Bills

Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 October 2022.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:01): I thought this day might never come. I rise to indicate I am the lead speaker and I indicate, unsurprisingly, the opposition's support for the prompt passage of this legislation and, I might say, finally or äntligen, as has become the tradition in Stockholm on the announcement of the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature each year, because the history of this bill is in fact one of unusual delay at the same time as it is one in which the subject matter is both necessary and uncontroversial.

I remind the house that the contents of this bill directly repeat and replicate the contents of a portfolio bill that was introduced by the Attorney in the previous parliament in late 2021 and was in fact reintroduced by me on the Notice Paper on 1 June last year, so the whole content of the bill has been before both the last parliament and promptly at the beginning of this Fifty-Fifth Parliament. Eventually, the current government got around to introducing it in precisely the same form in this house towards the end of October last year, and I am grateful to the Deputy Premier for doing so.

For a bit of further context, I indicate that the debate in the Legislative Council, as has been the want of this parliament and the Attorney in the other place, was completed and dispatched within pretty short measure and with the support, as I understand it, of the whole house. The Attorney might have even done a slightly more efficient job than I did of traversing the contents.

The only other remarkable aspect of this bill is that, on coming back to it, I am reminded that the debate that occurred on 1 June was an occasion at which the house was able to see on display that particular aspect of the member for West Torrens' attitude to private members' time in circumstances where I had taken what I thought was the appropriate and necessary step of seeking leave in order to have the necessary time to step through what is already a relatively lengthy, although uncontroversial, set of measures in an omnibus bill.

That led to a storm from the member for West Torrens that I was surprised by, including a series of threats that are there on the Hansard and in a fit of pique a delay of the treatment of this bill to the bottom of the list until he saw the error of his ways some months later and decided to return it to the ordinary place I think out of a realisation that private members' time is private members' time.

Perhaps it has also served that purpose, that we can all learn a lesson and remind ourselves of the parliamentary process both with respect to the government's proper role and that of private members' business.

I expect to see, much as it did in the Legislative Council, that this bill, as now depicted in its third form in identical terms, can now pass this house promptly and that we do not take up either any more time in delay or certainly any more minutes, hours and days of this house's precious time in hearing any more about what is already very thoroughly set out on the record. With those words, I again indicate the opposition's wholehearted support for the speedy passage of this legislation through the house.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (11:09): From time to time a bill is required to rectify minor errors, omissions and other deficiencies identified in legislation. The changes, however, whilst usually minimal, can make a significant impact, helping to achieve a fairer and more equitable state, which is why I rise to speak today in support of the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill 2022.

This portfolio bill seeks to amend 16 acts: 14 acts that are committed to the Attorney-General and two acts, one committed to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, the other the Mental Health Act 2009, give effect to various reforms previously contained in the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill 2021, which did not pass before the end of the previous parliament.

I also understand that the original bill was aided by a broad targeted consultation with relevant justice stakeholders in mid-2021. The aim of the consultation was to ensure the proper and effective operation of various laws committed to the Attorney-General by clarifying, removing and updating, where relevant, various inconsistencies, ambiguities and inefficiencies identified in the current legislation, such as the amendment in part 9, clause 21, of the bill, which is a minor technical amendment updating an outdated reference in section 24 of the Fences Act to refer to the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (instead of the Local and District Criminal Courts Act 1926, which has been repealed).

Part 15, clauses 31 and 32, makes minor amendments to sections 146(1a)(a) and 276(a) of the Real Property Act, replacing references to 'certified post' with references to 'registered post', as the original terms are now obsolete. It is also proposed to amend section 146(1a)(a) to replace the reference to 'he' or 'she' with 'the mortgagee', which I feel is much more appropriate.

This is not the first time we have introduced a statutes amendment under the Attorney-General's portfolio in this place, and it has been done to do better and to make matters fairer for all. We have and will continue to implement many important legislative changes to improve our justice system, improvements such as those to make clear our zero tolerance approach to despicable child sex crimes and our commitment to strengthen Carly's Law, and increasing the penalties of a range of child sex offences, which I have spoken about previously in this place—changes that have been warmly received from members of my community who long to see strong and decisive action taken in this place.

We have also legislated to protect and strengthen Nunga Courts by formalising their place in our justice system. Nunga Courts, established as first of their kind in Australia, are Aboriginal sentencing courts, available to Aboriginal offenders who have pleaded guilty to some offences. By including elders and respected persons in the sentencing process, they are seen to increase the efficiency of the process and reduce the risk of reoffending, because we are determined to create a fairer and more equitable future for all. I am pleased to share that we are continuing to make progress in this space.

This year, history was made in South Australia with the government appointing Aboriginal people to the judiciary for the first time in our state's history, they being the exceptional Ms Lana Chester and Ms Natalie Browne, who took up positions as magistrates this month. For those who do not know, Ms Chester has more than 25 years experience in criminal law, working with the Legal Services Commission. She held the position of senior Youth Court lawyer with the Legal Services Commission. She has an extensive background working in the Supreme, District and Youth Courts.

Ms Browne shines just as bright, with close to 20 years' experience in criminal law, first as a senior duty solicitor and later working in the commission's criminal law practice division and as a senior solicitor in grants. This move is monumental as it helps to ensure that the judiciary reflects the diversity within our community. I look forward to seeing the positive impacts, thanks to these women, and hope that they inspire other Aboriginal people considering a career in law to follow in their footsteps.

Delivering on our election commitments does not stop there, with the government passing legislation to introduce a new offence of concealing or interfering with human remains, monitoring the movement of bushfire offenders, increasing penalties for dog theft, closing loopholes and allowing authorities to prosecute serious drug offences.

Delivering on our election commitments will not stop there either, with our commitment to investigating changes to victim impact statements so that these are not edited for admissibility purposes and that it should be left to the judge or magistrate to exercise at their discretion as to the content contained in the victim impact statement.

We are continuing our work to crack down on child sex offenders through the closure of loopholes that make it easier for people to possess CEM or child-like sex dolls to get bigger sentencing discounts or bail.

We are also focused on ensuring that our domestic violence laws are strengthened and that these laws are protecting victim-survivors. Just this weekend, I stood on the steps of parliament with women from all backgrounds, including my colleagues the member for Elder, the member for Newland, the member for Torrens, the member for Davenport, the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Women, members from the upper house, women from support services providers, and survivors. We stood together to honour the 60 women who were killed across Australia last year.

As we honoured them, we sat through the harrowing details of what had befallen them. What was more distressing was not hearing about how they were burnt, beaten or stabbed (as were the most common forms of killings); the greatest injustice is that many of these women remain unnamed. For every murder, children, families and communities are impacted forever and the weight of the intergenerational trauma looms. We as a society need to do better, and I am so glad that as a government we are strengthening domestic violence laws and that these laws will better protect victim-survivors.

We are serious about tackling family and domestic violence, and our support is both legislative and financial. It is why we committed to, and have provided, over $1.6 million in funding for the Women's Legal Service to provide face-to-face legal advice and education to vulnerable women at risk of or experiencing domestic and family violence in the northern and southern regions, as well as restoring the funding to the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service.

We have also funded over $2.6 million for the Working Women's Centre to provide frontline support to address workplace sexual harassment and discrimination, because we firmly believe that gender-based violence has no place in our society and we are just as ardent in our belief that it has no place in workplaces across our state. The Working Women's Centre do great work in this area and will provide great assistance to the women who seek their services.

Justice is about fairness, peace and a genuine respect for people so that we can feel safe in our homes and our communities, no matter our sexual identity, our age or where we come from. This bill helps to achieve that by addressing inconsistencies, ambiguities and inefficiencies identified in the current legislation, and it helps to strengthen the foundation of commitments to come. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (11:17): Before I begin, I just want to say how lovely it is to be back and see my colleagues, and to pass on my thanks for the many Christmas cards I received over the Christmas period.

Mr Pederick: Hear, hear! And the ones you didn't get.

Mr FULBROOK: Much appreciated. Sorry, member for Hammond. I do rise in support of the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill. As a former planning adviser to the Northern Territory government, omnibus bills of this nature were very common, and I must admit to being grateful to the Territory's Attorney-General for clearing up the occasional obsolete reference or anomaly in my portfolio. Rather than triggering the need to send each minister back to do legislative amendments for what could be described as a tidy up, it is a far more efficient use of the parliament's time to bulk these matters up on a regular basis.

In saying this, I do not wish to diminish the importance of the 16 pieces of existing legislation that we seek to change. South Australia prides itself on being a progressive society, and to ensure that parliament's values are in step with community standards we rightfully and often debate legislation that leads to a major change in direction. This then has flow-on effects across the legislative spectrum.

While great care is taken to make the necessary changes to laws the first time out, there is often need to revisit certain matters. By example, the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 rendered it no longer illegal to terminate a pregnancy. When noting that section 61(3) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 specifically states that the SACAT cannot consent to a termination unless it does not constitute an offence under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, it becomes clear that there is a need to address this legislative redundance.

On the flip side, some could argue the changes to the Fences Act, whereby a reference in section 24 seeks the removal of reference to the Local and District Criminal Courts Act to the Magistrates Court Act, are not seen as significant. Irrespective of impression, laws need to be cleaned up, and failure to do so may have adverse legal consequences.

To ensure the significance of these matters is not taken lightly, I understand consultation occurred with 26 different stakeholders over a two-week period in mid-2021. Noting the significant work on the preparation and refinement of this legislation happened under the previous government, I also seek to give credit where credit is due. That said, the work of the current Attorney-General in the other place has been exemplary since coming to office and has led to some significant reforms on the justice front, as well as his other portfolio space, including much-needed reforms in Aboriginal affairs. I must say, I look forward to hearing all about his great work this week.

It is interesting to note that this bill proposes amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act 1921. Quite recently, this bill was amended under the stewardship of the Attorney-General, as part of the Criminal Procedure (Monitoring Orders) Amendment Bill 2022. I note there was some criticism around this but, as the bill before us clearly shows, it is not out of step for governments of both persuasions to revisit legislation to ensure it functions as intended.

I am hoping we do not have to revisit it because I think the notion of giving police the powers to apply to a magistrate to have a person found guilty of a bushfire offence and make them wear an electronic monitoring device is a pretty good one. This was a key commitment by the Labor Party in opposition and I am glad it is not only law but also received bipartisan support from this parliament.

I grew up on a small block of land that is a stone's throw from the Scott Creek Conservation Park. I used to get asked where Scott Creek was and, unfortunately, the easiest way to explain was to refer to the last bushfire that threatened it. In this case, the Cherry Gardens bushfire of January 2021 is front of mind, which I understand destroyed two homes, 19 outbuildings, two vehicles and scorched 2,700 hectares of land.

While the devastation was there for all of us to see, I am not alone in being grateful for the fire crews saving more than 60 homes that came under threat. Without them, the home that I grew up in and that of my old neighbours would have been destroyed. I would hate to think, on a worst-case basis, how many lives could have also come under threat.

While the 2021 event is fresh, it is sadly a part of life that so many of us living in the country have grown up with. When you live next door to some of the thickest scrub in the state, even if your family was zealous in their efforts to keep fuel loads down on their own land, this can only go so far if we cannot keep tabs on the monsters out there with zero regard for the safety of our friends, families and, of course, our neighbours.

As I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, the memory of someone lighting up the conservation park never fades, nor does the unfortunate loss of firefighters who would otherwise be here today if we had the ability to maintain a constant watch over firebugs. While I may now represent a suburban electorate, it is not lost on me that the next arsonist could hail from a metropolitan electorate, as we have seen in the past.

This is why both metropolitan and country MPs have an onus to ensure that legislation like this works. If it means we need to revisit much-needed reforms with omnibus bills like the one we are discussing today, then so be it. As technology progresses, so must our laws. Getting ankle bracelets right on the bushfire front is a positive first step, and I am pleased that the Attorney-General will be moving on this front for domestic violence and child sex offenders in the not-too-distant future.

I have no doubt that significant effort has gone into putting this bill together. Some may say it is dry, but I argue it is necessary and I admire the resolve of all those who have worked to bring this together. As a former adviser, I know what goes on behind the scenes and the unwavering effort needed to bring a bill such as this to our parliament. I want to thank all the stakeholders and public servants for their feedback and efforts associated with drafting this bill.

From a political perspective, the Attorney-General's adviser, Patrick Stewart, is not only a decent person but does a great job in managing a huge workload. As an adviser, I always used to feel a sense of relief when a bill passed in one of my portfolios. I imagine Patrick does not have this luxury, as no doubt the next bill is well and truly on the boil. For all that it is worth, thank you for your outstanding efforts. I also wish to thank the Attorney-General, whose unwavering commitment to social justice is not just a credit to himself, but also to this government.

This omnibus bill updates acts that have been influenced through the efforts of past and present governments. As more progressive agendas permeate through this parliament, we will no doubt see similar bills follow. The need to update, adjust and correct existing acts is a necessity and, with this in mind, I commend this bill to the house.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (11:25): I rise today in support of the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill. This bill seeks to amend 16 acts, a few of which I would particularly like to highlight today. Much of the amendments contained within this bill are of a minor or technical nature, correcting obsolete references and improving efficiency.

I understand this bill seeks to implement the majority of the remaining amendments from the 2021 portfolio bill, which was introduced by the previous state government, but did not pass before the end of their term. I also just want to acknowledge the member for Heysen for your work in this area. As part of their consultation toward that bill, and consequently this one, I wish to thank the numerous stakeholders who contributed their time, expertise and passion into improving our legal system.

I will begin by bringing your attention to part 13 of this bill, which seeks to amend the Mental Health Act 2009. This simple amendment clarifies that South Australians subject to short-term treatment orders are not entitled to legal representation in every case. Community treatment orders play an integral role in supporting the mental health and wellbeing of those in need in our community. These orders provide a legal way for South Australians to receive treatment for a mental illness when they are unable to agree to treatment and may not be safe. Such an arrangement will only take place when there are no less restrictive ways of ensuring that appropriate treatment is received and that person is safe.

Those who are on treatment orders have access to a comprehensive range of treatments, based on the best available evidence about what is most effective for an individual's mental illness. This treatment is provided at a specific place at regular intervals. Only a psychiatrist or authorised medical practitioner can decide what treatment is necessary, and these orders cannot be used to enforce treatment of other illnesses.

The Legal Services Commission of South Australia administers a legal representation scheme free of charge to all persons subject to an order under appeal as per section 84 of the Mental Health Act. This section of the act could be argued to currently read that for every review or appeal, or application for permission for review or appeal, of any community treatment order, the person to whom the proceedings relate is entitled to legal representation. This may even include automatic reviews of short-term treatment orders.

Currently, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal conducts automatic initial reviews under section 79 of the Mental Health Act, on the basis of written reports and treatment plans. These reviews are simply not the same as a review instigated by an aggrieved party. They are instead an important internal review included as an initial safety measure.

Legal representation during an initial internal review is counterproductive, potentially delaying reviews and may result in South Australians being detained on short-term treatment orders for longer periods of time than necessary. While treatment orders are integral to supporting the mental health of those in need in our community, we do not wish to see those in need being detained on short-term treatment orders a day longer than they medically need to be. This amendment does not affect reviews that are effectively appeals against earlier decisions, such as those under sections 81 and 83 of the Mental Health Act.

Of the 15 other acts this bill seeks to amend, 14 are committed to the Attorney-General. I recently had the pleasure of hosting our Attorney-General for a community meeting in Colonel Light Gardens. Whilst the rotunda in Light Place Reserve as well as some icy poles did provide some relief from the mid-summer heat, a scorching 37° was not enough to restrict local residents from turning out in numbers to have a chat with our Attorney-General.

So many important issues were raised, and thought-provoking ideas discussed, from criminal justice reform to introducing a First Nations Voice to the South Australian parliament. It became abundantly clear that many in our community are excited about the Malinauskas Labor government's reform agenda.

Our government is continuing to fulfil the promises we made to the people of South Australia last year. Already we have passed legislation, as per our election commitment, to strengthen Carly's Law and increase penalties on a range of child sex offences, and we have legislated to protect and strengthen our Nunga Courts so that they have a formal and recognised place in our justice system.

Established as the first of their kind in Australia, the Nunga Courts are Aboriginal sentencing courts available to Aboriginal offenders who plead guilty to some offences. They focus on the inclusion of elders and respected persons in the sentencing process, and are seen to increase the efficacy of the process and reduce recidivism.

This bill joins a long list of legislation and amendments we have introduced in less than 12 months since we came to government. It continues the important work of ensuring that our laws are up-to-date and express the values of social justice and equality that South Australians stand proud of.

In keeping with our government's commitment to reforming a justice that better reflects the people of this state, I was so proud to see the Attorney-General appoint the first Aboriginal people to the judiciary in South Australia's history. I appreciate that it may come as a surprise to some that an Aboriginal person has never presided over a court in South Australia or the colony that preceded it, and I also acknowledge that for others this has taken far too long. My sincerest and wholehearted congratulations go to Lana Chester and Natalie Browne, both Aboriginal women, who were appointed to the office of magistrate, commencing in their new roles just last week.

To be it, you must see it. It is of the utmost importance that our parliaments, our courts, our political and legal systems look like and talk like the communities they serve. These appointments are merited, and they are important. Lana Chester has more than 25 years' experience in criminal law, and is currently working with the Legal Services Commission of South Australia. Natalie Browne has almost 20 years' experience in criminal law, and she is also currently working with the Legal Services Commission.

Appointments such as these go a long way to improving social and criminal justice in South Australia. Bills such as these, although minor and technical in nature, build part of a broader improvement to our legal system, a legal system that is efficient, fair, balanced and representative. That is what the people of South Australia are asking for, and is what we are striving to deliver to them. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (11:32): I rise in support of this bill, the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill. The bill seeks to amend 16 acts, 14 of which are committed to the Attorney-General, and makes amendments to two additional acts, the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 and the Mental Health Act 2009. It is required to rectify minor errors, omissions and other deficiencies identified in legislation committed to the Attorney-General. Having a single omnibus bill allows us to be more efficient, given that the amendments are of a minor and technical nature.

One of the acts this bill seeks to amend is the Criminal Procedure Act 1921. Part 7 of the bill, clause 12, amends section 103(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to clarify that the power to lay an information in a superior court under section 103 may only be exercised in the authority and name of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Section 103 replaces the power formerly found in section 276 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. That section made it clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions was bound to present an information in every case where a person was committed to one of the superior courts for trial. However, the wording of replacement section 103(1) is deficient, in that it allows for an interpretation that other entities may also have the authority to prosecute criminal offences in the superior courts. This amendment places it beyond doubt that only the Director of Public Prosecutions can do so.

I would like to take a minute to speak about this bill and the Criminal Procedure (Monitoring Orders) Amendment Bill that we passed earlier this year.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Ms HUTCHESSON: The bill delivered on the government's election commitment to require—

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order from the member for Heysen, which I will hear.

Mr TEAGUE: At some stage—and I realise it is important to rise on the point of order promptly—there is a 127(1) point. I am not being a jack-in-the-box, but it is not the Address in Reply. Although this covers 16 bills, we have already had this aspect rehearsed, similarly unrelated to the subject matter before the house, so I do raise the point of order.

The SPEAKER: I am listening carefully. I am not certain that the matter is rehearsed: I think the member is giving her own unique contribution until it is drawn to my attention that it is not. As well, each member of course under standing order 110 has a right to make a contribution in the house. I observe, too, that there was some perhaps personal reflection or digression in the contribution at an earlier point from the member who raises the point of order with me. I did not raise that. It was not raised as a point of order by the member for West Torrens. Of course, in those circumstances I am minded to allow a more robust debate. I am going to turn to the member for Waite.

Ms HUTCHESSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The bill delivered on the government's election commitment to require convicted firebugs to be electronically monitored during the bushfire season. I have spoken many times in this place about the Cherry Gardens fires on 24 January, and I make no apology for doing that and my ongoing commitment to the CFS. What I have never spoken of is the cause of that fire and many fires. I have spoken of my experience as a young child in the face of the approaching fire front in the Ash Wednesday fires, and how frightened I was for years after of summer and the bushfire season. Whilst some of the ignition sources were natural, some were deliberately lit. Three CFS members lost their lives fighting those fires.

On the day of the Cherry Gardens fire it was very hot, and we were guzzling lots of water while we were facing the fire front in Cherry Gardens. We did not take time to think about how that fire was lit when we were there but afterwards, when we were driving along various roads, it was becoming clearer that there was something going on there. We turned our attention to the side of the road and, when we were moving a bit slower across the paddock, you could see the ignition points. Whilst there was no time to speculate, we continued to think about that during the day.

It was devastating for our community that day. The Cherry Gardens and Bradbury communities lost two homes and 19 outbuildings, two vehicles and 2,700 hectares of land—and they were deliberately lit. A man was charged with deliberately lighting the fire. He was charged with 12 counts of intentionally causing a bushfire and 10 counts of property damage. It could have been a lot worse. The weather was on our side, but to know that the fire was deliberately lit made residents very angry. Knowing the impact of this and many deliberately lit fires makes the amendments that we put through at the end of last year so important.

That bill aims to free up the resources of our community which are needed on catastrophic days. The bill that passed amended the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 to provide for a new bushfire offender monitoring order, whereby an application may now be made by a police officer to the Magistrates Court for an order requiring that a person who has been convicted of an offence of causing a bushfire (section 85B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935) be indefinitely subject to electronic monitoring during the declared fire danger season each year. The court is now empowered to make the order on the basis that the person has previously been convicted or found guilty of an offence of causing a bushfire under section 85B and the court is satisfied that there is an appreciable risk that the defendant may commit a further bushfire offence.

Knowing where known firebugs are during the bushfire season will make monitoring their movements much easier. On catastrophic days the police play an important part. They are there to monitor the streets where residents have done the right thing and left early. They are there to identify motorists who are not local to these areas and to have a presence in case looters were to be taking advantage of evacuated properties. They also help with road closures and keeping the public safe. Relieving them of having to also check on known firebugs will allow our communities to be even safer.

Known firebugs will now be fitted with GPS-enabled ankle bracelets and an accompanying unit installed at their residence. The GPS on the electronic monitoring equipment will then track their movements. The system also can detect when they attempt to remove their ankle bracelet. This new indefinite bushfire offender electronic monitoring order operates indefinitely, beyond any period of a sentence, parole or extended supervision order. Further, a person subject to a monitoring order must wear or carry the electronic monitoring device supplied by the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of the order at all times during each fire danger season.

The maximum penalty for noncompliance with a monitoring order will be $10,000 or imprisonment for two years. The monitoring orders aim to reduce the risk of reoffending which could cause widespread catastrophic damage to property, interruption to business, and potential injury and death to multiple people. It is heartbreaking to think that we have people in our community who seek to endanger the lives of others and cause such widespread environmental damage. The bill, when it passed, had my utmost support, and I am sure the rest of my community also supports it.

On the weekend just gone I hosted a bushfire resilience forum which was attended by over 150 people. We were fortunate to have an incredible panel of speakers, including Dr Mika Peace, from the Bureau of Meteorology; Alison May, from the CFS; Dale Thompson, from our local CFS group; Ian Tanner, from National Parks; Mark Austin, from the City of Mitcham; and Geoff Booth, from the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium.

I am working tirelessly to educate, inform and provide opportunity to ensure my community becomes more resilient and is more prepared for the bushfire season. What I cannot control is ignition sources, especially when they are deliberate. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all in my community to refresh their bushfire plans and take the time to understand the new fire danger rating system.

It is so important that a lot of these amendments go through, and I do take the opportunity to thank the Attorney-General for all of his work and the previous government's, and I am glad these amendments are able to be passed today. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (11:40): I rise to close the second reading debate. I thank all those contributors.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (11:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: