26 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:27): I rise to speak in favour of the criminal law consolidation amendment bill. The Greens believe that all people have a right to live free from harassment, fear, violence and abuse. Prevention of and protection from gender-based violence should be a core priority for any society. This bill deals with the issue of strangulation, suffocation and choking. It comes after a review into the effectiveness of the offence of strangulation in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

Strangulation, choking or suffocation are often present in domestic violence situations, and it is acknowledged that they can be a precursor to homicide. Current laws rely on case law where it must be proved that there is a restriction on breath. I understand that submissions from the Law Society on this bill note that there have been difficulties prosecuting strangulation offences under the current provisions. This bill takes on current health advice that there is also a danger where blood flow to the brain is restricted.

We know that women experience all forms of family violence, intimate partner violence and sexual violence at a much higher rate than men. While these reforms are beneficial to create an offence for such forms of domestic violence, the Greens want to see increased funding for programs related to the prevention of intimate partner violence. We need to stop these acts before they occur, not just deal with the offences afterwards. It is really important that there is public education around these sorts of behaviours and work done to try to effect cultural change within our communities.

The Greens are supportive of this bill. We do welcome the action that the government is taking in relation to domestic violence, but we also call on the government to go further in terms of really addressing the root causes of this kind of criminality within our behaviour, stamping out in particular misogyny and gendered violence.

25 September 2024

That this council—

1. Recognises that e-petitions are accepted by the federal parliament and all state parliaments, except for South Australia;

2. Acknowledges that petitioning is one of the traditional forms by which citizens can make requests directly to parliament;

3. Recognises that e-petitions are easy to create, easy to share, and will help citizens bring issues directly to the attention of the Legislative Council; and

4. Calls on the matter of e-petitions to be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (22:30): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this motion on e-petitions. The love continues. The South Australian parliament currently only accepts hard copy petitions. The Greens have long believed that this is an outdated way of accepting petitions in our state. While some may argue that allowing for e-petitions may increase the number of petitions considered by the parliament, the Greens believe we should be encouraging maximum participation in our democracy.

We believe that transparent and fair mechanisms should be used to translate community views into changes in our policy and our law. If e-petitions are good enough for our federal parliament and other state parliaments, why are they not good enough for South Australia? We are sometimes in the Dark Ages in this place when it comes to engaging with the broader community, and the idea that a paper petition is the best way of engaging with our constituents I do think is old fashioned.

It makes sense that the Standing Orders Committee should look at how we can move into the 21^st century. I am a member of that committee and I am certainly keen to look at how we can bring South Australia into line with other jurisdictions to improve democratic processes and support newer technologies for engagement with our constituents.

Indeed, irrespective of the outcome of this motion I am happy to raise that matter at the committee level and see what can be done in terms of trying to modernise our standing orders and open up opportunities to bring the community more into our parliament.

25 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:17): I rise to speak against the Statutes Amendment (Sex Industry—Exit Strategies and Spent Convictions) Bill. In so doing, I draw on the longstanding policy of the Greens. We have always supported the decriminalisation of sex work. Indeed, on a personal level, I have always supported the decriminalisation of sex work, and I think it is high time South Australia joined other states in legislating in that regard.

I think it is relevant to this debate to look at the views of people who work in this industry, so I do want to take a few minutes to read the statement that has been provided to me by SIN, the Sex Industry Network. SIN is a peer-based organisation funded by SA Health to promote the health, rights and wellbeing of SA sex workers. Reading from their correspondence:

We are a member-based organisation and are best placed to deliver broad and consultative feedback on legislation affecting sex workers.

In June of 2024, the Honorable Nicola Centofanti, MLC, introduced a Bill to amend the Spent Convictions Act 2009 and the Summary Offenses Act 1953. The Bill seeks to do the following—

• Expunge certain sex work/sex industry related convictions under strict parameters.
  
  
• Apply for Ministerial assistance to leave the sex industry.
  
  
• Change the definition of sex work in current legislation.

While SIN, and the broader sex worker rights movement, support spent convictions and expedited assistance for sex workers, we have grave concerns regarding the following—

and I will read out some of their concerns for the benefit of Hansard—

• The parameters for accessing the spent convictions and amendments.
  
  
• In [the Hon. Nicola] Centofanti's bill an individual must 'demonstrate' they have been out of the sex industry for a minimum of 3 months; they must also 'demonstrate' an intention not to engage in sex work in the future. It is not clear how or what demonstration may involve. The inclusion of these caveats is stigmatising and discriminatory. The bill is effectively saying that the only cohort able to access spent convictions amendments are those who have renounced the sex industry and positioned themselves as victims. These amendments DO NOT recognise sex work as work and do not acknowledge the value inherent in spent convictions for sex workers broadly.
  
  
• The parameters for accessing Ministerial assistance.
  
  
• The bill requires the minister to be 'reasonably satisfied' that the applicant 'genuinely' wishes to leave the sex industry. Leaving the sex industry involves demonstrating an intention not to engage in sex work in the future. The nature of this demonstration is not clear, nor are the government's financial and administrative responsibilities and parameters regarding assistance.
  
  
• The barriers existing criminalisation laws cause.
  
  
• Under the current criminalised framework, many sex workers have no appetite to engage formal government support. The Ministerial assistance program proposed by [the Hon. Nicola] Centofanti's bill will require disclosure of sex worker status to a government body. This, coupled with a requirement to demonstrate a genuine desire to leave the sex industry, will cause many past and present sex workers to reject the strategy outright.

Finally, the correspondence notes:

• The title of the Bill and the language in the Bill.
  
  
• Language is powerful. Using the word 'Exit' is stigmatizing and derogatory. This is targeted language that we don't use for any other industry. We recommend removing any mention of exiting the sex industry and using alternative language instead.

I am inclined to agree that a lot of the language in this debate features quite paternalistic and patronising assumptions about people who work in sex work and assumptions about their life conditions and their personal circumstances. It continues:

SIN recommends opposing the Bill in its current form.

And I support their recommendation.

25 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:41): I rise very briefly to speak to this condolence motion. I want to begin by extending my condolences to Dr John Coulter's daughter, Kiersten, and his stepchildren, Graham, Debbie and Gwendolynne.

As has been observed today, Dr John Coulter was a strong advocate for our environment, and he fought for action on a range of issues, including nuclear power, nature protection, renewable energy and climate change. Prior to his career as a Senator, Dr Coulter worked at the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide as a research officer and a specialist pathologist and then as a lecturer in energy studies and then environmental studies. Dr Coulter was also heavily involved in a number of environmental organisations, not least the Conservation Council.

I remember seeing him at an election forum I spoke at back in 2022 with the then shadow environment minister and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Susan Close. It was clear even at that meeting that, despite his advanced age, Dr Coulter was still very passionate and very interested in environmental issues. Indeed, his significant legacy was acknowledged by the hosts of the event.

As has been observed, throughout the seventies and eighties Dr Coulter was an active critic of uranium mining and nuclear testing, and he campaigned against the proposed Redcliff plant and the Roxby Downs indenture act. He joined the Democrats in 1980. In 1987, he was elected as a Senator for South Australia, and he remained there for eight years. He also spent two years as Leader of the Australian Democrats.

In 1995, when he resigned, the casual vacancy in the Senate was filled by Natasha Stott Despoja, whom the Hon. Tammy Franks and I both had the opportunity to work with. Whilst I did not spend a great deal of time with Dr John Coulter, he was someone who I heard a lot about over the years. I think his contribution to environmental policy in particular has been acknowledged by many people right across the political spectrum.

I think he had one of those unique capacities in politics, that is, being someone who brought a significant level of technical expertise to the parliament and was able to use that to actually affect policy outcomes and change political discussions. That is a unique skill to have. He was certainly ahead of his time. In particular, as noted by the Hon. Tammy Franks, back in 1995 he called on the Keating government to introduce a carbon tax. That was 17 years before the Gillard government finally introduced one and we saw that debate in Australia, so he really was ahead of his time in calling for action on the environment in particular.

I commend the motion and pass on my condolences to his family and friends. He leaves behind a significant legacy and he is certainly a South Australian who has made a big contribution. Vale John Coulter.

24 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:51): I rise to speak in favour of this bill. The Greens believe that our laws need to ensure everybody can live a life where their human rights are respected and where they are safe from harm. We have a long-term commitment to championing the rights of the queer community in this state and we welcome this bill finally coming to this parliament.

This bill to ban conversion practices is the culmination of a long campaign by the LGBTI community. It is a campaign that has been nation wide. New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT have already banned these harmful practices. Queensland has banned them within healthcare environments, Western Australia and Tasmania have committed to reform, and it was a promise of the Malinauskas government that they would tackle this issue if elected. There is no secret about that. It was part of the Labor Party's election platform and they were elected to form government. So, much to the relief of many, they have acted upon that election commitment.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of some of my colleagues in this place over many years on this issue: The Hon. Tammy Franks, who has been a staunch ally and voice for LGBTI South Australians; the Hon. Ian Hunter, who has been a tireless warrior for LGBTI rights and a loud and consistent voice for our community; and the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who has long championed this reform and always supported the LGBTI community in this place. I also acknowledge members in the other place—the Hon. Nat Cook and the Hon. Susan Close—as well as the work of the Attorney-General, Kyam Maher, and his team in preparing this bill for us.

As is so often the case when it comes to LGBTI law reform in South Australia, it has taken cooperation from across the parliament and voices from all sides of politics to get movement on this. It is my hope that members of the Liberal opposition will seize this opportunity to continue our state's proud tradition of achieving LGBTI law reform in a multipartisan way and support this bill. I note the statements made by many on the opposition benches, but I do hope that more members will join the Hon. Michelle Lensink in coming on board and embracing this opportunity.

I also want to acknowledge the survivors of conversion practices, and I thank them for sharing their stories with us. I want to thank the groups that have amplified their voices and advocate for this change: Equality Australia, SARAA, the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts survivors, and the Brave Network, amongst many others.

As an out and proud gay man, one of only two in this parliament, I do want to take a little bit of time to reflect on the significance of this bill and what it means for the LGBTI community. Fundamental to conversion practices is a belief that there is something shameful about differences in human sexuality and gender identity. Indeed, being part of the LGBTI community is so shameful that you need to repress and alter your own identity.

Despite the far-right conspiracy theories about LGBTI people trying to recruit others to the cause, it is the virtues of heterosexuality that are being promoted actively by conversion practices. It is that world view that is being imposed on LGBTI people.

In moving to ban these practices in this state, this parliament will be sending a clear message to LGBTI South Australians that we do not need to change. That is a vital message for LGBTI people to hear. I know that many LGBTI young people in particular struggle with feelings of fear and shame and that is one of the reasons why conversion practices are so damaging because they feed into those feelings. They reinforce them by forcing young people to deny their true selves and so the consequences of those practices can be lifelong.

I should make it very clear that I never endured conversion practices as a young person, but I do remember how challenging it was grappling with those feelings of shame growing up and so I hate to imagine what it would have been like to have those fears and anxieties being reinforced under the guise of therapy.

I was about 12 when I first realised that I was gay, but for me the bullying started much earlier, well before I actually understood that I was a gay person. I think I would have been about eight or nine when I first started being called a 'poof' and a range of other things I will not repeat on Hansard. Most of the bullying for me centred around the way I walked and the way I talked. It continued on and off throughout my high school years. As a result, I really dreaded what it would be like to try to live a gay life and I certainly never imagined that I would have the opportunities that I have had in my life—the opportunity to stand for parliament, let alone have anybody actually vote for me.

Through the leadership of LGBTI activists who have come before, those opportunities did come for me and for other gay men of my generation. I do salute the work of people like the Hon. Ian Hunter and many others who have been carrying that fight for so many years. Indeed, today I have a happy and a healthy life. When I came out in my early 20s, I was fortunate enough to be supported by friends and family, but I know that everybody is not so lucky and that is why these conversion practices are so dangerous because they prey on young people in particular when they are going through such a challenging, vulnerable period in their lives.

When I gave my first speech in the federal parliament back in 2015, I remarked then that things really do get better and again I do want to use this opportunity to say to any young people who are struggling with their own journeys that this is still the case—things do get better. Stay brave, stay strong and know that things are continuing to change.

This bill is powerful not just because it stamps out conversion practices—and that is a very worthy aim—but because it strikes at the heart of the shame that has been part of the LGBTI experience for far too long.

One of the great things I have observed during my time in politics is the tremendous advances that we have seen in the rights of gay men. Marriage equality is an example of laws that have had a really transformative effect. Indeed, over the last few years since we have seen those amazing changes and the changes that have flowed in community attitude, I have had the courage to do things I never thought I would be able to do here in Adelaide—holding a partner's hand or kissing them on the street without fear of being bashed or verbally abused.

The experiences of younger gay men today are so different to my own experiences and those of other gay men in my generation and that is a truly wonderful thing to observe. It gives me hope that, just as we have seen some really amazing advances in our rights and freedoms, these opportunities will flow through to the rest of the LGBTI community.

Indeed, the big challenge for gay men like myself is to continue the fight for other members of our LGBTI community who need our help. We cannot leave our trans friends behind and today it seems that, like the gay men of the eighties and the nineties and the noughties, trans people are the new targets of right-wing ideologues and the right-wing culture warriors who seek to demonise difference and impose their world views on others. They are now targeting trans kids and I see this bill as being an important way of standing up for those young people.

I will make a few remarks about some of the statements that have been made in the debate. It does strike me as very odd that so many of those who profess to be liberal would seek to impose their morality on others and to exercise control over the personal lives of other people. Surely exercising that kind of control over others or trying to change them is the antithesis of liberalism.

I have also noticed there have been some bizarre falsehoods that have featured during this debate. I will not address all of them, but I think it is often the feature of LGBTI law reform, not only here in South Australia but across the country, that whenever there is an attempt to try to enhance the rights of LGBTI people we are told the sky will fall in. I remember, during the debate about marriage equality, that people suggested that people like the Hon. Mr Hunter and I would seek to marry our pets if marriage equality became part of our law.

I remember when I was on the Adelaide City Council and proposed a rainbow walk for Light Square that we had evidence to the council—a deputation was made from some opponents—that young children would throw themselves down the rainbow walk and into the traffic, and that this project was a safety hazard. These are the sorts of ridiculous claims so often made when we are trying to advance the rights of LGBTI people.

Today, we have heard that this bill will simultaneously do nothing whilst also being a threat to our way of life and undermining the role of the family unit. Opponents of this bill cannot have it both ways; you cannot walk both sides of the street. This bill is worthy of support because it continues to move us in the right direction.

It is important to note this is not just a matter that concerns the LGBTI community and that many other groups have opposed conversion practices. The Australian Medical Association has called for all state and territory governments to impose a ban. In a media release coinciding with the release of a position statement back in 2021, their president, Dr Omar Khorshid, said:

Conversion practices are a blatant example of the discrimination faced by LGBTIA+ people in Australia and have no place in our society.

The AMA noted the fact that conversion practices have no medical basis, and states:

There is strong agreement in the medical profession in Australia that conversion practices have no medical benefit or scientific basis, and that there is evidence of significant harms resulting from such practices.

I note the statement made in her contribution by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, where she said she had been contacted by a counsellor who said they would not practice should this ban on conversion practices be put in place. I think that is good news, because anybody who would seek to operate as a counsellor and deploy conversion practices should not be working in that field. That is one less troublesome person in that profession.

Some people might believe these arcane practices are a thing of the past. Sadly, these practices do still take place in South Australia. I have heard, as have other members in this place, from survivors who have shared their experiences with us, and I commend them for their bravery in talking about challenging and traumatic events.

Up to one in 10 LGBTI Australians remain vulnerable to conversion practices, with about 4 per cent of all Australians aged 14 to 21 having experienced some form of conversion practice. There is significant harm that comes with these practices, including acute distress, ongoing mental health issues, severe anxiety, depression, symptoms of chronic trauma and PTSD. Some organisations and communities disguise their attempts to suppress someone's sexuality or gender identity as counselling or care. Often these activities are not undertaken by anybody with any formal training in counselling, and they can cause irrevocable harm to people who are convinced or forced to go through such a process.

Sometimes these things are labelled therapy, but therapeutic attempts to alter sexual orientation and gender identity have been discredited by the psychological community for years. In 2015 a report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights included conversion therapy in its list of practices that are categorised as torture and ill treatment. Many conversion programs have claimed they only exist to help those who express a desire to change. However, survivors have reported they were coerced by parents or community figures as a result of the ideologies within their religious beliefs.

Many survivors have expressed they were driven by fear of rejection from their family and their community, and therefore they were considered willing, when in fact it was much more complex than that. As I have detailed earlier, so many LGBTI young people confront the circumstances that I faced, where they desperately want to change because they fear what the future might hold. I think it is morally wrong for people to prey on young people in those circumstances.

Any activity that seeks to suppress a person's sexual orientation or gender identity is based on the false premise that queer people are broken and need to be fixed. These practices are steeped in bigotry and discrimination. Rather than recognising and supporting someone in an affirming way, they deny someone the understanding of their true identity.

As stated by my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Greens firmly believe conversion practices must be banned. We also want to ensure that the government is going to provide services and support to survivors. It is important that we do not just have a legislative approach but that we also provide ongoing support for these people.

My colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks has been engaging with stakeholders and has prepared a series of amendments to improve the bill. She has outlined the basis of these within her second reading speech. Additionally, I will move one amendment, should the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment not be successful, which will extend the reporting period to six years, and I will speak a little bit more about that in the committee stage.

I do understand that some members of the LGBTI community will look at this bill and say that it does not go far enough. I understand that. The Greens hear you and that is why we are advancing these amendments, but if these amendments fail we will of course be voting in favour of this bill. While the bill is not perfect, it represents another important milestone in the journey for LGBTI rights in our state, and of course the fight continues. Those who seek to change LGBTI people or to bully us into denying our identities must know this: we are here, we are queer, we are going to keep up the fight; out of the closet, into the streets and into the parliament.

12 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:42): I rise today to indicate that the Greens are not supportive of this bill. Colloquially known as 'post and boast', this bill aims to address the issue of offenders posting videos of crimes on social media. The bill creates a presumption against bail for people aged 14 to 18 who post and then boast about their crimes. It also aggravates an offence where the offender publishes material relating to that matter.

Whilst I do understand the point that the Hon. Frank Pangallo is raising through this legislation—and I do have some concerns around offenders engaging in criminal acts and not demonstrating appropriate contrition; indeed, posting or bragging about your crimes on social media does not point to contrition—the Greens are concerned that this bill is misdirected in its approach. Young people in particular could be targeted through these laws, and we know that young people do not respond well to punitive policies.

What is needed are more wraparound services, more effective diversionary programs. I have spoken in this chamber about some of those alternatives in the context of the debate around the age of criminal responsibility. There are other ways to address this issue. It would make more sense to allow courts to consider the publishing of material in sentencing and to provide more early intervention programs to prevent this kind of offending occurring in the first place.

Rather than managing the behaviour after the event, we should always be looking at the systemic causes of offending and trying to drive that down, looking at the causes of crime and how we might appropriately manage that. I think it is instructive, when considering this bill, to take into account the views of the Law Society. They have written a comprehensive submission on this proposal, and it is clear they are not supportive of the bill. I will quote from a few elements of their submission.

The society provides [these] views, informed by Members of its Criminal Law Committee, emphasising the development of an appropriate legislative response to 'posting and boasting' is a task which must be undertaken carefully. The Society is particular concerned that the amendments to the Bail Act, their disproportionate impact on young people, and their incompatibility with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Their submission outlines concerns regarding the application of the bill, the presumption against bail, and the potential disproportionate impact that this could have on young people. Indeed, members are aware of my views around that. The Law Society note in their submission:

…concern with such a reform coinciding with the State Government's considerations to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years of age and alternative division models for those under the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The Society notes in-principle support for that proposal, and we would consider Parliament's support of a Bill in the terms proposed to be a retrograde step in attempting to achieve that reform.

That is a pretty clear message from the Law Society that now is not the time to be undertaking this kind of reform whilst parliament is still forming a position on the age of criminal responsibility. I take on board the comments made by the Attorney-General where he indicated that this is still an issue on which the Labor government is to form a position, but we do not want to put the cart before the horse by legislating in an area where there is still some consideration around the options.

I make no criticism of the Hon. Frank Pangallo in putting this forward. I know he is someone who is very interested in criminal justice reform, but in this instance the Greens have a slightly different view. I understand the opposition have amendments to this bill to remove the presumption against bail. We are supportive of those amendments. One of the big issues that we have been concerned about in this legislation is the inclusion of a presumption against bail. I do not agree with that principle.

As stated previously, in summing-up it is vital that we look at the systemic causes of offending rather than jailing people after the fact. That is particularly true when we are looking at offences committed by young people. I urge the government to focus their attention on diversion models, things that will actually reduce offending, prevent young people from interacting with our criminal justice system and make our community safer as a result.

12 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:41): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of young people and the law.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On Sunday, the Premier released a report that outlined a legislative option for banning children under the age of 14 from accessing social media. The Premier has publicly stated his desire to legislate in this area on the basis that social media causes harm to children. Meanwhile, over 130 Australian organisations have joined a coalition calling for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised to 14 due to the harm caused by exposure to the criminal justice system.

Evidence from brain development experts shows that criminalising the actions of children can cause long-term harm. Children who are arrested by police, sent to court or locked away are more likely to develop mental illness, to disengage from school, to become homeless or even to die prematurely. My question to the Attorney-General is: why does the government believe that at 10 in South Australia you are too young to go on Instagram but you are old enough to be held criminally responsible and detained in adult facilities?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly, there are a whole range of areas where we think—and for many decades parliaments have recognised—harm can be caused to children. We don't allow children to enter casinos, for example for very, very good reasons.

I am very proud of the policy that this Labor government has taken in relation to what is an area that has developed very, very rapidly: the area of social media and its interaction on developing brains. Having had three young kids who are now all teenagers and seeing how their interactions are so vastly different from what I encountered decades ago at that same age, I think it is extraordinarily difficult being a young person today with the pressures and just how quickly those pressures are applied with the advent of social media.

This government commissioned former Chief Justice Robert French to provide some guidance into how we might look at legislating in relation to this area. I was fortunate to be able to spend some time at the end of last week meeting with the Premier and Justice French and have had a very close examination, now that it has been publicly released, of I think the approximately 274-page report which sets out some draft legislative framework in relation to how you might implement a policy of banning social media for children under 14 and only with parental consent up to the age of 16.

I am even more pleased that, on the back of the work that South Australia has done in this area, the federal government has announced they will take this up and use the work that we have done to inform them when looking at a nationwide ban. I think the Premier said at the time on Sunday that it would be preferable to have a nationwide ban, but if that didn't occur South Australia would look at going it alone.

In relation to the other part of the honourable member's question, the minimum age of criminal responsibility, I understand and appreciate and congratulate the honourable member for his very significant advocacy in this area. I have informed the chamber before when he has asked, which I suspect was probably last sitting week, that we continue work on this in South Australia and certainly it is a question I have been asked over the last week as we have developed our policy on social media.

I am happy to repeat again that the overriding consideration this government is taking into account when it is assessing feedback from the discussion paper that we have previously released is the interests of community safety: what will make the community safer. I acknowledge that there are arguments about not locking kids up in a custodial setting and rather looking at therapeutic or family intervention models that can have the effect of making it less likely for that very young child, a 10 or 11 year old, to end up being a teenager of 16 or 17 who offends and then a young adult who offends.

We are continuing the work as a government to look at, if we did make the change, what would come in its place because, as I have said before, the thing you would last want to do is just change a number in a bit of legislation from 10 to 14 without having everything else that is needed in relation to that.

One of the other complexities we are working through is not just what takes the place of criminal justice intervention and detention in detention facilities but what role the police play. How do you ensure someone is removed from a situation for their own safety as well as the community's safety? It is important that there are still those powers of immediate intervention for the police to ensure not just community safety but individual safety and that work continues.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:46): Supplementary: when will the Attorney-General bring legislation to this chamber to raise the age of criminal responsibility? What is the timeframe?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:46): I thank the honourable member for his supplementary question. I want to be very clear: this is not a question of when, it is a question of if. As I have outlined, we do not have a policy in relation to raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What we do have is an interest in assessing what the options would be and what would tend to make the community safer.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (14:47): Supplementary: when does the Attorney expect that assessment will be completed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:47): I think I have said this before: we do not have a definitive date. I have mentioned that a couple of the elements of it are a very complex area of work, and we continue to work in the area.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:47): Supplementary referring to the original answer: as part of the government assessing their position on this, will they commit to releasing the submissions that have been made to their discussion paper so that the community and members of parliament can help inform their views?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:47): I thank the honourable member and I think he asked this as a substantive question in weeks gone by. We will continue to assess those. It is not routine practice that submissions are released. In fact, it is not infrequent that submissions are made to discussion papers the government releases where there is an expectation that, because of the nature of what people are submitting, privacy will be respected.

11 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:24): I thank the honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Tung Ngo. I thank the opposition and the Hon. Ms Game for their support of this bill. I do want to express my empathy with the position that the Hon. Tung Ngo is in. He is often wheeled out to sell the unsellable, and I feel sorry for him because, really, no amount of government advertising can make that position look good. It is pretty shameless. They really have more front than John Martin's to undertake this Olympic-style backflip.

Let us not forget that when the Labor Party were in opposition they were very happy to impose these rules on the then Marshall government. Indeed, in the upper house, I moved a private member's bill, or an amendment to a government bill at the time, which the Labor Party was enthusiastically supportive of. In the other place, they advanced a private member's bill. Now they are in government, they have an opportunity to actually put their money where their mouth is, and what do they do? They squib at the opportunity.

I cannot understand why that would be. What would lead to that about-face? When they were in opposition, they were very vocal on this. Why would they change their position now, I ask you? It is really an embarrassing about-face and very disappointing because this bill actually draws on ideas that have been proposed by both sides of politics, as the Hon. Ben Hood noted in his remarks. The bill draws on a proposal from the then minister, the Hon. Vickie Chapman. It also draws on the very sensible ideas of the Hon. Stephen Mullighan. It puts them all together, and it also introduces a few new elements that had been proposed by the Grattan Institute. So I am very disappointed that the Labor Party have adopted such an inconsistent approach on this.

The Hon. Ben Hood raised a question of clarification. To save time in the committee stage, assuming that this bill passes this stage, I might respond to a few of those points now. The honourable member raised a question about what would happen for a member of parliament who was inadvertently captured in advertising. There is a provision in the bill that makes it clear that it is not a breach if the photo or the use of their image occurred while they were not an MP or if they could not reasonably have known that they were going to be in the advertising.

For instance, if you had a scenario where a member of parliament was a community advocate or whatever, they were featured in some government advertising or stock photos and they did not know that they were going to be used in an upcoming campaign, then there would not be consequences that would flow to that member. I think the other question that was asked was around the $10,000 limit. Under the proposal, any proposal from a government department to expend more than $10,000 in the lead-up to an election would need to be approved by the Auditor-General.

I understand the opposition was interested in how the $10,000 figure was arrived at. It was the figure that was in the Labor Party's original proposal and, indeed, the one that I advanced back in 2021, I believe it was. The reason that quantum was arrived at, from my perspective, and why I continue to use that quantum, is that there was consistency with the proposal previously advanced by the then Labor opposition, but also it does set a very low threshold, which I think is appropriate, only in the lead-up to the election when we want to ensure that, if lines between government advertising and political party advertising are potentially blurred, there is a high level of scrutiny. That is what the bill proposes, but only in that lead-up period.

If this bill passes the upper house it would send a very clear message to the Malinauskas government that they need to lift their game in this regard. I think it puts them on notice that this chamber is watching what they are doing with government advertising and watching what they are doing in terms of spending government money on promoting themselves and on backslapping exercises, and that it really urges them to adopt a better standard.

The Hon. Mr Ngo says that the government is already doing it. Well, if they are already doing it, why would they not support enshrining these principles in legislation? The reality is that they know they are not meeting the expectations of the people of South Australia in this regard. I commend the bill.

10 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:05): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of conflicts of interest.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In 2022, the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, ordered a review of the current Ministerial Code of Conduct, which was expected to be published last year. The outgoing ICAC commissioner, the Hon. Ann Vanstone KC, has noted that two years later the review is yet to be completed. In her paper released this month, the commissioner states that, and I quote from the report:

It is essential that South Australia has a clear and effective framework for identifying and managing ministerial conflicts of interest.

My question, therefore, to the minister is: when will the public see the outcome of the review of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, and what is the Malinauskas government doing to improve transparency in managing conflict of interest amongst its ministers?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for his question. I will be happy to seek an update. I think the piece of work was being led by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. I have had a look through the report. I think it was only on Monday that I saw the report that the honourable member is referring to.

I note that in that report, if my memory serves me correctly, the former commissioner noted that her views had changed over, I think, even the time in her role about the really complex question of how you define that conflict and perceived conflict of interest. I am certain that this will provide help and guidance in formulating any changed procedures within government.

29 August 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:51): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of conversion practices.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: After the 2021 Census, the Australian Bureau of Statistics issued a statement of regret for failing to ask meaningful questions to properly count members of the LGBTI community. The Albanese government this week announced that they will not be making any changes to the 2026 Census to ask about gender, sexual orientation or variations in sex characteristics. According to Equality Australia:

The federal government has betrayed LGBTQI+ people around Australia who will again be rendered invisible in 2026 because the census won't ask appropriate questions about who they are and how they live.

This fortnight, federal Labor have also broken their promise to deal with discrimination in religious schools by deferring the issue once again to another session of parliament.

At the 2022 state election in South Australia, the Labor Party promised that, if elected, it would make sure conversion practices do not occur in this state. In June 2022, after the Malinauskas government was elected, the Attorney-General told the Sunday Mail:

Labor remains committed to ensuring this practice does not occur in South Australia and is working to deliver on another election promise.

My questions therefore to the Attorney-General are:

1. Given federal Labor has broken its promises to the LGBTI community, is the Malinauskas government's lack of action on conversion practices just another broken Labor promise?

2. When will the LGBTI community see action on this issue?

3. Will the Attorney-General follow this up with the Premier's Delivery Unit to make sure this reform is delivered during this term of parliament?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for his question and his very strong advocacy in this area that has spanned all levels of government in Australia. I have previously informed parliament, and I can inform again, that this is an area, in terms of conversion practices, that spans a number of portfolio areas. I can assure the honourable member that work continues on this and I am more than happy that when there is something further to add I will inform the honourable member about the status of what this government is doing in relation to conversion practices.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:54): Supplementary: when will we see legislation, and will the Attorney-General give a commitment that this will be done during this term of parliament? It's an election promise.

The PRESIDENT: Do you want to answer it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:54): As I have said, I will be more than happy at some stage, when there has been further consideration, to update the honourable member.