Bills

Animal Welfare Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

Mr COWDREY: We continue on clause 14 which is in relation to the exemption for fishing activities. Given we have had an hour and a half between the last question and the answer, my memory is slightly hazy but we are at least nourished now so that helps. In regard to the exemption, the minister mentioned previously that essentially we are picking up a similar clause that has been introduced in other jurisdictions and that there have been no problems in terms of the conduct of fishing activities in those other jurisdictions.

It is obviously very difficult to find some of this information, but have there in fact been any challenges in regard to the rollout in those jurisdictions? What issues were raised as part of the processes in terms of compliance within other jurisdictions, and is the minister absolutely confident that there will be no issues whatsoever in the conduct of fishing activities across the three sectors that have been mentioned already to this point, whether that be recreational, commercial or charter?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I was concerned in contemplating adding fish to the definition of 'animal' for this legislation and whether that would cause any challenges for people living their day-to-day lives and enjoying going out for a fish. As you would be aware, I have a coastal electorate just as you have, and a lot of people like to get out on the jetty and I did not want to disrupt that through this addition. As I say, we are the last state to bring fish into that definition of animals. We have not found any examples interstate of normal expected fishing standards both commercially and recreationally, as well as the Aboriginal traditional fishing, having been changed in any significant way through the inclusion of this.

The impetus largely came partly from tidiness and national consistency and partly from some of those more egregious examples, such as the cutting of fins of sharks and the return of the sharks to the sea, that are already illegal but are not illegal in a sense of having committed cruelty, and that is where a lot of the impetus for community asking us to do that has come from. So it does that; it does not do harm to normal fishing practices and we have not found any evidence interstate that it has substantially altered anyone's practices.

Mr COWDREY: Finally, in regard to this clause, with feedback from RecFish SA and more broadly the other fishing organisations, were there any concerns that were raised in any meaningful way by any of those organisations in regard to the current draft of the bill? I am aware that obviously through the early consultation phase there were issues that were raised. With the current draft you have mentioned that there was an iterative process where we went back and forth over a discussion paper through the other various steps. In terms of the organisations involved in these industries, for lack of a better term, more than one certainly in most people's view, have there been any concerns that have been raised with the current drafting of the bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No; there has not. As you mentioned, there was some concern originally about what the model would look like. Once we had discussions, brokered also by PIRSA, about the Victorian model, where the regulation responsibility really rests with the Fisheries Act and through PIRSA and the Aquaculture Act where that is relevant, those concerns were essentially assuaged.

I have had a meeting personally with RecFish SA, as well as having a substantial quotation given to us via press release by RecFish SA about this version of the bill, and they feel confident that this is in no way out of step with the expectation of recreational fishers. The one outstanding question that was raised, and that I referred to earlier, was the question of bait fish and, as I have said, we have undertaken to make a regulation before this is commenced to make it clear that you can use fish for bait.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr COWDREY: Clause 15 provides the minister with significant powers around the establishment of committees under the soon to be act. In particular, regarding subclause (1)(a), there has been a discussion, and I am certainly more aware than I was in regard to animal welfare advisory committees, the role they take and the ability to stand them up in particular circumstances when they are necessary.

My question is more in relation to subclause (1)(b), which provides what appears, on the face of it, significant power to the minister to stand up any such committee that the minister sees fit. I am hoping that the minister can give an indication to the committee as to what limits there are, as it appears there are next to none in regard to what that means.

In the context of the rest of the portfolio, the majority of committees are associated with specific bills, whether that be dog or cat management or landscape boards or any other boards. It is very rare to have this sort of power which essentially provides—and correct me if I am wrong—the ability to stand up a board and provide paid board positions to subsequent members should the minister wish. Firstly, why and in what circumstances is the minister looking to use subclause (1)(b) in particular?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: First, the top of my answer will be that of course the minister can set up a committee or a board at any stage without the power of legislation and can—with the support of her colleagues, obviously—choose to spend money on that, as sitting fees. So this is not sneaky in the sense that if I wanted to set up a committee on something and have it paid I could do that.

The reason though, the derivation of this, is the New South Wales livestock welfare panels, where they are able to stand up a committee of peers to support someone who has livestock and is in the kind of circumstances where it becomes very difficult to look after those animals appropriately—drought, financial exigencies and so on. We were interested in being able to stand up that kind of panel, and the advice was that this would be a way to create a mechanism to be able to do that under the terms of this act. So there is no intention at this stage for me to set up a particular committee on a particular subject. It just gives us something within the legislation that we will use in order to avoid prosecutions and to help work with someone who is going through difficulties.

Mr COWDREY: Is there a reason in drafting the bill that was not included? In so many other clauses throughout the bill, there has been a reference back, as you have mentioned previously, to the object and purpose of the bill. In most circumstances, to contain the literal meanings of the words on the page, the establishment of committees being in line with the purpose and object of the act would at least provide a level of fencing around what potentially the minister has the power to do. Is there a reason why that was excluded from the drafting of the bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think it is the other way around. The wording of 'such other committees as the Minister thinks fit' is still nonetheless within the principles and the objects the act. A minister would not establish a committee about something completely separate to the act using that clause. It can only be within the principles and objects of the act.

Mr COWDREY: Final question in regard to this clause: is the minister able to give an indicative budget in terms of the expected spend or budget amount for board fees as a result of the boards to be established under clause 15?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is no intention at this stage to establish any particularly large number or any other committees. If we do, then that is done within the resources of the act. The administration of the act, the enforcement of the act through the inspectorate, has of course received an enormous boost in funding, not just the government taking responsibility for all of the cost—100 per cent of the cost—whereas it has traditionally been around 50 per cent, but indeed of a higher cost in order to really make sure that the resourcing of the RSPCA's inspectorate is effective and fit for purpose.

That is not in the context of additional concerns about the non-companion animal sector. It is almost entirely concerns about the number of animals that are having to be addressed through the companion animal side, which is a cause of concern of course for the inspectorate. But in terms of the committee, the amounts of money are trivial. There is no intention or plan to have any particular additional committee established, and all would be managed within the departmental budget.

Clause passed.

Clause 16 passed.

Clause 17.

Mr COWDREY: Clause 17 sets up the requirement to hold a licence for prescribed activities. Is the minister able to provide some background in terms of the timeframe that she understands the licensing regime would take effect? How will that process be managed? Practically, within the provision, it is also not necessarily clear on how a licensee would go about renewing that licence. Are you able to provide some practical and operational information in terms of the operation of that particular clause?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think, as I answered earlier this evening, the expectation for part 4 is that that will be commenced in the second half of 2026 as we work through the detail of its application. In terms of the question of renewal, that sits in clause 22.

Mr COWDREY: So in terms of the progress of the regulation that sits behind part 4 generally, in terms of the difference in progression from where we were four weeks ago to now, has the department started in terms of drafting of regulations for these particular sections?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Once the bill becomes the act, is through both chambers of parliament, then we will do the drafting instructions for regulations for this section. For part 4 we will undertake significant consultation, and so that is one of the reasons it will take longer to commence this part.

Mr COWDREY: As this is essentially a new licensing arrangement, are there going to be additional FTEs required in terms of the ongoing operation and management of the licensing system?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is not a huge shift. In one way of reading this the addition is for the breeding and supplying of animals for scientific purposes. The reason for delay is that this will also take account of the licensing for shelters and that will take a significant amount of time to work through, the complexities of that sector and how to best address the licensing and who is captured by it. Also, we do want to work with the scientific community—they are the people who breed animals for those purposes—to make sure that we get that right. It will take time, but it is a time taken simply because of the necessity to consult properly with the sector to get the right policy outcome.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to clause 18, the minister may have foreshadowed in the most recent answer where the government is moving in terms of shelters. Essentially, while there is no reference to prescribed activity within this bill referencing shelters, that is certainly not something that has been discussed to this point as far as I am aware in terms of the licensing provisions in part 4 covering that aspect as well in future legislation. So we will be effectively coming back and amending clause 17, clause 18 and clause 19 in a subsequent bill. Is that effectively what the government is considering?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I appreciate that I did not fully answer the question about FTE in the last question, so I will say that we do not anticipate it being sufficient extra work to require extra FTE—although my adviser has pointed out that she will take as many extra staff as we are prepared to give her, so in full transparency I pass that on.

The question of the classes of licence being updated through legislative reforms—so a bill to add shelters or to have shelters as a class through regulation—has not been resolved. We could do either. Working out what it is we want and whether we are talking about permits, licences or registration—quite how all of that works is complex, so we will either come back in with a new bill next year or we will do a regulation, but we will do it as a result of proper consultation with the very adequate staffing that my good colleague has.

Mr COWDREY: That leads to the next question that you have dovetailed very well for me in regard to additional licences. Is the government considering any additional licence classes or subclasses that have not been identified specifically in the legislation to this point, noting that, effectively, the regulations can add to both of those aspects?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is probably a little early to answer that. It could be that we could provide a tiering of licences—so a large institution, a university, might have one version of a licence and we might create alternatives—but the question of what we do about shelters is the only one, in terms of a different class, that we are actively considering a bill or regulation.

Clause passed.

Clause 19.

Mr COWDREY: Clause 19 sets out at a very high level the application process for a licensee, setting out at subclause (2) the fact that the manner and form can be determined by the minister, identifying the activity that they are seeking a licence for, etc. Regarding the prescribed fee, is the minister able to provide some detail for the committee in terms of the fee range that is being considered and what the expectation is in terms of a budget to be raised from fee licensing under the bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The extent of the fee will be a subject for consultation. I note that at the moment it is only $90 for two years and it is a single fee. There is not a way of distinguishing between the tiering and that is why we have questioned whether, when we look interstate, there is more of a tiered approach where big institutions pay more and small ones pay not very much. We will work through that, though. There is no set view at this stage.

Mr COWDREY: Will the fees be indexed on a yearly basis?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The regulated fees are indexed.

Mr COWDREY: On what basis will licences be granted or refused?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Our expectation is it is very likely that the current process will continue.

Clause passed.

Clause 20.

Mr COWDREY: Just in terms of the licence and the nomination of the responsible person under the licensing arrangements, is that something that can be revised from time to time? Is that set on application for the licence? Will a new licence need to be applied for if the nominated person changes? Are you able to give an indication on how that arrangement is going to work?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In the event that we are talking about an institution that applies at present, the licence is given to the institution. But if a person with a relevant title, such as a deputy vice chancellor of research, is the person who has applied for it, this legislative change then makes that person responsible for compliance and it would only change through an administrative updating should the individual who holds that role change, which will happen from time to time.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to clause 21, should there be a contravention of the licence conditions, there are penalty provisions that apply to both the body corporate and, in some circumstances, the designated person who is the responsible person for the body corporate. Just for the sake of clarity, I am keen to understand if, but for the provisions in clause 20(a) and (b), which obviously provide a defence for the responsible person, in other circumstances negating those exemptions, is it the expectation that both the body corporate and the responsible person would be charged for any contraventions in each instance?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It could be both. It is a question of whether the institution is allowing and enabling the wrong practice to occur or whether it is an individual within an institution that is otherwise operating soundly that is behaving in a way that is not consistent with the expectations. It will depend on the circumstances.

Mr COWDREY: Just in terms of the requisite test, I have just laid out for the minister the example where essentially those two exemptions would be put to the side. So, in circumstances where essentially the institution has been undertaking something for the mere fact that the institution would be charged, not just the individual—so in a circumstance where we are talking about there being a breach of licence by the institution itself and the responsible person has not conducted their duties in a way that they have met the preconditions in (a) and (b) as being essentially the defence for the liable or responsible person for the institution essentially—would both be charged in that instance or both see a penalty in that instance? So it would be both the institution and the responsible person that are provided a penalty?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, they could be, which would be a matter for the legal system to define, but in the event that there are a number of researchers operating outside of the compliance of what has been granted to them but outside the licence, they will individually be responsible for operating that way.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Mr COWDREY: Term and renewal of licences: the initial period that a licence can be provided for is capped at 12 months and then, as we briefly touched on, in terms of renewal it is left open-ended for a period that may not exceed five years. Is there a view that there will be a common framework in terms of an expected renewal timeframe being of X period of years? Is there a reason why 12 months was identified as a length of time for the initial licence to be granted for, which seems reasonably short in the context of everything else and obviously a new regime with everybody having to apply at the same time? Will all organisations be expecting that their renewal period will be of the same tenure or length, and will that be the same across all classes of licence?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: All those who have a licence currently will be able to choose when they move into the new system, so if they have two-year licences at present, they will be regarded as renewals, and they can apply for up to five years and they will get what they ask for. Large institutions will presumably just grab the five years because they know they will need it. Smaller institutions that are uncertain about the length of their grant lasting and how long their project will go for may well ask for a shorter one.

Mr COWDREY: Subclause (5) of clause 22: we walk through the renewal process and if renewal is not approved prior to the expiry of a licence being in place, essentially that person can continue on operating as if the licence was still in place until they receive their renewal or otherwise from the department. My question is: if that is the case, that we are putting in place a system where an organisation can continue to operate under a licence on application for a renewal but subsequently that renewal is denied, for that period of time where the licensee was effectively operating are they still going to be liable for operating without a licence for that period of time?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As long as they have applied and a decision has not been made, then they will be covered. In the event that the decision is then no, at that point the licence is discontinued but the obligation is on us to make the decision in a timely manner.

Clause passed.

Clause 23.

Mr COWDREY: In relation to clause 23, there are significant penalties that have been included for the absence of updating change of particulars within a 14-day period to the government issuing the licences. They are reasonably significant fines, to be completely frank—up to $100,000 in the case of a body corporate under subclause (2). Is there any discretion in regard to the minister relating to the expiation fees that are outlined under the section?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In terms of the maximum penalty, of course, that relies on a decision to go to prosecution. The expiation fee is not a discretionary amount; it is not a sliding scale. If we have an expiation fee, that is the price it is. Although even the $1,000 or the $500 of expiation may seem steep, we are talking about institutions that undertake animal research in grants that are potentially millions of dollars, and what we want to do is make sure that they are paying attention to this part of the administration side of their business. So we want to focus the attention that having a licence matters and therefore having a substantial penalty is helpful in dealing with that side of administration. It might potentially otherwise be accused of being overlooked.

Mr COWDREY: I am not in any way doubting the seriousness of the licence that they hold or the work that they undertake, but are there any other examples that the minister can provide across government where somebody would be fined $500 on first offence for forgetting to update their telephone number?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I cannot undertake a comprehensive review across legislation here this evening. We could have a look. But the fact is that this licence matters. It is about making sure that the welfare of animals that are being experimented on is dealt with and the best thing for institutions undertaking animal experimentation is that they comply in all ways with the Animal Welfare Act because there is enough criticism of the question of animal experimentation already in the community, so paying attention to this is important, and that is why we want them to focus their attention. Good institutions will not fail to update details on an administrative matter like this but it is making sure that we are having attention paid.

Mr COWDREY: A final question in regard to that clause: was there any feedback received by the government through the consultation process in regard to clause 23 and those expiations?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am told that there was not any concern raised at all.

Clause passed.

Clauses 24 to 34 passed.

Clause 35.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to authorised officers under the act, given the changes to the act that have been made through this bill, are there any changes in terms of the number of authorised officers that the department is expecting?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are anticipating that the RSPCA may well choose to have additional people employed given the substantial additional funding that we have provided but they have a responsibility to employ enough people to fulfil the terms of the contract that they enter into with the department.

Mr COWDREY: Finally on that particular clause, in terms of the conditions set out in 'Appointment of authorised officers' have there been any changes under this bill in terms of what is required by way of training or other prescribed protocols etc. that are required of prescribed officers under the act?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not aware of any but that is in many ways subject to the contract between the department and the RSPCA.

Clause passed.

Clause 36 passed.

Clause 37.

Mr COWDREY: As we are about to embark on the sections of the bill that outline some of the new compliance tools that will soon be available to officers should the bill pass, my question largely in regard to the general powers of the authorised officers is around—we have essentially, as I have outlined, the animal welfare notice, new seizure powers and reviews by SACAT that have been added. In terms of operationally, certainly we have already touched on the point that every circumstance where animal welfare is an issue is sometimes very different. For the very reasons you have outlined, there are different motivating factors in terms of which pathway or direction officers take.

Largely it is left up to their discretion, I certainly understand that, but more formally is there any sort of framework that is going to be developed in terms of an assessment or first port of call, second port of call, third port of call in terms of hierarchy of compliance tools that are available to compliance officers, and any formal guidance that you think the government is going to provide in terms of preferred methods or otherwise in terms of the use of these new compliance tools and how they work with existing powers?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The RSPCA has enormous experience in being the inspectorate for this act. Largely they will set the organisational standards for how the enforcement occurs, but the department will be working with the RSPCA to develop policies to guide the way in which there might be some approach to the hierarchy of response.

Clause passed.

Clauses 38 and 39 passed.

Clause 40.

Mr COWDREY: Regarding animal welfare notices, it is set out to a degree what can be covered via the welfare notices but, again, I think it would be helpful to outline the sorts of circumstances where compliance officers are going to be instructed to be using welfare notices as opposed to other compliance tools available to them.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I did not get that as a question. Can you repeat the last bit?

Mr COWDREY: Could you outline the sorts of circumstances where the expectation is that animal welfare notices will be used as opposed to other compliance tools?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Largely this is about the discretion of officers to be able to issue notices in order to be effective. So the question is if there is cruelty or the potential for cruelty to occur, what is the most effective way to deal with that. We rely on the judgement of the inspectors and also the policies that surround those, which we discussed in the previous question, to guide when is the best use of welfare notices.

Mr COWDREY: You touched on the next question in regard to resourcing, and obviously it is the existing contractual relationship between DEW and the RSPCA. In terms of the funding agreement that has changed, does the minister have any indication in terms of the expectation around compliance officers, whether there will be an increase? There is an expectation, obviously, but is there a level of expectation that the government has in terms of what that increased funding will look like from an on-the-ground resourcing perspective?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is a clear intention from the RSPCA to appoint more inspectors as well as to be able to sufficiently fund the inspectorate, rather than having to rely on their charity dollar coming in to have an enforcement capability for a piece of government legislation or law. That is clear. I do not have here specific numbers, and I think it is quite likely that the RSPCA is still working through the details of that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 41 to 57 passed.

Clause 58.

Mr COWDREY: The Animal Welfare Fund is obviously outlined in part 7 of the bill, with the understanding that the fees collected through the previous parts of the bill we have discussed would be put into a fund and then moneys paid out of that for the purposes of the fund. That is the way that the act is constructed, as the minister has well outlined to this point. In terms of those funds, is the expenditure of those funds for the purpose of enforcing the bill in terms of compliance costs, etc.? Is it possible for funds from the Animal Welfare Fund to be directed to the compliance of the bill itself?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Very broadly, yes, because clause 58(4)(a) includes that as a possible use of the fund, but it is up to the minister to do that. Of course, it sits within the principles and objects that we discussed at the beginning that the fund advances those. This is the one that we also discussed as not coming into commencement until the second half of 2026, because we need to design this carefully. As anyone who has had anything to do with government also knows, a hypothecated fund still has the hurdle of Treasury to be able to spend it, but it can only be spent for these purposes and could in the future be a source of very useful, positive acts in line with the objects and principles of this act.

Mr COWDREY: In order of primacy, paying for the expenses incurred in the administration and enforcement of the act is sitting above the promotion of research or the funding of other programs in relation to the protection of animal welfare. Are we looking at effectively a mechanism for the government to pay for these enforcement activities into the future, and simply these other things are 'nice to haves' that potentially we might get to one day? What is the minister's view? Are we actually looking like we are going to do something in (b) or (c)? You mentioned Treasury earlier. I am sure they were keen to see the collection of funds reinvested in the compliance of the act as well.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My view is no. My view is that (b) and (c) matter enormously, and (d) and (e) are the reasons this fund is interesting and exciting, as is being in government and debates with Treasury, but I will not forever be the minister, and I cannot forward-bind future governments. My view is that this is a fund that will be of enormous use to advance the cause of animal welfare.

Mr COWDREY: What is the reason for the inclusion of subclause (3)? If, as you say, the reason that it is so exciting is (b) and (c) and the chance to invest in those things, why is it that subclause (3) was included, where the minister can spend any unused money how she sees fit (or he or she in future reference).

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Because the common way in which one operates in legislation is to give discretion for what has been unanticipated.

Clause passed.

Clauses 59 and 60 passed.

Clause 61.

Mr COWDREY: The delegation is obviously that everything is vested in the minister to this point, until it is delegated to appropriate levels. Are you able to walk through how you see delegations working in regard to the significant powers that are provided to the minister under this act?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is not possible really for me to bind either my future self, but certainly not other ministers in how delegation would operate. I think for the purpose of assisting the other side of the chamber, what we will do is a summary of the current delegations under the act between the houses, so you can consider those. I cannot go through each of these and say exactly where it would be delegated. Delegations are an absolutely routine part of government operations, as the member would be well aware, and they are how these matters operate. They are undertaken seriously and in a diligent way. But I cannot exhaustively go through each of the areas where the minister has power and say exactly how they would be delegated now. We are still working on that.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps then I will be more specific in regard to the minister's ability to appeal. Will the appeal provisions vest with the minister themselves?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The appeal provision does not currently exist, so we have not made a final decision about that. But in the event it is delegated it would not go any lower than say an executive director level. It would remain very high in the hierarchy of the department.

Clause passed.

Clause 62.

Mr COWDREY: Just in terms of the exemptions that are outlined there. Just for clarity so we are tying all of this together. The fish baiting, would that be done under that exemption clause where you would be exempting a class of people to undertake an activity, or would that be done via a different mechanism?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The fish baiting will come under the general regulation-making power. This would be used for specific circumstances, such as if a pig abattoir were unable to take pigs for a period of time, so stocking rates had to be higher than are otherwise allowed under the code of practice, in which case that would then allow the minister to facilitate that.

Mr COWDREY: The exemptions that are provided under 62, given the context the minister has just described, are they all time limited or can they be done on an ongoing basis?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Although the legislation does enable it to be ongoing, my advice is that that would be extremely unusual to make such a recommendation. It is intended essentially for time limited, even if the length of that time might not be known at the beginning of the making of the exemption.

Clause passed.

Clauses 63 to 65 passed.

Clause 66.

Mr COWDREY: This particular clause outlines something I believe to be new in terms of a power to provide food—and we have the 'etc.' in there again—to neglected animals where it specifically outlines that a person with, essentially, the authority of an authorised officer can enter a premises for the purpose of providing an animal with food and water. In the drafting of this clause, is there a reason that there was not at first instance the requirement to at least, with good intent, contact the owner of the property prior to entry being gained?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This is an existing provision, by the way, and it seems to operate reasonably. It is about saying that an inspector themselves does not have to go and attend a site to provide food, they can effectively give permission for someone to do that. There will be protocols that sit behind that—that it is reasonable because they have not been able to contact the owner, and so on—but it is just to create the power to effectively delegate to someone else what you otherwise might have an authorised officer do to make sure that food is provided. It is not about defining all the circumstances and so on in how that will occur, but there are protocols around that that are operated by the authorised officers.

Mr COWDREY: That was essentially the question: not whether all circumstances would be there, but whether there would be regulation to follow that sets up the protocol and practice in regard to how entry is actually conducted. If that is one of the bits of regulation that will be drafted, I am happy with that—or replicated, for lack of a better term.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just to be clear, I am not talking about a protocol that is regulated, it is just the way in which the inspectorate operates. This is not about a regulation being created to back that up.

Clause passed.

Clauses 67 to 77 passed.

Clause 78.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [ClimateEnvWater–1]—

Page 48, after line 30 [clause 78(2)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) expiation fees, not exceeding $750, for alleged offences against the regulations; and

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (79), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (20:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I would like to thank my shadow minister for a very thoughtful and considered, even though reasonably lengthy—entirely reasonably, given how long the bill is—committee stage. I really appreciated that interaction, and also to the other members who participated earlier on. I would particularly like to thank my adviser, who has very patiently talked through some of the details of the bill with me of how this legislation will operate. I commend this bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.