Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 November 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (12:00): I rise to speak briefly on the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025, and indicate that the opposition is supporting the bill. As the shadow Attorney-General, who has portfolio responsibility for this area, noted in the other place during that debate, this bill primarily resolves issues which emerged following the extensive 2023 residential tenancies reforms.

Those reforms introduced significant changes, and it is unsurprising that some technical and practical amendments are now required to ensure consistency and clarity across the scheme. The provisions before us are fairly uncontroversial. They modernise the act through clarification of definitions, correcting inconsistencies between fixed term and periodic tenancies, and close off the unintended loophole that allowed for more frequent rent increases where automatic increases were written into a lease agreement.

These sensible adjustments bring the act into line with the intent of the 2023 reforms, and with the national position of limiting rent increases to once every 12 months. This bill also makes improvements to rooming house provisions, updates the operation of the Residential Tenancies Fund to align with the Unclaimed Money Act, and streamline SACAT's internal review process, which reflects feedback from the tribunal and industry stakeholders.

While these amendments include some matters of substance they are, as the Hon. Josh Teague described, part of ensuring a complete and coherent treatment of the residential tenancy framework. I acknowledge the advice provided through briefing processes and the work of departmental officers in responding to stakeholder concerns. On that basis we support the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:02): I rise today to speak on the Residential Tendencies (Miscellaneous Bill) 2025. This bill seeks to make technical adjustments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 following the significant reforms introduced in 2023 and fully implemented in July 2024. While these amendments address certain operational issues, it is important to acknowledge that many concerns raised by landlords, property managers and real estate professionals remain unresolved.

The bill before us introduces several technical amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. These include clarifying that receipts may be issued electronically and in hard copy, closing a loophole that allowed automatic rent increases at stated intervals within agreements, and aligning re-letting timeframes for fixed term and periodic tenancies to six months from termination in both cases. It also provides a mechanism for unclaimed bond monies to be paid to the Treasurer after 12 months, extends termination grounds for fixed term rooming house agreements, and refines SACAT review provisions to improve efficiency.

These changes are practical, and respond to feedback received from stakeholders and the tribunal; however, broader concerns from the property sector remain. The 2023 reforms represented the most substantial changes to tenancy laws in decades. They were designed to strengthen tenant protections and improve housing security, but I constantly receive feedback from community members and from those in the property sector that highlights how some of these changes have created challenges that may discourage investment in rental housing—a trend we cannot afford, given the current pressures on housing supply.

The 2023 reforms introduced strict termination requirements. meaning landlords must now have a prescribed reason to terminate or not renew a tenancy, such as selling the property, moving in themselves, undertaking major renovations, or responding to serious tenant misconduct. While these grounds are understandable, they significantly limit flexibility for landlords who may face unforeseen circumstances. Property managers report that these rigid requirements make it harder to manage problematic tenancies, increasing risk and stress for owners.

Concerns also persist around pet policies. While allowing tenants to keep pets under reasonable conditions promotes inclusivity, landlords argue that the inability to refuse consent without strong justification exposes them to potential property damage and disputes. Balancing tenant rights with property protection remains a challenge.

Further, rent increase restrictions—limiting increases to once every 12 months and removing the option for mutual agreement outside that period—have been highlighted as problematic. Landlords who invest in property investments, such as installing a new kitchen, cannot adjust rent for those upgrades unless 12 months have passed. This disincentivises investment and discourages upgrading and modernisation of rental stock. The cumulative effect of these changes, according to industry feedback, is that some landlords are choosing to sell or leave properties vacant, rather than risk being locked into difficult tenancies.

I spend a lot of time speaking to community members, many of whom are renters and many of whom are landlords. I have personally heard from many mum-and-dad investors, who generally want to do the right thing by their tenants and provide them a secure and safe place to call home. Equally, there is stress and worry about the detrimental impact that problematic tenants may have on their livelihood and investment. They have told me that it makes them second-guess their investment decisions and avoid taking risks on the very people who need who most need a secure roof over their heads.

Many community members tell me that their rental properties are their retirement fund and that they scraped and saved and took on debt to buy and maintain these properties. They simply cannot afford to get stuck with problematic tenants and go through potentially lengthy, stressful and expensive legal proceedings to terminate a lease, if required. Renters need appropriate protections and certainty, but we also need more supply, more investment and more private capital in the housing market. If we fail to address the legitimate concerns of mum-and-dad investors, we risk forcing them out of the private rental market—an outcome that runs counter to our shared goal of increasing rental availability.

While the bill makes useful clarifications, it does not address those broader concerns I mentioned. I urge the government to continue engaging with all stakeholders to ensure tenancy laws strike the right balance, protecting tenants while encouraging landlords to remain active participants in the rental market.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (12:08): I rise to speak on the residential tenancies bill. I note that the bill addresses issues in relation to rooming houses. I am supportive of that, but I do feel that this would be a missed opportunity: given we are opening up the Residential Tenancies Act, this is potentially a missed opportunity for the parliament to deal with some of the outstanding issues that we failed to resolve the last time we opened up the Residential Tenancies Act.

In particular, I will be moving a series of amendments to address some of those issues. The first of those is to end the practice of rent bidding. The government will claim—and indeed they did so with great fanfare—that they have outlawed rent bidding in South Australia. That is not entirely true. What they have done is prevented a landlord from being able to advertise a range for a rental property, but there is nothing to stop a prospective tenant from turning up to an open inspection and offering more than the asking price, and there is nothing to stop a landlord from accepting a higher price. My amendments would outlaw that practice and introduce penalties for people who engage in that practice. We know that the practice of rent bidding is driving up prices in South Australia, so I urge the Labor and Liberal parties to support that sensible proposal.

The other amendment I am moving will seek to cap rent increases in line with CPI. This is not a radical proposal. The ACT has operated with a similar model in place for many years. The sky has not fallen in there and it will not here in South Australia. It is very clear that we have to do something about rent prices. Just this week, we saw a new survey come out that showed that rental accommodation in Adelaide is now as unaffordable as in Sydney. That is an absolute travesty, and it is an indictment on the Labor and Liberal parties, which fail to support rent capping. Christmas is a time for redemption. There is an opportunity for them to look at this proposal with fresh eyes and do something to help renters as we head into the Christmas period, because we know a lot of people are going to be struggling.

The amendment I am moving would also provide for the concept of a bond transfer. Victoria has recently announced this. This allows people to have their bond transferred directly from property to property rather than having to collect it and reallocate the bond. It is a pretty straightforward proposition. It is something that would make life a lot easier for renters. I hope the major parties support it.

Finally, I am proposing that the money that sits in unclaimed bonds be reinvested towards homelessness services or tenancy support services or indeed to build more social housing. I understand the government has indicated they are going to do everything they can to try to reconnect people with money that has not yet been claimed, but if the money is sitting there for 12 months or more and has not been claimed their proposal is that it will go back towards general revenue.

I am suggesting that, instead, money should be allocated towards services that support renters, it should be allocated towards services that support homeless people and advocate for their interests, or it should go towards actually building more housing. I recognise that we are at a time where homelessness organisations are desperately seeking funds. They do not have access to them at the moment, and they are significantly under-resourced. They are getting government funding, but that is well below what they need. So these amendments would provide them with a potential lifeline as we head into the Christmas period.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (12:12): I rise to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. The state government conducted the largest review of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 in nearly 30 years over the course of 2023 to 2024. The aim was to modernise the RTA and strike the right balance between protecting the interests of both tenants and landlords. Reforms were fully implemented from 1 July 2024. Since that date, the government has received feedback on several of the amendments to the RTA. The amendments to the RTA contained within this bill are largely of a technical nature and are unlikely to be controversial.

The bill includes the following amendments. It closes an existing loophole to the previous RTA reforms, which intended to limit rent increases to once in a 12-month period. The current subsections that allow the rent of tenants to be increased more frequently than once in a 12-month period and more than once in a six-month period for rooming house residents will be removed. When you consider that previously a landlord could have raised the rent twice in just six months in some cases the changes would seem completely reasonable.

The bill will also add a definition of 'receipt' to the RTA to enable both electronic and hard copy receipts. This is important particularly for residents who still work on the paper system. The bill will provide consistent timeframes in the RTA, applying to both periodic and fixed-term leases, that restrict landlords from re-letting their rental properties after terminating a lease on certain grounds.

The 2023 bill already struck a fair balance for landlords and tenants. It prohibited the termination and non-renewal of tenancy agreements without providing a prescribed reason. The grounds on which a lease would not be renewed or terminated, however, were expanded to include termination when serious damage was caused or when the resident used intimidating behaviour or put neighbours, the landlord or contractors in danger. It also prescribed 60 days for termination of rent instead of 28 days, so it was about balancing rights. Other amendments include:

Clarifying that section 6 of the Unclaimed Money Act 2021 applies to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs to enable payments of unclaimed bond monies in the Residential Tenancies Fund to be paid to the Treasurer.

Clarifying the prescribed grounds for the termination of rooming house agreements, as outlined in the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2025, will apply to fixed terms as well as periodic rooming house agreements.

Amending the definition of 'relevant decision' in relation to applications made for internal review of SACAT decisions where leave cannot be granted for internal review unless exceptional circumstances exist.

SACAT submitted that vacant possession orders containing rental payment plans be explicitly excluded from this definition. This will address the unintended consequence of increased hearing times for SACAT when determining internal reviews of matters relating to time-sensitive vacant possession orders.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (12:16): I would like to thank honourable members who have contributed: the Hons Ms Lensink, Ms Lee, Mr Simms and Mr Wortley. As stated, the purpose of the bill is to close up some loopholes that are not conducive to what we consider to be in the best interests of tenants. There is a number of amendments that have been proposed, which we will discuss in due course in the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I would like to ask some questions about the unclaimed bond money. Can the minister advise how much money is currently sitting in the fund, notionally as unclaimed bond?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised, in the residential tenancy and rooming house composition of the fund, as at 31 of October, that it was approximately $23 million. It is also worth pointing out, however, that unclaimed bonds can, of course, be claimed by former tenants, and that continues to be the case.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: What steps will the government take to ensure that people are able to access their unclaimed bonds? Is it a process similar to superannuation where sometimes you might have some money sitting in a fund? How precisely will the government ensure that people are aware that that money is sitting there?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that a portal has been introduced since June 2024, which is an online system where people can claim or seek information about unclaimed bonds. There have also been alerts that have now been put in place, where if the bond has been unclaimed for seven days or more, CBS can alert those individuals with their contact details about the unclaimed bonds via SMS.

There is also work in regard to notifying the owners of historical bonds by SMS or email in relation to how to make a claim for an unclaimed bond. There has been a dedicated marketing campaign on unclaimed moneys in October 2023, encouraging tenants to search the register for old bonds. I am also advised that a relatively recent initiative has been to alert existing tenants around 30 days prior to the end of their existing tenancy agreement to let them know of their options.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: If after a set period of time the bond is not collected, it is my understanding that the government is proposing that the money then will just go into general revenue. Will there be an opportunity for someone, if they come forward later, to be able to access the money, or is there a time limit?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, if the amendment proposed here by the government goes forward, after 12 months the money will be transferred to the Treasurer, but an application can be made at any time for reimbursement of that unclaimed money, and that is covered under the Unclaimed Money Act.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I ask whether there is any cross-linking with the CBS database against other databases, such as the one for drivers of motor vehicles and Births, Deaths and Marriages, so that CBS at least is aware if someone has passed away or there is a change of address notification and those sorts of things? It is obviously something nationally through Services Australia that a lot of those databases are linked, which means that changes of circumstances can flow through and across their systems.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that when a tenancy agreement is signed, tenants are encouraged to provide emergency contact details. That information is able to be used for the purposes that have been outlined. In terms of the other information about cross-linking, we would need to take that on notice, noting however that under different scenarios people provide information for a particular purpose, so there may be limitations on the extent to which that can be shared without permission. We do not have final details on that but can take it on notice.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

New clause 3A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 12—Insert:

3A—Amendment of section 52A

Section 52A(3)—delete 'solicit or otherwise invite an offer of an amount of rent under a residential tenancy agreement that' and substitute:

enter into a residential tenancy agreement if the amount of rent payable under the proposed agreement

This is the provision that I referenced earlier around banning rent bidding.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government does not support this amendment. Measures to prevent rent bidding through banning landlords, agents and third parties from soliciting offers of higher rent and prohibiting rental properties being advertised within a price range were addressed in the Residential Tenancies (Protection of Prospective Tenants) Amendment Act 2023. These reforms commenced on 1 September of that year. Since that time, Consumer and Business Services has only received a small number of complaints relating to landlords inviting offers of higher rent than the advertised rent amount.

However, the government has gone further with that, most recently introducing a standard rental application form. The form includes a section for the rent payable to be inserted by landlords and agents, providing transparent rental prices for prospective tenants. The form clearly identifies that landlords and agents cannot offer a premises for rent unless the rent payable is a fixed amount and cannot invite offers of higher rent amounts above the advertised price. The prescribed form must be in use by 1 January 2026. The government is seeking in this to be able to address some of the concerns that were outlined by the honourable member in his second reading contribution.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party agrees with the government on this occasion.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 2

Noes 18

Majority 16

AYES

NOES

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 13—Insert:

(1) Section 55—after subsection (2b) insert:

(2c) Despite a preceding provision, for each period of 12 months after a residential tenancy agreement is entered into, the rent payable under the agreement cannot increase by more than the percentage applying under subsection (2d) relating to the financial year in which the increase is to occur.

(2d) The percentage applying under this subsection in respect of a financial year is the percentage change in the CPI (expressed to 1 decimal place) when comparing the CPI for the September quarter of the immediately preceding financial year with the CPI for the September quarter of the financial year immediately before that preceding financial year, being this percentage change published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

(2e) In subsection (2d)—

CPI means the Consumer Price Index (All groups index for Adelaide).

I would encourage members not to leave the chamber, as there might be a division. This is, in effect, a rent-capping provision. It ties rent increases to CPI. It is a very reasonable proposal and one that I urge members of this chamber to support. We know from data we have seen just this week that Adelaide is now becoming as unaffordable as Sydney when it comes to rents. Rents are going up and up and up. This amendment would allow landlords to make a modest profit in line with CPI, but nothing more.

Whilst I accept that many landlords are doing the right thing by their tenants, many are making really unrealistic profits and driving up the cost of rental property here in our state. As we head into the Christmas period, I think it is really important that some relief is provided to renters. I have moved provisions like this on multiple occasions during this term of parliament, and this is giving members one final opportunity, as the clock ticks down to the end of this parliament, to do the right thing by SA renters.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The issue of rent capping is one that sounds very positive on face value, but as became apparent through the 2023 public consultation conducted throughout the major review into the Residential Tenancies Act 1995, the issue of rent capping is more complex than that. While it may provide some relief for tenants, there have been concerns raised that rent control measures may cause an upsurge in rental prices prior to the commencement of any such measures. Further, imposing rent restrictions may result in some landlords electing to exit the market, which may in turn worsen rental availability issues. Rather, the government has sought to strike the right balance with prohibiting rent increases for tenants in the way proposed in existing clause 4 of the bill.

Clause 4 of the bill proposes to repeal subsection 55(6) of the act. This will prevent a tenant's rent amount from being increased more than once in a 12-month period. This extends upon the government's previous measure to ease the rising cost of rent when the Malinauskas government acted to prohibit rent increases more than once in a 12-month period in the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2023.

This new amendment, at clause 4 of the bill, will ensure that a pre-existing loophole allowing rental agreements to include terms for automatic rent increases at specified dates will no longer be available to landlords and agents. The government's proposed amendment is entirely consistent with national cabinet's 2023 A Better Deal for Renters recommendation, which called for jurisdictions to move towards a national standard of no more than one rent increase per year for tenants. For all of these reasons, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: These matters have been well traversed many times and because it is actually bad policy the Liberal Party is not going to support it. The matter of rent capping has been applied in some jurisdictions around the globe. Most notably, there are rent controls in the city of New York, which has effectively led to slumlords because there is no capacity to invest in the property, and so you have some pretty horrendous things there.

We have the Housing Improvement Act in South Australia, so we prevent houses from falling into disrepair, but it would certainly prevent landlords from doing any voluntary upgrades to properties and, as the minister has stated, could lead to landlords exiting the market and fewer properties being available on the market. These ideas are often very superficially attractive but the reality is very different.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 2

Noes 18

Majority 16

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 14—Insert:

4A—Insertion of section 63A

After section 63 insert:

63A—Transfer of bond

(1) The Commissioner must prepare and publish a scheme to facilitate the transfer of bonds on behalf of tenants (the transfer of bonds scheme).

(2) The transfer of bonds scheme must allow for tenants to apply to the Commissioner for the transfer an amount held by way of bond provided or paid to the Commissioner on behalf of the tenant in respect of a residential tenancy agreement so that the amount is held by the Commissioner by way of bond in respect of another residential tenancy agreement.

(3) The transfer of bonds scheme may—

(a) require tenants to provide information that the Commissioner requires in relation to the transfer of a bond; and

(b) provide for requirements that must be met before a bond is transferred in accordance with the scheme; and

(c) provide for other matters relevant to the transfer of bonds.

(4) The transfer of bonds scheme may modify or disapply a provision of this Act for the purposes of the transfer of bonds in accordance with the scheme.

(5) If the transfer of bonds scheme modifies or disapplies a provision of this Act, the Commissioner must publish a copy of the scheme in the Gazette as soon as reasonably practicable after the scheme is published.

I spoke about this earlier. This amendment would bring South Australia into line with Victoria, introducing a bond transfer scheme. It is a pretty straightforward proposition that would make life easier for a lot of renters. Basically, Victoria has just passed legislation to do this. The transfer of bonds scheme would enable tenants to move from properties without having to find an extra $2,000 towards the cost of bonds, so it is a seamless transfer. It does not have any adverse impact on landlords in any way; it just streamlines the rental process for tenants.

It has been advocated for by organisations such as the McKinnon Institute and a range of others have suggested this is something that is worthwhile for renters in South Australia. I do encourage the parties in this chamber, whatever their views might be on the other issues around rent prices and rent bidding, to give positive consideration to this proposal. It is a pretty commonsense suggestion, but one that would make life easier for a lot of renters in our state.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government does not oppose the introduction of a portable rental bond scheme in South Australia outright; however, the complexities of such a scheme and how it might sit within our current legislative framework do require full consideration. The government is currently considering the best way to achieve a scheme that alleviates financial pressures on residential tenants and improves mobility in the rental market.

It has been identified that the legislation and the bonds online system will require a large set of fully considered amendments and enhancements, including significant system upgrades in order to sufficiently integrate the scheme into South Australia. The government has been monitoring the implementation of similar schemes in other jurisdictions, particularly New South Wales, where it will have taken three years and a commitment of $6.6 million once it is introduced in 2026.

Victoria is another jurisdiction that has only recently announced a commitment to introduce a portable rental bond scheme, but the full detail and the specifics of that scheme are yet to be prescribed. The South Australian government will continue to monitor the implementation of the portable rental bonds scheme models in New South Wales and Victoria, while considering the establishment of a scheme here that provides long-term operational certainty and improves tenant mobility and access to housing. However, we are unable to support this amendment at this time.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This is a very interesting amendment and the member is to be commended. I am pleased to hear the government say that they are looking at this because I think it is a sensible suggestion. But I appreciate that is probably a bit premature to support it at this stage.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I thank the minister and shadow minister for their contributions. I am greatly encouraged by the openness of the government and the opposition to look at this. It is a reform that makes a lot of sense and, as I say, is something that would be beneficial for a lot of people. I therefore flag that it is a matter I will take up in the new parliament, and I look forward to having positive discussions with whichever party forms government.

New clause negatived.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–2]—

Page 3, lines 10 to 12 [clause 6, inserted subsection (5a)]—

Delete 'may pay the money to the Treasurer in accordance with section 6 of the Unclaimed Money Act 2021' and substitute:

must pay the money as follows (as determined by the Commissioner in the particular circumstances):

(a) to an entity that the Commissioner is satisfied has a primary purpose of advocating for and representing the interests of tenants, rooming house residents and residents of residential parks;

(b) to an entity (including an agency or instrumentality of the Crown) that provides social housing or services for homeless persons (or both).

This amendment applies in circumstances where money has not been claimed over a long period of time. I understand there is money in the fund that the minister referred to earlier that has been there for up to 20 years that has not been claimed.

Rather than this money going into general government coffers, I am proposing that the money go towards supporting homeless organisations or rental advocacy services, or indeed towards the construction of social housing. It does seem inappropriate that if there is a circumstance where money has not been claimed over a long period of time that it just vanishes into general revenue. This seems like an opportunity to at least be able to use that unclaimed bond money for something that is going to support people who are struggling.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate that I will be supporting this amendment. Like the previous ones, if the government is not in a position to support this now I certainly hope it will add it to the list of issues that it will consider going into the new year. I do not think it makes any logical sense that that money would be going back into general revenue, given that it could be going to much-needed services and assistance to people, particularly regarding homelessness. I thank the honourable member for bringing it to this parliament.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that as part of the immediate priority reforms to the act, which commenced on 1 September 2023, the use of the income derived from investment of the Residential Tenancies Fund was expanded. As a result, it may now be applied for the benefit of an industrial association or organisation with the primary purpose of advocating for and representing the interests of tenants, rooming house residents and residents of residential parks.

In 2024, the government awarded a $1.4 million grant across four years to SYC Ltd (RentRight SA) for the purpose of providing a tenant advice and advocacy service to tenants and residential park residents. This also includes advocacy supports to tenants and residents at SACAT. Existing section 101(1)(e) of the act already allows the income from the investment of the fund to be applied for the benefit of tenants, rooming house residents and residential park residents in other ways approved by the commissioner.

The proposed amendment at clause 6 of the bill clarifies that the commissioner may pay unclaimed bond money to the Treasurer where the bond money has been held for at least 12 months and the owner cannot be found. This is in accordance with section 6 of the Unclaimed Money Act 2021. However, that would still enable tenants and rooming house residents to make a claim for their bond money after the initial 12-month period has passed. This was referenced in discussion at clause 1.

There are concerns that the proposed amendment by the Hon. Mr Simms would not enable tenants and residents to make a claim for their bond money if such money had been transferred over to an advocacy entity or social housing entity after 12 months had passed. The experience of Consumer and Business Services is that tenants and rooming house residents may not make a claim for their bond money straightaway, particularly in the case of, for example, international students. Transferring the unclaimed bond moneys to the Treasurer's fund after 12 months will, however, provide certainty on the ability of future claims to be made by tenants and residents. The government therefore will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We could potentially go either way on this amendment. I again commend the honourable member for bringing it to the chamber. I think one of the issues that the government has had for some time is this lack of cross-checking across government. I note, too, in response to the minister's comments in response to my question earlier, information privacy principles exist which often cover a lot of the situations where agencies might want to engage in data sharing, but that is a sort of big project for another day. I am pleased to hear that the government is partly mindful of this, but I think it is an issue that is worth revisiting in the future.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I thank the minister, the shadow minister and the Hon. Connie Bonaros for their comments. Again, I am encouraged by the willingness of people to look at this issue. I accept the minister's point that we would not want to create a situation where people, should they come forward at a later date, are then not able to access the funds. I understand, though, that there are funds that have been sitting there for many years that are not claimed and that potentially there is an opportunity to allocate those funds in a way that is going to assist people.

So I am certainly keen to keep this conversation going, and it could be a matter that we revisit in the new parliament. It is certainly something that I will put on my agenda, to talk about it to whoever forms government next year.

The CHAIR: The question is that it be a suggestion to the House Assembly to amend clause 6 as proposed by the Hon. R.A. Simms.

Suggested amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (7 to 10) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (12:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:53 to 14:17.