HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-03-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Second-hand Vehicle Dealers (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 11.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): The member for Heysen was asking a question.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not think there is anything further at clause 11. There might be an opportunity to come back to the topic later.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr TEAGUE: There are perhaps a number of more discrete topics in relation to cause 12, addressing as it does the first of the provisions in the bill going to the imposition of penalties and the extension of scope in relation to interference with odometers. I have asked a question in a previous context about licensing of dealers in terms of the rationale and the proportionality of those increases for offences. I will not repeat those unless the minister wishes to add anything more particular about reasons why those particular amounts have been set that we find at the substituted section 34(1)(a) and 34(1)(b), except to say that those penalties are significant.

I might therefore address the change that we find at clause 12(2) that is, going to the scope point, broadening out the previous application of what has been a longstanding offence provision that was directed at dealers, and substituting there 'person' for 'dealer' everywhere that occurs. As I read it, that is now to apply without limit to anybody engaged in the activity of odometer interference. That, as I read it, is the chief expansion of scope of the application of what has otherwise been the longstanding provision prohibiting such interference and, as it has been directed of some long standing, interference in the context of sale and value.

Is there, in terms of feedback from the MTA or any other stakeholder in particular, a particular driver for that expansion of scope to go from applying to a dealer to any person, and if that is otherwise driven as an initiative of government, what is the rationale for that expansion of scope that we see at the amendment at clause 12(2)?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Before I answer that question I just want to clarify something I said earlier when I talked about the MTA seeking to abolish—the 'cooling-off period' was the language I used; I meant the 'cooling-off form'. I just want to clarify that in case the member has any other questions on that.

Just to clarify on the compensation provisions expanding it beyond dealers, that is a consumer protection. In terms of many of these, now private sales through Facebook Marketplace and other mechanisms are far exceeding what has happened in the previous years. We know that when an odometer has been tampered with and it has been sold on the private market, the cost and the losses faced by those consumers are regardless of whether or not it has been sold by a dealer. That is the reason why we have amended that, so that it is not just dealers that need to compensate for losses. Anyone who sells privately that is caught odometer tampering will need to compensate for those losses. That is the intention for expanding that. We have received no opposition to that amendment, and I understand that is supported by those who have put submissions in.

Mr TEAGUE: This is sort of a supplementary arising from that, but I am in the Chair's hands as to how that might be characterised. In terms of asking for it to be put on the record, about the relevant driver, not only highlighting the seriousness by having increased penalties but identifying the driver of the change, I appreciate that there is the prevalence for this kind of practice to be applied in a private sale, in an unregulated environment, and that from a consumer protection point of view, going after any such interference with an odometer has a consumer protection upside.

Like all of these things, licensed dealers might put the case in parallel that if you are buying privately and you are out there in the jungle, you are not in an environment that is regulated in the way that licensed dealers are regulated. So, on the one hand, while it is a provision that applies only to dealers, it might provide that greater level of confidence for consumers to deal with dealers because they know that the dealers are subject to the sanctions. This is clearly going broad, and in that sense it will need to be coupled with an appetite and an ability to root out such behaviour in private transactions one by one. I guess that is a challenge that goes beyond effectively regulating those licensed dealers.

The question that arises, and the reason why I say it might be a bit supplementary, is that if there has been engagement, as I understand there has, with dealers about the prevalence of odometer tampering and the damage that it can cause and so on, are we understanding the situation in the terms that dealers are also potentially vulnerable to such tampering, or is it something that dealers, particularly with electronic odometers and so on, are capable of applying relevant technology to identify that tampering and therefore protecting themselves against direct damage? Do we know therefore the landscape of that sort of odometer tampering and who it is likely to damage most?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I take the member's point about whether it would drive people toward licensed dealers if they could only be compensated by buying through a licensed dealer. The intention of the government to expand it is to make sure that, with the current market being such that so many people are buying on private, unlicensed Facebook Marketplace and others, we offer that consumer protection against odometer tampering, whether they buy from a licensed dealer or not. I would say that most people would buy from a licensed dealer for the reason of being able to get compensation if their odometer has been tampered with.

It would be for all the reasons of statutory warranties, making sure the vehicle has been inspected properly and all these things. From that perspective, that is the government's position. To protect consumers, we are expanding it beyond just dealers. It also puts on notice those people who are thinking about odometer tampering in an unlicensed context, and that it will come out of their pocket as well.

To your second question about the prevalence, there have been—I will confirm the numbers—I believe two prosecutions for odometer tampering in recent times, which have been by licensed dealers. So the technology is available to wind back digital odometers, as well as our old-fashioned dials. So that technology is there. We are seeing it become more prevalent in terms of the prosecutions in recent years, so this is something that we are keen to see progress through the parliament to make sure that people are protected and are able to be compensated if that happens.

Mr PEDERICK: I want to refer to section 34 in the act. Obviously, it is about prohibited interference with odometers. One part is you cannot alter the reading, the second is you cannot remove or replace the odometer and the third is you cannot render the odometer inoperable.

I think you addressed this earlier in relation to comments I made about my 34-year-old utility when I took it to someone to get the temperature gauge fixed. The easiest way to replace it, and he did this under his own volition, was to get a dash out of a wreck and put it in there. As I said in my contribution, that reading is 190,000 kilometres short. Can you tell me if technically that is breaking the law? If I went to sell that vehicle, which is unlikely, if I cannot physically turn up that odometer is it legal to make a statement saying that I believe it is 190,000 kilometres short?

This is going to impact vehicles sold on Marketplace—and my boys watch it too much—and you might get someone selling a vehicle and they might have the dash out for whatever reason, not tamper with the odometer, and put it back. Is that an offence as well, because you have pulled the dash out? They would innocently post pictures, as they do, on Instagram, Facebook or somewhere or send it to their mates. Have they contributed to an offence?

I am interested in what the explanation is. If you cannot speed up the odometer to where it should be, which is tampering with an odometer anyway, is there an out? The other thing is, and I understand what we are doing here, how do we make sure that we protect those who are innocently doing something without trying to break the law?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The advice I have, and it confirms what I said earlier in terms of the process that is provided for under the act at the moment, is to apply to the commissioner to have the odometer wound forward, in your case, and have that done by a mechanic, if it is approved by the commissioner.

In terms of the member's question about removing the dashboard and putting it back in without any change to the odometer, if there is no change to the odometer by removing and replacing it, putting it back in, I do not see that that would be an issue. That is not misleading anyone as to what the kilometres are if the odometer has not changed, if I am understanding that correctly. So, take it off, put it back in, and the odometer reading is still the same; is that what—

Mr PEDERICK: For clarification, this alteration, what the previous act says and what we are doing with this bill says that you cannot tamper and you are tampering with an odometer. I heard what you said about having to get the odometer sped up. If that was in an engineering form—because I do not know; I have never been involved in odometer tampering—if it could not be done, surely a statutory declaration would suffice and be made part of the selling process.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The further advice I have received is the commissioner may also approve a plate of some description being applied to the car to notify people of the correct odometer reading at that particular time, so that consumers will know if it is not physically able to be wound forward. That is the advice from CBS.

Mr PEDERICK: Just for clarification—and you might have KCs at 20 paces on this; I do not know—you might be wanting to get behind a dash to install a sound system or something and, if you are removing the odometer, I would suggest that according to the bill and the act you are breaking the law. Should there be an amendment to say that some of this is not an adjustment made? I do not know, I am not a lawyer, so I am just seeking clarity around that.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: In that case, it would be highly unlikely that there would be a prosecution. If there is no damage or loss to a consumer, there would be no prosecution if the odometer reading is the same upon taking it out and putting it back in. Without that fraudulent intent the offence would not be prosecuted.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: How would the government recover the fine? I understand that any process will now need to be dealt with in the District Court, with the size of the fine and imprisonment. Is the government's intention of this legislation that the first option of up to the maximum penalty is the desired outcome of any conviction, or is prison the desired outcome? What is the government's intention: the fine or prison?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The judge will decide. The judge in all sorts of criminal offences has options on fines, maximum jail time. The judge will decide what is appropriate in those circumstances. It will be case by case. I cannot step into the shoes of the court in making that decision.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will there be additional funds in the budget to prosecute those on this offence now that it has been moved to the District Court, which I understand is a more expensive court for processes?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: It will be covered by existing resources. In terms of consumer affairs, investigators will be covered by existing resources; in terms of prosecution, it will be covered by the DPP and their prosecutions—so there will not be any additional. We have seen an increase in prosecutions in recent years. That has been covered by existing resources and we will continue to do that. We certainly hope that the increase in fines and penalties will dissuade some people from carrying out such offences.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Does the maximum penalty include a cap on the amount of money that can be awarded as a penalty? What would happen if the penalty was not paid? Could interest and any other cost recovery charges be added to that $150,000, or is the absolute cap $150,000 regardless of any cost to government of extracting that money from the person who has been convicted of such an offence?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): There were a few questions there. Minister.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The process would be as with any other fine imposed by the government if it is not paid: sought through the courts. There is an act—the name escapes me—that deals with fines and penalties, allows for interest to be charged, allows the courts to intervene and assets might be sold or payment plans might be entered into. Those sorts of things that apply to any other fine imposed by the government would apply to this as well.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: A supplementary—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I'm sorry, member for Unley: you have already had—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If I may, you have been granting supplementaries previously.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Go ahead.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, sir. If a fine that has been imposed as a penalty is not paid, does the government or the courts then have an option to resort to a jail term, does the jail term need to be the first penalty, or is the jail term there in case the fine has not been paid? What I am trying to get clarity on here is that if someone has been told they must pay $50,000 and you have been chasing them for 12 months and they still have not paid it, can that penalty then automatically be changed to a jail term, or would that require another court process?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): It is essentially moving away from the bill into the general area of justice administration, but I will let the minister answer the question if she wishes.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I might take the question on notice. I can confirm to the member that the process would not be that if a fine is not paid then there is some automatic conversion into the maximum imprisonment term under this act. I cannot confirm whether there might be an opportunity to imprison someone who has not paid a fine under the act that relates to fines and penalties. I can check that particular act, but not under this. It would not be a process of simply automatically switching over. It is then a breach of another provision in another act that we are talking about if a fine is not paid.

Mr BASHAM: My question follows on from the member for Hammond's questioning around odometers, particularly now with the increased fines for multiple penalties, the effect it has going forward. My concern is the way the act is worded. It says that 'interfere' is to remove or replace, that that is one of the reasons you are 'interfering', whereas my understanding—from your answer to the member for Hammond—is that your interpretation is that interfering is changing the readings either by making them inoperable or changing the actual numbers.

I was just reading about where, with the newer technologies, they store the odometer readings as they are recorded, and they often store them in multiple places, including in the central control unit of the vehicle as well as on the dash itself as well as in the seat management system as well as in the reversing system. Those are places where they are stored.

Someone could easily be altering those parts of their vehicle having no knowledge whatsoever that they are connected to the odometer and that they are therefore effectively tampering with the readings of that section of the recording. I guess my question is: should we have a definition of interfering that actually talks about changing the readings more specifically rather than just removing or replacing?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I thank the member for the question. Those particular provisions are existing provisions; that definition is not changing. I have not been advised of any clarification needed, in terms of any cases going through court where that has been an issue. If there are any specific examples where a prosecution has been attempted in that case I would be happy to hear from the member, but we have not been advised that has been an issue, and that is existing language in the act.

Mr BASHAM: I understand that, but my concern is that now with the increased penalties there may be a will to pursue that case. Putting that aside, I also want to understand that we are just talking about odometer readings. So vehicles like trucks—and tractors are also registrable vehicles on the road—do not actually have odometers necessarily. Some trucks certainly have odometers but also have hour clocks. It is a measure of the operation of the hour clocks. I assume an hour clock is not covered by this legislation.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: No, hour clocks are not covered. We are talking about odometers on second-hand vehicles as described in the current section 34(1):

A person must not interfere with the odometer on a second-hand vehicle.

Mr TEAGUE: I guess before we all get too excited about the changes in section 34 alone, because there has been some addressing of needs to correct odometers, to wind them forward and maybe even to put a sign on the dash about what an odometer reading might have been at a time—which all sound like interesting and creative workarounds. I am not sure that I have seen it expressed in a way in the legislation, but there might come a chance to ask questions about that in relation to some of the provisions that go forward.

This might lead to a question about the existing subsection (7). So that we are clear about what the changes to section 34 are doing, they are significantly amping up the penalty from $10,000 to $150,000 or two years' imprisonment. I think the member for Unley has adverted to the possible jurisdiction change that that might necessitate. But to go to the questions that have been asked by members, including the member for Hammond just now, those provisions that are of long standing include the prohibition against interference with an odometer, now albeit with a significantly increased penalty, and the prohibitions are those kinds of physical-type references to altering, removing and rendering inoperative that may or may not be well suited to the whole range of the electronic world that we have heard about.

But the whole section is couched within pretty broad-ranging defences to any proceedings that include broadly where the action is not taken for the purposes of enhancing the value of the vehicle, and that ought to provide people in the normal course with a fair amount of comfort that this is not going anywhere too startling. But where it is significantly expanding the scope is in subsection (6) where we go from applying to a dealer to applying to any person that obligation to pay compensation to a purchaser.

The question really comes back to the point the member for Unley was addressing, which is existing subsection (7). I might put this to the minister more particularly. We have subsection (7) presently saying that rules of court may be made under the Magistrates Court Act, and that would have made sense when we were talking about a maximum penalty in subsection (1) of $10,000.

In circumstances where the penalty is now $150,000 or two years' imprisonment, and where a person convicted of the offence in subsection (6) is now liable for compensation to the purchaser, then we are talking about a considerably wider ranging scope of proceedings that is against a whole range of new defendants and resulting in now what could be a very significant range of penalties—large amount of fine, large amount of compensation payable to purchasers. Has there been any particular consideration about the jurisdiction point in subsection (7) and has there been any more particular consideration of the range and scope of additional burden on the courts generally in terms of enforcing these new provisions, particularly the subsection (6) change?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I am advised that this was considered. It is possible, due to the range of the fine and the potential compensation, that third or subsequent offences for unlicensed dealing, or odometer tampering, or where it is a body corporate, because of the amount of the penalties, could be required to appear before the District Court. However, the impact on the higher courts is likely to be minimal because of the very low number of prosecutions each year for unlicensed dealing and/or odometer tampering. I think we are talking certainly less than a dozen. I think there might have been nine in the last two years. There were six prosecutions in the last financial year. The volume of prosecutions is very low, so I do not think it would have an impact on the resources of the court in that sense.

The other point I want to make is in relation to subsection (7) of the existing act, which provides:

Rules of Court may be made under the Magistrates Court Act…regulating procedures with respect to applications for compensation under subsection (6).

So not the penalties, just the compensation, and that is not unusual. I think there are some other areas where it might be initiated in the Magistrates Court and may need to be referred up to the District Court. I think some of the building work contractors provisions are similarly commenced in the Magistrates Court and, depending on the value, need to be moved up to the District Court. So there are various other types of provisions where it is very similar to that: it will start in the Magistrates Court, and if it needs to be referred up to the District Court it will be.

Mr TEAGUE: It sort of begs the question about the prevalence of the odometer-tampering problem per se and the amount of resources needed. It is just that they are sort of mentioned in an editorial, I suppose. You would like to think there would be more prosecutions.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Maybe it does not happen very often.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr TEAGUE: I think the member for Finniss has raised this point about different forms, effectively, of odometer and the fact that, for various registered motor vehicles that are used predominantly in industrial and agricultural ways—tractors are a good example—the only odometer measure will be the hour meter. It would be a sure determinant of value if an hour meter is represented inaccurately—and there are plenty of examples in which such a vehicle is not actually covering very much territory at all but is running for lots of hours, and the hour meter is the thing that is giving the indication of engine wear and is therefore one of the key indicators of the value.

In terms of the scope of section 34A, the minister has already given an indication that an odometer, as is presently understood in the legislation, does not extend to other measures of use, including chiefly perhaps those hour meters that we see on various machines. Is it the case also that new section 34A is not, as is presently expressed, capable of capturing statements that might be made in relation to the hour reading of a second-hand vehicle?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: Because we do not have information necessarily about that particular hour reading, we will take that on notice and come to you between the houses.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate the minister's indication there. This is not anything more than working it through as we go; it is not something that I have raised previously. Perhaps for these purposes and for section 34 purposes, in taking the matter on notice I wonder if consideration might be given to the insertion of an hour meter at the same point that an odometer reading is made. If there is not any particular good reason for not including it, perhaps it might be possible to indicate that in between the houses.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I will take that on notice and look into it. If that is required and if we have had any examples of the hour clocks being tampered with, I will find out.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to hour meters, to put it in context when you are considering this, hour meters are very much about the life of the engine. In particular, for example, a truck may replace its engine and reset its hour meter to zero. If it is included, it needs to be related to the engine life, not necessarily the life of the vehicle.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We will take that on notice, and we will seek expert advice on hour meters.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): The question before the Chair is that clause 13 stand as printed. Those in favour say aye, against say no. The ayes have it. Any questions on clause 14? Member for Heysen, you might indicate if you have any further questions at all?

Mr TEAGUE: It is moving along rather quickly. I did have a question or two about section 34B, within clause 13, but I might have missed my chance.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Okay, go ahead and ask it now.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate it, Acting Chair. Because it is the second of these novel clauses and we might all benefit from understanding how the commissioner might be able practically to undertake those powers, new section 34B will provide to the commissioner power to direct the owner of a second-hand vehicle to correct the odometer and refrain from selling the vehicle, etc. That is the heading, so a whole range of things are foreshadowed in the heading. What we see is a whole range of things, 15 of them over the ensuing several pages. It takes up the bulk of the content of the bill in one overall proceeding.

To understand this, the commissioner will be granted that power to direct the owner of the second-hand vehicle to do something, so it is an unusual provision that mandates the doing of something as opposed to prohibiting something or penalising something that has occurred. In terms of the owner that we are talking about for these purposes, I stand to be corrected but it does not seem to me to be directed before or after the sale.

Is it possible or even usual that this might be caught up in proceedings under section 34? You are not voiding the sale but, rather, the owner of the second-hand vehicle is the purchaser who has purchased it with the erroneous odometer. They might even have been paid compensation and the seller might have been fined, but the commissioner can now go to that purchaser and direct correction of the odometer and direct that that person not sell the vehicle—or is it intended to apply and, as it were, catch it before the sale occurs? It seems to me there is no reason why it would not apply before or after a sale.

Is that the case, that the commissioner is going to have this wideranging remit to come along and make these directions in any of the circumstances, including where there has been proceedings and you have an innocent owner of an odometer-tampered vehicle who is now being directed by the commissioner to do things in the interests, presumably, of whoever might be a future purchaser, and being the subject of a direction not to sell before doing so, even though they are entirely innocent?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: The member is correct. It is more likely to be used before a sale, but it might be the innocent consumer who might need to do some of these things, in terms of correcting an odometer. That is exactly what this is intended for. I draw the member's attention to subsection (2) where if there is a direction by the commissioner it might be quite appropriate for it to be at the expense of the commissioner, if it is an innocent victim, but we would need to correct the odometer to make sure that the problem does not continue for subsequent sales.

Mr TEAGUE: I am grateful already for the indulgence of the Chair. I am conscious that this well and truly takes up questions for clause 13, even though clause 13 had been moved on from. If there is opportunity for one more question—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): On clause 13?

Mr TEAGUE: On clause 13.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Let's make this the last one on odometers.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate subsection (2) and subsection (10) as well, which both refer to the commissioner copping the expense of those directions and circumstances in which costs might be recovered by the commissioner. Particularly in circumstances where subsection (10) applies, the commissioner appears to be able to recover those costs against the guilty party, but only in circumstances where there has been a completed proceeding, in terms of section 34. So there are three possibilities where it is post-sale: firstly, to bear direction; secondly, that the commissioner might decide to take on the expense of the action as a result of the direction; and thirdly, the commissioner might take up the power to recover the costs of those actions against a person who has been found guilty of tampering, but only if there has been a completed proceeding under section 34.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: That is correct; that is entirely how it will apply in practice.

Clause passed.

Clause 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 15 deals with the Second-hand Vehicles Compensation Fund, which begs the question about the capacity to draw on the fund. As I understand it, the scope of purposes of the fund is directed elsewhere than the 34B type activities, and 34B is brand new. Commissioner's expense certainly does not mean at the expense of the fund but, as I understand it, there might be an answer to that question. The core point, though, is having covered this territory about the new opportunities for dealers and purchasers to exclude defective items from warranty and so on, it is welcome that there is a review of the scope of the use of the fund for education programs. Are there any such activities that are in the offing that have been identified that are going to go along with the passing of these changes?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I can confirm to the member that we are intending to look at an education program, should these provisions pass the parliament. We have recently—last year, I think it was—undertaken a campaign with the Motor Trade Association to educate consumers on purchasing second-hand vehicles. The best way to purchase second-hand vehicles, of course, is statutory warranties that apply if you buy from a licensed dealer. We have run an education campaign in that sense in recent times, and we will certainly look at running another one again should these provisions pass the parliament.

Clause passed.

Schedule.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to understand, therefore, 'Transitional provision'—the subject of the schedule, and 'Duty to repair', the section 9 change—and I am just trying to bring it up by reference to the summary as well that is said to apply before or after. I stand to be corrected, but is it the one that captures the change to the status of battery for a prescribed electric vehicle and prescribed hybrid vehicle? That being the case, the provision is therefore making clear that the operational battery at least, the drive battery at least, will be covered whether or not it is the subject of a sale before the passage of the bill, so there is retrospective coverage for the battery.

I guess the rationale for that is that, to the extent it is retrospective, it is basically treating the battery as being core to the engine in a way that it might have been recognised previously. I guess the question is: it is a retrospective provision of sorts, but is it more a matter of carving out from the existing description of 'battery' something which we all regard as really something that ought to be categorised or have its own separate treatment?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: It is intended to make sure that, for those main propulsion batteries and electric and hybrid vehicles, they are covered and that duty to repair or replace that battery if it is faulty will apply if you bought an electric vehicle last year, for example, before this commences. It is fundamental to the operation of the vehicle and that is why it has that, I guess, retrospective nature in making sure those vehicle batteries are covered.

Mr TEAGUE: I note the minister's observation that, in the bulk of cases, where there is a defective drive battery, if we call it that, that is generally accepted as a manufacturing issue in practice so far, and so, to the extent that those problems have arisen already, there has been a remedy available so that the old-fashioned exclusion of the battery has not worked as a problem.

Is the minister aware of any sort of twigging to that issue that has actually caused a problem in practice, because on the face of the act, as it presently stands, one might take the point and not stand by a warranty claim for a failed drive battery in an electric vehicle or a hybrid vehicle? Is there any evidence of a dealer or anybody else taking advantage of the words of the act as they presently stand in terms of second-hand electric or hybrid vehicles?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: We do not have any evidence to suggest that it is a problem. As I said earlier in my comments, the manufacturers' warranties are between four and eight years on electric vehicles, I am advised, so it has not been a problem, but it is making sure it is covered by that transition provision.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. MICHAELS (Enfield—Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts) (16:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT