HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUMMARY OFFENCES (FILMING OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 5 March 2013.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government and the opposition are very keen that the council appreciates the unusual nature of this committee stage. I appreciate that I did this on Tuesday but, just so members are in no doubt, I will reiterate the context that I mentioned on Tuesday.

I will try to simply put it that, in the context of this bill, the opposition took the view that, while we strongly support strengthening the law in relation to enacting criminal sanctions for humiliating and degrading filming, we felt that there were enough issues with the legislation to see if we could refer it to a parliamentary committee to sharpen the focus of the bill. The council did not feel inclined to support our proposed amendment to the surveillance bill reference to the Legislative Review Committee because the council wanted to have more clarity as to the issues of concern that we had.

In that context, this committee stage of the debate is somewhat unusual in that, rather than being a series of comments and queries, it will be a statement of concerns the opposition has. The government may well wish to clarify their view of those concerns and whether or not they are well founded. I indicate, and the minister can correct me if I am misstating it, that it is the intention of both the government and the opposition that at the end of the committee stage (probably at the end of clause 4) the opposition will move to report progress, not that we think there is any more work to be done after that but, if you like, it is a vote to get an indication from the house whether or not it is interested in further committee consideration.

If that vote to report progress is successful, the motion would be that we defer consideration until later this day so that the opposition can consult with the Attorney's office in particular as to what committee might be appropriate. We have indicated a preference originally for a select committee; we are happy for it to go to the Legislative Review Committee in the context of surveillance devices but it may well be that, subject to the outcome of that vote, the Attorney's office might have a view as to which way to proceed.

As I said on Tuesday and I reiterate today, if the council is sufficiently confident this legislation is robust and it does not want to refer it to a committee, the opposition supports this legislation and, if that reporting progress vote is not supported by the council, the opposition will support the passage of this Summary Offences (Filming Offences) Amendment Bill today. It might be a good opportunity for anybody to make a comment if that is not clear. It is an unusual stage for committee stage. If you like, without having a motion before us, I suggest we use the report progress vote at the end of the discussion as an indicative vote as to whether the house would want a motion put before it to have a committee consideration of the bill.

With those comments of background, I will return to my comments. The issues being considered here are complex. The ranges of situations captured by the bill are very broad. Given that the Surveillance Devices Bill is going to be looked at by the Legislative Review Committee, the opposition is of the view that it would be convenient for the same committee to look at this bill but as I said, subject to the view of the council, we are open to other alternatives.

In terms of the Surveillance Devices Bill consideration by the Legislative Review Committee, both bills involve issues of privacy and dignity, both bills involve the use of modern filming devices, and it is our view that it is more efficient to deal with both bills conjointly, even though as the Attorney has rightly said the issues are significantly different. They approach privacy and dignity from different directions but the values, in my view, are shared.

I remind the committee that this legislation is novel legislation. On 16 March 2011 in a report in The Advertiser, headed 'New laws target cyber thugs', the Attorney claimed that this legislation would be the first of its kind in Australia. In light of the Attorney's comments that this legislation is the first of its kind in Australia, it is my view that we make the law as robust as possible.

The government has distributed two draft bills for consultation, one in November 2011 and the other in May 2012. The opposition has requested a copy of the consultation submissions received by the Attorney-General, but the government has only provided two late stage submissions. I suggest that referral to a committee would ensure that the parliament gets access to all submissions and would stimulate a considered community perspective on the final draft of the bill. I do not have any further comments on clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a question at clause 1. Members would be very familiar with the incident over the weekend at the Sydney Mardi Gras Festival where members of the public filmed police in what I would certainly consider to be engaging in an act that degraded and humiliated a member of the public. I note that we have had some negotiations here with free TV and members of the media able to film such an act in the public interest. Under this bill, would a member of the public still be able to film an act such as the one that occurred over the weekend at the Mardi Gras, where the police restrained a member of the public and behaved in a way that I believe degraded and humiliated that member of the public?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I refer the honourable member to section 26B(6). What would constitute legitimate public purpose for the purposes of filming would need to have regard to the following:

(a) whether the conduct was for the purpose of educating or informing the public;

(b) whether the conduct was for a purpose connected to law enforcement or public safety;

(c) whether the conduct was for a medical, legal or scientific purpose;

(d) any other factor the court determining the charge considers relevant.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So, in the opinion of the minister, filming of the police engaging in those acts against a person would actually still be possible under this bill should it come into law in South Australia?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised, yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Finally on that note, during this incident—and certainly I have seen incidents in South Australia where this has been the case—the police directed members of the public to stop filming, not to film them in the course of their duties and to move away from the area. Will that still be something that the police in South Australia would be able to undertake, and does a similar code of conduct as exists in New South Wales exist in South Australia?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that this bill does not go to the issue of police powers to direct. They are provisions elsewhere.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Sorry, I will be slightly clearer. The New South Wales code of conduct for the police force does actually prohibit them from directing members of the public to stop filming them. Do we have a similar code of conduct here?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The short answer is: I do not know.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can we get clarity on that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes. It is an interesting question and I do wonder how legitimate the powers of the police are to make those directions in those circumstances. It will be interesting to see whether we have either regulatory provisions or code of conduct provisions that actually cover that sort of conduct.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On that point, my recollection of where SAPOL are up to on that at the moment is subject to the impossible budget with which they are dealing. They are dealing with technology where, when police officers are involved in arrest and altercation, there will be filming technology that will actually protect both the police and the alleged offender and other people around the incident. I understand that is something at which SAPOL is looking at the moment, and they are moving that way for the benefit of the community generally and for their own best interests when it comes to the protection, under police integrity, of police officers and the issues of prosecution. That is my understanding.

With respect to the shadow attorney-general and what he has requested, Family First appreciates the fact that both the opposition and the government—and I think that the opposition first came up with a private member's bill with the general intent of this some time ago—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Could I clarify that?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member has invited me to recap on the history of this bill. It would be fair to say that this bill originates from government concerns, particularly in late 2010/early 2011 in relation to the misuse of filming to aggravate a criminal assault, bullying behaviour, and what have you. The opposition has not offered any private member's legislation on this matter. The government has done two rounds of consultation, which has led to this bill. We support the bill and certainly believe in strengthening the criminal law. We have concerns about issues of focus.

In progressing the bill as expeditiously as possible, we would suggest that a committee consideration in whatever form would be helpful. The government and the opposition have agreed that, once all members have had the chance to highlight any issues with the bill, both positive and negative, we will do a 'report progress' vote to get an indication of whether the council would prefer to complete the consideration in the council or to have a parliamentary committee look at it further.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: To clarify Family First's position on that, we appreciate the fact that on the general intent of the bill there is what I would describe as multipartisan support, including the two major parties. We looked at the bill and we have been happy with the amendments made by the Attorney-General during its consultation period.

At the moment people in South Australia are grappling with an issue around trolling, another e-crime matter. Whilst South Australia probably leads the way with Queensland on legislation, it is not uniform or integrated between the states and New Zealand, and as a result we have some shocking bullying and harassment issues going on through Facebook—disgusting issues. I raise that because we are now in a situation where parliaments have to move fairly quickly on some of this.

This bill has been before our house since early February and, whilst as a general principle we like to support any member who moves to report progress, and despite the fair and reasonable explanation by the Hon. Mr Stephen Wade, we would be loath on this occasion to support reporting progress because we think there is some urgency about getting through this bill, particularly given the comments of the shadow attorney-general where he says, notwithstanding what we have just discussed, that if progress is not reported he would, through his party and his position in the party, support the finalisation of this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member raises several very good points. First, this bill has been around for years. It was released at least in November 2011. It has been around for a long time and people are well and truly aware of it and well informed about it. What the Hon. Stephen Wade is proposing to do is use a procedural motion to really test his position, which should be in the form of an amendment, to take this off to committee, if that is what he wants to do. Using a procedural motion in such a way puts members in this place in a very difficult position because of the custom and practice around that particular procedural motion, which is basically that if any member in this place feels they need more time, needs to do more work with constituents or needs to work up an amendment, they move a motion in this way, and it is usually supported in that way.

Now the honourable member is really using it as an amendment motion which, as I said, I think puts members in a very difficult position in this place. If the member chooses to go down this particular path, and other members are willing to do that, then that is the will of the chamber and so be it. But I certainly want to put on the record that this government is of the very firm view that this should be passed now, today—we should get on with it. It does not need to go to committee. An enormous amount of work has been done on the bill right throughout all relevant stakeholders.

I think the opposition is somewhat misguided. I think the opposition seems to think that the bill is like the Surveillance Devices Bill—and it is clearly not the Surveillance Devices Bill. There is no community opposition to this, unlike that Surveillance Devices Bill. There has been thorough and significant public consultation on the various sections of the bill and appropriate adjustments made along the way. All significant stakeholders have been spoken with, and in detail, and any concerns allayed. We have been able to address those concerns that were raised.

The bill is very limited and very specific, and all those consulted actually agreed with the objects of the bill, and the opposition even is conceding this; they are prepared to support the bill. It is my firm view that it is time. The bill has been around for a long time, it has been thoroughly consulted, there is no opposition to the bill, and it does not need to be protracted for another year or so in some committee stage or for any length of time. This thing has gone on for too long. It is a simple bill, it is well supported—let's get on with it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would remind the government that, in good faith, I withdrew an amendment to a reference to the Surveillance Devices Bill to the Legislative Review Committee on the basis that there were members of this house who wanted to have my concerns more fully described, and it was agreed that a way of doing that was to do it in the committee stage. All I am doing is facilitating the progress of the Surveillance Devices Bill and the progress of this bill in an expeditious and cooperative way.

Although I cannot seek to suspend standing orders and move a motion at a time during this debate to refer the bill to a committee, my purpose in reporting progress was to facilitate discussions with the government as to what form of committee might be appropriate.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: No, no committee; we don't want a committee.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I appreciate you do not want a committee, but that is the vote. If the committee agrees not to report progress, the bill will go through and there will not be further consideration in the committee. Let me say that this is not a contribution I am ambushing the house with; it was clearly foreshadowed in the last sitting period. I have done my level best to bring those concerns together in a clear and concise way, and I will go on to do that now.

In terms of the minister's comments about the community consultation and concern, I would completely agree. If you like, we can have a set of agreed facts on this. The level of community concern in relation to surveillance devices far outweighs the level of community concern in relating to filming offences; the community concern in relation to filming offences is relatively low. I do not agree with the minister that there is no concern, but it is relatively low. It is not community concern that I am seeking to respond to. It is our duty as legislators to make sure that we have the best law possible. So, in the next few minutes, what I propose to do is to highlight some of the concerns that come to me as a legislator and my party agrees that those concerns are significant enough to have a committee look at it.

The government supported the referral of surveillance devices to the Legislative Review Committee, and that was done in the context of an agreement between the government and the opposition that there was no reason to think that cannot be concluded by winter. It is my view that that is true of this bill as well. The fact of the matter is that the matter has been under consideration for two years. I do not think that another two months or so is worth not taking the opportunity to reflect on the bill. If I could respond to the request—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have no belief that a committee would take two years on a reference such as this. In his speech on the second reading of this bill in the House of Assembly, the Attorney-General said:

The internet, and the growth of social media on it, has brought a growing and unwelcome phenomenon. The central example of this particular evil is that there is some kind of fight or other criminal conduct involving a victim, provoked or not, unwitting or not, but the point is that the assault is filmed and then screened on the internet somewhere, presumably on YouTube, Facebook, or a social medium or an internet homepage. A major result, usually intended, is the indiscriminate. pictorial humiliation of a victim.

Later in the speech, he says:

The law is meant to capture the subjection of one person to humiliating or degrading treatment by another.

The opposition shares the government's commitment to ensuring that the law deals clearly and strongly with the mischief; that is, criminals who want to film their assaults on the person, privacy and dignity of others and to distribute the product to compound that damage. But the opposition is concerned that the bill does not have the focus right. The government has consistently asserted that the focus of the law should be on the filmers who are involved in the incident.

On 16 March 2011, the Attorney-General issued a press release, entitled 'King hit for cyber thugs', which announced 'moves against thugs who film assaults and post the images on the internet'. The release goes on further to say:

'The Government wants to attack this disgusting fad of thugs engineering and filming violent and humiliating acts and posting the images to websites,' Mr Rau said.

On radio that day, the Attorney stated that the law would be against those 'who are involved in deliberately setting up these events'.

The bill, on my reading, does not require any involvement in events leading up to the filming. In April 2011, the discussion paper described the problem as thus:

...the conduct may be planned or an impromptu act by two or more people acting together on a third person [and I stress the following words] with the intention of capturing film of the event and making that film available to other viewers.

Subsequently, it says:

The reasoning behind this proposed offence is that, for some people, the motivation for a criminal attack is to get film of it which can be shown to others, as a way of boasting about the offence or about the humiliation of the victim. The criminal law should make clear that the filming and distribution is just as wrong as the attack itself. For this reason, the penalties should be similar.

Elsewhere, the Attorney claimed that the law would be against those who 'act together in order to humiliate or degrade another person and place that film on a platform such as YouTube or Facebook' or 'act in concert with the assailant'. In spite of these repeated and clear statements, the bill does not in fact require any connection between the filmer and the assailants. The Attorney claimed that the law would be against those who 'have advance knowledge of the incident'. The bill does not require any advance knowledge. The filmer may not be involved in subjecting or compelling the victim. The filmer may not know that it is an assault or an act of violence. The filmer may not know that the act is humiliating and degrading to the person. The bill penalises filming alone.

The bill runs the risk of capturing innocent bystanders. In the discussion paper of April 2011, the Attorney-General claimed:

However, it would be important to design the offence so that it did not capture people who filmed for legitimate purposes an event which they did not take part in contriving. The offence should not apply to an innocent bystander who films the event, nor to the collection of evidence by security camera, nor filming by a news reporter who observes the event.

I suggest to the council that there would be value in a committee assessing to what extent the bill meets the Attorney's goal of excluding an innocent bystander.

I would now like to turn to the act on which the offence focuses. In the Attorney-General's second reading speech, the government claims that the bill focuses on criminal conduct, but I would suggest that it goes further. Specifically, the bill covers the filming of conduct which is not itself unlawful. The bill covers two quite distinct classes of acts and conflates them by putting them both under the definition of 'humiliating or degrading act'. As defined by the bill, a humiliating or degrading act is either (1) an assault or an act of violence against the person, or (2) an act that humiliates or degrades a person. Both classes of acts exclude where a person consents to being subjected to or engaged in the act and consents to the filming of the act.

In relation to the second only, the bill does not cover acts which lead to minor or moderate embarrassment, but in the first class of actions—that is, an assault or other act of violence—the consent and severity are not relevant. An assault is likely to be circumscribed by its common law meaning, but one issue we do need to address is: what is an 'other act of violence'? Does the bill cover a fight on the football field as an act of violence? It probably does. If it is, whether it is minor or not, it is covered by this provision. Is being hit by a rolled-up magazine an act of violence? I suspect so. If it is, whether it is minor or not, it is covered by this provision. The videotaping of the assault on the then deputy premier on 28 November 2010 would have been an offence under this act, likewise the assault on former premier Rann.

Assaults and violence were not originally part of the bill put out for consultation. In the opposition's view, there would be value in a committee considering whether this broad inclusion of acts of violence is appropriate. I note that the Law Society of South Australia's submission of 24 January 2013 highlights that assaults or acts of violence 'are existing offences and by taking part in them the participant commits an existing offence'. The society says that in their view criminalising the filming by those responsible for existing crimes is unnecessary and unlikely to achieve anything that the current law is not already able to achieve. Again, I think there would be value in a committee considering whether including existing criminal offences adds to the provision.

The provision also takes us back to the filmer. A filmer may not even be aware that he or she is filming an assault. For example, on 25 February 2013, a young woman suffered serious burns when a flare was let off in the crowd at a music festival in Sydney. Police are investigating the evidence, but media reports are that the flare may have burned plastic, which then fell on the woman and burnt her arm. The promoter received a perfectly clear screenshot of a video purporting to show the person who set off one of several flares. The image clearly shows him holding a flare and his face is clearly visible. That filming, if it had occurred in South Australia under this act, may well have been caught by it.

If the bill is too broad, South Australians in that situation may well be discouraged from taking photographs or videos in uncontrolled environments to avoid inadvertently capturing images that might be an assault or an act of violence. I consider that there will be value in a parliamentary committee considering the net effects of these provisions.

The second component of a humiliating or degrading act is an act to which the victim is subjected that a reasonable adult would think was humiliating or degrading to that person. The Law Society's submission of 24 January states that the extent of paragraph (b) of the definition of humiliating or degrading act is not clear. The society suggests that it may be appropriate to revisit the definition and the formulation of the offence.

I turn now to the element that a person needs to be subjected to or compelled to engage in the act. The government seems to assume that the definition will deal only with third-party acts on a victim, but I consider that the phrase 'to be subjected to or compelled to engage in' can and would be read to include a range of acts primarily only excluding the relatively narrow acts of the person themselves. For example, the government claims that the offence in the bill does not cover accidents. It may exclude where the person has an accident when they, on their own, have contact with another vehicle; however, if a person is hit by another vehicle, they have been subjected to or compelled to engage in the act.

A range of questions can arise. Can you be subjected to an act as a result of events? Can you be subjected to an act by a natural disaster? Can you be subjected to an act by an act of God? As I said, can you be compelled by events? For example, in his second reading speech the Attorney highlighted cases where individuals have used their mobile phones to film emergencies for the apparent purpose of entertainment. In Queensland, after a runaway vehicle hit a backpacker, he advised that dozens of bystanders filmed the event.

According to the government briefing, these two emergencies would not have come under the act, presumably because the victim was not subjected to or compelled to engage in an act. However, the courts may well find that the victims were subject to an act. The government says that the bill would exclude someone who slips in the street. The government may be right if someone slips completely of their own volition, but what if they trip over a crack? The government says that a wardrobe malfunction or something else of that nature is excluded, but what if the malfunction is the result of an act or omission of another?

The government says that mere exposure to scrutiny that the person would rather avoid is excluded. A criminal defendant being filmed walking out of a court hearing is used as an example, but could that be deemed to be an act of another party? For example, a defendant leaving a court may be compelled to do an act (by walking out the front door) if court officials do not provide an alternative exit. The person may well be being subject to compulsion. I suggest that the committee could consider the scope of the offence. To be effective in discouraging inappropriate behaviour and not repressing appropriate behaviour, the bill needs to be clear in its scope.

In relation to a humiliating or degrading act which is not an assault or an act of violence, the act needs to be one which reasonable adults in the community would consider to be humiliating or degrading. This is an objective test in the sense that the law understands reasonableness—the man on the Clapham bus. However, the characteristics of the event or the victim are relevant; reasonable adults may judge the behaviour to be degrading to one person and not another.

The Law Society's submission of 24 January 2013 suggests that the scope of paragraph (b) of the definition of a humiliating or degrading act which depends on the reasonable person test is uncertain and would lead to dispute. The bill does not impose a simple reasonableness test; the standard of reasonable adults must be applied with respect to the individual to whom the act relates.

The question arises: is it necessary for the victim to actually feel humiliated or degraded? In the government briefing on the bill I was told that whether or not a person was actually humiliated by a particular act was pertinent in the case of car jumpers. Car jumping is where people jump in front of traffic while accomplices film the resulting panicked drivers for their own and others' entertainment.

In the end, the conduct of citizens should be assessed on an objective basis according to community standards, not on an assessment of the subjective experience of the particular person. I think there would be value in a committee considering whether the bill as drafted is overly subjective.

The bill attempts to recognise legitimate forms of filming by way of defences to the offences, rather than as exceptions to the relevant offences. In general, it is good legislative practice to basically prescribe the scope of the offence in the relevant provisions and allow defences to provide limited exceptions. In this bill, to construct the offence you effectively need to blend the definition, the offence clause and the defences.

The way the bill is drafted has the effect, in my view, of shifting the onus of proof onto the defendant. The focus is on the defendant making the case for the defence, rather than on the prosecution making the case for the offence. The Attorney acknowledged that fact in his press release of 16 March 2011 in which he states:

The onus will be on the person charged to prove that they had a legitimate purpose for capturing images other than humiliating, degrading or demeaning the victim.

Further, the way the consent elements of the offence of humiliating or degrading filming work mean that a person filming at any time is essentially required to be positively satisfied of the consent to the act and consent to the filming of the act to avoid criminal responsibility.

Key media organisations have objected to the fact that the bill criminalises legitimate conduct, and I appreciate that the government has worked with organisations to provide more reassurance in relation to the rights of media organisations. My understanding is that it would not be fair to say they were comfortable nonetheless. In relation to the issue of consent, I agree with the comments of the Attorney-General in his letter of February 2013, where he said:

Consent is a concept which depends upon its factual context for precise meaning which is an issue best left for the courts to determine in all the circumstances of the particular case.

However, I think there would be value in a committee considering whether consent elements in this bill could be simplified and made clearer. Consent is relevant in establishing both the offence and the defences. If a person consents to being subjected to or engaged in a humiliating or degrading act and consents to the filming of the act, humiliating and degrading filming in the meaning of the bill has not occurred. A person may wish for filming of a humiliating and degrading act to occur, for example, to record evidence but does not consent to the act itself. Likewise, the distribution offence is only established when the distributor knows or has reason to believe that the victim does not consent to the act.

In conclusion, I put to the council that, whilst the bill is an important attempt to strengthen the law, the opposition is of the view that there is a range of issues in the bill that would benefit from further consideration by a parliamentary committee. Our suggestion was that that could be the Legislative Review Committee, but I stress again that we support the bill.

If the council does not think that the issues I have raised are sufficient, that a reference to a committee is warranted, the opposition will nonetheless support the passage of the bill. We believe that the bill helps deal with a current social problem. We believe that in the context of two years' development of the bill, a month or two's consideration would give us the opportunity to strengthen it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I simply want to reiterate our previous position, which I indicated in the second reading of this debate—that unless there is anything at this committee stage that the bill's debate cannot address, we will not be seeking a call to report progress; we will proceed with this bill through this committee stage.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to a couple of the specific points the Hon. Stephen Wade mentioned, in regard to proposed new section 26B(3), attacks the attacker who films and distributes a film, there is no need to criminalise the mere attacker; that is already thoroughly covered by the law of assaults and related offences. The law does not cover innocent bystanders, and I have already pointed to the defence a legitimate public purpose; I have outlined that. The opposition really has been quite unable to put forward any credible scenarios where an innocent bystander might be caught.

The Law Society says that 'subject to the comments below we do not oppose the general effect of the bill'. The Law Society reservation is that this amounts to over regulation which, with respect, the government obviously does not agree with. The Law Society has, for example, completely misread section 26B(3). The Law Society thinks that a reasonable person test is uncertain and this obviously cannot be taken seriously. The law is full of tests that relate to a reasonable person, so there is nothing new or novel in relation to that and the courts have dealt very well with that in the past.

I think that the member outlines a number of quite technical, obscure concerns that we do not believe provide any rationale for sending this bill off to a committee. As I said, the bill has been around since November 2011. It has been out there in the public arena. There has been lots of opportunity for key stakeholders to input. Changes have been made in relation to that input. There is a high level of support for this bill that has undergone a great deal of public scrutiny by all levels of the community—legal, technical, etc. We believe that the bill is of high enough integrity to withstand the fairly obscure sorts of issues that the honourable member raises at this point in time. We need to get on with it and deal with this bill this afternoon.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I will not support reporting progress.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have taken the opportunity to consult with members on the floor and there is not support for reporting progress, so as the opposition indicated we will be supporting the progress of the bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 5) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:09): 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