Bills

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

Second Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (15:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased today to introduce this bill. From time to time, Attorney-General's portfolio bill is required to rectify minor errors, omissions and other deficiencies identified in the legislation committed to the Attorney-General and to other ministers' legislation where such changes are technical in nature. The bill makes various amendments to nine acts committed to the Attorney-General and three justice-related amendments to acts committed to other ministers.

Part 2—Controlled Substances Act 1984

Part 2 of the bill makes two separate amendments to the Controlled Substances Act 1984. First, the bill amends section 33P of the Controlled Substances Act to provide that a reference to an offence against part 5 of the Controlled Substances Act includes an attempt to commit that offence in accordance with section 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. An additional amendment is made to section 33P(2) to clarify that it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that a person knew, or was reckless with respect to the particular identity or quantity of the controlled substance. This is consistent with the intent of the heading to section 33P which is titled 'Knowledge or recklessness with respect to identity or quantity'.

Second, the bill amends section 51 of the Controlled Substances Act to allow for analysts to be appointed by the minister by way of written instrument published in the Gazette rather than by the governor. South Australia is the only jurisdiction which requires analysts to be appointed upon the approval of the Governor in Executive Council.

Part 3—Correctional Services Act 1982

Section 71 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 currently provides that where a person has been released on parole from a sentence, the Parole Board may, on application or its own motion, vary or revoke a condition of parole to which the person is subject.

Pursuant to section 74AAA(1), it appears that the Parole Board may only impose a further condition of parole if the Parole Board finds that there has been a breach of parole. The Parole Board has requested that an amendment be made to make it clear that it can impose new conditions of parole where there has been no breach to ensure that it is able to appropriately respond to protect the safety of the community. Accordingly, Part 3 of the bill amends section 71 of the Correctional Services Act to permit the Parole Board to impose further conditions on parole, in addition to its existing powers to vary or revoke conditions, in circumstances where there has been no breach of parole. A transitional provision has also been included to clarify that the amendments will apply to the parole of a person who has been released on or before the commencement of the amendments.

Part 4—Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

Part 4 of the bill amends section 85B(3)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to achieve greater consistency with section 201A of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958, with the intent of tightening the operation of the back-burning defence in relation to the offence of causing a bushfire.

Section 85B(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act provides that a person who causes a bushfire intending to cause a bushfire, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether their conduct causes a bushfire, is guilty of an offence which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.

Section 85B(3)(b) provides that no offence is committed if the bushfire results from operations genuinely directed at preventing, extinguishing or controlling a fire. Concerns have been raised that this provision may appear to permit a situation where the fire was originally lit by a person for genuine fire prevention purposes, e.g. back-burning, and the person loses control or fails to extinguish the fire and the fire spreads onto a neighbouring property without the consent of the neighbouring property owner and the fire destroys the neighbour's property.

To address these concerns, section 85(3)(b) has been recast to tighten the operation of the back-burning defence in line with section 201A of the Victorian Crimes Act. This will ensure that the defence will only be available where the bushfire is caused in the course of carrying out a fire prevention, suppression, or other land management activity and, at the time that the activity was carried out, there was a provision made by or under an act, or by a code of practice approved under an act, in force, that regulated or otherwise applied to carrying out the activity and that the person acted in accordance with that provision in carrying out the activity and the person believed that their conduct in carrying out the activity was justified having regard to all of the circumstances.

Parts 5 to 7, 12 and 13—District Court Act 1991 and related acts

Rule 175.1 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 provides that if a presiding judicial officer dies or becomes incapacitated before the final determination of the proceedings, another judicial officer may be appointed to complete the hearing and determination of the proceeding. However, there is currently no equivalent provision in relation to the criminal jurisdiction. The government considers that it is appropriate to ensure consistency across both the civil and criminal jurisdiction with respect to the appointment of a substitute judicial officer in the event of death or incapacity.

Accordingly, part 5 of the bill amends the District Court Act 1991 to allow for a substitute judge to be appointed by the Chief Judge to preside over a civil or criminal trial that has been part-heard, whether the trial is by jury or judge alone, in circumstances where the presiding judge dies or has become incapacitated. Parts 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the bill make similar amendments in respect of the Environmental and Development Court Act 1993, Magistrates Court Act 1991, Supreme Court Act 1935, and the Youth Court Act 1993.

Part 8—Motor Vehicles Act 1959

Part 8 of the bill amends the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 to make technical amendments relating to driver licensing.

In December 2022, changes were made to require drivers of ultra high-powered vehicles to obtain a new class of driver's licence within two years, being a U-class licence. An ultra high-powered vehicle is a light motor vehicle, not including a bus or a motorbike or a motor trike, that has a power to weight ratio equal to or greater than 276 kilowatts per tonne.

The bill amends section 74 of the act to ensure that the learner driver provisions of the act interact appropriately with the ultra high-powered vehicle provisions. The bill amends the interpretation section of the act to include that an ultra high-powered vehicle means a motor vehicle prescribed by the regulations as one for the purposes of this definition.

The bill also makes an administrative amendment to section 79A(3)(b) of the act to clearly set out the registrar's requirements as to being satisfied that an applicant has passed testing prior to the issue of a licence. Additionally, amendments are provided to remove the need to separately itemise offences and associated demerit points for camera-detected offences.

Part 9—Sentencing Act 2017

Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2017 allows for the Director of Public Prosecutions or a detained person to apply to the Supreme Court for release on licence in relation to an offender who has been declared unable or unwilling to control their sexual instincts. Part 9 of the bill amends section 59(11) of the Sentencing Act 2017 to replace an erroneous reference to the 'Crown' with 'Director of Public Prosecutions.'

Part 10—Spent Convictions Act 2009

Part 10 of the bill amends paragraph (d) of the definition of 'justice agency' in section 3 of the Spent Convictions Act 2009 to replace and update an outdated reference to 'the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity' with 'National Anti-Corruption Commission.' These changes are consequential upon the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 which came into force on 1 July 2023.

Part 11—Summary Offences Act 1953

Part 11 of the bill amends section 43 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 to address concerns regarding an increase in the number of incidents of individuals interfering with or damaging assets to the rail network, including the theft of copper wire and piping. Section 43 of the Summary Offences Act makes it an offence for a person to interfere with any part of a railway or track or any signal or machinery used in connection with a railway, tramway or track. While this offence would likely capture the theft of copper wire or piping that forms part of the railway or track, it is uncertain whether it would capture interruptions caused to the railway network system or processes.

For the avoidance of doubt, part 11 of the bill amends the offence to make it clear that it applies to any conduct that interferes with any signal cable, system or machinery used in connection with a railway, tramway or track, such as the theft of copper wire or piping. A further amendment has been made to increase the maximum financial penalties for this offence from $10,000 to $50,000 in recognition of the significant financial impact of this type of offending.

That concludes the matters that are the subject of this bill. It is a bill that covers many different areas and deals with a range of important issues to ensure that our justice system continues to work efficiently and effectively for our community. I commend the bill to this chamber and seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Controlled Substances Act 1984

3—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

This amendment is consequential on the amendment in clause 5.

4—Amendment of section 33P—Knowledge or recklessness with respect to identity or quantity

The amendment in subclause (1) inserts a reference in section 33P(2) to the quantity of a regulated substance in line with the offences to which that section refers.

Clause (2) inserts a new subsection (3) which provides that a reference in the section to an offence against Part 5 relating to a controlled substance includes an offence of attempting to commit that offence in accordance with section 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

5—Amendment of section 51—Analysts

This clause amends subsection (1) to remove the requirement for the Governor to appoint analysts for the purposes of the Act and instead makes provision for the appointment of analysts by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.

6—Transitional provisions

Subclause (1) makes transitional provision for the application of the amendments made in clause 4 to proceedings for an offence that are commenced after the commencement of those amendments, regardless of when the offence occurred.

Subclauses (2) and (3) enable the appointment or approval of analysts made by the Governor before the commencement of the amendments in clause 5 to continue as if the appointment or approval was made by the Minister.

Part 3—Amendment of Correctional Services Act 1982

7—Amendment of section 71—Variation or revocation of parole conditions

These amendments provide that the Parole Board may, when a person has been released on parole, in addition to varying or revoking a condition of parole, impose a further condition on parole.

8—Transitional provision

This clause makes a transitional provision to allow the amendment in this Part to apply to a person who is released on parole before or after the commencement of that amendment.

Part 4—Amendment of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

9—Amendment of section 85B—Special provision for causing bushfire

This clause amends section 85B(3)(b) to clarify the circumstances in which no offence will be committed for causing a bushfire if the bushfire is caused in the course of carrying out a fire prevention, fire suppression or other land management activity.

Part 5—Amendment of District Court Act 1991

10—Insertion of section 50C

This clause inserts a new section as follows:

50C—Death or incapacity of Judge during trial

The proposed section sets out the process by which the Chief Judge may appoint another Judge during the course of a civil or criminal trial if the presiding judge at the trial dies or is incapacitated.

Part 6—Amendment of Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993

11—Amendment of section 15—Constitution of the Court

This clause inserts a new subsection (15) which sets out the process by which the Senior Judge of the Court may appoint another Judge or magistrate during the course of a civil or criminal trial if the judge or magistrate presiding at the trial dies or is incapacitated.

Part 7—Amendment of Magistrates Court Act 1991

12—Insertion of section 48C

This clause inserts a new section as follows:

48C—Death or incapacity of magistrate during trial

The proposed section sets out the process by which the Chief Magistrate may appoint another magistrate during the course of a civil or criminal trial if the presiding magistrate at the trial dies or is incapacitated.

Part 8—Amendment of Motor Vehicles Act 1959

13—Amendment of section 5—Interpretation

This clause inserts a definition of ultra high powered vehicle in the Act.

14—Amendment of section 74—Duty to hold licence or learner's permit

This clause provides that a person is authorised to drive an ultra high powered vehicle only if they hold a licence class that authorises them to do so. The proposed amendments also clarify that, for the purposes of the offences in subsections (1) and (2) of the section, a person who, immediately before 1 December 2024, held a licence in this State (other than a provisional licence) that authorised them to drive an ultra high powered vehicle will be taken to have been previously authorised to drive a motor vehicle of that class on a road.

15—Amendment of section 79A—Driving experience required for issue of licence

This clause corrects a drafting error.

16—Amendment of section 98B—Demerit points for offences in this State

This clause amends section 98B to ensure that the number of demerit points incurred by a natural person on conviction for or expiation of an offence against section 79B(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 constituted of being the owner of a vehicle that appears from evidence obtained through the operation of a photographic detection device to have been involved in the commission of a prescribed offence is the same number of demerit points that are incurred by a person who is convicted of or expiates the prescribed offence.

17—Transitional provision

This clause makes the amendment to section 98B retrospective in operation.

Part 9—Amendment of Sentencing Act 2017

18—Amendment of section 59—Release on licence

This clause replaces a reference to the Crown in subsection (11) with a reference to the DPP.

Part 10—Amendment of Spent Convictions Act 2009

19—Amendment of section 3—Preliminary

This clause updates the definition of justice agency to update an obsolete reference as a result of the formation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Part 11—Summary Offences Act 1953

20—Amendment of section 43—Interference with railways and similar tracks

The amendment in subclause (1) seeks to clarify that the offence of interfering with railways extends to interference with a cable or system associated with the railway.

Subclause (2) increases the maximum penalty applying for an offence against subsection (1) from $10,000 to $50,000.

Part 12—Amendment of Supreme Court Act 1935

21—Insertion of section 126B

This clause inserts a new section as follows:

126B—Death or incapacity of judge during trial

The proposed section sets out the process by which the Chief Justice may appoint another Judge during the course of a civil or criminal trial if the presiding judge at the trial dies or is incapacitated.

Part 13—Amendment of Youth Court Act 1993

22—Insertion of section 31A

This clause inserts a new section as follows:

31A—Death or incapacity of judicial officer during trial

The proposed section sets out the process by which the Judge of the Court may appoint another judicial officer during the course of a civil or criminal trial if the presiding judge at the trial dies or is incapacitated

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:54): I rise to indicate the opposition's support. I indicate that I am the lead speaker, and I will speak briefly. The Deputy Premier has read into the Hansard the government's speech and that covers the range of different legislation that is caught by this portfolio bill. As I say, I will not stay to step through all aspects but I will highlight perhaps one or two matters.

First, in relation to the amendments that are the subject of part 2 of the bill that amend the Controlled Substances Act, those amendments are responsive to the Court of Appeal's relatively recent decision in Kingston v The Queen and Maxwell v The Queen, a 2022 decision. They are there to expand that mental element of attempted trafficking of a controlled substance. I note that in particular. I refer to part 3 of the bill, also, that would amend the Correctional Services Act to give the Parole Board more practical capacity to deal with parole agreements, particularly in circumstances where the parolee has not broken an existing condition that is a request of the Parole Board.

Those are good examples of, in the first case, a legislative response in relation to the efficacy of charges and where a matter has been the subject of judicial consideration. The second one is responsive to the practical task of the Parole Board, and I take the opportunity to express thanks on behalf of the opposition to all those who serve on the Parole Board and particularly the very longstanding chair, Frances Nelson KC.

The next matter that I address briefly is in relation to part 4. It is a Criminal Law Consolidation Act amendment to section 85B. That section would be very well known to members of this place and deals with the offence of causing a bushfire. The amendment has the effect of requiring a greater level of responsibility to be taken for the prudence of undertaking burning activities. Of course, we all know there is the most serious of penalties that attaches to the causing of a bushfire, and this amendment will apply in circumstances where there is deliberateness and/or recklessness in relation to burning activities.

One thing I would note about what we first saw in the government's speech, when introduced by the Attorney—and I confess, I expect it was contained just now in the Deputy Premier's contribution—is reference to back-burning and a tightening of conditions around back-burning. It is nowhere addressed in the legislation, of course, that this is a provision that applies in relation to back-burning.

I just want to make very clear on the record that there are burning activities that are conducted, including by authorities, that might be, in fact I think colloquially are around the state, described as back-burning that may well be done in accordance with codes of practice, permissions and so on and there should be no doubt or concern in relation to those who are engaged in that necessary fire suppression activity that they are somehow necessarily now becoming the target of legislation.

The circumstances—as I understand it there might be a whole range—that have informed this change are rather more directed to the reckless, if not intentional, lighting of a fire in circumstances where there is really no apparent reason for doing so, and that when that fire gets away the person lighting it might have been able, under the current settings of section 85B, to turn around and say, 'I never thought that might happen,' and at that very sort of superficial level then enjoy a defence that is really only intended in circumstances of a greater level of responsibility having been taken in the first place for the necessity and the prudence of that fire activity. That is an area that we will continue to have a keen eye placed over.

It is obviously vital to ensure for those in our regional and rural communities that responsible fire mitigation activities can take place. Indeed, they are done in order for the very purpose of preventing bushfire disasters and those activities properly continue and ought be as well understood by those of us who are not necessarily engaged in them as part of day-to-day life.

I otherwise acknowledge that the bill amends a wide range of other legislation. As I said at the outset, I do not propose to catalogue that here, much of which would be to repeat the substance of what is just now on the record. With those contributions, I again indicate the opposition's support in those circumstances and commend the bill to the house.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (16:02): I rise in support of the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill 2025. Omissions, errors and other deficiencies are identified from time to time in legislation that is committed to the Attorney-General as well as to other ministers. Under such circumstances, an Attorney-General's portfolio bill may be put forward to rectify these deficiencies. Given that changes of this sort are technical in nature and minor in scope, it can be more efficient to deal with such matters in a single omnibus bill rather than in separate amendment bills for each act.

The bill before the house seeks to ensure the proper and effective operation of various legislation committed to the Attorney-General and to other ministers by clarifying, removing and updating a number of inconsistencies, ambiguities and inefficiencies that have been identified in existing legislation.

Part 2 of the bill contains two sets of amendments to the Controlled Substances Act, committed to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing. Section 33 of the Controlled Substances Act abrogates the common law requirement for the prosecution to establish that a person knew, or was reckless with respect to, the identity or quantity of a controlled substance for offences committed against part five of the Controlled Substances Act.

In Kingston (a pseudonym) v The Queen; Maxwell (a pseudonym) v The Queen (2022), the Court of Appeal held that section 33P does not apply to attempted drug offences as they are not offences against part 5 of the Controlled Substances Act but rather offences against section 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

Following the Kingston decision, the Director of Public Prosecutions has expressed concern that the prosecution will not be able to rely upon section 33P as an aid to proof in respect of attempted drug offences. Instead, the prosecution will need to prove that the defendant had knowledge of, or was reckless with respect to, the identity or quantity of the controlled substance, as required by common law.

Seeking to address this concern, part 2 of the bill amends section 33P to provide that a reference to an offence against part 5 of the Controlled Substances Act includes an attempt to commit that offence in accordance with section 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. This will allow for the prosecution to rely upon section 33P as an aid to proof in respect of attempted drug offences under section 270A of the CLCA.

A further amendment is made to subsection 33P(2) to clarify that it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that a person knew, or was reckless with respect to, the particular identity or quantity of the controlled substance, consistent with the intent of the heading to section 33P. A transitional provision has also been included to clarify that the amendments will only apply to proceedings relating to an offence that were instituted after the commencement of the amendments, regardless of when the alleged offence occurred.

Part 2 of the bill separately amends section 51 of the Controlled Substances Act to remove the requirement for the appointment of analysts to be made by the Governor in Executive Council. Section 51(1) of the Controlled Substances Act provides that the Governor may appoint such number of persons to be analysts as the Governor considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of the act.

Analysts have a range of functions under part 7 of the Controlled Substances Act. These include analysing and making determinations in relation to the weight, amount or quantity of substances that have been seized for the purpose of ascertaining whether the substance is a particular poison, prescription drug, drug of dependence, controlled precursor, controlled plant or medicine, or for any other evidentiary purpose. In practice, analysts are usually forensic scientists appointed from within Forensic Science SA.

South Australia is the only jurisdiction which requires analysts to be appointed by the Governor in Executive Council. In other jurisdictions, analysts are appointed either by the minister or by the functional equivalent of a chief executive, typically by notice in the Government Gazette. This bill seeks to bring South Australia into line by allowing for the minister to appoint analysts by way of a written instrument published in the Gazette rather than by the Governor. This is similar to the appointment process that currently applies in relation to authorised officers who are appointed by the minister under section 51 of the Controlled Substances Act.

Section 71 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 currently provides that where a person has been released on parole from a sentence other than a sentence of life imprisonment, the Parole Board may, on application or on its own motion, vary or revoke a condition to which the parolee is subject. Under section 71(2), the same powers to vary or revoke conditions of parole also extend to a person who has been released on parole from a sentence of life imprisonment.

Pursuant to section 74AAA(1) of the Correctional Services Act, it appears that a new condition of parole may only be added if the Parole Board finds that there has been a breach of parole. The Presiding Member of the Parole Board has raised concerns that in the absence of a breach section 71 does not appear to allow for the Parole Board to add a new condition of parole and the board's powers are restricted to varying or revoking an existing condition of parole only.

In particular, the presiding member has expressed concern that the inability of the Parole Board to impose further conditions where there has been no breach of parole has the potential to compromise community safety. In response to these concerns, part 3 of the bill amends section 71(1) and (2) of the Correctional Services Act to permit the Parole Board to add new conditions of parole in addition to the current powers to vary and revoke conditions in circumstances where there has been no breach of parole. A transitional provision has been included to make it clear that the amendments will apply in relation to the parole of a person who has been released on or before the commencement of the amendments.

Part 4 of the bill amends section 85B(3)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to achieve greater consistency with section 201A of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958, with the intent of tightening the operation of the back-burning defence in relation to the offence of causing a bushfire. Section 85B(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act provides that a person who causes a bushfire intending to cause a bushfire, or being recklessly indifferent as to causing a bushfire, is guilty of an offence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Section 85B(3)(b) provides that an offence is not committed if the bushfire results from operations genuinely directed at preventing, extinguishing or controlling a fire.

Concerns were raised that this section may appear to permit a situation, for example, where a fire was originally lit by a person for genuine fire prevention purposes and the person loses control of or fails to extinguish the fire, whether through neglect, accident or intention. For the purposes of the example, this in turn leads to the fire spreading onto a neighbouring property without the consent of the neighbouring property owner, and the fire destroys the neighbour's property.

To address this concern, section 85B(3)(b) has been redrafted to tighten the operation of the back-burning defence in line with section 201A of the Victorian Crimes Act so that the defence will only be available where:

the bushfire was carried out in the course of carrying out a fire prevention, suppression or other land management activity; and

at the time the activity was carried out:

there was a provision made by or under an act, or by a code of practice approved under an act, in force, that regulated or otherwise applied to carrying out the activity, and the person acted in accordance with that provision in carrying out the activity; and

the person believed that their conduct in carrying out the activity was justified having regard to all the circumstances.

Rule 175.1 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 provides that if a presiding judicial officer passes away or becomes incapacitated before the final determination of proceedings, another judicial officer may be appointed to complete the hearing and determination of the proceeding. However, there is currently no equivalent provision in any legislative instrument in relation to the criminal jurisdiction. It is not difficult to understand how the death or incapacity of a presiding judge in a criminal trial, for example, that has been part heard has the potential to impact on the timely and efficient administration of justice, particularly where the trial is required to be heard afresh.

The Northern Territory, Queensland and Victoria have each enacted legislation to allow for a substitute judge to be appointed in relation to a criminal trial that has been part heard under such circumstances. Given the potential for the situation to arise in relation to both civil and criminal trials, the government considers that it is appropriate to ensure consistency across both the civil and criminal jurisdiction with respect to the appointment of a substitute judicial officer in the event of death or incapacity.

Part 5 of the bill amends the District Court Act 1991 to allow for a substitute judge to be appointed by the Chief Judge to preside over a civil or criminal trial that has been part heard in circumstances where the presiding judge dies or has become incapacitated, whether the trial is by judge alone or by jury.

In particular, the amendments provide that if the reasons for judgement in the final form were prepared by the presiding judge, another judge appointed by the Chief Judge may publish the reasons and grant judgement in accordance with them; or, in any other case, another judge appointed by the Chief Judge may complete the hearing and determination of the proceeding and rehear evidence and submissions to the extent that the judge considers fit and proper and make orders as appropriate.

Parts 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the bill make similar amendments in respect to the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993, the Magistrates Court Act 1991, the Supreme Court Act 1935 and the Youth Court Act 1993.

Part 9 of the bill relates to the Sentencing Act 2017. Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2017 allows for the Director of Public Prosecutions or a detained person to apply to the Supreme Court for release on licence in relation to an offender who has been declared unable or unwilling to control their sexual instincts. Part 9 of the bill amends section 59(11) of the Sentencing Act to replace an erroneous reference to 'the Crown' with 'the Director of Public Prosecutions'. This is consistent with all the other subsections in section 59 that refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Part 10 of the bill amends paragraph (d) of the definition of 'justice agency' in section 3 of the Spent Convictions Act 2009 to replace and update an outdated reference to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) with the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner (NACC). The Commonwealth National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (NACC Act) came into operation on 1 July 2023. Amongst other things, the NACC Act established the NACC and repealed the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (LEIC Act). Upon the commencement of the NACC Act, the ACLEI, which was established under the LEIC Act, was subsumed into the NACC.

Paragraph (d) of the definition of 'justice agency' in the Spent Convictions Act refers to the ACELI or 'any other similar crime or integrity commission body or office or agency established under a law of the commonwealth or a state'. Given this, it is considered that the NACC would likely be caught by the catch-all reference in that definition as a 'similar integrity commission' established under a law of the commonwealth. However, for the avoidance of doubt, it is proposed to remove the reference to the ACLEI and replace it with the NACC.

Part 11 of the bill amends section 43 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 to address concerns regarding an increase in the number of incidents of individuals interfering with or damaging assets on the rail network, including the theft of copper wire and piping. In addition to presenting a public safety risk, incidents of this type have a significant flow-on impact on the rail network, causing unnecessary delays for passengers and costly repair bills to rectify the damage to the network.

Section 43 of the Summary Offences Act makes it an offence for a person to interfere with any part of a railway, tramway or any signal or machinery used in connection with any such railway, tramway or track. While it is considered that this would likely capture the theft of copper wire or piping that forms part of the railway or track, it is uncertain whether the offence would capture interruptions caused to the railway network system or processes where this is a secondary or indirect consequence of the copper wire or piping being stolen.

For the avoidance of doubt, part 11 of the bill amends section 43 of the Summary Offences Act to make it clear that the offence applies to any conduct that interferes with any signal, cable, system or machinery that is used in connection with a railway, tramway or track. A further amendment has been made to increase the current maximum financial penalties for this offence from $10,000 to $50,000 in recognition of the significant financial impact of this type of offending.

This is a bill that relates to a number of different areas of law and seeks to address a range of issues to ensure that our justice system works as efficiently and effectively as it can for the benefit of the South Australian community. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (16:16): It gives me great pleasure to add a few comments to the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill 2025 and particularly around part 4, Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Part 4 of the bill wants to amend and change the laws in regard to the words 'back-burning', 'fire prevention' and 'bushfires' and the like that have been mentioned here. I want to make it very clear that the parliament understands what is written here in a number of areas that I think should be concerning for all those who have the chance to witness, listen or observe what has been put before them.

One of the things I want this parliament to understand is that there has been great resistance by fire authorities around back-burning in South Australia. I will add that back-burning in Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia is considered commonplace, mandatory, important and part of the firefighting mechanisms of containing wildfires in those three states. That is not the case here in South Australia.

In my briefing this morning about this legislation and this change in this amendment here, I did ask whether there has been a charge or has there been an arsonist pursuing back-burning practices that says he is now doing something different other than being an arsonist and the answer was no. My real concern is: where is this coming from and why is this written before us and changing what is being done?

Everyone in this parliament should be aware that in the case of horrific, catastrophic, fast-moving bushfires in the state, we now have an abandonment of firefighting and we go into a code called protection and wait. What does that mean? It means that a fire is out of control, it is a wildfire. We have had several of them since I have been in politics: Kangaroo Island, Adelaide Hills, Blackford, Keilira, Sherwood, Pinery to name a few that were catastrophic, huge in their intent, really hard to monitor and very destructive.

One of the things that is really, really frustrating to see and observe is that on the positive side of today's technology the government's intent, be it Liberal or Labor, to have water bombers, Black Hawk helicopters, even Boeing aeroplanes dump thousands of litres of water on wildfires are all positive. But the complete abandonment of a fire other than those resources sometimes would beggar belief in today's modern age.

What I mean by that is I am not suggesting for one minute that I want to see life, resources and fire trucks being put at risk like they used to 20, 30, 50 and further years ago. What we are now not seeing is the prevention of back-burning in front of fire fronts, and it will not even be considered. There is good technology and good resources and good science around lighting more fire into the landscape on these catastrophic days. There are some strong supporters in this area that can back it up with science, feel and perhaps old knowledge, including Indigenous knowledge, around back-burning in front of fires for their control.

When the words used here about back-burning as potentially trying to control, navigate and then criminalise, I am going to call them arsonists, and they use the word back-burning—then I think there is a misinterpretation on a huge scale here. I do not want to see and think that the CFS and the volunteers and the farm firefighting units, who potentially can add more fire into the landscape to protect, to stop, to slow down, to hinder these catastrophic fires that have been abandoned and going only into asset protection, are waiting for water bombers to come in place.

I remind this parliament that back in 2019, we had three fires, one on Kangaroo Island, one in the Adelaide Hills and one at Keilira. There was a shortage of resources, and planes were not even able to drop some of their loads of water let alone be in the places where they were needed all at once because there were too many or not enough helicopters or planes, and the idea of adding more fire into to the landscape would have been seen as criminal. I see before me right now that the words here in this amendment could put people in jail for life, when instead more fire could have been added to the landscape to prevent a bigger, more catastrophic fire.

Yes, these back-burns can get out of control. Yes, these back-burns can be swamped by a major fire that is coming up behind it. The fact is that what is going on is that there is no-one brave enough, no-one who has the development put in place yet to add fire, potentially, to slow down catastrophic fires because they will then see themselves looking at life imprisonment. We have to be very cognisant of what I can see here in the wording. I raised it in the briefing. I even asked how many arsonists we have in our history of lighting fires who say, 'I'm just doing a back-burn, your honour, I'm innocent,' when they are trying to start a new fire, a fire of some means, and to say, 'I am doing some back-burning'. It does not make any sense at all.

I can tell you that there are very wise hands, knowledge, minds out there in our rural community that have seen and used back-burning, including our Indigenous Australians, to prevent, control and manage fire. As soon as we start using the word back-burning here in the amendment, we can see people who are trying to do the right thing being punished, provoked or threatened with imprisonment for life, and I just cannot understand that. It just defies logic and makes me very sad that we do not have the intel here to potentially put those who are trying to do the right thing, people who would like to have the options and considerations of more fire in the landscape on these catastrophic days, but might face the full brunt of the law.

I am not saying that you cannot still pursue something like this if you think there is a loophole, that there are criminals out there putting fire into the landscape and that it has nothing to do with back-burning, but they are using it as an excuse. If the back-burning is in front of a fire front, is backed up by volunteer firefighters and units, and is backed up by even CFS trucks, and this fire still gets out of control, but it is a means to an end and an attempt to control the fire, then I do not want to see this amendment being used against those who are trying to do the right thing. They may not have got the authority from the head of the CFS or the head of the fire, or whoever is in charge, because they were not there.

What you do not want in these situations is to say, 'We are going to have a meeting, we are going to have a discussion. You had better meet on the southern eastern corner here. We're going to light a fire,' and by the time you get the okay and the all clear, the damn thing is 40 kilometres down the road. You do not want that situation either.

You think about that permission and that authority. Who is the authority and who is in control? These things are real life. You cannot prepare for all that you are faced with sometimes in these elements. It happens quickly. Wind changes can mean that what was the side of a fire can then be turned into the front of a fire. It happened in Keilira. The Keilira fire started in a spot. It headed south with strong northerly winds. It had a south-westerly change come through, which turned a 15 kilometre side fire into a front. Had they been allowed to do back-burning on that side front, we would not have had a 25,000 hectare fire. We could have saved a house. We did not lose any lives. I think there were 6,000 or 7,000 head of sheep that were burnt, if not more, and cattle and the like. Thousands of kilometres of fencing was also destroyed.

All I am trying to say to those with knowledge of legislation and amendments is please do not restrict, please do not tie people's hands up, please do not add more red tape to capture those who are trying to do the right thing out there in our community. What we are trying to do is handcuff and give life imprisonment to those who are lighting a fire for the simple sake of what arsonists think and do, not people who are back-burning, because that is a practice that is well noted, as I have already mentioned, in Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia for the control of wildfire. I do not want to see innocent people, who are trying to do the right thing, finding themselves foul of the law because we did not have a parliament that was representing the good intent of volunteers and those who have knowledge of wildfires and opportunities in the way we can manage fire. With that, I do not need to add any further points.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (16:26): I am grateful for the contributions that have been made on all three sides of the chamber on this bill. I see that it will be supported across the chamber, and I am pleased about that. I would like to respond more specifically to the member for MacKillop's contribution, because I respect and understand not only his passion in representing other people here but also his own expertise and experience as a very competent land manager.

I appreciate his concerns articulated about people who are in the middle of a bushfire undertaking back-burning in order to help manage that fire being inadvertently caught up in some kind of criminal proceeding on that basis. I would seek on the record to reassure him that that is not the intended nor, in fact, the likely or possible consequence of this amendment. Unless the person is either intending to cause a bushfire or is recklessly indifferent to a bushfire occurring, they are not going to be caught up in this and therefore ought to feel reassured that the back-burning, which can occur in the consequences of a bushfire bearing down on an area they wish to protect, remains part of the arsenal of responses to those circumstances. So, with what I hope is a reassuring response to the very heartfelt concerns that the member has raised, I commend this bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (16:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.