1 May 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:30): I rise to speak on the Summary Offences (Prohibition of Publication of Certain Material) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Greens. We know that this bill is the government's response to a bill brought to this place by yourself, Mr Acting President, known as 'post and boast' laws. The Greens indicated that we would not be supportive of that bill at that time, and indeed, Mr Acting President, I think I have had a few conversations with you about why we were not supportive of the bill.

Both bills aim to address the issue of people who post videos of crimes on their social media. The Greens believe that the bill that was presented to parliament last year could have some unintended consequences. At that time, I warned the parliament about the risks associated with punitive laws that were targeting young people and the need for young people to have access to services and diversionary programs.

I note that the government has been doing a consultation paper around diversion programs and raising the age of criminal responsibility but seems to have lost their nerve in terms of taking any action on that reform. I think that is very poor, very weak. The Greens will continue to advocate for the government to show some backbone, to stand up against the stupid populist law and order campaigning of the opposition, which is devoid of fact and which actually, by the Attorney-General's own admission, fails to recognise the fact that youth crime is going down in South Australia.

Anyway, I am concerned that this bill will actually compound some of the already punitive policies that we are seeing in South Australia that target young people. We believe that the court should consider the publishing of material as part of the sentencing process and that more early intervention programs should be established to prevent young people in particular from offending in the first place.

The bill the government has brought to us has raised even more concerns than the bill that was put forward by yourself, Mr Acting President. The proposed legislation will capture a number of circumstances that could have wide-reaching implications for our democracy. For example, I understand that this bill captures direct messaging. Imagine a situation where a young person witnesses a crime and sends a picture of it to their friend in a private message, perhaps with a fire emoji or the like, with a description.

The bill creates an offence where someone publishes the material with the intention of encouraging or promoting the conduct. It is difficult for a young person, often, to draw the line. Would the use of an emoji in that context represent glorifying criminal conduct? How will they know whether the fire emoji could be considered promotion? How will they understand whether or not they have committed an offence?

Indeed, the Malinauskas government has argued that if you are under 16 you are not old enough to even be on social media or to understand the risks associated with social media, so how can they apply this offence to that group? Such an example, of course, I should say is probably not the kind of conduct that the government is seeking to target. The problem, of course, is the broad and wide-ranging nature of the laws that the government is proposing for parliament's support.

The definition of 'published' in the bill includes sharing material via the internet. Again, this is very broad and we believe that there is a huge difference between sharing a message with a friend and publishing something on a public Instagram profile. I indicate here that the Greens will move an amendment to remove direct messaging so that it is not captured by the bill.

Another element that is potentially captured here but we believe should not be is the promotion of protest actions. We know, of course, that the Malinauskas government has form when it comes to trying to curtail the right to protest here in our state. Back in 2023, the Malinauskas government launched an extraordinary attack on the right to protest by introducing draconian anti-protest laws. Indeed, all of us on the crossbench did what we could to try to resist those draconian laws. Indeed, you, Mr Acting President, I think delivered a very interesting speech, which went for five hours or more, covering a wide range of topics, including Meghan Markle and a range of other matters that were of great interest to myself and other members.

We are concerned that this bill is once again part of the government's broader approach to crack down on protest here in our parliament. We know the bill has significant implications for someone who is engaging in protest action. We know that some of the most important changes that have taken place in history have been as a result of civil disobedience. Take the suffragette movement. We have a piece of history here in the grille that Muriel Matters chained herself to. As a result of that movement, of course, we have a more inclusive parliament and more representation in our democracy. But if Muriel Matters had Instagram, would we criticise her for sharing the image of her chained to a grille? That would offend these laws.

The new penalties for the offence of obstruction that passed here two years ago have the potential to impact protest actions that are aimed at social change, but this bill introduces a compounding offence, saying you cannot even share images of those engaging with these protest actions on social media. Of course, we are not just talking about Extinction Rebellion protesters who might well obstruct traffic to make a point. There is a range of other protest actions that could be captured by this legislation, and that is why the Greens will be moving to amend the bill to ensure that there are protections for people who are caught up in the Malinauskas government's anti-protest laws, by expressly carving out political communication and lawful assembly.

I urge members to consider that amendment in conjunction with amendment No. 3 [Simms-1]. This is where we provide guidance to ensure that our exemption does not apply to conduct that is designed to incite violence or hate speech against groups that are protected under the Racial Vilification Act or the Equal Opportunity Act. We note expressly through our amendment that, without limiting the grounds on which a court may find material was not published for a legitimate public purpose, material published for the purpose of political communication will not be published for a legitimate public purpose if the material was also published for the purpose of inciting violence or for promoting any form of unlawful vilification or discrimination.

My amendment makes clear what we are contemplating here—for example, racial vilification under the Racial Vilification Act 1996 or any form of discrimination that is unlawful under the Equal Opportunity Act. For instance, my amendment would not provide an exemption for people who choose to broadcast Nazi propaganda or Nazi protest actions.

We will also move an amendment to ensure this legislation does not apply to anyone under the age of 16. The Malinauskas government claims that people under the age of 16 should not be allowed on social media, as I indicated earlier, yet it is creating an offence for them to share material on social media sites. It is inconsistent, so our amendment will clear that up.

I would also like to highlight that this bill includes a provision that captures posting about offences in other jurisdictions. I think it is important to note that surely if an offence is not an offence in the state of South Australia, a reasonable person cannot be expected to know the offences of other jurisdictions when they are posting a photo or sharing a video or content from something that may have occurred in another jurisdiction.

So we have serious concerns with the wide ranging nature of the bill. We do believe that our amendments ameliorate the risk somewhat and we encourage members to support those amendments and we reserve our right to make a decision on the bill at the third reading.

I should say, of course, that the Greens do not support people promoting criminality. Of course, that is an issue that is a concern for all members of the community. However, we are really concerned about the disproportionate effect this will have on young people, the disproportionate chilling effect this could have on protest actions in our state and the unintended consequences these laws might well have because they are so broad in their remit.

30 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:48): I rise to speak in favour of this bill on behalf of the Greens, and in so doing I acknowledge the leadership of the Hon. Connie Bonaros. She is very passionate about this area and has been pushing the parliament to deal with this. We are in a situation where technology has developed at a pace that has been out of step with legislation, and legislators like the Hon. Connie Bonaros have played a very important role in making sure that we pause and take note of those advances in technology and ensure that vulnerable people, in particular children, are not falling mercy to this technology. I thank her for her leadership in this space.

Artificial intelligence has enormous potential benefits, but it also has the potential to harm society, the economy and our personal lives. Artificial intelligence technology has crossed a threshold with the capability to make people look and sound like other people. A deepfake is fabricated, hyper-realistic digital media, including video, image and audio content. Not only has this technology created confusion, scepticism and the spread of misinformation—and we have certainly seen this particularly in other jurisdictions in the context of election campaigns—but deepfakes also pose a threat to privacy, security and psychological wellbeing.

Manipulation of images is not new, but over recent decades, digital recording and editing techniques have made it far easier to produce fake visual and audio content not just of humans but of animals, machines and even inanimate objects. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have taken the technology even further, allowing it to rapidly generate content that is extremely realistic, almost impossible to detect with the naked eye and very difficult to debunk. This is why the resulting photos, videos and sound files are called deepfakes.

To generate convincing content, deepfake technology often requires only a small amount of genuine data, images, footage or sound recordings. Indeed, the field is evolving so rapidly that deepfake content can be generated without the need for any human supervision at all. The possibilities for misuse of this technology are growing exponentially as digital distribution platforms become more publicly accessible and the tools to create deepfakes become relatively cheap, user friendly and mainstream.

Deepfakes have the potential to cause significant damage. They have been used to create fake news, false pornographic videos and malicious hoaxes usually targeting well-known people such as politicians and celebrities. Potentially, deepfakes can be used as a tool for identity theft, extortion, sexual exploitation, reputational damage, ridicule, intimidation and harassment. Any person who is targeted by such efforts may experience financial loss, damage to their professional or social standing, fear, humiliation, shame, a loss of self esteem or reduced confidence.

Reports of misrepresentation and deception could undermine trust in digital platforms and services and increase general levels of fear and suspicion within our society. As advances in deepfake technology gather pace and apps and tools are emerging that allow the general public to produce credible deepfakes, concerns are growing about the potential for harm to both individuals and society.

As noted in eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant's opening statement to a Senate standing committee inquiring into the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill of last year:

Deepfake detection tools are lagging behind the technology itself. Open-source AI apps have proliferated online and are often free and easy to use to create damaging digital content including deepfake image-based abuse material and hyper-realistic synthetic child sexual abuse material. Companies [should] be doing more to reduce the risks that their platforms can be used to generate damaging content.

However, using deepfakes to target and abuse others is not simply a technology problem. It is a result of social, cultural and behavioural issues that are being played out in the online space. As noted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's report, 'Weaponized deep fakes', there are challenges to security and democracy represented by deepfakes. These include heightened potential for fraud, propaganda and disinformation, military deception and even the erosion of trust in our institutions and fair election processes.

The risks of deploying a technology without first assessing and addressing the potential for individual and societal impacts are very high. Deepfakes provide yet another example of the importance of safety by design to assist in anticipating and engineering out misuse at the get-go. It is very clear that AI technology has rapidly outpaced government regulation. Digital rights are essential for a fair and just society. People deserve control over their data, transparency and automated decision-making and robust protections against misuse, including from the harmful practice of creating, distributing and threatening to distribute artificially generated images.

As I said from the outset, the Greens appreciate the work of the Hon. Connie Bonaros in this space. This is an important reform, I think, in terms of moving us more towards a society that strikes a better balance between technology and the rights of all members of our society to live free from harm. The Greens support the bill.

30 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:45): I regret that my speech is not going to be music to the ears of the honourable member because I am about to speak about the dirty deal between the Liberals and One Nation, a matter that I know will be of concern to many people in our state. It is an issue that has not had appropriate focus during this election campaign, but just a week or so ago the Liberal Party quietly announced that in 139 of the 147 seats where One Nation is running a candidate the Coalition will recommend that its voters put One Nation above the Labor Party.

In 55 of these seats, the Coalition has placed One Nation candidates in second place. In the rest of the seats, candidates from minor conservative groupings like Family First and the Libertarian Party are being preferenced before One Nation, but One Nation is still ranked before Labor and, of course, before the Greens. The Coalition has also given One Nation top ranking on its Senate preference sheets after its own candidates in Queensland, WA, SA and Tasmania.

What does this mean in practical terms? In South Australia, according to the polls, we have a very tight race for the Senate and, according to the latest opinion polls, the Liberal Party are polling at around 30 per cent. As a result of this preference deal, they all but guarantee the election of a One Nation Senator should their preferences flow the way they are recommending.

What does this say about the modern Liberal Party? John Howard was very clear that the Liberal Party would never preference One Nation. Indeed, back in 1998, he said:

We will not be entering into any coalition or preference deals with One Nation. Their policies are divisive and not in line with the values of the Liberal Party.

Tony Abbott in 2011:

We will not be entering into any coalition or preference deals with One Nation. Their policies are divisive.

Tony Abbott in 2013:

The Liberal Party will preference One Nation below the Labor Party at the federal election.

Malcolm Turnbull in 2017:

We will not be doing any preference deals with One Nation. We are a mainstream party, and we will not be trading preferences with extremists.

Peter Dutton in 2017:

The Liberal Party will preference One Nation below the Labor Party.

In 2019, Peter Dutton said:

We will not be doing any preference deals with One Nation. We are a mainstream party…

What does it say about the modern Liberal Party that they would get into bed with extremists like One Nation? The Saturday Paper wrote an interesting exposé on this, and I quote from Mike Seccombe where he interviews key people within the Liberal Party in his article 'Devastating: Inside the Liberals' One Nation deal'. He speaks to long-term Liberal, Jim Barron, who notes that:

All these years later, the Liberal Party has embraced the person who it once excommunicated.

This is Pauline Hanson. He says:

It's devastating. And I think that says more about the Liberal Party than it does about One Nation. Its radical, hardline racist policies used to be at the fringes of politics. Now they no longer live on the fringe. The Liberal Party has pretty much normalised a lot of what Hanson was going on about.

What a disgrace. And what exactly are One Nation's policies? Here is a little snapshot for you. They want to ban Muslim immigration. They want to ban burkas. Pauline Hanson wants to ban halal certification, she says it funds terrorism. They want to conduct surveillance in mosques. They want to abolish native title claims. They want to cut Indigenous programs. They want to withdraw Australia from global bodies—from the United Nations, the World Health Organization. They do not support climate change, of course. They oppose same-sex marriage. They oppose foreign aid. They oppose gun control, one of John Howard's great achievements when he was in office.

I do not have enough time to talk about the myriad toxic policies of One Nation's political handmaiden Family First, the homophobic, transphobic, sexist and misogynistic political party at a national level that offers a very dangerous vision for our society. But might I say I am deeply concerned about what the Liberal Party are doing here. They run the risk of giving Pauline Hanson and One Nation a serious leg-up and Lyle Shelton, the former ACL advocate, a leg-up in the federal parliament. It is a disgrace, and they should be held to account by the South Australian people on Saturday.

29 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:31): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector on the topic of public sector jobs.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The federal opposition leader, the Hon. Peter Dutton, has proposed to cut 41,000 jobs from the Australian Public Service as part of the Coalition's election plan. Analysis by Greens Senator Barbara Pocock has revealed that the Coalition's plan equates to approximately 3,700 Australian public sector workers here in South Australia. That is the equivalent of three times the number of workers currently employed by the Whyalla Steelworks and equates to approximately one in four Australian public sector workers here in our state.

My question to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, therefore, is: is the minister concerned about the potential for significant job losses for South Australians under a Dutton government and has the state government done any modelling on support packages that may be required to support workers at risk?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:32): I thank the honourable member for his question and it is a good question, because if we had 40,000 federal public servants cut it would have dire consequences right around the country. Some economists have even talked about the possibility of that alone plunging Australia into recession.

But more than that, it is a perfect illustration of something we know is simply in the DNA of the Liberal Party at state and federal levels. We are seeing this pledge now from the federal Liberal Party to cut 41,000 public sector jobs and let's not forget how ingrained this is in the Liberal Party's DNA. Who can forget the former Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, in the lead-up to the 2014 state election promising to slash 20,000 state public sector jobs—promising to cut a quarter of the state public sector? This is an intrinsic value of the Liberals in South Australia and across the nation and we are seeing it play out in the federal parliament.

If there is anything we are learning at the moment it is that these Trump-style policies, the DOGE-style cuts, do not resonate with Australians. I know that many members opposite love Trump-style politics: the culture wars and slashing the public sector.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Point of order, Mr President: standing orders specifically rule out opinion.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Order! I am trying to listen to the Hon. Dennis Hood.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The minister implicated members of the opposition's preference for the President of the United States' policies, which he can't possibly know.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order on the point of order.

The PRESIDENT: I need to rule on the point of order first.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Well, the opinion is specifically to the asking of questions, not to the answering of questions. And a further point of order: the previous Hon. Ben Hood question was laden with opinion about the crime and youth offender rates.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! What I will say is it would be better if you just stuck to the substance. I think drifting off—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: But the opposition has no substance.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am actually speaking, minister. Can you just get on with your answer? I need a couple more questions today; otherwise, we will be short of our quota.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the honourable member's question about the slashing—of massive public service cuts—the honourable member talked about Whyalla and the way the South Australian government stepped in there and the support that will be needed. The question was directly in relation to what support might be needed if there are these huge job losses right around Australia.

I think it is a good example that the honourable member has used. It wasn't the private sector that stepped in to support the Whyalla Steelworks. It was the government of South Australia with the federal government taking the lead on doing that and ably and essentially supported by public sector agencies, workers who provided all sorts of advice—legal advice, financial advice—about how we can have the steelworks survive.

We do know that if there was a different sort of government in South Australia we would see the Trump-like policies that they are so fond of, meaning you wouldn't have seen that sort of support. You would have seen those cuts, and you will see the cuts no doubt if we see a Liberal—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Based on what?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Based on everything every Liberal Party ever does. That is the main sort of thing. Based on their—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Alright.

3 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:26): I rise to speak very briefly today on this bill. When the tobacco and e-cigarette reforms were debated in this place last year, the Greens were very supportive of the measures that were aimed at minimising the harm caused by the tobacco industry and, of course, vaping. Those reforms included closure orders that could be put in place to limit the sale of illegal tobacco and e-cigarettes. At the time, the Hon. Ben Hood moved some amendments regarding the rights of the lessor in relation to a closure order. At that time, we indicated we were not in a position to support those amendments because we had not had enough time to consider them.

The bill seeks to address some of the complications with respect to implementing the closure orders now that the legislation has been in place for some months. We are supportive of the general provisions of this bill, which will provide certainty around responsibilities and rights of lessors where closure orders are put in place in their premises. We know that the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros have filed a number of amendments that would introduce additional types of closure orders, namely, a short-term order.

Similar to last time, we have not had a great amount of time to consider the amendments or to consult with stakeholders. Therefore, in terms of considering the amendments, we will be guided by the advice that the government provides during the committee stage. I am certainly open to the amendments, but I am keen to understand how they might work in practise, and obviously the government has access to that level of information via the department so I will watch the debate closely. We are supportive of the substantive bill and certainly are open to the amendments should they be considered workable by the government.

Housing for Women Leaving Prison

3 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:06): 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 housing for women leaving prison.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This morning the ABC reported that advocates are calling for more gender specific support to help women who have been incarcerated in their transition back into the community. According to Linda Fisk, the co-founder of a support service for women leaving prison, the main challenge is finding long-term housing, with many struggling with homelessness after leaving the system. Without references, it is very difficult to obtain private rentals and these women can often end up waiting for a long time for public housing.

Women's Justice Network chief, Gloria Larman, told the ABC, 'They get put into what is often referred to as temporary accommodation, which quite often is a dodgy hotel that's quite often not safe for women.' My question, therefore, to the Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services is: what is the minister doing proactively to reduce the risk of homelessness for women who exit the prison system?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for his question and interest in this space. Following on from the program that I was just mentioning—obviously that was not about housing but about giving people opportunities for employment, which starts whilst they are in the correctional system and follows them out of the system as well—I know there are many opportunities available. It is about DCS working with a number of private organisations, but also organisations that can provide that appropriate housing, like SA Housing Trust.

I am meeting with many organisations about this—Seeds is one of them—and I look forward to hearing what they can provide in this space. Programs available that women can go to would be Catherine House placement for women on bail who require support housing. This can be either on bail or prerelease.

Also, there is the Integrated Housing Exits Program, a partnership between DCS, OARS and another couple of organisations, whereby they can provide appropriate housing for up to 12 months. I believe there are about 60 properties that are scattered throughout regional and metropolitan South Australia. I am happy to try to find more details for you about the particular details of each of those programs, if that is of help.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:09): Supplementary: is the minister concerned about reports of women being housed in temporary accommodation, such as dodgy hotels, that may not be able to appropriately ensure their safety? The minister referenced the range of housing solutions. I am interested to know whether she is concerned about the adequacy of accommodation currently available through the hotel system.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:10): I thank the member for his question. I am happy to look into those specifics if you have further details as well. As I said, I am always happy to discuss these matters and provide further details about the existing housing opportunities that are available.

2 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:30): Thank you, Acting President. It is difficult to follow that brief contribution from the honourable member. I rise to speak today on a matter that will be of interest to all South Australians who care about the future of our country, and that is the risk posed by a Dutton prime ministership. It is clear that this man is not fit to be our prime minister.

Let's consider his record. When he was health minister, he was a real dud. A poll conducted by doctors in Australian Doctor magazine voted him the worst health minister in Australia in 35 years. Let's not forget that this is the guy who came up with the idea of a Medicare co-payment. What would he do if he got his hands on our Medicare system again?

As Minister for Home Affairs, he was an absolute disaster. Let's not forget the case of a Tamil family, the Murugappans, who were awarded $200,000 in costs after it was found that they had been denied due process by the government, one of a series of failures in his portfolio.

He also has a terrible track record in terms of fanning the flames of racism and division in our country. This is the bloke who boycotted Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generations back in 2008. He recently called for a ban on all Palestinian refugees from Gaza. He says, 'We should stop people coming in from war zones.' Really? This is the way that Australia should treat vulnerable people who are in trouble, who need our help?

He says he will not stand in front of the Aboriginal flag if he is elected. And let's not forget the ugly misinformation campaign he ran against the Voice to Parliament. Shame on those in this place who aided and abetted that dishonest campaign.

What about his policies? I say 'policies', but they are really more thought bubbles, because they are so ill-conceived. His nuclear plan: the Climate Council has done the costings and found that it will cost up to $490 billion, more than the Liberal Party are claiming. In fact, it could cost up to $821 billion. As a result of this ill-conceived plan, South Australians could see our electricity prices increasing by $665 a year on average, a price rise of $972 a year for a family of four.

What about tax reform? What is his policy? They say there is no such thing as a free lunch—not under the Liberals, if they get back in, because they want to bring back free business lunches. Who is picking up the bill? It is the Australian taxpayer. They would allow businesses to deduct up to $20,000 for meals and entertainment, and Treasury estimates the average cost will be $1.6 billion a year, up to $10 billion a year. What a waste of money in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.

Let's not forget about their workplace reform agenda. They want to scrap the right to disconnect. They want to force public servants back into the office five days a week—no exceptions, no working from home—and they want to cut 41,000 public servant jobs. How many South Australians will lose their jobs under Dutton? How long will the wait time be for public services under Mr Dutton?

Let's not forget the pièce de résistance of the Liberal Party's plan for office: another costly referendum. The last time they pushed for a national vote was on the issue of marriage equality, when they could have done the vote in the parliament. This time, they want to bring Australians to the polls on whether or not we should give the government the power to strip away citizenship rights, so that we can set up a second-class citizen regime in our country where people who have dual citizenship and are born overseas are at the mercy of politicians.

This Temu Trump is not fit to be prime minister of our country. Does anyone seriously think Peter Dutton has the fortitude to stand up to Donald Trump and advocate for our national interest? A Dutton prime ministership means job cuts, longer wait times for public services, higher energy prices, and more racism and division in our country. We cannot afford to risk Mr Dutton.

One of the key safeguards against Dutton getting in is the Greens winning the seat of Sturt, and our candidate Katie McCusker is campaigning hard. No-one knows who the local member is in James Stevens. You have Doctor No with Peter Dutton and Doctor Who in James Stevens, because no-one knows who he is or what he stands for. Let's keep the Liberals out.

19 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:32): I rise to speak on the bill on behalf of the Greens and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill's passage through the upper house, albeit with a few reservations, and I will talk a little bit about those. The Hon. Jing Lee has articulated very clearly, I think, the two main elements of this bill. The first relates to a tightening of eligibility requirements for voting in council elections. Currently, residents are given the opportunity to vote. What the Hon. Frank Pangallo is proposing is that that franchise be restricted to citizens, in line with the voting that we see in state and federal elections. Additionally, the honourable member through this bill is supporting compulsory voting, again bringing council elections in line with state and federal elections.

On the issue of the voter roll and restricting the franchise to citizens, I do have some concerns with what the honourable member is proposing. Those concerns mirror those expressed by the Hon. Jing Lee; that is, we do not want to disenfranchise long-term members of the community, people who are part of our council communities who may not necessarily be formal citizens but who want a stake in the future of their local government. Indeed, many state jurisdictions in Australia extend the opportunity to vote to permanent residents.

I guess where South Australia is a little bit different, though, is that we do not have the same requirements in terms of permanent residency status for voting in council elections, so people can be living in a particular council precinct for a very short time and then get themselves on the roll and exercise a vote.

I can see the potential under that system for things to go awry, and so it is on that basis that the Greens will support this, recognising that of course if it passes this house there will be an opportunity to work with the government and the Hon. Frank Pangallo to address some of the implementation issues. Indeed, it would be our hope that the government, in contemplating this, will look very closely at what happens in other jurisdictions.

I want to also talk a little bit about the Greens' position on compulsory voting in council elections. I must say I am a late convert to this debate, having been elected as a city councillor more than 10 years ago now. One of the things I thought was attractive about local government was the fact that you had Independents, community-minded people who could be elected outside of the political party banner. I think that is a good feature of our democratic system.

What we know, however, is that people can still be members of political parties, and that may not necessarily be known to the voter when they cast their vote. This became a real issue in the Adelaide City Council elections in 2018, when you saw a group of Liberals under the Team Adelaide banner, who stood under the leadership of failed preselection candidate Houssam Abiad and failed Liberal Party candidate Alex Hyde, now party director, members of the Liberal Party who put themselves forward as just a group that were working closely together but were actually operating as a factional group, a secret faction.

They were elected to city council and then denied that they were members of a faction but voted as a factional group on most issues. This has been well documented in the media. That does concern me. I think voters have a right to know what political parties these candidates are connected to. That is one of the reasons why the Greens advocated strongly during the last local government elections to tighten the disclosure regime around political party membership so that voters got that information before they exercised their vote, rather than after the vote.

The problem is, though, of course that because of the optional voting system these loose factional groups are able to be formed, and the connection may not be transparent to voters. One of the benefits of compulsory voting is that people may well run under a political party banner and therefore that connection is going to be more transparent to voters.

We also know, of course, that we suffer from a very low turnout in council elections. In the last local government elections held in South Australia, in November 2022, approximately 400,000 people participated. That is a turnout of around 32 per cent of the eligible voting population. There is a bit of a difference between metro and country turnout, but it is not huge. In metropolitan areas, the turnout is generally higher compared to country areas. For example, in the City of Adelaide the turnout was around 40 per cent. Some country areas have lower participation rates, such as the District Council of Ceduna, which saw turnout of about 25 per cent.

I guess the risk when you have such low turnout is that some of these loose factional groups can wield disproportionate influence over a particular council, as we saw with the failed Team Adelaide faction led by councillors Abiad and Hyde of the Liberal Party. It is my hope that if we see this reform we might be able to safeguard councils against those sorts of antics in the future. I am open to this on that basis.

I also want to touch on one of the issues that the Hon. Jing Lee mentioned, which is the ongoing legal matter that is unfolding in Adelaide City Council. I saw that the Lord Mayor shared a statement on her social media account from the CEO of the City of Adelaide, and I thought it might be useful to just read that statement into Hansard because I suspect some other members may reflect on what's going on with the city council, and I think it is useful to get this information on the public record. The CEO advised the Adelaide City Council—I have a transcript of his remarks on 11 March. He said:

…on Friday the seventh of March, the Court of Disputed Returns delivered judgment in the matter of Hyde, ECSA and Li.

That matter concerned a petition filed in the court by Mr Alexander Hyde contesting the validity of the 2022 periodic election, which resulted in the election of four councillors to represent council's central ward.

In upholding the petition in part, the court found that the election was affected by illegal practices and that those illegal practices affected the outcome of the election.

At the request of counsel for Mr Hyde, the court has adjourned the matter to 4 April 2025 to allow time for the parties to make submissions regarding what orders the courts should make as a result of its judgment.

As the court has not yet made any orders, each of the central ward councillors continue to hold office as members of council in accordance with the terms of the Local Government Act.

Those councillors are entitled to attend council meetings, committee meetings and information and briefing sessions in the ordinary way unless and until the court orders otherwise.

Importantly, section 40 of the Local Government Act makes it clear that there is no risk to the validity or lawfulness of any of the decisions of council since the 2022 periodic elections arising from the findings of the court, including at tonight's council meeting. Any council decision made prior to the court's orders taking effect will remain valid even after the court makes orders finalising the proceedings.

I do think that's an important statement to put on the public record because I know there is a significant concern around the legitimacy of the council. The CEO makes clear the implications of the court's findings thus far. In closing, the Greens are supportive of this bill moving through to the next stage. We do have some reservations. It is our hope that those can be teased out through collaboration with the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the government. With that, I conclude my remarks.

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.