HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Return to Work (Presumptive Firefighter Injuries) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (11:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to introduce the Return to Work (Presumptive Firefighter Injuries) Amendment Bill 2024. Like all members of this house, I acknowledge the service that South Australia's firefighters perform for the community, often putting themselves in harm's way to protect the safety and welfare of others.

It has long been recognised, both in Australia and internationally, that firefighters face occupational exposure to certain carcinogens through their work, which makes it statistically more likely for them to develop particular cancers than the general population. Jurisdictions across Australia have recognised this by inserting presumptive liability provisions into their workers compensation legislation, which makes it easy for firefighters diagnosed with those cancers to have their claim accepted and obtain compensation.

While firefighting has traditionally been a male-dominated occupation, in South Australia we have seen a significant and growing number of women choosing to become firefighters. Women now represent around 11 per cent of paid firefighters and around 25 per cent of volunteer firefighters. An unfortunate by-product of the gender history of firefighting is that legislation designed to protect and support firefighters has not kept pace with the growing diversity of the profession. That is one of the matters that this bill seeks to address.

The effect of this amendment is that for those workers who meet the qualifying period, if they suffer one of the prescribed cancers, then the ordinary burden of proof is reversed and their injuries presumed to have arisen from their employment as a firefighter, unless proven otherwise. The other matters the bill addresses are a product of its legislative history.

This bill was originally introduced by the government in the Legislative Council and proposed the addition of three additional cancers predominantly affecting female firefighters. The bill was amended in the council to insert a number of additional cancers and changes to qualification periods. That amendment was supported by all members and was not opposed by the government. However, as the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector made clear at the time, the effect of the amendments made by the Legislative Council was that the progress of the bill would necessarily be delayed while the government obtained appropriate advice on the impact of the additional inserted matters.

I am pleased to advise the house that since that time, the government has had extensive good faith dialogue with the leadership of the United Firefighters Union about the progress of this legislation. Given the parliamentary sitting year is shortly coming to an end, neither party wants to see this delayed any further. As a result of those discussions, we have reached agreement with the union on a pathway that will see the list of presumptive firefighter cancers under the Return to Work Act expanded to match the list of cancers covered under the equivalent legislation in Queensland.

The government has filed amendments to this bill to deliver on the first tranche of that agreement. With these amendments, the bill will extend presumptive liability to include primary site cervical cancer, primary site ovarian cancer, primary site uterine cancer, primary site penile cancer, primary site thyroid cancer, primary site liver cancer and malignant mesothelioma, and will reduce the qualification period for primary site oesophageal cancer from 25 years to 15 years.

These provisions will apply to employed firefighters as well as volunteers deemed to be employees of the Crown for the purpose of the act, such as the Country Fire Service. These provisions will also retrospectively apply to cover claims relating to injuries dating back to 1 July 2013, consistent with the other presumptive cancers covered by the legislation. These changes will come into effect immediately upon assent, rather than awaiting a separate proclamation.

As part of the government's discussions with the United Firefighters Union, the government has also committed, and places on the record its commitment, that should it be re-elected at the state election in March it will progress a bill within the first 100 days of the next term of parliament to legislate presumptive liability for the remaining four additional cancers: primary site pancreatic cancer, primary site skin cancer, primary site lung cancer and asbestos-related disease.

These remaining four items are the most financially complex to accurately model, and deferring them until the next term of parliament provides time to finalise costing work and ensures the impact of those amendments is properly accounted for before they come into effect. This approach will enable the government to immediately address our original goal of addressing cancers specifically affecting women, make significant and immediate progress on other cancers affecting firefighters, and allow us to finalise the significant costing work required on the remaining items before the next term of parliament.

These amendments follow significant commitments to additional medical support, screening and health monitoring services for all MFS employees as part of the new enterprise agreement that reached in-principle agreement between the government and the leadership of the United Firefighters Union last week. Together, these reforms will help detect and treat firefighting-related cancers as soon as possible and make it faster and easier for firefighters to have any workers compensation claims for firefighting-related cancers made and accepted.

This reform recognises the growing number of female firefighters in South Australia and the invaluable service they provide to the community. This will remove barriers to fair access to support and compensation for workplace injuries and is consistent with similar amendments introduced in other jurisdictions. We understand that the United Firefighters Union has written to all members urging them to support these amendments, and we commend these amendments to the house and look forward to the committee stage.

I wish to place on the record the government's gratitude to the leadership of the United Firefighters Union, particularly secretary Max Adlam and acting secretary Peter Russell, for their constructive approach to this issue. I commend the bill to the house and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Return to Work Act 2014

3—Amendment of Schedule 3—Injuries presumed to arise from employment as a firefighter

This clause amends Schedule 3 of the principal Act to reduce the qualifying period for primary site oesophageal cancer from 25 years to 15 years. This clause also adds to the list of injuries set out in Schedule 3 of the principal Act.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:07): I rise to indicate I am the lead speaker for the opposition and indicate at the outset that the opposition supports the bill. I also note more particularly the minister's further remarks in relation to the amendments that we are going to shortly deal with and that will exclude—for the time being, we are now advised—those four, and they are fairly glaring and I think illustrate the journey that this has been on for quite some time: asbestos-related disease, primary site lung cancer, primary site pancreatic cancer and primary site skin cancer.

As the minister has adverted, what has been happening for a little over at least the last year while this bill has sat on the Notice Paper—we have 31 October noted on the Notice Paper; I have just checked and I am advised that is 31 October 2024. It has been that whole last year that it has taken the government to get to grips with what was roundly supported in another place where the bill was introduced some considerable period of time ago now In this regard I pay tribute, as I will on the merits to contributions of those in another place, particularly to the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his leading role in what was then championed also by this side of the house in the course of the debate in another place and since.

I also want to pay tribute, of course, to the work of the UFU under the leadership of Max Adlam, but more wideranging than that speaking up for the United Firefighters Union's membership in response to—and you have to be careful in this space. Obviously the expansion of categories that the government first brought to the house explained that this was being done in response to an increasing number of female firefighters, and you have a small group of cancers that are wholly women's cancers being added to the list. The flip side of that coin, of course, is that on an actuarial calculation those cancers are of very little prevalence and very little cost.

The light was shone, and appropriately, on the fact that if you are going to get serious about presumptive injuries, particularly cancer, then it is a bit rich to zero in on those that have an actuarial narrow limit and application. Even though, of course, it is to be celebrated that men and women and people of all ages are volunteering and making a contribution in firefighting.

What occurred in the course of the debate was that a light was shone on that, and the UFU has been on about this for a long time. In coming on now for debate in the final week, it was news just now to hear from the minister that the government has committed to deal with these remaining four because they are, pretty glaringly, those that are at the core of what the concern of the UFU and individual firefighters will be.

As a result of hearing that commitment from the government, I will temper what otherwise might have been some slightly more concerned remarks on behalf of the union and those who have been fighting the fight. As I say, I understand the union will take the win. I have been glad to hear from the union along the way. I am glad to hear the government is committed to including those remaining four. I might just ask for some more specific information about that process in a short committee stage.

I otherwise take the opportunity to thank those who put their lives on the line. Hopefully, we can improve the safety and circumstances of firefighters, who unfortunately still find themselves suffering not only the risk of their lives in responding to fire emergencies but also the risk of these awful diseases coming their way as a result of that work. I pay tribute to them one and all and I am glad on behalf of the opposition to commend this expansion and will now look forward to that work being completed without delay. I commend the bill to the house. Let's get on with it.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (11:14): I rise today with a very personal sense of purpose. In my community, firefighting is not just something people do, it is a part of who we are. I represent many firefighters, both paid and volunteer. I am the parent of a firefighter, and I am a firefighter myself. I am part of the CFS family, one of thousands of families across South Australia who feel every pager tone not just as a call to action but sometimes as a moment of worry, pride and hope. Like every member in this house, I acknowledge the extraordinary service our firefighters give to this state. But for those of us who live inside this world, who share the frontline stories and who wait for loved ones to return home, that acknowledgement comes with a deeper understanding of the risks they face. It is why this is so important.

It has long been recognised, here in Australia and around the world, that firefighters are exposed to carcinogens that significantly increase their risk of developing certain cancers. This is not hypothetical. It is real. I have heard from local firefighting families who have faced that diagnosis, and I continue to stand beside firefighters who have developed other complex health issues, both physical and mental. I know the fear families carry, and I know the strength it takes to keep serving despite it. Every time the pager goes to attend a call-out where there is thick smoke, be it rural or structural, car or hazmat, the risk is real. I think about it every time my son responds and every time I take a breath on the fireground. Whilst we have masks, either P2 or respirators, there are times, even when taking a drink or otherwise, where we know things are going into our lungs that we cannot control.

Across the nation, governments have responded to this risk by introducing presumptive liability laws so that firefighters diagnosed with cancers do not have to fight a second battle just to have their claims accepted, and today's bill continues that work here in South Australia. Importantly, it does so in a way that finally recognises the changing face of our fire services.

For generations, firefighting was seen as a male-dominated occupation, but that does not reflect today's reality. Women now represent around 11 per cent of paid firefighters and around 25 per cent of volunteers, and those numbers continue to grow. I see those women in my own community. I serve alongside them. I am one.

Yet our laws have not always kept pace with this change. Some protections were designed in a different era, built around a different workforce. This bill helps correct that. The amendments before us ensure that, for firefighters who meet the qualifying periods and develop one of the prescribed cancers, the burden of proof is reversed. Instead of asking sick firefighters to justify their illness, the law will finally acknowledge what we already know: these cancers are linked to the job.

This bill has travelled a long legislative path. It began with the government proposing three cancers predominantly affecting women, and the Legislative Council amended the bill to include more. The government did not oppose those additions but rightly took the time to seek further advice and engage in good faith discussions with the United Fire Fighters Union. Those conversations have now led to a clear way forward, one that expands our list of presumptive cancers to match the Queensland model.

The government has introduced amendments that will immediately add primary site cervical cancer, primary site ovarian cancer, primary site uterine cancer, primary site penile cancer, primary site thyroid cancer, primary site liver cancer and malignant mesothelioma and will reduce the qualifying period for primary site oesophageal cancer from 25 to 15 years. These protections apply to both the MFS firefighters and to volunteer firefighters deemed employees of the Crown, including our CFS members. As someone who has fought fires beside volunteers who give everything they have, often after a full day's work, this recognition matters deeply to me.

These provisions will also apply retrospectively, covering claims going back to 1 July 2013, and they will come into force immediately upon assent. Our government has also committed that, if re-elected in March, it will legislate presumptive liability for the remaining four cancers within the first 100 days of the next parliamentary term. These include primary site pancreatic cancer, primary site skin cancer, primary site lung cancer, and asbestos-related disease. These are complex to model and are taking a little extra time to ensure that the financial impact is properly understood. Importantly, they are not forgotten; they are part of the path forward. These legislative changes sit alongside improved medical screening, monitoring and support for all MFS firefighters through the new enterprise agreement reached in principle last week.

Together, these steps improve early detection, better support treatment and make it faster and easier for firefighters to have their claims accepted. These reforms are not just about policy. They are about people: people who leave their homes not knowing what they will face; people who stand shoulder to shoulder on the fireground, trusting each other with their lives; people whose families bear the emotional weight that comes with every siren and every long night.

Yesterday afternoon and overnight, I was one of the many family members who sat worrying about their loved ones, as my son jumped in a truck and headed over to Kangaroo Island, in your community, Mr Speaker, to help the local brigades with a fire that had started there. With very real memories of the last large fire on KI, where members of my own brigade were caught in a burnover and to this day carry the effects of that with them, the worry was very real.

Fortunately, on this occasion, by the time our crew reached KI the fire was mostly under control. My son and the other firefighters from our Upper Sturt brigade and across the Mount Lofty group strike team worked overnight to help the locals and are now waiting to come home. The worry for families, though, is always there.

Sometimes it is the case that a firefighter answers the call and does not return home. I would like to take a moment to give my condolences to the family, friends and CFS and National Parks families who are mourning the loss of firefighter Peter Curtis, who lost his life over the weekend. I can only imagine the heartbreak and extreme sense of loss they are all feeling. Peter was a much loved and deeply respected member of the National Parks fire brigade and CFS member who had been fighting fires for over 30 years and, on Sunday, answered his last call. Again, my condolences to all who knew him. Our firefighters give so much and this bill acknowledges that. These amendments also recognise the diversity of today's firefighting workforce, the invaluable service they provide and the need for fair, compassionate support when their health is impacted by that service.

I also want to acknowledge the United Firefighters Union including secretary Max Adlam and acting secretary Peter Russell for their collaborative and constructive approach. Their advocacy has been determined, respectful and focused on outcomes that genuinely improve firefighters' lives. I also know, as a past VA rep, that CFSVA has been advocating for these changes as well and I thank them for what they do to support our CFS members. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the CFS Foundation and the Australian Professional Firefighters Foundation who together support victims of fire by providing assistance to injured firefighters, and their families.

On Saturday night just gone, I was pleased to attend the Triple 0 Charity Ball where funds were raised to help these organisations to continue the work that they do. It was great to see so many of our first responders there, and their supporters, digging deep to help contribute, and a big thank you to all who were involved in organising this event. I would also like to thank the Attorney-General and his staff, particularly Patrick and Angus, who have taken my calls weekly as I have advocated and inquired as to what was happening with these negotiations.

As someone who has seen this world from many sides, as a firefighter, as a parent of a firefighter, as a friend of a firefighter and as a member of parliament for an electorate that faces the threat of fires every summer, and is so well protected by many men and women who answer the call, and as a member of a community bound together by this service, I commend the bill to the house.

The SPEAKER (11:22): Before I call the member for Light, I would just like to pass on my thanks to the member for Waite's son who went to Kangaroo Island yesterday to help with that very serious fire that was fought so well by CFS volunteers from the island and the mainland, and also the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's daughter, who is with the Bridgewater brigade, who was also there fighting. It just shows that CFS volunteering is full of wonderful people including this next generation that is coming through, the sons and daughters of people in here, who live and represent those local communities.

Kangaroo Island is a place that knows as well as any part of South Australia how bad bushfires can be, having gone through that Black Summer of 2019-20 and the devastation that some people are still coming to terms with, six years on. So a massive thank you to all of our CFS volunteers. I think this a great piece of legislation, and I now give the call to the member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:23): I would like to rise and speak in support of this bill today, and I think it fitting that we are debating this bill today which is the 10th anniversary of the Pinery fires. Most people would know about the Pinery fires. It was a major event. Sadly, two people lost their lives. Thousands and thousands of hectares of farmland was destroyed because it was in the peak of the season. Houses burned, buildings burned down and lives changed forever. So it is fitting that this bill today acknowledges the enormous contribution of firefighters, both those paid and volunteers, who keep our communities safe.

On Sunday, I was fortunate enough to be invited to attend a commemorative service held at the Freeling farm centre by a local committee which hosted this event to commemorate the Pinery fires. The event was held to honour not only those people who ended up giving their lives but also the work undertaken by the firefighters right across the board, as well as other emergency services workers, who obviously bring the fire under control but also protect life and property.

In addition to our volunteer and paid firefighters that this legislation covers, which is really important, it is important to note that there are other people who do firefighting work as well. These are the farmers and other people who live in those areas who use their farm firefighting units to also respond to fires. Often, because the fire is on their property or nearby, they are the first responders. I am proud to say that it was this Labor government that used funding to support these farm firefighting units.

That occurred some time ago, but that funding was used to make the farm firefighting units safer, not only safer in terms of the units themselves but also safer for the people who actually fight the fires. That was a recognition by this government that we understand, sadly, that fires and other disasters will occur but we need to do two things: we need to obviously reduce the risk of harm to those people who put their lives at risk but also we need to support people to make sure, when they are injured as a result of their contribution to our community, that they are looked after.

One thing we have done, through the farm firefighting unit program, is to financially support those farm firefighting units. That money is used in two ways. The first is to make the units safer by making sure that they comply with certain requirements. I recall many years ago seeing farm firefighting units where people literally just put a tank on the back of a trailer to go around the paddocks and fight the fire. It was quite unsafe. I think it was more by luck than by design that there were not more injuries. We recognised the important work they do, so we helped fund those units, but we also provided funding for protective clothing, which is really important.

As I said, it was the 10th anniversary of the Pinery fires. There was obviously a lot of damage done. I am aware that there are a number of other community-based events today throughout what was the old Light electorate, because at the time I was the member for some of those areas. Communities like Wasleys were affected. For example, the Wasleys Bowling Club burnt down, the Wasleys post office burnt down and a number of farmers lost not only their homes but often other outbuildings, etc. There was damage done by the fires to fencing, and then organisations like BlazeAid came in to support the community.

One thing we often overlook, which was made very clear to me as a result of the Pinery fires, is that when people lose their homes and their outbuildings, while those buildings can be rebuilt, what cannot be rebuilt or reclaimed are those personal items that they lose: photographs and all the artefacts that we collect through life, as well as all the memories we collect through the things we do through life. They are burnt and gone, whether it is a piece of furniture that has some significance, photographs or a whole range of other things.

Often, when I spoke to people, that loss was quite immense because they actually had lost a whole range of memories. Not only had they lost objects but they had lost a lot of memories. I think we need to understand that sometimes the recovery period or the healing takes some time. In fact, the theme for the event on Sunday was 'The healing continues', because fires and other disasters impact on other people in very different ways.

In terms of this bill, I would like to acknowledge the service that South Australian firefighters perform for the community, often putting themselves in harm's way to protect the safety and welfare of others, whether they be paid or volunteers. In my electorate of Light, I have both volunteers and paid employees of the fire service. In my duty role for Frome, there are a lot more volunteer brigades and there are paid officers there as well.

I have also been made aware that we are now undertaking an audit of the various infrastructure available for CFS stations, which is very important. I have been out to some of the stations in the country areas and some are a little shabby, to put it mildly. I was talking to a person who is actually engaged in the audit—he was a volunteer but has been recruited by the CFS and is on the payroll—and he was saying that the audit is working well and will hopefully identify those areas that actually need some more investment.

It has been long recognised, both in Australia and internationally, that firefighters face occupational exposure to certain carcinogens through their work, which makes it more likely that they could develop particular cancers than the general population. This bill also corrects another anomaly in the sense that it recognises that in the past most firefighters have been men, but there is now an increasing number of women joining the service, both as paid firefighters and also in the volunteer sector. In fact only a couple weeks ago I met a woman in Clare who has celebrated 50 years this week, I think, of volunteer work in the CFS, through both Watervale CFS and Clare CFS.

Women now represent about 11 per cent of paid firefighters and around 25 per cent of volunteer firefighters but unfortunately, because of policies in the past, women have not been formally recognised. This bill does that, and it also extends the presumption of certain cancers which impact on women. That is an important thing to correct.

As stated, it is really important to note that these provisions will apply to both employed South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service firefighters as well as volunteers deemed to be employees of the Crown for the purpose of the act, such as the Country Fire Service. If my memory serves me correctly, it was in my time as Minister for Volunteers that this Labor government actually introduced these presumptions about cancers being caused by firefighters' work. We then also extended that to the CFS as well. So again, this government has, through its actions, recognised the really important work they do for our community.

An important part of this bill is that these provisions will also apply retrospectively to cover claims related to injuries dating back to 1 July 2013, consistent with other presumptive cancers covered by the legislation. With those few comments, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (11:32): My thanks to all those who have made a contribution on this very important piece of legislation. As the member for Light pointed out, today is an important anniversary in terms of the Pinery fire, and it is appropriate that we can, hopefully, see carriage of this bill through this place on that anniversary.

I also acknowledge the contribution of the member for Waite and the work she has done in playing a role in contributing to how it is drafted and the form it now takes. I also thank the member for Heysen and the Deputy Leader for stating that it will be supported by the opposition. We welcome that support and look forward to getting this through—hopefully today.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: Just so we are clear, the bill was introduced in the other place, it was amended in the other place and the amendments that we are dealing with in due course are government amendments in this house that will, now we have just heard, temporarily narrow the field so that some actuarial work can be done before including them within a hundred days or so, I think I heard the minister say. That is just to set the scene.

The CHAIR: He was quite right to correct me.

Mr TEAGUE: If that is correct—

The CHAIR: That is my understanding.

Mr TEAGUE: —then I might just be able to deal with it all at clause 1, because the government amendments can then be dealt with in one go, as far as I am concerned. I heard the minister say, and it is welcome, that there is more actuarial work to be done on these four headline categories. Is it as simple as what might appear: that these four are actually the most prevalent and most costly and, therefore, there is a complexity of work necessary that is associated with that before a relevant number can be provided to the government? If that is all happening in circumstances where the minister, as I have heard him, has just given a guarantee that these will be legislated in any event, why not now?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told that prevalence is just one factor. The other factors are just a complexity and actually doing a calculation based on what the scope could be and how wide that could be. So, yes, prevalence is a part of it, but the part that is more time-consuming is being able to do what would be a range of, as you say, actuarial calculations on what the cost might be.

Mr TEAGUE: In circumstances where we have just heard the government guarantee that it will legislate should it have the opportunity to within a hundred days after, in the next parliament, how—given that posture—is it not reckless to give the guarantee? Again, I just ask the question: if there is a guarantee now, then why not legislate now and tell the house the cost is uncertain? We have to legislate. It is a straightforward question. Is there some particular form of budget and audit documentation that is actually required that has been completed in respect of all the other categories and that actually needs to be determined as a matter of machinery of government, and simply has not been physically possible?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: My answer is a simple one; that is, the government's position is not to legislate and then advise of the cost later. The prudent thing would be to foreshadow that if we are in a position to form government, and we can do so, we will legislate, and by that stage we will also have the necessary specifics in terms of costs that we do not have now. We think that is the right way of going about this policy change.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The CHAIR: Minister, I understand you have an amendment?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I do not want to put words into the mouth of the member for Heysen, the deputy leader, but I think he indicated that perhaps we could move amendments Nos 2, 3, 4 and 5 en bloc, if that is agreeable.

The CHAIR: My understanding is that we can do the first one separately and the rest en bloc, because they relate to the same clause. It is only an extra step.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Police–1]—

Page 2, line 7—Delete 'This Act comes into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.' and substitute:

This Act comes into operation on the day on which it is assented to by, or on behalf of, the Crown.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Police–1]—

Page 2, line 19 [Clause 3(2), row relating to 'Asbestos related disease']—

Delete all of the contents of line 19 (being all of the contents of the row relating to 'Asbestos related disease' in the inserted table)

Amendment No 3 [Police–1]—

Page 2, line 22 [Clause 3(2), row relating to 'Primary site lung cancer']—

Delete all of the contents of line 22 (being all of the contents of the row relating to 'Primary site lung cancer' in the inserted table)

Amendment No 4 [Police–1]—

Page 2, line 23 [Clause 3(2), row relating to 'Primary site pancreatic cancer']—

Delete all of the contents of line 23 (being all of the contents of the row relating to 'Primary site pancreatic cancer' in the inserted table)

Amendment No 5 [Police–1]—

Page 2, line 25 [Clause 3(2), row relating to 'Primary site skin cancer']—

Delete all of the contents of line 25 (being all of the contents of the row relating to 'Primary site skin cancer' in the inserted table)

Amendments 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) (11:40): 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