HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-06-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Justice Measures) Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (10:32): Introduced a bill for an act to amend the Aged and Infirm Persons' Property Act 1940, the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, the Civil Liability Act 1936, the Courts Administration Act 1993, the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015, the Criminal Procedure Act 1921, the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993, the Fences Act 1975, the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015, the Legal Practitioners Act 1981, the Mental Health Act 2009, the Real Property Act 1886, the Residential Tenancies Act 1995, the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995, the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991, the Witness Protection Act 1996, and the Youth Court Act 1993. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (10:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

At the outset, I seek leave pursuant to standing order 80A(3).

Leave granted.

Mr TEAGUE: I am pleased to—

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, just to clarify, are you seeking to extend the time for your remarks?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. Standing order 80A(3): an additional 15 minutes.

The SPEAKER: The advice from the Clerk is that it may have been better to approach that in a slightly different way but, in any event, to inform the house, for how long do you now seek to make your remarks? I understand it is 15 minutes.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and I have sought and obtained leave for an additional 15 minutes.

The SPEAKER: Yes. Unless there is any objection, I propose to call the member for Heysen.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's the last time you do that without speaking to us beforehand. That's the last time. All you had to do was ask, but you are so uncourteous that you behave like this. This is the last time you will get this opportunity.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Absolutely, go ahead.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Your last opportunity. All you had to do was ask.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's right; courteous is not your strong suit, is it?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: Point of order, sir: the member for West Torrens continues to—

The SPEAKER: He does, and he is being called to order.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You're a smart alec.

Mr PISONI: —breach standing orders.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens! I will hear the member for Unley in relation to a point of order.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That was all you had to do.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens is warned. Member for Heysen, you have the call.

Mr TEAGUE: I am pleased to introduce the Statutes Amendment (Justice Measures) Bill 2022. I will endeavour in the time available to me to address the range of measures, covering as it does 18 separate pieces of legislation—and uncontroversially—but taking the opportunity to bring to the house the range of Attorney's portfolio and other justice measures that were previously the subject of that portfolio bill last year.

The house has been taxed in recent minutes in relation to the extent and scope of courtesies exchanged. I might just put on the record that I acknowledge and appreciate what has already been a very courteous and, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, reasonable exchange between the Attorney-General and his staff and me and my staff. There is no surprise in relation to the scope of measures that the Attorney-General has elected to introduce that are the subject of the portfolio bill. I will not reflect on that; that will be dealt with separately. The fact is that it contains a subset of what was a portfolio and justice measures bill introduced in the last parliament.

Insofar as courtesies are concerned, I extend my thanks and appreciation to the Attorney-General and his office and to my own staff for having taken time over recent weeks to engage in understanding the range of priorities that the government has decided to bring to the parliament in these early weeks. There being no substantive reason not to do so, I take this opportunity to bring to the house the balance of those measures, so there is courtesy. Far from engaging in some exercise by way of sleight of hand or lack of notice or courtesy, I have sought time—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —in order to address—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Heysen has the call.

Mr TEAGUE: —the subject matter of—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

Mr TEAGUE: —the bill in the house at the outset of my remarks.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I will return it to you in spades for four years.

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen has the call.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Get used to it. You will enjoy it.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is on one warning.

Mr TEAGUE: Once again, I extend my thanks to the Attorney for the approach that he has taken in these early weeks.

The bill, addressing as it does a number of acts—18 in all—makes miscellaneous amendments to those acts that are committed to the Attorney-General and justice-related amendments to acts committed to other ministers. It addresses a number of discrete and technical issues and, as I said at the outset, those are not matters for which there is any indication of substantive difference. I certainly invite the government's adherence to those changes—18 different acts in all.

To begin, part 2 of the bill amends the Aged and Infirm Persons' Property Act 1940 in relation to the jurisdiction of the South Australian Employment Tribunal and the South Australian Employment Court. The amendments in clauses 3, 4 and 5 enable protection orders to be made by the court and the tribunal in the course of exercising their personal injury jurisdiction.

They remove the present requirement in section 8A that, for the District Court or the South Australian Employment Tribunal or South Australian Employment Court after amendment to make a protection order, the infirmity or reduced capacity prompting the protection order must arise from the injury that is the subject of the personal injury proceedings. This will allow, for example, a protection order to be made in respect of a second plaintiff spouse in a dust diseases matter, where the spouse's incapacity arises from age or other illness rather than the dust disease.

Part 3 of the bill amends the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. Section 86 of that act allows the Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection to give a direction to prevent a person communicating with a child who is in the custody or under the guardianship of the chief executive. Historically, I am told, there have been difficulties proving that communication occurred, even where a child is in the company of the person the subject of a direction.

The amendment in clause 6 provides the chief executive with an additional ground for issuing a direction so that a person can now be directed not to be in the company of or otherwise associated with a guardianship child. New section 86(4a) ensures that a child who is in the company of a person the subject of a direction, who communicates or attempts to communicate with such a person or who is harboured or concealed in contravention of a direction given to a person, does not commit an offence. New section 86(6) provides that a child to whom a direction relates cannot be compelled to give evidence in proceedings relating to an offence charged under this section.

Part 4 of the bill amends the Civil Liability Act 1936 to remove a redundant reference in section 64(3)(b) to section 105 of the Law of Property Act 1936, which has been repealed. That can be found at page 5 of the bill. The effect of the section is otherwise unchanged.

Part 5 of the bill amends the definition of 'judicial office' in section 27A of the Courts Administration Act 1993. This relates to an amendment to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015 in clause 35 of this bill, setting out the hierarchy of judges and other judicial officers. It is necessary to amend this definition to ensure that it is consistent with the clause 35 amendment. Part 6 of the bill, comprising clauses 9 to 22, contains a series of amendments to the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders Act) 2015. I will refer to part 6 just now in some further detail and I will refer to that act as the high-risk offenders act in these remarks.

Clause 9 adds commonwealth offences to the definition of 'serious sexual offence' in section 4(1) of the high-risk offenders act. It also deletes the definition of 'youth' and adds a subsection (3) to the effect that a reference in the act to a person convicted of an offence includes a person who was, at the time they were convicted of the offence, under the age of 18 years. Read in conjunction with section 6, as substituted by clauses 10 and 11 of this bill, the net effect is that while an application for a supervision order cannot be made in respect of a person under 18 years, offences committed by a person under 18 can be taken into account when considering whether they should be the subject of a supervision order as an adult.

Clause 10 of the bill substitutes section 5 of the high-risk offenders act, which defines the meaning of 'high risk offender'. The amendments remove certain ambiguities and clarify those offenders covered by the definition and the type of offending. For example, it is made clear that the definition only covers serious violent offenders while they are currently serving a sentence of imprisonment for a serious offence of violence.

Clause 12 of the bill amends section 7 of the high-risk offenders act to clarify that an application for an extended supervision order may only be made in the 12 months preceding the expiry of the term of imprisonment. It also clarifies that when deciding whether to make an order under section 7, the court must not take into consideration any intention of the respondent to leave the state, whether permanently or temporarily.

Clause 13 of the bill, still addressing those high-risk offenders act amendments, will amend section 9 of the act to clarify that the obligations of a person subject to a supervision order are suspended while they are in custody. Clause 14 of the bill amends section 10 of the high-risk offenders act. That section spells out the conditions that automatically apply to extended supervision orders.

The amendment adds a condition that the person subject to the order is prohibited from leaving the state without the permission of the Supreme Court or the Parole Board. Those bodies are only able to give permission if the person provides information about their proposed travel, including the information prescribed by regulation. Section 10 is also amended to clarify that the Supreme Court may impose any condition able to be imposed by the Parole Board under section 11.

Clause 15 of the bill inserts an additional subparagraph (ia) in section 11 to clarify the Parole Board's powers to place conditions limiting the movements outside the home of high-risk offenders under extended supervision orders. In practice, this may be a curfew or close supervision at home.

Clause 16 amends section 13 of the high-risk offenders act to allow the Supreme Court to transfer an application for variation or revocation of a supervision order to the Parole Board and to make rules in respect of such a transfer. Once applications are transferred, they can proceed as if they had been made to the Parole Board.

Clause 17 of the bill amends section 14 of the high-risk offenders act to allow the Parole Board a level of discretion to make consequential or ancillary orders when varying a supervision order.

Clause 18 of the bill inserts new section 14A in the high-risk offenders act to allow the Parole Board to vary or revoke the conditions on a supervision order, including conditions imposed by the Supreme Court, where there has been a material change in circumstances and it is in the interests of justice to do so. When considering an application to vary a supervision order, the Parole Board must give all parties an opportunity to be heard and to make submissions on the matter.

Clause 19 amends section 17 of the high-risk offenders act to allow the Parole Board to direct that a person be detained in custody pending circumstances necessary for the purposes of ensuring their compliance with a condition of a supervision order. These circumstances may include matters such as appropriate accommodation or treatment programs—and a very practical measure, I might add. I take the opportunity at this point to thank the Parole Board for the extraordinary and very practical work they do in the justice system.

Clause 20 amends section 18 of the high-risk offenders act to address operational difficulties with the powers of the Supreme Court where an offender breaches either an extended or interim supervision order. The amendments will allow the Supreme Court to order that a person be detained in custody via a continuing detention order until the expiration of the breached or further supervision order, or for such lesser period as may be specified by the court.

In addition, new subsections (4a) and (4b) would allow the Supreme Court to vary or revoke conditions on a continuing detention order or to order an offender to be detained in custody pending circumstances necessary for ensuring compliance with the order, similar to the Parole Board amendment to section 18—in clause 20 of the bill—that I have addressed just now.

Clause 21 of the bill inserts a new part 3A in the high-risk offenders act addressing interagency cooperation. It will contain, then, provisions for interagency cooperation that are there set out in the new part 3A. These provisions mandate formal information sharing processes with other jurisdictions. They are modelled on part 4A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 in New South Wales.

I have addressed in some greater detail those provisions in relation to the high-risk offenders act. There is just one more, finally, in terms of those high-risk offender amendments. Clause 22 of the bill amends section 22 of the high-risk offenders act. That amendment will allow for appeals from a refusal by the Supreme Court to make an extended supervision order or a continuing detention order. Again, this is a practical mechanism in the context of what is still an evolving regime in relation to both categories of order.

Part 7 of the bill contains an amendment to section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921, clarifying that the power to lay any information in a superior court under this section may only be exercised in the authority and name of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Part 8 of the bill amends the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993 to provide for the appointment of judicial registrars to the Environment, Resources and Development Court. I will not stay to address those part 8 amendments; they are there for members at pages 12 and 13.

Part 9 of the bill amends the Fences Act 1975 to update a reference in section 24 to refer to the Magistrates Court Act 1991 instead of the Local and District Criminal Courts Act 1926. This is an example of one of those technical amendments contained within what is wideranging.

Part 10 of the bill amends section 61 of the Guardianship and Administration Act to remove what is now an obsolete reference to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Section 61 currently provides that the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is not to consent to a termination of pregnancy unless the carrying out of the termination would not constitute an offence under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. As the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 has rendered it no longer illegal to terminate a pregnancy, the reference to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act is now redundant.

Section 61 has been recast so that the other two provisos to termination remain but the Criminal Law Consolidation Act reference has been removed. They are set out at page 14 of the bill and the provisos are there as section 61(3)(a) and (b) but just removing the now redundant reference to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act—in other words, leaving those provisos intact.

Part 11 of the bill amends the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2015. Clause 34 inserts references to judicial registrars in the hierarchy of judges and other judicial officers. Clause 35 clarifies that the holders of judicial office can be removed from office regardless of whether the act appointing them provides for such removal. In addition, clause 36 inserts a new section 34A—that is there with the heading 'Commissioner may determine not to give notice in a particular case'—in that act. That will have the effect of allowing the Judicial Conduct Commissioner discretion not to give a written notice required under the act in relation to a complaint or the dismissal of a complaint. That must be read in the context of other provisions in the act including section 13(2), which makes it clear that the rules of procedural fairness apply. I just stress that.

Part 12 of the bill amends the Legal Practitioners Act 1981. Clause 37 extends the application of section 14AB(1)(c) to suspected unsatisfactory conduct or professional misconduct of Australian-registered foreign lawyers.

Clause 38 inserts new subsection (4) in section 23 of the act. That is to clarify that the prohibition on legal practitioners sharing profits with non-lawyers does not prevent a legal practitioner from entering into an agreement to share profits with an Australian-registered foreign lawyer.

Clause 39 amends section 23D of the principal act, the Legal Practitioners Act, to require an Australian-registered foreign lawyer establishing an office in South Australia to give notice to the Supreme Court to that effect in the same way that interstate-registered practitioners must do.

Part 13 of the bill, which deals with the Mental Health Act 2009, amends section 84(1) to remove the inference that mandatory initial reviews of short-term treatment orders under section 79 of that act carry an automatic entitlement to legal representation in every case. In practice, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal conducts initial reviews under section 79 on the basis of written reports and treatment plans. This means legal representation is not necessary for initial reviews.

Part 14 of the bill makes minor amendments to the Real Property Act 1886 to update what are now simply obsolete references, and that is plain on the face of those changes at clauses 41 and 42 on page 16 of the bill, and I will not stay to address those at any greater length.

Part 15 of the bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 to require a person paying a bond to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs to provide the information required by the commissioner in order to help address the issue of unclaimed bonds. Part 16 of the bill amends the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 to enable the Small Business Commissioner to charge a fee for mediation and commercial lease disputes.

Part 17 of the bill amends the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991 to update obsolete references in section 46. Those are set out in clause 45 of the bill and, again, plain for members to consider that obsolete references are entirely within section 46(2) and (3) of that act, and those are the subject of clause 45.

Part 18 of the bill amends the Witness Protection Act 1996. Clause 46 updates obsolete references. Clause 47 amends section 24 of the principal act in light of the fact that there is no longer a Crown counsel. The director is now defined as including a person acting in the position of the director, the deputy director or a suitable person to whom the director has, by instrument in writing, delegated his powers under this section with the approval of the Commissioner of Police.

Finally, part 19 of the bill makes a minor amendment to the Youth Court Act. That is at clause 48. That is to remove the requirement for principal members of the Youth Court judiciary, including special justices, to be appointed for a set term.

That concludes the matters that are the subject of the justice measures bill. It is a bill covering many different areas, dealing with a range of important issues to ensure the justice system works effectively and efficiently for our community. I thank members for the leave granted to an extension of time within which to conclude my remarks. I hope that was self-evident, the need for it, and I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. A Koutsantonis.

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, adjourned debate to be taken into consideration—

Mr TEAGUE: I presume you are going to ask me, Mr Speaker, to what date should debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: Well, in fact, I have not asked yet, but I will ask that question now.

Mr TEAGUE: I would be grateful for your assistance in relation to the date, but the next Wednesday of sitting.

The SPEAKER: That is 15 June.

Mr TEAGUE: To 15 June.

The SPEAKER: It has been moved. Is it seconded? I see the member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have an amendment, sir. I move to amend that date, as follows:

That debate be adjourned, amending the date from 15 July, to Wednesday 30 November.

The SPEAKER: The amendment has been moved. Is it seconded? Member for Heysen?

Mr TEAGUE: Sir, if I may speak to the motion?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will speak first because it is my amendment. Sit down.

Mr TEAGUE: I am on my feet. I have the call I think.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No-one has the call yet.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, I am on my feet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So am I.

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, it might be said that you had had the opportunity and then the amendment was moved. I will turn to the member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I think the pretty appalling abuse of standing orders by the member for Heysen by seeking leave to extend his remarks before he began them put the house in a position where how could we possibly have known he needed to extend his remarks. It is an abuse of process, and I think, quite frankly, an appalling abuse of process. That type of smart alecness by the member for Heysen will bring him undone.

The courteous thing to do in those matters is to approach the government and say, 'Listen, there are a number of bills that I would like to move to discuss. It is going to take longer than 15 minutes. I am going to seek at the end of my 15 minutes an extension for further time to discuss my remarks. Would the government be amenable to that?' Instead, he thought he would be clever. Well, let's see how clever he is now.

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, I think the opportunity was there to address your motion, but it may be that you wish to close. In any event, it may just be convenient, given the business before the house, that we move to put the amendment. I understand that it is seconded. I will put the—

Mr TEAGUE: Mr Speaker, I am seeking the call and I would like the opportunity to address briefly the contribution of the member for West Torrens. First, a technical matter—

The SPEAKER: I think it is a reply. I think it is your reply, member for Heysen. You have the call.

Mr TEAGUE: A technical matter on the substance of the amendment: the motion is to adjourn to the next Wednesday of sitting. The member for West Torrens refers, I think, unless I misheard him, to 15 July. The motion is to adjourn to 15 June, and I certainly commend that motion to the house.

Perhaps by way of closing, I was at pains at the outset of my remarks, perhaps unnecessarily so, to highlight the extent of constructive and productive engagement with the Attorney and his staff in relation to the range of justice measures that are the subject of the portfolio bill and the justice measures bill.

Having given notice yesterday of a bill that is going to range over 18 separate pieces of legislation, I would have thought it would come as no surprise—and by the time that I rose to speak on the second reading debate, those acts that are amended by the justice measures bill, by the various processes of this house, had been read in what is a relatively tedious process to read the long title to a bill in these circumstances, but they had been read a full three times. So it should have come as no surprise to the house that in speaking to the second reading—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —the mover of a bill that is going to amend 18 different acts might just indicate to the house that, 'No surprises, folks, I am going to be seeking, if I may, leave, in an orderly way pursuant to the standing orders,' and 80A provides that may be done.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

Mr TEAGUE: I recall ruling on it myself on several occasions and—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —the distinction that the member for West Torrens now wishes to draw around what constitutes courtesy is courtesy raising it at the outset so that everybody is on notice of what is coming—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —is courtesy raising it at the final 30 seconds of a 15-minute contribution, or is courtesy as the member for West Torrens in a somewhat novel way has now brought to the house, that courtesy in these circumstances involves somehow going around knocking on the member for West Torrens' door and saying—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —'By the way—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens is called to order.

Mr TEAGUE: I would like—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens is called to order.

Mr TEAGUE: —for the member for West Torrens to have special notice of what might be required in order to deal with business before the house on this morning.' So, for a whole variety of reasons, it is a matter for the house to give leave or not. It is not War and Peace. It is no particular dramatic situation. The house can give leave or not. The house can withdraw leave if it wishes.

I have simply come along here and said, 'I'm going to move a bill that's going to have the effect of amending 18 different acts—it's something I've worked through with the Attorney over recent weeks—in a way that gives the house an opportunity to be heard. I will seek an extra 15 minutes.' I did not anticipate that that would rile up the member for West Torrens, so if there are particular concerns—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —for the member for West Torrens about the way that debate is conducted in this place, then the member for West Torrens might care to send me a little sheet of memoranda about how he would like things to be done—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

Mr TEAGUE: —from day to day so that he remains content. I might highlight in this regard that from the outset, when it came to the extension of sessional orders, on the first day in this place when the member for West Torrens had taken on the responsibilities of Manager of Government Business, I have gone around—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —on a matter of business, on a matter of government business—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: I have gone around and said, 'Have you forgotten something here?' I was met with, 'No, we haven't. That was what we deliberately wanted to do. We don't want to have a 30-day limit on our questions on notice.' That was a government process matter about which, alright, we can have an engagement. In this case, I have engaged over a period of weeks with the Attorney-General—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, there is a point of order which I will hear under 134. I do observe, though, that I am eager to advance the business of the house, and I am not sure necessarily that we are now in a space that is doing that. I would ask the member for Heysen to draw his remarks to a close and that may resolve the point of order that has been raised.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I will draw my remarks to a close. I have absolutely no idea what the point of order might have constituted. It does not seem to have been elucidated at all. If the member for West Torrens is getting on his feet—

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, I did not ask for submissions in relation to that; instead, I asked that you draw your remarks to a close. The business before the house is tolerably clear and I am eager to move the house forward.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: I have spoken in this place in recent days about common courtesies. Far from being sophisticated or in some way seeking to—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —obtain an advantage, I think my record stands fairly clearly that where notice is appropriately given—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Heysen is drawing his remarks to a close.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: Without any reason.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Plenty of reasons.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: Without any reason.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Plenty of reasons.

Mr TEAGUE: None that you elucidated at 11.30pm on the relevant night.

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, are you drawing your remarks to a close?

Mr TEAGUE: I am, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Very well.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members, the standing orders prevent quarrels between members.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Heysen, member for West Torrens, if interjections continue, 137A will come clearly into view.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 24

Noes 12

Majority 12

AYES
Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Champion, N.D. Clancy, N.P.
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Fulbrook, J.
Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L. Hughes, E.J.
Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.B.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller)
Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Cowdrey, M.J. Gardner, J.A.W. (teller)
Hurn, A. McBride, P.N. Patterson, S.J.R.
Pisoni, D.G. Pratt, P. Tarzia, V.A.
Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J.
PAIRS
Brown, M.E. Marshall, S.S. Piccolo, A.
Pederick, A.S. Stinson, J.M. Speirs, D.J.

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried; debate adjourned.

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