Statutes Amendment (Identity Theft) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 February 2024.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:08): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Identity Theft) Bill. The increasing phenomenon of identity theft and scamming offences is one of the greatest challenges of the 21^st century. It is now 20 years since the legislative provisions for identity theft were first introduced in South Australia in 2003, and I acknowledge that a version of this bill was introduced by the former Liberal government in 2021.

The changing nature of Internet usage has been dramatic and so, too, has the increase in cybercrime and identity theft in the online world we live in today. As cited on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) website, in February 2023 a total of 13.2 million Australians were exposed to some sort of scam.

It is concerning that the number of Australians who experienced scams in the 2021-22 financial year increased from the previous financial year. The largest increases involved scam text messages, which increased from 23 per cent to 47 per cent of all reported scams. Scams occurring over the phone increased from 38 per cent to 48 per cent of all reported scams.

This bill improves the provisions in part 5A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to make it easier to prosecute identity theft and increase the penalties associated with this crime. There is an update of the definition in clause 3 of the bill, with a focus around information that is most often used online in relation to debit and credit cards. In 2022, more than 30,000 customers of the four big banks lost a combined $558 million to scams.

This bill addresses a complex issue that requires contributions not only from governments at every level but also from our financial institutions, communication platforms and others. I want to make it clear that it is imperative that we do all we can to address this complex issue, which is one that no single measure is going to guarantee 100 per cent protection from.

It is of some consolation to the public that these amendments will support victims by making it easier for them to obtain verification from a court that they have been a victim of identity theft. The Magistrates Court will have the jurisdiction to issue a certificate to a person on the basis of the balance of probability that the person is a victim of identity theft. This measure will assist victims to restore their ability to access credit and follow up with other agencies, such as telecommunications companies and so forth.

The bill inserts a new offence in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act of possessing or using another person's identification without a reasonable excuse. This new offence in section 144DA of the act places the onus of proof on the defendant to show reasonable cause for possessing another person's identification or information. The new offence is a summary level offence, carrying a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

The fact is that identity theft offences are continuing to increase and are most often committed remotely from the victim. Consequently, there is often limited if any physical evidence, making this form of theft so much harder to track than other property theft offences. Although there has been a rise in exposure to identity theft, there has also been a decrease in the number of people responding to scams. As people have become more aware of the nature of scams, the victimisation rate reported by the ABS in February 2023 has dropped from 3.6 per cent to 2.6 per cent, which is promising.

These amendments, along with this greater public awareness, will help to tackle the complexities associated with scamming. The Statutes Amendment (Identity Theft) Bill will offer our community more protections from the malicious intent that continues to thrive in the ever-changing digital world. I commend this bill to the council.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:13): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Identity Theft) Bill 2023. As we have heard, it is not too dissimilar to the previous government's bill of 2021, which did not enjoy the support of parliament the first time around for a few reasons.

This bill does not include the removal of underage exclusions which relate to online gambling and video games, and that is a noteworthy omission from the previous bill. As I said at the time, our laws require updating, especially given the ever-changing face of identity theft. On the current laws it is a crime that can be difficult to prove and difficult for victims to clear their name of in the aftermath.

The ABS report on the 2021-22 financial year estimated that about 160,000 Australians aged 15 and over had experienced identity theft. Of this, 56 per cent was used to access money in a bank account, superannuation, investments and shares; 16 per cent was used to open accounts in another person's name, including phone and utility accounts; 7.9 per cent was used to apply for a loan or to get credit; and most of the remainder was used to provide false information to rent premises, to police, or to apply for government benefits.

The bill increases the penalty for possessing or producing prohibited material from three years to five years. The new offence shifts the onus on the defendant to prove why they were in the possession of another person's identity without reasonable excuse. I certainly have been very vocal, and remain so, in terms of changes to fundamental legal principles.

Whilst I do acknowledge the concerns that were raised by the Hon. Robert Simms yesterday, what we have seen over time in this place is that sometimes there are exceptions to the rule. My position at the time was that the former Attorney-General got it right, and I think the current Attorney-General has now got it right. It is accompanied by very sensible defences: if the person is a close relative, or the information is held by a person in the ordinary course of doing their job, or if the person in possession is power of attorney or guardian or administrator.

This clause was the subject of debate when the previous government introduced a similar bill. I note again that the Hon. Robert Simms has filed an amendment to remove and replace the reversal of onus proof provisions, which is something the Law Society has taken issue with now on two occasions, and it would mean the prosecution would need to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Funnily enough, it was a position the current government also took in opposition, but with the benefit of a direct line to the Commissioner of Police the government has now done a backflip on that position by recognising the need for the reversal of the onus of proof clause. The reason for that is plain and simple. It is the same reason we were given back in 2021, as I am sure the Attorney has now acknowledged. Plain and simply, the police and prosecutors are saying, 'We can't do anything in this space without that.' It is proving impossible in that ever-increasing number of cases that involve identity theft to be able to do something about it.

The whole purpose of this bill was to provide mechanisms which made that easy, because if anyone has been the subject of identity theft you would know that it is an absolute nightmare trying to clear your name. You have done nothing wrong, but you have ended up with money taken from your account, super taken from your super account, rental properties being taken out in your name—sometimes those rental properties are used for illegal criminal activities, you have credit cards you did not know about, you have purchased a car you did not know about. The list is endless and it is becoming rife.

For the person who is at the receiving end of that, it is usually not until a debt collector calls, or something of that nature, or indeed they check their balances, that they know they have been the subject of that criminal activity. It is an absolute logistical nightmare trying to prove that that occurred. It is absolutely a logistical nightmare for police and prosecution to help people in those instances to show that they were the victims of identity theft and to clear their names of any wrongdoing.

In many instances, you will not find the person who is responsible. There may be more than one person responsible; there is all manner of things. I think the bottom line is that we have now reached a point where we know that in the absence of these sorts of provisions, those numbers that we have heard of—about 160,000 Australians aged 15 years and over experiencing this sort of theft—are only going to increase.

We now have very clear advice that, in the absence of this sort of provision, it is going to remain difficult for a person to reclaim their identity without this provision. I did promise the Attorney's staff that I would say 'I told you so' at the time, but we told you so at the time. I think it was a very sensible measure by the former Attorney, so I am really pleased that we have reached this point. I do not say that lightly because I do not make the decision lightly to go against what is a very fundamental legal principle.

I have always said that any time that has occurred it has been reserved for the most difficult cases, but we have had difficult cases and in this instance where there is a poor old person on the other end who cannot get about their daily lives anymore because they have been the victim of this sort of theft, it can prove damaging, it can prove debilitating, it can have huge financial impacts for them. It affects them in so many ways and what we know is that in the absence of these sorts of provisions, we are somewhat hamstrung in terms of the remedies that are required. I do in this instance exercise my ability to say, 'Well, this ought to be an exception to the general principle and the general rule.'

The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Act so a victim can apply to the Magistrates Court to clear their name, regardless of whether the charges have been laid or if a successful conviction has been made. I think it is important to remember that, given that a lot of this is happening online by faceless people, it is really difficult to be able to do that under the current legal structure. Currently, a conviction is required before a victim can apply to the court for an identity theft certificate. With low conviction rates due to the existing onus of proof requirement in addition to the time it takes for these types of cases to be finalised, I think that these are very necessary amendments for victims.

That is what we have to remember, that we are dealing here with victims of crime. There might not be any physical assault or injury, but the impacts of these crimes can be equally crippling and debilitating. There have been numerous instances in the last two years since the previous government's bill went down where constituents have contacted my office in desperate need of a mechanism to clear their name following an identity theft.

I am really pleased that we are here now finally making progress today to ensure that victims do not suffer through any more than they already have when their identities are stolen. It is absolutely needless and we ought to be doing what we can to make it as easy as possible for a person effectively to reclaim their identity. That is what we are talking about. Someone has stolen your identity as a person and used it for illegal gain and benefit and that has gone to the detriment of that victim and can have absolutely crippling impacts.

As I said, these are much-needed reforms, and I will certainly be supporting the bill without amendment. This is not by any stretch the only changes we need. I am working on some issues that canvas or traverse the same sorts of areas, but one thing is absolutely crystal clear: we are always on the back foot when it comes to emerging technologies in every way, shape and form, in every way that they impact us, whether it is through identity theft, child exploitation, deep fakes, there is a whole manner of laws out there that simply have not managed to keep up with technology. In some respects we are being asked to pre-empt things and in others we are being asked to react to situations as they become so much of a problem in our society.

This is a good bill and I acknowledge the work of the former government in this space and the former Attorney-General and do so of this government and our current Attorney-General in progressing it through this place today.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:24): These days you do not rob banks and people with guns anymore. It is done with pens, phones, laptops, emails and dating sites. They will do, and they have been very effective in scamming a lot of people. An alarming figure was that over $3 billion was fleeced from Australians last year alone, and I am told that in South Australia over $1 million a week is lost through scams that are perpetrated on individuals of all ages, although the over 65s seem to be the main targets.

While this bill works to protect individuals from identity theft by making it easier to prosecute and also to support victims, it is obvious that much more is needed in this sphere—both state and federally—just to get on top of what is going on out there.

In my previous career, when I was working as a journalist, it was one of the areas that I investigated quite often and covered. It is amazing to see the evolution of scams in a period of two or three decades and the changing guises of the scammers themselves over that period of time. They would normally start as Casanova cads, and it just went on as technology improved to being shadowy figures working offshore or even on the dark web.

Trust seems to be the biggest casualty of this tech-driven society, with modern-day crooks looking to expose people's emotional weaknesses, and usually that is how it is done. You have often heard that saying, 'If it's too good to be true, well, it is.' Many people get caught and stung by that, even though there are ample warnings out there that people really do not adhere to despite the amount of exposure that this criminal activity does get.

Cybersecurity is probably the biggest threat today to companies, individuals and government. They now have to be hypervigilant in their security measures on a constant basis, on a daily basis, almost on an hourly basis, really. It is no surprise. I am sure many other members in this place are now starting to receive scam emails even on their personal parliamentary email list. I had one last night just as I was about to leave. Fortunately, I did not click onto it and just put it to trash, but it happens on a constant basis. It happens on a constant basis on your telephones, where the scammers will try to induce you into responding to what looks like an innocuous message but, nonetheless, some evil lurks behind it.

Criminals realise that information of individuals is like gold. It can be traded and, of course, as we have seen, it can be exploited, with identities being stolen as a result of massive data breaches. So it becomes a constant cat-and-mouse game being played out globally as the scammers, these cyber crooks, up the ante.

Add to that, of course, the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence, and the challenges will now be enormous for all of us as that technology continues to evolve into areas that are quite alarming. AI can recreate people's identities, recreate people's voices, produce images, videos, messaging. We now hear this new term 'deepfake scam', and these are ads that are prevalent on the popular social media platforms. Andrew Forrest, Dick Smith and Gina Rinehart are just some of the prominent Australians who have been caught in this web, in this caper, and caught unknowingly. It has been going for some time, where their identities have been stolen and used by these criminals to help promote a non-existent product, or one that is inferior, without their knowledge or consent.

It also comes back to the responsibilities of the social media site platform operators, the people who run those popular sites. What are they doing to try to curb what is going on? I do not think they are doing that much about it. I think even they are overwhelmed at what is going on and at the sophistication of a lot of these scams being promoted. It is clear that we need much tougher legislation to protect consumers and make the banks and social media platforms more responsible and liable for companies.

Banks and bank accounts we know are now prime targets, and it is easy to see how people can be sucked in by these crooks because of the sophistication that many of these criminals adopt. I can give an example of a constituent who called me after her bank account was siphoned by a very clever, smooth-talking person who appeared to be a representative of her bank. He had certain details about her, which were probably gained because of cybersecurity breaches on sites like Medicare and whatever and sold on the dark web. This person was able to give her assurances and information so that she felt safe enough that he was from her bank. Even though she was on the phone with this person for a long period of time, she felt enough trust in this person to then hand details of her bank account to them.

The scammer had called her to warn her that some money had been taken out of her bank account and it looked like the scammers were going to come back and take the rest, so the bank supposedly had opened up a bank account in her name. He gave her the details and wanted her authority to shift the money in, which she gave. Once she hung up the phone, she suddenly had a realisation that this was not an accurate or true representation or call from her bank. She immediately called the bank within minutes of that transaction, only to be told it was too late. The transaction had gone through to another bank.

She asked for the details of that bank, but the bank would not give her the details. She asked that the information be passed onto the police. They dragged their heels on that and were not prepared even to do that, and as a result of that she lost her life savings and the bank refused to compensate her for what had happened. Again, it comes back to the responsibilities of the banks. What is their responsibility when all this is happening out there? Should they be taking more precautions and have more alerts or provisions in place for customers to be able to make an alert before the money is actually transferred?

After talking to a bank executive in Melbourne recently, talking about what was going on, the banks are very aware of having to improve their security measures to combat this type of activity. They are actually spending hundreds of millions of dollars on software and hiring staff and others just to deal with this now because it is such a big problem.

I will give you another example, an elderly widow who came to see me late last year. This scam actually involved her own children. She was estranged from her children, yet they still had credit cards in their mother's name, who was paying the credit cards off before the estrangement happened. After that, when she wanted to cut her ties with her children, she called the banks to cancel all those cards.

The banks did not do that. The children still managed to get new cards issued, and they kept racking up debts in the widow's name and not paying them off. The woman was distraught by what had gone on. Again, she turned to the banks for assistance, and they would not, unfortunately. Certainly, my office had a good outcome with that after I spoke to a bank executive in Victoria. We managed to have those debts waived for that particular person.

Only recently—and this is again a very sad story—a very elderly Italian migrant came to see me. He had lost the entire worth of his portfolio of properties in South Australia. They were worth nearly $3.5 million to $4 million. He was conned by a very smooth-talking property spruiker. The property spruiker was well educated and, unfortunately, the migrant was not. He came here with nothing, he built up his portfolio and he had retired and expected to live comfortably. He had met this person at a trade show at Wayville showground. The scammer certainly exploited the person's lack of education and also limited English.

As a result of that, he lost everything. He went to the police, and the police found it too hard for them to investigate. They were not interested in it. He went to the lending institutions that this person had used to borrow enormous amounts of money off his portfolio. Even they were not interested. He had nowhere to turn. Now he is living in rented accommodation and living off a pension when he should be quite comfortable. Again, he is a victim of this rising crime of scamming. I commend the bill to the chamber, and I look forward to its speedy passage.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:37): I will be brief. I think the seriousness and the extent of this problem has been quite well prosecuted by previous speakers. Legislative provisions for the offence of identity theft were first introduced in South Australia in 2003. Since then, with the exponential growth of the internet and the ways in which we use it, the need for updated, modernised amendments to this law has similarly grown. A version of the bill was first introduced by the former Liberal government in 2021, developed by the former Attorney-General.

This bill makes several amendments to part 5A of the criminal law act, known as the CLCA. Firstly, clause 3 of the bill updates definitions in the CLCA to reflect modern terminology, particularly around information regularly used online in relation to debit and credit cards. Clauses 4 and 5 of the bill respectively amend sections 144B and 144C of the act. These sections of the act establish criminal offences for acts where a person has either used a false identity or misused the personal information of another person to commit a serious criminal offence.

The bill deletes the word 'serious' from these sections, meaning that these offences would be enlivened by using a false identity or misusing the personal information of another person to commit any criminal offence, not just a serious one. The unreasonably high threshold of requiring a serious criminal offence to have occurred meant that other high-volume, low-value offences have not been captured, such as card skimming.

The current bill also increases the maximum penalty for each of these offences to five years' imprisonment, increased from three years. Section 144D of the existing act establishes an offence for producing or possessing prohibited material with the intent to use that material to commit a criminal offence. Clause 6 of the current bill increases the maximum penalty for this offence to five years, increased from three.

Clause 7 of the bill establishes a new section 144DA of the act, which prescribes a new offence of possessing another person's personal identification information without reasonable excuse. A person charged with this offence would bear the onus of proving that they had a reasonable excuse for possessing the material, unless in the case of a number of exemptions set out in the bill, in which case the prosecution would retain the onus of proving that a reasonable excuse did not exist. The new offence carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

Clause 8 of the current bill inserts a new provision into the Criminal Procedure Act, which grants the Magistrates Court the jurisdiction to, on application by a person, issue a certificate to a person if the court is satisfied on the balance of probability that the person is a victim of identity theft. The detail to be included on the certificate is at the discretion of the court but will include details of how the person's information was used to commit an offence regardless of whether any person has been charged with or found guilty of an offence. Clauses 9 and 10 of the bill make corresponding operational amendments to the Sentencing Act and the Youth Court Act.

There is no fix-all solution to issues of identity theft, scamming and fraud that continue to grow in today's online world. These complex issues require the contributions of governments at every level, financial institutions, retailers, tech companies and communication platforms, among others. This bill is a big step in the right direction and ensures that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to tackle these offences.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:42): I would like to thank all members for their contributions and also for their indications of broad support for this bill. There were some points raised in the second reading contribution, particularly by the Hon. Robert Simms, that I would like to address, and I would like to provide some information that will hopefully assist members with some of their concerns and points raised.

There are a couple of points I would like to make on the reverse onus of proof aspect of the possession offence. In doing so, as I said in my second reading explanation, I acknowledge that whilst in opposition we moved amendments that were similar to—they might even be the same as—amendments moved by the Hon. Robert Simms. Now having had the benefit of, as I have said, further departmental advice and briefings from South Australia Police, I am of the view and the government is of the view that the current formulation of the offence, including the reverse onus of proof aspect, will be the most effective way for police to target this type of offending.

I know in the business of politics we are in that changing your mind or accepting new evidence and on the basis of that new evidence coming to a different conclusion is often referred to as backflipping or changing, but I think when you do avail yourself of new evidence you are not doing your job properly if you do not consider that new evidence and whether or not you should change your mind on that.

This is certainly one of the areas, now being in government and having access to much further and better information, where on that basis we have changed our mind on whether there should be this reverse onus of proof. Noting that it is a rare exception—but there are other exceptions in other legislation on that—we are now convinced on the basis of further and better information that this is warranted in this case.

To respond to some of the specific points made in the second reading debate, firstly, I would like to make the point that the possession of personal identification information that consists only of public identification information does not fall within the scope of offence. Public identification information is defined to be a person's name, address or other contact details, date of birth or place, marital status or relatives.

That personal identification information (PII) that is within the scope of the offence is not this type of commonly available benign information; it is things like a driver's licence number, a passport number, a person's biometric data, their credit or debit card details, their PIN or password. This is not information that a person can ordinarily stumble across accidentally or should have in their possession without a genuine reason.

The second point to be made is that criminal offences that are formulated to require proof of behaviour without reasonable excuse or without a lawful excuse or without lawful authority are not uncommon, so much so that there is already a presumption in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act in section 5B that sets out proceedings of this type for a criminal offence. The onus of proving the existence of the authority or excuse lies with the defendant. This presumption has been in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act since 1992, so we are not introducing a brand-new or radical concept within this bill.

The proof for these type of offences operates in this manner, firstly, because the defendant is a person who will most readily have information as to whether or not they have the authority or excuse to engage in the behaviour in question; and, secondly, it is because there are some offences where it is appropriate to have a starting point that the behaviour should not be engaged in or be permissible as the default unless a person can demonstrate that there was a good and legitimate reason for it.

This offence—as I said, having availed ourselves of better and further information than we had in opposition—in our view, is one of those. This is the starting point, that people should not generally have the personal identification information that is not their own unless they have a reasonable excuse. We go on to set out the types of PII that do not fall within the scope of the offence and the exceptions for the reverse onus of proof in certain cases.

The third point I think is important to keep in mind, especially when considering the various hypothetical scenarios that have been put forward, is that there are many steps that occur in the process between a person engaging in a particular behaviour all the way through to a successful or unsuccessful criminal prosecution. The police would need to become aware of the behaviour, so it is unlikely that the person performing ordinary aspects of their job where they legitimately have PII for their work function would ever come to the attention of police if everything is above board in the course of a person's lawful business activity.

There would also be a police investigation once law enforcement became aware of the conduct. To take one example given by the Bar Association in their submission of a man having a legal power of attorney for his father and therefore having possession of some of his father's PII and an estranged sister then maliciously reporting her brother to the police, in the course of the police examining the complaint the man in this scenario would readily be able to provide the police with evidence of power of attorney and it would almost certainly be the case that if there were no indications of wrongdoing the matter would stop there. This is well within the ordinary processes of police investigating complaints made to them. I am sure the police would receive many hundreds of complaints that do not warrant further investigation after an initial examination.

Taking the process a step further, to proceed to charging and prosecuting persons, the prosecution needs to have a reasonable prospect of success and also it needs to be in the public interest. There are substantial and detailed guidelines as to when a matter should proceed to prosecution and it is not realistic to think that a prosecution would be pursued in a clear case of a person having a genuine need to possess the PII in question.

It is also important to note that SAPOL have advised that instances of a person having one set of PII are really not conduct that they are coming across. What they find is that people are in possession of hundreds of sets of different PII that there is no good reason for that person to have. With cybercrime and identity theft on the rise, there needs to be a way for the police to be able to disrupt the behaviour and prevent further offending rather than having to wait for the commission of even further offences using the PII to act.

I hope this information illustrates to members the reason for drafting the possession offence in this way, and it also demonstrates why, having that further and better information that we are now able to have in government, we have also come to the view that the former government had in turn based on the facts that they had available to them. Once again, I thank members for their contribution and look forward to the passage of the bill through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In his closing remarks, the Attorney referenced information or evidence that had been provided to him by the department and South Australia Police in relation to the reverse onus of proof. Would the Attorney be in a position to share that advice with the council?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. The advice provided has been both in verbal briefings, but, in terms of legal advice provided, the honourable member would appreciate we do not generally share and breach the legal professional privilege that we receive and other confidential briefings from SAPOL. I do not have hesitation in saying, based on the advice I have received, I am confident that the reverse onus of proof in this instance is warranted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps just to reiterate that point: it is the case I think, which the Attorney pointed to during his second reading explanation, that this is not uncommon in our legislation in such areas, including, for instance, criminal offences like carrying offensive weapons or unlawful possession, so we do use this in other areas. During those meetings that have been referred to, the commissioner has also pointed to the fact that in the absence of this reversal of the onus of proof, which does come with a number of disclaimers, they simply are not able to do a lot to help those victims of identity theft. Would that be a fair summation for the Attorney?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think that would be a reasonable characterisation and, as I am advised, that reverse onus of proof aspect is really the key part that will allow them to target this actively.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps just on from that as well, to assist in terms of any concerns that have been raised by the Law Society, there are also a number of exemptions that have been contemplated in this bill to narrow the scope of when that reversal will apply.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her statement rather than question. Yes, that is correct, and I mentioned that in my second reading sum-up speech.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, lines 3 to 18 [clause 7, inserted section 144DA(3)]—Delete subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) Despite section 5B, in proceedings for an offence against subsection (1) the prosecution will be required to prove that the defendant had possession of the relevant material without reasonable excuse.

I will not go through the rationale for the amendment; I spoke about it in my second reading speech. I certainly acknowledge what the Attorney-General has said in terms of him having access to advice from the department and advice from SAPOL. The previous Attorney-General raised the same issues and at that time the Greens were persuaded by the arguments that were put by the then shadow attorney-general and opposition leader. My view has not changed. I will still advance the amendment, but I recognise where the numbers stand.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (8 to 10) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.