3 May 2023

No. 271 

In reply to the The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (3 May 2023).

1. How many children between the ages of 10-14 have been detained in the justice system in the last 12 months?

2. Of those children, how many are between the ages of 10-12?

3. What is the government doing to progress the Optional Protocol to the (United Nations) Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) which prevents the torture, illegal treatment, and deprivation of human rights for detained people?

4. How much funding is being provided by the South Australian government to implement OPCAT?

5. Is the government providing extra financial and human resources to the Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People to provide oversight for children and young people to the international standard required by OPCAT?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): 
I have been advised:

1. Between 10 May 2022 and 9 May 2023, a total of 41 children aged from 10 years to 13 years and 11 months were admitted to Kurlana Tapa Youth Justice Centre.

Cumulatively, these children spent a total of 275 nights in custody along with two children who were admitted to Kurlana Tapa but did not remain overnight.

2. Between 10 May 2022 and 9 May 2023, eight children aged from 10 years to 11 years and 11 months were admitted to Kurlana Tapa Youth Justice Centre. These children spent a cumulative 13 nights in custody over the past year.

Table 1—Admission of children aged 10 to 13 years to Kurlana Tapa Youth Justice Centre between 10 May 2022 and 9 May 2023

Please note the sum of the 'number of children' column is 45 but the total number of individual children comes to 41. This is because four children had subsequent admissions after their birthdays.

3. As I have indicated previously in this place, South Australia, like other jurisdictions, stands prepared to implement OPCAT when the commonwealth government provides proper and ongoing funding to do so. The South Australian government continues to work closely with the commonwealth government to progress the implementation of OPCAT and issues concerning funding. OPCAT remains a priority item on the Standing Council of Attorneys-General (SCAG) meeting agenda for 2023. At the 28 April 2023 SCAG meeting, all participants affirmed their commitment to continue to work together towards full implementation of OPCAT obligations. I welcome this commitment from the commonwealth government and look forward to continuing to progress efforts to support the full implementation of OPCAT.

4. The South Australian government's position is that funding to implement OPCAT is a matter for the commonwealth government. The South Australian government continues to work closely with the commonwealth government to resolve issues relating to funding for the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) to ensure that they are able to effectively carry out their functions and powers under OPCAT.

5. The Training Centre Visitor (currently Ms Shona Reid who also holds the office of Guardian for Children and Young People) was nominated in January 2022 by the former government to be the NPM for training centres when OPCAT is implemented. The implementation of OPCAT, including the passage of legislation needed to confer NPM functions on the Training Centre Visitor, remains subject to resolution of issues related to federal funding.

3 May 2023

No 270

In reply to the The Hon. R.A. Simms MLC (3 May 2023).

1. What is the government doing to support people living with disability when navigating the legal system?

2. Will the government implement the recommendation from the South Australian Law Reform Institute's report titled 'Providing a Voice to the Vulnerable: A Study of Communication Assistance in South Australia' that called on the government to provide a publicly funded service to be available to people with complex communication needs when interacting with the justice system?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector):

I have been advised:

1. My department provides National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-25 (NLAP) funding to the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and community legal centres for the provision of legal assistance services to key cohorts identified as national priority client groups under the NLAP, which includes people with a disability or mental illness.

Specifically, the department provides (non-exhaustive):

NLAP funding to Uniting Communities Law Centre to deliver the Welfare Rights Service, which provides legal advice and representation to clients with social security matters, including those in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). This includes matters relating to the disability support pension.

State funding to LSC to deliver the Disability Information and Legal Assistance (DILA) unit. The DILA unit provides specialist information and legal advice for South Australians with disability, including those with cognitive or mental impairment, their carers and advocates.

In addition to the services funded by the department, Uniting Communities receives state funding from the Department of Human Services to deliver the Disability Advocacy Service. The Disability Advocacy Service provides education and assistance to people trying to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) system or who are seeking reviews of their NDIS plans. The service also assists with appeals lodged in the AAT regarding a NDIS decision, or in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal regarding a guardianship order.

Further, there are several initiatives in place to support people with disability and complex communication needs to navigate and engage with the justice system. They include (non-exhaustive):

Vulnerable witness provisions are available to specified people, including people with a mental disability, to help make the experience of giving evidence in court less stressful. This could include giving evidence from a separate room (including via closed-circuit TV—CCTV), having a court support volunteer present or having a canine court companion to accompany the witness while giving evidence.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions' Witness Assistance Officers and Victim Support Services' volunteer Court Companions are available to provide trauma-informed support for victims who may need assistance to participate in the prosecution process, including those with a disability. This may also involve assisting victims to understand information about legal rights and processes and providing practical support so that they can participate in the criminal justice system to the best of their ability and can access appropriate community-based support services.

Canine Court Companions are also available to reduce the stress and anxiety of vulnerable victims and prosecution witnesses. Court Companions is a joint initiative between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Guide Dogs SA/NT.

2. Ensuring that people with complex communication needs can access the justice system is of the utmost importance to the government and is an ongoing consideration.

The communication partner service is currently provided by qualified communication specialists whereby a person with complex communication needs is entitled to receive communication assistance for support with speech, language and communication needs to facilitate communication with the justice system, including police, criminal defence lawyers, courts or prosecution services.

The government will continue to monitor the impact of the available range of communication assistance strategies to ensure they are operating as effectively as possible.

14 June 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:45): I rise to express my dismay at the Adelaide Advertiser's report in Saturday's paper, 'Cash, sex and frock'n'roll', where a church leader was outed, to use The Advertiser's language, living a double life meeting gay men on the sex app Grindr. The article goes on to claim that the priest was 'active on the homosexual meeting site Grindr, providing graphic depictions of sexual encounters and desires with men and sending pornographic photos to potential dates'. The Advertiser also revealed that it had 'obtained surveillance video taken by a private investigator from a public street, which appears to show multiple males visiting his home at night, corresponding with chats on his Grindr account that invited them'.

The article contains a series of screenshots of private messages the priest had sent on Grindr, including one featuring his photo. In recent days, I have been contacted by many members of the LGBTI community, gay men in particular, who have been dismayed and quite frankly disgusted at the way in which this man has been named and shamed. I share their dismay. I was stunned to see this story in Saturday's paper.

Meeting people via dating apps is not a crime, nor should it be considered shameful. Why is Grindr described by The Advertiser as a 'gay sex app' or a 'homosexual meeting site'? Would the same emotive language have been used if the man involved was chatting to prospective dates on Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Facebook or Instagram? The use of the term 'frock' in this context is also one to contemplate. Surely we have moved past the point in our state where gay men, or men who have sex with men, are outed and humiliated in this way.

Stories that outed gay men were commonplace in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in UK tabloid papers. Politicians and celebrities were all considered fair game. This reporting during the height of the AIDS crisis fuelled homophobia. While some may argue that this man's role in a church means that his personal life is inconsistent with his public life, surely in a civilised society we have moved beyond outing community leaders.

There are many people who work in public-facing roles who do not wish to have their sexuality known for a range of reasons. This is particularly true of those who work in religious organisations. Coming out is still a very difficult thing for many people, and those of us in the LGBTI community go on our own personal journeys with this. LGBTIQ+ Health Australia reports that one in 10 calls made to the QLife hotline are about coming out. Outing someone and exposing their intimate communications has the potential to cause serious psychological harm.

There are laws in place to prevent the sharing of revenge porn, that is, the sharing of images to third parties. Perhaps it is time to review the law to ensure that intimate messages are also protected to prevent public humiliation. There is the potential here for individuals to suffer serious reputational damage should their private, intimate communications find their way into the public realm.

I am deeply concerned that the salacious language used and the prominence given to this issue in our paper reinforces perceptions about gay sexuality, that is that it is shameful, immoral and sleazy. Sadly, these sorts of narratives can lead people to conceal their sexuality and push people further into the closet. There is nothing shameful about being gay. There is nothing shameful about being on dating apps or meeting people via these sites. Indeed, in 2017, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 39 per cent of heterosexual couples met their partners online, and an ABC study has shown that a third of those who met their partners during the year 2020 did so in the online environment.

The Advertiser has played an important role in pushing gay law reform in our state. It gave significant prominence to the murder of Dr Duncan more than 50 years ago, and it has regularly reported on issues of importance to the LGBTI community, exposing hate crimes and highlighting issues relevant to gay law reform. I do hope that The Advertiser considers the potential implications of Saturday's story and that we do not see this replicated again in our state's local newspaper.

13 June 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:50): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question to the Attorney-General on the topic of protection of private communications.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On Saturday, the Adelaide Advertiser published an article on its front page under the heading, 'Cash, sex and frock'n'roll', where it revealed that a church leader had been—and I quote directly from the article—'living a double life, meeting men on gay sex app Grindr'. The article features screenshots of private messages sent by the app between the man and other men.

My question to the Attorney-General is: can the Attorney-General advise what protections exist for South Australians communicating on dating apps and social media apps, and are there any laws in place that prohibit the sharing of private messages and photos to third parties?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:51): I thank the honourable member for his questions; they are good questions. I will take on notice to bring back a more complete and fuller answer but telecommunications, or communications by electronic methods, are, I am pretty sure, the sole province of the commonwealth in terms of regulation. That will be part of the answer I will have to take on notice.

In terms of dating apps, I think my colleague in the other place the member for Reynell, Minister Katrine Hillyard, has attended at least one national forum on some of the difficulties with online dating apps and how issues surrounding them work. Again, I am happy to take on notice to bring back a fuller answer. Under South Australian law and offences created under the Summary Offences Act in terms of sharing invasive images, I don't think that extends to messages that might be covered by commonwealth telecommunications, but I am happy to have a look at that and take it on notice.

I have been to forums with my own teenage children, run by Sonya Ryan and others, and it does highlight the dangers faced with modern methods of communication. Once someone communicates on these sorts of apps, whether they are dating apps or apps generally, one tends to lose control of where they end up. Modern technology has made our life very easy in many ways, but it has created certain difficulties that people may not think about at the time.

It is a good question. I am aware of some of the areas, but I will take it on notice to bring back a fuller answer for the honourable member.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:53): Supplementary: noting the minister's response, is the government considering further reform in this area?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:53): I thank the honourable member. There is work being done at a national level on privacy more generally, and I know the honourable member's colleague has talked about that, particularly in terms of facial recognition. We will continue to be a part of that federal work in terms of privacy generally.

30 May 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:50): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of a human rights charter.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On International Human Rights Day last year, over 150 organisations and individuals signed a statement calling for a parliamentary inquiry into a human rights act in South Australia. The call was led by the South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS), the Rights Resource Network of South Australia and Australian Lawyers for Human Rights. The signatories stated that, and I quote from their document: We want to help build a society based on a culture of respect for human rights across government, parliament, the courts and our communities.

Those 150 signatories called for a framework to protect human rights that requires the South Australian government to consider everyone's basic rights when it designs new laws, regulations or policies. On 17 May 2023, following the protest actions of Extinction Rebellion, the police commissioner, Grant Stevens, told FIVEaa that, and I quote: We can't just, as much as we might like to, cut the ropes and let them drop.

Just a few days later, on 21 May, opposition leader David Speirs stated in a media conference, and I quote from his remarks to the ABC: If you…march down King William Street in a planned protest supported by the police…I think we're doing pretty good. There are some countries where your head would be cut off for doing that sort of protest.

My question to the Attorney-General therefore is: is the Attorney-General concerned by these comments? In particular, does he share the opposition leader's belief that being able to walk down the street without being beheaded is a sign of 'doing pretty good'? Does the Attorney-General think it is acceptable for the Commissioner of Police to refer to cutting the rope on protesters, and would the Attorney-General support a charter of human rights to ensure that the basic human rights of all South Australians are protected?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:52): I thank the honourable member for his questions. In relation to the first two questions and comments that others have made, I will leave that for them to talk about the comments they have made and why they have made them. In relation to the third question, in relation to a human rights charter, it certainly is something that has been raised, and a number of the groups mentioned by the honourable member have made representations to the government about this and a whole range of other matters—particularly recently—not just from our just over 12 months in government but our time in opposition.

Protecting human rights is an important thing that governments should be concerned about. We have, since 1975, federal racial discrimination laws. We have an Equal Opportunities Act that applies in South Australia. In relation to legislation for human rights, we are open to receiving representations, but we don't have a policy to advance legislation on that matter at this time.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:53): Supplementary: does the Attorney-General not want to use this opportunity to disavow the comments of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:53): I think the Leader of the Opposition is big enough to defend any comments he makes himself. I might say that it is not language I would choose to use.

17 May 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:09): I, too, rise in favour of the motion proposed by the Hon. Frank Pangallo; however, I take this opportunity to indicate that the Greens are not supportive of the government's amendments. We are concerned that they water down the motion of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and therefore we are not supportive of them; however, the Greens are supportive of the original motion that has been proposed by the honourable member.

I acknowledge the leadership of the Hon. Mr Frank Pangallo in this place on issues to do with press freedom. As has been observed by other members, he has been a journalist. He is a member in this place who has a keen interest in these issues and I certainly welcome his leadership in this regard.

May 3was the 30^th anniversary of the United Nations UN General Assembly World Press Freedom Day. The theme for this year's day was 'Shaping a future of rights: freedom of expression as a driver for all other human rights', signifying the enabling element of freedom of expression to enjoy and protect all other human rights. World Press Freedom Day reminds us that freedom to seek, disseminate and receive information on issues of public interest is a public good and vital to building a healthy and pluralistic civic space in which democratic institutions can flourish. Without a free and fair media acting as public watchdogs, citizens cannot access the information we need to make sound political choices, and accountability is severely impaired.

The media also offers citizens analysis of ongoing events, serves as a public forum in which different voices can be heard and interacts with and helps citizens understand what is becoming an increasingly complex world. The meaningful role played by the media in healthy democratic societies is recognised by the main universal and regional treaties on human rights, which entrench media freedom and pluralism in their provisions on freedom of expression and information.

World Press Freedom Day is also a day to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in pursuit of a story, to defend media from attacks on their independence and to assess the state of play of media freedoms worldwide, and to reflect about issues relating to press freedom and professional ethics.

Sadly, according to UNESCO World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: Global Report 2021-22, 85 per cent of the world's population experienced a decline in press freedom in their country over the past five years. The report also found that between 2016 and 2021, 455 journalists were killed, either for their work or while they were on the job. Nine times out of 10 the murder of a journalist is unresolved. At the same time, imprisonment of journalists has reached record highs. Since 2016, dozens of countries have adopted or amended laws and regulations that threaten freedom of expression and press freedom online.

Growing numbers of media outlets have been forced to cut down on staff or close their doors permanently, and just two companies—Google and Meta—now receive approximately half of all global digital advertising spends. Here in Australia, I fear that press freedom is going backwards. According to the Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index, Australia has dropped 14 places between 2021 and 2022, down from 25 to 35, and its score dropped from 80 to 73.77 over the last 12 months. Just two firms—News Corp and the Nine Entertainment Group—dominate Australia's media landscape, making Australia one of the most hyperconcentrated media systems in the world.

This oligarchic model prioritises business interests to the detriment of public interest journalism. The executives of big media companies maintain close ties to political leaders, which fuels doubts about the editorial independence of the outlets they own. In 2021, a Senate committee confirmed the existence of a growing culture of secrecy by the administration through the press, and this manifested itself through informal pressure not to reveal certain matters and of intimidation of whistleblowers under the pretext of protecting national security.

I should observe that it is not just state and federal governments that have a track record when it comes to intimidating the press. I remember my days in Town Hall, when the Team Adelaide faction, under the leadership of Lord Mayor Verschoor, initiated a gag order, which prevented members of council from being able to talk to the press about motions they were intending to move. I found that to be an outrageous affront to democracy at a local level, and myself and councillors Anne Moran and Phillip Martin were very much against that change. It took a very strong campaign from the media and the community to force the Team Adelaide faction, under the leadership of Alex Hyde, to reverse their position. It is a reminder that no level of government is immune from intimidating the press.

It is really important that we see strong, protected, independent public broadcasters like the ABC. These play a very important role in providing high-quality investigative journalism yet, sadly, they have had their budgets cut by more than half a billion dollars since 2014 and that has led to hundreds of lay-offs. The Liberal Party in Canberra have an appalling track record in that regard of trying to undermine the independence of the ABC. They have really gutted it over many years, and I hope that we see the Albanese government in Canberra putting more money into the ABC in the years ahead.

One of the challenges we face in our country is that Australia's constitution does not contain an explicit clause dealing with freedom of the press. This causes growing problems in our country, especially because some states are showing draconian tendencies concerning the free practice of journalism. At the federal level parliament has adopted, since the end of the 2000s, several problematic laws on national security, espionage and data encryption, which contain provisions authorising officials to violate the principle of journalists' confidential source protection. It is a really important principle for freedom of the press and it is one that is being eroded.

In a 2021 study, nearly 90 per cent of journalists in Australia said they feared, and I quote from that document, 'an increase in threats, harassment or intimidation', starting with threats from government. In 2019, the federal police searched the home of political News Corp journalist, Annika Smethurst, in Canberra, as well as the headquarters of the ABC, creating an alarming legal precedent that threatens the survival of public interest journalism in our country.

We are seeing all around the world an erosion of press freedoms. We are seeing, as social media takes more of a centre stage, the proliferation of misinformation and the terrible impact that can have on our democracy. It is so vital that we see the freedom of the press being respected and preserved going forward. In that spirit, the Greens support the motion.

18 May 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:46): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of the right to protest.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: There are many examples in our history where civil disobedience has led to significant positive social change. For instance, the global suffragette movement ran numerous campaigns that involved women chaining themselves to railings, large-scale marches and public demonstrations. It is widely accepted that without the women's suffragette movement we would not have women in our parliaments today.

In 1955, both Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks famously refused to give up their bus seats to a white man in an act of civil disobedience. These events sparked the Montgomery bus boycott led by Martin Luther King and resulted in the prohibition of racial segregation on public buses in Montgomery. In the 1950s, Nelson Mandela initiated several protests against apartheid. Attended by tens of thousands of people, these events built the antiapartheid movement in South Africa.

In 1969, the Stonewall riots in New York were a series of spontaneous protests by members of the gay community in response to a police raid. One year later, on the anniversary of this event, the first gay pride marches took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco, and gay pride events now take place across the world.

Closer to home, the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra was first established in 1972 to call on the federal government to give that group land rights and cultural protections. While the original tent embassy was formally evicted under laws designed to prohibit it, the ACT Supreme Court later ruled against using those laws to prohibit the embassy. In 1982, the blockade at the Franklin Dam, led by former Greens leader Bob Brown, resulted in the Hawke government moving to save precious wilderness in Tasmania. In Adelaide, on 16 February 2003, 100,000 people marched on our streets against the war on Iraq.

This morning on ABC radio, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition foreshadowed their intention to move to increase fines and introduce imprisonment for protesters who cause community disruption and obstruction of the public space. My question to the Attorney-General therefore is: does the Attorney-General support the right to protest in our state, and if these historic figures engaged in this conduct today, would they be subject to fines and imprisonment under Labor's antiprotest laws?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for his question, and I note the honourable member's interest in this area and the leadership the honourable member has taken in many areas of public debate. We have introduced legislation that has now passed the lower house in relation to increasing the fines available to courts for breaching section 58 of the Summary Offences Act.

The intention of these changes isn't to increase the scope of these laws—that is, to capture more people whose behaviour could be caught by section 58, which has been in place since 1990-ish and the last time the penalty was updated, I understand, was 1998. What the changes to the law do seek to do, however, is significantly increase the penalties that the courts can impose after conduct.

In the last few days I think it is the first time that I have had members of the public stop me and want to talk to me about the problems that they have seen and the disruption that has been caused from protests to them over recent days. One thing I would absolutely hate to see is protests that block thoroughfares that actually end up causing harm to a person, for example if an emergency services vehicle wanted to get to a hospital.

We are increasing the fines that are available to courts for people who breach a law that has been in the Summary Offences Act, as I have said, since 1990. As I say, if someone's behaviour hasn't been caught by this before, it is not the intention of these changes to broaden it to capture them but certainly to give the courts more discretion in the fines that they impose. I note that other states in recent times, I think both New South Wales, if I remember correctly, and also Victoria, have significantly increased their fines for similar things that have included much longer jail terms.

I also note that the fines that are in place now and the fines that will be in place, should these changes go through, will be maximum penalties. They won't be the penalties that apply for any sorts of breaches of these; they will be the maximum penalties. Maximum penalties are often imposed for the most egregious breaches of the kind. Sometimes you find rarely that the actual maximum penalty is imposed but is reserved for that theoretical worst sort of breach of these fines.

I do completely understand the honourable member's question. I do completely appreciate the significant wins that have been made in civil rights and a whole range of other areas in society by those who have protested. I have taken part in protests, in rallies, in demonstrations in the past, and I suspect I will continue to do so in the future.

But when things can lead to such significant public disruption—and I don't think any of us would want to see either emergency services personnel who are attending these protests or those who are impeded by these protests have situations where even lives could be put at risk. I don't think that would be a desirable outcome. Certainly, I don't want to see things stand in the way of seeing progressive democratic change as we have seen in decades and centuries gone by.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:52): Supplementary: has the minister participated in protests that have involved the obstruction of the public space, and is he concerned that were he to engage in such protests in the future he would fall foul of Labor's draconian laws?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for his question. I am trying to recall everything that I have been a part of over the preceding few decades. I am not sure that I would have been part of any rally, protest or demonstration that would have seen me fall foul of section 58 of the Summary Offences Act. Certainly, I have never been arrested, charged with, prosecuted or convicted of a breach of section 58 of the Summary Offences Act. Given that we are making changes to the penalties, I am not sure I will.

I know that many protests that are organised by various groups today often go through local councils to seek approval for the protests. Many protests or rallies or demonstrations have a police presence because there has been that approval process through local councils and are quite successful in winning over hearts and minds in that sort of way. Rallies like the marches during NAIDOC Week, those sorts of rallies do block off King William Street and approvals are sought from Adelaide City Council.

We have seen rallies on the steps of Parliament House where approval, as I understand it, is sought from parliament. These are very effective tools in terms of advocating for changes in our society. Long may they continue and long may we hear the will of the people through these sorts of protests, particularly those that have those sorts of permissions and are done in a safe way. I certainly wouldn't want to see people's lives or a risk of injury through more extreme forms of protest.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:54): Supplementary: is it the minister's view and is it the view of the Malinauskas government that only protests approved by government are acceptable in our state?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:55): I think there are a whole range of ways that people express themselves, which have been done and will continue to be done.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, you have a supplementary question.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:55): Would these laws have covered the Black Lives Matter protests during COVID, when laws were broken—not that I had any objection to it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:55): I thank the honourable member for his question. If I remember correctly, during those protests there was a police presence. I might stand corrected, but I think that at the time an exemption was given for those protests by the police commissioner, but I will double-check that. Certainly, the intention is not expanding the scope of what has been covered by section 58 of the Summary Offences Act in the past.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:56): Who did the Attorney-General consult before rushing through this legislation, or was it just merely the Premier and the Opposition Leader listening to bleaters on talkback radio or on online platforms?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:56): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I have said before, it is not as characterised by the honourable member. This is the first time I have been stopped by members of the public in the city as I have gone about my business, to talk about their concerns about protests and the dangers that might be involved for others. This certainly for me, and I suspect for other members, has been a very significant area of community concern.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (14:56): Supplementary: not withstanding the response of the Attorney, is he aware of concerns raised about unintended consequences of this proposal by very senior and eminent legal commentators in recent hours?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:57): No, I am not aware of what the honourable member is referring to, but when this bill finds its way to this chamber I am sure the honourable member will agitate those—I have no doubt.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:57): Supplementary arising from the original answer.

The PRESIDENT: Last supplementary question, because I suspect we will be debating this bill in this place.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Simms, I will listen to your supplementary question.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Is the minister concerned about the potential for workers, particularly in the Public Service, to be captured under these new laws should they engage in protests and industrial action? In particular, I am thinking of those in the transport space.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is not an unreasonable question but, as I have said, this does not intend to increase the scope. It certainly absolutely and unapologetically does intend to increase the range of fines a court can impose, but that is not what it intends to do to extend that scope in relation to something people have been doing before. I know people are concerned that public sector workers, particularly those in the emergency services, occasionally put themselves at risk with the actions of some protesters.

18 May 2023

The civil and political rights of South Australians could be eroded if new anti-protest laws flagged by the major parties are rushed through Parliament, warn the Greens.

The Greens’ comments come as Opposition Leader David Speirs stated that he will seek to have prison terms and fines of up to $50,000 imposed for people who engage in protest behaviour, and Premier Peter Malinauskas said he would work with the Liberals to introduce similar legislation to Parliament as early as today.

Quotes Attributable to Greens Attorney-General Spokesperson Robert Simms MLC.

"It’s chilling to hear the major parties talking about working together to curtail the right to protest in our democracy.”

“Draconian anti-protest laws were rushed through State Parliament in NSW, it's very alarming to hear that South Australia may be next. The right to peaceful protest and civil disobedience are fundamental to our democracy."

‘We live in a strange world where it’s acceptable for the Government to close off parts of the city for months to hold a car race, yet blocking a lane of traffic to protest the climate crisis is apparently a bridge too far.”

“The Greens are urging the Government not to rush this legislation through to ensure that the full implications can be considered by the Parliament and the community.”

Quotes Attributable to Greens Climate Spokesperson Tammy Franks MLC

“The recent World Meteorological Organisation report is another reminder of the need for urgent action on the climate crisis. If only the Labor and Liberal parties were as keen to work together with such urgency on the real crisis before us.”

3 May 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of parliamentary standing orders.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Last month, the Adelaide Advertiser reported that, following a review, changes have been made to standing orders in the other place to ensure the adoption of gender-neutral language. Previously, the standing orders in that place referred to the monarch as 'Her Majesty', the Governor as 'His Excellency', and the Chair of Committees as 'the Chairman'—anachronistic, given the number of women that are chairing committees in this parliament.

After the reforms were reported in the media, several members of the opposition lined up to say that they would oppose similar changes to standing orders here in this place. The Advertiser, however, later revealed that gender-neutral language had in fact already been adopted in this chamber. My question to the Attorney-General therefore is: in light of the confusion, will he clarify the current status of gender-neutral language within the Legislative Council's standing orders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in this area. I can certainly provide an answer to his question. I might start at the start, start from the beginning, and say that I am a firm believer that workplaces should strive to stay contemporary and relevant, particularly workplaces with such an old history of traditions as in our parliament. That's why this chamber unanimously recently agreed to rename the Strangers Gallery the Public Gallery. We have a responsibility in this place, I think, to be inclusive not just to the people who work here every day but to the diversity of the community that we represent.

With that being said, I can advise the honourable member that we have no plans to amend the standing orders in this chamber to introduce gender-neutral language, and that is quite simply because we were beaten to it. We were beaten to it, I am ashamed to say, not by the Greens—with apologies to the Hon. Robert Simms—but, to my great shame, we were beaten to it by that beacon of political correctness, the Hon. Robert Ivan Lucas—the wizard of wokeness, the prince of progressiveness, the king of correctness: the Hon. Robert Ivan Lucas.

I have to say, I think many people have been astounded over the last few weeks at what we have heard about the priorities from those opposite. While those on this side of the chamber and many on the crossbench were working hard for the people of this state, the Liberal Party in this chamber chose to spend its time over the last month trying to start a culture war with themselves, and I am not even sure that's a war that they would win. A culture war that was fought and won by their own side in the last century.

It was on the motion of the king of woke, the Hon. Robert Ivan Lucas, that gender-neutral language was removed from the standing orders of this council back in 1999.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: When?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In 1999—almost a quarter of a century ago. In the 1999 report of the Standing Orders Committee, chaired by then Liberal MLC and President, the Hon. Jamie Irwin, the very first recommendation was, and I quote, 'Standing orders be amended to incorporate gender neutral language.' It was such a sensible change that the Hon. Robert Lucas put forward, remembering he was the Liberal campaign's spokesperson just last year. The Hon. Rob Lucas, last century, urged all members to support the change to gender-neutral language.

For the record, this woke gender-neutral language was passed unanimously—not a single vote of dissent in August 1999. I am sure the Hon. Rob Lucas has dragged off that spoil of war, his gender-neutral win no doubt rousing cheers over muskets at dawn at The Adelaide Club. I can imagine him now in his twilight years, as he tends to his ponies in the field, remembering, thinking back on this great victory in his younger days: removing gender-neutral language from the Legislative Council. Guess what happened when this change was brought in last century? Nothing. The sky didn't fall in, the world didn't come to an end. Gender-neutral language, last century, really was the Y2K of its time.

The Hon. Dennis Hood is quoted as railing against this with great passion, saying that the Liberal Party was likely to come to a different position in the Legislative Council should there be a move away from non gender-neutral language here. Unfortunately, it had already happened more than 20 years ago. The Hon. Nicola Centofanti was quoted in the media also, standing firmly against this change that had already happened. The honourable member obviously wanted a time machine to go back more than a quarter of a century to fight the culture war with the Hon. Robert Ivan Lucas.

Just yesterday, it was reported in the media that a former Liberal candidate has criticised her own colleagues as focusing on niche culture war issues within the Liberal Party. I can assure this council that this government will continue focusing on issues that impact South Australians, not fighting against the ghost of Rob Lucas, tilting at his windmill, but it's a shame we can't say the same of those opposite. Ta.

22 March 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak in support of this motion. In doing so, I note this is the first time I have spoken on the matter in the chamber, so I did want to put on the public record my support for Julian Assange's freedom and indeed this motion. I also want to recognise the leadership of my colleague in this place the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the work that he has done on this issue. Of course, I note that Mr Pangallo is a former journalist who understands the importance of a free press and freedom of speech in our democracy. I also acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has spoken out on this issue many, many times.

The motion does several things. It recognises that Julian Assange is an Australian citizen and a journalist with WikiLeaks who aided in exposing possible war crimes and civilian casualties in the release of classified US materials, which of course included the Afghanistan war logs in 2010 and the Guantanamo Bay files in 2011 that were supplied to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, a former US Army intelligence analyst. The material in those files that has been published in the media was truly shocking.

The motion also acknowledges that Mr Assange genuinely believed his actions were for the purposes of government accountability, transparency and integrity and for the broader public interest and in the interests of justice. It notes that since the publication of these documents Mr Assange has been forced into isolation or imprisonment over the course of 10 years, which has resulted in a serious deterioration of his health and his mental wellbeing.

The motion recognises that Mr Assange's impending prosecution by the United States of America constitutes a serious attack on the fundamental democratic freedoms of the press. It questions the legitimacy of prosecuting Mr Assange in the United States through that country’s Espionage Act of 1917, carrying a penalty of up to 175 years of imprisonment. It also questions the legitimacy of whether that act should be applied to non-US citizens who were living and working in other countries at the time of any alleged offending.

I must say it is appalling to me that we have those who are exposing war crimes being punished in this way, yet the world leaders who have overseen these appalling atrocities are let off the hook. That is an appalling turn of events. The Greens have long advocated to release Julian Assange. His prosecution has always been political, and over the last 13 years the Greens have continually called on the federal government to secure his freedom.

In 2019, my colleague in the federal parliament Senator Whish-Wilson tabled a petition with over 200,000 signatures calling on the government to intervene and ensure Julian Assange's safe passage home. Similarly, my colleagues Senator Janet Rice and Senator Steele-John have continually asked questions in the federal parliament and pushed the federal government to do the right thing and release him from jail.

In 2021, the then opposition leader, the Hon. Anthony Albanese MP, called for Julian Assange's release, saying, 'I can't see what is being served by keeping him incarcerated.' Now, the Hon. Mr Anthony Albanese is our Prime Minister and he is in a position to act, and so the Greens call on the federal government to act quickly and decisively to end Julian Assange's long-term imprisonment.

The Australian Greens believe that freedom of the press is integral to the functioning of our successful democratic society. Journalism should never be a crime. Indeed, as observed by my colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John, 'The Greens will always support journalists' right to speak truth to power, and we will continue to fight to bring Julian home.' I commend the motion.