Bills

Statutes Amendment (Claim Farming) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: As I hope I flagged fairly thoroughly in my second reading contribution, the Law Society in its March 2024 letter/submission to the Attorney referred to concerns or some qualified support for a response dating back to at least around a year earlier about this trend having been on its way in the east, and there has been some reference to Queensland and New South Wales having legislation now to deal with that actual activity. Taking whatever time punctuation point as a reference, has the government got any up-to-date indication to share with the committee about where we find ourselves in September 2025 vis-a-vis evidence of this kind of activity in South Australia?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There has not been a measurement taken, therefore there is none that would indicate an escalation; it does not mean there is not escalation. What has happened is there have been various organisations who are victim advocates broadly, who have raised that they have been contacted by victims or are aware of victims who have experienced this, and also that Knowmore has been in touch with a very solid example of a particular legal practitioner who has gone to Mobilong, Yatala and Port Augusta—three jails that have quite a high proportion of Aboriginal people—where the tactics that have been described appear to be claim-farming approaches: pressure applied to people who are incarcerated to share details in order to see if there can be a claim made.

The feeling from the government and the Attorney-General was that there are sufficient examples, albeit anecdotal in the sense of individualised examples, to say that it is occurring and therefore ought to be banned. Whether in fact there is a move across the border because of banning interstate could be theorised but has not actually been measured.

Mr TEAGUE: Has any of that anecdotal or other evidence of such conduct been brought to the government's attention by the Law Society? Has the government received any further submission or assistance from the Law Society post that March 2024 submission?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised no.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 5 contains, if I can put it that way, the impugned new what would be section 42B. If I can by way of question or example seek some sort of assurance for concerned practitioners as to the confidence that those in the profession ought to retain to engage in activities, of the nature of information seminars and what might be described as professional outreach or engagement, that might be on some interpretation regarded as at risk of being caught by section 42B?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The advice is that the use of the terminology 'personally approach' is sufficient to guard against advertising or a seminar where people are invited generally to trip this clause or this section of the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: The question that might then follow, in terms of the context that the Deputy Premier has provided, is that there is a circumstance in which there is a seminar that is provided to a group inevitably or ordinarily, and at the conclusion of that kind of more general engagement there is the possibility of a more immediate personal engagement. Can the Deputy Premier provide to the committee any further specific indication that activities connected with such engagement of that kind would not run the risk of being similarly caught?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am sorry—it is very rare that the Prime Minister rings you, so I felt that I needed to answer the call. I am so sorry, because I would never normally breach protocol like that, from the way that we conduct ourselves here, but it did seem, given the news of today and the fact he chose to thank me for my service, that I needed to answer that call. I do apologise for appearing to be very rude. I answered the call saying, 'I am in the chamber, Prime Minister,' and he is such a delightful human he found that amusing.

My understanding is that the member's concern is at what point does what could be characterised as a conversation where someone is seeking advice turn into the practitioner really cajoling the person into providing information so that they can create some wealth for themselves. Of course, that circumstance has been aired. During consultation, that came up, and there has been effort to address that.

So the bill, as a result of the consultation, now contains an exception for a person who approaches or contacts the second person at the request of that second person or reasonably believing that the approach or contact is at the request of that second person. There may at some point be a grey line, I can understand in theory; not being an expert in claim farming, I suspect that, in fact, you know it when you see it, that it is very much seeking to gain information in order to take advantage of that information. Given that this is legislation that exists in other states and is effective, I see no reason why that would not be the case here.

Clause passed.

Long title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

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) (17:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.