Bills

Firearms Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:29): I rise today on behalf of the Greens to make a brief contribution to the Firearms Bill 2015. I do so obviously on a day when I woke up to a news flash on my phone of yet another horrific incident in America, where in San Bernardino at least 14 are dead and even more have been wounded, after a shooting attack on a centre for people with developmental disabilities in California—a shocking story that I am glad to say we rarely see in Australia. Many of us would remember the horrific massacre at Port Arthur which led to some strong reforms in this area.

This bill before us seeks to repeal the Firearms Act 1977. My office has received a number of briefings from minister Piccolo's office, so I would like to thank on their behalf Emmanuel Cusack, Erinne Provis, Brendan Beh, Philip Newitt and Michael Fisher for their extensive time spent in liaising with my staff. The Greens position on the ownership of firearms is that we believe owning a firearm is a privilege in the same way that possessing a driver's licence is also a privilege and not a right. This bill before this chamber seeks to explicitly state that gun ownership is a privilege, a position that the Greens strongly support.

The Greens have a long history of supporting strict gun control laws. We have done this at both state and federal levels. The Greens also support laws that allow for people and organisations to use their own firearms legally and responsibly. The Greens support the objectives of this bill which include promoting safe and responsible storage and use of a firearm.

I know that one of the SAPOL officers who briefed me showed me a photo of a rifle which was supposedly secured, and I understand technically secured under the current regime, which had attached to it an incredibly long chain that could be stretched to extend through the length and breadth of his house. The firearm owner in this case knew that this crafty chain system apparently met with the requirements of the current act. This is quite concerning.

I believe we must do what we can to ensure that guns are stored more securely, not with these sorts of loose chains which can extend through an entire premises. The Greens believe it is important to establish a registration scheme for all firearms and to prevent or restrict persons or organisations from possessing firearms for criminal purposes. As the minister responsible for the act, minister Piccolo has pointed out in his contribution in the other place that there are six key objects of this bill which the Greens support.

The Greens support the measures inserted in this piece of legislation which clearly state that a licensed dealer is guilty of an offence for employing a disqualified person in the dealer's business. A disqualified person is a person who has, in the preceding five years, had a firearms licence cancelled, been refused an application for a licence or a permit on the grounds that they are not a 'fit and proper' person, or has been found guilty of an indictable offence.

I have a question for the minister in relation to this part of the bill. What if that dealer is not aware that the person employed in their business is a disqualified person? I am glad to know under the bill it will be a defence for the dealer or employee to prove that they did not know and could not be reasonably expected to have known that the person was a disqualified person. I would also like to seek clarification from the minister: can an employer request this information when hiring someone as an employee?

The bill seeks to tighten the conditions of licences. For example, the bill states that the licensee must, on the request of the registrar, provide the registrar with information relating to any firearm registered in the licensee's name or possession, the licensee's use of the firearm or a matter relevant to whether the person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence. The Greens are supportive of the requirement in the bill which means that a licensee must, in accordance with a written request of the registrar, conduct an audit of the licensee's practices with respect to the storage and safe keeping of the firearms and report to the registrar the result of that audit in the manner and within the time specified by the registrar. The licensee must also allow a police officer to inspect at any reasonable time the firearms in the licensee's possession and the licensee's facilities for its storage and safe keeping.

The bill also addresses the issue of trafficking in firearms. I have been advised that there are some 65,473 South Australians holding a firearms licence and approximately 309,209 are registered firearms in South Australia. There are approximately 230 to 250 firearms stolen each and every year in our state. I know that this figure relates to those firearms that are actually registered and that the real figure is likely to be much higher. I have also been informed that guns end up interstate and that there is no mechanism for police to track stolen firearms.

The Greens are also supportive of the requirement to register a deactivated firearm. This should assist police officers in tracking deactivated firearms. I also think it is important that deactivated firearms are registered. As the member for Morialta noted in the other place, in Queensland there were some 4,000 deactivated firearms which were reactivated and distributed amongst criminal organisations. The government has set incentives for people with deactivated firearms to register. Under this bill, there are no costs associated with registering a deactivated firearm, provided the firearm is registered within 12 months of the commencement of this bill.

The bill before us seeks to prohibit a person from being granted a firearms licence if the applicant has been found guilty of an offence prescribed in the regulations. We will, of course, look at these regulations when they are introduced.

The Greens are supportive of the implementation of a firearms amnesty to allow a person who has unauthorised possession of a firearm to surrender that item to a police station. I know that this has already commenced and I welcome that announcement from minister Piccolo in recent days. People can hand in weapons at their nearest police station or at roughly 45 firearms dealers across state over the next seven months.

Once this bill is passed, it will see, hopefully, a permanent amnesty for firearms in this state. The provision also allows individuals to hand in any firearm or ammunition. We support the broad objectives as stated in this bill and will consider the range of amendments tabled in the committee stage. With that, we support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:37): I believe that all second reading contributions have been completed and I thank honourable members for those contributions. A key purpose of the bill is to improve public safety and prevent crime, and I thank every member in this chamber for their understanding of the importance of this legislation. The formation of this bill has been 10 years in the making, and I am pleased that we have almost come to the final stages over the past 12 months.

The Minister for Police has undertaken a comprehensive community consultation and engaged heavily with the community and sought stakeholder views on reforms proposed for the bill. This, I believe, has helped develop a modern bill that meets the expectations of South Australians.

The main purposes of the bill are: to improve public safety and prevent crime; reduce red tape; overcome deficiencies; facilitate a national approach to firearm control; increase the functionality of the act; and modernise the act. The bill achieves a clear and sustainable balance between firearm control, which maximises public safety, and encouraging the responsible possession and use of firearms for legitimate reasons. There were extensive questions asked during the second reading debate, and I will deal with those at the appropriate clause or at clause 1 of the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I am glad the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has arrived. I said a little bit about sound arresters in my second reading speech and, given that the minister has the experts with her, I want to know what the angst is with regard to a sound arrester attached to a .22 rifle, given that we now only have bolt action with limited magazine rifles, for pest eradication with regard to rabbits.

It might sound like a trivial thing, but the destruction that rabbits wreak on our environment is really quite dramatic, and anyone who has ever been involved with the pest eradication of rabbits with a rifle knows that if you shoot one rabbit they all run away. There is a genuine reason why a sound arrester would become quite useful.

I am not sure, and perhaps the adviser can straighten the minister out on it, how many .22 long rifles that belong to licensed and responsible gun owners are actually used in crime. Also, what is the fear or harm of being able to use sound arresters for those rifles with regard to pest eradication?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Currently, the sound moderators are banned here in South Australia, so the amendment we have will allow sound moderators to be used in some circumstances. I certainly would not know from first-hand experience, but I am advised that apparently, even with shooting rabbits with a sound moderator on, once you shoot the first rabbit all the rabbits run anyway—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, this is expert advice. Apparently, even with the sound moderator on there is still a sound emitted, and although humans cannot hear it most animals can. So it is not going to help in those circumstances.

I am also advised that every state has a similar restriction to sound moderators as the restriction that we are trying to put through today. I am also advised that there are 65,000 gun licences here in South Australia. Of these, 56,000 are hunters so, if you made an exception for hunters, you are basically allowing sound moderators to be used by most licensees.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Can your adviser explain what the perceived threat is? The question was not answered about how many crimes are actually committed with, for instance, a .22 rifle. Where is the fear? My understanding is that crimes tend not to be committed with a .22 rifle. A weapon of choice, I am led to believe, of a bikie or a criminal tends to be a high-calibre pistol. I do not know that they ride around on motorbikes with .22 rifles strapped to their back. What is the fear of the police with regard to a sound moderator on a .22 rifle? Is it going to lead to an enormous growth in crime? Where is the fear and why?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sorry, I missed that answer in my first response. I have been advised that they do not have those figures; they are not available. Just generally speaking, I have already answered the question about why sound moderators are problematic. Clearly, a gun sound provides a warning that there is potential danger and, as I said, all other jurisdictions have got similar restrictions in place around sound moderators, so they are generally perceived as being potentially quite dangerous.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Just as a point of clarification. I apologise; I was finishing a meeting.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Back from out on the steps doing an interview.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: With the media, telling how good the government are, yes, minister.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, I am always telling the media how good you are. Just on this, I would understand if they have not had a chance yet, but I take it that the leader was not in a position to respond to some of the points that I raised during second reading yet.

An honourable member: During the clauses.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, during the clauses; okay, that's fine. Just to advise the house, I have filed an additional amendment that will replace part of another amendment that I had, and members have just received that. It is very similar. It is a bit more specific in the clarification, so I am just letting members know that.

My question, which the minister may want to take on notice because we can have some time for this, I guess, even between houses, is: can SAPOL advise how many serious gun crimes have occurred at the hands of licensed owners in the last five years versus gun crimes by people who clearly are unlicensed, unregistered and acting illegally? If we could take that on notice—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank you. I am very pleased you could join us here today.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Naughty, naughty! We are trying to cooperate here.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes. I have got some answers to some of your questions, so perhaps if I just address those now at clause 1. With regard to your question on going to creating a miscellaneous licence for non-handheld items, I am advised, yes; and these items will not have to be deactivated is the short answer. Will these items become prohibited? I am advised no, but the functionality of the firearm will be assessed. Will these firearms became illegal, that is, the non-handheld? I am advised, no, they will not be illegal; however, you would need to obtain the correct licence.

You asked whether the government can confirm the 12 months supply of ammunition, etc., which is intended to be interpreted as a 12-month supply of ammunition on any given day. I am advised that, yes, it is a point-in-time provision; that is, at the point the person is found in possession it is a 12-month supply from that particular point. Can the government clarify the intention of the provision, the amounts of ammunition allowed to be possessed and how it will be interpreted? I am advised the intention is to stop people from stockpiling large quantities of ammunition. We accept that there are some individuals who would have a large amount of ammunition for their sport or profession, and worded this way the legislation allows for this.

Can the government please confirm whether they intend the repair of guns by licensed owners to be converted via manufacturing provisions within the bill? I am advised that manufacture and repair are separate. 'Repair' means to fix an existing part, where manufacturing would be to create a new part altogether. Even if they were the same, clause 37(4)(a) allows an owner of a firearm to manufacture a part for their own registered firearms.

Can the minister confirm, should a cap of 5,000 or some arbitrary number be determined? I am advised that there is no intention of putting a cap on ammunition because individual need varies vastly amongst firearm owners. You asked why live primers and propellants have been included in the definition of 'ammunition'. I am advised that the current definition of 'ammunition' in the Firearms Act is already component-based by including primers and propellants. The unamended definition aligns with the UN protocol definition, recognising the complete round or its components. Australia is a signatory to the UN protocol. Our definition is nationally consistent. The ACT, New South Wales, NT and Tasmania all have extensive definitions and not dissimilar to the one we have drafted.

Can the government please confirm that the definition of 'firing mechanism' is intended to be the complete mechanism or not? I am advised yes. Why has chroming been included in the definition of 'refurbishing'? Chroming is the common term. This was a submission by a stakeholder to cover a gap in the current legislation. Why are firearms parts not included in the definition of 'refurbishing'? I am advised because they are not regulated, therefore anyone can possess them, therefore there is no need to give a permit.

You asked, 'Can the government confirm whether muzzle blast deflectors, flash suppressors, or muzzle breaks are only intended to fall within the definition of 'restricted firearms' and in the definition of 'sound moderators'?' I am advised the definition of 'sound moderator' states: 'designed or adapted to muffle the report when the firearm is fired'. Those other devices are designed not for this purpose, which means that they are not designed for that purpose. Will disqualifying offences be expiable? I am advised, no, none of these will be expiable.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [T Stephens–1]—

Page 6, lines 3 and 4 [clause 3(1)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) to confirm that firearm possession and use is subject to the overriding need to ensure public safety; and

The amendment changes the first principle of this act to remove the word 'privilege'. This new wording is less ideological and more practical than the previous one. It also acknowledges and includes responsible licence holders, especially those who use guns as a tool of trade.

If I can just explain to the house: I had an email from a gentleman I know who is a very responsible gun owner, pointing out the fact that, sadly, we have just had the tragedy of the Pinery fires and a lot of livestock was lost and a lot of livestock was injured. Many farmers had the unenviable and sad task of having to euthanise much of their stock. This gentleman put the question to me: why would a farmer consider it a privilege to be able to use a tool to carry out such a humane action? I thought his point was very good. We understand that this is about responsible gun ownership. I just do not think it is necessary for us to be overly aggressive with our language.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise on behalf of the government to oppose this amendment. The amendment removes the word 'privilege' from the principles and objects. The bill articulates a number of underlying principles and objects designed to set the tone of the bill and provide clear guidance on its purposes and intent. One of those underlying principles seeks to reaffirm that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.

The privilege principle has long been established in case law in South Australia having been stated and followed by several judicial officers in the Supreme Court and provides consistency with other legislative instruments. Many contemporary acts contain statements of objects and principles. This principle has also been observed in other jurisdictions. Legislative cases include R v Cullen 2015, SASCFC, 44 at 23 to 24. Justice Gray stated, while referring to the 1996 Australasian Police Ministers Council:

The underlying thrust of those resolutions is that gun ownership is not a right it's a conditional privilege.

There are others: R v Daniele 2014 SASCFC, 22 at 25; Pollitt v Police 2007; Police v Losapio; Johnson v Registrar of Firearms 221 and, in addition, the principle of privilege is explicitly stated in section 5(i)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 ACT, and section 3(i)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 New South Wales. Therefore, the proposed equivalent enactment in South Australia will align these jurisdictions in relation to this aspect and promote nationally consistent firearms legislation.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do not really understand why we have the word 'privilege' in there; it is only a motherhood statement anyway, at the end of the day, and is not going to keep the community safe. For me, I do not quite understand it and I strongly believe that providing that you are a licensed, registered and fit and proper person that in Australia you have a democratic right to firearm ownership, just the same as you have a democratic right if you have passed your Ls and Ps and paid your money to drive a car; and the same as you have a democratic right to go to a nightclub and consume alcohol when you are 18 and older—even at 58, my age, you have a democratic right. It is not a privilege so I do not really understand what it is all about.

However, we will be supporting the Liberal amendment and I foreshadow to my colleagues that if that one is not successful then we have an amendment on the same clause, as you would know, Mr Chairman, which is to me a compromise between the government's position and what the minister wants and this one. In the first instance, we will be testing it by supporting the Liberals.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be opposing the Liberal amendment. We understand that the principle of privilege is not just proposed in South Australia but is in other jurisdictions, including the ACT and New South Wales. I would say that going to a nightclub, having a driver's licence, even the privilege of a vote are all things that can actually be taken away from you. They are not intrinsic rights in and of themselves; they are privileges and they are, of course, part of our democratic process and our free society but you can lose all of those things and that is the way it should be.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I certainly agree with the Hon. Tammy Franks that these rights can be taken away. We know that; that is why we operate, of course, within the law. I guess the reason I am keen to promote this particular amendment is that, constantly, licensed firearms owners are under attack. It is almost always not the licensed firearms owners who create problems with guns. It is people who use them illegally. It is outlaw motorcycle gangs, the grubs of society.

I should have said from the outset that I am a licensed firearm owner myself. I have some experience with guns. I have enjoyed hunting, especially for food, over many years. Sadly, this profession does not give me that opportunity; rarely do I get that opportunity. I will be calling a divide to test the mood of the chamber. I understand that Mr Brokenshire has a different set of words, but in fairness to all of our constituents who have contacted us, who do obey the law, who are quite rigorous in the way that they obey the law with their firearms, it is absolutely my duty to test this.

Ayes 8

Noes 7

Majority 1

Amendment thus carried.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is clause 3, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire No. 1 [Broke-1].

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Based on that vote and on what I advised the committee before, that is a stronger amendment passed than mine, so I will withdraw my amendment No. 1.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [T Stephens–1]—

Page 7, line 3 [clause 4(1), definition of ammunition, (c)]—Delete 'live primers, propellants and'

This amendment removes primers and propellants from the definition of ammunition for the purposes of regulation and restriction. This is self-explanatory: primers and propellants are not ammunition.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise to oppose this. As I have already indicated, the current definition of ammunition in the Firearms Act 1977 is already component based, by including primers and propellants. The unamended definition aligns with the UN protocol definition, recognising the complete round or its components. Australia is a signatory to the UN protocol. Our definition is nationally consistent with the ACT, NSW, Northern Territory and Tasmania. They all have extensive definitions not dissimilar to the one drafted.

In the regulations code of practice for security it is proposed that for components as opposed to a complete round the owner must take all reasonable precautions to ensure it is not lost or stolen or does not come into the possession of an unauthorised person. The current definition of ammunition in the current act is 'suitable for use in a firearm and includes primers and propellants.' I am not too sure why suddenly the Hon. Terry Stephens believes that this has become problematic when it has not been in the past.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that the Greens will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We will be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 8

Noes 7

Majority 1

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Broke–1]—

Page 7, line 13 [clause 4(1), definition of arms fair]—After 'firearms' insert ', firearms parts or ammunition'

I will be brief on this one. The definition of 'arms fair' has been expanded to include 'firearms parts, ammunition and ammunition components' to correctly reflect the items on display and for sale where applicable at an arms fair. The advice we have is that arms fairs are only organised with the approval of SAPOL—which is something I agree with—and they are currently authorised to display and, where appropriate, sell firearms parts, ammunition or ammunition components.

The sale of firearms parts, ammunition or ammunition components can occur only upon sighting of appropriate licences. The inclusion of these items into the definition of 'arms fair' in no way allows for the sale of items to members of the general public who are not licensed to possess such things. Rather, for the sake of clarity, it simply defines what occurs at an arms fair.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. It is consistent with clause 4's definition of foreign firearms dealer permits.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 5 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Broke–1]—

Page 17, line 14 [clause 8(2)(f)]—Delete 'adult'

These amendments ensure that visitors to shooting clubs are allowed to use firearms provided they are under the supervision of a licensed person. As the bill is drafted, persons under 18 are able to acquire ammunition and engage in shooting only if they are a member of a club and under the supervision of a coach. This provision creates an obvious absurdity, in that it requires a person to pay a year's membership and to hire a coach before determining if sports shooting is a sport they want to pursue.

It could also prevent the clubs from attracting new members. I would rather have as many licensed firearms owners as possible as members of these clubs, and I will state why in a moment. It is my advice that this is common practice amongst sporting clubs. Groups such as Scouts attend the club once or twice per year, and are signed in and supervised at all times by a licensed firearms owner.

The licensed firearms owner or the club can provide the ammunition and, to the best of my knowledge and I stand to be corrected if they can advise otherwise, there have been no accidents or concerning incidents with supervised minors at clubs. When I had what is a privilege, being police minister—no democratic right in that, it is an absolutely privilege—I took my son out to a sporting range as a young fellow.

He was already aware of firearms, living on a farm, but he saw the management capability of sporting shooters, he saw the strict discipline and rules, he saw how they load and unload their ammunition, he saw the whole lot. I think that it was a very healthy thing for him to see as a young person that you can actually safely enjoy the sport of shooting; there are lots of checks and balances, discipline and protection. To me, I would much rather him be looking at that than some draconian criminal activity on television involving firearms.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge honourable members to think really carefully about this. This is a no-brainer. This amendment is actually opening up access to firearms to children. It is a potentially incredibly dangerous path to go down. The current bill already provides exemption for junior shooters under clause 8(2)(g) and clause 8(2)(r) where there is continuous supervision of a parent or guardian, etc., the supervised shooting can occur at any location, including at a shooting club. Clause 8(2)(q) provides other exemptions.

The effect of this amendment of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's is that a child of 10 years of age or more could shoot category A, B and H firearms at a shooting club under certain conditions. It is simply not good public policy for 10-year-olds generally, excluding genuine competitive junior shooters supervised by a recognised coach, to shoot category B and H firearms—shotguns and handguns, for instance. This is against the current legislation and against the general intent of the National Firearms Agreement (1996) which prohibits junior shooters from being issued firearms licences, and hence not endorsing shooting by juniors generally. A public safety risk is created by a 10-year-old shooting category B and H firearms which can be made much more powerful than class A firearms. I urge members to think very closely before considering supporting this amendment.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I have been privy to attend a number of clubs and I have seen first-hand the discipline that is demanded of all participants. Personally, I think that if a young person is interested in firearms, there is no better place than to have them within a licensed club, remembering that the person who is going to be coaching these people and helping them understand all of the safety risks and the things that they need to do has been approved by the police, so not just anyone can put their hand up and be a coach. I just do not think there is a safer place for young people to learn and understand about firearms than at one of these appropriate clubs. So, I am not quite sure how suddenly this becomes a safety issue when there is no safer place and no safer way to be instructed in the responsible use of a firearm.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, the government strongly opposes this. Currently juniors can shoot at clubs, covering exactly the sort of activity the Hon. Terry Stephens refers to; currently and under this new bill, juniors will be catered for more than adequately. This amendment extends that capability beyond the supervision of clubs, outside of clubs. For instance, it could be shooting somewhere with a friend who has only just got their licence. A child of 10 could find themselves using a handgun or a rifle. It changes the class of weapon that they can use and it also extends the environment in which a junior can shoot.

It really is a no-brainer. I urge honourable members to think very carefully before supporting this. There is just no justification for extending this and exposing juniors to the risk. As I said, they could be supervised using a handgun or another high-powered weapon (that juniors are currently not able to use) by their young mate who has had a licence for just one week. I urge members to reconsider.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister to point out the specifics of where I am saying that any licensed registered firearm owner can coach a 10 year old or above anywhere, because that is not my understanding or intention. Can the minister clarify the specific point? I would be more worried about the safety of a 10 year old—to any age, but particularly young kids—when the owner of a licensed firearm does not abide by the law when it comes to proper security and safety or happens to leave a firearm on a kitchen table for 10 minutes and the 10 year old comes in. That is sometimes when you do see tragic circumstances occur.

In the paper today, minister, there is a lad who has just become the club record holder at Glenelg for golf, hitting a score that is better than anybody else's. Guess what? He hit that at 14 years of age, and juniors are being encouraged into golf. And that lad started his golf at two years of age. One could argue that that is a dangerous situation too, because people can get hit by a golf ball. The point I make is: why are you inhibiting a 10 year old under supervision from getting an opportunity to find out whether they might be interested in a sport that could eventually take them to win gold medals for Australia?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I need to correct the record. I have inadvertently indicated that it extended the junior's supervised use of a gun outside of a club. The adviser has clarified that that is not so: it is only within a club, so I correct the record there. However, the amendment still does extend the exposure of higher calibre weapons to juniors and provides less supervision.

For instance, the removal of supervision by the Liberal amendment removes the supervision by a coach for competitive shooters to shoot category B and H firearms and it removes the supervision by a parent, guardian or other approved person and replaces it with 'supervised by any licensee'. That was the point I was making: it could be an 18 year old who has had their licence for one week supervising a 10-year-old kid with a high-powered weapon. It is outrageous and it is irresponsible.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I make the point that it could be an 18 year old who may have spent six months in Iraq defending terrorism in Australia who comes back and actually supervises a 10 year old. He could be highly trained. I do not think that is a strong argument at all.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Most 18 year olds have not had that experience of fighting in Iraq; most would be inexperienced with the use of a weapon.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Minister, if they are not a fit and proper person our police would not let them have a licence. The fact is they are 18, they are adults, and if the police had any doubt whatsoever about their suitability, my understanding is that they could not get a licence. So again, I go back to the fact that it is in a club situation and the rules and regulations are so strict, and the discipline is so strict, that I think it is the best possible way for young people to understand firearms.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, that is an outrageously irresponsible position. A fit and proper person does not cover someone with life experience, considerable experience with a firearm, supervising a 10-year-old kid with a high-powered weapon. How naive. It is outrageously irresponsible.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have lived in the country. I was brought up in the country—

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Ms Franks has the floor.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that the Greens will be opposing the amendment. I take on board some of the points that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire curiously raised about being coached, in fact, to Olympic standard, and I would say that should that young golf player be willing to get to the elite level they probably would need an appropriate coach. They probably would not be able to do it in the old Bradman way, with some backyard training; that does not get you there these days. I think in this day and age we expect appropriately accredited and trained professionals.

On that note I am going to disclose, much to my mother's chagrin, that Brett Ogle once offered to train me in golf and I told him no, because I thought it was incredibly boring. I was young, I was foolish, and so are the people we are talking about with this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I cannot support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Clearly I do not have the numbers (I did do maths at school) so I will not insist on any of the consequential amendments to that clause. I move:

Amendment No 6 [Broke–1]—

Page 18, line 11 [clause 8(2)(k)(i)]—Delete '21' and substitute '28''

This amendment changes the time in which an executor of an estate must notify the registrar that they have come into possession of a firearm. At the moment the time is 21 days, and this amendment takes it to 28 days. Numerous stakeholders have requested this time frame.

I know we have to be careful when there is a situation where there is a deceased estate and there are firearms left, safely locked away, in that home. I probably would have gone as far as saying 60 to 90 days, because if you are trying to manage grieving a lost loved one, and you are the executor of their estate and you are try to manage the whole thing, and then advise police about the situation, a lot of people would be battling to do it in 28. However, giving them another week just gives them a chance to not be breaking the law, and therefore I commend the amendment to the house.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government is pleased to indicate its support for this amendment.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The opposition supports the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens are also in support of this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I support the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 19, line 29 [clause 8(2)(r)]—After 'firearm' insert 'or an air handgun'

Amendment No 2 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 20, after line 19—After subclause (6) insert:

(7) In this section—

air handgun means a handgun designed to fire shot, bullets or other projectiles by means of compressed air or other compressed gas and not by means of burning propellant.

Amendment No. 1 operates in conjunction with government amendment No. 2. It relates to the exemption of clause 8(2)(r) which, before amendment, provides that an unlicensed person between the ages of 10 and 14 years can shoot category A firearms when under the continuous supervision of his or her parent or guardian or some other approved person when the supervising person holds a licence authorising possession of the firearm for the purpose for which it is being used.

The effect of the amendment is to extend the exemption to allow the supervised shooting of air handguns. There is a definition in amendment No. 2. This amendment was raised by the Sporting Shooters Association of South Australia in order to permit that organisation to continue to conduct supervised shoots with Scouts aged 10 to 14 years.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The opposition is pleased to support the amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 9 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [T Stephens–1]—

Page 47, after line 28 [clause 39(5)]—After paragraph (b) insert:

(ba) that—

(i) the person intends to possess or use the sound moderator for the purpose of culling or destroying feral pests; and

(ii) there is a genuine need for the person to use the sound moderator for that purpose; and

(iii) there is no reasonable alternative to the use of the sound moderator by the person for the purpose, or in the circumstances, for which the approval is to be given; or

Drafting note—

We have added (ii) and (iii) for consistency with the clause as it currently stands.

I referred to this amendment in my second reading contribution. It allows the use of sound moderators in specific circumstances. I refer to pest control in built-up areas so, obviously, it is quite specific. I asked the minister some questions at clause 1 with regard to more extensive use of sound moderators, and I guess, to be fair, I did not get too much love from the minister's advisers. This certainly does not go that far, but I am pleased to move the amendment standing in my name.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment, and I have already indicated why. This is about allowing a person who culls or destroys feral pests to make an application to possess a sound moderator. As I have indicated, this would significantly expand the number of people who would have access to the use of these.

As I have indicated, there are 65,000 South Australian licence holders, and 56,300 are licensed for the purposes of hunting, so you can see that almost three-quarters of licence holders are going to be covered by this overnight. Hunting activity regularly involves culling feral pests and, therefore, this amendment would extend the eligibility of a sound moderator to the use of 56,300 licensees.

This amendment would allow the widespread approval of sound moderators to be granted. I understand it is actually not the intention of the Hon. Terry Stephens to extend that provision to 56,300 licensees, but that is what the unintended effect of this amendment does. All other states in Australia—all other states—regulate sound moderator possession, and it is very strictly regulated because it is so potentially dangerous. None have a sound moderator scheme anywhere near as broad as that suggested by the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: First of all, I place on the record that I do not think 56,300 licensed firearm owners are going to go and buy sound moderators, because most of them are like me. You get a permit to cull some kangaroos, you are not the best shot in the world, I admit, but I like the bang because, if I get one roo, that is a bonus but, once the bang goes off, the roos go elsewhere and get out of my crops. That is really what I am about, and I am sure a lot of those other 53,600 people are like that. They do not want sound moderators.

I know that there are illegal sound moderators around because some of the shootings that occur are from criminals who have silencers or moderators. I think that, given the representation I had in my office, there are a few people with special reasons, and some professional shooters, who are very good at what they do and do need those sound moderators. So we will test the floor of the house and support the Liberals.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: To just add a little bit, my understanding is that it would give people the ability to apply. It does not mean that there will be blanket coverage of 56,000. My intention was that, if people could show genuine cause, then the powers that be would then consider that particular application.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Once you open up the provision to one person for the purposes of hunting, then you are obliged to extend that to any application for that purpose. I have just been advised that it would be exceptionally difficult to negate genuine need, given that 'pests' would include rabbits, foxes, goats, birds, etc.—standard pests that really are everywhere.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was simply going to, hopefully, speed the passage of the debate and say that the Greens oppose this amendment, in terms of the reference to there possibly being more divisions called upon it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing this amendment

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Opposed.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 40 to 46 passed.

Clause 47.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will withdraw my amendment to this clause on file as it is consequential. My previous amendment was not successful, so I will not move this.

Clause passed.

Clause 48.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [T Stephens–1]—

Page 57, after line 3—Before subclause (1) insert:

(a1) For the purposes of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, a review under section 47 will be taken to come within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction but, in the exercise of this jurisdiction, the Tribunal will consider the matter de novo (adopting such processes and procedures, and considering and receiving such evidence or material, as it thinks fit for the purposes of the proceedings).

This amendment slightly changes the nature of SACAT's review power of the registrar. Under this amendment SACAT will consider matters de novo as a new case on their merits rather than in regard to deficiencies in the registrar's original decision.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. We believe the SACAT Act already has sensible provisions for reviewing cases, and we do not wish to change their overall structure of how SACAT looks at reviews. The SACAT Act states at Part 4, 39(1)(c):

(c) The tribunal must act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case and without regard to legal technicalities and forms.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I support this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First supports this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens oppose this amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 49 to 53 passed.

Clause 54.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [T Stephens–1]—

Page 59, lines 6 to 36—This clause will be opposed.

This amendment deletes clause 54, which gives a registrar powers to investigate whether someone is a fit and proper person. The Liberal Party believes a clause which removes a person's right against self-incrimination, i.e. the right to silence and the need for police to obtain a warrant before entering a premise, infringes established civil liberties. We will therefore oppose it, unless the government has a compromise. I understand the minister may have an amendment and I would like to hear from my crossbench colleagues on this clause before I proceed, if I could.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes amendment [Stephens-1] 6. Clause 54 is necessary to provide the registrar with powers to make inquiries whether a person should acquire a licence or permit, to continue to hold one and, therefore, improves public safety. For example, if there was an accidental shooting at a firearms range, clause 54 would give the registrar the authority to require the CCTV footage from the range operator. The registrar currently has no authority to do this at the moment.

The Hon. Terry Stephens is right, Labor moved two amendments in the House of Assembly to keep this clause in the bill. However, to require a warrant to enter a premise and remove a section which abrogates a right to silence in respect to a question asked under clause 54(1)(a)(i). We believe we have made a good compromise and that the Liberal Party should support our halfway point.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Quite a lot of constituents contacted me expressing concern about this. I know some of the reasons why the government is changing this but I think there could still be some chance of a fairer compromise on this as we work through the final stages, perhaps between houses. However, at this point in time, to keep the debate democratic on this, we will support the Liberals' amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be opposing the Liberals' amendment. We believe that a compromise has been reached and we also believe that it is reasonable for the registrar to be able to ask people some questions and have them answered, as well as the ability to, for example, get the CCTV, as was explained to me, in cases of not only accidental shootings but deliberate shootings and suicides.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Given that a compromise seems to have been reached, as has been said, it seems to me that a fair balance has been struck and we will oppose the opposition amendment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 55 to 63 passed.

Clause 64.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move

Amendment No 7 [Broke–1]—

Page 71, line 20 [clause 64(3)]—Delete '21' and substitute '28

I have spoken to the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 65 to 74 passed.

Clause 75.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [T Stephens–1]—

Page 78, lines 8 to 35 (inclusive) and page 79, lines 1 to 3 (inclusive) [clause 75(2) and (3)]—

Delete subclauses (2) and (3)

This amendment removes the exceptions to the general defence. The Liberal Party believes the general defence should remain in force in fairness to law-abiding firearms owners. In fact, the vast majority of people with firearms are law-abiding citizens and we just do not think that this is fair and reasonable.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. This amendment seeks to restore the general defence to the bill without any limitations. The exceptions to subclauses (2) and (3) seek to create strict liability offences in the bill: offences where mental intent is not a requisite element of the offence.

These include offences where other defences already operate, offences where the general defence does not make sense, and others where, as a matter of policy, such as trafficking, the general offence should not apply. These offences should be excluded, and there are many of them: possession, use of firearms, dealers, breach of condition, trafficking firearms; there is an extensive list.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The minister used the example of trafficking. Clearly, that is illegal—criminal—and no-one is going to support firearms traffickers. There may be a clear argument for those people not having the general defence provisions, but I think it is still pretty broad. I had more representation on this one than on any other issue that the government has put up with this bill. I think a bit more work could be done to bring more fairness back into this particular clause, so I would be prepared to support the Liberals on seeing where the rest of the house is going to go.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the Liberal amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be opposing the Liberal amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (76 to 78) passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 3 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Part 4, page 81, after line 17—After clause 5 insert:

5A—Amendment of section 267AA—Offence where unlawfully supplied firearm used in subsequent offence

Section 267AA(6), definition of prescribed firearm offence—after 'Firearms Act 1977' insert 'or section 22(2)(a) or 45(9) of the Firearms Act 2015'

The amendment is consequential to the recent passage of the Statutes Amendment (Firearms Offences) Act 2015. This amendment ensures that, upon the passage of this bill, section 267AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 will correctly identify a prescribed firearms offence as one contained within the relevant sections of the enacted Firearms Act 2015 and not those within the repealed Firearms Act 1977. It is really just an administrative amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 4 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 82, after line 12—Insert:

(5a) Section 20AA(1), definition of serious firearm offence, (f)—delete 'section 10C(10) of the Firearms Act 1977' and substitute:

section 45(9) of the Firearms Act 2015

(5b) Section 20AA(1), definition of serious firearm offence, (g)—delete 'section 14 of the Firearms Act 1977' and substitute:

section 22(2)(a) of the Firearms Act 2015

Amendment No 5 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 83, after line 2—Before clause 14 insert:

13A—Amendment of section 3—Interpretation

(1) Section 3(1), definition of ammunition—delete 'Firearms Act 1977' and substitute 'Firearms Act 2015'

(2) Section 3(1), definition of firearm—delete 'Firearms Act 1977' and substitute 'Firearms Act 2015'

These two amendments are consequential to amendment No. 3.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Broke–3]—

Page 86, after line 29 [Schedule 1, clause 29(2)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) no application fee is payable in relation to an application for a licence authorising possession of a firearm, or an application for the registration of a firearm, if the firearm is a firearm within the meaning of this Act but was not a firearm within the meaning of the repealed Act because it was not designed to be carried by hand and—

(i) the applicant was in lawful possession of the firearm before the commencement of this clause; and

(ii) the application is made before the end of the transition period; and

(iii) the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant is—

(A) a museum to which access is permitted to the public, whether for free or on payment of money; or

(B) the RSL or a sub-branch of the RSL; or

(C) a genuine collector of firearms of historical or other significance and genuinely has possession of the firearm for that purpose; and

I did advise the house about this slight change in wording from the initial one that I filed. Just so that all members know, I am moving amendment [Broke-3] 1. What is being further included comes in (iii):

(iii) the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant is—

(A) a museum to which access is permitted to the public, whether for free or on payment of money; or

(B) the RSL or a sub-branch of the RSL; or

(C) a genuine collector of firearms of historical or other significance and genuinely has possession of the firearm for that purpose; and

I have been working with the minister's office on this, and I believe that there is more clarity in this amendment than what I originally put up.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. I understand we have 'brokered with Brokey' a fair and reasonable outcome.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I won't talk on this unless members have questions. I move:

Amendment No 9 [Broke–1]—

Page 86, line 31 [Schedule 1, clause 29(2)(b)]—Delete 'deactivated'

Amendment No 10 [Broke–1]—

Page 86, line 32 [Schedule 1, clause 29(2)(b)]—After 'paragraph (a)' insert 'or (ab)'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Broke–1]—

Page 86, after line 34—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) If—

(a) during the transition period, a person surrenders to the Registrar a device that is a firearm within the meaning of this Act but was not a firearm within the meaning of the repealed Act; and

(b) the person was in lawful possession of the device before the commencement of this clause; and

(c) the Registrar is satisfied that any application by the person in order to obtain the necessary authority to possess the firearm would have been granted under this Act,

the Registrar must, subject to conditions approved by the Minister, pay compensation in respect of the surrendered firearm.

(2b) Compensation payable under subclause (2a)—

(a) is to be of an amount equal to the market value of the firearm at the time of its surrender; and

(b) must be paid from the Consolidated Account which is appropriated by this clause to the necessary extent.

I do need, under proper procedures, to advise the house that technically the Clerk may say that this is a money clause. This creates a provision whereby a licensed firearms owner is able to recover compensation for a firearm they have previously owned lawfully which has subsequently been declared prohibited. Amendments Nos 12 and 13 are consequential to this.

This is something I have always been consistent on, way back to the buyback that the then Prime Minister Howard had after Port Arthur. This is not just for now: this is a modernised act and I hope it is not played around with too much for a very long time once we get it through. I just strongly believe democratically that if someone buys something legally and the parliament, the state, the nation or the government of the day then make a decision for it could be a very bona fide reason that something is no longer going to be legal, but that person has legally purchased it and spent the money, they should be compensated. That is why I am flagging this for some consideration.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment, but in fact actually agrees with the last statement that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire made, and that is, if a weapon was currently legal and then we have suddenly made it illegal, we have supported buybacks. That is what the Howard buyback was all about: they were weapons that were once legal and then were banned and it is fitting that compensation is considered. This is a completely different case.

We are not banning these weapons. They are currently unregulated and we are regulating them, so the individual has the choice of pursuing a licence or not. What's more, they can pursue their licence fee-free, so it is at no cost to them currently. We are not banning these weapons outright. We are simply regulating them and then the individual has the choice. Therefore, compensation is not appropriate, because it is in the hands of the individual and, as I said, the licence is being offered fee-free.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister for the record, with what the minister just responded regarding this amendment, can the minister categorically confirm that at any time into the future, if someone is forced into registration, as an example that you put forward there, they would not have to pay any fee? Because if there is a sunset clause on this, then that is of concern, because all of a sudden it is there for a year and then people are being forced to pay. You might say that they have that period and that's it because they are going to have to register, but I just need some clarification on the record.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire knows only too well, having once served as a minister in government, that those commitments cannot be made. You can only commit to the circumstances that are before us. This transition is certainly being offered fee-free.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: My question to the minister: my understanding of Mr Brokenshire's amendment was that if, after this act becomes law, there are any change to the rules and regulations with regard to having a weapon, it means that a government of the day will be compensated. Is that not your understanding of what he is saying?

The Hon. G.E. Gago: I don't understand your question, sorry.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Well, like the Port Arthur thing—and I had a semi-automatic weapon that was legal when I had it; it was registered. The prime minister of the day convinced his government to make that weapon illegal and I had to surrender it, so I was duly compensated, which I thought eased the pain a bit. I thought that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment, given our advice, was that that was his intention. So, that we are, in good faith, going to deal with what we have.

We are going to have a new act, but if the government of the day, after this act is enacted, decides that a specific type of weapon is no longer going to be reasonable for a law-abiding gun owner to have, that compensation will be paid by the government. That is my understanding of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's intention, and that was our advice with regard to his amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I understand the issue that the Hon. Terry Stephens and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire have raised. However, they both have made reference to Port Arthur, and I continue to say that Port Arthur was a completely different set of circumstances. Those weapons were banned. You did not have an option of taking out a licence, if you chose; they were banned. Your right to use those weapons was taken away from you and therefore compensation was paid. That is not what we are doing here. A person may choose to not take out a licence, but we are not actually banning the weapon.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Not supporting this amendment.

The CHAIR: I will put the amendment, but with the amendment there is a suggestion to the House of Assembly to amend the schedule by inserting, after clause 2, new subclauses (2a) and (2b), as proposed by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, because it is a money amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 6 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 86, after line 34—After subclause (2) insert

(2a) If an application for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence, to which subclause (2) applies also includes an application for authorisation to possess a firearm that does not fall within the ambit of that subclause, then that subclause does not operate to preclude the requirement for payment of an application fee in respect of the application insofar as it relates to the additional firearm.

This amendment relates to an opposition amendment in the House of Assembly, clause 29, schedule 1, part 15. The House of Assembly amendment was to the effect that if a person had lawful possession of a deactivated firearm before the commencement of this bill, and that person made an application for a licence or registration relating to the deactivated firearm during the transitions period of this bill, then those applications and subsequent renewals would not attract any fees payable (e.g., no fees payable for life).

Clause 29, schedule 1, part 15 is now sought to be further amended by Brokenshire amendment No. 8 to mean that a firearm not designed to be carried by hand, and previously unregulated (like deactivated firearms), also does not attract an initial or ongoing licence, registration or renewal fee.

The current government amendment No. 6 seeks to clarify the previous lower house amendment and the new Brokenshire amendment No. 8 to the effect that, where a person already has other registered firearms associated with an existing licence, that licence is either varied or added to accommodate the regulation of the deactivated firearm or non-handheld firearm. Then, the licence remains liable for the ongoing application or renewal fee associated with maintenance of the existing licence. It is not an additional cost to that, it is just part of the licence renewal and fee that they are already paying.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I rise to support the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 12 [Broke–1]—

Page 86, line 37 [Schedule 1, clause 29(3), definition of deactivated firearm]—Delete 'only'

Amendment No 13 [Broke–1]—

Page 86, after line 38 [Schedule 1, clause 29(3)]—Insert:

RSL means the Returned & Services League of Australia (S.A. Branch) Incorporated.

These flow on from the previous amendment that I moved. These are consequential.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They are both consequential and we support both.

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.