Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8), omit the table item, substitute:

This amendment would pause the commencement of the administrative funding provisions until the government has undertaken an independent audit of the administrative expenditure incurred by registered political parties. This is modelled on what happened in South Australia, which has undertaken an independent audit with Deloitte to audit major party accounts to determine whether the level of administrative funding provided under the bill is actually justified. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended administrative funding due to the increased donation disclosure requirements under the bill.

I want to be clear: I unequivocally support the lowered donation disclosure threshold and the real-time disclosure provisions in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. I can't emphasise this enough. This is really important—and I'm very pleased that the government has gone to this level of detail around this issue—but JSCEM did not recommend how much this administrative funding should be. According to the Australia Institute, 85 per cent of the new administrative funding will go to the major parties. If a challenger from outside the major party duopoly wants to run for election for the first time, they will not benefit from any of this money compared to a new entrant or incumbent from a major political party, who likely will.

I question whether the major parties will need $30,000 per member in the House of Representatives to undertake these new administrative burdens, especially when new entrants or challengers are getting zero—nothing, zip—to help them comply with this disclosure threshold. They will get no financial assistance at all for the new donation disclosure requirements that they are equally subject to under the law. I question whether this creates a level and fair playing field. As an incumbent, I will benefit from this funding, but as an Independent I don't want to just pull up the ladder behind me. I want to see new Independents and challengers fairly enter the competition, because we have seen that they only improve the competition.

These amendments are in good faith. We should have solid evidence that underpins the numbers that we are given in this legislation. As far as we know and as far as the taxpayer knows, these numbers could have just been plucked from thin air. What we do know is that this amount of money is going to advantage the major parties to an extraordinary level. These amendments would make sure that the government does the work to justify not only to us as a parliament but to the Australian taxpayer how they have come up with the numbers they have.

Question unresolved.

by leave—I move amendments (5) to (7) together:

(5) Schedule 7, item 3, page 172 (after line 5), after the paragraph beginning "The amount of the funding for a registered political party" in section 302AA, insert:

The amount of the funding for a registered political party's expenditure group is subject to a cap.

(6) Schedule 7, item 3, page 172 (line 26), omit "The amount", insert "Subject to subsection (2A), the amount".

(7) Schedule 7, item 3, page 173 (after line 24), after subsection 302AB(2), insert:

(2A) The amount worked out under subsection (2) must not exceed an amount equal to $3,750 multiplied by 32.

It's not clear to me as yet—and won't be until the minister makes his response—if the government want to justify the amount of administrative funding they have set up under this bill. I really hope they will. But, in case they don't, I need to have these amendments. These amendments apply a reasonable cap to the administrative funding received by the major parties. The amendments apply a cap after an equivalent of 32 members of parliament across the House of Representatives and the Senate receive administrative funding set at a rate of $3,750 per quarter.

You might ask how I arrived at those numbers. Well, I did the homework. This is based on South Australia, which set a cap of administrative funding for 10 MPs. It would take into account economies of scale of parties, which is not recognised under the current bill. It would ensure there is not a disproportionate amount of administrative assistance funding going to the major parties.

I urge members to support these amendments. Spending $30,000 per member of the House of Representatives and $15,000 per senator is an enormous amount of taxpayer money. It's not justified. It can't be set out in any evidence that would give us comfort. We need to curtail this. So I put these amendments to the House and I thoroughly recommend any thinking member in the House of Representatives to back in these very, very sensible amendments.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start by thanking the member for Indi for her engagement on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. I want to address a few of the issues raised across the collective of the amendments that have been circulated—the one that we have deferred a division on and the ones that the member has just spoken to. This will probably be my major substantive contribution at this stage of consideration in detail on the member for Indi's contributions, but I may, if I can, come back a little bit later in the discussion just to address some other matters that were raised in the House prior to question time.

When it comes to administrative expenditure, one of the things we're doing in this bill is providing more scrutiny of money that's provided to political parties than currently applies to public funding that already exists for political parties. As we see on page 144 of the explanatory memorandum, it very clearly states that, in terms of the use of this money, whether it be provided to an Independent member, an Independent senator or a member of a political party:

This funding cannot be used on campaign advertising in any election, whether federal or state. Administrative assistance funding that is not spent in the calendar year it is received must be returned to the Commonwealth the following year.

That's a good assurance measure. Further, it outlines on that same page the framework through which we have compliance and auditing controls. It says:

This framework will be subject to compliance and auditing controls, including the AEC's strengthened investigative powers provided by Schedule 9 of the Bill. If a recipient provides the AEC with incorrect or incomplete information about the recipient's administrative expenditure in its annual return and subsequently refuses to provide further information on request, the AEC will have powers to reduce future payments of administrative assistance funding or recover amounts paid.

As the member just noted, this gives effect to recommendation 8 of the JSCEM interim report to 'introduce a new system of administrative funding'. The model we've introduced is consistent with the existing framework that people are familiar with in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

I want to address the question of the suggestion in the circulated amendments around an independent review. As a longstanding practice in this place, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will do a review. After every election, different ministers of state have added additional questions to those inquiries, and some of those questions are why we now find ourselves here. The government appreciates the suggestion of what else can be done to look at the review of this. I want to thank the member for Indi for her constructive engagement on that question and note that conversations are ongoing around what that may look like.

I'll go to the amendments regarding targeting of funding in a particular division. It's worth noting that, where you have a party that is contesting every seat, as is common across a range of parties represented in the parliament, that effectively introduces a cap that they can spend in that particular seat of $600,000, whereas an Independent member contesting can spend $800,000.

It is also the government's view that there has been extensive consultation on this. No-one in this parliament is part of every single conversation of that consultation, but I have outlined in detail in previous answers not just the consultation that has happened when we've had conversations through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the report, having been out there for a year, but also extensive consultation that the Special Minister of State has led with people who are here in the Federation Chamber now. Parties or other bodies may interact in detail with them. With regard to third parties, there have been a lot of representations for the charitable sector to ensure they're not unnecessarily impeded in their work. We've had consultations with smaller community organisations. We might have incidental activity. That's one of the reasons we've lifted the reporting cap for those third-party entities to $20,000.

I'll conclude where I began: by thanking the member for Indi for her suggestions. While the government won't be supporting this amendment, we will continue to have conversations around how to make sure we can get this legislation done and make sure, as we have done through the normal Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters or through other processes, to continue to refine and review initiatives of this parliament, particularly when it comes to electoral reform.

Question unresolved.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) together:

(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 100 (lines 29 to 30), omit "is not mainly communicated to electors enrolled outside Divisions", insert "is communicated to electors enrolled in the Division".

(4) Schedule 4, item 2, page 101 (lines 9 to 19), omit subsection 302ALC(3), substitute:

(3) Electoral matter is express coverage matter for a Division, State or Territory if the electoral matter is communicated to electors enrolled in the Division, State or Territory.

These amendments ensure electoral expenditure targeted at a division counts against the division cap regardless of whether it mentions the candidate. This goes to the heart of the concern of the crossbench. You've heard us speak about this time and time again in this rather short debate. In fact, only the crossbench has been speaking in this debate, if we're perfectly honest. This is the bit that matters. This is the bit that seems to be dismissed—well, not seems to be but is dismissed by the major parties, and there's a very good reason for that. Under the current expenditure caps in the bill, major political parties could spend up to $800,000 in the 30 or so marginal seats they're focusing on to form government.

The assistant minister's quick to say that the major parties would be contesting every seat across the nation, but let's be absolutely honest. We know that major parties target some seats more than others. There's $800,000 in the 30 or so marginal seats they're focusing on to form government. They can then spend significantly less in other seats and still not reach their $90 million expenditure cap. But, under the bill, registered political parties won't exceed the $800,000 cap if they don't target that division. That means that, if advertising or other electoral spending doesn't mention the candidates, electorate name or refer to their likeness, it doesn't count towards the $800,000 for that seat. This goes to the heart of our concern.

We've all gone through elections where the entire electorate is just blanketed in major party paraphernalia. Vote Labor, vote Liberal, vote National—whatever it might be—and this would be allowed. This means that you could be in the main street of Wodonga, in Indi, looking at a billboard for an Independent—maybe it would be me, with my smiling face—that counts towards the $800,000 spending cap. That's all within the rules, that's good. On the other side of the road, however, the billboard that says 'vote Liberal' wouldn't count towards the cap at all. Isn't that cute? This is deeply concerning. These caps still mean the races in particular seats can be completely distorted by who can spend more than the other person, and it will be the major parties who can spend more, because this legislation makes sure of it.

This amendment would curtail this egregious problem in this bill. It would mean that regardless of what electoral expenditure major parties spend in a seat—and let me be clear about this because I was misrepresented last night by the assistant minister. I agree with expenditure caps. Make no mistake, I do. But this amendment would curtail this massive loophole that you could drive a B-triple truck through. It would mean that, regardless of what electoral expenditure major parties spend in a seat, whether it mentions the candidate or not, they cannot exceed the supposed level playing field of $800,000. This is the cap that independents are subject to; this is the cap that the major parties must be subject to if this is to be a fair and reasonable electoral reform.

This amendment would help level the playing field, and it would help ensure that Independents, whether they're incumbents or challengers, are not drowned out by the major parties. I, again, ask all members of parliament to read the legislation and see what you're signing up to. I would say to you: you should support these amendments if you truly believe in electoral reform.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the amendments just moved by the honourable member for Indi, because, when all is said and done, she has really hit the mark when it comes to the heart of what is the key issue here. People like myself have copped a lot of criticism in this parliament because of the amount that was spent to see the seat of North Sydney turned Independent. In part, that's because there is no doubt about how much money was spent in North Sydney. The seat is fully accounted for in terms of what was invested. We do not, even under the current system, have the same line of sight when it comes to the major parties. We do not know what the major parties spent to win Macnamara. We do not know what the major parties spent to win in Bradfield. All we know is the combined campaign spending.

I actually find it pretty extraordinary that, when you go to look at the returns during the 2022 election year, there are members currently sitting in seats in this House that have a zero next to their name in terms of how much money was spent in their electorate during the 2022 election. How does that work? What we've seen in what the member for Indi has brought forward here is a complete acknowledgement. We're very happy to see expenditure caps introduced, as long as the expenditure caps are the same for everyone and that the transparency around that expenditure is the same for everyone.

I thank the member for Indi for continuing this fight. She has very clearly articulated the upside of looking at this piece of legislation through what she's proposing. I would welcome the government seriously considering this amendment as a true show of faith that they are looking to create an equal playing field, not just embed a political duopoly.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to stand in support of the member for Indi's amendment. I agree that it absolutely goes to the heart of probably what is the major problem with this piece of legislation, and that is how unfair the structure is—sorry, I agree with the member for Indi, and it goes to the crux of what the major problem is, and the major problem is how it bakes in unfair spending caps. We've talked about this before when we were debating in the House. Currently as it stands, an Independent or a new entrant can spend $800,000. That is their cap. A member of a party can spend $800,000, but an additional amount—who knows how much—in the millions can also be spent on top of that, as long as that candidate's name is not mentioned specifically. It does mean that there's a very unfair advantage for that person who is the member of a party. How is it that this is fair competition? It is absolutely not fair competition. We know that our democracy should be a contest of ideas, but this is baking in an unfair advantage. But the member for Indi's amendment really goes to the heart of sorting out that major problem. Thank you.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 12 to 22), omit clause 3, substitute:

4 Review of operation of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act before the end of 12 months after the first general election that is held after 1 July 2026.

(2) Without limiting the matters to be covered by the review, the review must consider the following matters:

(a) the effectiveness of the amendments in achieving transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and its participants;

(b) the impact of expenditure caps and gift caps on the election, the electoral process and its participants.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

This amendment ensures that this bill goes to an independent statutory review before the end of 12 months after the first election that is held after July 2026. Currently, under the bill, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is required to undertake such a review. But, let's be honest, this is like the fox guarding the hen house. The JSCEM comprises parliamentarians. Parliamentarians actually doing a review of their own expenditure and their own disclosure is problematic when it comes to electoral reform. We need to make sure that the Australian public and, indeed, the parliament can have complete confidence in what is, as spruiked by the government, the biggest reform in electoral matters in 40 years. We need an independent review that would ensure that the amendments to the Electoral Act are scrutinised by an independent panel, not by members of parliament who quite clearly have a direct interest in the bill.

The independent review would directly consider the effectiveness of the bill in achieving transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and its participants, including the impact of expenditure and gift caps. This amendment, I have to say, is a really good amendment. This amendment would ensure we actually know what the impact of these reforms are—some of the biggest reforms, as I've said, in our democratic process. This amendment too, like other proposals I've put to this chamber, is modelled on what's currently in the South Australian bill. Might I say that the good features of the South Australian bill are a direct result of the scrutiny that that bill was given. It's amazing what happens if you put a detailed piece of legislation to parliamentary scrutiny through the committee process. You actually get improvements and good ideas. There is a similar independent review provision in the Victorian legislation. This is sensible; it's reasonable; it's ethical; it dismisses all conflicts of interest, and that's a big deal.

I urge the government to consider these amendments. This can only bolster your case. This makes you look good. This gives the public confidence that what you're proposing is not what the crossbench says. We've been really clear with you that we think there are elements of this bill that, for the unsuspecting eye, could be perceived as one mighty big stitch-up. Prove us wrong. Have an independent statutory review 12 months after the election, when these laws come in, and let's see how it stacks up.

I've been very pleased to work with the minister's office on all of these amendments, and I've done so in good faith. As I've said before throughout this debate, I thoroughly endorse improved transparency and disclosure laws—100 per cent. I've been screaming for it from the moment I got here. I thoroughly endorse donation caps and expenditure caps, subject to the amendments that I've put forward in regard to that. And I absolutely and utterly believe that the statutory review—rather than a JSCEM review—12 months after the election, when these laws come in, can only be for the good of the nation and can only lock in the improvements we might invariably need to have. Let's do that. I urge the government to support that amendment.

I say to members who may be listening—maybe from their offices, given that they're not participating in the debate—that you should really be in here supporting an amendment such as this. I thank the minister. I hope he might respond to that, or perhaps some of my parliamentary colleagues might. I commend these amendments to the House.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise again in support of the amendment moved by the member for Indi. I've just got to say how sensible the member for Indi and her team are in terms of how they approach not only this piece of legislation but every piece of legislation that we see come into the House. There are very few members in this House that have a higher level of integrity than the member for Indi. When you hear the member for Indi suggest that the best way for a piece of legislation to be scrutinised is by an independent parliamentary committee, you can actually pretty much guarantee that she knows what she's talking about. This is a member that has been involved in developing bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is a member who has argued, since she joined parliament, for increased levels of integrity in this place.

But, for those who are at home wondering why you wouldn't just go to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I want to explain the structure of parliamentary joint committees in this place. What usually happens in a parliamentary joint committee is that the party of the government of the day dominates the committee. They have the most numbers on the committee. In fact, every committee in this place, bar one—and that is actually the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission—will be chaired by a member of the government of the day, and the deputy chair will be from the opposition of the day. In the case of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which is a great committee—I think we should have it; we should be very transparent around it—the truth of the matter is it was originally tasked with looking at the results of the 2022 election, an election which created the largest crossbench in the history of the Australian parliament, and that crossbench has the largest number of Independents in the history of the Australian parliament.

Yet, interestingly, for those playing along at home, there wasn't an Independent on that committee until the member for Curtin joined the committee on the last hearing day. For all of the hearings prior to that, there was not a person of an independent political persuasion involved in the assessment. And, in fact, when the report was tabled by what we call JSCEM, the member for Curtin, the only Independent member of that committee, lodged a dissenting report. She provided commentary around where she felt things were heading in the right direction and where things can be improved. In an environment where we do the best we can—and I believe everybody in this place comes to the questions we have in absolute good faith—the truth of the matter is, when we're looking at something as important as this, we should be able to delegate to an independent statutory review. That's where the member for Indi has nailed this recommended amendment to the government.

At the end of the day, this legislation has not had a lot of light during this debating process. If we could go back to our communities and say, 'If nothing more, at least we know in 12 months it will be independently reviewed,' then I think the Australian public could take some faith that there will be somebody other than the major parties looking at how this is functioning.

Question unresolved.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "Electoral Reform", substitute "Funnelling Public Money to the Major Parties Under the Guise of Transparency".

In essence, all the amendment seeks to do—it's very brief—is modify the title of the bill, from simply referring to 'electoral reform' to refer to 'funnelling public money to the major parties under the guise of transparency'. This isn't meant to be funny at all. It's a deadly serious amendment and, I think, an appropriate bookend to the case the crossbench has made against these reforms over a number of days now. I have become disillusioned with the practice in this place of naming bills in misleading ways. This is an opportunity to name this bill correctly, because this bill does exactly that. This bill seeks to funnel public money to the major parties under the guise of transparency.

I make the point again that my crossbench colleagues have done an excellent job of prosecuting their argument over the last day or so. I don't think there's any value in me rehashing all of the arguments they have made. But, in looking thematically at the arguments that have been made, there is no doubt whatsoever that these reforms have one principal purpose, and that is to safeguard and entrench the place of the political parties in our electoral system and to prevent emerging talent and new Independents from joining the crossbench, which already numbers 18.

I'm reminded of a comment from the Prime Minister in one of his very first meetings with the crossbench after the 2022 election. I hope he forgives me if I misquote him a little, but he said words to the effect of, 'You're all great, but we don't want any more of you.' I think my colleagues would remember that statement. At the time, we all had a bit of a chuckle. We thought, 'That's all very funny.' Do you know what? He wasn't trying to be funny. He was making a very serious comment, which is reflected perfectly in this bill—that we're lovely, but you don't want any more of us. You don't want any more of us, despite the fact that millions of Australians now have abandoned the major political parties for a range of very good reasons and are now searching for an alternative. This parliament has no right—no right whatsoever—to work so hard at denying millions more Australians from exercising their democratic right to have a ballot paper with a list of good candidates, reflecting a range of views—major parties, minor parties, micro parties, Independents who might be incumbent or might be putting their name on the ballot paper for the first time.

Frankly, I think the government—in cahoots with the opposition, who have cut this grubby deal out the back somewhere—are treating the electorate with complete and utter contempt. For there to be, in this bill, pages—literally pages—of exemptions from what is covered by this bill is scandalous. For this bill to allow, say, the Liberal Party to accept however much money they choose from, say, the Cormack Foundation or, through various underhanded means, for the Labor Party to accept enormous sums of money from the union movement but then to place such limitations—not on us, we're doing fine, with the possible exception of the member for North Sydney, who has a minor difficulty with her electorate! The rest of are competitive. I think we are genuinely competitive. But what about all those brilliant people out there who are even better than us? They deserve a fair go, and the community deserves, or has a right, for those people have a fair go. It is just patently misleading for the government to suggest that they will spend the same amount of money in all 150 electorates next time. They won't.

I close by saying that I'm the first to say let's have almost real-time disclosure. Let's have spending caps. Let's have donation caps. But let's not concoct such a ruthlessly destructive set of reforms that treats the community with such complete and utter contempt. We have no right to do that in this place. The government has no right to do it. The opposition has no right to do it. The reason so many people are voting for people like us now is that we're about the only people in this place who will stand up for the community.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I deem that the proposed amendment is an ironic one, and on that basis it will be ruled out of order.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to respond to a range of the matters that have been raised both here in the Federation Chamber and in the House over the course of today's debate. I committed to a range of members that I would come back to them to ensure accuracy on a range of assertions but also to make sure that there's clear understanding of the government's intent around getting big money out of politics.

First, I'd like to respond to some matters raised by the member for Indi. I did so before, but I will do so again to say that the government acknowledges her genuine questions around a review period and potential amendment to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters review currently included in the bill. I note that the minister has taken that view and agreed to continue consulting with the member on the review mechanisms in the lead-up to the Senate debate. Again, I wanted to put that on the record.

Further to the member for North Sydney, thank you for the genuine questions around administrative spending and the level of the caps. The legislation does make it clear on the definition of 'administrative expenditure'. The bill does not seek to make special exemptions. It does not seek to curtail political organisation or engagement. It seeks to make clear what campaign spending is—money used in the system to influence an outcome—and to restrict the use of that expenditure. Parties do have national caps but are restricted both by the total number and the divisional and Senate limits calculated to ensure that the $800,000 limit for an Independent member is sufficient should various parties also be contesting the seat.

I also want to note that, when it comes to the ability of the member for Curtin to join the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, it was the government who put that forward.

When it comes to the member for Warringah, who asked why we would spend money on strengthening our system, it is the government's view and the minister's view that defence of our electoral system is worth investment. It is worth investing in. Other proposals that the member for Warringah has put forward, like truth in advertising, also cost millions of dollars and will cost millions more over time. In fact, the member's own proposal when it comes to truth in advertising would itself cost upwards of $50 million. It doesn't mean that it's not a worthy policy consideration and that it's not worth debating.

The member for Wentworth raised the issue of nominated entities. I want to clarify this because I think it's important that we're very clear about how this legislation operates when it comes to nominated entities. As the member herself already knows and has been provided in writing, a nominated entity must be registered with the AEC and must be auditable by the AEC. An entity may only be nominated by one party, and only one party can nominate that entity. For all purposes, they are captured and aggregated with their nominating party. That means that any donations to that entity or spending by that entity is captured, auditable and listed against the party. There is no ability to get around the caps by the use of that entity. An entity can share resources with their nominating party, but they share each and every spending cap, therefore restricting any perceived benefit. The amendments circulated by the member for Curtin would remove that restriction and allow those entities to spend without restriction. Again, that's another reason the government does not support them.

In terms of some of the matters the member for Curtin raised, the government rejects the assertions and has made clear its position on the amendments suggested that remove campaign limits. It's not a clarification or a question from the member; it's a policy difference. There is a policy difference here. We believe that spending should be limited. The member for Curtin believes it should be unrestricted. They are two very different policy positions. The government is very clear in our belief that spending should be restricted. It is essential to make sure that we put power back in the hands of the Australian people. It is unsustainable to argue otherwise. If we accepted the member for Curtin's proposition, then those who are already wealthy would be unrestricted in their spending, again giving us an uneven playing field. The member for Curtin hypothecated about 5,000 donors giving $200 or $2,000 each, but that's not what's occurring. In her campaign at the last election, there were 10 individual donations ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 from one billionaire donor.

For these reasons, the government supports the bill in its existing form. For these reasons, the government does not accept the range of amendments that have been put forward today. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers on this bill, as it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.