Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (E-Cigarette and Other Reforms) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

No. 1. Clause 39, page 32, after line 15 [clause 39, inserted section 69A]—After the definition of controlled purchase operation insert:

designated person means a child who is of or above the age of 16 years;

No. 2. Clause 39, page 32, line 20 [clause 39, inserted section 69B(1)]—Delete 'a person who is under the age of 18 years' and substitute:

, subject to subsection (1a), a designated person

No. 3. Clause 39, page 32, after line 21 [clause 39, inserted section 69B]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The Minister must not authorise a designated person to be a controlled purchase officer unless the parent or legal guardian of the person has consented in writing to the proposed authorisation.

No. 4. Clause 39, page 32, after line 37 [clause 39, inserted section 69C]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) An authorised officer responsible for supervising a controlled purchase operation involving a designated person must undertake an assessment of the operation and must ensure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure the safety of the designated person during the operation.

No. 5. Clause 39, page 32, line 38 [clause 39, inserted section 69C(2)]—Delete 'under the age of 18 years' and substitute:

a designated person

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

Ms PRATT: I take the opportunity to speak to the amendments that have come back to us from the upper house. I do not need to labour the point too much, but it would be remiss of me to miss an opportunity to reflect on the conversations we last had in this chamber where the opposition declared early its support for any bill that would seek to protect young people from having access to toxic and illegal substances.

The minister may recall that I took the opportunity to spend some time seeking clarification and putting questions during my second reading speech on the controlled purchase officer provision within the bill because it appeared to the opposition that it was silent on some more detailed instructions.

At the time, the minister took it upon himself to again ridicule the questions that the opposition were putting forward about the age at which a person might become recruited by the government as a controlled purchase officer, that the bill spoke to 18 years or under. It was legitimate at the time for us to not speculate but sincerely question what was the minimum age, how young might a young person be recruited to this role.

The legislation was silent on how that person might be found, how they may be remunerated, what consent would be required, and what safety provisions were there for them? While I took it upon myself to suggest that a nine or 10 year old, according to the amendment bill, could be recruited, the minister scoffed at the suggestion. I understand why he might have taken that position, but the point of raising it in this chamber was to draw attention to the fact that the bill was silent in its instruction to future interpretation.

So here we are, again being rushed by the government. It has been sitting in the upper house for a while. We are here to consider amendments that do the very thing that I drew attention to in my second reading speech, amendments that now declare a designated person means a child who is above the age of 16 years. I welcome the clarification that there will be a deletion of the clause that suggests a person who is under the age of 18 years, without further information, that that clause is going to be deleted. It is clause 39 and I will read it in full:

The Minister must not authorise a designated person to be a controlled purchase officer unless the parent or legal guardian of the person has consented…

This is the very point that we were getting to, and I am disappointed that questions asked in earnest when last this bill was here were ridiculed when we have had to go through the process of being rushed to consider amendments that have been put forward and filed by the Hon. Robert Simms in the other house. The final clause that I want to speak to is clause 39, page 32, inserted after line 37:

(1a) An authorised officer responsible for supervising a controlled purchase operation involving a designated person must undertake an assessment of the operation and must ensure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure the safety of the designated person during the operation.

These are the legitimate questions that were being put to the government at the time. There were questions about safety, there were questions about what support mechanisms might be made available to a young person who found themselves in a very risky situation in the employ of the government effectively. So, for the sake of this argument, I read back into Hansard, or from Hansard, through the committee process:

How is the government going to recruit?...Will these young people under the age of 18 be paid and how much?...Who is going to give consent for this young person to participate in this role? Can…young people under the guardianship of the CEO…apply or be considered?

I continued at length to push the minister and the government to consider what protections might be in place for these young people.

Would they qualify for legal representation by the Crown if anything went wrong during that covert operation? It is significant to stand here, back in committee, where the very questions that were being put to the government, again late on a sitting night, where we had opportunities to reflect on the bill, where legitimate questions were being put to the government, where the opposition in earnest were signalling support for a bill that would add to the protections to prevent young people accessing toxic substances like e-cigarettes and illegal tobacco, has come full circle via the upper house where the Hon. Robert Simms had drawn attention to this very provision early on and where we saw the government comment in the media but was silent in their own legislation about the purpose of the designated person. I welcome the amendment that the Hon. Robert Simms brings to the parliament because it addresses the gap—the loophole—that the opposition felt existed in the bill.

As the only speaker for the opposition it was important to restate our concerns that, where there seemed not to be any legislative precedent of a provision like this existing elsewhere in South Australian legislation, the minister's tone was to patronise and sneer at the suggestion I was making that questions should be asked about that clause, that we wanted reassurance, that young people being recruited to COVID operation in a kindergarten-type of way needed a floor, needed an age minimum, and we have it in front of us: it is 16 years of age. With those comments, I am happy to conclude my remarks and signal that we will be supporting all the amendments en bloc.

The CHAIR: Minister, would you like to respond?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I definitely would. I was going to allow this to go past, and we would move on to the next business of the house, but that commentary from the member for Frome needs some response. The member for Frome is correct in that she did raise concerns about this, and the Hon. Robert Simms in the other place raised concerns about this. The government was very clear on our position, that we believed there was no need for concern in regard to that. But what a contrast between the approach from the 'say no to everything' Liberal Party and the actually constructive Hon. Robert Simms because what the member for Frome did in this place was seek to knock out the clause completely.

That would have meant that our enforcement officers, who are out there trying to enforce this law, would have had no ability to undertake these operations whatsoever. They would have struck it completely off as opposed to what we saw from the Hon. Robert Simms, which was an approach to amend the legislation, to work with the government to address his concerns in a constructive way that is going to allow the policy intent to occur that the government had in place. If we had accepted the advice of the member for Frome in this parliament, none of those operations would have occurred—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: —they would not be happening, and people out there selling tobacco, selling vapes to young people—

The CHAIR: Members for Bragg and Frome, you were heard in silence, right? Do the same.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: With people out there selling tobacco and selling vapes to minors, the government would not have had the ability to enforce that law whatsoever. That is what would have happened if we had listened to the member for Frome. Thank goodness we did not listen to the member for Frome, thank goodness we actually have some constructive members of the Legislative Council who are willing to work with the government to achieve things.

I really appreciate that the member for Bragg is here as well, because the member for Bragg went out on this bill to put out a media release saying, 'Why hasn't the Legislative Council dealt with this legislation? How dare the Legislative Council not be dealing with this legislation last week?' What was the Legislative Council doing in the last sitting week of this parliament while the right-wing extremists in the Liberal Party were bringing abortion legislation through the upper house in late-night sittings that completely distracted from the important policy work that this government is trying to undertake.

What we saw, of course, was one of the most deplorable scenes that we have ever seen in the Legislative Council, with the breaking of a pair for a member of the Liberal Party who is getting cancer treatment. So that is what was going on, member for Bragg, in the upper house last sitting week. We are glad that this has got through the upper house this week, we are glad that members not of the Liberal Party have been willing to work constructively with this government and we are glad that these increased penalties will now be in place and there are increased provisions to take action which would not have been there if we had listened to the member for Frome and the Liberal Party's constant naysaying on everything.

Motion carried.