1 May 2025
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:30): I rise to speak on the Summary Offences (Prohibition of Publication of Certain Material) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Greens. We know that this bill is the government's response to a bill brought to this place by yourself, Mr Acting President, known as 'post and boast' laws. The Greens indicated that we would not be supportive of that bill at that time, and indeed, Mr Acting President, I think I have had a few conversations with you about why we were not supportive of the bill.
Both bills aim to address the issue of people who post videos of crimes on their social media. The Greens believe that the bill that was presented to parliament last year could have some unintended consequences. At that time, I warned the parliament about the risks associated with punitive laws that were targeting young people and the need for young people to have access to services and diversionary programs.
I note that the government has been doing a consultation paper around diversion programs and raising the age of criminal responsibility but seems to have lost their nerve in terms of taking any action on that reform. I think that is very poor, very weak. The Greens will continue to advocate for the government to show some backbone, to stand up against the stupid populist law and order campaigning of the opposition, which is devoid of fact and which actually, by the Attorney-General's own admission, fails to recognise the fact that youth crime is going down in South Australia.
Anyway, I am concerned that this bill will actually compound some of the already punitive policies that we are seeing in South Australia that target young people. We believe that the court should consider the publishing of material as part of the sentencing process and that more early intervention programs should be established to prevent young people in particular from offending in the first place.
The bill the government has brought to us has raised even more concerns than the bill that was put forward by yourself, Mr Acting President. The proposed legislation will capture a number of circumstances that could have wide-reaching implications for our democracy. For example, I understand that this bill captures direct messaging. Imagine a situation where a young person witnesses a crime and sends a picture of it to their friend in a private message, perhaps with a fire emoji or the like, with a description.
The bill creates an offence where someone publishes the material with the intention of encouraging or promoting the conduct. It is difficult for a young person, often, to draw the line. Would the use of an emoji in that context represent glorifying criminal conduct? How will they know whether the fire emoji could be considered promotion? How will they understand whether or not they have committed an offence?
Indeed, the Malinauskas government has argued that if you are under 16 you are not old enough to even be on social media or to understand the risks associated with social media, so how can they apply this offence to that group? Such an example, of course, I should say is probably not the kind of conduct that the government is seeking to target. The problem, of course, is the broad and wide-ranging nature of the laws that the government is proposing for parliament's support.
The definition of 'published' in the bill includes sharing material via the internet. Again, this is very broad and we believe that there is a huge difference between sharing a message with a friend and publishing something on a public Instagram profile. I indicate here that the Greens will move an amendment to remove direct messaging so that it is not captured by the bill.
Another element that is potentially captured here but we believe should not be is the promotion of protest actions. We know, of course, that the Malinauskas government has form when it comes to trying to curtail the right to protest here in our state. Back in 2023, the Malinauskas government launched an extraordinary attack on the right to protest by introducing draconian anti-protest laws. Indeed, all of us on the crossbench did what we could to try to resist those draconian laws. Indeed, you, Mr Acting President, I think delivered a very interesting speech, which went for five hours or more, covering a wide range of topics, including Meghan Markle and a range of other matters that were of great interest to myself and other members.
We are concerned that this bill is once again part of the government's broader approach to crack down on protest here in our parliament. We know the bill has significant implications for someone who is engaging in protest action. We know that some of the most important changes that have taken place in history have been as a result of civil disobedience. Take the suffragette movement. We have a piece of history here in the grille that Muriel Matters chained herself to. As a result of that movement, of course, we have a more inclusive parliament and more representation in our democracy. But if Muriel Matters had Instagram, would we criticise her for sharing the image of her chained to a grille? That would offend these laws.
The new penalties for the offence of obstruction that passed here two years ago have the potential to impact protest actions that are aimed at social change, but this bill introduces a compounding offence, saying you cannot even share images of those engaging with these protest actions on social media. Of course, we are not just talking about Extinction Rebellion protesters who might well obstruct traffic to make a point. There is a range of other protest actions that could be captured by this legislation, and that is why the Greens will be moving to amend the bill to ensure that there are protections for people who are caught up in the Malinauskas government's anti-protest laws, by expressly carving out political communication and lawful assembly.
I urge members to consider that amendment in conjunction with amendment No. 3 [Simms-1]. This is where we provide guidance to ensure that our exemption does not apply to conduct that is designed to incite violence or hate speech against groups that are protected under the Racial Vilification Act or the Equal Opportunity Act. We note expressly through our amendment that, without limiting the grounds on which a court may find material was not published for a legitimate public purpose, material published for the purpose of political communication will not be published for a legitimate public purpose if the material was also published for the purpose of inciting violence or for promoting any form of unlawful vilification or discrimination.
My amendment makes clear what we are contemplating here—for example, racial vilification under the Racial Vilification Act 1996 or any form of discrimination that is unlawful under the Equal Opportunity Act. For instance, my amendment would not provide an exemption for people who choose to broadcast Nazi propaganda or Nazi protest actions.
We will also move an amendment to ensure this legislation does not apply to anyone under the age of 16. The Malinauskas government claims that people under the age of 16 should not be allowed on social media, as I indicated earlier, yet it is creating an offence for them to share material on social media sites. It is inconsistent, so our amendment will clear that up.
I would also like to highlight that this bill includes a provision that captures posting about offences in other jurisdictions. I think it is important to note that surely if an offence is not an offence in the state of South Australia, a reasonable person cannot be expected to know the offences of other jurisdictions when they are posting a photo or sharing a video or content from something that may have occurred in another jurisdiction.
So we have serious concerns with the wide ranging nature of the bill. We do believe that our amendments ameliorate the risk somewhat and we encourage members to support those amendments and we reserve our right to make a decision on the bill at the third reading.
I should say, of course, that the Greens do not support people promoting criminality. Of course, that is an issue that is a concern for all members of the community. However, we are really concerned about the disproportionate effect this will have on young people, the disproportionate chilling effect this could have on protest actions in our state and the unintended consequences these laws might well have because they are so broad in their remit.