decision one way or another?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that if an entity—an association, an organisation—meets the definition of an interested party under the act and then for a reason, maybe administrative, that group is not bought into the cohort by the minister for the purposes of that exemption, they will have capacity to seek judicial review of that decision made by the minister to issue or grant that exemption.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, you are entitled to three questions or comments. I have been very—

Mr TEAGUE: I thought I was still on the first one.

The CHAIR: Clearly you did not study mathematics.

Mr TEAGUE: No I did, actually.

The CHAIR: Obviously not very well.

Mr TEAGUE: Not according to the then administrators of the SSABSA process. I am proud to indicate that I did do rather well in mathematics, at least at a high school level, and I enjoyed it very much. I enjoyed my mathematical studies and I certainly concede there is a degree of art about the assessment of how many questions there have been. I have endeavoured to—

The CHAIR: I passed art too.

Mr TEAGUE: —give the minister the benefit of perhaps repeating the question a number of times in order to get to the crux.

The CHAIR: How about I give you an opportunity for one more direct question and then we will move on. How is that?

Mr TEAGUE: The minister is encouraging me to shorten it down.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, just ignore the interruptions and continue with your question.

Mr TEAGUE: I hope it might be apparent on the face of it that this is certainly not time that is wasted.

The CHAIR: No, he was not suggesting that at all.

Mr TEAGUE: I guess what I am indicating is that we have already added to the body of what is going to be the sources of interpretation of the application of this provision by what is on the record in the course of this committee. It might be self-evident that what we have here in at least the proposed subsection (7) is going to be a particularly difficult matter to determine one way or the other for the person who might be put to it, pursuant to subsection (8). I appreciate, Chair, the opportunity to ask even one more question on this.

The CHAIR: You cannot provide rolling commentary, though.

Mr TEAGUE: Well—

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, can I suggest that you just ask the question. If you choose to make commentary I will count that as your next question and we will move on. I am giving you an opportunity to ask your question; please avail yourself of that opportunity.

Mr TEAGUE: I hesitate to raise a point of order, Mr Chair, but my understanding is that I am entitled to some time to elucidate. We can all consult the record in due course and if that reveals that somehow I might have managed to express myself more succinctly or that I have somehow taken up the time of the committee, I will certainly apologise. I am endeavouring to get to these points as efficiently as I possibly can in each respect.

Perhaps to wrap up—and I really believe it is going to be left, if this is it, at a really inadequate level—I want to unpack what the minister might be expected to do pursuant to the new subsection (7). Another way of going about this could have been to say that an interested party is a party that is listed in the schedule or is identified pursuant to regulation and is so for all purposes. That might have been simpler. It also might have meant that you were consulting too many interested parties for particular exemption decisions, and I concede that. It is a matter for the government and those who are drafting the legislation, but it has not gone that way.

So we do not have: interested parties are those listed in the regs, so we know that every time a subsection (7) decision is being made you are going to have to get consultation done with all 96 of them and you are going to have to get the majority view of all 48, plus the bottom one and one at least.

Given the way it has been structured, are we going to see published somewhere in advance or together, or for the purposes of dealing with subsection (8) applications, a statement from the minister saying, 'Okay, for the purposes of this exemption decision, I have identified the following interested parties, total number and name and whereabouts they have been determined as qualifying, that is, subject to subsection (7)(a) or (b), and that I am satisfied that I have the support, whatever that means, of a majority of those interested parties, presumably by that 50 per cent plus one of the number of interested parties and I have the one, so they are in bold in the list or something like that to say I have satisfied myself as to one or the other'?

Is there going to be some sort of reference to the nature of the response from those interested parties having been so identified? Is it done in advance? 'We have an exemption decision coming up, folks. There are 41 on the list for this one. That is a medium-sized one or a big one or a small one or it might be average. All those interested parties are now needing to be mandatorily consulted with, so I am now going to go ahead and consult with all 41.'

I think pursuant to your previous answer, a party not on the list could dive in at that point and say, 'Hang on, I've got a subsection (8) application here. I'm not on the list. I want to be consulted with before you go about doing anything.' Do you then revise the list and get the list settled and then go on and consult with them and then determine that you have a majority of them and, if so, how? Is the decision going to indicate how formed that majority was determined, if only for the purpose of being able to deal with any subsection (8) outcome?

Really the question that arises from all of that is: how are you possibly going to ever have an exemption that is granted pursuant to this new replacement for subsection (8)? Five and six are relatively familiar as they are. More particularly, how are the new subsections (7) and (8) possibly going to permit in practical terms, given the reason they are described as an exemption is that they have some temporal context—tourism, community event, otherwise—that a reliable complying exemption is granted or declared by the minister under the proposed subsections?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will do my best to elucidate some questions and answers to those from that comment. Broadly speaking, the question is put somewhat rhetorically by the member: how can the minister or how can this possibly do so? I am not only advised but I can advise the member that the framework that is set out in this bill allows the minister to grant exemptions, as I have advised multiple members in inquisition of this section. As for subsection (8), it will naturally be for the court to determine, if a party is to seek judicial review relief, whether that party was in fact an interested party under the act.

Finally, before referring to my previous answers on these questions, the interested parties who are determined or provided for under the act, I think a hypothetical was put by the member: well, if the minister goes out and determines a cohort, consults with that cohort and a party then contacts the minister and says, 'Wait up, you should have come to me,' then that minister will of course be guided by the act first and foremost about whether that group is an interested party.

If the minister determines that interested party could or should be consulted, then no doubt they will consult with that party. It is also infinitely before the minister to, with advice, determine that group seeking to be consulted is not an interested party under the act and proceed with their decision notwithstanding. That will then, if that party ultimately seeks judicial review, be for the court to determine whether that party was an interested party.

The CHAIR: If members wish to ask a question, can they please rise in their place and ask questions. I am not sure if it is just across the chamber banter or actually asking more questions that they want recorded.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: To carry on from that, I am interested in how public this process is. Are records kept of the consultation process? Are they made public? Are the interested parties who participate made public? Is the intent of either the government wanting to implement an exemption or somebody applying for an exemption made public so that people could present themselves as interested parties?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can assure the member that all relevant legislation in respect of public records will be followed by the minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am asking specifically if it is the intent of this legislation that that information be made public? Not through FOI but actually published, just like those who may declare an interest in the development that is happening next door, people know who they are. They can turn up at the council meeting or the state body planning commission and present their case. Their submissions are available for people to see online. I am asking: is there a proactive system in place for the transparency of decision-making outcomes, participants and discussion, or is that something that will only be available through FOI or through some other means? Will it be published and, if not, why not?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise the member that the outcomes will be gazetted.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Sorry, the Gazette?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The outcome is gazetted.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: In the case of a one-off event—and I am particularly thinking of a Drakes on Goodwood Road that has had exemptions under the Labor government and the Liberal government to open earlier for those at the Show. Thousands of people are at the Show; a number of them live at the Show during that period. Will they need to make that application every year? If they do, will they need to go through this laborious process? Will they still qualify for an exemption under this legislation? Who will be able to declare themselves as a person of interest in any decision-making for the extension of their trading hours during the Show?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised, member for Unley, any party will need to seek an exemption. If it is as you have put in that example a matter of an exemption sought for a particular annual event, that exemption will need to be sought every year. I think your reflections on this being an alleged laborious process are somewhat ironic considering the extraordinary amount of red tape that the member for Heysen was musing about inserting into the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If somebody chooses to take up the option of a judicial review, has the government been advised on how long that process will take? Will the notice of intent give someone who feels they have an interest in this matter the ability to go through the process of a judicial review of the decision, of their not being considered a party of interest, in time to participate in the consultation? How will they know that this exemption is being applied for or being considered? Will the consideration be gazetted or will only the outcome be gazetted?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As for how long a judicial process or determination takes is a matter for the courts, member for Unley. The government has no line of sight on that. New subsection (8) provides under what circumstances and to whom judicial review is available, and that is quite clear and deliberately implemented in the bill to provide clarity for those parties defined as interested parties under the act.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have had three questions.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is actually a point of clarification, if that is okay, Mr Chair: is it the government's intention to enable somebody to use a judicial process—in other words, to give them enough time to use a judicial process if they choose to?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I refer to my previous answers in respect of the new subsection (8).

Mr BATTY: Just going back to the process of consultation under proposed subsection (7), you have said that the outcome of that consultation will be gazetted. Will the actual consultation be made public in the sense of the parties that the minister consulted with and what each of those parties' advice was?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for Bragg for his question, and it is nice to see you in committee for the first time with me. I clarify that my answer before was in respect of the outcome of the process—that is, the determination of the exemption by the minister—and that is gazetted as provided for under the act.

Mr BATTY: I repeat: will the parties that the minister consulted be made public, and will their advice be made public?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I refer to my previous answers to the member for Unley in respect of the fact that this bill does not provide or intercede with the existing legislative framework regarding public disclosure or public records.

Mr BATTY: What is the time frame for the consultation process expected to be?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that as for the intention of time frames it would be for best endeavours and as soon as possible. I did seek some advice regarding the example I gave before regarding the exemption for Fashion Week. I am advised that that was about a week turnaround from start to finish in respect of the consultation. Once the consultation had concluded in this case, all parties being supportive, that gazettal occurred a matter of days afterwards.

The CHAIR: Any further questions on clause 4? There being none, the question before—

Mr TEAGUE: Can I just say, as a form of negotiation, I suppose: this is a rather large operative clause and, as I said, it is taking out old subsection (8), replacing it largely and then adding these new subsections (7) and (8). Having introduced it in that sense, perhaps I will just take the opportunity, speaking for myself, to indicate that from what I have heard in the committee so far at least the proposed—in terms of clause 4 as it is printed—

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Point of order, sir.

The CHAIR: Minister, you have a point of order.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: You have previously, in respect of the questions on this clause, been not only clear to all members but specifically the member for Heysen, who I believe you gave the opportunity to ask a final question, having asked six or seven to my count. Unless the member is raising a point of order, I would seek for you to determine that his three questions have been well and truly asked.

Mr TEAGUE: On the point of order, Mr Chair, I respect and concede the veracity of the point raised by the minister. I guess I am just endeavouring to assist the committee, and I am not leading to a question here. That is, insofar as—

The CHAIR: You are a friend of the committee then?

Mr TEAGUE: Indeed, and to the extent that—

The CHAIR: Which standing order does a friend of the committee come under?

Mr TEAGUE: To the extent that it is not specifically apropos—

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: Well, if we are going to consult standing order 364, I am happy to unpack what a question means for the purposes of standing order 364. I know that we are used to determining that as three times per question or something of that nature. It is expressed somewhat elegantly, but we are left to interpret that as three questions per clause, and that is really what I am getting at. That is to say that we have really a whole—

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Sir, I—

The CHAIR: Hold on.

Mr TEAGUE: I am only going to be 10 seconds more, minister, to be fair, if you will just allow me. Subsections (7) and (8) are the problem for this side of the house.

The CHAIR: Well, that is not my problem.

Mr TEAGUE: No, but—

The CHAIR: My problem is to enforce the standing orders.

Mr TEAGUE: What I am just suggesting and giving the government the opportunity to consider before we proceed further is to consider the removal of subsections (7) and (8) before being proposed—and I do not mind doing that in a formal way—but I just want to indicate that that might be where we are at on this side.

The CHAIR: Sorry, were you going to seek an amendment which you have not filed yet? It is a yes or no question that one, simply.

Mr TEAGUE: There is nothing filed. It is just what emerged in the course of the committee so far.

The CHAIR: We are under clause 4. You can file an amendment on the floor, and it has to be quite clear what you intend to do. It has to be written and you need to be very clear because, quite honestly, I am not clear.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let me finish. Unless you are prepared to do that, we are moving on.

Mr TEAGUE: You have to put the question, in that case.

The CHAIR: I will put the question. I am putting the question now. That has solved it. Thank you, minister.

Mr TEAGUE: I would afford the minister the opportunity in case he wants to do something on the run because we have had the benefit of this process.

The CHAIR: In his current capacity, he is not running anywhere. The question is that clause 4 as printed be agreed to.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 25

Noes 16

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Clause thus passed.

Clause 5.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, under what circumstances would the minister revoke an appointment of an inspector?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thanks, member. It may be an instance where the inspector ceases to be employed at SafeWork SA or it could be misconduct or other like circumstances.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will it be the role of inspectors to assess whether the size of the shop entitles it to be open outside of trading hours? If so, on what basis will that happen? Will that be physical inspections with tape measures or electronic measuring devices? For shops that have floor areas that would disqualify them from trading outside of these hours, are they able to close off sections of their shop after trading hours and remain open? Will there be additional inspectors employed to manage the new bill once it becomes an act?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thank you. I would assume the member has read the clause. This clause does not confer any new powers, nor does it provide the kind of red tape that the member is advocating for prescribing within the bill. In relation to the types of tape measures or the types of strategies that an inspector may undertake, that is entirely unchanged from the status quo. This clause simply changes the nature by which an inspector is appointed.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, we discussed earlier the consultation process that was undertaken. Were the interested parties, businesses, groups that you referred to earlier provided with a copy of this bill prior to that consultation, or were they just given a vibe, an idea, a principle that you were going to take to the parliament?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thanks, member, for the question. I think there were nine or 10 questions from various members with respect to consultation in clause 1, and I refer to my answers to all those questions in respect of that relevant clause. I am not sure if it is relevant to ask questions, albeit ones that have been asked prior. I think the member asking the same question over and over again does not allow it to be asked across multiple clauses.

Mr COWDREY: On a point of clarification, did the stakeholders that were consulted see this clause and the rest of the bill prior to providing their opinion on it?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am happy to answer that perhaps just for clarity and then I will allow the Chair to consider the point. I was asked by the member, I believe in clause 1, about the nature of consultation that occurred post election. I gave advice on the consultation that occurred pre and post election, and I refer to my extensive answer to that question.

Mr COWDREY: What we really have here then is a group of people who have been asked for their opinion on something that could possibly come before parliament—

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs interjecting:

Mr COWDREY: There is a bill that has been constructed by the government where no business groups, no unions—so we are led to believe—have been consulted in regard to the actual structure of the bill itself. The test that sits within the bill has not been consulted by the broader interested parties in South Australia.

We have a poorly constructed test in regard to the provision of exemptions where businesses will have no idea if the minister is even considering granting an exemption, and they will have no ability to access a right of legal recourse to join a consultation process because they do not even know that they should be looking out for a consultation happening. This is a clunky bill that has had no proper consultation from the business community. It has not been provided more widely than to the unions, I suspect. It is clunky. It looks like it could lead to an absolute legal nightmare in terms of how this is applied outside in the real world when rubber hits the road and the practical realities of this bill start to be seen.

There is a reason that the opposition voted against the previous clause, because no matter how you dress this up, no matter how the minister says he has the right given to him by the people of South Australia, they were not consulted about the SDA or the Labor Party getting a right of veto to shop trading hours moving forward outside the parliamentary process. That concept did not go to the people of South Australia. This is a furphy and it is a fraud, and the minister should be disappointed in himself for some of the answers that he has provided to this place today.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Are you going to get to your question or are you going to waste this one as well?

Mr COWDREY: What conditions does the minister see as being relevant or that he may add to inspectors?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I refer to my previous answer to the member for Unley in respect to his question. That is, there are no provisions under this clause to add or subtract any powers of inspectors. While I would probably be forgiven for entering into reflections on the member's ill-informed observations regarding the application of this act, for brevity I will seek not to.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure if I understood the minister's previous answer. Did the minister just indicate to the committee that this amendment provides no power for what will now be substituted to be not the Governor but the minister to put conditions on the appointment of an inspector, or to add conditions to the appointment? Minister, is that the way to understand your previous answer?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, I did not indicate that.

Mr TEAGUE: What did you indicate?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Other than to refer to my previous answer, you asked me a question: did I indicate, as your proposition? I answered no, and you asked me to repeat my answer to the previous question. I must say that I just do not recall it at this stage, but I would refer to my previous answer. I am not sure what the question from the member for Colton was some moments ago.

Mr TEAGUE: I might perhaps ask a question or two of my own in that case. We are at clause 5 and I am at subclause (2). Subclause (1) is clear enough. The intent of this bill is to give the minister the power to appoint inspectors and then, somewhat curiously from my point of view, the operative amendment in clause 5 is to allow the minister to make an appointment of inspector subject to conditions that may be specified in the instrument of appointment and to, at any time, either revoke the appointment altogether, as I read it, or vary or revoke or add a condition of an appointment of that particular inspector.

The proposed amendment is considerably ramping up the extent to which the minister becomes puppetmaster of the inspector from time to time, including post appointment and including as to the very tenure of the inspector during the time of that appointment. I can leave this to the schedule if necessary, but I draw the minister's attention to the transition provision in the schedule.

Are we, at least for a time, going to have some inspectors who are subject to the puppetmaster approach on the one hand and then, in transition, some of the old-fashioned inspectors enjoying the benefit of independence, having been appointed by the Governor and on terms that do not make their tenure so fragile as to be subject to the whim of the minister from time to time, or the conditions of the work that they do subject to the whims of the minister from time to time?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thank you, member. For the purposes of your question regarding transitional provisions, I am advised that the transitional provisions operate in such a way that all members appointed by the Governor, due to the transitional provisions, are determined to be appointed by the minister. Again, as to your reflections—I think you used the words 'puppetmaster' and 'influence'—it is by no stretch a novel approach in legislation for the minister to make appointments nor from the member's time in Executive Council would he be surprised that the Governor, subject to her prerogative, makes appointments subject to the advice of Executive Council.

I think your reflections on this being some game of 4D chess on behalf of the minister are quite an overstatement and would reflect that the understanding of the discretion of which this legislative instrument would give the minister to appoint is simply to reduce the red tape of asking at present Her Excellency to appoint and revoke according to the section.

Mr TEAGUE: I am with the minister to the extent that I have not focused on subclause (1). The puppetmaster reference is to do with the conditions that are set out in subclause (2) in relation to the nature of the appointment. As I read the transitional provision, it is my understanding that the inspectors that were previously appointed by the Governor under the old section will be deemed to be inspectors appointed pursuant to the amended act and therefore vulnerable to the imposition of conditions from the get-go and vulnerable to the imposition of the ministers will in respect of revocation of appointment from time to time from the get-go as well. That is as I understand the minister's answer on that, but the minister might care to correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation.

Could the minister possibly assist the committee by shedding any light on any example of a condition that might be specified that he has in mind or the broader purpose or purposes for the imposition of such conditions? To put it in some context, is it contemplated that any condition from time to time might be the sort of thing that is applied to all inspectors because it is the nature of what the minister has in mind from time to time that is the subject of the inspector's work, that conditions will be applied across the board, or is this now contemplating that the minister from time to time might have in mind a certain subset of inspectors who are tasked to do certain things under certain conditions for a period of time and others will be in a different category? Is that a condition for a particular unifying purpose, or is that all just in the realms of hypothetical speculation?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is not the intention of the minister, as I am advised, to have specific cohorts or conditions of appointment. Some context is that multiple people at SafeWork SA will hold or be appointed as inspectors, but not all of them will exercise the powers given to them or conferred upon them as an inspector at any time. That may be the case in instances of appointments under this section; that is, there may be persons or people who are appointed as inspector who may be fulfilling roles at SafeWork SA who may not exercise those powers conferred to them at a particular point in time.

Mr TEAGUE: This is my last one.

The CHAIR: No, you do not have one question. I am sorry. You cannot define a question as you wish to define it, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: I realise this.

The CHAIR: That was your third question. You chose to requestion a question put by the member for Colton and then you asked another question, and that was your third question. I have been very lenient. I will now allow other members to ask questions they wish to.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not accused of—

The CHAIR: You have asked your three questions. You will now take your seat, please.

Mr TEAGUE: I yield to the Chair.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The minister referred me to what inspectors already do. I am just wondering whether for Hansard he is able to advise the house what is the role of inspectors. He also failed to answer the question that I asked earlier about whether traders who have square metreage that is larger, or square metreage of shops that would require an exemption to open outside the hours as prescribed in the bill, are able to close off sections of their shop outside trading hours in order to stay open?

For example, they might make a decision that, quite frankly, after 5 o'clock on a Sunday they do not really sell many breakfast cereals, so they will section that bit off and that will get them underneath the square metreage and enable them to open. Is that something that is allowable under this bill?

The CHAIR: Before the minister answers that, there were two questions in that question. Which one do you wish to proceed with, or do you want two questions considered?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have asked two questions and I would like them answered.

The CHAIR: Okay, you asked one, so that is your three, thank you.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: In respect of the member's questions regarding powers of inspectors, I refer him to section 8 of the principal act, which defines the powers of inspectors. Further to his question, I respect the prerogative and the discretion of the member to ask questions not relevant to this section. I also have the discretion not to answer irrelevant questions—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order: is it not an inspector's role to ensure that people are not breaching the trading act?

The CHAIR: It is not a point of order. It is a well-established matter: you can ask the question as you like and the minister can respond as he likes. There is no point of order. Minister, continue, please.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: What I will not be doing is entertaining hypotheticals around—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is four questions now. I am not going to entertain hypotheticals regarding matters that are not contained within this bill. The committee stage and the relevancy of questions are well established. I have been in the hands of the Chair regarding his appetite for the number of questions according to standing orders. I will raise points of order if I feel the need to, but I simply will not be answering questions that are irrelevant.

I might just invite the member to read the clause and read the section that is before us, if he is so desperate for content and questions to ask of the government. He asked me will I read into Hansard the section of the principal act? Well, no, I will not. It is section 8.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Section 8 states that the powers of an inspector are to:

(cb) take measurements, or make notes and records; or

(cc) take photographs, films or video or audio recordings;

I argue that my question about whether somebody can temporarily change the size of their floor area in order to comply with the shop trading act—in other words, continue to have their shop open with floor area closed off to the public—whether that is a legal act under these amendments and whether it will be allowed.

The CHAIR: You have previously asked that question. In my view, the minister has answered that question.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: No, he has not. I did not hear a yes or no. He said he was not going to answer it.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have had your three opportunities; in fact, I have given you four opportunities to speak. The minister has indicated his answer. You do not like his answer, I understand that. Fair enough.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The point of order—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley will resume his seat.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order, sir. I am calling a point of order.

The CHAIR: There is no point of order. I have already made my ruling. You will resume your seat.

Mr Odenwalder: Sit down, David. The Chair is speaking. Sit down.

The CHAIR: I do not need assistance from my right.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It just needs a yes or a no. Can you temporarily change the size of your floor area to avoid this legislation? It is a very simple question: yes or no.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, if you speak again, I will name you.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen!

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, this is your last warning. If you speak again, I will name you. I will suspend the sitting and call the house. Have I made myself clear? Clause 5, any further questions on clause 5? No. I have addressed you. You take your seat. No, you have had your chance.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Unley will withdraw that comment.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I withdraw, sir.

The CHAIR: And apologise to the minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I apologise, minister.

Mr TEAGUE: With the indulgence of the minister, if I may, because I think the minister has actually answered this question—

The CHAIR: Hold on a second. If you are going to ask for his indulgence, then I will ask for his indulgence. Minister, do you wish to indulge the member for Heysen?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Sir, it is not for me. The standing orders are the—

The CHAIR: The answer is no. Next. Anybody else wish to ask questions? No.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, the rules are quite clear. Hold on a second. Minister, you will respect the Chair as well.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: I did not hear what he said. If you would like to bring it to my attention, I will make a ruling. Members have an opportunity to make three contributions. What contribution they make is up to them. It is quite clear. You drew the clause to my attention, member for Heysen. Does any other member wish to make a contribution to this discussion? Member for Bragg?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Sir, if I may, if there are no further questions, I would put the question.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr COWDREY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Cowdrey–1]—

Page 4, line 25 [clause 6(1), inserted subsection (1)(b)]—Delete '5.00 p.m.' and substitute '6.00 p.m.'

Amendment No 2 [Cowdrey–1]—

Page 4, line 26 [clause 6(1), inserted subsection (1)(c)]—Delete '5.00 p.m.' and substitute '6.00 p.m.'

As I outlined during my second reading speech, these two amendments together combine to provide, as we said, a proposal that will allow workers in today's economy—families who have been at school sport on weekends, those who have caring responsibilities, or for whatever other reason—the ability to more easily access retail.

We all know that 9am to 5pm is no longer reflective of today's society by any means. Most importantly, this was heavily supported by the consultation process that we have undertaken and that continues. The proposal is supported by Business SA, by Harbour Town and a range of other businesses that we have engaged with. As advocates who have been supportive of the government's changes of an additional two hours on Sunday mornings have said, 'We employ more people and they are going to get more hours, so it's a win-win for everyone, and, 'It would create more employment opportunities within the sector.' Again, we pose the question to the house: why should this logic only apply to the two hours between 9am to 11am on Sundays?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: If I can provide clarity for you, sir, the government opposes the amendments filed in the name of the member for Colton.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 14

Noes 24

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendments thus negatived.

Mr COWDREY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Cowdrey–2]—

Page 4, lines 27 and 28 [clause 6(1), inserted subsection (1)]—

Delete '1 January, Easter Sunday, 25 December or any other day that is a public holiday in any year' and substitute:

Good Friday, Easter Sunday, 25 April or 25 December

The purpose of this amendment is to allow trade on select public holidays, with the exclusion of certain public holidays, those being ANZAC Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day. Essentially, this would allow shops to trade on select public holidays. The response to our consultation was absolutely overwhelming. People want to shop on select public holidays, as was also evidenced by the number of people who took up the opportunity over the past few years and the number of people who rocked up to nothing but closed doors just a couple of weeks ago on the most recent public holiday.

The feedback that we received made it abundantly clear—very, very clear, to be completely frank—the days that people saw as sacred, those, as I said, being ANZAC Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day. We know from this bill about a clause that we are soon to get to with regard to the fact that workers cannot be forced to work on public holidays, but we believe that workers should have the choice to work should they want to work. We obviously know that for some retail workers working on public holidays the penalty rates that come with that are absolutely sought after.

These changes go a long way in terms of limiting the confusion about what can open on public holidays. We certainly believe that traders should not have to worry about their floor size or what they sell when making those decisions. This is a simple, pragmatic and clear proposal that will, as I said, remove much of the confusion that currently exists around public holidays. It will provide certainty for business and will finally bring South Australia's shop trading hours into the 21^st century.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 14

Noes 22

Majority 8

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

Mr COWDREY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Cowdrey–3]—

Page 4, lines 34 and 35 [clause 6(1), inserted subsection (2)(b)]—Delete 'if the business of the shop is not wholly or predominantly the sale of foodstuffs—'

This amendment addresses an issue in the bill to allow all shops to open on Boxing Day. Should the bill pass in its current format, we on this side of the house—and I think the public of South Australia would be with us—say this will create more confusion around Boxing Day than there has been previously.

As we have said, under this strange Labor logic, Labor say that I can go to the shops on Boxing Day to buy a flat screen TV and that I can go and buy a new set of pyjamas, but in the very same shopping centre I cannot go in and get Weet-Bix and milk. It is as simple as being a step too far and it is illogical. With these particular holidays, where there has been broad agreement around shops being open on Black Friday and Boxing Day, if shops within a particular centre are open then shops should be open.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 13

Noes 23

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Any other questions or comments on clause 6?

Mr COWDREY: In regard to clause 6, can the minister explain to me and explain to the people of South Australia why, as I outlined when moving amendments, it is acceptable that I should be able to go to a shopping centre on Boxing Day, that I should be able to buy a TV, that I should be able to buy a pair of pyjamas, but I should not be able to go to a supermarket to buy Weet-Bix and milk?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question. Rather than starting with him or the people of South Australia, I might just respond to the committee to start with. I refer to my previous answers on this, and that is a particularly rhetorical question.

Mr COWDREY: My question is in regard to the part of the clause that provides the ability for the minister to consult regarding the Christmas holiday exemption. Why was the stricter consultation process outlined in clause 4 not considered for the Christmas holiday exemption process? Did the SDA not ask for a right of veto over Christmas holiday shopping?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I think I have explained quite extensively matters regarding the SDA and other organisations.

Mr COWDREY: Does the minister think that workers who worked and received penalty rates on public holidays over the past four years who wanted to work will be disappointed by the government's approach?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am incredibly pleased to receive a question from the Liberal opposition on penalty rates for workers. Thank you, member for Colton, for that question. When it comes to penalty rates, there could not be a more stark divide between those in political office who support workers, support the fact that working unsociable hours deserves compensation, and those who believe that penalty rates should be abolished.

Those of us on this side of the house in government and the Labor Party firmly stand on the side of workers and firmly stand on the side of our proud labour movement, who have fought for generations for penalty rates for working people because they are the right thing to do and they are fair compensation. For the opposition to seek their own justification for a worker's right to earn more is a bit rich, member for Colton, considering it is your side of politics that would have workers working longer and getting paid less for it.

Mr TEAGUE: I thought that was just the minister taking a breath. It looked as though the minister was just preparing and then going onward, entirely in accord with the standing orders, I might say, as well.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to make a contribution to this committee discussion? I am not exactly clear what you are doing at the moment.

Mr TEAGUE: I do.