HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms O'HANLON (Dunstan) (15:46): These are not isolated cases. We see copper cabling ripped from Telstra pits, causing internet and telecommunications disruptions for homes and businesses. We see delays to public transport networks when offenders target train lines, signal boxes and associated wiring. Sporting clubs have had their light towers stripped. Residents have had water meters taken. Builders have lost cabling, hot water systems and other materials from construction sites, often setting projects back weeks.

These crimes create frustration, financial loss and safety hazards across our state. The rise in these offences is driven by several factors: cost-of-living pressures play a role, the high market price for copper increases the value of stolen goods and the absence of regulation in South Australia thus far makes it easier for criminals to turn what they steal into profit. The government and South Australia Police have been very clear that the intention of this bill is not to target legitimate scrap metal businesses or to interfere with normal commercial activity. The focus is on stopping criminals who see the current system as an opportunity.

The bill contains four key provisions that work together to remove the lucrative market for stolen metal. The first is registration. Scrap metal dealers will be required to register, which creates a transparent framework similar to what exists in other states. Registration supports accountability without placing unreasonable burdens on industry. The second is transaction records. Dealers will need to keep accurate records of the transactions they undertake. This is a commonsense measure. It helps ensure that the source of metal being sold can be identified. It also helps police to investigate and prevent crime without targeting innocent businesses.

The third is a prohibition on payment by cash, cheque, cryptocurrency or in kind. This is a crucial change. It reflects what is already in place in other jurisdictions and is widely supported by law enforcement. Cash-based transactions make metal theft more attractive to criminals because cash is hard to trace. Removing cash and similar payments helps close off the avenue that offenders rely on. The fourth provision is enforcement. SA Police will have the tools they need to ensure compliance. The bill does not seek to apply unreasonable penalties to businesses doing the right thing, it simply gives police a clear framework for identifying unlawful activity.

Throughout the development of this bill, government and SA Police have engaged in multiple rounds of consultation with industry and stakeholders. They have listened to feedback, improved earlier draft versions and made sure that the measures strike the right balance. This has been a genuine process of working with the sector to ensure that regulation is fair, workable and proportionate.

The next step will be the drafting of regulations and, again, stakeholders will be invited to contribute. Regulation works best when it is informed by the people who work within the system every day. This approach ensures that South Australia introduces a scheme that is strong, targeted and effective, while also being practical for industry.

The benefits of this bill are clear. It will reduce opportunistic metal theft. It will limit the disruption to the building and construction industry, to sporting clubs, to households and to public infrastructure. It will protect residents from crime and reduce the burden on businesses that currently bear the cost of replacing stolen materials. Most importantly, it will remove the incentive that drives much of this offending by closing the unregulated market that makes it profitable.

South Australians should be able to trust that when they leave their car parked at night, it will be intact in the morning. Builders should not have to worry about copper piping disappearing from a site they secured the night before. Sporting clubs should be able to turn on their lights without wondering if the wiring is still in place. Families should not face gas leaks because someone has stripped their hot water system for copper. These are very basic expectations, and this bill helps restore them.

Metal theft affects the entire community, is costly, disruptive and at times dangerous. The Scrap Metal Dealers Bill 2025 offers a balanced, sensible and carefully considered response. It supports legitimate businesses, aligns us with other jurisdictions and gives police the framework they need to tackle a growing problem.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (15:50): I acknowledge all those who have made contributions to this debate from both sides. There are a few comments I would like to make in relation to some of the issues that have been ventilated through second reading contributions in here, if I may.

One thing which came up from the member for Hammond, and it has been raised in other forums as well, is around whether or not it will have any effect on our much-loved can and bottle recycling program and whether or not, for instance, kids will still be able to go down to the recycler and cash in their things. I am reassured there will be no change to that. It will not be affected by the change that we are proposing here.

The member for Bragg read out some comments which have been made by the Waste and Recycling Industry Association South Australia. I have seen that feedback too. I thank them for it. In New South Wales, the prescribed number of days is six. The feedback from industry here in South Australia sought a minimum of 10 days, and we have drafted 12 days.

I understand, with regard to a lot of the other concerns from the Waste and Recycling Industry Association, and in the changes made in between the drafting of perhaps the first version of the bill they saw and this version, a lot have been dealt with, which is good. One was around the need for provisions appointing authorised officers outside of SA  Police, such as Consumer and Business Services. We listened to that feedback and inserted the provision of authorised officers in part 19 of this iteration of the bill. The Commissioner of Police has the power to appoint a person or class of persons to act as authorised officers for the purposes of the act.

There was feedback from other stakeholders about how we deal with whole vehicles. Whole motor vehicles are an aspect which we will need to work through with stakeholders, including the Motor Trade Association. Prescribed scrap metal does not include whole motor vehicles—that probably does not come as a surprise to anyone here—but does include catalytic converters, which we know are a highly sought item for theft because they contain copper. Our intent is not to capture catalytic converters which are parts of whole vehicles. As I have said already, we are very happy to work with stakeholders, including the MTA, who have raised a lot of these issues, as we develop the regulations. I have given my commitment to that in this place.

Volume of transactions is another thing that has come up both here and outside of this place as well. The requirement to send all records to SAPOL is a really important part of the changes we are making here. I think members would understand why, and that is because the current state of play is that, if a transaction that perhaps occurred under the current regime that was dealt out in cash to the person who brought the scrap is later thought to be stolen, the ability for SAPOL to obtain records or perhaps an electronic transaction, so that they can actually do an investigation, is practically zero.

We understand that whenever you regulate something and put a procedure in place like this, there is a degree of paperwork, I accept that, but those logs that we are asking to be put through to SAPOL are integral to the good function of this bill should it pass. We need those out there who have been illegally trading in, for instance, copper to know that, each and every time they go to do that with scrap metal or copper that is illegally obtained, a log will be kept of that and if they have obtained it illegally there are the means and data for SAPOL to follow up on that. I think SAPOL have shown as part of this process their willingness to work with scrap metal dealers. That is something that I certainly want to do as well and we will continue to do that.

In terms of the additional resources that are needed, one reason that led to SA Police and the government revisiting the draft scheme was around being clear what those extra resources might be. We do not want to regulate every single thing a scrap metal dealer does. There is no need for us to do that. We are trying to be as precise and as prescribed here as we can be, in terms of the pieces of scrap that this bill will cover. That led to the change from a licensing scheme to one which focuses on the character of those involved in the industry and the traceability of certain transactions as well. I think that covers off on most points.

It is my intention that we will support the amendment put forward by the member for Bragg; it is a fair amendment. We agree to bringing it forward from a three-year review to a one-year review given this is a substantial change, and there are still some concerns in the industry around how it will operate. I think it is prudent for us to do that 12 months after it has come into effect, when we will look at how it is operating and decide whether or not we might be able to do things better and tweak some things. I thank all the members from both sides of the place for their contributions to this debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, you have an amendment at clause 34, so are you suggesting we go straight there?

Mr BATTY: I might just ask a couple of questions on clause 1, but I do not anticipate being too long and I thank the minister for concluding the debate, which I think will shortcut some of the committee.

Clause 1.

Mr BATTY: There have been some issues raised about the consultation, particularly over the past month or few weeks—the latest flurry of consultation. Can I just ask who the minister, and indeed the government, consulted on this bill and, in particular, what was the feedback from scrap metal dealers and what changes were made to the bill that is now before the house in light of their feedback?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I thank the member for Bragg, and I will give a short response in terms of what the consultation looked like, and then a flavour of what the feedback was from the stakeholders that were part of the three rounds of consultation, and then perhaps point to three specifically important examples of things that were changed as a result of that.

There was the consultation that occurred through YourSAy, and then in September another round of consultation after that, and then last week another very short round of consultation, again to check with stakeholders who had been part of the earlier rounds of consultation to see if they were supportive, happy, etc., with the changes that had been made through that consultation.

The feedback initially from the scrap metal industry was that they wanted it to be prescribed items more so than general items, which I think makes a lot of sense, and we have sought to do that. It was changed from a licensing scheme to a registration scheme and that was, again, directly due to the result of feedback from stakeholders.

Due to direct feedback from the MTA, auto dismantlers were included but those who were part of the MTA's remit that were not auto dismantlers were excluded. That is probably a broadbrush stroke view of what has happened and what has changed.

Mr BATTY: Referring to the round of consultation, the short round that happened last week, was the copy of the bill that is now before the house provided to those stakeholders during that round of consultation and, if so, when? Was there an opportunity for them to provide feedback and what did that process look like?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told that as part of that short piece of further consultation, the third round essentially last week, the bill was provided and we did seek feedback, and I believe we received some as well from those stakeholders.

Mr BATTY: What feedback was received at that time? Presumably if it is the same bill that is now before us, it did not lead to any final changes, so can you just identify what the remaining concerns might have been from stakeholders in that last round last week?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: This is not an exhaustive list, and if you would like us to get more precise information I am happy to do that. HIA provided feedback to say that they were happy with the bill. There was a discussion, I think, with Ai Group about the inclusion of manufacturing or otherwise. As you would no doubt be aware, the general feedback from some in the scrap metal industry was that they would rather cash stay as a form of payment. That was one thing that we have not been prepared to compromise on.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr BATTY: This is the commencement clause. Can the minister provide any indication on when it is intended for the act to commence? I suppose, as part of that, will the minister commit to consulting further with stakeholders, including the scrap metal industry, on what the regulations to accompany this bill will look like?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: In terms of the commencement, I am told the step that will occur now, if this bill is successful in passing the parliament, is further consultation, which I touched upon in my comments around what the regs will look like. There are systems, I understand, that need to get up and running around the registration process. Obviously, there is a crossover here with the digital police station and other commitments we have made around the reporting of some of the data that we used in the digital police station. I am told that it will be the 2026-27 financial year, middle of next year, possibly a little bit after that, by the time all that is done.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr BATTY: This clause sets out the definition of 'prescribed scrap metal'. I just want to confirm that the scope of this bill basically just covers that prescribed definition rather than a broader category of scrap metal, so it would still be okay to pay for scrap metal that is not prescribed scrap metal with cash. Also, perhaps as a second branch to that question, is this definition and this limiting of the bill to prescribed scrap metal something that has changed between what you characterised as the second round of consultation in September and then the bill that was presented to the house?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: As to the first part of the question, the no cash component is only in relation to prescribed metals. The example that was given to me was if you wanted to go down and dispose of your fridge, which is not a prescribed item, you can do that and you can get paid cash. In terms of changes to the definition, yes, as a result of round two and between rounds two and three of consultation, the definition was changed to be more about the condition of the scrap metal rather than where the scrap metal came from. That was as a result of the stakeholders. We thought it would be more accurate and do a better job of stopping that scrap metal that is being stolen, which, of course, is the purpose of this bill.

Mr BATTY: It does appear to be a lot more targeted with that more narrow definition. One argument that has been submitted by some in the scrap metal industry is that people who have all these items—if you have a whole heap of copper on your site—know how valuable it is, and responsibility to protect it therefore should lie with those who have it. Do you agree with that argument put by the scrap metal industry, or do you think this sort of regulation is more appropriate?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: My answer to that is we need to do both those things. I actually think both those things are probably happening. This is the bit that has been missing. As you no doubt do as well, I talk to the Housing Industry Association and Master Builders. I was on a housing build site this week and talking to the owner of that company about all the extra security stuff that they are now putting in, including cameras. They have a live stream to some of their sites so they can check in and see what is going on. Yes, that is going to have to happen, sadly, because there is a cost that is borne there, which I am sure gets passed on to the eventual home owner at some point, but this also needs to be done. We need to be doing probably both those things.

Mr BATTY: I just want to put two more of their arguments to you. Firstly, around the practical implications of the bill, I think we have talked about the New South Wales example before. Do we have any evidence on how that rollout has worked in New South Wales and whether it has led to less criminal activity? I think there is a contention by some it has, in fact, led to more criminal activity because it is very difficult to police what we are legislating now. Do you think we have the capability and resources and ability to police it properly?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: They are good points, and this has been raised with me as well. As has been put to me, because this is something that I raised as well, currently there is no regulation. The provisions of this bill will give SAPOL information, should they need it, to be able to actually investigate and track down someone who might have stolen something on the basis that there is an electronic paper trail of money being given to them.

The onus is put on scrap metal dealers now if they believe, with a reasonable suspicion, that the person bringing the scrap metal to them has obtained it illegally. They need to report that. That could well result in an uptick in reporting at some point, which is kind of what it is designed to do. We might see that because, hopefully, if that is occurring, people will use the new means we seek to create here to report what might be a theft.

The example that was given to me by SAPOL is the way they currently oversee the second-hand dealers act and the provisions there. It is the opinion of SAPOL that that has been really successful and worked well in terms of trying to stamp out that illegal activity that has occurred historically through second-hand dealers as well, which we are now seeing shift on to scrap metal.

Mr BATTY: I just want to put a final argument that the scrap metal industry has raised in some of their submissions, and it is around illegal dumping. There is a contention that this sort of legislation might lead to more refuse dumping, and that might cost taxpayers and have an environmental impact as well. Are there any concerns from the government's perspective around that, and how are we acting on them?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes, this is a scenario that has been countenanced as well. One of the reasons, as I understand, for the one-off fee for registration for scrap metal dealers was the consideration that, if it was a yearly fee, some scrap metal dealers might choose to no longer be scrap metal dealers, and then the availability of places to dispose of scrap metal legally might be reduced. You could see that.

We are hopeful, though—and this gets back to the earlier question the member for Bragg asked. Because those items that are usually the subject of illegal dumping, such as fridges and things like that, can still be traded for cash, hopefully, as long as we get the information piece right, people will understand that they can still do that and it will not lead to it, but we will have to keep a close watch on it. I am advised we will need to keep a close watch in regional parts of South Australia particularly.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr BATTY: This is the clause dealing with the prohibition on paying with cash. The suggestion that has been made by some in the scrap metal industry is, instead of having a blanket prohibition on cash, whether there might be some cap on the value of cash payments. Is this something that has been considered by the government and dismissed for good reasons or not? Can you maybe talk to that; and is there any concern that, by not allowing cash for very small transactions, whether it might make the transaction itself a bit unviable when you have the transaction costs associated with it?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am informed it only relates to the prescribed items, not those outside that, for instance the fridge. In relation to a cap, that was considered. I am told that, because what we are dealing with here is illegal activity, we believe that even if you had say a cap up to $50 that it would be exploited by those who are currently in the illegal trade and they would go around to multiple scrap dealers in a bid to always keep beneath the cap. Personally, I think that is right because we are dealing with, in the case of those people who are stealing it off sites, some pretty unscrupulous people who will find a way to get around any kind of provision like that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 to 33 passed.

Clause 34.

Mr BATTY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Batty–1]—

Page 20, line 37 [clause 34(1)]—Delete '3 years' and substitute '1 year'

I do not have any questions.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: We support this. I think it is a fair amendment to bring forward the review from three years to one year. Who knows who will be doing this job—I have no idea—but if I am lucky enough to be doing it, I will be very interested to see what the results of that are and if it is functioning well or otherwise.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Long title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (16:20): 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