Statutes Amendment (Courts and Justice Measures) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 November 2016.)

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (17:30): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Courts and Justice Measures) Bill. I indicate that I speak on behalf of my Liberal colleagues and advise the chamber that we are supporting the second reading of the bill. This bill has been introduced by the Attorney-General in the other place and provides for amendments to various acts to achieve efficiencies and consistency with other pieces of legislation. There are also amendments just filed this afternoon which relate to technical repair of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act and other legislation.

In the original bill before the chamber, part 2 seeks to amend the Bail Act to permit an expanded class of people to act as witnesses to bail agreements or as a guarantee of bail. This is designed to allow the Registrar or Deputy Registrar to perform these functions. The opposition has been informed that this amendment is supported by the Chief Magistrate. We support this reform and hope it achieves increased efficiency in the administration of our criminal justice system. The bill also seeks to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to expand the range of circumstances in which audio and audiovisual links can be used for court appearances of defendants who are in custody.

The amendment provides for an increased use of these links if the court determines it is suitable, which has the potential to minimise cost of transportation and supervision of defendants who are in custody. The bill, once passed, will also enable audiovisual links to be used in appeal hearings, applications for permission to appeal, or other proceedings incidental to an appeal if the court determines it to be appropriate. The Liberal opposition supports the expanded use of technology, for not only can it help achieve efficiencies, but it can also be used to enhance protection for victims. I note that the Attorney-General has stated in his second reading that this particular amendment is supported by both the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate.

Part 5 of the bill relates to amendments to the Evidence Act to extend the application of section 13B which prohibits cross-examination of vulnerable victims by self-represented litigants to apply to other proceedings involving the victim. The bill also extends this prohibition to apply to offences of recklessly or intentionally causing harm as this has been previously omitted. The Liberal opposition supports this reform, recognising that without this amendment, victims can be unfairly subjected to aggressive and inappropriate cross-examination by unrepresented litigants, causing them further stress and humiliation.

There are amendments which have been filed this afternoon. The Liberal opposition indicates that it is has an opportunity to review these amendments and will support the amendments and the proceeding of the bill through committee today subject to the will of the council. The amendments also relate to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015 and effectively repair an omission that, when there is a complaint against the Chief Magistrate or Chief Judge of the District Court, it can be referred to the Chief Justice.

I also note in these amendments that the Attorney-General is not proceeding with his original proposed amendments regarding the position of the Solicitor-General, and he will intend to legislate in relation to that, potentially in the new year. Whilst the Liberal Party will support the passage of second reading and the amendments in committee, once again, I find myself on the last day of sitting—with the House of Assembly still in session and able to receive a message from this chamber—having to review a bill immediately outside the chamber, with briefings in the afternoon both to myself and the shadow attorney-general.

I would like to thank the staff of the Attorney-General's department, but I would send this message to the Attorney, if he reads his Hansard and when I see him next: increasingly, the tolerance of the Liberal Party is waning for last-minute amendments on the last day of sitting. I am particularly mindful of ones relating to the operation of the ICAC and warrants. However, because these amendments are specifically technical and because I have received briefs in the afternoon from the Attorney's staff, and I am also familiar with the bills being amended, I can indicate to the chamber that we will not be opposing the amendments. I commend the original bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (17:36): I thank the Hon. Andrew McLachlan for his contribution, his understanding and his ability to read very quickly and understand issues very quickly to allow what were oversights in previous processes to be rectified. I thank him for his forbearance and look forward to a swift committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I did not make a second reading contribution. The Greens, in our party room meeting, resolved that this was a fairly routine bill. The amendments that it introduced were fairly non-contentious. I do want to quickly echo the comments of the Hon. Andrew McLachlan that, whilst we are appreciative that, at the last minute, we have been given an advance copy of some of the remarks the minister is going to make and an explanation of clauses, I think it is a recipe that, if repeated too often, is going to end in tears because we are going to mess something up.

I have had a good look at this, and I think it is okay. When I go through it, I think, 'Well, there is an amendment to the victims of crime legislation.' I saw the commissioner earlier today. If I had known we were doing this, I would have asked him. He was at a domestic violence event. I would have said, 'Commissioner, have you seen the amendments to this act? What do you think of them?'

As it turns out, I think they are fairly routine. They relate to the costs that solicitors are able to charge for working in this jurisdiction, so they are probably fairly safe, but I am really nervous when we start doing this sort of thing at the end of the session. I am happy to give the government the benefit of the doubt. I guess, if there is a mistake made, I am hoping that it will be discovered sooner rather than later.

We are also prepared, in the Christmas spirit, to let this bill go through now with these additional amendments, but do not make a habit of it. It is an insult, I think, to those of us who are in parties and have party rooms. I am sure the Liberal party room has not discussed these amendments.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens party room certainly has not. Whilst you can get away with it on a fairly routine bill, if it was anything of any more substance then we would be putting our foot down and saying, 'We're not dealing with it today.' You are lucky this time, but do not make a habit of it.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Police–1]—

Page 3, lines 5 to 18—Delete clause 2 and substitute:

2—Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act will come into operation on the day on which it is assented to by the Governor.

(2) Section 18 of this Act will come into operation immediately after section 4 of the Statutes Amendment (Youth Court) Act 2016 comes into operation, or on the day on which this Act is assented to by the Governor, whichever is the later.

There are a number of amendments to this bill that require swift implementation. This amendment provides that the bill will come into operation on assent. The only part of the bill that will not commence on assent is linked with the commencement of the Statutes Amendment (Youth Court) Bill, which commences on 1 January 2017.

Amendment carried; new clause inserted.

Clauses 3 to 9 passed.

New clauses 9A and 9B.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Police–1]—

Page 5, after line 24—After Part 5 insert:

Part 5A—Amendment of Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015

9A—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

Section 4(1), definition of relevant jurisdictional head—after 'Courts Administration Act 1993' insert:

and includes, in a case where the judicial officer who is, or is to be, the subject of a complaint is a jurisdictional head, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

9B—Amendment of section 18—Referral of complaint to relevant jurisdictional head

(1) Section 18—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) If a complaint is referred, under this section, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because the complaint relates to a jurisdictional head, the Chief Justice may take action in relation to the complaint by—

(a) making recommendations to the jurisdictional head the subject of the complaint (including, for example, recommendations as to caseloads, record keeping, medical examinations or counselling); or

(b) counselling the jurisdictional head the subject of the complaint in relation to any conduct that has the potential to undermine public confidence in the court.

(2) Section 18—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) If any recommendations have been made to a jurisdictional head the subject of a complaint in accordance with subsection (2a)(a), the jurisdictional head must, within 28 days after the making of the recommendations (or such other period as may be agreed between the Commissioner and the jurisdictional head), give the Commissioner written notification of the action taken by the jurisdictional head in response to the recommendations.

This amendment inserts a new part 5A into the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015 to address concerns raised by the new judicial conduct commissioner about a lacuna in the act in respect of complaints about a jurisdictional head.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think I made comment by way of interjection—which was out of order—that the Greens were lucky: they had 50 per cent of the party who had been briefed on this issue. In relation to the Liberal parliamentary party room, it is a significantly lower percentage who have been briefed on the issue. The rest of us know nothing about what is being done here. I echo the comments of the Hon. Mr McLachlan and the Hon. Mr Parnell in relation to these issues. I will briefly, before addressing some questions, say that these issues could have been resolved sensibly if the lower house and the Premier were prepared to do what they are paid to do and that is, sit next week in the optional sitting week.

The Legislative Council members are going to be sitting next week and working on behalf of the taxpayers of South Australia, but because the Premier, the minister and the Attorney-General and others want to put their feet up and head off on their Christmas holidays or whatever we get this sort of circumstance being raised in the house at the last moment, where most of the members in this chamber, with the exception of two or three of you, know nothing about what is being moved, the reasons for the amendment, or whatever it might happen to be.

I place those comments on the record, that not only is it poor practice but the reality is that there was an easy solution to it. Clearly, the government could have sat in the optional sitting week in the House of Assembly. There are many other bills that some members of the government are anxious to get through this week and next week. It was always an optional sitting week and that would have been the easy way of doing it.

The Premier and the government clearly did not want to face three more question times in the House of Assembly. The Leader of the Government and the ministers here will be facing up to three question times next week, as a sitting week, and they are prepared to do it so why should not the Premier and the others be prepared to front up and take questions during question time for the three sitting days next week, and also then process either errors, bills or whatever else needs to be done?

My question to the minister is: what is the real reason for this particular late change? Has there been a complaint against a jurisdictional head that, upon reflection, the bill has found that there is a deficiency and there needs to be a change in the legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I turned over the page as soon as he started speaking and I think I can give an explanation. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act operates on the presumption that a complaint will be referred to the relevant jurisdictional head. That presumption is displaced where the commissioner dismisses the complaint or takes no further action in respect of the complaint.

Where the complaint is referred to the jurisdictional head, the commissioner can make recommendations to the action taken. Where the commissioner is of the opinion that the complaint is not able to be satisfactorily dealt with by the jurisdictional head, the commissioner can advise the jurisdictional head of that fact and proceed to make an immediate report to parliament or recommend to the Attorney-General that he or she convenes a judicial panel.

In the case of both an immediate report to parliament or a recommendation to convene a judicial conduct panel, the commissioner must be satisfied that the judicial officer concerned could be subject to removal from judicial office. Where a complaint is made about a jurisdictional head but relates to conduct that is not of the sort that would lead to removal from a judicial office, there is nowhere for the complainant to go. The amendments will provide a mechanism to deal with complaints about jurisdictional heads that would not warrant removal from office but would still require some action by providing that complaints about the conduct of a jurisdictional head are addressed by the Chief Justice.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that explanation but my question remains: has there been a complaint against a jurisdictional head that has required the urgent amendment to the legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there has been no such complaint prompted by a request from the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am wary of the caveat you put at the end of that. My question simply is: is the government aware of any complaint against a jurisdictional head—I am not saying whether it has been prompted by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner or not—that requires this amendment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there is no such complaint that the government is aware of, but the amendment has been prompted by a request from the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: When did the Judicial Conduct Commissioner first raise with the Attorney-General the concerns about this deficiency in the legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have an answer to that, but I can take that on notice and bring back a reply about the date. I do not have advice on when it would have been formally first raised.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister and the government are asking for this chamber to do them a huge favour in terms of getting this thing rushed through without anyone knowing anything about it, except for two or three people who have been briefed in relation to the circumstances. I am sceptical that no-one amongst the government's advisers has any idea as to when this issue was first raised. I am wary that maybe the answer to the question is that it has been some time, and the government and the minister do not want to put on the public record, for fear of inflaming the situation, that the government and the Attorney-General have been aware of this issue for some time, but have not been prepared to act and have left it to the last moment to try to rush an amendment through in relation to the issue.

The minister has parked behind the adviser's bench all of the key people who have been involved in the drafting of the legislation, in the background, and I do not accept that that no-one has a rough idea as to how long ago it was. I am not looking for, 'It was 4pm on 17 October,' or something, but someone must know whether it was this week, last week, or a month ago, or whenever it might be that the issue was first raised by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner that there was a major flaw in the legislation and it required urgent corrective action to be rushed through the parliament.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the honourable member's question. I am advised that the official who would usually have conduct of this matter, as an adviser, is absent today. I can undertake to bring back an answer to that so that the honourable member can be aware of when it was first raised.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There is such a thing as a telephone and it would not take very long for someone to contact the missing adviser to find out roughly when it was. As I said, I am not looking for an indication of the precise date and time, but I think this house is at least owed an explanation. If the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has raised the issue only this week and the Attorney-General, the government and the minister have had to respond, and respond quickly, that is fair enough. But, some of us would be a bit grumpy if the Attorney-General and the government have been aware of this for a few weeks and no action has been taken in relation to the issue.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that the Attorney only became aware of this in the last 48 hours and only discussed it with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner today.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: As a humble Whip in this place for some time, I just want to indicate my concern about this. I think, too often, particularly at this time of the year or just before the midyear break, this sort of thing happens. We are told that it is absolutely vital and has to happen, and all this sort of important stuff, and we take it on good faith. I take good faith from the minister and his advisers today, but to me it seems bizarre that we are doing this as we are now.

I have seen too many occasions where this happens, then suddenly early next year we will have to come back and fix something up that was missed here today because we did not have the time to look at it. It will not do a lot of good to have me looking at some of this stuff because I am not an expert in that area, but there are other minds in our party and in the crossbenches who are very good at analysing that stuff, and they are able to only analyse those things when they have time to do it. This does not provide the time to do it, and I just wanted to register my sincere concern about continually doing these sorts of things.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to clarify: is it the Attorney who has sought the urgency on this matter, or is it the Judicial Conduct Commissioner?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am advised that these particular amendments were requested by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to reiterate my question to the minister. My question was not: who requested them? I asked: who declared this matter was a matter of urgency? Has the Judicial Conduct Commissioner indicated that he requires these amendments as a matter of urgency? I remind the minister that this is a question I have made, and we are in the parliament.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner advised that these amendments were required urgently, and the Attorney-General sought to have them implemented this week.

New clauses inserted.

Clauses 10 and 11 passed.

Clauses 12 to 15.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Police–1]—

Part 7, page 6, lines 1 to 30—Delete Part 7

This amendment deletes part 7 of the bill. Given the recent appointment of the Solicitor-General, these amendments are no longer urgent. The government will therefore remove these amendments from the current bill and introduce a packet of amendments to the Solicitor-General Act in the new year.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not understand this. These are not late amendments that we are no longer intending to proceed with: this was part of the bill. We had notice of this. Why would we not deal with it now?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I just stated that, given that there has been an appointment of a Solicitor-General, they are no longer urgently needed, so they can be discussed in a bill to be introduced that will have a package of amendments to the Solicitor-General Act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Is the minister telling us that the government intends to redraft them and present them in a different form?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, with the appointment of Dr Bleby this week as the new Solicitor-General, these amendments are no longer absolutely necessary. We will look at what is necessary, and any other amendments that may be necessary, in the new year.

Clauses deleted.

Clause 16 passed.

New clause 16A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Police–1]—

Page 6, after line 37—After clause 16 insert:

Part 8A—Amendment of Victims of Crime Act 2001

16A—Amendment of Schedule 1—Repeal and transitional provisions

Schedule 1, clause 2—after subclause (3) insert:

(4) Without derogating from section 37, the Governor may make regulations under this Act for the purposes of applications referred to in subclause (1) (including any regulation that could have been made under the repealed Act as in force immediately before its repeal).

(5) The Criminal Injuries Compensation Regulations 2002 continue to have effect for the purposes of subclause (1) until revoked by regulations made under this Act (and Part 3A of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 does not apply, and is taken never to have applied, to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Regulations 2002 as so continued).

This amendment is the transitional provision in the Victims of Crime Act. The amendment provides that the regulations can be made under the Victims of Crime Act for the purpose of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act was repealed when the Victims of Crime Act commenced on 1 January 2003.

However the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act continues to operate in relation to compensation applications that relate to offences committed prior to that time. Regulations made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act set out the cost payable to lawyers who provide legal services associated with compensation applications under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.

Those regulations need to be updated to increase the costs payable. This amendment will allow updated regulations for the purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act to be made under the Victims of Crime Act. The amendment also provides that (a) the current regulations under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act continue to be in force until revoked by new regulations under the Victims of Crime Act and (b) the Subordinate Legislation Act does not apply, and is taken to have never applied, to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Regulations.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to approach parliamentary counsel and work out where this goes in the act. I cannot see where it is referenced.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have not followed this legislation closely—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Lucas has the floor.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Were these new amendments filed today or were they filed previously? Are these part of a rushed package?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that this issue was brought to our attention after the bill was drafted. Had this bill been put through at a later date, even next year, these amendments would have been filed with it then.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: When were they filed? Today?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They were filed as part of this package.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Today?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Today. They would have been filed, had this bill proceeded at a later date.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister has given me an explanation of the urgency of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner amendments and I understand that. What was the urgency of these amendments on victims of crime?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, with the passage of this bill, it was an opportune time for these amendments to fix this problem that had been identified. They would have been passed at a later date had this bill been passed a later date.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister says they would have been passed at a later date. They would have been offered at a later date.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Sorry, they would have been proffered.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes. I do not understand the intention of them. I do not understand the urgency. With the others, at least I understand the urgency but I am not sure who is saying we have to rush these through this afternoon without any consideration of the implications.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it was reasonably recently brought to the government's attention that this has created significant confusion, and this is attempting to fix that confusion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can you clarify the confusion? Have payments been made about which there is some legal doubt as to the authority for those payments having been made? I know you are waiting for advice on that question, so I will put another question at the same time. If these amendments are passed, is there any wider capacity for applications to the Victims of Crime Fund for a wider variety of issues that can be made as a result of this?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Are you asking if the result of this amendment enlarges the pool of those who might benefit from the fund?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is my second question, yes. Given the minister is changing advisers, my first question concerns the reason for this being included at the last minute in this legislation. Has there been any concern raised that some payments that have been made out of the fund have been made without legal authority, and are these legislative changes in some way seeking to correct that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will answer the first question. I am advised that there have been concerns raised about the attempts to increase the costs of the elements that can be paid by way of regulation. I am advised that, in relation to your first question, these regulations seek to put the ability to increase the costs beyond doubt. My advice is it is not that there have been concerns raised that claims have been paid without the legislative backing to do it. This is to make it abundantly clear that being able to increase those costs that can be paid under the criminal injuries compensation scheme is beyond any doubt.

In relation to the second question, I am advised that, no, this does not enlarge that pool of potential victims who may be able to apply or benefit under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. This goes to the legal costs that are payable under the scheme and the ability to make sure that the increasing of those legal costs is done without any doubt whatsoever.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You probably will not have an answer to this and you might need to take it on notice, but from what the minister just said, there is now going to be the capacity to, without legal doubt, pay increased legal costs out of this fund. Has Treasury or the Attorney-General's Department done some estimate of what the increased payments this year and in the forward estimate years will be coming out of the fund as a result of this legislative change?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the figures before me and I am happy to take that on notice as suggested and bring back a reply. I am advised, though, that I think earlier this year the regime was set for increased costs that they would take into account back then, but I am happy to go back to the figures that were done, whenever it was earlier this year or thereabouts.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I understand that what these transition provisions relate to is a matter that:

…applies to an application for compensation in respect of an injury arising from an offence committed before the commencement of this Act [being the Victims of Crime Act].

Considering the Victims of Crime Act commenced on 1 January 2003, are we talking about matters here that are at least 13 years old?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think this might be the question, but I am sure that I will be asked another question if it is not. It applies to offending that occurred in the past, even prior to 2003, but to claims lodged more contemporarily.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Are we talking about a significant number? I would be surprised that matters would be raised so long after their occurrence.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it is not a significant number in the whole victims of crime scheme. I am advised that, in the last year, it was in the order of, and it may not be completely accurate but as a ballpark figure, somewhere around 90 in the last year. So, we still see them trickling through although they are not a significant number in the context of the whole scheme.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I understand the minister's answers to the Hon. Robert Lucas, when we say 'purposes', we are particularly saying 'costs'. Are there any matters that might be covered in the regulations under this act for the purposes of applications? Are we thinking of any matters that might be the subject of regulations that do not relate to costs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, almost. I am advised that the only other thing that is contemplated here is the form for the application for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and that form will essentially be cut and pasted and put into the new regime.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Clause 5 seems to be of a different nature. It seems to be, if you like, trying to save regulations that might otherwise be seen to have lapsed. Have there been issues raised with that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the Legislative Review Committee has twice raised concerns with it as it was dealing with repealed legislation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am going to be slightly disorderly, but we are completely deleting the commencement clause, and the reference to section 18 is the only one of the current bill that is retained. I was wondering why proposed clauses 2(4) and 2(5) are no longer required?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that subclauses (2) and (3) were tied to the commencement of the Youth Justice Administration Act, which commenced today, so there was no need to have a commencement date for those, given it is tied to that act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thanks. That deals with the commencement issues. Why do we no longer see the need to not have the Acts Interpretation Act apply, which is what was proposed after the bill under clause 2(5)?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that this was a suggestion from parliamentary counsel as a drafting suggestion, out of an abundance of caution, as this act seeks to vary a number of acts to make absolutely certain that the commencement dates would be when the act intended for them to commence, given the interaction with a number of other acts.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 17 and 18 passed.

Title.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Police–1]—

Long title—After 'Evidence Act 1929;' insert:

the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015;

Amendment No 6 [Police–1]—

Long title—Delete 'the Solicitor-General Act 1972;'

Amendment No 7 [Police–1]—

Long title—After 'the Summary Procedure Act 1921;' insert:

the Victims of Crime Act 2001;

Amendments carried; title as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (18:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.