HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2025.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (17:56): I rise to speak on the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill 2025 and indicate I am the lead speaker for the opposition. We understand that this bill has come as a result of industry concern for the safety of workers, particularly in the retail sector, against recidivist offenders. There certainly is no doubt that we have seen an increase in violent and aggressive incidents directed towards frontline workers at our local supermarkets, bottle shops and petrol stations.

Workers deserve to have a safe workplace free from harassment, violence and intimidation. As we understand, the government have modelled this bill on existing workplace protection order schemes in the Australian Capital Territory; however, we do have a few questions on its practical application in South Australia. We note that, while stakeholders are largely supportive of the bill, the main feedback we have received is that it has not addressed the lack of support given to small or individual retailers, who will ultimately bear the burden of its application.

We will be moving amendments, including a 12-month review of the legislation, which I note the government have also moved—I believe they did indicate that to the Leader of the Opposition on Monday, but we have not had a chance to speak about that—so it looks as though we will get that review through, which is good.

I will also be moving an amendment to ensure that the objects of the act are clearer. We were in contact this morning with the South Australian Business Chamber to seek some clarity around how this legislation could possibly be weaponised and used by employees to take action against other employees, or by an employer against an employee. The government, in the briefing that we received, indicated that this is not an intention of the bill; however, within the legislation as it stands, this type of action is not precluded.

Therefore, amendment No. 1 will attempt to tackle that by inserting 'perpetrated by members of the public' to make it very clear what the intent of the bill is. I will be asking those few questions of the government in committee and moving my amendments at the appropriate time. With that, I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing this bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:59): I rise to offer my in-principle support as well for the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill 2025. The safety of workers and customers in places conducting business with the public is paramount to a functioning and peaceful society and any measure, within reason, that intends to uphold this safety is worthy of support. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their place of work or when out shopping or enjoying a night out. However, in an increasingly volatile world it appears that many of our simple public transactions can quickly escalate into abusive and sometimes violent situations, which may put our retail and hospitality workers at risk.

Under this bill, any workplace where there is direct interaction with the public, whether in person or not, may apply to the Magistrates Court or Youth Court for a workplace protection order. However, it is important to note that this does not include work or workplace prescribed by regulation. The application for the order can be made by the owner of the workplace premises, the employer or a representative from an employer association, a health and safety representative for the workplace, or a union entitled to represent the industrial interests of workers in that workplace.

On application, the court may make an order against the defendant if satisfied that the defendant has engaged in personal violence or abuse, sexual violence or abuse, threatening behaviour, stalking, harassing, intimidating or offensive behaviour, or the damaging of property that causes reasonable fear to a person. It is important to note that an order may also be made if the court is satisfied that the defendant may engage in personal violence if the order is not made.

Conditions imposed by the order must include the surrendering of any firearm or ammunition in the defendant's possession and also include prohibiting the defendant from entering the workplace or being within a particular distance of that workplace, as well as prohibiting engagement in personal violence or causing someone else to engage in personal violence in relation to the workplace.

The paramount consideration in the court's determination will be the safety and protection of the affected person, but there is also a provision under section 9(2)(b) that the court consider any hardship that may be caused to the defendant or anyone else by making the order. While this does appear to strike some balance between the need to protect affected persons and the personal rights and liberties of the defendant, it is concerning that under proposed section 15(4) the court may extend the order beyond 12 months without being satisfied that there are special exceptional circumstances that justify the extension.

However, a defendant may only apply to vary or evoke an order with the permission of the court, and only if the court is satisfied that (a) there has been a material change in circumstances relating to the defendant or protected person and (b) it is in the interests of justice to grant permission. Consequently, before a defendant is even granted permission to apply to vary or revoke an order they must first prove to the court's satisfaction that there has been a material change in circumstances, which is an extremely high bar to meet.

Alternatively, the court would need to be satisfied that the granting of permission was in the interests of justice, which on the surface might appear to afford the defendant some level of fairness. However, under the objectives of the proposed bill the achievement of justice would rightly need to keep the safety and protection of affected persons as the paramount concern.

Given the contravention of a protection order could attract a penalty of two years' imprisonment, or five years if committed in aggravated circumstances, it is concerning that not only can the order be extended beyond 12 months but also that the defendant's right to be heard can be so easily dismissed by the court not granting permission to the defendant to even apply for a variation or revocation of the order.

I am fully supportive of the bill's intention to prevent and reduce workplace violence and facilitate the safety and protection of people who fear or experience personal violence. However, such well-intentioned measures should not be enforced at the expense of an accused person's fundamental right to be heard, and therefore in the committee stage I will be moving an amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:03): I rise to indicate the Greens' support for the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill 2025. The bill proposes a workplace protection order scheme that will allow employers, business owners, health and safety representatives, and unions to apply to ban individuals from workplaces who have engaged in violent or abusive behaviours towards retail staff in their workplace. I do want to acknowledge the leadership of Josh Peak and the SDA, who I understand have been pushing for reforms in this regard for a long period of time.

These additional measures will allow employers to proactively protect their teams from further violence occurring in the workplace. For many in the retail or fast-food sector, this is their first job, a time of independence and their first step into the workforce. Everybody should feel safe at work, and it is unacceptable for anyone to go to work fearing they may be assaulted or abused or may experience intimidating behaviour from members of the public.

Might I say I think we were all reminded during COVID-19, when retail providers remained open, of the vital work that people do within this sector, so this bill really is about ensuring that those people are respected at work. I will use this opportunity, in the interests of time, to indicate that I will not be supporting the amendments from the Hon. Sarah Game.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (18:04): I rise to speak on the Labor government's Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill. At a retail industry safety round table held in May 2024, concerns were raised about the growing level of violence and aggression faced by retail workers. It was agreed that legislative reform was needed to better protect those who serve the public every day. In response to this need the Malinauskas Labor government has taken a significant step forward in safeguarding workers from threats and abuse and introduced the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill.

This bill creates a workplace protection order scheme which has been modelled on successful legislation in the ACT. The bill aims to give South Australia a more robust legal framework for preventing violence in workplaces that deal directly with the public. It is designed to give an employer, union or other authorised representative an ability to apply to the Magistrates Court for a workplace protection order (WPO).

When a WPO is granted it will prohibit individuals who have exhibited violent or harassing behaviour from entering or approaching a workplace for up to 12 months. If someone breaches one of these orders and violence is involved, they face up to five years' imprisonment or two years if a breach does not include violent behaviour. This intends to send a clear message that violence, threats and abuse have no place in South Australian workplaces.

The bill builds upon a series of actions the government has already taken to improve the safety of retail and other workers who interact with the public. These include stronger penalties for assaulting retail employees and a targeted police crackdown on shop theft through a specialist initiative South Australia Police have implemented to curb retail theft and related violence called Operation Measure. South Australia also has nation-leading knife crime reforms in place, with the declaration of public areas where police have greater power to search and move people on when required.

A workplace protection order may be made if the court is satisfied that a person has engaged in or may engage in personal violence at a workplace. The term 'personal violence' includes a wide range of harmful behaviour; for example, physical or sexual violence, threatening conduct, stalking, harassment, intimidation or property damage that causes fear. The scheme recognises that personal violence takes many forms and that prevention is extremely important.

A workplace protection order can be sought by an employer, an owner of a premise, an employer association, a workplace health and safety representative or a union representing workers. It can apply to any workplace where employees have direct interaction with the public, whether in person or through other means of communication.

The court will have a power to set appropriate conditions, such as prohibiting an offender from entering a workplace, coming within a certain distance or contacting particular people. Orders will also require the surrender of any firearms or firearm licences. In urgent circumstances interim WPOs can be made to provide immediate protection until a full hearing is held.

The court will be required to consider a range of factors before granting an order, such as previous acts of violence or breaches of similar orders, the potential hardship on the defendant and the need to protect people and property. Importantly, the court must always prioritise the safety of workers and the prevention of harm.

The bill allows flexibility through regulation to include or exclude certain workplaces or types of work, ensuring the scheme remains practical and effective. It also provides for the variation or revocation of orders, allowing the court to respond to changing circumstances while keeping safety front and centre.

Consultation on this legislation was extensive, involving key stakeholders from across the retail and business sectors including the SDA, Master Builders Association, the AHA, National Retailers Association, SA Independent Retailers, SA Business Chamber and the Shopping Centre Council. That feedback helped to form several amendments to refine and strengthen the bill.

Ultimately, this legislation is about respect and protection. It recognises that every worker—whether behind a shop counter, serving food or delivering essential services—deserves to do their job without fear of violence or abuse. The Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill is a positive step toward making our workplaces safer and our communities respectful and stronger.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:11): I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill 2025 which, as we have heard, aims to ensure better protections for workers insofar as it allows for applications to be made to courts to bar violent or intimidating patrons from entering those places.

Based on the information that is before us and the briefing that I had, I think it is fair to say that this is largely based on the ACT model, with some key differences which came off the back of feedback with industry stakeholders. For instance, ACT only allows those orders to be made by employers. Based off that feedback, in South Australia the range of groups who can actually make the request for the orders has been expanded to include representatives, unions, health and safety reps, and owners of the buildings.

I do note that the orders cannot be sought by the individual who is the subject of this sort of violent behaviour or, indeed, their guardians—that was one of the points that was raised by the Law Society Children and Law Committee's submission on this bill—and they also cannot be made by SAPOL. I have to say that I did have and I still continue to have some sympathy for the position that was put by the Law Society with respect to legal guardians being able to make these applications where there is a minor working on the premises.

I think they make a very valid point that where a child or young person requires workplace protection but the listed applicants have not taken action, it could be useful for a child's legal guardian to be able to intervene, and that these are vulnerable workers, really, who are less likely to be members of unions—especially where they are part-time, casual or seasonal employees—and that these children often get their first jobs in family-run businesses, for instance.

We had this same conversation last week about shopping trolleys. I pointed to a number of scenarios around the places where kids are likely to get their first job: just think of a local pizza shop in a suburban area or a cafe owned by family or a mini-mart owned by somebody the family knows—much like the delis that many of us first tried to go and work in when we were young. I would hasten to say that in those circumstances kids are (1) quite hesitant to go home and tell parents but (2) when they do, in the absence of anything else then really the only option is for the parents of those kids to tell them, 'You're not working there anymore.'

So there are other sorts of workplaces that I think could benefit from this sort of coverage that are not necessarily included in this bill when it comes to minors working at public places. I note that the bill is of course limited to workplaces where there is a direct interaction with the public. That did lead to me asking a number of questions during the briefing, some of which the minister may be able to clarify now, as to what constitutes a place where you have a public interaction.

I might be the receptionist at DHL or somewhere that is not necessarily public. Whilst it may not be a public workplace, I may have someone who is constantly coming in from a courier service who arrives on a daily basis, for instance. So I am having interactions with the public, even though the workplace itself is not public. I think that is something that is not necessarily canvassed in the scope of this bill but I do hope will be on the Attorney's radar, certainly when it comes to a review, as will the issue of legal guardians being able to make applications for orders. I guess that will depend largely on the extent to which these orders are taken up.

To put it frankly and bluntly, people have been behaving in pretty shitty ways in public places towards workers for some time now. I think during and post COVID, we have seen that behaviour get worse. Nobody deserves to go to work and be treated like that. They do not deserve to go to work to have their personal safety compromised or to be subjected to violence of any sort, including sexual harassment and personal violence.

We have seen these sorts of instances. I think there was a case just yesterday in Queensland where a worker in a McDonald's was subjected to some pretty horrific conduct by a customer. It was actually two good citizens who stepped in and effectively pinned this person down after they had thrown coffee at a worker, sworn at her, called her all manner of things and spat at her. Two very good people stepped in and detained that person until the authorities arrived. Well done to them for doing that.

The bottom line is: no worker in any workplace should have to tolerate that sort of behaviour. We know that these things are already covered by our work health and safety legislation. I guess this is another layer of protection above and beyond that. When someone is subjected to violence in the workplace and we are satisfied, based on the threshold tests that applies, that that person is likely to be subjected to more violence from the same individual because it could occur again in the future, then this is exactly the sort of mechanism that we need to prevent that from occurring.

In response to the issue of cost, I appreciate cost is always going to be an issue, but I appreciate that, whilst that is an issue, the overriding responsibility of all employers has to be the safety of their staff. I do not think that is an unfair ask on the part of employers to make sure that the people who they hire to work in their workplaces are protected from pretty abhorrent behaviour—and I apologise, Mr President, I said 'shitty' before but I have changed it—from members of the public who act violently towards the people who are there to serve us as customers.

I will finish by saying I have taken on board in the time available the concerns that have been raised by the Business Chamber. I acknowledge the concerns that they have. I think the Hon. Mr Hood has acknowledged also that, generally speaking, every time we put a review in to one of these bills, there is an acknowledgement on our part as legislators that 12 months does not allow a broad enough window to actually appreciate the impacts that the legislation is having.

Over time, we have landed on three years as the optimum period based on which we can actually assess whether a scheme is working appropriately or whether it needs tweaking. Really, you do not get that within a 12-month window. It is on that basis that I indicate that I will be supporting the Attorney's amendment for a review of the act to be completed after the three-year mark, as I understand. With those words, I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill and commend all those stakeholders and the government, who have worked to get us to this point.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (18:19): I rise today to speak in support of the Workplace Protection (Personal Violence) Bill 2025. This is a timely reform that strengthens protection for workers across South Australia. This bill responds to a disturbing trend, whereby retail and hospitality workers, many of whom are young and many of whom are female, are increasingly being exposed to aggressive and violent behaviour. According to the National Retail Association, 87 per cent of retail workers report experiencing verbal abuse and 51 per cent face physical abuse monthly or more often. These figures are not just statistics—they represent real people, often in their first jobs, who deserve to feel safe at work.

The bill establishes a new category of workplace protection orders, empowering courts to issue enforceable conditions that prevent individuals from engaging in personal violence at or near a workplace. These orders can prohibit entry, enforce distance and require the surrender of firearms. The scheme is flexible, allowing applications from employers, unions, health and safety representatives and others, ensuring that workplaces have multiple avenues to seek protection. Importantly, the scheme prioritises the safety of affected persons, while ensuring that conditions imposed are proportionate and fair.

I particularly welcome the bill's responsiveness to stakeholders' feedback. Unlike the ACT model, which left the definition of 'workplace' vague, this bill provides clarity, while retaining the ability to refine scope through regulation, which I believe is the strength of the bill, and allows for responsiveness and refinement over time.

While the workplace protection orders are not intended to replace existing legal instruments, such as barring notices and intervention orders, they are designed to provide the courts with another mechanism to increase safety and protect workers. It is important to note the potential impact on regional communities, where access to essential services may be limited. The bill makes clear that judicial discretion must ensure conditions are the least restrictive of the personal rights and liberties of the defendant, while still ensuring protection of the affected person. It is important that we ensure that, where new mechanisms like this one are established, that safeguards around technical breaches are incorporated to ensure penalties are proportionate and do not unfairly criminalise minor infractions.

Every South Australian deserves to feel safe at work. As Gerard Dwyer of the SDA has emphasised in national discussions on retail safety, and I quote:

Every worker has the right to be safe at work, and these frontline workers need their union and their employer to be able to ban repeat offenders, including through workplace protection orders that are enforceable.

This bill sends a clear message that violence in the workplace will not be tolerated, and that our legal system stands ready to protect those who are on the frontlines and who are doing jobs in public-facing roles. I will be supporting the government's amendment and indicate that I will be opposing the opposition's amendments and the Hon. Sarah Game's amendment. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (18:23): I thank honourable members for their contribution. It might be useful, at the second reading stage, to outline what the government's view will be on amendments and to answer some of the questions that members raised during the course of the second reading stage.

A question was raised about what interaction with the public means. That will, of course, be a matter for a court to determine what interaction with the public means, but certainly direct interaction is not just intended to capture hotels or shopping centres but other areas to which members of public can have access—a doctor's surgery or a hospital might be an example of those things. It is, as it states in the bill, irrespective of whether or not the interaction is in person.

As the Hon. Connie Bonaros raised, this is an extra level of protection. Of course, there is a responsibility for those who conduct business operations to provide a safe workplace under our work health and safety laws. There is criminal law in relation to assaults and other breaches of criminal law, and there is an intervention order regime in South Australia, which provides that level of protection as well.

In relation to the amendments that have been filed, the government will not be supporting the Hon. Sarah Game's amendment. The court granting a second or subsequent review of the application can be done, and in the government's bill it says 'in the interests of justice'. The Hon. Sarah Game's amendment added an extra limb, that there is a reasonable cause to justify the granting of permission. These two are very similar in nature. It might be it is just a slight drafting-style difference, but 'in the interests of justice' is language that is used in other pieces of legislation, so the government prefers what we have here rather than adding an extra limb that seems very similar but a different drafting style.

In relation to the Hon. Ben Hood's amendments, we think it more preferable to have a longer time to see how the operation of the bill is working than just one year. I am not sure it would be as thorough or productive as we would wish it to be if it was only after 12 months. In relation to the other amendment from the Hon. Ben Hood regarding changing the objects of the act, we can understand what the honourable member is doing. This has benefited from many months of consultation with the employer and employee group representatives. We think it will not be just members of public, but there may be cases where it is other people within the workplace who had orders sought after, and sought after quite reasonably, who deserve protection.

Also, rather than just in the objects, in the actual body of the act 'workplace' means prescribed work with interactions of members of the public, so we think that is the best place to put in the reference to members of the public, rather than the objects of the act. Whilst we understand, and we have certainly had discussions with groups which have put forward these views, that was something that was put in during the consultation, and we think that is the best way to accommodate it.

Bill read a second time.

Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–1]—

Page 3, line 3 [clause 3(a)]—After 'violence in workplaces' insert 'perpetrated by members of the public'

In consultation with the South Australian Business Chamber and some feedback also received by the Australian Retailers Association, we have moved this amendment to insert 'perpetrated by members of the public' after 'violence in workplaces'. Really, it is ensuring that the legislation may or could not, for want of a better word, be weaponised against employers or employees within the workplace. I appreciate the feedback from the Attorney-General on this and, of course, the other amendment from the government in which there will be a review of the act. Notwithstanding, we will still try with the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the reasons outlined in my second reading summation, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Can the Attorney-General advise the chamber what type of workplaces would be excluded through the regulations at clause 5?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We do not have any specific ones yet, but certainly that was a result of consultation, particularly within industry bodies. We cannot think of any unintended consequences that would happen but, if any did, this makes sure we are nimble enough to be able to do that without having to change the legislation via regulation.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I am wondering if the Attorney-General can advise us on this question: pursuant to clause 25.6 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020, there is no right of representation by a non-lawyer in the Magistrates Court or Youth Court. Is it the government's intention that a workplace protection order can only be made by the listed parties in the legislation or if they are represented by a lawyer? If there is an allowance for self-representation, why was that not included in the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Are you asking does it have to be a lawyer applying or can lawyers not be involved?

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: To clarify, in terms of the workplace protection order, can it only be made by the listed parties, or only if the person who is seeking the protection order is represented by a lawyer? Is there an allowance for self-representation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised the court has not made rules for this scheme yet, but it is expected, if it was consistent with other similar sorts of things, it could be the person concerned or it could be through a legal representative.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Okay. The examples of such provisions can be found in the Liquor Licensing Act, in the Gambling Administration Act, but it is not the government's intention to include it in this act? It is something that will be put down the road?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, that is correct.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Excellent. There has been a bit of feedback from stakeholders, and I am sure the Attorney heard it as well, but I guess the question is: why could this not be achieved by barring notices that currently can be issued by the police, Consumer and Business Affairs or NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, such as how the police issue barring notices in licensed premises?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I understand the honourable member's question. Liquor licensing barring notices, obviously, can only be issued in licensed premises. For other sorts of barring notices that are issued by particular officers or statutory office holders, we think workplace protection orders are best done and considered by a court. For example, if there is an application to bar someone from one of the only retail premises in a regional location, we think it is reasonable that a court is the one who decides that, taking into account all the considerations.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Can the Attorney clarify how service will be proven or effective, particularly in circumstances where the defendant who needs to be served the barring notice is violent or abusive?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Under the legislation, service is envisaged to be affected personally, but the court has the discretion to have another form of service put in place. Certainly, where there is evidence of particular sorts of violence, that would likely be something the court absolutely takes into account when deciding if there is another form of service that is more appropriate.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Game–1]—

Page 10, after line 27 [clause 15(6)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) there is reasonable cause to justify the granting of permission; or

This is to insert subclause (6)(ab) to clause 15 stating that the court may only grant permission to the defendant to apply to vary or revoke an order if there is reasonable cause to justify the granting of permission. For the avoidance of doubt, this only refers to the defendant's right to actually submit an application to vary or revoke the order, not the final determination as to whether the order be varied or revoked.

Further to this, to meet the test for reasonable cause, the defendant would likely need to provide new facts or evidence to meet the court's satisfaction, and if the defendant has reasonable cause to justify the application, then the insertion of this clause will at the very least provide the defendant with the basic procedural fairness of having their case heard.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the reasons outlined in my second reading summing-up, the government does not support this.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I indicate the opposition will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Just a quick question to the Attorney: what circumstances does the Attorney envisage that a court would determine it appropriate to order costs against the defendant?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It will be up to the court, but a hypothetical, for instance, could be: where there is a workplace, where the workplace has tried over and over again to work with the defendant, in a number of ways the defendant is being exceptionally obstructive, the defendant has taken steps that are demonstrated to the court to try to dodge service and obstruct the workplace protection order, that is something a court could consider in ordering costs, if they think it appropriate to do so.

Clause passed.

Clauses 20 to 23 passed.

New clause 24.

The CHAIR: There are amendments in the name of the Attorney-General and the Hon. Ben Hood to insert a new clause 24. The Hon. Ben Hood's was filed first; is that correct?

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Given the government has put amendments noting that it would be after the third but before the fourth anniversary of the commencement of the bill, which is slightly different to ours of the first anniversary, I will not be moving our amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 13, after line 28—After clause 23 insert:

24—Review of Act

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act to be conducted and a report on the review to be prepared and submitted to the Minister.

(2) The review and the report must be completed after the third, but before the fourth, anniversary of the commencement of this Act.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report submitted under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

New clause inserted.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (18:39): 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