Bills

Unclaimed Goods (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 August 2025.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:03): I rise to speak in support of the Unclaimed Goods (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025, an overdue reform that brings clarity, fairness and modernisation to a piece of legislation that has remained largely unchanged since 1987.

This bill responds to the practical realities faced by South Australians, particularly small businesses, tradespeople and service providers, who regularly find themselves in possession of goods that have been abandoned, forgotten or simply left behind. The current framework has been cumbersome, outdated and, in many cases, onerous.

One of the most vocal and constructive contributors to this reform has been the Motor Trade Association of South Australia. The MTA has consistently advocated for clearer, more efficient processes for dealing with unclaimed vehicles and parts. Automotive businesses, whether they are mechanics, panelbeaters or other businesses, often face the dilemma of storing uncollected vehicles for months, incurring costs, legal implications and uncertainty.

This bill provides a practical solution. By introducing a tier system based on the value of goods, the bill allows for proportionate responses. Low-value items can be dealt with more swiftly, while higher value goods are subject to appropriate safeguards, including court oversight. For motor vehicles, the requirement to search the Personal Property Securities Register and notify registered interest holders ensures that legitimate claims are respected while still allowing businesses to move forward when vehicles are clearly abandoned.

Beyond the automotive sector, the bill also addresses broader concerns. It updates terminology to reflect modern usage, replacing 'bailee' and 'bailor' with 'recipient' and 'provider', and introduces electronic communication as a valid method of giving notice. These changes make the law more accessible and more aligned with how people and businesses operate today.

Importantly, the bill also introduces record-keeping requirements, liability protections and a more equitable approach to recovering costs. For example, it removes the need to establish a lien in order to recover expenses—an issue that has particularly affected those caring for abandoned animals in boarding facilities and other animal care businesses.

This is a well-considered reform. It balances the rights of owners with the practical needs of those left holding unclaimed goods. It reflects consultation with industry, legal experts and community stakeholders, and it brings South Australian law in line with contemporary expectations. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (11:06): I rise to add to the already, I think, quite expansive comments by the Hon. Ms Lee in regard to this bill. It makes a range of amendments to the Unclaimed Goods Act, primarily focused on modernisation and reducing the regulatory burden on business, as Ms Lee has outlined.

Businesses and other persons with a lawful way to dispose of goods have often been left with those goods abandoned or in their possession, or indeed in the ownership of another person. As Ms Lee said, the Motor Trade Association was the first stakeholder to raise issues with the current act, largely in the context of them representing various members of their association who are often dumped with vehicles that are left by former clients who are not able to afford the fee for a car repair and so they never collect their vehicle.

This consequently places significant onus on the mechanic to abide by the law, which requires quite significant wait periods, which are often greatly out of proportion to the value of any vehicle left in their possession. Some of the most significant reforms contained in the bill include, obviously, the modernisation of language and recognition of prior agreement which allows parties to set their own conditions regarding the disposal of unclaimed goods prior to any goods being left in their possession.

As Ms Lee went somewhat to, there are changes of scales of value which determine the processes required for disposing of unclaimed goods. There are simplified methods of disposal in relation to how that scale operates and modernisation of processes for serving notices to the provider, the owner and any other interested parties. There is a reduction of various time requirements, meaning that unclaimed goods do not have to be retained for such long periods before they can be disposed of.

The scales specifically are set at scale 1, where goods are valued at $200 or less, or, if in relation to a motor vehicle, $1,000 or less. There is scale 2, which is goods valued between $200 and $20,000, or, in the case of a motor vehicle, between $1,000 and $20,000. Finally, there is scale 3, which is goods valued at $20,000 or more.

The reduction of the collection period reduces the collection period to 14 days. Goods will be treated as unclaimed goods if the recipient has been unable to obtain the contact details of the provider or the owner for the purpose of providing notice, despite any reasonable attempts to do so. The bill prescribes differing holding periods, depending on the value of those goods; for instance, scale 1 goods is 14 days, scale 2 goods is 28 days, and scale 3 goods is 60 days.

The bill makes clear that the act only applies to the extent that there is no existing agreement between the parties about how any unclaimed goods can be disposed of. This will allow businesses to set conditions regarding the disposal of unclaimed goods prior to agreeing to any goods being left in their possession and this is, frankly, consistent with every other jurisdiction in Australia.

The bill contains a new requirement on recipients to give the provider of the goods and, where known, any owner of the goods notice of their intention to dispose of the goods under the act and the holding period does not commence until such notice has been given, unless the recipient is unable to obtain that person's contact details despite any reasonable attempts to do so.

The act currently requires notices to be delivered to the last known address of the provider. The bill modernises the approach to delivery of notices and other documents by permitting them to be given personally, by post, via email, or in any other manner prescribed by the regulations.

Public notices: currently, where the identity or whereabouts of the provider of unclaimed goods is unknown, the recipient is required to publish a notice in a newspaper generally circulating throughout the state. This requirement is, these days, quite unduly expensive and no longer really serves any apparent functional purpose. The bill abolishes the requirement and instead where a recipient is unable to serve a notice via any of the approved methods of communication they must attempt to contact the person via any available method of communication. If the recipient is unable to obtain any contact details of the person, despite reasonable attempts to do so, no further action to notify the person is required.

In regard to method of disposal, again we go back to the scales. For scale 1 goods, they are simply vested in the recipient at the expiry of the holding period. The recipient becomes the owner of the goods and can retain or dispose of goods on scale 1 as they wish. With scale 2 goods, the bill permits scale 2 goods to be sold by public auction or private sale for a fair value. Scale 2 goods may be otherwise disposed of in accordance with an order of the court. Finally, with scale 3 goods, the existing requirement in the act to obtain a court order before disposing of the goods remains in effect.

Where the recipient makes an application to the court, the court may give such directions in relation to the disposal of the goods or any other dealing with the goods as the court thinks fit. It may also permit the goods to be disposed of earlier than permitted under the act if compliance with the requirements of the act would be unreasonable in the circumstances.

The bill contains separate provisions for the disposal of special categories of unclaimed goods. Specifically, those are personal documents, perishable goods, rubbish and motor vehicles. If they are rubbish, they are automatically treated as unclaimed goods and do not require any notice to be given and can be disposed of in any manner.

Perishable goods and goods that are likely to cause risk to the health and safety of the person are automatically treated as unclaimed goods. The recipient must give any relevant person a notice of intention to dispose of the goods, which may be given orally or in writing, or through any available method of communication. The recipient may then dispose of the goods in any manner after a reasonable period of time, having regard to the nature and condition of the goods, I imagine, depending upon how perishable they are.

Personal documents, including, for example, passports, birth certificates, legal documents pertaining to the person and any documents containing personal or financial or medical information, must not be sold and may only be disposed of in a manner that protects the security of the document and any personal information contained therein. The recipient must give any relevant person a notice of intention to dispose of the goods in accordance with the act, after which the holding period of 28 days does apply.

Specifically, I will go to motor vehicles. Where the unclaimed goods consist of or include a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Personal Property Securities Act, that being a commonwealth act, the bill places additional requirements on the recipient before the goods are vested in the recipient or may be disposed of. These apply in addition to the usual requirements for scale 1, 2 or 3 goods.

The bill requires the recipient to search the Personal Properties Securities Register for data relating to the motor vehicle. If that search reveals any person with a registered interest in the motor vehicle, that person must also be given a notice of intention to dispose of the goods before the relevant holding period may commence. A number of changes were made to the bill as a result of consultation. This includes:

setting a special scale 1 limit of $1,000 for motor vehicles;

extending the right to claim goods directly from the recipient to the owner of the goods, in addition to the provider of the goods;

introduction of a mechanism for other parties claiming an interest in the goods to apply to the court; and

clarification of the charges that a recipient may demand before handing goods over to the provider or owner.

Submissions were received from an extensive number of stakeholders: the Crown Solicitor, the Treasurer, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Consumer and Business Services, the South Australian Housing Trust, the Small Business Commissioner, the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate, the State Courts Administrator, the Motor Trade Association, the SA Business Chamber, the Law Society, the Legal Services Commission, and Bridgestone. What an extensive list of people who took a great deal of interest in what seems to be a fantastic bill. I support it.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (11:15): I rise to speak in support of the Unclaimed Goods (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. This bill takes notable steps to recognise that the way South Australians do business and the expectation of customers have evolved significantly over the past 40 years. The pace of commerce, communication and service delivery today is vastly different from when the original act was written.

For many small and medium-sized businesses, dealing with unclaimed goods has become an unnecessary administrative burden, whether it is a mechanic, a drycleaner, a repair shop or a storage provider. These are everyday businesses trying to deliver efficient service, meet customer expectations and simply get on with the job. Under the current act, many of these businesses that hold unclaimed goods often face a cumbersome and outdated process before they can lawfully dispose of or sell unclaimed items. This can create unnecessary burdens and, at times, confusion about their legal obligations.

The bill before us introduces a more streamlined and modern framework. It establishes three value-based scales for unclaimed goods—scales 1, 2 and 3—providing clear thresholds and timeframes for disposal. Scale 1 goods, valued at $200 or less, may be dealt with after 14 days. Scale 2 goods, valued between $200 and $20,000, may be dealt with after 28 days. Scale 3 goods, valued at $20,000 or more, may be dealt with after 60 days, subject to court oversight. We also know that the bill contains separate provisions for the disposal of special categories of unclaimed goods, including rubbish, perishable goods and goods that are likely to cause a risk to the health and safety of a person, personal documents and motor vehicles.

The intent of this bill is to make that process clearer, simpler and fairer. It aims to ease the red tape that too often slows down business operations, while still protecting the rights of individuals to reclaim their property within a reasonable timeframe. In other words, it seeks to strike the right balance, a balance that supports both responsibility and practicality.

But, as with any reform, change should not be made for its own sake. Every change should be guided by the principles of improving efficiency, reducing unnecessary costs and removing duplication, not adding to it. We must always be mindful that, in trying to make things simpler, governments do not inadvertently create new complexities. This bill, in our view, largely meets that test. It provides businesses with the confidence to act lawfully and efficiently, and it gives customers the continued assurance that their rights remain protected.

This bill also deals with the kinds of situations that affect ordinary South Australians when items are left with a business for repair or cleaning, handed to a friend for safekeeping, or simply forgotten in a rental property or workplace. These are everyday circumstances and this legislation seeks to bring some clarity to how these goods should be managed.

While we acknowledge the need to update an outdated framework, it is important that any change genuinely improves certainty and fairness for all involved, rather than adding further complexity. For these reasons, the Liberal Party will be supporting the Unclaimed Goods (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:18): I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. I want to thank all those who were involved in the consultation. The Hon. Justin Hanson has read out a comprehensive list of those who were involved in the thorough consultation, but I particularly want to acknowledge the Motor Trade Association, on whose members the burden regularly falls in terms of vehicles that are left and are very costly to dispose of. Certainly, the genesis of this bill was the discussions with the MTA, and then there was a lot of further input from a wide range of contributors. With that, I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The Law Society in their submission noted anecdotal evidence—sorry, anecdotal experience, I should say—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Deputy Premier, it is early.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Yes, settle down, Attorney.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: —from members of the society's Country Practitioners Committee raising concerns about livestock being left on land for extended periods beyond what was agreed, causing potential financial loss for landowners. My questions for the Deputy Premier are: has the government considered seeking further feedback on whether this is a significant issue in regional South Australia? Does the Deputy Premier intend to explore any legislative reform, possibly through alignment with or review of the Impounding Act 1920, to address these circumstances?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question; it is a good question. There are regimes that sit side by side in terms of disposal of goods under this act, under things like the Residential Tenancies Act and the Impounding Act, as the honourable member has mentioned. We certainly have taken into account the concerns that were raised. The disposal of livestock can be done under a couple of different ways—the Impounding Act or the Unclaimed Goods Act—so the changes we have made here go a long way to address the concerns, because, I am advised, this act can be used in those circumstances.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just as a supplementary to that question: will the government commit to consulting with the farming and pastoral representative bodies to determine whether further reform or clearer guidance is required to address instances of unclaimed livestock?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that many of the issues the Law Society raised, specifically on the issue the honourable member talks about, we have addressed through the regime that deals with all goods, including unclaimed livestock, but if there are any other issues that are not covered by this regime I am sure that my colleague who has carriage of the other bits of legislation will be happy to look at other issues raised.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Similarly, we have also had feedback regarding horse agistment. Are there instances where an owner is no longer capable or willing to ensure the final upkeep of an agistment animal, particularly I guess horses—things such as feed, veterinary bills etc.—and therefore may abandon the animal altogether? Is this circumstance covered by this bill or is there a lien on the horse under contract law or any other provision?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that we have taken that into consideration. I am advised that, rather than the need for a lien to be created, we have taken that into account in this regime, so you can process that as unclaimed goods in this regime. So there is not that need, in the circumstances the honourable member raised, to create a lien.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 12), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.