Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (E-Cigarette and Other Reforms) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September 2024.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (17:15): I rise as the lead speaker for the opposition on the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (E-Cigarette and Other Reforms) Amendment Bill 2024. At the outset, I clarify that I will no longer be pursuing the first set of amendments filed under my name regarding controlled purchase operations, but I will be moving a second set of amendments regarding closure orders. I do want to apologise from the outset to my honourable colleagues for the late submission of these amendments and for any confusion caused earlier today with those being shared around.

The opposition does share the concerns of the government and, indeed, all members of this place about the prevalence of smoking and vaping, especially among young people. Smoking continues to be a leading cause of preventable death in Australia, which should give pause to all levels of government.

As my colleague and the relevant shadow minister, the member for Frome, has gone into at length, we will be supporting the intentions at the heart of this bill. However, there are some questions that remain unanswered on certain aspects of the bill that the member for Frome sought clarification on, and additional concerns have been raised between the houses.

I am not sure the Minister for Health has adequately responded to some of those issues the member has raised about the new controlled purchase operations, and I am just going to touch on them now. The House of Assembly was told that these operations will enable minors to be employed in what is essentially a sting operation by authorities to catch out retailers selling tobacco and nicotine products to under-18s.

Given the advice received by parliamentary counsel that there is no known precedent of such operations in Australia, it is only natural that the opposition would seek some clarity from the minister about these new powers. I also note that my colleague from the Greens, the Hon. Rob Simms, has flagged his concerns about these operations in the public sphere. I note that the Hon. Rob Simms has brought a number of amendments to which the opposition is supportive, and I understand the government is also. I think they seek to close that hole or that gap that we were prosecuting to the minister in the other place.

The new addition of section 39 that permits controlled purchase operations allows the minister to authorise any person under 18 to undertake these covert acts. As I said, Mr Simms' amendments will go some way to amend that for a designated child to be the age of or above the age of 16.

While I do appreciate from reading the proceedings from the House of Assembly that controlled purchase operations are used in Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, as far as the opposition is aware this is uncharted territory for South Australia. The member for Frome painted a picture of what this could mean—children who are maybe only 10 years old or younger could technically be employed for these purposes—but of course those amendments will seek to block that out.

We are also wanting to go in and look at some of the amendments made by the minister in the other place, namely 6AA with regard to closure orders, and that is what my amendments will speak to when we get to that stage. They have arisen as a result of the Leader of the Opposition meeting with the Shopping Centre Council of Australia today, which raised legitimate concerns on behalf of commercial landlords.

I note that during the earlier briefing to the opposition, we were advised that consultation with the retail sector resulted in broadly supportive feedback about these new measures; however, the Shopping Centre Council of Australia has flagged legitimate concerns about the bill as it applies to interim closure orders. Again, I will speak to these amendments in more detail at the committee stage, but I will briefly outline now what they seek to do.

The amendments seek to (1) ensure that a landlord who has a tenant who is the subject of an interim closure order is informed that the interim closure order has been issued to the tenant once the order has been issued; (2) provide grounds for the landlord to terminate the lease if an interim closure order is issued on that tenant; and (3) that in exercising any right to terminate a lease on the above grounds the landlord is not in breach of any provisions of the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 and their rights and obligations under the act are not adversely affected.

Essentially, we are kind of saying that for a landlord, should there be an interim closure order issued and then the lessee just vacates the shop, it is not sitting there empty on the landlord's hands for up to six months before they can actually do anything about it. We think they are relatively sensible amendments to this bill to protect the rights of the landlords.

In conclusion, while the opposition remains concerned with the previously mentioned aspects of the bill before us, Mr Simms' amendments go some way to relieve that and, of course, my amendments do in terms of landlords. Should the Legislative Council agree with our proposed amendments we would certainly not stand in the way of its passage through the chamber.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:21): I rise to say that I will be supporting this bill and also the amendments of the Hon. Robert Simms. These are extraordinary times we are witnessing in this state. A black market in tobacco has been allowed to flourish unchecked for almost two years or more before the government, not only the state government but also the federal government, have woken up to this criminal activity and the tax evasion that has been going on.

Why? Well, tobacco is as bad and dangerous as illicit drugs and even bootleg tobacco. Do not be surprised to see these criminal gangs also take advantage of the situation because alcohol is becoming so expensive, much like tobacco has become. As a result, we are seeing mafia-style standover tactics and businesses that are being extorted and firebombed. In fact, it is almost a throwback back to the Roaring Twenties in a way with this type of activity that is going on.

There is a police task force that is cracking down on this activity, and I certainly hope it is effective and it starts to wipe out these gangs that seem to be doing these criminal acts with almost impunity, thinking they can get away with it. As I said, I will be supporting the bill and I wholeheartedly commend the Minister for Health on his tough stance against tobacco, smoking and also vaping. I hope it continues in that he supports my bill that was passed here that will ban young people born after 2007 from ever legally buying cigarettes and vapes.

This bill will enable designated persons under the age of 18 to be able to participate in sting operations to catch out the unscrupulous vendors out there. As I said, I will support the Hon. Rob Simms' amendments. He quite rightly pointed to the fact that you do not want to see really young children being part of these operations.

Something that also concerns me about using young people in these situations, particularly in light of what I have just pointed out about the harmful activity that we are seeing at the moment, are these criminal gangs that are quite active. You would not put it past some of these people to try to strongarm the business proprietors, but I would hope that there would be provisions in place to protect these young people so that their identities are not going to be found out, to avoid placing not only the young people at risk but also their families in the event that they are taking part in this activity.

It is something that needs to be seriously considered here when you are asking young people who are just members of the community to take part in these, what I would regard as, dangerous operations, to be quite honest. These days, you are not dealing with the unscrupulous tobacconist or whatever, these are people who have criminal links and would stop at nothing to try to protect the illicit businesses they have. I would hope that they would not then go after people who are taking part in these activities, particularly young people.

In a way, I think we need to be very mindful of that and I hope that the minister and the department of business and consumer affairs are quite mindful that it is going to be a risk, not just in terms of going into the premises when they are conducting the sting operations but also it could well be risky for the young people taking part. I hope that that is taken care of. With that, as I said, I will be supporting the legislation.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:26): I rise to indicate support of this legislation on behalf of the Greens. The Greens have always supported a health approach to substance use. We believe that harm minimisation is the most appropriate way to reduce the adverse health, social and economic consequences of alcohol and the use of other drugs. We want to see a reduction in high-risk uses of nicotine and tobacco, as we acknowledge that they are substances that can cause significant harm. Of course, one of the risks around vaping and access to e-cigarettes is that if young people and children get access to these drugs from a very young age, they are going to be using them potentially throughout the life cycle.

It is important for us that there are supports in place to help young people under the age of 15 to move away from nicotine. This is an argument that the Greens have consistently made in the federal parliament and, indeed, in July when the federal government moved to ban the importation, manufacture, sale, supply and commercial possession of vapes in Australia, the Greens made that point.

In the vaping reforms passed by the federal parliament in June, the Greens negotiated with the Albanese government in Canberra to secure some positive measures to support a health approach in relation to e-cigarettes and vapes. Under this new agreement, GPs can continue to prescribe therapeutic vapes. Possession of quantities for personal use will not be subject to criminal charge. There will be a review of the legislation after three years and additional funding will be provided to support young people quitting vaping. I note that this will be of benefit to young people in South Australia as well.

We know that this proposed bill will bring South Australia into line with changes made at the federal level. Some of the changes include increasing penalties for the sale to children, of selling tobacco without a licence, advertising tobacco or cigarette products, or smoking in a smoke-free area. We also welcome the establishment of a five-metre smoke-free and vape-free buffer at public transport stops to support the health of people who are waiting for public transport.

I might take this opportunity to recognise the leadership of Minister Picton. I think he has been a real national leader in this space. Indeed, I recognise his work as a political staffer when he worked for the Hon. Nicola Roxon when she was federal health minister on world-leading legislation to ban tobacco advertising, in effect, on tobacco packets and to implement plain cigarette packaging.

That was a world-leading piece of legislation and I know that before he was a minister Chris Picton worked on that. Here in this parliament the minister has taken up the fight against the big tobacco companies, so I commend him for that. I also echo the statements made by the Hon. Frank Pangallo that the next step here is surely to phase out the use of cigarettes over time, and the Greens are certainly supportive of the Hon. Frank Pangallo's bill.

I also thank the minister for the collegial way in which he has worked with the Greens in approaching this bill. When the legislation came forward, one of the issues we were concerned about was the potential for young people to be involved in controlled purchase operations or, in effect, sting operations. Our concern was that you could see very young people being involved in these operations, potentially being put at risk, and that appropriate safeguards were not in place. I understand that issue was also of concern to the opposition.

We did not want to go down the path of entirely banning this practice, because we have had advice from the government that the involvement of young people in these operations is of benefit to the broader scheme, because it acts as a potential deterrent. My amendment strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the young people involved and ensuring their safety, whilst also protecting the integrity of the government's scheme. To save time I will talk the chamber through those amendments now during the second reading stage, so that I do not have to do so in committee.

The Greens are proposing that a designated person—that is, a person who can participate in a controlled purchase operation—means a child who is or above the age of 16 years, so in effect it restricts the participation in these activities to 16 and 17 year olds. It makes clear that the minister cannot authorise a designated person to be a controlled purchase officer unless the parent or legal guardian of the person has consented in writing.

The third very important element, which I think points to the issue the Hon. Frank Pangallo raised, is that the authorised officer responsible for supervising any controlled purchase operation involving a designated person—that is, someone who is 16 or 17—will be required to undertake an assessment of the operation and must ensure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure the safety of the designated person during that operation.

I think that should allay some of the concerns honourable members have. It certainly allays the concerns the Greens had when we heard about the involvement of young people in these potential sting operations. I am encouraged by the comments made at the second reading stage that indicate there is broad support in this chamber for that approach.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:32): I rise briefly to speak on the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (E-Cigarette and Other Reforms) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill outlines the South Australian government's approach to health risks associated with tobacco/e-cigarette products. It also aligns South Australian legislation with recent commonwealth reforms facilitating a coordinated approach to the sale and use of these products.

The bill establishes new requirements for both retail and wholesale licences to sell tobacco and e-cigarette products. Conditions to obtaining a licence have been tightened, including consideration of the applicant's criminal background. The bill prohibits the sale, supply and possession of non-therapeutic vaping products and explicitly bans the sale of any e-cigarette or tobacco product to minors, as well as imposing significant penalties for violations, both for individuals and businesses.

There are increased restrictions on smoking in public spaces, and the bill increases penalties for various violations, as well as increasing enforcement and compliance operations through the seizure of prohibited goods and products. We support any measures aimed at stopping minors from smoking or vaping and support anything that will stop illegal trade and the importation of products that contain unknown contents. However, I reiterate to the chamber that I believe regulated vaping products should be available anywhere that cigarettes are available. I do not support limiting the supply of regulated vaping products.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:34): I rise today to speak on the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (E-Cigarette and Other Reforms) Amendment Bill and affirm support for this legislation. Members will be acutely aware, particularly given the passage of my bill last year, that we have been warning about the risk associated with illicit tobacco for some time, even foreseeing the dangerous tobacco wars we are now witnessing. I hate to say, 'I told you so,' but I told you so.

When I introduced that bill last year that resulted in those significant penalties, I remember having these discussions very vividly and even the laughs that were had at the warnings of the criminal organisation elements that we are seeing almost daily today here in Adelaide—the standover tactics, the extortion and the bombings. Those warnings were not new at the time that I introduced these proposals last year. They were warnings that had existed for at least, I would say, five years, but the response simply was not there, so I am extraordinarily pleased that the government has finally seen the light and come to us with this bill.

The rise in illicit tobacco sales and conflicts surrounding it is no longer just a distant, Melbourne issue. It is happening here in Adelaide, as we have said, right on our doorstep. They are bold and brutal. When you consider that in the past the penalties and risks were way less than the penalties—significantly less; we are talking about a slap on the wrist, a $500 fine, at best a $10,000 penalty—if indeed there was a prosecution, which there had never been, then it is easy to understand why. As I said at the time, this was a market that was absolutely more lucrative than methamphetamine. It was a market that was absolutely more lucrative and less risky for those involved in the trade of illicit tobacco and vapes.

I am pleased to see now that the government is taking steps following the passage of that bill last year, which paved the way for today's reforms. I am pleased particularly to see the announcement at budget time for funds. I keep quoting the figure, but it is about $16.9 million, just shy of $17 million, towards enforcement, which of course was the last piece of the puzzle in dealing with this issue.

With responsibility now allocated to a dedicated team at Consumer and Business Services, the government is taking this issue seriously. Importantly, the police are now taking this issue very seriously and, indeed, are having to respond to these issues as they break out on our streets. This move is crucial in enforcing and monitoring our laws and finally providing the structure we need to address these issues.

During last year's debate on that bill that I introduced in this place, I did argue that our laws needed strengthening both as a deterrent and as a penalty against those who exploit loopholes to profit without paying taxes or ensuring necessary product safeguards. At the time that I introduced that bill and spoke on this, across Australia every year we were looking at $5.9 billion in lost GST. I am sure that number has exploded since then. So that is what we were losing then to the sale of illicit tobacco and vapes across Australia, and that is money that should have been going towards our roads, hospitals, schools and infrastructure.

The bill does just that. It seeks to dramatically increase penalties once again for those who take part in this activity. It also moves to ban the supply of e-cigarettes to minors, a step that is sorely missed. We know that vaping among young people has become a far more pervasive issue than many realise. It is not a small or isolated problem. We have allowed it to reach a scale where, shockingly, an entire underground market for e-cigarettes has emerged, with sales facilitated through platforms like Snapchat and targeted directly at our kids. It is not that hard to get your hands on a vape. It is not that hard to get your hands on these things and on-sell them to other kids. It is reported that around 15 per cent of people aged 15 to 29 are vaping, and that should fill us all with horror and dread. I actually suspect that figure may be significantly underestimated.

Let me tell you this firsthand: the black market price of a vape has absolutely skyrocketed here in Adelaide. A vape that cost you $45 a few months ago is now selling on that black market for about $75 to $80. The risk that we have to address and be very careful about there is that we do not turn kids away from vaping because it is too expensive and back to cigarettes, which are only moderately cheaper.

The fact that you can actually pick up a packet of these cigarettes at any outlet across South Australia, whether it is metro-based or regional-based—I think at last count I had a list of about 75 of 76 of these outlets—for as little as $15 compared with a packet of regulated cigarettes, which will set you back about $50, is very concerning. But at the same time, what we do not want is for kids to turn away from a vape because it is going to set them back $80 and turn towards a packet of cigarettes that is only going to cost them $15 or $20. That is a risk that I think the government needs to have front and centre of its mind as we continue to tackle this issue.

We have a generation of young people experimenting with unknown chemicals and taking on risks they barely understand, often encouraged by peer pressure. Any steps we can take—and we need to be taking all those steps—to limit the availability are necessary and welcome.

I think it is heartening to see the AMA (SA) express clear written support for these measures. The support of our medical community reflects a widespread understanding of the long-term health costs and dangers associated with tobacco and e-cigarettes.

We have seen the power of strong public health policies and the reduction of smoking over the years. Smoke-free areas and advertising restrictions, expanded further by this bill, are just a couple of examples that have shifted smoking culture in our society. I still remember, as I am sure many honourable members do, a time when you could smoke at a restaurant, a pub, a club, or a nightclub. You cannot even imagine that happening today. We have certainly come a long way but we cannot become complacent, particularly with new threats emerging.

If you need any convincing of that, I will just refer back to the time when I worked in the senate and we were in the middle of the negotiations that were taking place—Minister Hunt was the minister at the time—for the TGA approval for vapes. I met with one of the biggest tobacco suppliers. I will not name them. So lucrative was the market for the legal, regulated products, let alone the unregulated products, that this tobacco company actually said to me that they had a strategic policy of moving entirely out of tobacco and into vapes. That is how big a market we are talking about.

It is one that comes with a lot of health risks that we just did not understand or comprehend. That is now compounded by the fact that we have this illicit tobacco vape trade where we simply do not know what people are ingesting, so it is very important that we keep on top of both: the tobacco and the vapes.

The message from the public is equally clear. There is strong support for tougher measures to protect the health of South Australians, especially our young people. The public expect us to take decisive action to curb behaviours that are detrimental to our health, and today we have a clear opportunity to do so. I, like other honourable members in this place, am extremely happy to see the introduction of this bill.

With respect to the amendments, I will say I appreciate and am understanding that there is support for the Hon. Rob Simms' proposal, which is a bit of a compromise in terms of how we deal with minors who may go into premises to attempt to buy one of these products. I will wait until we get to that stage of the debate, but I understand the Hon. Rob Simms has in effect tried to find that middle ground in terms of saying that they cannot do it at all versus providing some parameters around when we can have minors entering premises to attempt to buy those vapes.

Again, I assure you it is not that hard. It is not that hard to go into one of these places. I thought it would be; it is absolutely not that hard. I still have a bucket downstairs in my office, full of all the illicit tobacco that I have managed to collect from lots of places across South Australia. I have sent plenty of photos to the minister.

An honourable member: Where is this?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In my office. It is extraordinary; it is absolutely extraordinary what you can get your hands on. I think the most impressive packet in that bucket, and I have the price of this because I paid for them—it is not illegal to purchase; it is illegal to sell—is a packet of cigarettes, a carton, labelled 666 or 777, I cannot remember what it is called. It looks like a packet; it even has the little silver lining. Inside that are 24 rolled cigarettes. They look professional. That is chop-chop. It is chop-chop that someone here in the backyard of a factory or a house, or wherever it is, has meticulously rolled into a cigarette. They have made the boxes, they have placed the cigarettes inside and the silver paper is there.

I purchased that packet of cigarettes for $12. If I had gone to an outlet to buy an equivalent packet of cigarettes, I would have paid between $58 and $70 for the same packet of cigarettes. You can absolutely understand why this is so lucrative and why we need these laws to come into place. With that, I support the second reading of this bill and commend the minister for his patience every time I sent him a photo of the cigarettes that I have managed to collect and which are in my office.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (17:46): I rise to support this bill. We have made significant progress in South Australia, as many members of this chamber have said, in reducing the prevalence of smoking in our community. Looking back to a time when a majority of people smoked and being exposed to someone else's smoke was a fact of daily life, we can be thankful that has changed.

However, smoking is an addiction that some South Australians still maintain, and it remains a very significant public health challenge. It has a huge impact on the health of the individuals who smoke and it creates a significant demand on our health system, being estimated to cost our system more than $2 billion every year.

Recent data tells us that that 8.7 per cent of South Australians over the age of 15 years are smokers. We would hope to see a lower figure, but there is encouraging data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showing that the proportion of people aged 14 and over who smoke daily across Australia has dropped from 24 per cent in 1991 to 8.3 per cent in 2022-23. The proportion of people who have never smoked has also risen over the same period, from 49 per cent in 1991 to 65 per cent in 2022-23.

However, in recent years a new public health issue has arisen: the use of e-cigarettes. These devices are commonly known as vapes, and their use is increasing, particularly among young people. Data tells us that vape use in South Australia nearly doubled over just one year among people aged 15 to 29, from 8.4 per cent of people in that age group in 2022 to 15.1 per cent in 2023. For the first time, there are more e-cigarette users than there are smokers among persons in this age group.

Research released late last year by the 'Australian secondary school students' alcohol and drug survey' revealed high school students' rapid uptake of vaping. Since 2017, the percentage of secondary school students across Australia reporting vaping has increased from 4 per cent to 16 per cent. We know that e-cigarette use is also rising among people aged 30 to 59, up from 3.1 per cent in 2022 to 6.7 per cent in 2023.

Vaping can be part of a pathway to help people quit smoking tobacco cigarettes, but clear evidence now tells us that vaping carries its own highly significant health risks. It is quite disappointing to see data suggesting that young people who vape in fact become five times more likely to take up tobacco smoking.

Vapes contain harmful chemicals, heavy metals and toxins found in products such as weed killer, batteries and bug spray. The Malinauskas government is passionate about addressing this growing public health concern. We have seen reforms by the commonwealth government that include:

regulation regarding flavours, colours and other ingredients;

requiring pharmaceutical-like packaging; and

reducing the permitted nicotine content and volume.

The South Australian government has also taken actions to address the growing public health concern of vaping, including:

running advertising campaigns about vaping across radio, outdoor and social media platforms;

supporting schools with an education campaign, resources and staff training to help discourage young ones from taking up vaping; and

introducing new vape and smoke-free areas, which commenced on 1 March 2024, and banning vaping and smoking in a variety of public areas.

The South Australian government seeks to continue our work through the measures included in this bill before us. This bill seeks to amend the act to align South Australia's legislation with the commonwealth legislation as part of the national vaping legislative reforms passed by the Australian parliament in June 2024. This includes creating an offence for the sale and supply of non-therapeutic vaping products and prohibited nicotine products.

This bill also proposes to address a number of requirements that many members have already gone through, but I would also like to highlight a few that have not been suggested already, like banning vending machine sales of tobacco products in public areas, a new authority to ban novel products which are marketed as alternatives to vapes, and creating smoke-free and vape-free buffer zones, which I think have been suggested already by other members.

The increasing prevalence of illicit tobacco being sold across Australia is also of concern. This was raised, obviously, by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and it is also why the Malinauskas government has committed a further $16 million over the next four years to tackle this illicit tobacco trade and to take action against anyone seeking to sell e-cigarette products to children and young people.

From July 2024 Consumer and Business Services assumed responsibility of licensing and enforcement functions related to illegal sales of e-cigarettes and illicit tobacco. They are now responsible for assessing new licence applications as well as ensuring existing licensees are complying with the law and investigating and prosecuting offenders.

Law reforms play an important role in driving down the prevalence of smoking and vaping, but it is also important that we provide pathways to make quitting smoking and vaping more accessible. Our government recognises the importance of preventive measures, which is why we made the commitment to create a new, independent agency, called Preventive Health SA. Its mandate is to develop evidence-based programs and policies to keep South Australians healthy. Tobacco and vaping are key priority areas for this new agency. The work of Preventive Health SA includes the development of new and innovative public campaigns aimed at motivating smokers and vapers to quit and is targeting young people to be more informed about the dangers of vaping.

This is an important bill, as all members have highlighted, and one that our community expects. I recognise the significant work that Preventive Health SA and the department have put into this and also the staff and the minister himself. As has been suggested in this chamber, the minister has had a leading advocacy role in this space in changing and shifting the culture of smoking in Australia and one that should be recognised by all.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:53): I thank all members for their contributions. I look forward to the committee stage and, for the sake of the ease of the committee stage, I might indicate that the government will be supporting the amendments put forward by the Hon. Robert Simms.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

The CHAIR: At clause 39, there are amendments in the names of the Hon. Mr Simms and the Hon. Ben Hood. The Hon. Mr Simms, my understanding is that all your amendments are basically consequential. Would you like to move all the amendments standing in your name?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: If that is agreeable to you, Chair, yes. I am happy to move them.

The CHAIR: It is certainly agreeable to the Black Rod, and I always listen to the Black Rod.

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

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 32, after line 15 [clause 39, inserted section 69A]—After the definition of controlled purchase operation insert:

designated person means a child who is of or above the age of 16 years;

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 32, line 20 [clause 39, inserted section 69B(1)]—Delete 'a person who is under the age of 18 years' and substitute:

, subject to subsection (1a), a designated person

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 32, after line 21 [clause 39, inserted section 69B]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The Minister must not authorise a designated person to be a controlled purchase officer unless the parent or legal guardian of the person has consented in writing to the proposed authorisation.

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 32, after line 37 [clause 39, inserted section 69C]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) An authorised officer responsible for supervising a controlled purchase operation involving a designated person must undertake an assessment of the operation and must ensure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure the safety of the designated person during the operation.

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 32, line 38 [clause 39, inserted section 69C(2)]—Delete 'under the age of 18 years' and substitute 'a designated person'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that we will be supporting these amendments. The amendments will allow the controlled purchase operations to occur as intended by the government's original bill. We acknowledge that minors aged 16 to 18 years of age are the primary intended cohort that would be used in such operations. We thank the Hon. Mr Simms for bringing these amendments, and we will be supporting these and the related amendments that follow.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–2]—

Page 33, line 28 [clause 39, inserted section 69CB(3)]—After 'given to' insert:

the owner of the premises and

I appreciate that these amendments have come very late, but these amendments seek to ensure that a landlord who has a tenant who is subject to an interim closure order is informed that the interim closure order has been issued to the tenant once that order has been issued and to provide grounds for the landlord to terminate a lease if the interim closure order is issued on the tenant and, in exercising any right to terminate the lease on the above grounds, the landlord is not in breach of any provision of the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 and their rights and obligations under the act are not adversely affected.

Essentially, the bill does not currently have any requirement for a landlord to be notified that the tenant has been subject to an interim closure order. It also means that a retail space could essentially be left closed for up to six months without the landlord being able to terminate the lease. Again, these amendments hope to strengthen the bill and make it more effective in respect to businesses found to be trading illegal tobacco and nicotine products, that there are some protections for the landlord.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his amendment. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, but the government will not be supporting it. It is the government's view that this amendment would defeat the purpose of the interim closure order as it would take time to locate the property owner. Giving notice to the person apparently in charge or posting a notice in a conspicuous place, for example a shop door, will enable a speedy closure.

I think the member will appreciate knowing that I am advised that CBS will develop a policy that will include writing to the landlord or property manager advising that the retail premises is subject to a closure order, but importantly, this will not hold up the issuing of the order in accordance with the act.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I rise just to remind honourable members of the processes involved in putting up amendments at a late stage. Members should be aware that if amendments come forward after the time of our party room meeting they will not be considered by us, particularly in the case when the minister is involved and not members of this chamber, but generally as well. We need to have the authority of the cabinet to approve these things and if they do not come to our party room in time we will not be supporting them, regardless of the merits.

The Hon. L.A. Henderson: Mr Whip, I will remind you of your amendment last Wednesday.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate on behalf of the Greens that we will not be supporting these amendments. As has been acknowledged by the honourable member, they were filed quite late. We have not had an opportunity to consider the implications of the amendments in a fulsome way, but I am persuaded by the government's advice that there is a risk that these amendments could undermine the intention behind the scheme. That is certainly not something the Greens want to do. On that basis, we will not be supporting the amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate the same, and indeed echo what the Hon. Rob Simms has said in relation to not supporting these amendments. I do note that the government has said that a guideline will be established to deal with this issue of notifying people. We would not want to do anything, certainly, that stands in the way of one of those orders, particularly where it prevents one of these premises from being fire-bombed, for instance.

I think the issue the Hon. Ben Hood has raised is in effect going to be addressed through the guidelines that the Attorney has just foreshadowed, and on that basis I am satisfied that we will deal with this issue appropriately, without any of the unintended consequences that the amendment may give rise to.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ben Hood, you have another amendment which we believe is consequential.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: It is consequential.

Clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (40 to 53), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (18:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.