Fair Trading (Gift Cards) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 July 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:09): I rise to indicate the opposition's support for the Fair Trading (Gift Cards) Amendment Bill 2018. The bill amends the Fair Trading Act 1987 to require that gift cards sold in South Australia must have a minimum expiry date of three years. I understand that New South Wales has already introduced a similar scheme, and that we have been moving towards a national scheme to deal with these issues for some time.

I know the former attorney-general described the introduction of state legislation when we are moving towards a national scheme as 'a bit of a Swiss cheese legislative solution', but that is not to say we should not be proceeding with this bill. It affords consumers with important protections; however, I would be interested to know whether the current Attorney-General intends to come back to the parliament with a further bill if and when national legislation is passed and national regulations are finalised.

Perhaps that is something the Treasurer in this place, representing the Attorney-General, might like to expand upon in his second reading speech or during the committee stage. In particular we are seeking to clarify: what are the differences between the South Australian legislation and what is being proposed federally; are there any inconsistencies or issues, or different penalties in place; how does the government intend to deal with the federal bill once it is enacted; and, how would the federal bill interplay with the state bill?

The Labor opposition has filed amendments inserting a review clause that I would encourage the government to consider supporting, particularly given the possibility of federal legislation. We think it is even more appropriate to insert the review clause in order to make sure that is considered if there is a federal solution to this issue.

My colleague in the other place the Hon. Stephen Mullighan (member for Lee) raised additional matters in relation to this bill; namely, whether the bill before us covers gift cards purchased online from international companies which do not have a presence in South Australia, and secondly, whether the bill is limited to covering gift cards with a monetary value that can be exchanged generally for goods and services from that particular retailer and does not cover a gift card for specified goods or services.

The Attorney-General in the other place almost answered these questions, but I gather the Attorney-General thought the question was in relation to whether international companies were explicitly excluded from the bill. That was not the question: it was in relation to whether these companies have a presence in South Australia. In advice provided by the Attorney-General's Department, we were told the bill did not cover international companies where those companies did not have a presence in South Australia. I would be grateful if the Treasurer could confirm whether that is the case.

The Attorney-General, in her second reading speech, responded, 'I am advised it does not matter where the seller or the business selling is located.' I think there is some confusion between what we were told at the briefing and what was read into Hansard in the other place. As such, I would be grateful if the Treasurer could confirm which of those is in fact the case.

With regard to the question of whether the bill is limited to covering gift cards with a monetary value that can be exchanged generally for goods and services from a particular retailer as distinct from a gift card for a specified good or service, I would be grateful for an answer to that which goes beyond saying there would be further consultation and something might appear in the regulations. I think it is a reasonable question that needs to be contemplated within the legislation.

With those words, I indicate Labor's general support for this bill, and indicate that we will be proceeding with the amendment for a review clause, which we think is particularly important given the possibility of federal legislation covering this matter. We would be grateful for clarification on the two points that have been raised.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:13): This bill will introduce a three-year expiry date on gift cards which are purchased in this state. The government has undertaken further consultation to iron out problems posted by vouchers and items such as those available in the Entertainment Book. It does not apply to reloadable credit cards or items like iTunes cards.

Since New South Wales introduced similar legislation, some national companies have taken the step to get rid of expiry dates altogether for their gift cards. The intention behind this legislation is to help consumers by giving them longer to spend the value of the gift card, reducing the likelihood of people having to make an impulse buy for items they do not really want or need just because the expiry date is looming.

Although this is a seemingly good move for consumers, research from the US suggests that whilst consumers are nearly all supportive of extended expiry dates, consumers are less likely to spend the value of a gift card if they are given a three-year rather than a one-year expiry date. These studies which looked at the procrastination of pleasurable tasks found that participants were less likely to complete an enjoyable task if there was an extended time limit, rather than a shorter one.

In one of these studies, participants were given a voucher for a pastry and a coffee. One group's voucher had an expiry date of three weeks and the other had a two-month expiry date. The results showed that there was a redemption rate of 31 per cent for those who had a three-week expiry and only a 6 per cent redemption rate for those with a two-month expiry date. People seemed to delay the redemption of the voucher because they wanted to save it for a time when they wanted a treat, rather than frittering it away. The study demonstrated that, whilst people are supportive of longer expiry dates, behaviourally it reduces the likelihood that gift cards would be redeemed.

The move to extend expiry dates is especially good for retailers, as people are more attracted to purchasing gift cards with longer expiry dates; however, people are less likely to redeem them. If a retailer becomes bankrupt, gift cards are not honoured. Research conducted in the US also shows that those who receive gift cards treat them differently to the same amount of cash. Rather than purchasing items with the same value as the gift card, most recipients ended up spending double the amount compared with the same amount of cash. People deem the money to be a bonus and put it towards a bigger ticket item, which they may not necessarily have purchased if they had not needed to redeem the gift card. Again, this is a boon for retailers as people end up spending more.

I understand the opposition has filed amendments which will cause a review of this clause. Given the above, I am very supportive of this amendment and look forward to seeing whether the move to extend gift card expiry dates will result in the desired outcome of reducing wastage. I support the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:17): I thank honourable members for their contributions on the bill. In March of this year, the Marshall Liberal government took two key consumer reform policies to the election that will modernise our fair trading laws. They related to new provisions that will crackdown on the predatory practices of ticket scalping. The government is also committed to affording the same consumer protections available in other parts of Australia to South Australians.

This bill legislates for a minimum three-year expiry date for gift cards. By doing this, we are protecting consumers from unjustifiable and unfair expiry dates, and balancing this appropriately with the needs of business. It was a key election commitment and the government is keen to see this, if the parliament so chooses, pass the parliament expeditiously so that it can commence before the Christmas season when clearly the preponderance of gift cards, and whatever protections might be able to be afforded to them, would have great potential impact.

I pay tribute to the Attorney-General for her carriage of the legislation, but also to my other colleague Corey Wingard, the member for Gibson, who in opposition took up this particular issue passionately on a number of occasions and was actively engaged in the policy debate within our party in the period leading up to the election. With that, I thank members for their indications of support for the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will ask the honourable member to outline some of the other questions that he put to the government during the second reading. One question I have outlined to the government's advisers is whether or not the legislation applies to foreign companies that do not have a presence in South Australia. I am told that the legislation does apply, but the issue is, obviously, problematic as to how one would actually prosecute somebody who is in America and does not have a presence in South Australia. That would obviously be a challenge, but the drafting of the legislation, I am advised, does cover the circumstances the honourable member has referred to, that is, a foreign company that has no presence in South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his clarification on that point. The other point I raised in the second reading speech was whether it is intended to cover gift cards that are for a monetary value—a $100 Bunnings card, for example—or whether it is intended to cover gift cards that are for a specific gift, an actual gift or a service.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Or both.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Or both.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's adviser has just given a very good example. It is intended to cover both. It is for a monetary value, but someone may have purchased, for example, a gift voucher for a spa treatment for someone near and dear to them. The specific service might be a type of spa or massage, or whatever it might be, and you have incurred the cost of that without your nearest and dearest being aware of what the cost is, but it is nevertheless a description of the service that is provided. My advice is that it is intended to cover both.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his clarification. Generally, what consultation occurred with different interest groups in relation to the bill, and who were those interest groups?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the government undertook both targeted and general public consultation. The targeted consultation was with a small number of groups, such as the Australian Retailers Association and the Shopping Centre Council of Australia. The general or public consultation was on the YourSAy website, which the leader would be familiar with. In terms of public consultation, I am advised it is fair to say there was not a huge number of responses from the public in relation to it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the targeted consultation, were formal submissions received from those that targeted consultation occurred with? Is it possible to table the responses to that formal consultation?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We do not have copies of those submissions here. We would need to seek the permission of the Australian Retailers Association and the Shopping Centre Council of Australia in relation to their submission as to whether they had any concerns about them being made available. The simple answer is that no, I cannot table them here today because I do not actually have copies of them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is it possible to reveal a general overview of the position of the submissions that were made without tabling the specifics?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the general nature of the responses was that the associations recognised that the South Australian government was following what had already occurred in New South Wales. I do not want the member to think that I am quoting them because I have not seen the submission, but I am characterising them as being the direction that governments were heading.

I suppose if they had their way they probably would not have supported the New South Wales legislation. I do not know that; I am just supposing that. However, that is what occurred in New South Wales and the South Australian government was doing it and so the nature of their consultation or discussion, I am advised, with the government was these were some of the issues that the New South Wales changes had raised and that was of some assistance in terms of the government's drafting of the regulations that are proposed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member. Have regulations been drafted and/or settled in relation to this scheme?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am told that they are still being drafted, so nothing has been settled yet but, clearly, as the government has outlined, the intent is to have these new reforms operational for this Christmas. Given we are at 16 October, that does not leave too much longer, so one would imagine that the Attorney-General and her department will bring those for inclusion in the next few weeks so that they can be promulgated and then circulated and people will be aware of them prior to the gift-buying season before Christmas.

I am advised that the drafting of the regulations is pretty consistent with the regulations that exist in New South Wales, with some differences, and also those that are drafted in the South Australian regulations—which comes back to one of the honourable member's questions in his second reading—have been drafted to be, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the current drafting of the commonwealth regulations, so there has evidently been discussion and consultation.

The drafting of the regulations in South Australia is highly likely, I am told, to occur before the national regulations are concluded. Sensibly, I am advised, the state regulations are being drafted to be as consistent as possible with the current thinking in terms of the national regulations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member. That was my final line of questioning in relation to clause 1. Is the government aware of the timetable for the federal scheme, and how does that scheme take shape? What federal piece of legislation will that scheme be under?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am told that the legislation amends the Australian Consumer Law, and it was introduced to the federal parliament on 20 September. I am advised that the honourable member and his advisers would be able to have a look at the amendments to the Australian Consumer Law.

In terms of the timing, our honest answer is that we do not know exactly. They are hoping to do them as soon as possible, but they are not intended to operate for this Christmas. This is our best understanding. They anticipate that they will operate for next Christmas as opposed to this Christmas. It will be sometime next year, obviously, but not in time for this Christmas.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Given the advice that, in particular in terms of the regulations, the South Australian government is working closely with its federal counterparts to make sure that the schemes are as consistent as possible, are there any areas so far in the legislation before us today that we recognise may be different from the federal scheme?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that, at this stage, the commonwealth is still consulting, but the three areas that they are looking at possibly exempting from the scheme are gift cards supplied through a second-hand market, gift cards supplied to certain charities and government agencies and gift cards donated for promotional purposes. However, the commonwealth is still consulting on that, so there is no concluded position. It is up for consultation and discussion and is being contemplated. My advice is that, if the national regulations were to exclude those types of gift cards, the proposal is that we would then amend our regulations to be consistent with the commonwealth regulations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A final question: is there any difference contemplated between the state and federal schemes in penalties for breaches of the schemes?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that we are not clear on the commonwealth's propositions in relation to penalties in terms of the size of the penalties. My advice is that the proposed penalties under the South Australian scheme are pretty consistent with the New South Wales scheme and pretty consistent with the fair trading legislation here in South Australia.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I did not make a second reading contribution so will just put on the record that the Greens are very supportive of this bill and especially supportive of getting it in place in the lead-up to Christmas. I am sure I am not Robinson Crusoe in having discovered in a drawer a musty old gift voucher from perhaps only two years ago that we neglected to cash in for books or whatever it was for, so I think this is a measure that is going to be well received in the community.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Are you going to move a retrospective amendment?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am not going to personally seek legislation to activate old gift cards that I might have found in my top drawer, but I think that the general community will be appreciative of having these cards last longer. In the same line of questioning as the Hon. Kyam Maher, I will just check, if I can, a couple of situations to make sure they are not going to be caught by the legislation. The first one is that the bill refers to the sale of gift cards:

A person must not sell to a consumer…a gift card…

I just want to make it clear in relation to the voucher that is provided as part of a fundraising event. All of us have been to quiz nights and have had silent auctions and charitable events where some member of the committee has lent on a local business—'Can we have a couple of nights in your bed and breakfast?' or 'Can we have a massage?' or whatever—and they usually are time limited. Can I just make it clear that because they were not sold to anyone and were donated, it is not the government's intention that those cards be caught by this regime?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is one of those issues that is evidently caught up in what the federal government is talking about in terms of whatever it was, gift cards donated for charitable purposes, although in terms of the sort of circumstances the member is talking about, it may well just be a charitable purpose, depending on how you define political parties.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Very charitable.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Very charitable. But I am advised that this need not be impacted by the legislation. This will be an issue that will ultimately have to be resolved by regulation. My answer on advice to the earlier question was that if the commonwealth government on consultation and advice decides that the sort of circumstances the honourable member is talking about is not what they are talking about and they do amend or change their regulations not to include those specifically, it is our intention to amend our regulations here. But it is arguable at the moment that the sort of circumstances the member is talking about might be caught, might not be caught—it is arguable—and that will be resolved one way or another, we suspect, through the consultation that is being done at the national level.

In the interests of getting our scheme up before this Christmas we are proposing to proceed as we are without understanding. I cannot speak for the Attorney-General here, but I would be very surprised if she did not share a similar view to the honourable member and myself in relation to my not thinking that is what is intended, but I will pass the honourable member's questions on, or the adviser will, to the Attorney, and it will be the subject of discussions. But as I said, it does not impact on the legislation you are being asked to pass today. It will impact on whether or not you might want to move to disallow the regulations at some stage if they are not of a form you are comfortable with in relation to what is covered and what is not covered.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Another question—it is slightly different and I will accept the same answer if it is the same answer—but there is one type of card that many of us here have actually purchased and it is an annual thing, and that is the Entertainment Book. You see lots of schools and different charities sell Entertainment Books. The regime there is that it is effectively a book of vouchers. Some of it is two desserts for the price of one, or you pay for the more expensive main course and you get the second one cheaper.

I will confess that I have bought one of these books most years. I have used it on Kangaroo Island ferries. You get your money back if you use it on that because that is so expensive. I note the Hon. Dennis Hood nodding in agreement: he uses the Entertainment Book. I make the point that it only costs $70 and it only lasts for a year. The Entertainment Books say in their online blurb that you get $20,000 worth of benefits, but I think that is if you go to every single cafe, use every dry-cleaning voucher and every other service that is in there. The question is: is it going to be made clear that those are not covered by this legislation, that they are, in fact, annual vouchers and that they will expire at the end of the year?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised we have a clear answer on that. This has been considered. They will not be considered to be covered by the legislation. They are not covered in the government's view in the definition of a gift card: they are of the nature of discount voucher or whatever it might happen to be, as the member has described. Our advice is clear that that is not covered, whereas with the earlier one it is arguable in relation to it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you have an amendment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have an amendment, and I have questions at clause 4.

The CHAIR: We can go with questions and then you can move your amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you for your wise guidance. In relation to clause 4—I think that is the clause that has penalties in there—how were the level of penalties arrived at?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They are based on the New South Wales regime and also they are very consistent with fair trading legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to seek clarity, I think it is an area we touched upon earlier in terms of the potential federal regime: is it not the case that the federal regime is contemplating $30,000 in terms of a penalty? I thought that was somewhere there. If there was some clarity—if the government does not know, that would be good to place on record that there is not even a suggestion that it is $30,000, because I thought, from memory, that was something that was being contemplated under the federal regime.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot rule out whether it was $30,000 or $20,000. My advice, which I indicated in clause 1, is that we do not know what the commonwealth penalties regime is likely to be, so I cannot rule out the $30,000 number, but we are just not aware of what it is. This is my adviser here, and someone else might be involved in discussions. As I said, my advice is that it is consistent with the New South Wales regime and the fair trading regime here.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, this clause talks about what may be excluded under regulation. Except for what has been talked about already in answer to the Hon. Mark Parnell's question at clause 1, are there any current gift card classes that are under consideration to be excluded by regulation rather than by operation of the act?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes. For example, if there was a gift voucher to an art exhibition that only went on for a month, clearly it makes no sense. Those types of exemption where it is time limited—the actual event or the service or the gift itself could only occur within a certain period of time—there is not much point in having a three-year, or however long it might be, provision that applies.

Just in relation to the earlier one, we have had some advice that the commonwealth legislation does include a $30,000 penalty, as the member has indicated. It is still subject to consultation and has not been passed yet, but that is obviously their initial thinking and that is what is in their legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What does this bill propose for the penalty for a body corporate or a natural person?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The proposed legislation has a penalty of $5,000 as opposed to $30,000.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Both body corporate and—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the legislation does not specify; it just says 'a person'. My advice is 'a person' includes a body corporate. We will take advice on that, but the definition here just says, 'A person must not sell to a consumer', and the maximum penalty there is $5,000. It is however you interpret legally 'a person', I guess.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it did pass, as is currently being suggested, that the maximum penalty for a body corporate federally was going to be $30,000, whereas it is only $5,000 in the state laws, is that something that the government would intend to revisit to harmonise?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The answer is that clearly the government would need to give further consideration to that. As I said, the government's proposition is to try to pass this gift cards legislation prior to this particular Christmas. Ultimately, the commonwealth may go down the path of the $30,000 penalty. The $5,000 that we are proposing is consistent with what exists in New South Wales and is consistent, so I am advised, with other provisions in the fair trading legislation. That is the reason why that number has been settled on.

If ultimately the national legislation settles on $30,000 and that is what is passed after consultation, then I am sure the Attorney will reconsider that. If ultimately that is the position that is adopted nationally and other states indicate a willingness to go down that path, it would make sense to be consistent with the national legislation. What it might then do is obviously be inconsistent with some of the other penalty provisions within the fair trading legislation.

The Attorney and the government might then need to review those penalties as well because if a penalty for this was $30,000—and I am not an expert in fair trading law—and for something else that might be seen to be equally serious it was $5,000, there might be inequities within that piece of legislation.

At this stage, we are broadly consistent with the other penalty provisions of the Fair Trading Act here and the New South Wales scheme. If ultimately we are inconsistent with the commonwealth, we will need to have further consultation, and I am sure the government would further reflect on that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the government explain how it is decided, once the federal scheme comes into force and there are companies that have breached their obligations, whether it is prosecuted under state or federal laws? Does one trump the other? How is that decided?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Consumer and Business Services (CBS), I am told, is an Australian consumer law regulator, so it has the powers and authority to enforce provisions. So I am advised, if there are inconsistencies, CBS could enforce under either law if it wanted to. It is actually the regulator, so it could choose to prosecute under the state law or it could choose to prosecute under the federal law, so it would have a smorgasbord.

Clearly, it is further argument as to why national consistency would make some sense but, for the reasons I gave earlier, if you are going to amend the penalties here in relation to this part of the Fair Trading Act, you might want to then have a look at the equity of the other penalty provisions within the fair trading legislation, and at this stage the federal legislation has not been passed—it is still out for consultation.

The consultation may well come back and say, 'Hey, fair suck of the sauce bottle', to use a colloquial expression, 'it's $5,000 in New South Wales; the South Australian government has proposed $5,000—you could be consistent with the two states that have actually done something and make this $5,000.' So consistency does not have to be in and of itself just what is in the current draft federal legislation; it might be consistency with the two states that have actually done something, which is New South Wales and South Australia. It is a sensible question, incapable of resolution by us this afternoon in this chamber. It is an issue that will need to be further consulted upon and discussed between the states and the commonwealth.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just further on that, if a federal scheme was to come into force and CBS was the body that enforced both of those schemes and, as I think the minister described, it was a smorgasbord and they could choose from either, is it possible then, if a federal scheme came in with a different penalty, that with two different sellers of gift cards one could be prosecuted under the state scheme and face whatever penalties were there and on almost the same set of facts and circumstances a different seller of gift cards could be prosecuted under the federal scheme, if it is the case that CBS could pick and choose at any given time which one they would prosecute from?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the best we can put on the record this afternoon is that there is a compliance and enforcement policy of CBS, and its compliance and enforcement policy would need to be consistent with that. Clearly, it would not make much sense to have inconsistent application of prosecutions for offences for analogous or similar offences. We are just not in a position to give you advice on that at the moment.

One would imagine that good sense would mean that, for similar circumstances, the compliance policy of CBS would be to apply similar penalties and similar enforcement policies. Again, probably it is just another argument, as I said earlier, for the greatest degree of consistency between the national law and the state law, and I think we are all in furious agreement in relation to that.

At this stage, the options open to this state parliament are that the national one is intended to operate for next Christmas; the state government wants to get this protection in to operate for this Christmas, and that is why we are hopeful of getting the support of the Legislative Council and the state parliament to get the legislation through so that it can operate for gift cards for this Christmas.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do not want to overegg this pudding. I am not at all familiar with the commonwealth process they are going through, but my guess would be that they are relying on their corporations power. My question is: if the issuer of the gift card was a sole trader, not a corporation, is it possible that the South Australian act would have coverage beyond the federal act, or is there some aspect of federal consumer protection law that I am not aware of that would extend commonwealth laws to a sole trader in South Australia?

It strikes me that, regardless of whether or not we can get the penalties the same, it would be a shame for someone to fall through the cracks. The Hon. Kyam Maher is talking about a smorgasbord and two different laws under which you could choose to prosecute, I would imagine that there are a small range of gift card issuers who might not be covered by commonwealth law at all and might only be covered by this state law, unless I have missed something in relation to the proposed commonwealth regime, which in any event is hypothetical because we have not got it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am afraid I cannot give a substantive response to the honourable member's question this afternoon. You are certainly getting way beyond my brief. My adviser has indicated that the point the honourable member has raised is arguable, but we would have to take it away and seek further advice to see whether the issues the honourable member has raised are issues of significance. We are happy to take that on notice and take advice, and have the Attorney-General correspond with the honourable member upon reflection, in relation to the issue the member has raised.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have questions in relation to regulations. I think I previously asked about what classes of gift cards were being considered for exclusion under the regulations. I am also interested in two other areas: what class of person or persons are being considered to be excluded by regulation, and what circumstance or circumstances are being considered to be excluded by regulation?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that at this stage there is no specific class of persons contemplated to be excluded. As to the circumstances, I can only broadly return to the earlier example I gave the member in relation to a time-limited function; for example, the Art Gallery exhibition. In relation to persons, no group is currently being contemplated for exclusion.

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

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 3, after line 30—Insert:

45E—Review of Part

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Part to be conducted not before 18 months, and not later than 2 years, following the commencement of this Part.

(2) The review must be completed, and a report on the results of the review provided to the Minister, within 3 years following the commencement of this Part.

(3) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after receipt of the report, cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.

This is an amendment to clause No. 4 to insert a requirement for a review of this operational scheme. I think that is particularly sensible in this case as we have traversed the possibility of a federal scheme coming into effect that substantially covers the same matters. I think it makes very good sense that a review be required of the gift card scheme we are introducing, given there is a federal scheme coming into operation. I think it would be a good idea to see, if nothing else, how those two schemes have interacted should a federal scheme come into force by next Christmas, as is being contemplated.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised the government is prepared to support the amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the amendment, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I think we will be in furious agreement. The only observation I would make around it is that, with any bill that prohibits certain behaviour, it is often hard to see what the review would consist of. I guess it would include the number of people who infringed. If no-one infringes, or if no-one is caught, then apart from reflecting on the fact that there are two regimes—as the honourable member has said, that would be worthy of reporting.

I have not really pursued this line of questioning, but my expectation would be that a review might also include how much money or resources the government puts in to promoting these new laws. Given the thousands of business enterprises that are now in the gift card business, if you are creating a criminal penalty then it is only fair they are told the new requirement is a three-year card and not a one-year card. This is going to cost some money, so I assume the review would also include a summary of the efforts made by the state to inform traders of their new responsibilities under the act.

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

The CHAIR: For the benefit of honourable members, it is not a new clause 4 but an addition to clause 4.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (18:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.