Bills

Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2022.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:02): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this piece of legislation, which we have had on the Notice Paper for a little bit. The Liberal Party called yesterday for the government to resolve this one way or another. From one point of view, we are pleased that we have the opportunity to debate this, but clearly there are a number of deficiencies in the final position that the government has come to. I will explore those in some detail. This is a really shabby piece of legislation. In my 20 years in this place, there have been examples of poorly put-together legislation, and this certainly is up there in the hall of shame.

I appreciate that the government says it took the commitment to stop paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza as an election commitment to the election; however, the way it has drafted this is extremely poor. I think we have already seen the unintended consequences at Tea Tree Plaza, which is my local major shopping centre. It has a range of different shops. It is extremely difficult to find a park there at certain times. There is a range of inconsistencies and hypocrisies with Labor's position, which need to be placed on the record.

It was the Marshall Liberal government which provided free parking for hospital workers. Labor decided to do away with that and was going to implement a range of compensations by various enterprise bargaining agreements. I think it is worth noting that the pandemic has not ceased with the election of the Malinauskas Labor government on 19 March. For over 2½ years now, our hospital workers have been in the frontline battle against this constantly mutating virus, which has caused a one-in-100-year global pandemic.

While the rest of us have had to deal with a range of restrictions—some have been infected, some have not—and may still be recovering from the effects of those, our hospital workers have lived and breathed this constantly, without respite, and for that reason we called on the government to continue to provide free parking for those workers, acknowledging their increased workloads and the increased risk of infection to themselves. They are understandably exhausted, and so we will continue to pursue our amendment, which provides hospital workers with ongoing access to free parking and free public transport, which were made available to them.

I note that there has been an eleventh hour deal struck with the Greens on this, so that hospital workers will pay $2.50 a day, but that is still more than $600 a year for many of our workers, some of whom are not on large wages. I note the United Workers Union has stated that free parking and transport provisions could mean savings of up to $1,300 a month, and they, like everybody else, are experiencing cost-of-living pressures.

What we will have at Modbury is the ludicrous situation where on one side of the road the Labor government will continue to charge hospital workers $2.50 a day and yet on the other side of the road they expect that anybody can park in that car park for free, which I think goes to many of the inconsistencies about this government. They support certain unions over others. Certainly, the Premier is very fond of looking after his mates in the shoppies union and that is why he has continued to pursue this ludicrous proposal.

I very much doubt whether boom gates will not be installed at Modbury, at Tea Tree Plaza. Indeed, from memory there are boom gates at the Modbury Hospital anyway. The shopping centre there did achieve approval through the development approvals process to install managed parking, and I am sure that they will continue to pursue that. No doubt we will see the situation where nobody will be able to park in certain parts of the Tea Tree Plaza car park from 8:45. That is going to result in more local traffic spilling over into the adjoining streets. This legislation is not going to fix anything at all. It is just going to create more chaos and difficulty for that particular suburb.

It is also worth reiterating that the government uses managed parking itself at the nearby Modbury Hospital; the first two hours are free. I note that the now health minister complained in January 2020 when those fees were increased. He has the chance to revert to the former fee regime now, but I doubt that he will.

At other hospital sites around the state, the government does not even use a managed parking system; it charges per hour. At Flinders Medical Centre, the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Women's and Children's Hospital, people will all start paying for the first hour. The government also charges for the nearby park-and-ride at Tea Tree Plaza, and the same cost structure will apply for the new deck when that has been completed to expand the number of parking places at Tea Tree Plaza.

Let's look at some of Labor's claims and what stakeholders have said. The Scentre Group, which owns and operates Westfield, says that the Labor Party and Peter Malinauskas's union mates have been making false and misleading claims. This is a very serious accusation; it is certainly one that demands that when trying to introduce a piece of law into this parliament, the government should justify it.

They have put these concerns in writing. The first claim is that all customers will pay for parking at Tea Tree Plaza. They say that the vast majority who visit there will not pay for parking, because a free period is provided, comparable to Westfield West Lakes, which has a managed car park system and where 98 per cent of customers do not pay when they visit.

The second remark they say is a false or misleading claim is that retail staff will incur a fee of $35 per day. They have previously confirmed that the staff parking rate will be comparable to Westfield West Lakes, where the current staff parking rate is $3 a day. If the government wishes to make those claims it should provide the evidence.

As I have said, I find parking at Tea Tree Plaza challenging at times; certainly trying to park close to the shops you particularly want to visit on weekends is especially challenging. A survey of Tea Tree Plaza customers found that 57 per cent find it hard to find a park, and the Scentre Group has made another claim of the government falsely misrepresenting this as 57 per cent of customers opposing paid parking. That is a potential disincentive to shoppers, who will go to other sites to get what they need. In my own case, if I want to visit a particular major retailer I will visit the one at Dernancourt over Tea Tree Plaza any day.

The National Retail Association, which represents over 10,000 shopfronts in South Australia alone, has also written to express grave concerns about this legislation. Its members are predominantly independent family businesses or franchises. These are the ones who populate shopping centres where people buy meals, clothing, homewares, gifts and get their nails done. The association has this to say about the small businesses they represent: 'Their livelihoods very much depend on availability of nearby car parking spaces, and turnover of vehicular traffic in these car parks.'

That directly contradicts a line in the Premier's media release that says that this bill is pro business. It certainly is not. Dominique Lamb, the chief executive of the National Retail Association, said, by way of a letter to the Leader of the Opposition:

…removing paid parking is not the positive outcome that the Government may believe it to be. The regulation and payment of parking ensures spaces are not taken up by commuters and workers from nearby areas. Without it, we know that shopping centre car parks face significant demand from non-users of the centre. If this occurs, it makes it more difficult for customers to shop with our members, and results in a proportion of those potential customers choosing to shop elsewhere—either at a different location or online.

In relation to the legislation, the conditions that owners of private parking areas can impose, including time limits, and the penalties for breaching those conditions, are in part 3, sections 7 and 8, of the Private Parking Areas Act.

As I said, managed parking is common in South Australian shopping centres. Many centres or individual parking spaces have signage warning people not to park for certain periods or they may face a fine. In some instances they use number plate recognition technology and private firms to monitor excess parking time in their car parks.

The act explicitly provides for agreements that can be made with the local council for the area to enforce the limits. Of particular note is section 9(2)(c), which provides that any fine, penalty or expiation fee recovered in respect of offences relating to the private parking area shall be paid to the council.

That brings us to the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association of SA. Their board of directors met in July to endorse a formal position. In the first instance, they are:

…of the opinion that should the State Government seek to dissuade paid parking in large shopping centres, it should not involve decision making on the part of local government. For consistency of approach, a State government Department such as Consumer and Business Services should be responsible for making the decision.

What they are saying in effect is that this government is trying to buck pass their poorly thought through proposal onto local government, which does not want it. The mere existence of clause 9 of the act, which enables local government to be the collection agency for fines, fees and penalties, sets up councils to have a conflict of interest in determining whether managed parking should be allowed or not.

The LGA has a range of concerns about the way the bill has been drafted. No reason has been provided as to why the CEO should be the decision-maker. There is potential under this bill for the CEO to make a decision without reference to the elected council members. The Liberal Party supports the Local Government Association's position, and therefore we have filed a set of amendments to this effect, which would shift the decision-making authority from the chief executive of the local council to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. We also have some fallback amendments in case that is not successful to provide some comfort to local government on their many other concerns:

1. There is no detail about how the CEO should reach a decision about whether to allow managed parking or not. There is a shabby reference to 'consult with the community', and I note in relation to the bill that we dealt with on Tuesday the government is not making itself consult on the new Women's and Children's Hospital. Be that as it may, in the absence of a framework or guidelines, the LGA is concerned about how this exposes councils to challenges from private parking area owners.

2. In relation to consultation, the bill does not currently provide for clear understanding of what is meant by 'community of the council', noting that the retail catchment area of a large regional shopping centre extends well beyond the local government area that it is located within.

3. The bill should require the approving authority with the ability to undertake due diligence to support an assessment of the proposal, such as examine the impacts on local roads, amenity and economic impacts.

4. The bill should provide for conditions of approving, such as periods for free parking, provision for disabled car park spaces and fees.

5. The bill does not provide clarity as to whether a council should charge a fee for undertaking a process which clearly involves costs to it.

This Premier said he would be a pro-business Premier. He has been anything but. In fact, all of his major decisions so far have been anti-business, and this is one of them. I am aware, for instance, that the Marion Shopping Centre potentially has investment of some $180 million through a joint venture. The joint venture partners based in Singapore are watching this legislation very carefully. I have been informed that, should this pass, they will not be investing in South Australia. This bill really is a kneejerk reaction from the Premier, kicking investors in the teeth.

We have also had the Bowden debacle. I think all investors would be looking at South Australia very, very carefully. For the owners of The Grove Shopping Centre at Golden Grove, which is just under the threshold definition of 34,000 square metres, their fear is that, if the bill passes, it would create an immediate substantial risk on any future investment and expansion of The Grove.

But as I have said, we know why the Premier has done this. He is looking after his own union, but he has effectively hung the other unions out to dry and he has also kicked business in the teeth. We will be opposing this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:18): I rise to speak today on behalf of the Greens in support of the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill. I do want to start my remarks by reflecting on my own journey in terms of my working life and the importance of this bill. I actually got my first-ever job when I was 17, having finished year 12, and it was working in the retail sector. Indeed, I was working for Big W at Westfield in Marion.

I remember—working night shift packing boxes and packing shelves—how difficult it was for me to get home at the end of my shift. That was over 20 years ago now, and in fact there was such an absence of transport that my dad used to come to pick me up late at night to make sure I could get back to the southern suburbs because you could not get a ride home.

It is pretty disappointing that decades on so many of our state's retail workers find themselves in the position where they are often trapped, finding it difficult to get home from work, and then being slugged increasing car parking fees. It is particularly disappointing when one considers what our retail workers have been through over the last three years of this pandemic because we know that their work really is essential.

These are the people who have been at the frontline ensuring that our society could function during the pandemic. These are the people offering critical goods and services to our community, and they were often people copping abuse, copping unfair treatment, and what they have also been copping of late is an increase in their car parking fees, and that is outrageous.

For us in the Greens, we have always recognised the need for these crucial workers to be given free car parking, and that is one of the reasons why we are supportive of this bill. We of course recognise that we should always prioritise alternative forms of transport where possible, but we do acknowledge that travelling by car is necessary for some people, and that is particularly the case for retail workers. As I mentioned, there is often insufficient public transport available for these workers, and I hope that the government will take action to address that over this term of parliament.

The Greens believe that all workers should have safe ways to get to and from work. My office has received over 530 emails in support of free car parking for retail workers at shopping centres, but we have also had a large volume of correspondence from retail groups also calling on better ways to manage car parking.

One of the issues that we have been alive to in the Greens when the government first put this bill forward was the need to find a resolution for hospital workers. Whilst we were supportive of free parking being made available to retail workers in these key shopping centres, for the reasons that I have outlined, we also felt that it was important that that principle should apply to our hospital workers—people who have also been at the frontline of this pandemic and in particular during this really tough flu season—so we have been advocating for the government over some time to deliver a better deal for those workers.

I must say, what the government have come back with is a really excellent solution. What the government are delivering is car parking for just $2.50 for hospital workers, just $2.50. That is cheaper than a cup of coffee—that is $12.50 a week—that is cheaper than a sandwich. This is going to be cheap car parking made available to these workers in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. As a result, car parking for hospital workers will be at the lowest level it has been at for more than 10 years. That is a really good outcome for these critical workers. The other thing that the government have put on the table is they are going to provide free public transport on an ongoing level to workers who do not have access to a car parking permit. That is another terrific win.

It was the Greens who first filed amendments to provide free public transport and free car parking to these critical workers. The Greens came out very strongly on this issue months ago, and we of course welcome the Liberal Party joining the call, and we have now achieved that outcome because the government have delivered this heavily discounted car parking and free public transport, and there is therefore not a need to pursue our amendments. So, I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments from the opposition in that regard either. The other issue—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I hear the Hon. Stephen Wade is interjecting, screaming out 'backroom deal'. I do not make any apology for working to get good outcomes for all workers, particularly those in our hospital sector and those in our retail sector. That is why the Greens are here. The same could not be said of the Liberal Party that, as we know, served the interests of big corporations like Westfield—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: But the other—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Mr Wade!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, continue.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Ms Franks! The Hon. Mr Simms, continue.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Sorry, Mr President, I heard the Hon. Michelle Lensink interjecting with 'small family business'. She obviously has a very different definition of small family business. I would not describe Westfield as being one of the small family businesses.

Just to go on to some of the other issues in this bill, one of the other issues that we were concerned about was the fact that the bill was going to give local councils a role to play enforcing these car parking provisions. We heard from the local government sector that they did not actually want to be placed in that position and, indeed, many would have a conflict of interest because they manage car parking. That was an issue that we raised with the government, and I understand the government has taken that issue up and will be moving amendments to address that.

Given that all of those concerns have been addressed, we are delighted to be supporting the bill today. I think this is a breakthrough that will be welcomed by not only our retail workers but also our hospital workers as it brings to a close what has been a bit of a saga. It means that heading into the Christmas period those workers will have more money in their pockets, and that is going to be really critical as they continue to deal—as all South Australians do—with this ongoing cost of living crisis. I am proud of the role that the Greens have played to bring these issues to a head.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (11:27): I would like to thank the Hon. Ms Lensink and the Hon. Mr Simms for their contributions on this very important bill. I will make some very brief remarks in response to those made by the Hon. Ms Lensink. She described this legislation as 'shabby legislation' and she referred to 'a hall of shame'. Retail workers do not think that it is shabby to protect them from the extra expense of paid parking. Small businesses do not think it is shabby to avert the risk of losing customers, which could have happened if gates had been installed with paid parking.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: And shoppers don't think it is shabby that they are spared a further financial hit—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —at a time when the cost of living is increasing dramatically.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would like to hear the minister in silence. Minister, continue please.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, Mr President. Retail workers do not think it is shabby, small businesses do not think it is shabby and shoppers do not think it is shabby.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, please continue.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There are a number of improvements to the bill which have been agreed to that I will be moving, and I will address those further if we go into the committee stage. But I commend the bill to you; this is something that is good for shoppers, good for workers and good for small business.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:29): I move, contingently, on the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centres) Amendment Bill being read a second time:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole Council on the bill that it have power to consider a new schedule to amend the Health Care Act 2008.

This is a test, if you like, for the first of our amendments that deals with extending free parking for hospital workers. Our amendments broaden the scope of the bill beyond 'shopping centre' in the definitions of the Private Parking Area Act to enable new clause 90A to be inserted into the schedule of the Health Care Act 2008.

In the first part of the proposed new clause 90A(1), it states that a hospital worker may park their vehicle without being charged a fee. This is to ensure that hospital workers can continue to park for free at our state's hospital, as was provided to them by the Marshall Liberal government during the first two years of the COVID-19 global pandemic and, quite frankly, this is a better deal than the $2.50 a day that has been proposed by the government and the Greens.

The second part of the new clause 90A(2) provides for the continuation of free public transport for hospital workers. One of the new Malinauskas Labor government initiatives has been to remove free parking for hospital workers and everyone has acknowledged the hard work of these frontline heroes, their long hours, their challenges, the increased risk to them of contracting the virus and putting the needs of patients and their entire community ahead of their own.

The United Workers Union has also advocated for the continuation of free parking and transport provisions, which is significant for some of our lowest paid workers who, like all of us, are experiencing increasing cost-of-living pressures. Life has not gotten easier for hospital workers since the election. We know that the impact is continuing and that is why the Liberal Party has acknowledged that they deserve to be supported, and that is why we are seeking to amend this bill to include hospital workers to continue to have free parking. Any other position is hypocritical. We know why the Premier is doing this: he is looking after one union ahead of the other and he is being disingenuous and dishonest in this debate.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (11:31): The government will not be supporting this.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:32): As I indicated, the Greens are not supportive of the amendments either, given the issues have been addressed.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, did you want to comment on this?

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:32): If you insist, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: It just helps me when I call, that's all.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think, for the record, in principle, we agree with both positions when it comes to parking, but I do not see how the amendment is going to serve any purpose. I am a realist; I know where numbers are. There is already a parking deal that has been done in terms of what the Attorney has outlined and that is wrapped up in the agreement and parking that is going to be offered. There is a choice between two things that effectively do the same thing, and that is provide parking for our hospital staff. I am, again, very mindful of the numbers in this place today.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (11:33): I only wish to rise to say that I support the Liberal Party's position on this matter.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I rise just to make a few general remarks. Whilst they do relate to the amendments, they are more general in nature, looking at all three of the amendments that are proposed.

I would like to place on the record an apology. Due to an administrative error, the amendments were not filed at the time that they were sent through. However, I wish to bring the attention of the chamber to the fact that two of the amendments are identical to those that had previously been filed by the Hon. Robert Simms. The third amendment is in relation to those, with some slight changes. Given that they have been on the public record, albeit at that time going to be filed by the Hon. Mr Simms in terms of those first two, I trust that members are happy to proceed with them.

The Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill seeks to deliver on our election commitment to prevent paid parking. The bill, as it passed through the lower house on 27 September, sought to prohibit owners of regulated shopping centre parking areas from charging persons frequenting a retail shopping centre with a gross lettable area of 34,000 square metres or more without the approval of the chief executive officer of the local council who has, by resolution of the council, agreed to approve charging persons for parking where the shopping centre is located.

The amendments that I will be moving will instead change that to be a decision of the minister. That will be reflected in each of the amendments that I move. This is due to feedback that we received. I look forward to addressing them in more detail when those amendments are moved.

The CHAIR: The first amendment is in the name of the Hon. Ms Lensink, amendment No. 1, [Lensink-3].

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: For the benefit of honourable members, what is going on is that, because the instruction was lost, and this amendment relates to that, it therefore is consequential and so I will not be moving that set of amendments.

The CHAIR: It is only set No. 3 that you will not be moving?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Set No. 1 we will not be proceeding with. Maybe we can deal with the other ones as they come up because there are several competing amendments.

The CHAIR: So, set No. 2.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The CHAIR: At clause 3, we have exactly the same amendments filed by the Hon. Ms Lensink and by the minister. The Hon. Ms Lensink, your amendment was filed first, so you have the opportunity to move the amendment standing in your name.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lensink–2]—

Page 2, lines 18 to 20 [clause 3(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Clearly, as this amendment and a second one to be moved are identical, the government will be supporting those two amendments. Just for background, the feedback that the government received was that the Local Government Association feared that the proposed legislation in its original form would damage its relationship with ratepayers if final decision-making powers about paid parking in suburban shopping centres was the responsibility of councils. The LGA voiced those concerns and the government was happy to listen.

The government also had discussions with the Hon. Robert Simms from the Greens, who supported a change that results in the Minister for Planning being responsible for any decision-making, which of course is the subject of the second amendment that I will be moving, if it is not moved elsewhere, and therefore we will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Perhaps I should have been a little bit more elaborate in my explanation. What this amendment does, effectively, is delete the reference to the CEO of the local council, as we explained. I think the government has accepted the opinion of the LGA on this front, that they do not wish to be the scapegoats in this shabby legislation.

The minister's amendment that we just received was after I had made my second reading speech, so I was not aware they had amendments along these lines. We will probably have a bit more discussion when we get to the subsequent amendments about the merits of various models.

I am pleased that the government has seen fit to take responsibility for its own shabby proposal. I think most people will be very pleased that the chief executive officer of a council will no longer have to make this decision.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens are supportive of the government's amendments. As the minister alluded to, this is an issue we did raise with the government in our discussions with them. It was an issue that was raised with us by the LGA, who did have some concerns around the role of local councils in being asked to manage these issues. There are also potential conflict of interest elements for councils that often draw on revenue from car parking.

It was our view that the minister is much better placed to make these decisions, and we are pleased that the government is taking up this issue. We will be supporting the amendments, and I also indicate that I will not be proceeding with the amendments I had filed.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can read where the numbers lie, Mr Chair. Mr Simms has already said he will be supporting the amendment, which was actually his in the first place.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Yes; we are supporting the government's amendment and I am not pursuing mine.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Some of these amendments are competing, so we are clearly all singing Kumbaya in that everyone recognises that the local council does not wish to be the decision-making body. What I do note from the minister's amendment is that there is a range of factors that the LGA thinks should have assisted in the decision-making process for whichever body is taking responsibility for this. They wanted, as a fallback, a requirement for an assessment to consider the likely economic impacts, impacts on the adjoining road networks, and any other local amenity impacts as determined by the approving authority.

Certainly we would wish that level of due diligence is undertaken before any decision-making takes place. I note these are absent from the minister's amendment, but I can see where the numbers lie, so in that instance we will support the decision-making body being the minister. However, I request that due diligence be part of that process.

The CHAIR: So you are not moving your amendments. Minister, you need to move your amendment.

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

Amendment No 2 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 3, lines 23 to 25 [clause 4, inserted section 13(1)]—Delete 'chief executive officer of the council for the area in which the regulated shopping centre parking area is situated' and substitute 'Minister'

Just for clarification, this is the amendment that makes the minister the decision-maker in this matter. I refer to my previous remarks as to why that is beneficial, and I look forward to the support of the chamber.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 3 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 3, lines 28 to 33 [clause 4, inserted section 13(2) and (3)]—Delete inserted subsections (2) and (3) and substitute:

(2) An approval under subsection (1) may be granted subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit.

(3) The Minister may add a condition to, or vary or revoke a condition of, an approval under subsection (1) by notice in writing to the owner of the regulated shopping centre parking area to which the approval relates.

These three amendments are clearly interrelated. This is simply in regard to the ability for the minister, who will now be the decision-maker, to make approvals, subject to such conditions as the minister sees fit, and make variations to those as appropriate.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (11:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.