6 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:14): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of youth offenders.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In parliament on Tuesday this week, the Attorney-General advised that, and I quote:

...comfort should be taken that in 2022-23...South Australia's rate of youth offending was the second lowest in the nation, only behind the Australian Capital Territory.

The government's document, titled the Young Offender Plan, states that over the 'last 10 years, there has been a significant and continuing decrease in the youth offender rate in South Australia'. This morning, the Attorney-General announced a suite of new policies to tackle the so-called youth crime crisis. My questions to the Attorney-General therefore are:

1. Given the statistics that he provided in parliament just this week, what is the basis for this new policy?

2. How will more young people being detained in custody reduce repeat offending?

3. Isn't this just another case of the government capitulating to the populist law and order nonsense being pedaled by the opposition?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:15): I thank the honourable member for his question. I will agree with one part of it: nonsense pedaled by the opposition is something I think most of us in this chamber can get behind as a statement of fact and truth.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Hunter!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, sir, I am being interjected on by the opposition. All I heard the opposition say is, 'Youth crime is a joke.' We certainly don't treat it that way. That is not our view of the world.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Point of order: he needs to retract that. He completely misquoted. I was saying that you were joking about youth crime, not me.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order and the minister won't respond to them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate the honourable member's question. It relates to incidents of youth crime and announcements we have made today about young offenders. It is true, as the honourable member has stated, that in the official, nationally consistent figures, South Australia has a relatively low rate of youth offending. In the 2022-23 reported year, we were the second lowest in the nation, only after the ACT.

I am pleased to report there are new figures released just today from the Australia Bureau of Statistics, and once again South Australia has the second lowest rate of youth offending in the nation after the ACT. In fact, we have seen a slight decrease, I believe, a decrease in the drop in relation to young offenders recorded by the police in South Australia.

However, we do know, and the police commissioner has made public comments, that there is a small group of offenders committing many and serious crimes. I think one of the statistics is that 20 young people were responsible for 11 per cent of matters heard by the Youth Court. So a small group of young offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large amount of offending. Whilst it is true we have a relatively low offending rate in South Australia, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to do everything we can as a government to keep the community safe.

The announcements we have made today are very specifically targeted at that relatively small cohort who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of that offending, looking at ways to disrupt some of the circumstances that young people find themselves in, particularly with street youth gangs, but also, and critically importantly, looking at programs particularly for that cohort, that small number of youth who are responsible for such a large amount of the offending.

Part of the announcement today that I am sure the Hon. Robert Simms will appreciate is the announcement of an extra $3 million of new money for intervention and rehabilitation programs for that, particularly aimed at that small cohort of young offenders. We do not wish to see some of these young offenders ending up being older youth committing crimes and then being adults committing crimes. We want to try to intervene as early as we can when some of these people come in contact with the criminal justice system, and that's exactly what this plan is aimed at: reducing offending and community safety.

5 March 2025

CANTEST HEALTH AND DRUG CHECKING SERVICE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.A. Simms:

That this council—

1. Notes that CanTEST Health and Drug Checking Service:

(a) is Australia's first fixed-site health and drug checking service, launched by the Australian Capital Territory government as a six-month pilot on 21 July 2022, and has been extended for another six months;

(b) provides a confidential pill-testing service that analyses contents of drugs to help service users better understand the unknown and potentially dangerous substances in illicit drugs; and

(c) provides appropriate information, counselling and advice to service users based on their specific test result, to encourage choices that reduce overall drug use and the harms associated with taking illicit drugs.

2. Recognises that drug checking is a harm reduction service that leads to most users of the service opting to discard tainted drugs.

3. Calls on the Malinauskas government to establish the fixed-site health and drug checking service in South Australia.

(Continued from 22 February 2023)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:10): I thank members for their contribution: the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Tung Ngo for what was a very brief contribution. He was not kidding when he said it was going to be brief.

The PRESIDENT: Hear, hear!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It was briefer than I had possibly imagined it could be.

The PRESIDENT: A marvellous contribution.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Might I say, I am disappointed to see the two major political parties in this place failing to adopt a position in favour of drug and pill testing. South Australia is at odds with almost every other jurisdiction in our country now. The ACT has pill testing available. New South Wales is trialling pill testing at the moment. Victoria is trialling pill testing. Even the conservative government in Queensland is trialling pill testing. Why not South Australia? Why are we not going down this path? I think it is very disappointing that the two major parties are avoiding taking a position on such an important issue.

The fixed-site drug-checking facility I had the opportunity to visit in the ACT when it first opened up is a really impressive facility and I encourage members of this place to check it out when they are in Canberra and have a look at the incredible service that is being provided. This is not about being soft on drugs; this is about saving lives.

I know from discussions that I have had with many parents who have children who are in their teenage years in particular that this is something they welcome because it gives people information about potentially dangerous substances and encourages them to make safe choices. It is also important to note—and this was confirmed to me when I spoke to the health workers in the ACT—that no drug-testing facility encourages people to take drugs, and all drug-testing facilities make it very clear to the people who use those facilities that taking illicit substances is always dangerous, it is always risky.

The whole purpose of the exercise is to mitigate risk and to save lives. It is certainly clear from what has unfolded, particularly interstate in Victoria, where young people have suffered long-term adverse health consequences, that we should be doing everything we can to provide our young people in particular with the information they need to make smart choices. I encourage the two major political parties in this place to show some leadership on this issue and to listen to the health advice. This is backed by the AMA and a range of other organisations. This is not a radical Greens idea; it is mainstream and it is time for the two major parties to get with the program.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 2

Noes 13

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

Motion thus negatived.

5 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:27): I rise to speak very briefly on the Summary Offences (Terrorist Organisation Symbols) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Greens. The Greens believe that everybody—all South Australians—should live without fear of racial violence, abuse or discrimination. Symbols have been used throughout history by movements to discriminate against different ethnicities, identities or religious beliefs.

We support the restriction on symbols used to instil hate. Meaningful democratic practice requires perspectives from a diverse range of groups, but we must also ensure that we are protecting people, especially minority groups, from harassment. This bill contemplates the types of symbols that should be prohibited. We do, however, have some concerns with the scope of the legislation that I would like to put on the record.

I note the advice that the government has provided today around some of the complexities and, in particular, the potential crossover with the Commonwealth Constitution. We certainly look forward to the government addressing those issues when the bill progresses through the houses. We also have concerns about the wording of the bill, which prohibits symbols that, and to quote from the bill, 'so nearly resemble a prescribed symbol that it could be mistaken as such'. This could be considered quite a wideranging prohibition, and there is the potential for some unintended consequences. We certainly would not want to see this capture symbols where there is no intention to replicate a dangerous symbol.

Legislating these types of prohibitions is complex, and there are obvious implications for other jurisdictions and, in particular, our constitution. We consider the government being best placed to obtain the necessary legal advice, and so it is our intention today to not oppose the bill but to allow the government to work through these issues between the houses.

4 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:31): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill 2024 on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we are not supportive of this bill. This bill is problematic, to say the least, and the Greens will be moving several amendments in an effort to try to fix what is a deeply flawed legislative approach. Indeed, I would argue that this is an example of populist politics at its worst, devoid of any evidence and, in effect, a policy-free-zone approach to what is a complex area.

Of course, the Greens support everybody's right to feel safe at work; this is vitally important. But the problem is that this bill does not actually achieve its purported aim; that is, of improving the safety of frontline workers. Indeed, if anything, this bill will actually create more anxiety among frontline workers.

The proposed reforms would compel offenders to undergo compulsory blood testing if an emergency worker has had any form of contact with biological material. Biological material is not defined by the bill and can be taken to mean anything, including saliva, faeces, urine, blood or semen. The bill's definition of emergency workers includes lifesavers, youth justice workers and health workers.

We recognise that this was an election promise made by the Labor Party, but this should not, in and of itself, be a reason to deliver a deeply flawed bill. This bill is not based on health advice or based on the science. Even worse, the bill will lead to an increased stigma for people who live with HIV AIDS and hepatitis.

Under the existing Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Act 2015, senior police officers can already require a person to provide blood; however, there is a risk matrix applied to determine whether or not such an approach is necessary in the circumstances. This is a sensible approach, as we know, of course, that not all contact with biological material has any risk of transmission of a disease.

I was intrigued to hear the Hon. Heidi Girolamo say that there is a high risk of transmission of disease from saliva. This is certainly not the case. Indeed, a 2018 study reviewed over 30 years of scientific evidence and found that there is no risk of transmission of HIV through saliva, and the risk through biting is considered negligible at best.

At that time, there were no published cases of transmission of HIV by saliva, and the only cases where there had been any transmission was by biting and when the perpetrator had blood in their mouth at the time of the incident. We know after 40 years of HIV research that HIV is not transmitted by saliva and that contact with saliva does not create any risk or threat to an emergency worker.

I am deeply concerned about the potential for this bill to stigmatise people who are living with HIV and AIDS and to feed into those old fears that people had around transmission of this virus. The deeply flawed views were that HIV could be transmitted through saliva and that it was dangerous to kiss someone with HIV. It has taken decades and decades to move away from these falsehoods, and sadly the Labor Party, through this deeply flawed bill, are fanning the flames of prejudice once again. I really urge them to consider what they are doing here. I think this is a deeply dangerous and unhelpful approach that they are taking.

To implement public policy that suggests that there is some level of risk associated with saliva in this way has the potential to significantly increase misunderstanding about the risk of transmission in the community. We know that such misunderstanding leads to an increasing stigma for people living with HIV, many of whom have a viral load that is not detectable, due to modern medications.

What message do we send to our emergency workers if we tell them that the offender must be tested where there has been contact with biological material that cannot even transmit HIV? That emergency worker then has to live with the stress of worrying about whether they have contracted HIV when it is not even possible. Those emergency workers would not even be able to access post-exposure prophylaxis or PEP, and this is one of the elements that is really ridiculous about the legislative approach that the government is taking here.

Even if an emergency worker was spat on by somebody who tested positive to the HIV virus, under existing health protocols they would not be eligible to access PEP because there is no risk associated with saliva. What does the impacted worker do in that circumstance? They are going to have potentially three months of worry, because we know that it takes three months before you can potentially test positive to HIV should you have been exposed to the virus—three months of worry, when there is not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that they are at risk.

Health practitioners are required to consider the risk of prescribing PEP when they make this available. It is my understanding that neither a human bite nor saliva contact would make any worker eligible to access the medication. Regardless of all these issues, mandatory testing is also unnecessary. It is important that we note the statistics in terms of HIV, in particular within our community. In Australia, less than 0.01 per cent of the population is now living with HIV. That is approximately 29,000 people across the entire country. Of those 29,000, 95 per cent are now taking antiviral medication, which renders the virus untransmissible.

For those who are not great at doing the maths on the fly, that leaves potentially 1,450 people in the whole country who are likely at risk of transmission. The risk is so low, so if the government has any health advice that supports this bill I urge them to make it public, because I cannot understand how such an approach can be justified on the evidence.

The Greens have a long record of advocating for a science and evidence-based approach. In 2015, when a similar act was debated in this place, the Hon. Mark Parnell, my predecessor, stated, on behalf of the Greens, that he was concerned about invasive procedures such as blood testing, and there was a need for them to be limited to occasions where they are strictly necessary. I share that view. He also spoke about how neither HIV nor hepatitis can be transmitted by saliva—and, again, we restate that position today. The facts have not changed.

The Greens have continued to advocate for an evidence-based approach to this issue, and in 2016 you, Acting President, asked a question in this place about whether an evidenced-based approach was being used when requiring blood tests of offenders and how police were ensuring that any legislation was not adding to the stigma for people living with bloodborne viruses where the only contact was with saliva—a pertinent question to ask.

The then Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, now our Premier, responded to the question but did not address the fact that there is no risk associated with exposure to saliva with these bloodborne viruses. When a similar bill was considered in New South Wales, the Greens also highlighted their concerns.

Since this bill was first proposed some time ago, my office has been contacted by a number of stakeholder groups that have expressed their concerns about this approach. The South Australian Rainbow Advocacy Alliance (SARAA), for instance, is concerned that the bill has unintended consequences and that mandatory testing will further stigmatise people living with bloodborne viruses, including people with HIV. They additionally note that mandatory testing is not effective, nor an evidence-based approach to public health. SARAA has stated:

We recognise that policies to mandate blood testing for those who spit at or bite frontline emergency services workers are intended to protect emergency services workers from communicable diseases.

While SARAA supports keeping emergency workers safe, we're deeply concerned about the potential unintended consequences of such policies to further stigmatise vulnerable South Australians living with blood-borne viruses (BBVs) including people with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).

Given medical experts have firmly stated that mandatory testing for [blood-borne viruses] is not an effective or evidence-based approach to public health, SARAA is concerned that the risk of harm caused by this policy deeply outweighs the potential benefits.

The National Association of People with HIV Australia (NAPWHA) and Health Equity Matters have also come out against this bill and flagged the potential adverse consequences that could flow for people living with HIV but also for our health system more broadly. We should note that the Labor Party have made much of the fact that it was an election commitment. Well, their other election commitment was to end ramping, and we know how that has ended up. I do wonder how this mandatory blood testing approach could potentially contribute to the ramping crisis by further overburdening our health system.

In their briefings on this bill, the two organisations (that is, the National Association of People with HIV and Health Equity Matters) stated:

The Bill continues South Australia's flawed approach to Mandatory Disease Testing Laws.

The Bill proposes changes that will produce a dramatic increase in the number of Mandatory Disease Tests (MDT) that will take place in South Australia and the situations in which they will occur. MDT laws are already unnecessary, anti-scientific and, due to a lack of appropriate oversight and accountability, ripe for misuse.

By proposing to devolve decision making about when to test to non medical decision makers at the lowest levels of workplace hierarchies and by removing the discretion of Senior Police Officers not to order a test when one is not needed, the Bill proposes to exacerbate this situation. Tests will be ordered based on stigma and not on evidence based science. This puts emergency services workers at risk as well as the communities they serve and will exacerbate existing pressure on health services in South Australia.

I agree. Indeed, NAPWHA and Health Equity Matters have provided a submission that argues against this bill and have raised concerns about a number of the clauses. I will be raising some of these concerns with the Attorney at the committee stage.

While the Greens are not in favour of this bill, we will be moving several amendments in an effort to try to improve the legislation somewhat. We will seek to change the definition of 'biological material' to remove saliva, as the diseases that this bill purports to capture cannot be transmitted by saliva. Our amendments aim to ensure that the biological material of the offender must come into contact with the blood of the emergency worker before a test is ordered. Mere contact with unbroken skin or clothing is not likely to cause any transmission, and this will reduce the circumstances in which these tests will be ordered.

We also have amendments that consider the timeframe of the test related to the contact incident. There is no benefit that could flow from testing someone after seven days as the person may have potentially contracted a bloodborne virus after the contact incident in question. All this will do, potentially, is add further worry and anxiety to the worker. It may extend the duration of their worry that they may have been affected, even when this was not at all possible.

Finally, our amendments require the use of a risk matrix before any tests are ordered. This matrix will be determined by regulation, and in fact this is already the current practice when senior police officers determine whether or not a test is required. I note that SA-Best has an amendment to include workers in retail shopping centres, petrol stations and fast-food outlets. I think it is very clear, from our general concerns around this bill, that we will not be supporting that amendment.

I am concerned that, whilst the Greens are seeking to narrow the application of these laws, the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendments will actually extend their application and extend the number of workers who will feel undue anxiety. In this case, it is most likely to be young workers, who may not understand that there is no risk profile associated with exposure to saliva. To put them in that position does not seem to make sense and, once we start expanding the number of workers that fall within the remit of these laws, has the potential to expand the level of stigma that I spoke of earlier.

To conclude, the Greens consider this bill to be deeply flawed. We will move amendments that we consider to be for the benefit of people living with bloodborne viruses but also for frontline workers. I want to put on the public record my disappointment in the Labor Party for the way they have approached this. It seems to me that this was a commitment that was made in the middle of an election campaign without any evidence. It is not supported by anyone in the health space and indeed has been roundly condemned by all of the advocacy groups in that space.

I would like to know what level of consultation the Labor Party adopted in developing this policy. I am keen to understand why such a poorly conceived concept would win the support of the opposition as well, who do not seem to be adopting a critical eye over what appears to be some sort of Labor Party brain fart that has not been given due consideration. I look forward to the committee stage, and I will be raising a number of questions on behalf of the Greens.

4 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:45): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of the age of criminal responsibility.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Recent media has highlighted the number of youth cases being dealt with in the Youth Court, with the opposition claiming that this is a result of a so-called increase in youth crime. This has been publicly disputed by the police commissioner, who disagrees that youth crime is worse than in previous years. In response, the new police minister, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan MP, has ruled out raising the age of criminal responsibility and stated that the government was investing in police, courts and prisons rather than in diversion and rehabilitation measures.

South Australia's Guardian for Children and Young People, Shona Reid, has said that the suggestion to strengthen laws for youth offenders will further criminalise children who instead need support. Last week, she told the National Indigenous Times that, and I quote:

We know that children and young people in youth justice have often experienced serious trauma and abuse in their lives. If they lose their way and are engaged in behaviours that make our communities unsafe, telling children they bear all the responsibility is a cop out.

On 20 February this year, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners published an article reaffirming their support for raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. Dr Tim Jones, who is the chair of Specific Interest Groups—Child and Young Person's Health, stated:

If we incarcerate our children, we are telling them we don't believe they are savable, that things can't get better. We know that children who are given appropriate support, who are provided with the ingredients they need to get ahead, are resourceful and will get there. We know that kids who go into the justice system tend not to exit it, so that's why it's a health issue.

My question to the Attorney-General therefore is:

1. Why has the government caved-in to the Liberal Party's scare campaign and ruled out raising the age of criminal responsibility?

2. What is the Malinauskas government doing to prevent kids as young as 10 years old from entering the criminal justice system in the first place?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for his question. I might, in starting to answer the question, reflect very quickly on the rate of youth offending in South Australia.

As the honourable member points out, there has been some concern. Any offending by anyone should be of concern, and anything that impinges on public safety is of course a concern. But some comfort should be taken that in 2022-23, according to the statistics that I have, South Australia's rate of youth offending was the second lowest in the nation, only behind the Australian Capital Territory. I believe, and I will double-check, that the most common offence is breach of bail, which generally isn't an offence against a person or property.

In relation to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, I have made it very clear a number of times in this place and outside of this place that we remain open to looking at anything that can make the community safer. There was a discussion paper released a year ago, and there had previously been papers written that were under the auspices of the former Liberal government at a national level through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, looking at if the age were raised what conditions you would put in place.

I note that certainly Victoria and the ACT have gone down this path. Certainly, we remain open to anything that makes the community safer. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not a policy that we have ever said we will support. As I said, we are open to looking at what could make the community safer, and we continue to look at the evidence, but as I said it is not a priority at this moment.

20 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (12:18): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill. The Greens will support this bill, but we do have some concerns about a number of the provisions, and I might ask some questions about those at the committee stage. The bill contains a number of minor and technical amendments, most of which the Greens support and we understand the rationale; however, there are two provisions of note that I wish to comment on.

The first is the amendment to the Correctional Services Act found in part 3 of the bill that allows the Parole Board to impose new conditions where there has been no breach of parole. It is my understanding that the Parole Board asked for this change and that this power will not be used often, but the Greens are concerned that there is no test or threshold that has to be met before a new condition can be added.

Once this new bail condition is added, the usual processes around parole apply and a person impacted has a chance to challenge the new condition. However, I am concerned that in the absence of any breach of parole, I am struggling to envisage circumstances where additional parole conditions would be needed and could not be addressed through other mechanisms. It gives the Parole Board a very wideranging power that despite assurances it will not be used often, but in particular hypothetical situations, we simply do not know how or how often this power will be used, and that is of concern. We are giving very broad, wideranging powers, and the precise rationale for the change I do not think has been made clear by the government.

Secondly, in regard to part 11, I am pleased to see the government cracking down on copper theft from rail infrastructure and clarifying this provision; however, studies show that harsher penalties do not work to reduce crime. The Greens do recognise that copper theft is an issue and, as is the case of theft from rail infrastructure, it has the potential to cause hazards and delays, but that does not change the fact that harsher penalties do not work.

There is also a significant problem in our state at the moment with copper theft from construction sites. This, indeed, is an issue that has been raised with me. I have heard of South Australians who are building their own homes being in a situation where they do not want to leave the construction site unattended because they are in fear that someone is going to come and rip up the copper. Perhaps, it is worth the government investigating some sort of tracking or another mechanism to help prevent theft of this nature and looking at ways that they might keep track of copper.

Ultimately, the way to reduce crime is to minimise the circumstances in which they feel they are left with no other options. Social and affordable housing, free education, lower grocery prices, free and frequent public transport—all of these things reduce the risk of crime, particularly if the offending relates to stealing a material and selling it on for profit. I urge the government to consider that as part of its broader approach.

As I say, we are broadly supportive of a number of the provisions within the bill. There are a few elements that we have concerns about, and I will ask the Attorney-General some questions about those in the committee stage.

19 February 2025

Bills

BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION (BIRTH CERTIFICATES) AMENDMENT BILL 

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration (Birth Certificates) Amendment Bill 2024. Same-sex parented families are a permanent and increasingly prevalent part of Australian society. Indeed, according to the 2021 census, 17.3 per cent of the 78,425 same-sex couples who live together throughout Australia are couples who have children. This represents an increase from 14.8 per cent—so nearly 15 per cent—at the 2016 census.

The birth registration of children is a basic and necessary measure which ensures the overall protection of children and ensures their right to an identity. It is important in providing evidence of a person's status in the particular state of their birth. It is the starting point at which the private individual presents their public face to the world. It is for these reasons that the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that a child shall be registered immediately after their birth.

My office was recently contacted by a same-sex couple who were seeking to have both their names listed on their son's birth certificate as mother. They sought advice from the Births, Deaths and Marriages office and were informed that:

The Family Relationships Act 1975 provides—

(1) A woman who gives birth to a child is, for the purposes of the law of the State, the mother of the child (whether the child was conceived by the fertilisation of an ovum taken from that woman or another woman).

(2) If—

(a) a woman becomes pregnant in consequence of a fertilisation procedure; and

(b) the ovum used for the purposes of the procedure was taken from another woman, then, for the purposes of the law of the State, the woman from whom the ovum was taken will be taken not to be the mother of any child born as a result of the pregnancy.

(3) If a woman who is legally married or in a qualifying relationship undergoes, with the consent of her spouse or partner (as the case requires), a fertilisation procedure in consequence of which she becomes pregnant, then, for the purposes of the law of the State, the spouse or partner—

(a) will be conclusively presumed to have caused the pregnancy; and

(b) will be taken to be—

(i) in the case of a male spouse or partner—the father; or

(ii) in any other case—a co-parent,

of any child born as a result of the pregnancy.

In other words, what this means is that under current state law only the birth mother can be registered as a mother and her partner can only be registered as a co-parent. You can understand, I am sure, Mr President, why this would be troubling for many same-sex parents who want to have their status as parents appropriately recognised on the birth certificate—in this case, the case that was raised with me, the status of both parents as mothers. The child does not have a birth mother and co-parent; they want to have the fact that they have two mothers recognised on the birth certificate so that their family dynamic can be appropriately recognised.

The reality is that same-sex parents do not wish to be viewed differently by their children, the state or anyone else. Both parents are, in effect, mothers to their children or fathers to their children and should be recognised as such should they wish. If the child were to be born in the Australian Capital Territory or Western Australia then birth registration processes allow for the registration of same-sex parents on their child's birth certificate, providing them with the option of describing each parent as a mother or a parent.

Indeed, members will know that I had the privilege of being a donor dad to two beautiful children. Those children were both born in the ACT, so their mothers are both recognised appropriately on their birth certificate, but were the children to be born in South Australia they would not have access to those same provisions under the act. What this bill seeks to do is to provide each parent with the option of describing themselves as either a mother, father or parent on their child's birth certificate.

Protecting the best interests of a child is one of the most important principles of international law. Indeed, it is a topic we discuss often in this place. It is fundamental to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, the convention provides that states must take all appropriate measures to ensure that a child is protected from all forms of discrimination based on the status of their parents, and that includes the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

Appropriately recognising the status of parents on a birth certificate also ensures that children know their parents and are able to form relationships with both of their parents in a way that is legally recognised and socially recognised. This applies to all children, whether or not their parents are of the same sex. Having both mothers or both fathers named as parents on the child's birth certificate ensures there is a presumption in favour of parentage, and this provides for both parents to have full and equal parental responsibilities for the child.

This year, our state is celebrating an important milestone: 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality in our state. Indeed, this parliament has worked together over the last five decades to embark on significant LGBTI law reform, reforms that have had a very positive impact in terms of changing our society and improving the lives of people like myself—out and proud gay men. I think this is a very small change but one that would be welcome by many same-sex couples who have children and rainbow families across the state. It is high time this simple change was made in South Australia to bring our state into line with other jurisdictions. I urge all members of this place to support this simple change.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

18 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:57): I rise to speak on this bill on behalf of the Greens. In so doing I make very clear that peace and nonviolence is one of the four pillars of the Greens political party. We condemn all forms of violence. Violent crime, knife crime, really should have no place in our society and our state. I recognise the significant distress these crimes have on members of our community and the need to manage that behaviour and ensure there is appropriate criminal sanction.

It is my view that the law does already have significant penalties in place, however, for this kind of offending, and I worry that some of the legislative approaches we are seeing from the Malinauskas government of late are moving us back into the populist law and order years that we saw during the Rann era, where what the government seems to be focusing on in the law and order space is populist politics, winning news headlines but not actually tackling the root causes of crime.

If the government is genuinely concerned about young people participating in criminal activity, and in particular knife crime, then when will it come to the parliament with a clear strategy to deal with the fundamental causes of crime? Why does it instead keep focusing on penalties, when we know from all of the evidence over the years that harsher penalties simply do not work in terms of dealing with the causes of crime and making our societies safer?

These sorts of laws are really good for getting newspaper headlines, but they do not necessarily do anything to make our streets safer, and they certainly do not do anything to address the social factors that might be leading young people, in particular, down a pathway of criminality. I just urge the government to do better when it comes to policy in this space.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo has addressed the submission from the Law Society. I do not intend to go through all of that again, but there are a few elements that I think are worth highlighting from the perspective of the Greens' contribution. I note that in the Law Society's letter to the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Attorney, dated 17 February, their submission to this bill, they note or question the pace at which these reforms are being progressed and suggest that a more fulsome consideration of their impact could be conducted, such as referring the bill to a select committee of the Legislative Council to consider the bill and related issues.

I do wonder why the government has not sent this through to the Legislative Review Committee so that there would an opportunity to consider how this bill might interact with other criminal law that we have in our state. It does worry me that once again this chamber is being asked to legislate without being cognisant of the potential implications.

One of the issues the Law Society talks about here is the broad definition of a knife, the fact that a knife includes a blade. For example, this could be a razor blade. This is a quote from their submission:

9. The Society notes the importance that is to be placed on the practical interpretation of 'supply' for the purposes of both proposed offences and whether that extends to merely making the knife available to the minor, such as by not locking it away. The definition of 'knife' for the relevant part of the Act is broad, being:

Knife includes a blade (for example a knife blade or razor blade)

10. The possible application of proposed section 21D(2)(b), despite its less significant penalty, is concerning. Notwithstanding the important policy considerations to prevent minors being supplied with knives, the offence provision should be carefully considered noting in particular, the broad definition of 'knife' and the range of circumstances in which the offence provision in existing section 21E could be enlivened.

11. The Society briefly notes the significance of the four-year penalty, which is considerable for the Act, noting that only three other provisions have commensurate penalties, being in relation to weapons prohibition orders, as well as the distribution of invasive images, and indecent filming. It is also notable that those offences are committed by the principal offender rather than a third party. Further, Members of the Society's Children and the Law Committee briefly noted the reference that the person 'knew or reasonably ought to have known' as per paragraph 7 above to enliven the offence. The Society queries whether the mental element that attaches to the offence (particularly proposed section 21D(2)(b)) should be simply 'knowledge' and that a person supplies a knife knowing it will be used in the commission of an offence. This is particularly so given the fact that the definition of 'supply' (as per paragraph 9 above) remains uncertain, noting the offence may be enlivened in a range of circumstances where a minor might merely have access to a knife.

This broad definition is concerning to me. Is there the potential to capture a range of conduct that the government may not necessarily have within its contemplation? I do intend to ask a few questions about that in the committee stage.

The point that the Hon. Frank Pangallo touched on, that the Law Society raised, I also think is a fair one, and that is about the potential implications of a bill like this for young people working in regional areas or being in regional areas who might be going on a fishing trip, for instance, and have a fishing knife on their person. Again, there are a lot of scenarios that I am concerned have not been appropriately considered. Indeed, as noted by the Law Society in their submission, and I quote:

30. …there may be numerous personal reasons why young people may not have adults that can purchase knives for them. The Society's Children and the Law Committee understands there is a significant number of young people that live independently by the age of 16 years and not all youth can rely on an adult to purchase a knife, which in many cases may be a necessity for living independently or partaking in [a range of] activities. A further reluctance might stem from public awareness as to the reforms described … which may render an adult even less likely to provide knives for young people even if they are likely to use them for legitimate purposes, especially where the person is not their responsible guardian.

31. While well-intentioned, the reforms take a position which does not give due consideration to the fact that the vast majority of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 years are trying to enter the adult world and are not intending to commit crimes.

Indeed, this is the worry I have with laws like this, in that what they tend to do is stigmatise young people, in particular vulnerable young people in our community. When we are talking about giving police new powers to target particular groups, we know the young people who will be targeted. We know based on what has happened in law enforcement in our state over many years. It is going to be First Nations children who get targeted by these sorts of laws disproportionately, or other young people who are deemed to look suspicious. That really worries me. These sorts of laws, I think, tie into a stigmatisation of young people in our society, and can actually alienate young people and lead them to be more likely to commit offences in the long term.

I note that there has been some debate about similar—not exactly the same, but similar—laws in Queensland. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties has expressed some concerns regarding the way in which those laws operate, and I think it is worth highlighting some of those concerns because they apply similarly to the legislation we are debating here in this parliament.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said of similar legislation there that these laws abrogate a fundamental protection of individual liberty by removing the requirement for police officers to have a reasonable suspicion prior to conducting a search of a person, and they note their concern that the power could be abused by police officers who will search people based on prejudices and generalisations about people in the community. They also expressed concern that pressure will come to expand these powers, and this has already happened. Originally, the measure was to be used only in safe night precincts. It has been extended to public transport, it has been extended to shopping centres and recreations, and they note that there will be pressure to extend the laws to other areas.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties also notes there was a review of the initial trial of these powers by Griffith University, and no evidence was found in that study that the searches enabled by the legislation had actually reduced offences. In particular, the Griffith University review found that during the trial, of the many people who were searched, they were searched due to police racial bias; i.e., it noted in particular that Indigenous people were searched disproportionately. This worries me when we are making law that has such wide-ranging consequences, and these elements are not being given appropriate consideration by government.

I note that a number of members have filed amendments. I will listen to the debate in terms of forming a position on those. I think it is worth noting, and the Hon. Frank Pangallo touched on this point, I would just encourage members, particularly of the two large parties in this place—I understand they have their party room meetings on Tuesday morning or a Monday afternoon and that amendments may be filed soon after that—that it would be very helpful for the crossbench to get advance notice of amendments, particularly when they relate to this level of complexity. I only saw the amendments early this afternoon. It does make it difficult to be able to engage with stakeholders and form a view.

I note the Hon. Connie Bonaros has filed amendments to expand this principle somewhat. I am concerned about how that might work in a retail setting, for instance, and so I am certainly not supportive of that amendment, but I will hear the honourable member's explanation of the amendment, obviously when we get to the committee stage.

As I indicated, I will have a few questions to ask of the government in the hope that they may allay some of my concerns. However, from my perspective, this seems to be more about a race to the bottom between Labor and the Liberals when it comes to law and order rather than actually addressing the root causes of crime in our society. I would really like to see the Malinauskas government start to do some work in that area rather than continuing to engage with this race to the bottom with the Liberals on law and order.

5 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:57): I thank all honourable members for their contributions: thank you to the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Jing Lee and the Hon. Russell Wortley. I appreciate the support of all parties for this. I note the government's position that they will not be opposing the bill, and I appreciate that.

As has been articulated by the Hon. Jing Lee, this bill does not force the relevant minister to implement the recommendations of a select committee. I think that is a very important point to note. All it requires is that they provide a report in parliament on their response. That can be as simple as saying why a recommendation cannot be implemented or simply noting a recommendation, but it is wanting to ensure that the relevant minister has read and engaged with the substance of the report.

It is a particularly relevant debate this week. It is two years since the public and active transport committee handed down its report—two years, and we are still waiting for any response from the relevant minister. I think that does underscore why a reform such as this might be necessary, because two years without a callback in terms of action on the recommendations is disappointing. Members of parliament obviously put a lot of work into these committees. More importantly, members of the community actually invest their time and energy into our committee process.

As the Hon. Nicola Centofanti noted, it can be challenging for members of the public to appear before these committees, particularly when they are talking about sensitive matters. If they are doing so, I think the least that they can expect of their elected representatives is that the government of the day at least engages with the content of the final report and indicates what elements can be taken up.

I think that is the least that the community is entitled to expect of their elected representatives. If you have gone to the effort of appearing before a parliamentary committee and making a submission, you do not think that the minister is going to simply take the committee report, stick it in a top drawer somewhere and let it sit there and gather dust. You would want the minister to respond.

I note the Hon. Russell Wortley has referenced the number of committees that have been running during this term of parliament. Many members of the crossbench and others have offered in this place to address committee reform. It is an ongoing discussion. There is always the potential to look at how we can do committees better. I do not think that should be used as a reason to not take action and to not have the relevant minister engage with the recommendations of the report.

I hope that this does start a conversation around how ministers can engage more effectively with these committees. I should just say in closing that there are many ministers in the Malinauskas government who I think do this really well, who engage openly with parliamentary committees, who are interested in the recommendations and who seek to take action on things. It is not a problem that affects everybody, but I think legislation is a good way of dealing with this, because it means that at least you have a set standard in place that operates across the board. I think that always makes sense.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

5 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:41): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services on the topic of assaults in prisons.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Might I also congratulate the minister on her elevation. Correctional services data reported in The Advertiser on Monday showed that prison assaults on prisoners and correctional officers doubled in the last year, with over 481 prison assaults recorded between 2023 and 2024. Regulation 9 of the Young Offenders Regulations 2023 allows for children as young as 10 years of age in lawful custody to be held in adult facilities in places further than 40 kilometres from Adelaide's General Post Office.

In 2024, child rights progress reports, issued by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, found that children are still being locked up in police cells alongside adults due to the denial of bail. In 2022, the Commissioner for Children and Young People noted in their report that children were held in adult facilities, such as police cells or other watchhouses, at least 2,030 times. My questions to the Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services therefore are:

1. Given the increase in prison assaults, does the minister believe that adult facilities are a safe environment for children aged between 10 and 14?

2. What action does the minister plan to take to protect vulnerable young people who are being incarcerated?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously corrections, on my understanding, is based around supporting the adult population. I am happy to get more information around the issues you have raised today and get a briefing in that space, because I would also like to learn more about that as well. I will get a briefing on that matter.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:43): Supplementary: as part of that briefing, will the minister engage with the Commissioner for Children and Young People?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:43): I thank the member for his question. My understanding is that this usually comes under the remit of the Minister for Human Services, so I will be working with her as well. But, again, I will come back to my original answer: I am happy to get further information on this matter.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:43): Final supplementary: is the minister concerned about the welfare of these young people being detained in these facilities, given the significant spate of assaults that are happening in prisons?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Again, it was a very good attempt, the Hon. Mr Simms, but it sort of falls short really of the original answer.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: No harm in trying.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, you are regularly very trying!