Fair Trading (Ticket Scalping) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:34): I rise to speak on behalf of SA-Best in support of the Fair Trading (Ticket Scalping) Amendment Bill 2018. The bill repeals section 9 of the Major Events Act 2013 and makes amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1987 to increase consumer protection in relation to ticket scalping in South Australia.

The Fair Trading Act is administered by Consumer and Business Services, which will oversee compliance of the new provisions. For that purpose, we have been advised that funding for an additional compliance officer was approved, and Consumer and Business Services will absorb the enforcement functions within its existing Compliance and Enforcement branch.

Further, we have also been advised that existing resources will be utilised, and compliance officers will be allocated to compliance and endorsement activities around ticket scalping as required—for example, when there is a major sporting or entertainment event taking place—and in response to any complaints received.

I pause at this point to extend my thanks to the Attorney-General and her staff for the communication and consultation they have provided to myself and to my staff on this bill. It was during this consultation that I sought a review of the pending legislation to ensure that it achieves its stated aims and that, in particular, enforcement of the provisions in the bill are actually working on the ground and in practice. The Attorney-General has agreed to a review, and it forms part of the further government amendments to the bill to be moved by the Treasurer today.

Ticket scalping is the unauthorised onselling of tickets to sporting or entertainment events, usually at a price much higher than the tickets' original face value. The scalper purchases tickets with the deliberate intention of making a profit through the sale of tickets with inflated prices. Ticket scalping can be traced back to the days when individuals touted tickets outside various venues or at the local hotel or club. With advances in technology, ticket scalping has now entered the online space. It is now a very different platform and more sophisticated type of operation.

The increasing online sale of tickets has made it difficult to contain the activities of scalpers, which are now more visible. It is further complicated by those with a genuine reason for reselling their tickets, as well as rent-seekers chasing a profit by using the internet to resell their tickets. The effect of ticket scalping is that it short-changes genuine ticket purchasers who just want to see their favourite team, artist or show. It distorts the market and ruins the concert experience for fans.

Scalpers can behave like vultures, and young people in particular can miss out. It is an unfair, ruthless and deceitful practice that must be stamped out. It is clear that the existing legislation has not worked for a very long time, particularly with the inability to effectively enforce the current provisions. Further, existing provisions under the Major Events Act do not address advances in technology that enable the use of ticket bots.

The issue of ticket bots, which enable software applications to purchase tickets en masse in seconds, is something that we and Nick Xenophon have long campaigned for at a state and federal level. In fact, Nick Xenophon previously tried to introduce similar legislation in this place some years ago, but it was defeated in the Legislative Council. In more recent years, as a senator, he led the charge in attempting to prohibit ticket brokers from using bots to beat ticket website software and automatically buy tickets to top concerts whist also snapping up the best seats available, only to onsell them at ridiculously exorbitant and inflated prices.

In 2014, Live Performance Australia—the lobby group for ticketing companies, music promoters and venue operators—urged the federal parliament to ban bots. Unfortunately, both the government and the parliamentary inquiry committee investigating scalping rejected those calls. As other members in this place have pointed out, the use of bots has been a huge problem for the industry and consumers alike. On that front, I am particularly keen to understand how the government proposes to deal with jurisdictional issues involving overseas buyers.

The bill is most welcome to address risks posed by unscrupulous players in the ticket resale market and increase the consumer protection afforded to genuine purchasers of tickets to events so that South Australians can purchase tickets in good faith and enjoy the many wonderful events held in South Australia each year. It will do so by:

as we know, broadening the scope of the legislation so that ticket scalping provisions apply to any sporting or entertainment event in South Australia that is subject to a resale restriction, removing the requirement to declare a major event;

prohibiting the advertising or hosting of an advertisement for the resale of tickets to an event in South Australia to which the provisions apply for an amount that exceeds 110 per cent of the original cost of the ticket;

requiring that any resale advertisement must include certain information, including the original supply cost of the ticket and details of the location from which the ticket holder is authorised to view the event, including, for example, a bay number, row number or seat number for the ticket;

restricting a person from selling tickets to an event in South Australia to which the provisions apply for an amount that exceeds 110 per cent of the original cost of the ticket;

prohibiting the use of software that enables or assists a person to circumvent the security measures of a website in order to purchase tickets for an event in contravention of the terms of conditions; and

enabling the minister to require an event organiser to publicly disclose certain information about a particular event, including the total number of tickets available for sale to the general public.

It is envisaged that these provisions will protect consumers from unscrupulous scalpers looking to make a fast and lucrative buck. It is a cottage industry of people who seek to rip off genuine sport and music fans. All that said, our team has also long advocated for a cap on the number of tickets that can be sold to one person or one group. Despite other measures that the government says will overcome the need for such a cap, this is something we would like to have seen in the bill.

I am somewhat disappointed that the government has chosen not to follow through with those provisions. I accept that the government and the opposition have agreed not to back such a measure, and I certainly hope they are right in the long run. I am, however, very pleased again that the Attorney has agreed to SA-Best's suggestion for a review of the operation of the act in an effort to assess its effectiveness or otherwise.

This legislation is long overdue. It is about destroying the ticket scalpers' business model once and for all. The effects of ticket scalping can be disastrous for consumers, with genuine fans losing out to scalpers when attempting to purchase tickets in the first instance from point-of-sale sites, or falling victim to a scalper selling tickets for exorbitant prices, or even being sold fake tickets.

In May 2013, consumer association Choice reported that when One Direction were here in 2012 for a series of concerts before the band, sadly or otherwise, decided to go their own separate ways, tickets at the face value price of $79 sold out within hours but were available on eBay for $4,000. The Advertiser reported at the time that tickets to One Direction's Adelaide Entertainment Centre shows were selling for up to $599 a pair on internet auction site eBay, almost four times their original $158 retail price. Tickets to Bruce Springsteen's 2013 concert in Adelaide were selling for almost double their face value within hours of the show selling out after scalpers hijacked an exclusive internet presale site, and I think the same also happened with a Bon Jovi concert where tickets were selling for around $4,700.

We recognise the legitimate role that a secondary market has in providing a service for ticket purchasers who have a genuine need to onsell their tickets, and enabling those people who miss out when events go on sale to purchase these tickets. We want these consumers and fans to purchase tickets in good faith and not get ripped off, with tickets only being able to be sold for 110 per cent of their price, and enjoy their chosen concert or sporting experience. Ticket buyers must be vigilant and report any suspected scalpers they come across online to Consumer and Business Services. For that purpose, it is absolutely imperative to have a strong public awareness campaign to alert consumers to the proposed changes that will soon be enacted.

As part of the consultation process, I raised the issue with the Attorney-General's staff and was advised that the consumer education campaign will involve information on the Consumer and Business Services website, and writing to key stakeholders like Gumtree, Ticketek, eBay, Sport SA, Business SA, Consumers SA, and the like, to make them aware of the new requirements. This is absolutely critical as part of this proposal.

By way of example, I recall a chat I had with an American couple who sat next to me at a recent Jimmy Barnes concert. The lady I sat next to asked whether I would be kind enough to tell her how much I had paid for our tickets. It turns out that she paid a ridiculously expensive amount for the same tickets—I think it was something like four times the price. Upon further discussion, I queried with her whether she had in fact bought the tickets on the Ticketmaster site or on a resale site. It sounded very much to me like she had perhaps bought them on a resale site.

I know that when you are searching for these tickets, sometimes the resale sites come up first in your search, so it is very easy to mistake resale sites for actual sites. It should then be incumbent on these organisations, particularly those sites that resell tickets, to place warnings on their sites about the changes. In addition, the Attorney-General's Department needs to conduct a media campaign on the changes. With those comments, SA-Best commends the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:46): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the legislation, and in general terms thank them for supporting the second reading.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Following on from the comments in my second reading contribution, what does the government intend to do to ensure enforcement of the provisions of the bill by overseas jurisdictions?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the answer, unsatisfactory as it might be, on this legislation is the same as it was to a similar question in relation to gift cards, and that is that I am advised that the legislation does apply, but the issue of how you would enforce beyond our jurisdiction is obviously difficult to comprehend. The honourable member has a legal background, so she would be aware of the complexities of how a small regional jurisdiction like South Australia would enforce compliance by operators from another country. The frank answer to the question is that, yes, the legislation applies, but how South Australia would be able to enforce that is difficult to comprehend.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just on from that, I would just like to confirm that those sites will be limited to the 110 per cent cap and so they ought not to be trying to resell them at more than 110 per cent in the first instance?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that in relation to the events that this legislation applies to that is correct.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My question at clause 1 for the Treasurer, who has conduct for this on behalf of the Attorney-General, is: who was consulted with in the preparation of this bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Similar to the answer that I gave in relation to the gift card, it was a combination of both targeted and general consultation. The general is easily done. It was done under the former government's YourSAy proposition. In terms of targeted consultation, we are advised that contact was made with Gumtree, eBay, Ticketek, BASS, Adelaide Oval, the Entertainment Centre, Business SA, Consumers SA, Music SÁ, the Small Business Commissioner and Sport SÁ.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister outline the general nature of the position of those who were in the targeted consultation? Was there broad support for the aims of the bill and were there specific concerns with any parts of the drafting of the bill that those who were involved in the targeted consultation had?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that no major issues were raised in terms of the proposal. A fair assessment would be generally supportive. In relation to those who had experience with the NSW jurisdiction, they conceded that it was intended to be broadly consistent with the NSW legislation, a bit like the debate we had on gift cards the day before yesterday.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I ask, at clause 1, the rationale behind not including in the final wash-up a cap on the number of tickets that can be purchased?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that NSW does not have a cap and in the broad concept of introducing our legislation, which was broadly consistent with New South Wales, we have proceeded down that path. However, in the review that has been referred to, this would obviously be one of the issues that would be reviewed to see whether or not the proposal for a cap in some form or other should or should not be implemented.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his answer. He mentioned the NSW legislation. Do other jurisdictions around Australia have any comparable ticket scalping legislation?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised no. NSW is the only jurisdiction that has legislation similar to this that is proposed. Other states have more limited versions, consistent with the more limited version that used to exist in South Australia. It might relate to particular events or particular venues, but in relation to a more comprehensive reform it is really only NSW and South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Similar to yesterday's discussions on gift cards, is the government aware if the federal government is considering introducing a regime? If so, what stage is it up to? What, from the understanding, will be the differences between the South Australian and the proposed federal regime?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My understanding is that in the next week or so there will be meetings of ministers and this will be one of the topics of discussions. At this stage, our advice is that the commonwealth is not proceeding down something similar to this in relation to a percentage cap on prices. It has talked, evidently, about greater disclosure provisions, but all I can say is that, at this stage, we are not aware that they are heading down this particular path similar to South Australia and New South Wales. It will be an issue for ministers to discuss in the next week or so at the ministers' meeting.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just in relation to the caps, is it the Treasurer's understanding that promoters and sellers of tickets—and this is certainly in line with the advice we have been provided—will impose their own caps in terms of the number of tickets they will sell to any one person?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that it may well be that some promoters do do that, but that is not a requirement. They can make that decision themselves.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to the meeting with ministers that you just referred to, is the issue of bots on that agenda to be discussed with other ministers?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that it is very likely that issue would be discussed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to ticket scalping incidents under the current legislation, do we have any data in relation to the number of complaints received perhaps in the last year, whether those complaints were investigated and whether any action was taken in relation to any of those complaints?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We are happy to take that on notice, but my initial advice is they are not aware of any complaints, perhaps surprisingly, that have been received by Consumer and Business Services. But we will, at an excess of caution, take that on notice. It sounds like, if there have been, it is a very small number that may well have lodged complaints and that they have therefore been investigated or not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the benefit of the council, my office under various guises has made many complaints and none of them has been acted upon.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given that response, would the Treasurer and government be open to the publication of the number of complaints and what action, if any, is taken perhaps on Consumer and Business Services' website so that we can actually track the complaint process in relation to ticket scalping?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I take those questions on notice and bring back a reply. In response to the Hon. Ms Franks' contribution, we will have to check as well whether complaints lodged by members of parliament are in a separate category. If they are, they are complaints nevertheless. We accept that. We will bring back some information in relation to the number of complaints lodged directly by consumers or perhaps indirectly via members' offices by way of correspondence or whatever it might be. Whatever information is available, we are quite happy to share it. It is just that my adviser here is not aware of a significant number of consumer complaints that have been received and investigated.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Again for the benefit of the minister now in government, these complaints were made by members of my office, not as my office, because we did not want to get special treatment. We wanted to see how the system is working for consumers under various Gmail and other contacts.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to the information that the Treasurer has undertaken to bring back, will the government also consider public warnings as part of that, so that if we do have an incident there are public warnings that go out on a website so that consumers are aware that those incidents are occurring?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, I am happy to take that on notice. We need to take advice from the commissioner. It is a standard procedure that in certain circumstances he can issue warnings about consumer issues. Whether or not he would see this as being potentially part of an appropriate role for him, I do not know. We are happy to take that on notice. Given that this bill is likely to be passed before we get the answers back, I am happy to undertake to have the Attorney-General correspond with the members who have raised those questions and have replies sent to them directly.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

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

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 4, line 21 [clause 4, inserted section 37E(3)]—Delete '$0' and substitute:

taken to be an amount determined by the authorised seller of the ticket as the recommended retail price of the ticket

This amendment enables someone who has acquired a ticket at no cost to sell the ticket for an amount no greater than 110 per cent of the original recommended retail price of the ticket. This amendment addresses concerns raised that, as the bill currently stands, someone who has won or been gifted a ticket is unable to onsell that ticket for any monetary value. Given that in such circumstances a person will not necessarily know what the original supply cost of the ticket was, the recommended retail price has been used as the basis upon which to calculate the 110 per cent limit.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Leader of the Opposition, can I just clarify: does your question relate to this amendment or generally to the clause?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It relates to the 110 per cent, not in relation to the gifting in particular, so I am happy to save the questions until after.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Do you wish to respond to the amendment, Leader of the Opposition?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

Amendment carried.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I will go to the Leader of the Opposition to put his questions on the clause, if I may. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to clause 4, the insertion of new sections 37F and 37G, the resale of tickets, we have just spoken about the amendment and that, when a ticket is won or gifted, it can be sold for up to 110 per cent, but the figure also applies to the resale of tickets that someone has purchased. What is the rationale for the 110 per cent figure? How was that 10 per cent above the ticket price arrived at? Why 10 per cent? Why not 30 per cent or 5 per cent? What is the rationale for 110 per cent?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that it is consistent with the New South Wales provision. In the interests of consistency, we have settled on 110 per cent.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Does that 110 per cent amount include bookings, transactions or other fees associated with purchasing a ticket?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that it excludes the additional fees and charges. I will work my way through this and if I get it wrong I am sure that I will get a dig in the ribs. For example, if there is a $100 ticket and you have had a $5 fee you can resell for $110, not for 110 per cent of $105, so it excludes the additional fees and charges.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the Treasurer is fond of saying he is not a lawyer, I am not a treasurer, so he will have to be the expert on figures here. It does not include those, so if it is a $100 ticket and you paid a $5 booking fee and a $3 transaction fee, your cost in buying it was $108, but the maximum you can sell it for is $110.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it was the case that you bought your $100 ticket and there was a $9 booking fee and a $4 transaction fee, and you could not make the event, you would have to sell your ticket at a loss—for what it cost you. Is that correct?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, but I would advise you that if you are having additional fees and charges of 13 per cent on your ticket you might want to have a look around for a different booking agent. But the answer to the question is yes; it is 10 per cent on the RRP, the original recommended retail price—sorry, the original supply cost in this particular case.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is that part consistent with the New South Wales act, that any booking or transaction fee is not included?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that that aspect is different from New South Wales. In New South Wales, the supply charge or the add-on bit could be included. So in the example we were talking about, you could actually scalp your ticket for a higher price than $110 in New South Wales. South Australia's will be tighter than that; that is, you will not be able to scalp the high level: you will scalp at a slightly lower level in South Australia. The reason for that is the judgement was made in South Australia that due to the complicated nature of the compliance arrangements, as determined here in South Australia, evidently it was going to be easier to do it just on the original supply cost of the ticket. In the end, it results in a lower scalping price.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member. In the example we gave, as a result of this legislation, it is possible for someone who cannot get to an event to be forced to sell their ticket at a loss when you take into account any transaction costs.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, not in the example I gave.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, it could be possible. If the transaction costs were in excess of 10 per cent, you would be forced to sell at a loss—I think that is quite clear. I know the Treasurer has been fond of, yesterday in the gift cards legislation and today, saying, 'We are doing this because New South Wales does this.'

In this case, there is the difference where in New South Wales someone may not have to sell at a loss if the transaction costs were greater than 10 per cent, but in South Australia would be forced to sell at a loss if transaction costs were greater than 10 per cent. The Treasurer has mentioned the administrative compliance here being the reason for the difference. What is the difference in the administrative compliance between here and New South Wales that has justified this?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that the compliance people who were consulted in relation to this just took the judgement and that was the advice, and ultimately the government has accepted that advice that it is administratively simpler and easier and the compliance costs are lower if you do not have to go down the particular path that New South Wales did in this respect. One could argue that it is also much more user and consumer friendly in that it allows less ticket scalping because, I think the judgement is, in the circumstances the member is talking about where the additional costs are more than 10 per cent, to my understanding, certainly having booked tickets before, whilst I cannot rule out onerous additional supplier charges, etc., in most cases the additional charge is less than the 10 per cent.

But in the circumstances in South Australia, as the member outlined, if the charge was higher than a 10 per cent charge, then someone who was selling their ticket would sell it at a slight loss. In the interests of the consumers who are buying things, on balance the judgement has been that this is the best way to head.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In the circumstances where a ticket is bought online with a credit card, and that is the only way to buy a ticket, and the retailer of that ticket imposes a surcharge for using a credit card, is that counted in the overall cost of the ticket or is that counted as a transaction cost that cannot be recouped when you onsell?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that that is considered as a transaction cost and it is another example of the sorts of complexities of this particular issue because the sort of charges the honourable member has referred to would vary between financial institution and financial institution and for an individual consumer. So, in terms of compliance, one would have to get access to that sort of information in relation to those sorts of issues if you are having to take into account that sort of detail for each and every individual consumer who might use a different credit card.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the government aware of any online ticket sales that have a face value of a ticket, but then add a uniform surcharge to anyone who uses a credit card to buy them online?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: At the moment I cannot answer that. We are happy to take that on notice and see what sort of reply we can provide but, no, I cannot answer that particular question for the member. I move:

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 4, after line 21 [clause 4, inserted section 37E]—After subsection (3) insert:

(4) In any proceedings, an apparently genuine certificate purporting to be signed by the Commissioner and certifying as to the recommended retail price of a ticket determined by an authorised seller for the purposes of subsection (3) is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, proof of the matter so certified.

This amendment relates to amendment No. 1. It is consistent with existing evidentiary provisions under the Fair Trading Act 1997. This amendment provides the means by which the recommended retail price is to be determined for the purposes of any court proceedings.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 3 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 6, after line 7—After inserted section 37I insert:

37IA—Defence for certain ticket sales

(1) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this Division involving the sale or supply, or an advertisement for the sale or supply, of a ticket if the defendant proves—

(a) that the ticket was or was advertised to be (as the case may require) sold or supplied as a fundraiser for approved purposes; and

(b) the whole of the net proceeds of the sale or supply of the ticket were, or were to be, applied for the approved purposes.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) the following are approved purposes:

(i) a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose;

(ii) the purpose of promoting or encouraging literature, science or the arts;

(iii) the purpose of providing medical treatment or attention, or promoting the interests of persons who have a particular physical, mental or intellectual disability;

(iv) the purpose of establishing, carrying on or improving a community centre, or promoting the interests of a local community or a particular section of a local community;

(v) the purpose of sport, recreation or amusement;

(vi) the purpose of promoting animal welfare;

(vii) the purpose of conserving resources or preserving any part of the environmental, historical or cultural heritage of the State;

(viii) the purpose of promoting the interests of students or staff of an educational institution;

(ix) a political purpose;

(x) the purpose of promoting the common interests of persons who are engaged in, or interested in, a particular business, trade or industry; and

(b) the net proceeds of the sale or supply of a ticket are the gross proceeds of the sale or supply less the expenses incurred in conducting the sale or supply.

This amendment addresses concerns raised regarding the sale of tickets for genuine fundraising purposes. This amendment allows tickets to be sold for charitable fundraising purposes. For example, it allows tickets to be auctioned off for an amount that exceeds the 110 per cent limit in circumstances where the whole of the net proceeds is to be applied to an approved purpose. The amendment defines approved purposes and this definition is consistent with the definition under the Lottery and Gaming Regulations 2008. This definition is broader than the definition of charitable purpose under the Collections for Charitable Purposes Act 1939 and is considered appropriate in this context.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 4 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 7, after line 29—After inserted Part 4A Division 4 insert:

Division 5—Review of Part

37M—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 Division.

(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 Division.

(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 amendment requires that a review of the proposed ticket scalping provisions be undertaken no later than two years following commencement. It arose out of discussions with honourable members representing the SA-Best party. This will enable the effectiveness of the changes to be assessed and enable specific issues that have been raised to be considered further—e.g. whether there should be a cap on the number of tickets sold per transaction to further reduce the likelihood of ticket scalping.

It will also enable the South Australian legislation to be reviewed in light of any proposed changes at a national level that may be considered during that time. Given that Consumer and Business Services administers the Fair Trading Act 1987, and will be responsible for enforcing the new provisions, it is appropriate that Consumer and Business Services undertake the review and that the commissioner provide a report to the minister outlining the relevant findings. This amendment also makes it a requirement that a report is tabled in parliament within 12 sitting days of being received by the minister.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will indicate again for the record, that we are very pleased that the government has seen fit to include this review provision.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.