Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2024.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:45): I rise today to indicate on behalf of the Liberal opposition that we will be supporting the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill. The main purpose of the bill is to establish a greyhound industry reform inspector to oversee greyhound racing's implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry. The bill also governs the inspector's functions and powers, the assignment of staff, the inspector's final report and the expiry of the act.

Due to the complex issues in the industry, this is an important and much-needed bill to ensure that effective reform can be applied to the greyhound racing industry. As honourable members will remember, just last year there were three dog trainers handed lifetime bans from the sport for live baiting practices, and following that there was leaked footage of abuse against greyhounds. This incident was, quite simply, utterly reprehensible and completely unacceptable, but it was not just an isolated incident, unfortunately, and it became clear that changes needed to be made within the industry.

Subsequently, an independent inquiry into the governance of the greyhound racing industry was conducted and led by Mr Graham Ashton AM APM and review director Zoe Thomas. I take this opportunity to place my acknowledgement of thanks to Mr Ashton and Ms Thomas for their comprehensive work and for uncovering some major issues within the industry. From that investigation, they produced 86 recommendations across a range of areas that needed to be improved on. Today, in this chamber, we are seeking to properly implement just one of those recommendations.

Recommendation 57 is to establish an inspector for greyhound racing reform who would have unrestricted access to the Greyhound Racing SA (GRSA) system and its data. This inspector will be totally independent of the industry and the review. I stress the point that this inspector has to be independent because it needs to safeguard the integrity as well as all the transparency and accountability of the industry. The inspector will receive welfare reports from GRSA as well as professional advice from an advisory group and will provide a final report after two years at the inspector's level of satisfaction.

On 8 May this year, Mr Sal Perna AM was appointed as the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector. I note that this was two months later than the Easter deadline that the Premier handed himself when the report was made public in December of last year. As we all know, that was a busy period for the Premier, who had many parties and major events to attend and celebrities and influencers to entertain. Indeed, unlike the great speeds of the greyhounds which run around the racetrack, the government took a rather leisurely pace to appoint the inspector into his role and to legislate the necessary powers for him to perform his job.

Two months after an announcement that was already two months late, Mr Perna officially commenced his role as inspector in July, but the government had no legislative mechanism in place for Mr Perna to be able to perform his job and compel the GRSA to cooperate with the inspector, so it took another two months in September of this year for a bill to finally be introduced. For those in the government who need help with their math, this bill was introduced four months after the inspector was announced, six months after the original Easter deadline for the appointment of an inspector, and 10 months after the report was made public.

It is now almost a year to the day that the report was finalised. Nevertheless, we are here now today to finally pass through debate and get through the necessary reforms and framework to allow Sal Perna to perform his role as inspector.

I have been well informed by my colleague in the other place Mr Tim Whetstone, the shadow minister for racing, that Sal Perna is an excellent choice as inspector and is well respected within the greyhound racing community. Mr Perna brings with him a wealth of knowledge and experience, having worked as a police officer and as Victorian Racing Integrity Commissioner from 2010 to 2021. During that period, he also conducted the Victorian inquiry into live baiting in 2015.

I understand that he is also currently serving as an independent director of the International Tennis Integrity Agency and is a panel member of the National Sports Tribunal. Additionally, he is a board member of the World Anti-Doping Agency's Independent Ethics Board, as well as the National Basketball League's Advisory Board.

Mr Perna, unlike the government, has decided to act very swiftly and has taken the initiative to already starting working closely with the GRSA. I understand that he has also already met with the Minister for Racing and with the Leader of the Opposition. These are great first steps and, while GRSA have been fully cooperative throughout the inquiry and the appointment of Sal Perna as the inspector, it sits with us now to ensure there is a legislative mechanism to compel GRSA to cooperate with the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector.

Before I conclude, I would like to speak briefly to the amendments proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks. I wish to indicate that the Liberal opposition will be opposing the amendments. This is because we believe that the amendments fall outside of the scope of this bill, which is to grant the inspector temporary powers over a two-year period of reforms while the industry implements the 86 recommendations made by the independent inquiry.

The amendments put forward for consideration, while they may certainly be well intended, further complicate the bill and may potentially misinterpret the role of the inspector. Following consultation by my colleague the shadow minister for racing with members of the greyhound racing industry, the opposition finds that these amendments are mostly perhaps unnecessary for accomplishing the actual goal today of empowering the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector. For those reasons, we indicate that we will not be supporting amendments proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks.

In conclusion, I have been informed that there is a level of highly engaging enthusiasm from those outside of the industry and inside the industry to see effective reform and to safeguard the welfare of greyhounds. The Liberal Party is committed to ensuring that greyhound racing is clean and safe and can be enjoyed by all of us in South Australia. We are committed to working with Sal Perna and the greyhound racing industry in implementing the remaining 85 recommendations from the inquiry. We look forward to progressing this bill and what will hopefully be a successful reform for the greyhound racing industry. With those comments, I commend the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:54): I stand on behalf of the Greens to support the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill 2024. It has been a long time coming. Indeed, as the Hon. Jing Lee just mentioned, it is almost a year since the Premier promised that it would be coming by Easter, but here we are, almost at Christmas, and we are finally seeing the legislation to keep that particular pledge.

The Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill (GIRI) flows from the Ashton inquiry into the greyhound industry in our state. It was an independent inquiry headed by Mr Graham Ashton AM APM, a former Victorian police commissioner, who was ably assisted by review director Ms Zoe Thomas. The inquiry was formally established by Premier Peter Malinauskas on 14 August 2023 in response to yet more revelations of illegal, inhumane cruelty and the sickening abuse of multiple greyhounds, including live baiting practices. The inquiry was tasked with reviewing the regulatory regime, operations, culture, governance and practices within the greyhound industry in our state of South Australia.

The Greens have long been concerned about the greyhound racing industry and its poor track record. When it comes to animal welfare and integrity, I am certainly on the record, time and time again, in raising in this place the issues around the appalling treatment of greyhounds—as far back as 2016, when I called for a select committee into the greyhound industry. Until the morning of the day of the vote, that particular select committee had the support of the Liberal opposition—support, I note, that had evaporated by lunchtime that day.

My Greens colleagues interstate, however, including the late New South Wales MLC John Kaye, have been doing so for even longer. I pay tribute to Mr Kaye for his work to expose the truth about this cruel and inhumane industry. His work continues here today.

While my intention was also to look at all aspects of the greyhound industry, this bill dwells more on its economic viability, its financial performance and the conduct of the industry, focusing on integrity and governance. The Greens, while supporting those integrity measures, do have outstanding concerns about the animal welfare aspects of this industry that the bill, in its current form, simply does not adequately address. Most members will be very well aware, I would hope, of the allegations of cruelty and corruption that have dogged this industry for so many years.

The Four Corners program, Making a Killing, in 2015 was a particularly horrifying example that was the catalyst for former New South Wales Premier Mike Baird to announce a ban on the industry—a ban that I note still continues in the ACT today—that was unfortunately overturned later after pressure from the industry in New South Wales.

More recently and closer to home, horrific visions emerged of greyhounds being beaten—footage that was physically shocking. It shocked the Premier, it shocked myself, and I would imagine it shocked most members of this place, if not all. It caused a public backlash that led to the government being forced to take the action that commissioned the Ashton inquiry.

These were reports, however, that had long since been raised in this place and could have been well aerated through a select committee back in 2016. I note that we were in fact, I believe, the only jurisdiction that did not either ban greyhound racing at the time of that Four Corners exposé or have some sort of in-depth inquiry.

Animal welfare issues within the greyhound racing industry are endemic throughout, from the sale and overbreeding of greyhounds to the welfare of animals in training and kennelling, the conditions they face on the track and how they are treated throughout all stages of their often all-too-brief lives before, during and after any racing career. Examples of poor animal welfare—including inadequate food, water, shelter and socialisation; living in filthy and sometimes squalid conditions; and not getting proper veterinary care and attention—are far from unusual occurrences. Indeed, from the case studies that were presented by Commissioner Ashton in his report, these occurrences are disturbingly common and have been committed by a significant number of industry figures, often without real and meaningful consequence.

Life on the track of course presents its own dangers, and injuries are common, with the vast majority of dogs injured at some point during their racing lives. While an unsuccessful dog will not survive in the industry for long, often literally, even successful dogs on the track face a life of uncertainty after their racing career is over, with the threat of euthanasia seemingly ever-present upon the flimsiest of pretexts.

Sadly, the number of greyhounds euthanased, a practice euphemistically referred to within the greyhound racing industry as 'wastage', is a shocking indictment of the industry that has put profits over principle, and prioritises financial returns over animal welfare. This is not surprising, given the industry is reliant upon the gambling revenue for its economic survival in its current form. You bet, they die.

This in turn leads to an inherent contradiction at the heart of this debate about the industry. Good animal welfare standards seem to be incompatible with the profit-centred motive of a gambling-focused industry. While industry participants profess to love their animals—and I do not doubt that for some this is true—the reality is that for many greyhounds, as was uncovered by Four Corners in New South Wales and more recently here in South Australia in the Ashton inquiry, the reality is often a far different story.

I acknowledge that in recent years the industry has made some attempts to improve the situation and promotes its Greyhounds As Pets (GAP) program, although there are systemic issues within that program as well, due to the number of dogs requiring rehoming far exceeding the available numbers of potential homes and many other revelations that have come through not just the Ashton inquiry but were brought to the attention of this council by myself.

I note also the whistleblowers from the GAP program, and I thank them for their courage to both spark and participate in the Ashton review. Whilst some people have found a much-loved canine companion through this rehoming program, it should not provide a licence for or an excuse to continue the excessive breeding or the ongoing abuses the industry seems incapable or unwilling to stop.

Live baiting is but one example, and there have been a number of high profile cases in South Australia that have horrified the broader community and animal lovers in particular. Some estimates in New South Wales suggested that between 10 to 20 per cent of trainers engaged in this barbaric, illegal and cruel practice, but the true figure may be much greater.

While euthanasia of uncompetitive, unwanted or surplus dogs is a major concern, concerns on the track are often lethal too. Injury rates for individual dogs are staggering. In the most recent figures cited by the Ashton inquiry, referring to the 2021-22 year, they show an injury rate of 83.2 per cent of all dogs were injured, and that is 937 out of 1,125 dogs.

This information was extracted here in our state from the Dog and Cat Management Board by the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, whose analysis contrasts with the GRSA's own figures, which I guess conveniently for them are based on a published injury rate based on the number of starters, rather than the number of individual dogs. Consequently their figures show only a published injury rate of 3 per cent, based on 31,354 starters.

Either way, the vast majority of dogs in the industry are injured, but GRSA's data is unable to differentiate whether these were minor injuries or catastrophic life-ending injuries. Time and again Greyhound Racing South Australia has resisted calls for transparency and openness, and refused on numerous occasions to reply to inquiries I have sent—and I imagine other entities have too—either in writing or via freedom of information, regarding the exact number of dogs killed.

However, Commissioner Ashton identified that 31 dogs had died or been euthanased as a result of on-track injuries in South Australia in the 2022-23 year alone. In New South Wales, where they have a much better traceability of dogs, as far back as 2016 it was clear that out of nearly 100,000 greyhounds bred, between 48,891 and 68,448 dogs were killed because they were deemed uncompetitive. In other words, between half to two-thirds of these dogs bred were killed because they were too slow and could not make a profit for their owners.

With South Australia seen as the end of the line for dogs considered too slow to race in the more lucrative interstate races, rates here potentially could be even worse. The lack of comprehensive data was identified by Commissioner Ashton as yet another example of how Greyhound Racing SA's processes are not up to standard, especially when compared with the New South Wales Greyhound Welfare Integrity Commission (GWIC), which publish detailed injury analysis on a quarterly basis. Indeed, Mr Ashton noted, 'there is a transparency and injury reduction need for GRSA to publish the same injury data and analysis as GWIC'.

Furthermore, there is a clear need for them to act on that by establishing an injury reduction panel to review data and introduce safeguards in response. GRSA's processes were exposed woefully through the Ashton inquiry, highlighted through detailed case studies with GRSA abjectly failing to oversee and regulate its own members appropriately time and time again, often over quite a lengthy period.

One particularly egregious case spanned 28 separate inspections over a 12-year period of repeated noncompliance. Despite receiving numerous warnings and directions for multiple, repeated breaches, including poor hygiene and cleanliness standards, pests, flies and other vermin, dirty, sodden bedding, inadequate shelter, lack of water, dangerous fencing, noncompliance with record keeping for veterinary treatments, a lack of development approval for the facility, and non-registration of the dogs with the local council, the trainer ultimately received no sanction other than a four-week suspension, which itself was then fully suspended, in fact, so that trainer did not receive a penalty at all.

Disturbingly, the commissioner noted that this was an erstwhile successful trainer whose wins had previously been promoted by the GRSA. All the case studies detailed repeated transgressions of this industry's own animal welfare policies with repeated inspections and visits resulting in only yet more warnings without there seemingly ever, or only ever rarely, being consequences of significance.

On the rare occasions when disciplinary action was actually taken, often outcomes remained unpublicised on the GRSA's website. Other incidents were revealed when the RSPCA was not notified when arguably charges could and should have been laid under the Animal Welfare Act. The case studies make for harrowing reading and one could wonder: were GRSA actually trying to lose their social licence? It is hard to imagine an organisation seemingly any more wilfully blind to its responsibility for ethical oversight and governance relating to animal welfare.

Commissioner Ashton's conclusions were brutally frank, and I quote him, 'Animal welfare is the primary issue affecting the ongoing viability of greyhound racing in SA.' His inquiry received nearly 600 submissions from people primarily advocating that greyhound racing be discontinued based on animal mistreatment.

Many were supported by detailed first-hand experiences of people involved in the industry. He noted, and again I quote him, 'the trust element of the social licence provided to greyhound racing in SA has been significantly eroded amongst the general community because of recently publicised animal cruelty cases'. His message was clear and unequivocal: there is an urgent need for the greyhound industry to reform if it is to meet contemporary community expectations. The reforms needed, Mr Ashton noted, were considerable and were dominated by welfare concerns, including the sustainability of the GAP program.

It is notable that in 2017 GRSA had commissioned its own review into governance, welfare and integrity, known as the McGrathNicol report. While it made many sound recommendations for reform, many were not undertaken, a situation that had not improved when in 2020 GRSA appeared before a committee investigating the Statutes Amendments (Animal Welfare Reforms) Bill 2020, a committee of this council.

While they undertook to that committee to improve their performance across the board, Commissioner Ashton notes that they have not sufficiently delivered against that commitment, which he argues raises the critical issue of transparency and independent oversight of any future reform process. Indeed, trusting the GRSA when they say, 'Trust us,' has proven folly time and time again.

I remind the Liberal opposition, when they changed their mind on supporting the Greens select committee back in 2016, that that press release that the Greyhound Racing SA industry dropped to FIVEaa that morning, with fantasy wish lists of how they would do better, has never been fulfilled. It was just a fairytale.

But I return to Mr Ashton's findings. In South Australia, he noted, we are one of only two states not to have independent oversight of our racing codes. If the industry itself cannot reform and clean up their act and they have lost their social licence they do not deserve to continue. As the RSPCA stated in their submission, 'Unless the significant, entrenched animal welfare problems inherent to the greyhound racing industry can be recognised and effectively resolved, this industry should not be supported.' The commissioner agreed, noting that animal welfare issues he identified must be urgently improved before the government could be assured that the industry should continue in its current form. With that in mind I draw members' attention to recommendation 57:

Government to establish the role of an independent inspector for greyhound racing reform, to be known as the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector, (GIRI) which should include the features, functions, and duties set out below.

The GIRI should have unfettered access to GRSA systems and data to inform this work.

The GIRI should be entirely independent of the industry…

A greyhound racing reforms advisory group should be formed to provide professional advice to the GIRI regarding reform progress. The skill sets of this group should comprise:

Animal welfare expertise (independent of greyhound racing)

Gambling regulation expertise

Greyhound industry experience

Sports regulation experience

The General Manager Integrity and Welfare at GRSA should have a dual reporting line to the GIRI…to report on welfare matters [directly] to the GIRI.

The GIRI should determine the frequency and mode of reporting [they receive] from GRSA as to reform progress.

The GIRI should report on a regular basis to the Minister for Racing as to reform progress, and ultimately provide a final report after two years as to their level of satisfaction with the reform progress. If a decision is made to continue greyhound racing at that point—

I repeat, 'If a decision is made to continue greyhound racing at that point' because Mr Ashton found that this industry should be given notice or be shut down—

the GIRI should express a view as to the most appropriate oversight model going forward.

Commissioner Ashton recommended after two years, only if the inspector was satisfied the reforms had been achieved should the industry be allowed to continue, with a best-practice model of oversight, something that is far from being in existence at this point. That is the challenge he has posed to this government and to Greyhound Racing SA. GRSA are on notice, two years' notice to be exact, with its previous form suggesting the industry will not change unless it is dragged kicking and screaming to do so.

But the government must also be challenged on this: why, despite the devastating findings of the Ashton inquiry and the recommendation that the only way for the industry to continue in the short term was with the oversight of an independent GIRI to drive fundamental reforms to governance and conduct and animal welfare, has it has taken over 12 months to progress this, with legislation only now here to enable the GIRI to have the full powers they need? Taking 12 months from the time of the Premier's promise is simply not good enough.

Two months after the initial announcement, Mr Sal Perna AM was officially appointed to the role of GIRI, not at Easter but on 8 July. Mr Perna had a long track record of involvement in fighting crime and corruption as a police officer and as the former inaugural Victorian Racing Integrity Commissioner from 2010 to 2021 and as the person who conducted Victoria's inquiry into live baiting in 2015. I have faith in Mr Perna, but he has already been having to do this job without the powers he needed to hit the ground running being legislated.

As a member of numerous integrity bodies, including the World Anti-Doping Agency Independent Ethics Board, Mr Perna should have the appropriate blend of integrity, ability and industry know-how, but did he have the legislative powers he needed to date and will he have the full legislative powers he needs to truly do his job should the Greens' amendments not be supported today is a question I pose to you all.

Whether the GIRI's oversight will be sufficient to ensure GRSA can address and resolve the seemingly intractable trifecta of animal welfare, integrity and governance concerns that have been endemic to the industry for so long, of course only time will tell—and we keep giving them more and more time.

The Greens will eagerly await the final report to be measured against the ultimate test: the welfare of the canine participants on whom this industry is based. In the meantime, this bill before us promises to go some way to facilitating the powers that the GIRI needs to do their job. They do not go far enough. We will support the bill today, but we will seek to amend it, to improve it. There are a number of shortcomings and deficiencies in this bill that do need to be rectified to ensure the GIRI is empowered with all the necessary tools and powers necessary to adequately equip their role in overseeing the 85 other recommendations of the Ashton inquiry that the government has committed themselves to supporting.

The Greens support the recommendation of the Ashton inquiry for a fearless independent Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector, and so we support this bill, but we will of course be introducing amendments to give the GIRI powers that they need to do their job properly. Put simply, the GIRI must not be muzzled. I will have more to add in the committee stage, but I conclude now, and I would like to acknowledge and thank the nearly 600 respondents to the Ashton inquiry and everyone who has communicated recently and over many years with my office about this issue.

I wish to particularly thank the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, the RSPCA, Animals Australia, the Australian Alliance for Animals, the Law Society of South Australia's Animal Law Committee, and the Animal Justice Party, as well as so many other stakeholders and concerned individuals, including numerous greyhound owners—some rehomers, some trainers, some former trainers—who actually love their animals and want the best lives possible for them. With that, I commend the bill, but I urge members to consider the Greens' amendments seriously if we are to believe that they are serious about greyhound reform.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:16): I rise to add my comments to the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill. This bill would establish a Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector to ensure recommendations from the recent independent inquiry into the governance of the South Australian greyhound industry are implemented, and the inspector would also have other roles.

South Australia's greyhound industry has an image problem, which stems from some truly shocking practices, exposed more than once in the media in recent years. Importantly, Greyhound Racing SA has opened investigations itself and handed out penalties to industry participants. The unsavoury and cruel aspects of this culture were not established and ingrained overnight; clearly they have been part of the industry for years.

We must be careful not to tar all industry participants with the same brush; however, clearly these practices must cease. They must cease for animal welfare reasons, obviously, but also for the good of the industry and any hope it has to remain sustainable and viable into the future. The industry's practices must reflect community expectations. The report's recommendations were many and far-reaching and, as mentioned, among them was a call to install a Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector.

When speaking to senior figures in the Department for Recreation, Sport and Racing about this bill, it became clear to my office that while the industry is currently working with the department willingly and openly—and deserves praise for doing so—it would be sensible and responsible to have mechanisms in place to ensure the inspector has the necessary powers to gather any required information; essentially, not to rely on good faith.

As such, we support this bill, which in turn ensures the inquiry's recommendations are enforced. However, we did inquire about industry participants, specifically those who derive their income from the sport. We do not want any additional costs or compliance burdens foisted upon those honest, hardworking and law-abiding trainers and breeders, plus owners across South Australia.

The money in greyhound racing is less than harness racing and only a fraction of thoroughbred racing. Only a tiny percentage of greyhound trainers make what would be termed 'good money'. Additionally, many greyhound trainers, breeders and owners love and care for their racing dogs like we love and care for our pets. Fortunately, our office was reassured that the duties of the inspector would not impact any industry participants currently going about their business lawfully and responsibly. We were assured that if they are doing the right thing they will be unaffected, so no extra burden on participants and, likewise, no extra burden on those employed by the industry body.

As it stands, it seems industry participants are happy to meet with the inspector, Mr Sal Perna AM, because participants realise that if the actions that prompted this inquiry continue the industry will cease to exist in this state. I support this bill as it stands because ultimately it will clean up or clean out the industry.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:19): I thank honourable members for their contribution: the Hon. Ms Lee, the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Ms Game. This is an important piece of legislation that will enable the GIRI to do their job in the most effective way in order to come out with some appropriate recommendations. I look forward to the committee stage, if this progresses to the next stage today.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I intend to ask my questions at clause 1 and then simply proceed with the amendments as they occur but not ask questions at those particular points. My first question is, quite simply: what is the current staffing allocation of the GIRI and operations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In addition to the GIRI, there are two part-time staff members. They have been resourced from existing resources within the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What are the roles of those two part-time staffers and what is their EFT—equivalent full-time rate?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it is a combined equivalent of roughly 0.5 FTE. The workload at the moment is perhaps higher than it is expected to be going forward, given the relatively new establishment of the role of the GIRI. Their roles include administration, arranging meetings, sourcing information and so on.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What powers does the GIRI currently have and is envisaged to have under this bill to compel people to gather information who are not within the industry, not just GRSA personnel?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there is no power to compel beyond those who have a role within industry—either an industry participant or a past industry participant, or an industry volunteer or a past industry volunteer.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does that mean that the GIRI will have their power to compel and to gather information from, say, owners or trainers?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the answer is yes, they would be considered an industry participant.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Will they have needed to have an association with Greyhound Racing SA specifically to comply with that qualification?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that if they are a greyhound owner then they would be registered as such and therefore would be considered part of the industry.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does that mean all greyhound owners, including those who own pet greyhounds?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the intent is not to compel a pet owner. The viewpoint presented to me and the advice is that retired greyhounds are considered pets and therefore it would not be envisaged that such owners would be considered part of the industry and therefore able to be compelled.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I ask also particularly should somebody be involved in the industry interstate. If somebody is involved in the industry of greyhound racing interstate, what powers does the GIRI have to ascertain information from them, gather information from them or compel them to provide any evidence to the GIRI?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is, if they are involved in the industry both interstate and here, then they would be captured within the scope of this legislation. If their involvement with the industry is only interstate then the powers would not extend towards them.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There have been allegations made of dogs being drugged with what you would call, in common terms, recreational drugs. Will the GIRI have powers to compel information gathering from people who might be accused of providing those drugs, even if those people are not actually greyhound industry participants?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the most effective way to demonstrate that is to come back to what the role of the GIRI is. The role is not to investigate issues, it is to oversee the GRSA. In the event that there are claims of animal mistreatment then that should be reported through the normal channels under the Animal Welfare Act. If there are allegations of illegal activity then potentially the police are the appropriate authorities for that to be reported to.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I understand that the GIRI has been operational for some time. Has the GIRI found that all industry participants have complied with requests for information or has there been a need for this legislation to have been implemented earlier than now?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that so far the GIRI has had 100 per cent cooperation. One of the purposes of the legislation would be that, in the event that that level of cooperation was not forthcoming, there are the powers to compel, for example, as has been referred to.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question was: how has the GIRI had those powers to date?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The powers at the moment have been to request and there has been cooperation, so there has been no need to consider the fact that there were not powers to compel at this stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister clarify what power is conferred on a person who has the ability to request something but not compel it?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that—and we are not quite sure if perhaps we have misunderstood the question—at the moment the GIRI can request information. The GIRI has requested information and that information has been provided. In the event that that had not been provided, as at the moment, before this bill passes, if indeed it does, there would be no powers of the GIRI to compel the provision of that information; however, at this stage, that has not been a problem because the information that has been requested has been provided by the parties from whom it has been requested.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Has the GIRI requested the number of dogs bred, euthanased and that have died within, say, a month after racing?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that we are not able to answer that question at this time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Will the minister take that question on notice and provide an answer?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, certainly.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Has the GIRI requested any information in regard to accusations made by those in the industry that illegal drugs are being supplied to enhance dog performance, and has the GIRI in those cases approached SAPOL or any other authorities in regard to those allegations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is referenced back to an earlier answer given today around the role of the GIRI, which is not to investigate issues but to oversee GRSA. In the event that the GIRI, through the course of his duties, becomes aware of allegations, such as the sorts that have been mentioned by the honourable member, then he would of course report those as appropriate to relevant authorities.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Has the GIRI reported anything to relevant authorities, such as SAPOL?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not able to provide that information. We are not aware of whether that is the situation or not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am getting to the end, you will be mercifully happy to know. I am interested if the GIRI has sought any information from the industry about the use of artificial insemination and whether he has attempted to document the prevalence of that currently.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that, whilst we are not privy to exactly what conversations may have been had, given that the Ashton review had a specific recommendation in regard to artificial insemination, that would be fully supported, but in terms of what conversations the GIRI has had or has not had, I am unable to make comment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am very close now to concluding. My final question, I believe is: has the GIRI asked Greyhound Racing South Australia whether they will comply with freedom of information requests from here on in?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that in relation to FOI that was a separate recommendation of the Ashton review, so again it is not within the scope of the role of the GIRI.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–2]—

Page 2, after line 8—Before the definition of authorised officer insert:

animal welfare Minister means the Minister to whom the administration of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 is committed;

This amendment is intended to facilitate a dual reporting function for the GIRI to include the minister for animal welfare, or the minister who has responsibility for animal welfare, as well as the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing in their reporting. This would, of course, help address any concerns that the latter minister might have about any conflicts of interest given her role overseeing racing as opposed to overseeing animal welfare.

The Greens do find it quite shocking that we would laud and announce and see the Premier and the minister on a platform with Mr Ashton say that all of the recommendations are going to be adhered to and that this wonderful report that exposes not just concerns around integrity and corruption but indeed animal welfare and animal cruelty will be addressed through what is being touted to be the two-year period of notice where we will have a Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector (GIRI) but that the GIRI is not charged with reporting to the minister responsible for animal welfare.

In fact, every single time we asked a question, certainly in clause 1, about animal welfare it was handballed and told that that was not necessarily the GIRI's job. If the GIRI's job is not to actually report on animal welfare, I do question the role of the GIRI at this point. This would make it clear to the community that this government is serious also about cleaning up animal welfare in this industry and indeed that is what I think the community expects. With that, I commend this amendment to the council.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government will not be supporting this amendment and I might perhaps, with the indulgence of the council, refer my remarks also to amendment No. 2 [Franks-2] as the two I think are reasonably closely linked in that this amendment inserts a definition of the 'animal welfare minister'. The next amendment to which I referred is regarding collaboration with animal welfare agencies.

The GIRI is currently meeting with animal welfare agencies and relevant organisations to inform their assessment of the implementation of recommendations. The government does not believe that that particular amendment is required to be included in the bill. That comes back to the reason why this bill is required. Enshrining the powers of the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector in legislation will ensure the industry will be compliant with requests from the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector.

The bill seeks to address the risk that the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector is unable to fulfil their function and duties if Greyhound Racing SA do not fully cooperate and provide the required information to the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector. Given that is the overall purpose of the bill, the amendments in regard to changes to interactions with animal welfare are not supported.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note for the record, because the Liberal opposition did note it very slightly in their second reading contribution, that the Liberals are not supporting a single one of the Greens' amendments today, just as they did not support the select committee back in 2016. I note that, at the time, the solution of the then Weatherill government was to put GRSA and RSPCA in a room together and require an MOU, which then quickly fell over and has been redundant for years. This 'trust us' approach has not worked before and I suspect it will not work this time.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–2]—

Page 3, after line 26 [clause 5(1)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) to collaborate and consult with animal welfare agencies and greyhound racing regulators and oversight bodies in other jurisdictions;

The point of this amendment is to ensure that the GIRI is established with powers that specifically reflect an obligation to collaborate with the relevant authorities in other jurisdictions about cross-border issues in relation to any or all aspects of greyhound racing, breeding, training, rehoming, etc. This is particularly relevant given that South Australia is often seen as the end of the line when it comes to racing greyhounds, and it has developed a reputation as somewhat of a dumping ground for interstate dogs, particularly from Victoria, that are at the end of their racing career. I have been informed by stakeholders of instances of the drugging of dogs that have come from interstate.

This amendment will specifically authorise the GIRI to work with relevant authorities in other states to deal with those sorts of pertinent matters that may have cross-jurisdictional boundaries. With that, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I refer to my earlier comments on the two amendments.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 6 and 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–2]—

Page 4, line 18 [clause 8(1)]—Delete 'or an officer or employee of the controlling authority' and substitute:

an officer or employee of the controlling authority, or any other person that the Inspector or authorised officer has reason to believe has information that is relevant to the performance of the Inspector's functions

Put simply, this ensures that the GIRI has the powers to compel that they need. It ensures that, should we have not provided under this act for those current and past industry participants, as the GIRI pursues the information that we have been promised it will provide the much-needed integrity, transparency and social licence that the Premier has noted they only have two years to comply with. We simply do not want to see the GIRI unnecessarily muzzled against having the powers they need to compel to get the information they want.

It does seem, however, noting that the Liberal opposition has indicated they will not support a single Greens' amendment and the government appears to have a similar position, that we will have a muzzled GIRI at the end of this. With that, I do persist and commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government will not be supporting this amendment. The government's view is that this clause would give powers that are beyond the scope of the recommendations of the Ashton review. There is a reference already in the bill, namely, that the GIRI should have unfettered access to GRSA systems and data to inform this work. This is considered a sufficient and relevant reference to be able to enable the GIRI to complete their functions.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 11 passed.

New clauses 11A, 11B and 11C.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Franks–2]—

Page 6, after line 27—After clause 11 insert:

Part 3A—Provision of information to Inspector

11A—Interpretation

In this Part—

racing greyhound means a greyhound registered as a racing greyhound with the controlling authority, or a corresponding body in another jurisdiction;

reporting period means the period of 3 months before a report is required to be provided to the Inspector under section 11C.

11B—Provision of animal welfare information to Inspector

Before exercising a power under the Animal Welfare Act 1985 in relation to a racing greyhound, an inspector appointed under that Act must inform the Inspector of the proposed action.

11C—Provision of information by controlling authority

(1) The controlling authority must provide to the Inspector a report concerning greyhound welfare (a welfare report) on the 3 month anniversary of the commencement of this Part, and once every 3 months following the provision of the first welfare report.

(2) A welfare report must contain the following information:

(a) the number of greyhounds born in the State in the reporting period;

(b) the number of greyhounds registered to race during the reporting period;

(c) the number of greyhounds re-homed during the reporting period;

(d) the number of greyhounds waiting for adoption;

(e) details about the status of any greyhound retired from racing during the reporting period, including—

(i) the date on which the greyhound was retired; and

(ii) if a retired greyhound has been euthanased—the date of and the reason for euthanasia;

(f) details of any injuries to racing greyhounds during the reporting period, including—

(i) the nature of the injury; and

(ii) the date and location of the injury; and

(iii) the controlling authority's response to the injury, including the nature and date of any treatment provided to the greyhound and the outcome of that treatment;

(g) details of the death of any racing greyhound during the reporting period, including—

(i) the date and location of the death; and

(ii) the cause of death;

(h) any complaints made to the controlling authority during the reporting period regarding animal welfare in relation to racing greyhounds;

(i) any other animal welfare matter relating to racing greyhounds of which the controlling authority is aware;

(j) any other information required by the regulations.

This amendment ensures that, while it is understood that the GIRI may require GRSA to provide them with information under section 8, it is concerning that there is otherwise no statutory obligation on GRSA to report any matter to him without him requiring it. This is simply not good enough. GRSA must be obligated to provide a summary of what they have done to implement the recommendations to date, and the recommendations that remain outstanding.

The GRSA must be required to provide information on KPIs related to animal welfare, deaths, injuries, complaints, rehoming issues and any other investigations, directions or orders made under local rules for greyhound racing, 2022. This amendment also actions recommendation 38 of the Ashton inquiry that, 'The Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector is to be consulted before any welfare-related investigation is to be closed with no charges laid.'

What is currently required in this bill is simply not good enough. This amendment would ensure that Mr Perna, as the GIRI, is required to be advised of any instance in which a person is being investigated in relation to an offence relating to the treatment of greyhounds used by the industry, and ensures meaningful consultation with the GIRI before any animal welfare investigation is closed without charges being laid. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government opposes this amendment. First, in regard to the requirement to notify the GIRI before exercising a power under the Animal Welfare Act 1985, my advice is that that has the potential to slow down the process of animal welfare-related complaints, and therefore that would not be the intent of anyone in this place.

Going further, the role of the GIRI is to assess the implementation of the recommendations of the Ashton review. The GIRI has the skills and expertise to determine the data and information they require, to assess the implementation of recommendations rather than putting it prescriptively here in the legislation. The GIRI has the power to obtain relevant information from GRSA through the existing clauses in the bill, and also for the RSPCA through the sharing of information clause, which I am advised is clause 12.

New clauses negatived.

Clauses 12 and 13 passed.

New clause 13A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Franks–2]—

Page 7, after line 36—After clause 13 insert:

Part 4A—Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group

13A—Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group

(1) The Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group is established.

(2) The Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group consists of—

(a) the Inspector (ex officio); and

(b) the following members, appointed by the Minister following consultation with the Inspector and on terms and conditions determined by the Minister:

(i) a nominee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals South Australia; and

(ii) a nominee of the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds; and

(iii) such other persons as the Minister deems appropriate.

(3) The functions of the Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group are—

(a) to advise the Inspector on the progress of greyhound industry reform; and

(b) to provide a forum for the exchange of information and views about the greyhound industry and animal welfare concerning issues relating to greyhound industry reform; and

(c) to consider other matters referred to the Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group by the Inspector; and

(d) such other functions as may be conferred on the Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group by the Minister.

(4) The procedures to be observed in relation to the conduct of the Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group will be—

(a) as determined by the Minister or Inspector; or

(b) insofar as a procedure is not determined under paragraph (a)—as determined by the Greyhound Racing Reforms Advisory Group.

This is intended to give legal weight to recommendation 57 of the Ashton review to establish a greyhound racing reforms advisory group, to provide professional advice to the GIRI regarding reform progress.

As it stands, the bill does not establish this group, and the minister's contributions in the other place did not even discuss the process or power under which this group will be established. My amendment will establish the greyhound racing reforms advisory group as a statutory body with a specified composition which reflects the commissioner's recommendations regarding the skill set of that advisory body, and it should include animal welfare expertise independent of greyhound racing.

Accordingly, it adds the community representation from the RSPCA and the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, two organisations with specific knowledge and expertise regarding animal welfare in general and, of course, greyhounds in particular. While the greyhound racing reforms advisory group will certainly benefit from membership with gambling regulations, sports regulations and industry experience, an independent voice for the greyhounds that does not solely represent vested financial interests is also essential to ensure the group is able to advance genuine reform and in a manner that incorporates the critical need for transparency, community input, accountability and truly independent oversight. With that, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government is not supportive of this amendment. The purpose of the bill is to establish the GIRI and to assess the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry. It is not necessary for the establishment of the GRRAG to be legislated as it is recommended in the inquiry The inquiry outlines the skill set and composition required for the advisory body. The GIRI has already met with and is open to the continued exchange of information and the ability for the parties mentioned in this amended clause to provide their views.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 14 to 17 passed.

New clause 17A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Franks–2]—

Page 9, after line 5—After clause 17 insert:

17A—Progress reports

(1) Without limiting section 18, the Inspector must submit a progress report to the Minister and the animal welfare Minister—

(a) on or before the 6 month anniversary of the commencement of this section; and

(b) once every 6 months following the submission of the first progress report.

(2) A progress report submitted under subsection (1) must include—

(a) details of any information provided to the Inspector under Part 3A; and

(b) details of the progress of the implementation of the Report recommendations by the controlling authority,

in the previous 6 months.

(3) Each progress report submitted under subsection (1) must be made available on a website determined by the Minister.

This amendment will further increase the level of transparency by requiring that the GIRI prepare and table additional progress reports prior to the final report that is required under section 18 of the bill. While the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing has stated in the other place that the GIRI intends to publish progress reports, the form and content of these reports would be a matter for Mr Perna.

I note the first of these has just been published, and while I do welcome that, it is the Greens' view that the bill should expressly require that the GIRI prepare at least biannual progress reports and that these progress reports should contain certain specified information. These additional reporting requirements are essential to ensure that the work of the GIRI is conducted in as transparent a manner as possible.

The progress reports from the GIRI would include all the previously mentioned information—e.g. a summary of what the GRSA has done to implement the recommendations to date, the recommendations that remain outstanding, a summary of any powers exercised by the GIRI during this period, and a summary of all documents and material received from the GRSA. They should also be tabled in both houses of parliament for maximum transparency and be made publicly available on a freely accessible website to be determined by the minister.

While I do note that the minister provided my office with a copy of the report, the first one so far—and I commend the GIRI for that report so far—many in the sector were completely unaware of that report, including stakeholders such as the RSPCA. I note that perhaps the government might think they are being transparent here but they perhaps need to include the relevant stakeholders more—I would say fulsomely just for the benefit of my advisor, Jamnes Danenberg, but he knows what that word means, so perhaps I do say fulsomely.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government is not supportive of this amendment. As per the recommendations the GIRI has already committed to providing reports to the minister, and the GIRI has also committed to releasing publicly available quarterly progress reports. The first report was recently published on the Office of Recreation, Sport and Racing website.

New clause negatived.

Clause 18.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Franks–2]—

Page 9, lines 7 to 9 [clause 18(1)]—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) The Inspector must submit a final report to the Minister and the animal welfare Minister before the second anniversary of the commencement of this section, or such later date as the Minister may allow.

(1a) A final report submitted under subsection (1) must include—

(a) details of any information provided to the Inspector under Part 3A; and

(b) details of the implementation of the Report recommendations by the controlling authority.

This amendment relates to reporting arrangements again, but it specifies the timelines, content and progress of GRSA in implementing the recommendations, requiring that final report as well which, again, was somewhat opaque.

We certainly are comforted that it has been the expressed intention that the GIRI will be making regular reports, and we are, as I say, very much welcoming that that first report has been made and in a form that is somewhat public, but there was a lack of clarity with this bill, with concerns expressed by stakeholders, who were very much part of the Ashton review, that there might not be a final, proper report. This would ensure that there was.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government is not supporting this amendment. I am advised that the report will be provided as per the recommendation of the inquiry.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 19 and 20 passed.

New schedule 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Franks–2]—

Page 9, after line 17—After clause 20 insert:

Schedule 1—Related amendment of Freedom of Information Act 1991 and transitional provision

1—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

(1) Section 4(1), definition of agency—after paragraph (fa) insert:

(fb) the body prescribed for the purposes of section 6(1)(c) of the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000 as the racing controlling authority for greyhound racing; or

(2) Section 4(1), definition of State government agency—after 'council' insert:

, an agency referred to in paragraph (fb) of the definition of agency,

2—Transitional provision

(1) In this clause—

principal Act means the Freedom of Information Act 1991.

(2) An application may be made to an agency referred to in paragraph (fb) of the definition of agency in section 4(1) of the principal Act (as inserted by this Act) for access to a document whether the document was created, or came into the possession of the agency, before or after the commencement of this Act.

I note that I will divide on this one. This amendment would make Greyhound Racing SA subject to freedom of information requests, something they have continued to dodge so far under the technical argument they proffer that they are not an agency that is legally subject to FOI, something that I have legal advice to the contrary of.

But the time for hiding is over. The Ashton inquiry determined that euthanasia rates of retired or unraced greyhounds outside of the Greyhounds As Pets (GAP) program were impossible to accurately assess, that there was little capability within GRSA to determine this figure outside of the receipt of a notification form participants are required to send them when a greyhound is euthanased, and that is because the GRSA lack a system sufficient for tracking greyhounds. I also note that the commissioner noted:

This highlights the need for GRSA to urgently adopt a full traceability system such as the eTrac technology being used in New South Wales.

In the meantime, GRSA must be held accountable in an open and transparent manner, not just by the GIRI but by the community, and be subject to FOI access. Members would be well aware that I have already brought a bill before this place since the announcement of the GIRI for GRSA to be subject to FOI. At the time the government said, 'Trust us. We'll take care of this. We'll do it later.' Well, here was your chance, and you have not done it.

So the Greens are here to help, again, and moving an amendment to encourage you to accept one of the recommendations of the Ashton review, one of the things that the Premier promised would be delivered in full and on time to ensure that GRSA is subject to freedom of information requests. It is a simple recommendation that is going to require the parliament to act at some time, but here we are, yet again, with a bill that does not act in a timely way and continues to allow the GRSA to lurk in the shadows. As Commissioner Ashton concludes in his executive summary, this is the:

…opportunity to demonstrate to the community that animal care practices within the industry can meet overall community standards and that greyhound welfare is first and foremost in their priorities. Similarly, a constructive, transparent and positive approach by the industry's controlling authority will also greatly assist the development of public confidence in their sport.

With this in mind, there should be no objections to increasing the transparency and scrutiny of the industry practices, and I trust that members would agree that animal welfare issues should be prioritised. But I have to say, until we have freedom of information scrutiny complied with by the GRSA—and clearly it has already been rejected as something that they are going to do willingly, voluntarily—I do question why members of this parliament have not acted, why the government has not acted in this bill to ensure that the GRSA is compelled to comply with freedom of information requests.

With that, I indicate I will be dividing on this clause. It is one of the recommendations. The government promised a year ago now that all of the recommendations would be implemented. This minister has had a year to do this herself, and the Greens' amendment would enable that recommendation to be complied with and enacted now—a year after the Premier's announcement—not one day before the two-year notice period expires. It has to be seen as treating the public with contempt to put off that requirement for a freedom of information request to be complied with if it is not supported today.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The scope of this bill is focused on ensuring that the industry will be compliant with requests from the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector and enabling him to compel that information. The independent inquiry AJP recommendation 13 refers to amending freedom of information legislation. All recommendations were accepted by the government in principle, but this recommendation will need to be considered by the Attorney-General's Department. It is not considered appropriate at this time to embed it in this piece of legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister clarify then that it will be the Attorney-General who will progress freedom of information coverage for the GRSA, and how is he consulting on that matter?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that it will be progressed in line with the other recommendations with the relevant agency. Presumably the Attorney-General's Department will give some consideration and be involved in that work.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When will this parliament see legislation for GRSA to be subjected to freedom of information requests?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not able to speculate on when that might be on behalf of another minister.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The other minister is almost within the chamber. Perhaps he might care to answer. The Hon. Kyam Maher, when will we see the Greyhound Racing SA industry subjected to FOI, given apparently it is the Attorney-General's purview?

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: He hasn't got carriage of this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: He hasn't got carriage of this bill. Well, you know what?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The government promised to implement—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Hunter, let's stay calm.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, it is the Hon. Mr Hunter who was actually responsible for letting the greyhound racing industry—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —off the hook back in 2016.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Goodness gracious me.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Goodness gracious me.

The CHAIR: Order! We are nearly at the end of this bill. Come on, everybody stay calm. The Hon. Ms Franks, can I put the amendment? Are we ready?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, Chair, and I note that I will be dividing.

The committee divided on the new schedule:

Ayes 3

Noes 17

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

New schedule thus negatived.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (17:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.