Independent Commission Against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 November 2024.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (22:58): I rise to speak on the Independent Commission Against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. I spoke at some length in relation to some of the issues that are canvassed by this bill when I moved a bill. I note that it is one of three bills that are on the Notice Paper dealing with the same issues in principle, but to different degrees. I do not intend to repeat everything that I said in October, but I would refer honourable members to the speech that I gave in October, particularly in relation to the reasons for those bills that were moved in this place.

I think generally, though, if I can just make a couple of observations at the outset. The first would be that it strikes me as rather odd that the government has gone to the trouble of addressing a couple of the issues, perhaps one of the most contentious issues in the bill that is before us, but has stopped short in terms of addressing all the other issues outlined, certainly in the bill that I and others proposed—which of course is not based on the views that I have put before this place but on the views that the Law Society, the Centre for Public Integrity, the ICAC Commissioner and a number of other bodies have put on the public record.

It does strike me as a little bit odd that we would stop short of taking into account all the concerns that have been raised and focus instead, predominantly, on just one. I would probably, when we sum up, ask the Attorney if we can clarify why it is that we have stopped short of addressing all those other issues that, again, have been canvassed very publicly now in relation to the previous changes to this bill and the concerns and criticisms that have been raised by those bodies, like I said, including ICAC and the Centre for Public Integrity, and the Law Society in particular. I would just note our reliance on the Centre for Public Integrity when it came to the other piece of legislation that we dealt with but which we have not followed through with the same concerns in relation to this one.

The other point that I will make at the outset—and I am pre-empting something the Attorney might say here, and I will speak to this further when we get to the amendments—is that I do intend to move amendments to this bill that, effectively, would make it consistent with the other bills that are on the Notice Paper. The amendments, which have all been taken from advice and correspondence that I think have been forwarded to all of us, are contained in the bill that I have. They are not contained in the bill that has been proposed by the government, but I do indicate that I intend to move amendments to that effect.

I note that one of the points that has been ventilated over and over, and I mentioned this during the second reading—and in fact I noticed today in InDaily the advertisement from CPIP for an inquiry regarding the ICAC legislation. I need to stress very strongly that that is not an independent review. That is a review by the parliament, and it is certainly not the prescribed independent review that was anticipated into the operation of that act. It is, again, a review of this parliament. I think we will find ourselves in the position where, as politicians who made these laws, relying on a review that is being undertaken by members of parliament is not going to cut the mustard in terms of its independence. In fact, we have just had this example previously. There are reasons why we call for independent reviews.

I think this is a glaring example of where there would be an expectation publicly that there is a review that is independent of all of us in this place, given the changes that were made. I will speak to that further when I get to those particular amendments and we reach that point. I just make those two points at the outset. As I said, I have already ventilated in this place all of the reasons for those changes based on the correspondence and advice that we have received.

I do just for the record want to note that since this bill was introduced I did, in fact, write to the acting commissioner and seek some feedback from them in relation to the bill that is before us. I basically asked for the feedback in relation to the current bill from ICAC. I understand that the Attorney did provide, and the Attorney can perhaps confirm this, a copy of the government's proposal to the acting commissioner and there was a response to the Attorney.

In summary, the matters that were outlined in that letter were in relation to the making of an application to the Supreme Court under section 39A and they were particular issues that were raised in relation to that and the impact on the court's time and resources, and an alternative model is for the commissioner to be given a discretion not to make section 39A notification in circumstances like those set out in proposed section 39A(4) and that this could be coupled with an obligation on the commissioner to notify the inspector when a discretion is exercised. This approach provides independent scrutiny of the commissioner's decision without any impost on the court's time and resources.

I also note that in relation to proposed section 39A(4)(a)(ii) it was suggested that this should be widened to align with the protections the common law doctrine of public interest immunity provides to persons who provide information to police and this could be done by permitting the court to grant an order if it is satisfied that the giving of a section 39A notification will tend to identify an informant. Public interest immunity is a longstanding doctrine developed by the common law to ensure that those who have information about unlawful conduct are able and willing to provide it to police. In my view—and these are the words of the acting commissioner—it is important that 39A mirrors the longstanding protections that doctrine provides.

Further, in relation to 39A(4)(a)(i), it was suggested that this should be amended to make it clear that investigations include any future investigation and that it is often the case that a corruption investigation will be closed in circumstances where there is insufficient evidence to warrant a referral for investigation or prosecution but where information obtained in the investigation suggests corruption is or has been occurring, investigations of this kind tend to be those examining allegations of serious entrenched or insidious corruption, the investigation is closed but may be reopened if more information came to light.

If section 39A is required to be given in these circumstances, any future investigation is likely to be prejudiced. Suspected offenders will take steps to conceal evidence, change methodology or intimidate potential witnesses. The consequence is that the corruption and the damage it causes to the community is less likely to be addressed.

The correspondence then goes on to deal with a couple of other issues in relation to section 39A and the issue of costs. It might be more useful, and I have just realised I am reading it because I have left my copy downstairs, if I seek leave to table a copy of that letter in full for the benefit of members who have not had the same. I seek leave to table a copy.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There are a couple of points there where the acting commissioner has commented in relation to the drafting of the government bill and made suggestions as to how they, I guess, perceive it could be improved, without commenting on the merits of the bill itself. All they are looking at are the practicalities of those issues that have been outlined.

There are further issues addressed, as I said, in that letter, which I will canvass when we get to the relevant amendments. If I could again—and I will do this as we go through the bill—work through those amendments and speak to them in a bit more detail when we get to those particular provisions, I will.

I do not intend to read all of this again—we have done that—but I would just ask the Attorney to clarify, at least for me, those two questions around, firstly, why it is that we think that a CPIP inquiry by this parliament is adequate when clearly there is a requirement for an independent review and, secondly, why it is that the government went to the trouble of addressing the issues that they have in this bill but actually stopped short of addressing those other issues that have been outlined by so many of the peak stakeholder and associated bodies, including ombudsmen and so forth, who have commented on the bill and outlined to us what the issues are with it.

I do not intend to speak any further on that; I have done that before. I will leave those two questions with the Attorney. Perhaps he can answer in his summing-up. I will address issues as we proceed through the bill and deal with amendments.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, you have sought leave to table a letter. Can you please get the letter?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, certainly.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is kind of unusual for us to give you permission to table something you actually do not have, so thank you; that is great.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (23:12): I will sum up and respond to the Hon. Ms Bonaros's concerns that have been raised, but before I do that I would like to thank everyone in this chamber for the contributions they have made in relation to this bill. As I said when I introduced the bill in my second reading speech, this seeks to address a couple of discrete issues that we think are worthy of addressing.

The ability for reimbursement of legal fees has been the subject of considerable debate and there are different views amongst people, very learned people in the law, about the application of those reimbursements, but for the sake of absolute clarity we have brought this bill before this place. As I said in my second reading speech previously, there are a couple of other discrete issues that we seek to be addressed in this bill as well.

This bill does not seek to overturn previous changes that have been made by this parliament in the last term of parliament, with the bill that was sponsored by the former government. We think that there are a number of different processes that have only been in operation for less than a couple of years as part of that bill—the inspector, for instance. I think it is only 18 months or two years that the ICAC inspector has been operating, so we think it is entirely reasonable that the changes that were made actually be given time to evaluate how they work before we make any other change.

In relation to the specific questions that the Hon. Connie Bonaros asked in her second reading contribution, very simply I think the two questions were: why the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee for the review, and why are we not doing all the changes that everyone has suggested as part of this bill?

In relation to the question of why the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, we think that is an appropriate body to undertake the review. I am very pleased that on many occasions I agree almost wholeheartedly with the Hon. Connie Bonaros on a whole range of issues, but on this particular discrete issue I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. The government is satisfied that that particular committee, with the ability to have a research officer, to be able to call witnesses and to be able to produce a report, will be able to produce a report that will be useful for this parliament on the operation of the amendments that this parliament has previously made.

Regarding the other question of why we would not have a much larger bill that addresses issues in legislation that the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Robert Simms and the Hon. Sarah Game have all put forward, as I said in my second reading speech at the start and as I mentioned before, there are very discrete issues that we seek to address. There are elements of the bill that have only been in operation for a short period of time. We are not closed off to addressing further issues, particularly after the review from the parliamentary committee, but at this stage we want to address those discrete issues and we look forward to addressing other issues once they have had a chance to actually be in operation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am aware of the lateness of the hour, so I thought it might be helpful for people if I indicate my position on the amendments that the Hon. Connie Bonaros is intending to advance. I thought I would indicate at this stage of the debate the Greens' position. We will be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Connie Bonaros. It is not my view that I will speak on each of them; I will just make some general remarks in relation to them now. As the honourable member reflected in her second reading contribution, there are three bills before the parliament that look at potential improvements to the ICAC. The Hon. Connie Bonaros's bill takes up those themes and I am certainly supportive of that.

I do want to express some frustration at the way in which the government is approaching this reform. It is now just past 11 o'clock. Some of us in this place have been pushing for many months to see some activity on these issues. Suddenly, it has to be done right now. I did not receive a briefing on this bill until Thursday of last week. There has not been any time for me to undertake any meaningful consultation in relation to the bill, let alone any opportunity to actually consider developing amendments, so I feel disappointed that I have not had an opportunity to do that.

That said, I welcome the government moving on some of the issues that have been the focus of significant public concern. One of those is the issue of public funding potentially being made available to cover people's legal costs if they have been found guilty of an offence. I welcome the fact that the government is dealing with that. I have some concern about a regime being available to cover the legal costs of politicians and public servants that is not available to those who are before the courts in relation to other criminal matters. That does concern me.

Again, due to the timeframe that the government has imposed, I have not had an opportunity to do research and look at what models work in other jurisdictions and the like, but I note the Attorney's comments that there will be an opportunity for potential further changes down the track and a committee is looking at some of those options. I will await some of their feedback before looking at other opportunities that can be taken.

I see this as being a positive advancement in terms of what the government is doing, but I would have really liked a bit more time to be able to get my head around what is being proposed and to be able to formulate my own amendments. That said, the Greens are supportive of the amendments that the Hon. Connie Bonaros is advancing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate, and for the benefit of the committee stage, that the government will not be supporting any of the amendments the Hon. Connie Bonaros has put forward. We acknowledge that these are not new and they are long-held views of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, but as I have outlined a number of times in this place before and in relation to this bill, we think that the amendments that have previously been made by this parliament should be given a proper amount of time to see their efficacy.

As I say, there are a couple of discrete issues we think are worthy of rectifying this bill, but for those much broader ones, we are not inclined to support them, but we are not closed off to further reform in the future.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that, similar to the government, the opposition will not be supporting any of the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendments for similar reasons outlined by the Attorney and as I canvassed previously in my second reading speech.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

New clauses 2A to 2E.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I understand where we are at with this bill in terms of the government and the opposition's position. I will speak to them briefly nevertheless, and I do intend to keep my remarks brief. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 3, after line 2—Insert:

2A—Amendment of section 5—Corruption, misconduct and maladministration

(1) Section 5(1)—after paragraph (ba) insert:

(c) any other offence (including an offence against Part 5 (Offences of dishonesty) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935) that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more that is committed by a public officer while acting in their capacity as a public officer or by a former public officer and related to their former capacity as a public officer, or by a person before becoming a public officer and related to their capacity as a public officer, or an attempt to commit such an offence; or

(2) Section 5—after subsection (1) insert:

(2) If the Commissioner suspects that an offence that is not corruption in public administration (an incidental offence) may be directly or indirectly connected with, or may be a part of, a course of activity involving the commission of corruption in public administration (whether or not the Commission has identified the nature of that corruption), then the incidental offence is, for so long only as the Commissioner so suspects, taken for the purposes of this Act to be corruption in public administration.

2B—Amendment of section 7—Establishment and functions of Commission

Section 7(1)(a)—delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) to identify corruption in public administration and do any of the following:

(i) investigate and refer it to a prosecution authority for prosecution;

(ii) investigate and refer it to a law enforcement agency for any further investigation and prosecution;

(iii) refer it to a law enforcement agency for investigation and prosecution;

2C—Amendment of section 24—Action that may be taken

(1) Section 24—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The Commission may also assess, according to the criteria set out in section 18E(1), any matter identified by the Commissioner acting on their initiative or by the Commission in the course of performing functions under this or any other Act and if such a matter is assessed by the Commission as raising a potential issue of corruption in public administration that could be the subject of a prosecution, the matter is taken to have been referred to the Commission under this Act.

(2) Section 24(2)—after 'referred to the Commission' insert:

(including in accordance with subsection (1a))

2D—Substitution of section 25

Section 25—delete the section and substitute:

25—Public statements

The Commission may make a public statement in connection with a particular matter if, in the Commissioner's opinion, it is appropriate to do so in the public interest, having regard to the following:

(a) the benefits to an investigation or consideration of a matter under this Act that might be derived from making the statement;

(b) the risk of prejudicing the reputation of a person by making the statement;

(c) whether the statement is necessary in order to allay public concern or to prevent or minimise the risk of prejudice to the reputation of a person;

(d) if an allegation against a person has been made public and, in the opinion of the Commissioner following an investigation or consideration of a matter under this Act, the person is not implicated in corruption, misconduct or maladministration in public administration—whether the statement would redress prejudice caused to the reputation of the person as a result of the allegation having been made public;

(e) the risk of adversely affecting a potential prosecution;

(f) whether any person has requested that the Commission make the statement.

2E—Amendment of section 36—Prosecutions and disciplinary action

(1) Section 36(1) and (1a) —delete subsections (1) and (1a) and substitute:

(1) On completing an investigation or at any time during an investigation, the Commission may do 1 or more of the following:

(a) refer a matter to a prosecution authority for prosecution;

(b) refer a matter to the relevant law enforcement agency for further investigation and potential prosecution;

(c) refer a matter to a public authority for further investigation and potential disciplinary action against a public officer for whom the authority is responsible.

(2) Section 36(2)—after 'the relevant' insert 'prosecution authority, '

I think the amendments, though, do speak for themselves in terms of their intent. As I said, they have been canvassed in the previous bill that has been introduced in this place. This one, in particular, seeks to amend section 5, which deals with corruption, misconduct and maladministration, to add:

any other offence ([under]…the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935) that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more that is committed by a public officer while acting in their capacity as a public officer or by a former public officer and related to their former capacity as a public officer, or by a person before becoming a public officer and related to their capacity as a public officer, or an attempt to commit such an offence;

There is a further provision in that, which requires:

If the Commissioner suspects that an offence that is not corruption in public administration (an incidental offence) may be directly or indirectly connected with, or may be a part of, a course of activity involving the commission of corruption in public administration (whether or not the Commission has identified the nature of that corruption), then the incidental offence is, for so long only as the Commissioner so suspects, taken for the purposes of this Act to be corruption in public administration.

I think we all know what this amendment seeks to do, but I also note the will of the parliament in relation to that, so I will not spend any more time speaking about that before moving on to the other amendments.

New clauses negatived.

Clause 3.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 3, lines 3 to 39 and page 4, lines 1 to 8—Delete clause 3 and substitute:

3—Amendment of section 39A—Information to be provided

(1) Section 39A—delete 'If—' and substitute:

Subject to subsection (2), if—

(2) Section 39A—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) If the Commission, agency or authority (as the case may be) is satisfied that a person was not aware that they were the subject of an investigation, the Commission, agency or authority (as the case may be) is not required to comply with subsection (1) in relation to that person.

This is in relation to information to be provided. In this instance I will refer back specifically to some of the comments that I did make during my second reading contribution. This amendment relates to the information that is to be provided, which, again, has been the subject of a lot of commentary when it comes to what should and should not be provided and how and in what form that should take. It seeks to effectively bring the government's position now in line with, again, the advice that has been provided to members from those bodies about how and in what form information should be provided to individuals.

The former commissioner was very strong in relation to this point. I note the government's position was very strong in relation to this point in terms of providing information where it was not going to serve any beneficial purpose but also may pose some risks. Effectively the amendment, again, defers back to the advice that was provided at the time about the most appropriate way of providing information in accordance with what the commission itself would say is the most appropriate form.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to advise, as I said, that the government will not be supporting any of the amendments. In relation to this particular one the government has moved the provisions in this bill so that if there is that risk being posed—a risk to a person or a risk to another operation—there is a pathway not to have to disclose. This was something, as the honourable member says, the former commissioner raised, and we are satisfied that we have that pathway to do that in our bill.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clauses 3A and 3B.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 4, after line 8—Insert:

3A—Amendment of section 42—Reports

Section 42(1a)—delete subsection (1a) and substitute:

(1a) The Commission must not prepare a report under this section setting out findings or recommendations resulting from a completed investigation into a potential issue of corruption in public administration unless—

(a) all criminal proceedings arising from that investigation are complete; or

(b) the Commission is satisfied that no criminal proceedings will be commenced as a result of the investigation, in which case the report must not identify any person involved in the investigation.

3B—Substitution of section 51

Section 51—delete the section and substitute:

51—Arrangements for provision of information

(1) The relevant authorities are to enter into arrangements with the Commissioner under which the Commission is given access to information and databases (including confidential information and databases) for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act and for appropriate protection of the confidentiality of the information accessed.

(2) In this section—

relevant authorities are—

(a) the Commissioner of Police;

(b) the Director of OPI;

(c) the Ombudsman.

I think we all know where we stand now. I refer honourable members to the substance of this amendment, which I know they will oppose on both sides of the benches.

New clauses negatived.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 5, after line 1—Insert:

(a1) Schedule 5, clause 1, definition of Government employee—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) a person who is employed by the Commission under this Act; or

Both of these amendments are really for the sake of completeness. I am a bit puzzled as to why we would not be supporting these on either side because effectively all we are doing is making it very explicit that any legal costs that are actually incurred by those persons who are working for the commission are actually covered under the existing scheme. It is one of the issues that was raised. It is not explicit at the moment. I am sure that the Attorney will tell us that they are already covered as a government employee.

Certainly, where there is a review conducted by the inspector in accordance with schedule 4, which is canvassed in amendment No. 5, this would make it explicit that those persons who are employed by the commission are entitled to have their legal costs covered.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 5, line 12 [clause 5(2)]—After 'investigation' insert 'and any review conducted in accordance with Schedule 4'

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you, Chair, I did not expect that we would get to this stage this early this evening, so I apologise. I move:

Amendment No 6 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 5, lines 13 to 15 [clause 5(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Schedule 5, clause 3(a)—delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) the Government employee, Government Board appointee, Minister or Member of Parliament has not, as a result of the relevant ICAC investigation, been convicted of an offence or had a finding made against them that is, in the opinion of the Crown Solicitor (or some other person authorised by the Crown Solicitor), a material adverse finding; and

(4) Schedule 5, clause 5(2)(d)—after 'offence' insert ', or have a finding made against them, of a kind'

(5) Schedule 5, clause 6(1)(a)—after 'offence' insert ', or have a finding made against them, of a kind'

The amendment effectively deals with when legal costs will or will not be paid. I note that the advice that we had from ICAC and others was that the benchmark should be set a lot higher than what the government has set.

The government's benchmark is set at where there is a conviction for an offence, whereas the advice that we have had from those bodies who have provided advice to us, including the ICAC, is that that benchmark should be a lot lower and that anyone, where there has been a material adverse finding against an individual, ought not be eligible to have their legal costs reimbursed.

Effectively, I am seeking to make it more difficult, if you like, for want of a better term, to have your legal costs reimbursed in line with the advice that ICAC has provided, and that is where there is a change from a conviction for an offence to material adverse findings. So if there is a material adverse finding, you do not get your legal costs.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clause 6.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 5, after line 15—Insert:

6—Review of Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (CPIPC Recommendations) Amendment Act 2021

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the effect of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (CPIPC Recommendations) Amendment Act 2021 to be conducted, and a report on the review to be prepared and submitted to the Minister, within the period of 6 months after the commencement of this Act.

(2) The Minister must cause a copy of a report submitted under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after receiving the report.

I think for me this is the most critical amendment, and I do note what the Attorney has said, but I will just reiterate that during a lot of the discussions that have taken place in this place and certainly publicly, there has been a lot of discussion about a review, and ICAC has been very clear to point out that there was no mandated review in the legislation, and it was not clear, certainly to ICAC and others, when references were being made to a review, what review we were talking about.

Notwithstanding that, we now have the situation where CPIP—we are on notice that CPIP is going to be undertaking a review. Certainly I think, given the public sentiment in relation to this issue generally, but more specifically the issues that have been raised by those bodies that I have referred to—including ICAC itself, including the former ombudsman, including the Centre for Public Integrity, including the Law Society—there is an expectation that that review would take place independently of this parliament. I think it is a very fair expectation because we voted on that legislation. We were the subject of criticism as a result of that legislation and now we are going to be inquiring into that issue.

So there are two points: firstly, there has never been a mandated review requirement and, secondly, I do not think that a parliamentary inquiry, in the view of all those experts, passes any test, certainly not in this case and certainly given the criticisms that have been levelled at all of us in relation to this piece of legislation and the way that it was handled. It is for that reason that I move this amendment, seeking that the minister gives effect to an independent review, if you like, that examines all the issues that came out of the legislation that we passed and ensuring that that review is tabled in this parliament.

It speaks for itself, but the only other point I would make in speaking to this amendment is that—and there is no sugar-coating this—we have what has been described as the most secretive but also the weakest ICAC in the entire nation and amongst those globally as well. That is a fair criticism, that we have failed to meet the standards that would be expected of an ICAC and everything that comes with that.

It is an indefensible position and that does not need to be my view: it is the view that has been shared with all of us and it is certainly the view that has been espoused publicly as well. It is for that reason the commission has suggested that our inquiring into those changes will serve very little benefit. If you want some transparency and accountability in that process, the only way to achieve that is by having an independent review. I cannot wrap my head around why we would not be supportive of an independent review in this instance.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicated at the start of the discussion that I was supportive of the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendments, but it is important to stress how vital an independent review is in terms of trying to restore public faith in our institutions here in SA. We have talked a lot about how we got to where we got to several years ago, and one of the main learnings was that the parliament moved too quickly.

Having an independent review that sits at arm's length of the parliament that can make recommendations I think really makes sense. I know there has not been support for the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendments here, but I urge members to at least back this amendment as one that would, I think, be welcomed by many people in the broader community who have not been happy with where this parliament has landed on the ICAC.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 3

Noes 15

Majority 12

AYES

NOES

New clause thus negatived.

Schedule 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) (23:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.