Bills

Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

New clause 28B.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: The Hon. Mr Lucas will be speaking to the amendment and moving it with my consent.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [McLachlan–2]—

Page 11, after line 6—Insert:

28B—Amendment of section 117—Candidates not to take part in elections

Section 117(2)—delete subsection (2)

This amendment, as I understand it, is going to be supported, so therefore I will not speak at any length. Put simply, the situation is that, under the federal electoral provisions, candidates for the federal election are allowed to participate in canvassing for votes on polling day. So, they can stand outside a polling booth and hand out how-to-vote cards without anyone challenging them.

We have this provision in the state arena where candidates are not allowed to do those sorts of things. However, it does not stop candidates and sitting members spending the whole day running around with cups of tea or drinks and food and whatever it might happen to be and providing it to their polling booth workers. If they happen to see voters at each of the polling booths, they say g'day and have a chat anyway, but technically they are not allowed to canvass for votes.

All this provision is seeking to do is, in essence, allow candidates for elected office to do the same as candidates for a federal elected office can do on polling day; that is, they can canvass for votes. They are in the same position in terms of not being able to do anything within six metres of the door to a polling booth, etc., so all the other restrictions apply to them, but it just removes the current restriction. Given, as I understand it, it is going to be supported, I will not speak at any greater length.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate the government's support for this amendment. It is an inconsistency with the federal provisions in relation to a candidate, in effect, being involved in the electoral process on election day and handing out how-to-vote cards. I had the very strange sensation at the last state election of, for the first time in my life, not being able to hand out how-to-vote cards as a candidate for an election. I know, from my time as a party official and as state secretary, there is nothing worse than having to keep a state candidate calm all day while they are not able to be on a polling booth, so I fully support a measure that gives candidates something to do for the whole day.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will also be supporting the measure. I note by way of observation that it is probably one of those provisions that has been breached at every election, because the words are, 'A candidate must not personally solicit the vote of any elector on polling day.' I would have thought every TV or radio interview that any candidate did on polling day as the polls open, saying, 'We are running and I hope people vote for me and my party,' was probably already in breach of the rule, but I accept what the minister is saying. I think it makes no sense for candidates not to be able to stand at a polling booth and hand out how-to-vote cards. We wholeheartedly support this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 29.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Parnell–2]—

Page 11, lines 7 to 22—Delete the clause

This is a simple amendment that relates to the pre-poll voting places, which the committee has agreed will be open for probably nine or 10 working days; 12 days in total. The government's bill proposed to prohibit advertising, for want of a better word, within 100 metres of those places. That would include corflutes on stobie poles or signs on fences. The Greens do not believe that those restrictions make any sense.

I understand the government's intention was that they did not want people opportunistically to come across these signs, realise there is a pre-poll place nearby and take the opportunity to duck in to vote. The government's policy seems to be that these places should stay fairly anonymous and only those with a detailed understanding of the address should get there, but I think it makes no sense. People should be able to have signage up and to hand out how-to-vote cards outside, just as they do on regular polling day. Hence my amendment, which is to delete the clause.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Parnell, in our view, makes a good degree of sense in relation to both his amendment and the reasons for it. For those reasons, we support it. It would leave it in a completely inconsistent position where the location of a polling booth on the day would allow certain canvassing within 100 metres, but for the nine days prior it would be banned or barred. So, for those reasons we support the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government opposes the amendment and on this occasion the Hon. Mark Parnell has correctly stated our position and the policy decision behind this. The aim of the section in the bill that this seeks to remove is to try to avoid attention being drawn to a pre-poll centre. I think the Hon. Mark Parnell is right, that people, effectively opportunistically, will see the advertising and cast a pre-poll vote. Of course, there are eligibility criteria for people who cast a pre-poll vote and there is a good chance that those who, in the Hon. Mark Parnell's words, 'opportunistically' cast a pre-poll vote may not meet those criteria.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The Australian Conservatives support the amendment.

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

Clause negatived.

Clause 30 passed.

New clause 31.

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

Amendment No 7 [Employment–1]—

Page 11, after line 36—Insert:

31—Amendment of section 130A—Interpretation

(1) Section 130A(1), definition of capped expenditure period—delete '(subject to subsection (9))'

(2) Section 130A(1), definition of designated period—delete '(subject to subsection (10))'

There are a suite of amendments and I will not go into great detail here. I went into some detail during my second reading reply speech about the six different categories of amendments that we are dealing with here. The Hon. Rob Lucas also talked about the amendments and the practical effect these have for those who have to administer these changes.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move the next part of amendment No. 7:

(3) Section 130A(1), definition of political expenditure—delete the definition and substitute:

political expenditure means expenditure incurred—

(a) for the purposes of the public expression of views on a political party, a candidate in an election or a member of the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council by any means; or

(b) for the purposes of the public expression of views on an issue in an election by any means; or

(c) for the purposes of the production of any political material (not being material referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)) that is required under section 112, 115A or 116 to include the name and address of the author of the material or of the person who takes responsibility for the publication or authorisation of the material (as the case requires); or

(d) for the purposes of the carrying out of an opinion poll, or other research, relating to an election or the voting intentions of electors; or

(e) for any other prescribed purpose,

and includes expenditure of a prescribed kind, but does not include—

(f) expenditure that is a GST payment; or

(g) expenditure of an electorate allowance or another allowance, expense or benefit (as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal) under section 4(1)(c) of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990; or

(h) administrative expenditure; or

(i) expenditure of an allowance or benefit of a kind contemplated under section 6A(1) of the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990; or

(j) expenditure of a prescribed kind;

The CHAIR: I will ask Mr Darley to move his amendment to new clause 31(1), (2) and (3).

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Chairman I will be withdrawing my amendments and supporting the government amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the Hon. Mr Darley because that will expedite matters. To restate the position of the Liberal Party, essentially the Hon. Mr Darley and the government were heading in the same broad direction; that is, to try to clarify what is and what is not political expenditure. This is one of the very difficult, complex issues which, after the election, will have to be reconsidered in light of the practicality of the legislation and the experiences over the next nine months.

The Liberal Party's position was to support the government's position, as we have been having some detailed discussions in relation to this. This political expenditure provision, now, is modelled a little bit on the New South Wales legislation, which is much more explicit and detailed than our original attempts. New South Wales endeavoured to give a considerable list of things that would be included in political expenditure and a list of things that were not included in political expenditure. The same structure and modelling is being done here, except there will be legislative changes and then, subsequently, some regulations, which will be tabled in the house and obviously will be capable of being disallowed, but work is still being done in relation to that.

This sets up the framework in terms of the legislative background for what will and will not be political expenditure—a bit more detail, a bit more clarity—and then there will be even more detail and even more clarity when, finally, an agreed set of regulations are proclaimed. Ultimately, members of this chamber will have the capacity, if they wish, to seek to disallow them, but they will be the best endeavours from the government. We have certainly had some input in terms of trying to make sense of what should and should not be clarified as political expenditure. With that background, we indicate our support for the government's amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move the next part of amendment No. 7:

(4) Section 130A—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) For the purposes of this Part, if the disclosure period for a return required to be furnished under this Part by a candidate or group has not commenced, a requirement in this Part that a return be furnished at a prescribed time during a designated period is not to be taken to require the furnishing of a return by the candidate or group at that prescribed time.

(5) Section 130A(5)—delete '(other than Division 3)'

(6) Section 130A(6)—delete 'For' and substitute 'Subject to subsection (6a), for'

(7) Section 130A—after subsection (6) insert:

(6a) Political expenditure on electoral matter in relation to a candidate or group for election that is incurred—

(a) after polling day for the last preceding general election and before the commencement of the capped expenditure period for the election; and

(b) for the primary purpose of publication, use or display of that electoral matter during the capped expenditure period,

will be taken to have been incurred during the capped expenditure period.

(8) Section 130A(9) and (10)—delete subsections (9) and (10)

Amendment carried; new clause inserted.

New clauses 32 to 37.

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

32—Substitution of section 130C

Section 130C—delete the section and substitute:

130C—Application of Part

A registered political party is only required under this Part to disclose donations and amounts received or applied for State electoral purposes.

33—Amendment of section 130L—Gifts to be paid into State campaign account

Section 130L—delete 'the gift is made or received in contravention of this Part or is otherwise a gift that must not be paid into such an account in accordance with this Division' and substitute:

—

(a) the gift is made or received in contravention of this Part; or

(b) in relation to a gift received by or on behalf of a registered political party—the gift is not intended by the registered political party to be used for State electoral purposes; or

(c) the gift is otherwise a gift that must not be paid into such an account in accordance with this Division.

34—Amendment of section 130M—Payments into State campaign account

Section 130M—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) If a registered political party keeps an account with an ADI for federal electoral purposes, the agent of the registered political party must ensure that no amount is paid or transferred from that account into the State campaign account.

35—Amendment of section 130Y—Application of Division

Section 130Y(2)(b)—delete 'the capped expenditure period commences in relation to the candidate or group for the election' and substitute:

—

(i) the capped expenditure period commences in relation to the candidate or group for the election; or

(ii) the disclosure period for a return required to be furnished under this Part by the candidate or group in relation to the election commences,

whichever period commences later

36—Amendment of section 130Z—Expenditure caps

(1) Section 130Z(1)(c)—delete '(or, if different amounts are so allocated to the candidate at different times, the amount so allocated at the end of the capped expenditure period)'

(2) Section 130Z—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) For the purpose of subsection (2)(a), the amount agreed between the candidate and the agent of the party may vary at different times, provided that the candidate and agent may not vary the amount agreed after notice of the agreement has been given to the Electoral Commissioner under subsection (3).

(3) Section 130Z(3)—delete 'within 3 days of the agreement' and substitute:

at least 8 days before polling day for the election

(4) Section 130Z—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) The Electoral Commissioner must not publish an agreement given to the Electoral Commissioner under subsection (3) until after the end of the capped expenditure period for the election to which the agreement relates.

37—Amendment of section 130ZF—Returns by certain candidates and groups

Section 130ZF—after subsection (5) insert:

(5a) Despite section 130ZZ, if no details are required to be included in a return required to be furnished under this section by the agent of a candidate or group of candidates endorsed by a registered political party, the return need not be furnished to the Electoral Commissioner as required by this section.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to clarify, is the minister moving new clause 34? I did not think you were moving new clause 34.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are moving new clause 34. That is the one that deals with the state campaign account and relates to the federal one?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes; it is just that in the briefing I had with the minister's staff I have a big red line drawn through 34 and a note that it would not be moved.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of clarity, and this might help, we will be moving new clause 34. It has been revised, I am advised, from when the honourable member was briefed. So, what appears in 34 now has been updated and changed since that briefing—I presume to reflect things discussed in that briefing. What is being moved here is not the same 34 that the Hon. Mark Parnell would have been briefed on but has since been updated.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Perhaps if I can assist to try to throw some light on it: that is indeed correct. Not that I was involved in the briefing, but there was certainly an earlier version of 130M, which was withdrawn as there were considerable problems in terms of opening up potential loopholes that the Attorney-General and advisers identified.

Essentially this is saying, as the minister outlined in his answer at the second reading, that political parties may well have state campaign accounts, federal campaign accounts and an administrative account to run their operation. As I said in my second reading speech, there may well be people who say, 'Look, I'm not prepared to put money into Jay Weatherill's campaign, but I am prepared to put money into Bill Shorten's campaign. I want my money to be supporting Bill Shorten', or vice versa in terms of the Liberal Party. There are different disclosure arrangements and different disclosure limits. We disclose everything above $5,000 under our new regime. Under the federal regime, the disclosures are a bit over $13,000 or whatever it is. That figure is indexed all the time.

You cannot transfer the money out of your federal campaign account into your state campaign account. If you did allow that, you would clearly have the capacity for people to make donations of $10,000 into the federal campaign account and then have the party organisations transfer those $10,000 donations to the state campaign account to be used on a state campaign and not be disclosable. The intention of the latest draft of section130M which we have before us, in our view, makes a lot of sense. It was there to try to prevent rorting of the system and getting around disclosure arrangements in that particular way.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the committee for its indulgence. I just want to make sure of my reading of this. Suppose a party does not keep separate federal election campaign accounts and state election campaign accounts. Someone donates to a party and says, 'I don't care how you spend it; just spend it wisely.' The donation has not gone into a specific account earmarked for either a state or a federal election. It says that the precondition is that a registered political party has to keep an account with an ADI—a bank—for federal electoral purposes.

A lot of our accounts are for all the purposes for which we conduct our business; you would have bank accounts that are combined, state and federal. I want to make sure that we are not going to be prevented from moving money around from one bank account to another because often we might not decide until late in the piece what proportion of our total resources to spend on a federal or state election campaign. I want to make sure that we are not going to get into trouble for moving money from a general bank account into a campaign-specific account.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I can provide some advice on this question. If I understand the question correctly, a small party is given a donation by a person who says, 'I like party X and I want party X to do well. Here's $30,000 for party X,' and the person giving the donation did not say, 'And I want it to be spent on the next state election,' or the next federal election or to help with the administration of that party. I am advised that it would be up to the party to decide how to use those funds.

If the party chose to put those funds towards their expenditure on a federal election, whether or not it is in a bank account called 'Federal campaign funds', they could not then transfer that money to a state election and have the benefit, as the Hon. Rob Lucas outlined before, of bringing money in through a more permissive federal donation regime and then applying it to a state one. My advice is that it would be up to the party that receives it to decide how they will treat it. If they are treating it as a donation to go towards a federal campaign, they cannot move that into a state one and get the benefit of the higher disclosure limits and other things under the federal regime.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I certainly now fully understand the evil to be overcome, but it seems that the evil to be overcome is a lack of declaration of donations. The method that is used is preventing people moving money around internally between bank accounts. I can possibly see a problem there. To answer my own question, my guess would be that, if all the donations had been properly recorded at the highest standard of disclosure, which is the state level, I imagine it would be unlikely for someone to be prosecuted because they had simply moved it from one to the other. That would be my guess, but it does give me some nervousness.

I know the minister is not really in a position to solve it now, but I want to make sure that if we have a general party bank account and a donation goes into it and some time later we decide that we are going to use that money on a state campaign, we are not going to be prevented from transferring it across, provided it is fully disclosed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question, though I am concerned about this war chest that the Greens have coming to them that they are so concerned about where money is going. The way it has been explained to me is that, if donations are received and you are not entirely certain at the time of receipt about exactly how you are going to apply those donations, whether for a state campaign, for the administration of your party or for a federal campaign, the prudent course of action would be to put it in your state account and have the highest level of scrutiny in relation to those donations. From there, that money could be used for your state campaign. It could also be used for the administration of your party and could then be used for federal campaigning as well, having effectively gone in under the highest scrutiny.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Can I just further pursue that point with the minister. This is an important issue, probably especially for the smaller parties. Perhaps I will paint a scenario and the minister may care to comment on that. I think the difficulty will come when donations are made throughout the electoral cycle; that is, not immediately before an election. Let us say that, 18 months before an election, someone donates $8,000. I am choosing this figure deliberately because it exceeds the level at which state disclosure must be made, being $5,000, yet it is under the federal disclosure limit of $13,200. It is in a grey area, in a sense, if it is donated to the federal account.

If somebody makes a donation from New South Wales, for example, through the Australian Conservatives' website, our default position is that it goes to the federal account. Of course, a lot of those donations happen over a period of time and build up to a not insignificant amount of money. A number of those donations have come in at the $8,000, $6,000 or $9,000 level. If the federal party, whether it be the Greens, the Australian Conservatives, the Dignity Party or whoever it may be, then decides to move a large amount of money—something in the order of $500,000 or $200,000—from the federal account to the state account of that party for the specific purpose of funding the election campaign, what are the implications, as the minister understands it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think this answers it but, if not, an explanation may need to be teased out a bit further. If money was given to a state branch of a party—the state Australian Conservatives, state Liberal, Labor or the Greens—for the purposes of a federal campaign and it comes in through those higher threshold donations, then it cannot be transferred to the state account. However, that does not preclude the federal part of a party from providing funds to the state party for state campaigning.

So, the federal branch of the Liberal Party would still be at liberty to supply funds to the state branch of the Liberal Party should they be minded to, but in my experience of how parties work, that does not happen very often at all. If someone has donated to the federal party of the Australian Conservatives, the federal branch of the Australian Conservatives would still be at liberty to transfer money to the state branch of the Australian Conservatives for the purposes of the state campaign.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Or an interstate branch of the Australian Conservatives.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Or from an interstate branch of the Australian Conservatives. I do not know how the Australian Conservatives operate but I have never seen an interstate branch of the Labor Party provide large sums of funding for a different state's campaign.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for his answer, and that is the reason I am pursuing this because our party does operate differently. I do not know how the Greens or some of the other smaller parties operate, but in the case of our party there is one central place where donations are received from right around the country and it is then disbursed following that. Obviously, we are a brand-new party, so we are working through these issues, but that is certainly the intention. Can I absolutely clarify that, just to be clear. The minister is saying—correct me if I am wrong—that if a person in Western Australia or New South Wales decides to donate $8,000 to the Australian Conservatives website—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Federally?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We only have one, so it is federally—it is a federal bank account. So, they donate to the Australian Conservatives' federal bank account, or the Greens, or whoever may be—and multiple donations happen all the time, literally every day there will be $500 donated here, $10,000 there and so on, and it adds up to a substantial amount of money—it is then at the federal party's discretion. There is nothing wrong with them then transferring, let us say, $400,000 to the South Australian branch of the party and putting it in their bank account so they can then fund the election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question and for seeking clarity on this. My advice is that what you have described is exactly what could happen. If those donations came in through the federal branch of a party, it is up to that federal branch to decide how to spend those funds. That federal branch of the party would still be required to meet federal disclosure laws, but they would be at liberty to apply them as they saw fit, including to a South Australian campaign.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is clearly a matter of great concern so that is why we are tying it down to the nth degree. If a party decided to make their state campaign account their default account—in other words, everything went into it—then they could certainly spend any of it on the state election, but they could also, if they wanted to, later on, as I think you have already said, transfer it for general administrative purposes. So, there is no restriction on taking money out of it and doing whatever you want with it. The only restriction is on putting extra money into it. Have I got that right? If you had a default account and you called it the state campaign account and you also used it to fund your federal election, there is no prohibition on that; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is correct. If there was one single account and you called it the 'Greens General Account' or the 'SA Greens State Account'—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: The 'Greens State Campaign Account'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —State Campaign Account, donations would be able to go into that account and the state regime would apply to disclosure of that account. Money from that account could be expended on a state campaign, it could be expended on general administration purposes, or it could be transferred or expended on federal campaign purposes, but the other way is not true. If money was given to the SA Greens for a federal campaign, under federal disclosure laws that money could not be transferred and applied for state election campaign purposes.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is the last question from me and it is partly related to the section, although it deals with another section as well. Extrapolating on from that, in the case where a political party was not seeking to qualify for special assistance funding (which I understand requires a separate bank account) then, according to my understanding, and this is where it relates to this section, that party really only requires one bank account.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is that at a federal level?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: At the state level. They would still qualify for public funding.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: On votes received at the—

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Correct, and they need to record the expenditure out of that account, but it only has to be that one account because the second account is only required where the party seeks special assistance funding.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, that is correct.

New clauses inserted.

New schedule 1.

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

Amendment No 8 [Employment–1]—

Page 11, after line 36—Insert:

Schedule 1—Related amendment and transitional provision

Part 1—Amendment of Local Government Act 1999

1—Amendment of section 226—Moveable signs

Section 226(3)(c)—delete 'on the issue of' and substitute:

at 5pm on the day before the day of the issue of

Part 2—Transitional provision

2—Political expenditure on electoral matter

Section 130A(6a) of the Electoral Act 1985 (as inserted by this Act) applies to political expenditure on electoral matter incurred on or after 1 May 2017 (but does not apply to political expenditure on electoral matter incurred before that date).

This relates to transitional provisions that allow political parties and others to start campaigning from 5pm on the day before the issue of the writs and inserts a transitional provision so that the changes to when political expenditure is incurred in the capital expenditure period only apply to political expenditure on elections incurred from 1 May 2017 and not all political expenditure since the 2014 state election.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We support this. We are all aware of the circumstances that go on the day before the issuing of the writs in terms of people clambering up—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure if that is the case—but people clambering up poles in the middle of the night or whatever it is, or even the day earlier. I suspect this will probably still be the case and if this is 5pm then people will be wanting to start before 5pm, I suspect. The only thing I will point out—and I have no problem with it; I am supporting the amendment and I have indicated that to the government—the actual provision in the Local Government Act does relate to the sign as related to a state or commonwealth election and is displayed during the period commencing on the issue of the writ.

We have the wonderful joy of actually knowing when the writs are going to be issued and the day of the election because everything is fixed for a state election. In the federal election circumstance, of course, there is no fixed election date and, therefore, there is no fixed date for the issue of the writ. We are, in essence, saying here, I suppose, that the government of the day may well know when the writ is going to be issued and people might start clambering up the phone poles at 5pm the day before but I guess, given there is a Liberal government, if we see Christopher Pyne climbing up a pole at 5pm the day before we would probably know that the writs are going to be issued the next day—if he is aware of this particular provision once it goes through.

We support the amendment but I just thought I had better highlight the issue that there is a bit of a complicating factor for the feds in terms of theirs but it is what it is and we think the amendment makes sense and we are prepared to support it.

New schedule inserted.

Title.

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

Amendment No 9 [Employment–1]—

Page 1—After 'Electoral Act 1985' insert:

and to make a related amendment to the Local Government Act 1999

This amendment to amend the long title is to have regard to amendment 8 which introduces the change to the Local Government Act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: With the indulgence of you, sir, and the committee I support this particular amendment, but in doing so I just wanted to make some retrospective comments in relation to the last amendment. The last amendment canvassed two separate issues, one of which I discussed, which was the issue about the 5pm. There was also an issue in relation to a cut-off date for political expenditure on electoral matters, which is that:

Section 130A(6a) of the Electoral Act 1985 (as inserted by this Act) applies to political expenditure on electoral matter incurred on or after 1 May 2017 (but does not apply to political expenditure on electoral matter incurred before that date).

That has been passed by the committee. We were supporting that particular amendment. It was a subject of some discussion and debate with the government and with the Attorney-General. The intention was to try to clarify some difficult issues as to what was in and out of political expenditure, such as vexed issues about moneys that were spent two or three years ago or something, on corflutes and things like that that might still be re-used.

I raised some of these issues in terms of the second reading contribution. It is possibly an imperfect solution, but it is certainly one that we ended up supporting. I know it has passed the committee, but I just thought I had better place on the public record that while it has passed the committee, it does canvass some important issues, and we did support the amendment.

Amendment 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) (16:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:06): I rise to speak briefly to the third reading. I would like to thank the government advisers for preparing these very useful documents, which I presume were circulated to other crossbench members and probably even the opposition members. Members know the ones I am referring to. They were extremely useful. I cannot speak for my crossbench colleagues, but I think they probably agree with me.

I would suggest to the government that that is a very good way. It saved me roughly a day's work going through the amendments, making notes, etc., of who is supporting what and who is not. If that was a model going forward, it would be very helpful, and the government would find that the crossbench would be most pleased with that, if I can leave it there.

The PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that this should be used as a benchmark for future amendments?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Hear, hear!

Bill read a third time and passed.