Local Nuisance and Litter Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2025.)

The PRESIDENT: Attorney, you are going to conclude the debate?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:24): Sir, I choose to conclude the debate, and I want to thank honourable members for their contributions during the second reading stage. I look forward to consideration of the bill and amendments during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank the Deputy Premier for his summation, but he did not answer any of the questions I raised during the second reading contribution. If we go back to those questions the first was in relation to consultation. Can we confirm who we consulted with in relation to the provisions around shopping trolleys in most recent times and in terms of the amendments that were passed? Can the minister also confirm, perhaps as a follow-up, who we consulted with in relation to the proposed section that deals with installation of designated devices?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might take a little bit of time to talk about the consultation process broadly and specifically to hopefully cover off most of the questions the honourable member may have, particularly in relation to the development of the shopping trolley collection requirements in the bill.

I am advised the consultation process for the bill and amendments was conducted in two phases: an initial discussion paper back in 2018 followed by a four-month public consultation period on the bill and regulations, from October 2022 to February 2023. This later stage, I am advised, attracted 38 submissions, with most respondents supportive of the proposed reforms.

Shopping trolley reforms were particularly well received, securing broad backing from both community members and councils. An amendment was added, after consulting with the Small Business Commissioner, exempting small retailers—that is, those with fewer than 20 trolleys, I am advised—from shopping trolley management plan requirements. I am advised all members of parliament received consultation materials, and at least one MP, the member for Narungga, Fraser Ellis MP, attended the public meeting online. Councils and the Local Government Association remained actively involved throughout all stages of the process.

With specific reference to consultation on the bill amendments, I am advised these were developed in consultation with the Local Government Association and in particular Foodland, which took part, and aimed to balance the need for councils to have an effective way to address abandoned trolleys while ensuring retailers are not burdened with unreasonable responsibilities to collect trolleys.

In relation to the specifics of this consultation, I am advised that on 6 September 2024 the EPA emailed the Local Government Association and retailers, including the South Australian Independent Retailers and Foodland, advising that the bill had passed the House of Assembly and providing proposed draft amendments for feedback. I am advised that initially there was feedback from the LGA without a lot of input from retailers. However, I am advised that Foodland in particular actively engaged in the later stages of the bill amendment discussion, including through face-to-face meetings, telephone discussions, written submissions and emails. I am advised that those responsible for the development of the bill are very grateful for the constructive and helpful engagement with this process of Foodland in particular.

The EPA advised all stakeholders on the amendments as filed on 24 October 2025. I am advised that the EPA has since spoken and provided further information to the SA Independent Retailers association and reached out directly to Foodland on the amendments. I am advised that the government has not received explicit support or objection to the amendments from retailers.

In summary, I am advised that the shopping trolley provisions include the addition of shopping trolleys in the definition of general litter, a requirement for retailers to identify shopping trolleys with their trading name and the contact information of a person to report abandoned trolleys for collection, set timeframes for the collection of shopping trolleys, and an ability for councils to issue litter abatement notices to retailers with shopping trolley management requirements.

During debate in the lower house, questions were raised about the reasonableness of the shopping trolley requirements, with reference to an example of the significant trolley abandonment in Port Augusta where approximately 500 trolleys were found submerged off the wharf. Questions were raised about how the new trolley collection requirements in offence provisions in the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act would apply to this situation and whether there is an implied defence of reasonableness.

I am advised the former Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water undertook to consider whether reasonableness existed within the bill or whether one required drafting between the houses. Government amendments to the bill have been filed to ensure reasonability is applied to shopping trolley collection requirements. It is important to highlight that during the discussions regarding the bill amendments, particular attention was given to assessing the effects of the trolley identification collection requirements on small and independent retailers. I am happy to discuss some of these further amendments in the committee stage of the debate if needed.

I note the reference from the Hon. Connie Bonaros to the City of Marion by-laws that were disallowed in this place way back in February 2021. The local nuisance and litter control bill was drafted in consideration of members' comments on by-laws and the need for consistent trolley regulation across the state rather than individual councils passing their own by-laws on the issue in the absence of state legislation.

Councils use a proportional approach when applying legislation and will use their own discretion when choosing how to respond to a retailer who does not collect trolleys within the time stated in the proposed new section 24B of the act. This proportional response means councils' actions will be scaled to the seriousness of the breach. The EPA, I am advised, has committed to providing councils with information and guidance on when expiation or seeking penalties would be appropriate.

I note the comments from the Hon. Nicola Centofanti to make sure that we monitor the implementation of the proposed new shopping trolley provisions. I am advised that the government will monitor it closely and has undertaken to delay commencement of the shopping trolley provisions until a year after the rest of the bill has commenced, to allow time to work with retailers to support compliance with the identification requirements and the collection requirements.

I also want to provide the following advice in response to the Hon. Connie Bonaros' questions regarding clause 7 of the bill and the proposed offence provision for the installation of a designated device, air conditioner or external light in a location that does cause local nuisance. I am advised the purpose of this clause is to ensure that appropriate consideration is given when installing these type of devices that are known to cause nuisance. The person installing the device has the knowledge and experience to know that these devices can cause nuisance and can make appropriate recommendations on them.

The following stakeholders will provide the draft bill and explanatory report and be asked to provide feedback regarding clause 7: the Master Builders Association; the Housing Industry Association; the National Electrical and Communications Association; Master Electricians Australia; and the Australian Planning and Land Use Services. A representative from the HIA attended this public meeting, however did not raise any concerns, I am advised, regarding clause 7. A submission was subsequently received from the HIA but, again, no views were raised regarding clause 7.

I am advised that the government is committed to supporting industry through the implementation of this clause. This will include providing information and guidance documents and hosting information sessions for both industry and councils on how this clause will be applied. In addition, the government has committed to a delayed commencement of clause 7 for 12 months to allow for such an education program to be run.

I note clause 7 does not replace existing provisions in the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act for the management of nuisance from air conditioners. Management of existing air conditioners can be costly for both the owner of the air conditioner and the neighbour who is experiencing the nuisance. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that appropriate consideration has been taken to the location of an air conditioner before it becomes a nuisance requiring that mitigation.

I might just briefly, for the benefit of the committee, speak to the amendment filed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti while I am going through the bill in general. I am advised that the government will not be supporting the amendments as these would require considerable consultation with primary production stakeholders, the community and local councils to fully understand the amendments before proceeding.

Amendments to schedule 1 of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act can be made through the making of regulations if needed These are associated administrative regulations required to support the commencement of the amendment act. Consultations on the proposed amendments may be conducted if deemed appropriate and endorsed by the government following an assessment of potential impacts, and the amendment then could be incorporated into the supporting regulations.

I thank honourable members for some of the questions raised. I am pleased to be able to give some reports about the matters that have been raised in the second reading and I can expand on some of this if needed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I might go back to clause 7 of the bill in relation to the installation of designated devices. The Deputy Premier mentioned NECA as one of the bodies that was consulted with. What was their position in relation to this particular aspect of the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that no response was received.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Deputy Premier also confirm regarding the questions that I asked yesterday in relation to the breadth of this amendment applying to installers themselves as opposed to the home owners? So if I provide the advice and recommendations to an individual saying, 'Look, this might be a bit big for this house and really this is what you should be installing,' but a home owner insists, 'That is the unit I want, and that is the one you are installing,' and the installer then goes ahead with that work, having provided the advice and the owner chooses to ignore it, is the installer still liable to a penalty under this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is in that circumstance it would fall on the home owner.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It will fall on the home owner as well, but the bill is broad enough to cover the person who installs it or the person who causes the device to be installed. So it is not limited to the home owner; it could potentially apply to both?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, it could apply to either one, but in the end it can only apply to one of them, so my advice is that in the circumstances the honourable member mentioned it would be the home owner it would apply to.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: On that basis, then, why is it that the installers have actually been included?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is to ensure that they are taking into account, for example, the location of where something like that might be and giving that advice to the home owner.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If I go back to the example: so we send someone out, we tell them, 'This is probably not the best place to put it. Here are the best practice guidelines you should follow,' but the home owner insists, then they could potentially, under these changes, still be liable if they undertake the work. So they have two choices: they either say, 'Well, we are not doing this job,' or they potentially expose themselves to liability if they go ahead with it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised there is a defence for the installer if they have provided that advice but the home owner has insisted, as outlined by the member.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Sorry, can you just repeat that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised there is a defence for the installer in the circumstances which the Hon. Connie Bonaros has outlined.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That defence is that the installer themselves did not foresee, or could not reasonably be expected to have foreseen, that the installation would result in a local nuisance, and that is what the provision goes on to say. That is very different to the scenario I have just highlighted where the installer has, to the best of their ability, provided that advice to the home owner and the home owner has chosen to ignore the advice of the installer and said, 'Thanks for your advice. I still want that air conditioner unit installed there,' and if they do install it there then they are still exposing themselves to liability by undertaking the work.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is not just part A that needs to be read, but part B of 19A(2). Part B states:

(b) the person who installed the designated device, or caused the designated device to be installed, did not determine the position in which the device was installed;

My advice is that, in that case, if it is the home owner who determined it then that is the defence that can be raised.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: To be clear then, if I call somebody out to install an air conditioner at my property and they come out and they tell me that this is not the best place for it and for some reason—I do not know why we would not go after the home owner—we target the installer, the installer can say, 'Well, I tried my best to convince them, but they did not take that advice and I just did my job.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As usual with how circumstances might find their way, if it ever was litigated in court—I will not give specific legal advice—for the circumstances the honourable member raises, very broadly speaking, I advise that is correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we just provide some clarification as to why we actually chose to include installers? Causing a device to be installed would certainly capture the home owner, unless the home owner is qualified to install an air-con unit, but they should not be doing that anyway, so why did we actually go as far as capturing the people who do the installations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is because installers, in most circumstances, are better placed to know the nature and effect of what may be the outcome of that installation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: It is my understanding that this was a question that was asked by the opposition in the other place and was taken on notice by the then minister and I am seeking an answer to this question: how many expiations have been issued in the last 12 months to shoppers who have littered a trolley?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that we are not aware of any.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you for that answer and, just to be clear, that has been investigated and you are saying that there have not been?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is correct.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just staying on the theme of trolleys, can I ask the Attorney why it is that the government is making it a defence against prosecution for trolleys that are too dangerous to collect or require certain special equipment or I think the other one is anything defined by the regulations rather than in those obvious circumstances allowing a notice to be withdrawn? Sorry, I am not articulating this very well. Why is the onus on those being prosecuted?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is nothing prohibiting the notice being withdrawn, but it is that failsafe at the end as well.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just to be clear, if there is an authorised officer from the local council who has authorised a notice or who has given a notice and then it is brought to their attention that actually there are these special circumstances in which it is difficult to retrieve that trolley then they can withdraw that notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that situation is correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Was consideration given to limiting the scope, in terms of the size of supermarkets in question?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The number of trolleys?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, the size of the actual supermarket. You have small operators, and then you have your large operators. You have your Woolworths and Coles versus your small IGA. Was any consideration given to applying this to large operators over small operators?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the relative size of the shopping centre operations is taken into account with the number of shopping trolleys. The shopping trolley ID requirement applies regardless of how many trolleys there are and that is, I am advised, on the basis that a member of the public should be able to know where the shopping trolley is from and have an ability to return it regardless of how big it is. But the shopping trolley management requirements only apply to 20 or more shopping trolleys.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just a supplementary on that: could we see—and I am not suggesting that this will be the case because I know that our supermarkets absolutely want to provide the best service possible—a perverse outcome where if they do have 25 trolleys they might reduce that to 20?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the question but, in my experience, if a supermarket does something like this to get around one very small aspect, I suspect they would find if their customers did not have access to the trolleys that they had become used to, they may end up losing much more business than they would risk by falling into this scheme.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we just clarify those provisions? I am thinking now outside the normal scope of perhaps who we would think of in terms of the coverage. In relation to small supermarkets in our metropolitan suburbs, there is plenty of them on Prospect Road—well, they are everywhere, really. They are small supermarkets usually. There are Indian ones, Afghani ones, Greek ones, Italian ones. They all have a niche market.

I know the one that I frequent probably has about double the minimum number that we have just outlined. Are they captured by the need to have their trolleys coded? These are supermarkets that probably have gathered trolleys second hand, in terms of what they provide at their outlets. Are they actually covered by the requirements and, if so, what kind of education campaign is going to be done amongst them—and there are lots of them across the state—to let them know that if they have more than 20 they will be subject to these changes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to reiterate the advice that I got before and shared. In terms of the ID requirements, they apply to everyone: the under or over 20 trolleys. The ID requirements apply on the basis that, regardless of the number of shopping trolleys a retail outlet has, a member of the public should have an idea of where to return them to. In relation to education requirements, I am advised that there will be education that is rolled out, working with industry associations and particularly local councils.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Who is going to be responsible for going out to all these little supermarkets and fruit stores and whatever they may be to let them know that they will be subject to this, that these will be the things that you have to have on your trolleys, and you will also be responsible for ensuring that they are collected if you do not want to find yourself prosecuted under these provisions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is we are already extending the introduction of this element of it by 12 months to allow exactly that information to happen. I am advised that there are a variety of ways through the Small Business Commissioner or the EPA. Certainly, regulators very often inform those in the sector of changes. For example, the EPA informs of changes to container deposit scheme requirements. Certainly, in my portfolio areas I know when there are changes to areas of work health and safety, SafeWork SA conduct extensive education regimes to businesses that may be affected.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I take it from that response then that the Deputy Premier is giving an undertaking to this place that that education campaign will be conducted through the responsible government agencies to ensure that those little operators do know what their responsibilities are in relation to trolleys?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there will be an education campaign conducted. I cannot stand here and say I can absolutely assure you that that will reach every single person who has a shopping trolley, but, as I have said, very regularly as a parliament we decide to change laws and rules that apply generally, and particularly government regulators are very used to letting people subject to them know what the changes are.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yesterday, I asked some questions during my second reading contribution about bad behaviour by people who choose to ignore the law and continue to do the wrong thing. What are the differences in penalties that apply to the retailers versus the individuals? Trolleys have been captured under the definition of litter. If I go and deliberately take my trolley and leave it in my street, and I do that three days a week and end up with five trolleys outside my house, what are the differences between the penalties that apply to me versus the retailer?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is for the individual who, in the circumstance outlined by the honourable member, is constantly leaving trolleys outside their place, the general litter expiation fee would apply. That is an expiation fee of $210. For a business who has trolleys there, and they are given notice and they go and collect them, it is zero because they have complied with the collection notice. If they do not, I am advised there is an expiation fee of $500.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: An expiation fee of $500. Just to clarify, is there a maximum penalty that can be applied? Is there also a penalty of up to $5,000 or $10,000 that could apply equally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thought the honourable member asked about the expiation fees. There is, as there is in many circumstances, a penalty that is not an expiation fee, that is up to $5,000. I think it is important to reiterate that if they had been given a notice and complied with it there is zero penalty.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I just want to clarify some of the statements that the Attorney made in his answer to consultation. He spoke about my amendment to schedule 1, part 3. Is the Attorney suggesting that the addition of primary producers or primary production in schedule 1, part 3 certainly could be included in the drafting of the regulations and consulted upon throughout that process?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, that is possible. That could be done by way of regulation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: If that is the case—and I appreciate that the Attorney is not the minister—is that something the Attorney is aware that the minister is actively considering?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am not the minister and do not have responsibility for this policy area, but I am advised that is something the minister is considering, whether or not that consultation would occur, and it be looked at by regulation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Perhaps then I might just ask the direct question: why is mining currently exempt from the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act under schedule 1, part 3, yet primary production is not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of why an element is in the bill and another one is not, I do not have the answer to that, but I will take that on notice for the honourable member.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I appreciate the Attorney taking that on notice, and I will just finally state that I think that is a good question for the minister to ask in terms of then going forward with that consultation process.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate that and, by asking the question, it may inform a couple of questions before that the honourable member has asked.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 10, line 22 [clause 14, inserted section 24A(b)]—Delete 'or QR code' and substitute:

, QR code or other means of communication prescribed by the regulations

This is a simple technical amendment to make sure that we can not just have a QR but, as technology changes, look for other ways.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As I indicated in my second reading contribution, the opposition will be supporting all the government's amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate that I too will be supporting all the amendments which, as the Deputy Premier has explained, are effectively the middle ground between local government and those sectors that were consulted in relation to some of the issues we have outlined.

If perhaps the Deputy Premier can clarify that there is one amendment—and I am hoping I am right—that has been included which ensures that doing what this requires you to do has to be consistent with, or cannot override, any other legislative requirements in terms of health and safety. If collecting the trolleys means you are doing something that puts a worker at risk, then that will be a reasonable excuse not to collect those trolleys—jumping into a wharf, for instance, to collect 500 trolleys.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes; amendment No. 2 [AG-1] does exactly what the honourable member has outlined.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: You will have to move these amendments separately, Deputy Premier, but there has been an indication that everyone is supporting your amendments.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 11, lines 1 to 3 [clause 14, inserted section 24B(1)]—

Delete 'immediately after receiving that notification or becoming so aware, ensure that the trolley is collected from that place.' and substitute:

subject to any other law of the State, ensure that the trolley is collected from that place as soon as reasonably practicable (but in any event no later than the end of the next day of trading of the business) after receiving that notification or becoming so aware.

We have just traversed this with the Hon. Connie Bonaros, what the amendment is, what it does and the reasons for it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AG–1]—

Page 11, line 15 [clause 14, inserted section 24B(3)]—After 'applies,' insert:

and subject to any other law of the State,

This is subject to any old laws of the state, as we have just traversed.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AG–1]—

Page 11, after line 22 [clause 14, inserted section 24B]—After subsection (3) insert:

(4) In any proceedings where it is alleged that a person contravened subsection (3) it will be a defence if it is proved that—

(a) the collection of the trolley posed an unacceptable risk to the health or safety of a person collecting the trolley; or

(b) the trolley was not reasonably able to be collected using standard means, equipment or machinery; or

(c) the trolley was not able to be collected on grounds, or in circumstances, prescribed by the regulations.

(5) A person who would, but for the defence provided by subsection (4), have contravened subsection (3) is, despite that defence, to be taken to have contravened that subsection for the purposes of the issuing or enforcement of a litter abatement notice in respect of the contravention.

Again, it is about a reasonable defence for shop trolleys that are not causing a hazard. I am happy to answer questions, but it is self-explanatory.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [AG–1]—

Page 13, after line 22—After subclause (3) insert:

(3a) Section 30(8)—delete subsection (8) and substitute:

(8) The Minister or a council may, by written notice served on a person to whom a notice under this section has been issued by the Minister or council, vary or revoke the notice—

(a) in the case of a litter abatement notice that contains a requirement to prepare a plan of action that includes shopping trolley management requirements—on the application of the person to whom the notice was issued, if the Minister or council is satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances; and

(b) in any case—on their own initiative.

(8a) An application under subsection (8)(a)—

(a) may not be made within the period of 12 months immediately following the issue of the litter abatement notice to the person; and

(b) must be made in the manner and form, and include the information, required by the Minister or the council (as the case requires).

This amendment has been drafted in response to feedback received from a retailer during consultation on the bill passed in another place. The retailer raised it in the current act. A litter abatement notice with a plan of action does not have an end date or review period, meaning that those plans may, effectively, be in place indefinitely, although the proposed amendment allows the person who has been issued a litter abatement notice that contains a requirement for a plan of action to include a shopping trolley after 12 months may apply to the council to have the notice varied or revoked.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 16 and 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–2]—

Page 15, after line 34—Before subclause (1) insert:

(a1) Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 1—after the definition of bird scaring device insert:

business of primary production means the business of agriculture, pasturage, horticulture, commercial forestry, viticulture, apiculture, poultry farming, dairy farming, wool farming, or any other business consisting of the cultivation of soils, the gathering in of crops, the rearing of livestock or the propagation and harvesting of fish or other aquatic organisms;

I might speak to both amendments Nos 1 and 2, given they are consequential. Obviously, if amendment No. 1 fails, I suspect amendment No. 2 will also fail.

This amendment seeks to include primary production in schedule 1, part 3 of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016, the section that lists activities that are not considered a local nuisance under the act. Currently, as we have outlined in the committee stage, mining operations are included in this schedule, yet farming and other primary production activities, which are essential to our state's economy and food security, are not. This creates an unfair imbalance where farmers can face local nuisance complaints for activities that are entirely legitimate and necessary to their operations, such as the movement of machinery or dust from harvests.

It is important to note that, with increasing urban sprawl and more non-farming residents living alongside productive land, farmers are becoming increasingly vulnerable to complaints under this act. I stress that this amendment does not give anyone a free pass to do the wrong thing, environmental and planning laws will still apply, but it provides some certainty and protection for legitimate farming practices. Put simply, farming is not a nuisance. It is the backbone of our state's food and fibre production and it deserves to be recognised and protected as such.

I indicate that I will divide on this amendment because it is something that I and the opposition feel strongly about, but I appreciate the Attorney's comments that these changes can be made via regulation and I would strongly counsel the government to do just that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for the amendments she is putting forward. As I have stated, we will not be supporting the amendments, but I have said in relation to the question I have taken on notice that it is a good thought starter. As I have said, although it is not my direct area of policy as the minister responsible I am advised that the minister is happy to consider the ability to do what the honourable member suggested when consultation happens for the regulations.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I have had a discussion with the relevant minister about this. I know that the amendment has come in fairly late. That is not a criticism, as I understand the honourable member was getting that drafted, but it has meant that I have not really had sufficient time to get my head around the implications of this or to seek advice. On that basis, I will not be supporting the amendment, but I note the comments of the Attorney that the government will be taking this into consideration. I hope that they do so and come up with something that will address the issue the opposition has raised.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I understand where the opposition is coming from with this amendment. I have great sympathy for it. I did raise it in my briefing with the government and I was given an assurance that there would be assurances given to properly consult on it and so to do it right, and I am glad that that has been put on the public record. I will not be supporting the substance of this amendment today, but I do support the spirit of it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate that I will be supporting the amendment, and I agree wholeheartedly with the distinction that is being made between mining and primary production. You can ask any individual who is living in one of those regions that is already impacted by mining activity—the red dust at Port Augusta, the mining quarry up at Skye—about these sorts of examples where locals are constantly complaining about the lack of action taken when their rights to their properties, their enjoyment of their property, is impacted by mining activity, with very little action taken in response. It makes sense that if it is good enough for mining, it is good enough for primary production. It is on that basis that I will be supporting this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Centofanti, I take it you are not going to move your next amendment?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given the fact that amendment No. 2 [Centofanti-2] is consequential, I will not be moving it.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with 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) (12:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.