Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 November 2025.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (11:10): I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate our support for this bill, which aims to bring South Australia into line with other jurisdictions in the nation with regard to the scrap metal industry. The bill seeks to require the registration of legitimate and conscientious scrap metal dealers who are not involved with criminality; ensure that transaction records are provided to police to assist with their investigations where necessary of suspicious activity; prohibit cash, cheque and in-kind payment for transactions to ensure payments are traceable; and to provide powers to police to enter, search and inspect any premises, vehicle or vessel, issuing disqualification notices where necessary.

There is indeed a pressing need for these provisions within our state, as for many years we have unfortunately grappled with the persistent problem of metal theft, which has been affecting households, small businesses, farms, local communities, transport infrastructure and even essential services. Copper cabling stripped from rail lines, stolen irrigation equipment from regional farms, catalytic converter thefts, and the targeting of construction sites in particular have become far too common in our state.

In fact, as the Minister for Police stated in the other place during his contribution, these crimes are costing South Australians millions of dollars each year, with the Master Builders Association estimating a cost in excess of some $70 million per annum to its industry alone—imagine what that would be across all industries. I am sure members would agree that this is just utterly unacceptable and, as the shadow minister for police again suggested, could well be pushing the price of housing up as well at a time when home ownership has regrettably become out of reach for many younger South Australians, as of course many of these materials are used in the construction of homes.

Further, as the shadow minister for police also stated in his second reading contribution in the other place, the opposition has consulted with as many stakeholders as possible within the short timeframe we have been afforded to consider this bill. The housing industry does appear to strongly support the proposed legislation, with industry bodies such as the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association and the Urban Development Institute of Australia SA endorsing the provisions in this bill. The shadow minister also had the opportunity to be briefed by SAPOL, which is unsurprisingly in favour of these amendments as well.

There were some concerns raised by scrap metal dealers to the Liberal Party whilst this bill was being considered. As we understand it, they largely oppose the bill, with some of their grievances being that their contentions were not adequately heard by the government nor responded to in what they regarded as a fairly flimsy consultation process.

Through that process, however, it is evident the state government has decided that it needs to act in this regard and the opposition will support that action on this occasion; for example, the opposition notes the removal of the licensing scheme that was proposed initially, as well as the limitation of most of the operation of this act to what is a defined term 'prescribed scrap metal'. So the opposition has suggested those changes and the government has agreed to them and we see a way forward based on that.

Further, the opposition is pleased that the amendment to reduce the timeframe of review of this legislation from three years to one was supported in the other place—another initiation of the opposition in order to approve this bill because, as I said, some of the industry itself is not fully in favour of this bill and therefore a shorter timeframe, in our view, was appropriate in order to ensure that anything that needs to be rectified could be rectified in a shorter timeframe.

After indicating over nine months ago that our parliament should be expecting the introduction of this legislation, the opposition is pleased that we are finally debating it. It has taken too long, in our view. The scrap metal industry plays a significant role in our circular economy by reducing waste, promoting resource recovery and supporting jobs across metropolitan and regional South Australia, and we as the opposition believe that this legislation will not only prevent scrap metal theft in our state, which as I said is a significant problem, but will benefit the industry itself by ensuring that it is transparent, accountable and resilient.

These are somewhat difficult changes, in a sense, for the industry, but as I said it is supported broadly across other industry sectors. We believe it is about right, but we have insisted on that one-year review, rather than a three-year review as originally proposed by the government—we think that is right—and because of those changes and those concessions, if you like, we are happy to support the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (11:14): I rise to speak on the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill 2025. This bill seeks to impose a regulatory framework in the dealing of prescribed scrap metal, and is an attempt by the government to address the rising theft of copper and scrap metal. The measures in this bill will make it more difficult to buy and sell stolen scrap metal, as well as prohibiting the use of cash and cryptocurrency and requiring the maintenance of accurate records along with proof of ID. There is also an increase in police powers to seize evidence from premises suspected of engaging in the trade of stolen scrap metal.

While I do not support the prohibition on the use of cash, and I appreciate concerns raised by the Waste and Recycling Industry Association regarding the administrative burden these proposed measures will impose on the scrap metal industry, there is widespread support from the building and construction industry for the government to address the serious issue of copper theft from building sites.

According to a report commissioned by Master Builders SA, the damage and delay caused by the removal of copper pipes and data cabling from building sites is costing the industry $70 million a year. Given these figures, it is clear that legislation is needed to try to stop the high volume of theft impacting the building and construction industry.

Unfortunately, the waste and recycling industry has expressed concern about being excluded from the consultation process that took place to construct the bill that is before us today, and the scrap metal industry remains concerned about the administrative burden these proposals will place on the industry. In response to these concerns there is an admission from government that the bill has been rushed through in response to active lobbying from the building industry urging the government to act as quickly as possible.

In addition to this, during a briefing with my office SAPOL expressed a commitment to work closely with the scrap metal industry to alleviate any administrative burden that might be caused by these new measures. Further to this, a review clause has also been added to the bill to provide a review of the act after three years. With this, I confirm my support for the bill and thank the stakeholders for their valuable contributions.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:16): I rise today to speak on the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill 2025. This legislation aims to address a growing problem that has been plaguing our building and construction industries and hindering the delivery and maintenance of public infrastructure across South Australia.

The rampant theft of copper and other valuable metals from construction sites and vital infrastructure such as railway signal boxes causes enormous damage throughout our state. The facts are stark: copper theft alone costs our building industry an estimated $70 million every year. These losses include not just the value of stolen materials that need to be replaced but also the cost of repairing damage, security requirements, project delays, increased insurance premiums and the disruption to businesses and home owners.

Copper prices have tripled in the last 20 years, making theft a very lucrative enterprise, with construction sites, community sports facilities and vacant buildings targeted for air conditioning units, exposed copper piping and cables. The ripple effect is significant, with thefts causing delays in housing delivery, increased costs for builders and homebuyers, and added pressure on a market that is already in crisis. Copper theft also impacts critical public infrastructure such as railways, with the theft of copper cabling in 2023 plunging the metropolitan train network into safety mode, causing significant peak hour delays.

This bill is a measured and reasonable response aimed at curbing thefts of these valuable scrap metals, introducing a narrow and targeted regulatory framework that focuses solely on prescribed scrap metals. These prescribed items include those that are commonly stolen, such as copper wiring, catalytic converters, railway fixtures and water meters. The legislation does not aim to regulate all aspects of a scrap metal business and will not impact on can and bottle recycling or other resource recovery activities that are vital to our efforts to reuse resources and reduce unnecessary landfill.

This bill introduces several key changes to curb the trade of stolen scrap metal for illegal gain, establishes a registration scheme for scrap metal dealers who deal in prescribed scrap metals and requires dealers to verify ID and keep detailed records of all such transactions. The bill also prohibits cash and cheque payments for prescribed metals to ensure that transactions can be traced, reducing incentives for criminal activity. Police will also have the power to search and inspect premises and records, issue disqualification notices and enforce compliance. Dealers will have a duty to report suspected stolen materials to the police, and there is flexibility to expand or exclude the prescribed metals and classes of persons via regulations.

It is important to acknowledge that the vast majority of scrap metal businesses in South Australia are already doing the right thing. Many already request ID when dealing with scrap metals of this kind and often report to police and assist with inquiries about suspected theft. Unlike the New South Wales legislation, which involves a yearly licensing scheme and has been widely criticised for overreach, this bill is narrowly targeted at disrupting criminal activity without unduly burdening legitimate businesses.

I note that the waste management industry has indicated reservations about the administrative impact on small businesses around electronic payment processes and record-keeping requirements. However, I have been advised that SAPOL have committed to work closely with industry to develop an online portal to reduce this burden as much as possible. Overall, I believe that this legislation will help disrupt criminal activity by making it harder to profit from scrap metal theft that causes enormous damage to our community, industry and economy.

The construction industry has been crying out for action to address this statewide issue, and I am glad to see these sensible changes being carried out by the government. I firmly believe in policies that make our workplace and society safer, reduce crime and support businesses and economic growth. With those remarks, I support the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:21): I rise to indicate my support for the bill. I will not traverse the elements of the bill—that has been covered by other speakers—suffice to say I think this is an important reform that the government is undertaking. It is interesting that this issue was actually brought to my attention a few years ago by a friend at a party, who told me about some of the things he was experiencing while trying to have his house built. He was literally saying that he was having to camp out on the building site to stop people from stealing copper during the construction phase of the property.

This was really baffling to me. I had not really been aware that was an issue, and it demonstrates that obviously people are seeing great value in this. It is creating significant stress and anxiety for people, particularly during the construction phase of a home. As I say, I have heard reports of people having to camp out on their property to keep an eye on the copper to make sure that it is not being ripped out of the build.

So what the government is proposing here seems like a fairly straightforward and sensible measure, and I think they have struck the right balance in terms of ensuring that people can access this vital commodity as part of our construction work and also that there is a relevant paper trail to make sure that if people are behaving in a dodgy way it is cracked down on. I support the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:23): I rise to speak in support of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill 2025 and to echo the sentiments that have just been expressed by the honourable members. We know that scrap metal recycling is an important part of our economy and our environment, and I think it is fair to say that the bill seeks to support that industry while closing those loopholes that enable crime. It is quite remarkable, the lengths and the sorts of complaints that we have all heard now over a protracted period: nothing is off the table when it comes to how far these very elaborate and organised criminal activity groups will go to to steal the sort of material that is covered in this bill. Whether it is a new build of a home or a cemetery or a railway line, nothing seems to be off the table.

A couple of months ago I had some photos shown to me, because it is not just the theft that is an issue but the safety risk. Members will be familiar with the new builds at Riverlea. There were some photos taken which were reported. There is a grate in the ground directly outside the entrance to this place. These thieves had lifted the grate, ripped out the copper wires and effectively left a hole, which looked from the photo to be about 50 by 50 centimetres, 60 maybe, 40 —somewhere in there, but big enough to fit a person.

You can just imagine walking out of this estate, the grate is off, it is dark, someone falls in and there are live wires. So it is not just the theft that is an issue but certainly also the threat that it is exposing people to as a result of the lengths that people will go to strip wires of the copper and the other materials that have been covered.

Far from being rushed through, I would say this bill has been the subject of very extensive consultation. There have been nine months of consultation—three rounds of consultation. The government settled on a balanced model, I think. It is narrower than the earlier drafts that were proposed and is closely aligned with the successful UK approach. I know consideration was given, as has been mentioned, to the New South Wales approach. That was considered heavy-handed. I think this does strike a reasonable balance.

There are not concessions but clauses in there that, for instance, establish a once-off permit and not an annual licence, meaning a simple one-time fee. The bill draws on very proven legislation which was, I think it is fair to say, the subject of the same level of concern and contention in this place when those pieces of legislation were debated: the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act, the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers Act and the Tattooing Industry Control Act. This legislation draws on elements of those three bits of legislation for effective disqualification provisions. Also, when we debated those pieces of legislation they were considered equally problematic, and I think we have managed to iron out quite effectively the sorts of concerns that were raised by stakeholders when we debated those.

I think it is really important to note that the scheme targets only the metals that are most commonly found in criminal activity, with the flexibility to add new metals as the criminal markets evolve. I note, of course, that these criminal markets are not just South Australian based. We have organised criminal activity taking place here that is well orchestrated across the nation. It is not locals, necessarily, taking this out but people coming from other jurisdictions and moving this stuff back out of our jurisdiction and wreaking havoc on our infrastructure, whether that is public or private.

The bill defines scrap metal clearly. It is used, discarded or worn out items and captures only genuine scrap, such as strip copper, not new products like the hot water systems that we often hear are ripped out of new builds as well. They are ripped out so that they can be sold as a new hot water system.

So I do think the bill is carefully calibrated. Businesses will have to buy or sell prescribed scrap at least 12 times a year to be captured, ensuring that we do not pull in ordinary tradies or some operators unnecessarily. Disqualification powers are similar to those that exist in the tattoo industry. They apply only to specific metals and will not shut down an entire business in the event of a misstep, which is particularly important in our regional areas.

I think it is very important to note for the record, given that there are still those concerns from industry groups around this bill, that the record-keeping requirements—and this has been made very clear to us—will not commence until SAPOL's digital police station portal is ready. That is likely to be in 2027 or 2028, and dealers will not actually be expected to produce data prior to that. So those two things will work in tandem and become operational at the same time.

ID verification and reporting duties, of course, are going to assist our police to track theft trends in real time, again, in a very carefully calibrated way so as not to place unfair burdens on dealers. Enforcement will be undertaken appropriately by authorised officers, including in regional areas, where there are going to be clear safeguards around powers of entry.

The bill does not prescribe imprisonment penalties. This is a regulatory scheme with financial penalties only, and that is reflective of the fact that we have taken what has been seen as this successful approach from the UK. I think the vast majority of operators do the right thing. They want a clean, safe and reputable sector. They have been tainted by the brush of organised criminal activity in this space, and I actually think that this bill will do a lot to lift the profile of those sectors and clean out that industry as far as possible. The bill gives them the framework to achieve that while, of course, allowing systems to adapt as new markets emerge. It is on that basis that I support the bill and look forward to its implementation as soon as possible.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:30): I rise to briefly make some remarks in support of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill. I reflect that the contribution of the other members, and particularly the Liberal opposition, has raised some concerns. I know that all members of this council received some correspondence on 11 November from Adam Gray, in his capacity with the Waste and Recycling Industry Association SA (WRISA), raising a few minor concerns but overall being supportive of the bill.

I understand the need for this bill. This bill is much needed. It will address what is a difficult challenge, and that is something that should be managed urgently. I thank Minister Boyer and his office and, in particular, Josh Weidenbach for his briefing, as well as SAPOL, for assisting my office, who have then progressed some of the concerns made in more detail by WRISA. I put those on the record now so that they can be answered either in the second reading summary or in clause 1 by the government. I note that I have alerted Minister Boyer's office of these questions coming.

Mr Gray raised that WRISA's reading of the current bill suggests some significant gaps and that these reflected some of the administrative gaps, if you like, that had emerged in other jurisdictions where similar legislation had been enacted, and that is around enforcement. In particular, Mr Gray noted that the biggest issue in the eastern seaboard has been around enforcement and, despite the law actually being in place, enforcement not being conducted. He has particularly alerted us to the exemption from record-keeping factors to do with this legislation. I note that he stated:

Prescribed Dealer to Prescribed Dealer transactions do not need record keeping. This is a major concern as paying a once off fee of $200 would then exempt any dealer from keeping records for purchasing scrap from a 'peddler' because they are a registered dealer. We strongly suggest that all transactions, no matter the origin be recorded.

He also noted:

Lower tier dealers are a concern, as these dealers are often the purchasers of stolen scrap. If illegally the dealer purchases from the thief without keeping records, then on-sells to another dealer, no record is required to be kept and the stolen scrap is then lost in the system.

Finally, with auditing:

Random auditing must be applied to all levels of prescribed dealers. Sims Metal should not be penalised because our systems allow for quick and accessible records, whereas a 3^rd Tier level Dealer is avoided due to the inaccurate, time consuming and language barrier breach SAPOL may have in gaining these records.

Mr Gray has given my office a real-life example that I have passed on to the minister's office, which is:

A person brings in a trailer of 'Baling Steel' that happens to have a prescribed 'Hot Water System' on board. Dealer will have to make an individual record of that Hot Water System along with their own standard record keeping. They can't pay cash for the 'hot water system' but can for the balance of the load. This will likely lead to many instances of poor record keeping (illegal) and cash for prescribed items. The dealer then conducts a B2B transaction (exempt from record keeping) and the details of the scrap is lost in the system.

As the dealer-to-dealer exemption of record keeping under section 16 seems to be potentially a significant gap, I ask the government to place on record how this concern that has been raised in these last few weeks will be addressed in the implementation of this legislation. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (11:34): I rise today to speak on the important reforms contained in this bill that will regulate the scrap metal industry. I am especially pleased to see this bill, as it addresses an issue I have had personal experience with and is one I have raised with various ministers over the years.

The origins of this bill stretch back to 2009, when the Hon. Michael Wright, then Minister for Police, introduced legislation in the House Assembly that included, among other matters, a definition of scrap metals. The bill stalled and was not debated and brought to a vote before the parliamentary term ended. In 2012, a new bill was introduced in the House of Assembly to repeal and replace the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1996. Debate commenced but was adjourned. When debate resumed in February 2013, that version of the bill did not reinstate the original 2009 definition of scrap metal, and consequently scrap metal was not captured within the regulatory framework.

As a result, South Australia's existing legislative framework does not address the increasing rise of scrap metal theft and the selling of stolen scrap metal such as copper, brass and aluminium. These are all metals commonly used in residential water and gas piping. In fact, my next-door neighbour had all the copper piping stolen from a house she purchased in our street, not once but twice. She purchased the property from my neighbour after he passed away. During the period between the signing of the contract and the settlement, all existing copper piping around the house was dug up and stolen. This was replaced by the new owner and, unbelievably, the very next day the copper piping was stolen for a second time. In fact, it was almost stolen for a third time. When I heard noises late at night, I went outside and shone a torch across the fence and deterred the theft from happening again.

This is not the only instance of this type of theft that people have raised with me. A friend of mine who runs a little restaurant had the same thing happen. He had copper piping stolen twice in two days, just as my neighbour had experienced. After the theft of pipes from the house he had just sold, he decided to sleep outside the property in his van for two days during the cooling-off period.

Thieves target other areas as well—light towers at local shopping clubs, exhaust systems and catalytic converters from people's cars, as well as cabling from Telstra pits. These thefts are not victimless crimes. They impose heavy financial burdens on construction companies, home owners and small businesses, jeopardising project timelines and costing people and families thousands of dollars. As the Hon. Blair Boyer MP, Minister for Police, stated in the other place, the Master Builders Association of South Australia estimates the cost of metal theft to the industry to be about $70 million per year.

The government has listened to industry and stakeholders to get this bill right, and further consultation to draft the required regulation will take place should this bill pass both houses. I therefore commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (11:39): I would like to thank the many people who spoke on today's important piece of legislation. As we have heard today, this has been a long time coming and one that will save not only future home owners but also industry a significant amount of money. As we have heard, this has come from learnings from not just interstate but also around the world. We have taken a lot of learnings from the UK in regard to the development of this bill before us today.

In regard to references about concessions in regard to the consultation process, I think any good government is willing to go out and do consultation. That is what this government has done, through a number of layers: through YourSAy, putting the bill out to the community to get responses and getting further responses back from industry. We were willing to make changes to the initial bill that was to be presented to the parliament. I think there has been a significant amount of consultation put into this, which the industry has taken seriously, and appropriate changes have been made to get to where we are today to have the support of the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: If it assists the chamber, I have about half a dozen questions at clause 1, one group of questions at clause 4 and maybe three or four questions at clause 20. My first question to the minister is: there was some sort of expression from the industry, quoting this $70 million figure. We have taken that at face value; we have no reason not to. I just wonder if the government has any insight as to whether that is a figure based purely on the cost of the materials, or does that include add-ons, things like labour charges, clean-ups, all that sort of thing?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My understanding, and as I have just been further advised, is that those costs often relate to the damage that is then created to those individual properties. Again, that cost is being carried over. As you said in your opening remarks, it is often the home owners having to pay for that in future builds but also industries having to pay a significant amount of money.

There is also high risk that is being taken, so it is not just the economic cost. We have people going onto train lines to take out wiring, putting their own lives at risk, and also train drivers have to be confronted with people taking that risk. It is also something now that, in my new role, we do not want people to be thinking that the only way they can go about getting a little bit of extra cash is to go and take copper wiring from our train lines.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for answering and completely agree. We would not want to see that, of course. Moving on to the next topic, it is with respect to enforcement, and you happen to have a person who may be very helpful with that, I would imagine, right near you. Has SAPOL taken into account how they might enforce this particularly? What is the plan, essentially?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: There will be a combination of support. The Licensing Enforcement Branch will be there to oversee the second-hand dealership industry. They are there to put those oversights in place, and they will be there as a reinforcement of how this will roll out. But then we also have our general operations that we will be undertaking—the more localised concerns that are being raised. There is already an operation in place, Operation Alchemy, that looks into this particular matter where they have a focus and workforce already seeking to make some changes.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That makes sense, I am pleased to hear that and thank the minister for that response. This is a related topic, and that is with respect to people doing the right thing. There are people who will be seeking to gather these scrap metals legally in order to get the cash that is owed to them when they do that. Is there a particular carve out in this legislation, or a way of acknowledging that this is also a legal activity?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: They have deliberately tried to make the prescribed terminology in this quite narrow, because what they want is, if you have a fridge that you want to take in that might have copper in it or legitimate items you are trying to take in, that is going to be seen as absolutely fine. But any sort of loophole—we already have people taking high risks. We are already seeing people undertake criminal activity to try to find loopholes to gain money from copper. We have tried to narrow down that component as much as possible to focus on the criminality, but if there are legitimate reasons, we have also tried to identify those pathways as well.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am pleased to hear that. That makes sense to the opposition. My next question is with respect to the consultation period. My understanding is that the industry itself was very keen to maintain the cash payment allowance within the scheme or within their operations, but the government was not prepared to compromise on that, and there may well be good reasons for that. My question is: were any other specific concerns raised by the industry with respect to payment? Cash is ruled out, but was anything else raised by the industry?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I said in my remarks earlier, we had the opportunity to take learnings from not only interstate but around the world. In the UK and interstate, they do not take cash. We have done this because we need to be able to track the transactions and we cannot do that with cash. We also know that, if we leave it as an option, it will just continue to be a loophole. That is why it has been really tightened down to say that no cash is available through this process.

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: Any others?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that nothing of concern was raised.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a couple of other questions at clause 1 about the consultation process. Minister, I think you would agree that some of the industry have not been entirely satisfied with it. Will the minister outline the process for the chamber, outline what hiccups were experienced and how they were remedied?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My understanding, as I mentioned earlier, is that a YourSAy was undertaken for the original bill. The bill then went out to consultation, after which there was significant change as a result of that consultation period, because it was important to hear from the industry. A new bill was then drafted and further considerations were taken from the UK modelling and that was again consulted on. That was a shorter timeframe because already so much work had been done to get to that final bill that we are now seeing before the council. So yes, the last part might have been shorter, but we had arrived at that end result because so much consultation had happened prior.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is the last one on clause 1 from me. I think the minister sort of partly answered it in that answer anyway, but I will put the question for the sake of the record. This consultation has taken quite some time, or the process I should say. I think the government announced back in February, if I am not mistaken, that this bill would come, so I guess my question is: why so long?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We have taken the consultation period seriously. We went out, as you have correctly highlighted, in February. There was that consultation period through YourSAy. The bill went out. There was an industry consultation process as part of that, and the government was willing to go back to them and say, 'We will make changes.' Significant change was made to arrive at the bill that we are at today. I want to congratulate the former and the current minister for the work that they have done in this space. As we have heard today, ultimately this is about saving industry tens of millions of dollars, saving future home owners a significant amount of money and heartache, but also trying to prevent people from taking reckless actions and putting their own lives and others at risk as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just for the sake of the record and for clarity, I am hoping that we will be able to confirm that, in terms of those administrative burdens—for want of a better word—that people have raised, the issue of record-keeping requirements is not expected, as I am advised, to commence until that digital police station by SAPOL portal is ready, and the likely timeframe around that, in terms of allowing people time to adjust, is around 2027-28, and there will not be a requirement on dealers to actually provide data before that digital police station is actually up and running.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: You would be correct in your assessment.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: If I could just ask the honourable member Tammy Franks to again put on the record her questions while I have an adviser next to me.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I reiterate my second reading question that has been raised by the Waste and Recycling Industry Association and Mr Gray there in regard to the potential errors or omissions of record keeping, and how we are going to address the failings of the eastern seaboard implementation of this particular scheme, where record keeping has not necessarily flowed all the way through in certain situations. How is that being addressed?

I did provide these questions in the second reading and to the minister's office, and gave that example of the hot water system, where the dealer has to make an individual record of that in their own standard record keeping, not being able to pay cash for the hot water system but being able to pay cash for the balance of the load, which then might lead to poor record keeping and cash for prescribed items. That was certainly something that has happened interstate that we are keen to not see happen here.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that the act will regulate the industry, as you would expect, but the important component here—I think you were out of the room when this came up before from the Hon. Dennis Hood—is in regard to the Licensing Enforcement Branch that is already in place. They will have oversight in auditing how this act will be rolled out and, I guess, provide an extra layer of scrutiny over that process.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am going to ask this at clause 4. It is hard to know where it fits, really, but I think it is probably here. This is with respect to the industry concerns expressed during the consultation phase and to the opposition about illegal dumping as a result of this bill. My questions are twofold, essentially: what is the government's response to that claim, and, secondly, have there been other jurisdictions that have seen that as a result of similar legislation?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that that could have been a risk if we had made this too onerous, but what we have tried to do is work in consultation so that we avoid that being the outcome.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: And other jurisdictions? Do we have any knowledge of them?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: It could very well occur, as I have been advised, but we do not have any examples of that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: A twofold question again, minister. I think I know the answer to this one, but just for the sake of clarity: my understanding is that this bill before us was modelled extensively on bills in other jurisdictions. Can you confirm that or otherwise? The second part of that is: what role did SAPOL play in formulating the bill?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that the first bill was based off the New South Wales model. That was seen as too onerous, which, again, I guess plays back into your previous question about whether the consequences of that could lead to dumping, which is something we have also wanted to avoid. So we have gone off something that we do know works, which is the second-hand dealers act and basing it off that. That is the process that we have worked through.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is my last question, I think, and it is with respect to SAPOL's role, as I mentioned in my previous question, and also SAPOL being adequately resourced. That is no slight on SAPOL at all, but just a genuine question about the fact that this is extra work for them, so will they be sufficiently resourced to undertake the task?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I was going to be cheeky, but I will not. They are sitting next to me. They have been heavily involved in this consultation period. SAPOL have obviously been very much involved in the drafting of this bill. As I have already mentioned before, we already have the Licensing Enforcement Branch that is established and underway, but the government has also funded the digital police station. So there have been investments made, but also—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: You never miss a moment; I love it. So, yes, they have been very much involved.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (21 to 34) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (11:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.