26 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:30): I rise to speak in favour of the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. I am pleased to see this bill come before us, as it contains many changes which will help update and improve the accessibility of our electoral system. Indeed, I commend the Electoral Commission of South Australia for their work in identifying areas of improvement and recognise that the government has taken up many of these as part of this bill.

At the heart of the changes to the electoral act before us is a recognition that our legislation is out of step with the current realities of the world we live in and the needs of voters. Indeed, we have seen many elections over the last few years where many people have voted early. Those votes have not been counted on election night and it can create a false impression around the views of electors and, indeed, those results whilst the vote is still being counted. I think most people in the community would welcome this as a commonsense change.

There are also some important measures within the legislation that I submit to you will help protect the integrity of our elections. These include measures such as banning robocalls and regulating the use of artificial intelligence in election advertisements. Indeed, on the issue of robocalls, the Greens have been supportive of banning that for many years.

I remember during the dying days of the Marshall government there was an electoral reform bill that came to this place. I think the then shadow attorney-general, leader of the Labor Party in this place, put forward an amendment to ban robocalls, which was inserted into the act. The Greens supported that. It passed the upper house, but then my recollection is that the bill languished in the lower house because the Liberal Party did not want to bring in that change in the lead-up to the state election. That was disappointing, because robocalls are something that I think undermine the public confidence in our elections. They are very unpopular and they are irritating for a lot of electors, so I think getting rid of robocalls is something that will be welcomed by many in the community.

A number of elements of the bill will make it easier for South Australians to vote, and I think that is a really good thing. Before I delve much further into the key elements of the bill, I will outline the basis of two of the amendments that the Greens will be moving today. We recognise that fundamental to this bill is the intention to make South Australia's electoral system more inclusive and better able to engage with the public, particularly young people. Some of the provisions of the legislation I think will make it easier for young people to vote, and that is a good thing.

However, one of the omissions, I think, is the failure to act on lowering the voting age. We are not proposing that voting be compulsory for 16 or 17 year olds. Rather, we are suggesting that voting for that cohort be optional. Sixteen and 17 year olds in our state are already able to work. They pay taxes, they can get a provisional licence and they can even join the army, but they are not able to vote and have their say on the direction of the government in our state.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition say in her remarks that young people's brains are still developing and they are not able to make decisions in that regard. Let's not forget that in South Australia the age of criminal responsibility is 10, so we are saying to these young people that they can be held criminally responsible under our laws, but they are not able to actually determine their views on politics when they are 16 or 17 years old. I find that a ridiculous proposition. Surely, people who are paying taxes, people who are out in the workforce, people who are engaging as citizens, should have a right to vote.

It is the Greens' hope that were a change like this to become law, then political parties would become much more responsive to the views of young people. If we look at issues like the housing crisis, if we look at issues like the climate crisis, these are long-term policy challenges. The impacts of the decisions that we make are intergenerational. The Labor and Liberal parties are doing a woeful job in terms of addressing those challenges in a meaningful way. Maybe one way to reorient the politics of this place is to enfranchise those young people. They deserve a voice.

I also recognise the work of the government in terms of civics education—that is great, but what better way to improve the engagement with young people in our politics than through giving them the opportunity to vote on an optional basis. I think it would be welcomed by a number of young people. Indeed, I recognise that the Commissioner for Children and Young People in our state has been doing a lot of advocacy around this.

I will briefly turn to the second amendment that the Greens are moving. This amendment delays the provisions relating to changes regarding the placement of corflutes for federal elections. When the government put forward draft legislation, it wrote to political parties asking their views. It wrote to the Greens party asking the views of the party organisation. The election campaign committee had a discussion regarding the bill and provided some feedback, which was the basis of the amendment that I am moving. Indeed, it has been the concern, through some of the feedback that I have received, that making this change so close to the federal election, given the federal election is only a few months away, could pose some challenges, so the amendment reflects that.

I now turn to some of the provisions within the bill that are informed by the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. One of the alterations to the existing act is that voters will now be able to enrol to vote on the actual day of the election. Voters will no longer be required to enrol beforehand; they can enrol up to and on the election day. I think that is a really positive advancement for democracy in our state. It will bring South Australia into line with other jurisdictions and it will help young people actually exercise their vote because we know, for a lot of reasons, young people may not always be on the roll.

We know also that young people are more likely to rent, they are more likely to be transient in terms of their address, and so giving them the flexibility to enrol right up until election day I think is a really positive advancement. After all, we should be doing what we can to encourage people to vote and exercise their democratic right.

Another alteration, in terms of change to the status quo, that I note within the bill is the change to the act allowing South Australians to vote early without needing to sign a declaration and without needing to provide a reason. I think a lot of South Australians who exercise their early vote do so without necessarily having a compelling reason.

It used to be that if you were going to cast your vote early, you needed to demonstrate that you were working or attending a wedding or had some significant event that you could not get out of. I think, in recent years, more and more South Australians have sought to avail themselves of the early voting provisions. It makes sense to relax those requirements to reflect what is actually happening.

I am also pleased to see amendments relating to itinerant electors—that is, people who are homeless or those who might be travelling within Australia. This bill exempts electors who have no fixed address from compulsory voting. It also allows them to stay enrolled, even if they are outside of South Australia for longer than a month. This is an important step as a compulsory voting requirement, which I am strongly supportive of, but this can be difficult for someone to comply with if they are itinerant, if they are someone who is homeless, or if indeed they are travelling interstate.

We support moves to encourage itinerant electors to stay enrolled and accommodations for this cohort to prevent them being punished for their lack of permanent address. Of course, my views on addressing the homelessness crisis are well known in this place and I think the government and indeed the Electoral Commission should do what they can to engage homeless voters.

We also support the changes to postal voting that come with the bill. Sadly, Australia Post is becoming increasingly unreliable. It is important for our laws to reflect that. The bill goes further to make inherently sensible changes, allowing postal vote applications to be made online or over the phone, rather than needing to be made via the post.

Also, it stops political parties from being able to control those postal mail-outs, which again is something that I think is not really in the spirit of democracy in our state. There are some important changes here, too, allowing sight-impaired and motor-impaired voters to use telephone-assisted voting. That is another really positive change that we think will help people.

Of course, there is a final change that will allow absent voting, simplifying the process for voting outside of your electorate. I have heard stories of people going into polling booths and not being able to vote because they do not live in that particular area. Again, it makes sense to streamline that, so I welcome the government taking action on that.

In closing, the Greens are supportive of the provisions within the bill, but we would like to see the government go further to give 16 year olds and 17 year olds the right to vote. Just recently, this parliament made history when we became the first place in the world to ban political donations. We could become the first state in Australia to give 16 year olds and 17 year olds the right to vote. I urge the government to consider this sensible suggestion from the Greens and to show some leadership in that regard.

13 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:06): I find myself in an unusual situation, because it is not often that the Hon. Sarah Game and I agree on an issue in this parliament, but I do have some sympathy for the argument that she has advanced here in relation to candidates displaying their nominations on council buildings. As I alluded to previously, members would be aware I was a former member of the city council.

When I stood for council it was commonplace for members standing for office, when they lodged their nomination, to have it displayed at the Town Hall. The benefit of that was that it gave members a sense of which wards were going to be contested, and gave members of the community who were planning on standing for council a bit of information about who might be running where. I have never seen that as being a problem in our democracy.

Under the previous Liberal government, there were some significant reforms of the Local Government Act. The Greens engaged constructively with the government around that and supported those reforms, but one of the changes that the Liberal government made was to get rid of that provision and to instead keep that information private, so that it was not clear who had nominated until after the nominations had closed. As a result, in the recent council elections we actually saw a number of wards, particularly in regional areas, that were simply not contested, whilst you then had contested elections or, in some areas, seats that could not be filled. To me, that does not seem like a very sensible way for our democracy to work.

If we have numerous good people who want to put themselves forward for office, surely they should get the information on who is standing where so that they can make an informed decision. So I do have some sympathy for the argument that the Hon. Sarah Game has made.

The Greens are inclined to support this bill, but if there are issues that arise in the context of the debate, if there is a cuckoo that is thrown into the nest somewhere along the line, then I will certainly revisit our position, and our view will be informed by the debate. But in principle I am inclined to support the honourable member's proposal.

13 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:27): I rise this afternoon to speak on an event that I think has sent shockwaves around the world, and it has certainly been concerning to many South Australians—that is, the re-election of Donald Trump to the US presidency.

A lot has been said about the implications of this for the left of politics, and I will talk a little bit about that today but I also want to talk about some of the lessons for the right of politics and in particular to warn the South Australian Liberal Party from going too far down that path, because, of course, we know the United States is very different from South Australia.

For the left of politics I think it is very clear that people want to actually see progressive political parties talk about their economic concerns and to engage in what is going wrong with our economic system. It is very clear in the United States, after years of rising inflation, that people are really struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table, and the Democrats, because they have become an establishment neoliberal party, are not offering the solutions that people crave.

Might I say the other big takeaway for me, looking at what happened in the United States, was the Democratic Party's capitulation to the State of Israel and the fact that they have signed up holus bolus to that military conflict. These are some warning signs, I think, for the Albanese Labor government. We know that Albanese Labor has been an apologist for the State of Israel and the mass murder of innocent people in Palestine and across the Middle East in a way that I think has been utterly deplorable, and there has been a failure of leadership from the federal Labor Party on that score.

Also, federal Labor is failing to do anything meaningful about the cost-of-living crisis that is facing our country at the moment. What we are seeing from the federal Labor Party, as we saw from the Democrats over in the United States, is a tinkering around the edges and a lack of engagement with the everyday concerns of people in the community, and so I do urge the Labor Party at a federal level to do better.

I think it is also important to note that the Liberals should not get their hopes up here in South Australia either because, whilst this sort of Trumpian hard-right politics does have a lot of currency in the United States at the moment, I do not think it is electorally popular in South Australia. I have been contacted by lots of South Australians who have been appalled by the way in which some of those Trumpian tactics have been imported into South Australia in recent weeks.

I was pretty appalled to hear all members of the Liberal Party, other than the Hon. Michelle Lensink, oppose the ban on conversion practices—a pretty straightforward proposition and one that would accord with the views of most South Australians. But so extreme are their views that none of them could bring themselves to back such a sensible reform.

I was appalled by the antics that we saw in relation to the termination bill, and we have talked a lot about that in the chamber over recent weeks. So I say to the Liberal Party: do not go down that path. Do not go getting any ideas because whilst the anti-establishment wave that has hit the United States is no doubt going to have an impact here in Australia, we do politics differently here in South Australia, and I urge the Liberal Party not to forget that.

I will use my final minute on the clock to say I have been contacted by lots of young people who have felt really desperately sad and hopeless about the state of the world following the US election. I share your sense of sadness and grief at what has happened with the return of a racist, sexist, misogynist man to the presidency of the United States. All I can say is do not lose hope. Now is not the time to retreat, now is the time to get active. Get involved with community groups, continue your activist work, connect with like-minded people. Now is the time for us on the progressive side of politics to continue to work together so that we can make the world a better place, and I know that this time will pass.

12 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (21:05): I rise to speak briefly on this bill. I do so, though, with an element of frustration. I recognise of course that we were not intending to deal with this tonight, and we have moved this around to accommodate some other matters, but I am very frustrated with the speed in which the government is choosing to deal with these changes. I have advocated for some time that we did need to take another look at the ICAC Act and make some alterations, and indeed I have been on the public record previously recognising that when the parliament made those changes to the ICAC back in 2021, it did so I think with the best of intentions.

I do not accept the narrative that parliamentarians were all corrupt and all trying to cover up bad behaviour. I think actually what the parliament was trying to do was strike a better balance in terms of the ICAC. It is fair to say that there had been concerns about the fact that the balance had tipped too far against civil liberties in favour of the ICAC organisation. These are always matters of balance. It is my view that when the parliament collectively moved to try to fix that back in 2021, it did so to try to strike a better balance.

My concern, however, was that there were some unintended consequences, that collectively we have swung the pendulum a little bit too far the other way, and also that the process that we adopted was not appropriate. We moved too quickly. Members of this chamber know that we had an inquiry into the ICAC, which was led by the Hon. Frank Pangallo and that many members of this place were engaged with. So there had been a parliamentary inquiry and a level of scrutiny happening within the parliament.

However, I do not think the parliament took the community with them in those changes. There had not been ongoing consultation and there were things that, clearly, we got wrong in the bill. One of those was this potential for members of parliament who are found guilty of criminal offences to have their legal fees potentially covered by the taxpayers, which I think most people in the community would regard as a slap in the face. There is a range of other things.

Certainly, from my perspective as an MP, I have often felt that I got that wrong, did not engage as deeply as I could have with the bill at the time, and that we missed some things. So it has always been my view that if we have an opportunity to revisit it again, make sure that we get it right. But to do that, you need time. So I am very frustrated that the government presented this bill to us last sitting. I only had a briefing last Thursday. There has been no opportunity to actually craft any amendments or do any meaningful consultation. That is very frustrating because we went down this path years ago. This is an opportunity to fix a few things and yet we are not being given the time to actually engage properly.

It is frustrating that this chamber is so often constipated for the first half of the year, and then there is a mad rush to get everything done at the eleventh hour as we head towards the Christmas period. The government is desperately trying to clear the backlog. That is very frustrating. It does not all have to be done right now. It does not all have to be done tonight without an opportunity to actually engage deeply with the content. That said, as I am on my feet I will talk to the proposal that the government has put forward.

The bill will make progress in addressing some of the issues that have been flagged with the existing legislation by the former Commissioner Ann Vanstone but also by other organisations, including the Law Society and the Centre for Public Integrity, and I welcome that. It will amend schedule 5 of the ICAC Act to change the criteria for reimbursement of legal costs under the act to ensure that a public officer who has been convicted of any offence is precluded from reimbursement.

The bill will also restrict the exercise of ministerial discretion over decisions involving reimbursement to current and former ministers and members of parliament. These are important changes that will bring the act into line with community expectations that politicians and public servants should not be paid back their legal costs where they are found to have engaged in wrongdoing.

The bill makes a series of commonsense amendments to address other operational and technical issues, including inserting a delegation of power in relation to the ICAC inspector's power and functions and clarifying the ICAC inspector's ability to investigate the exercise of power under the ICAC Act as it existed prior to 25 August 2021. The bill also requires the disclosure of certain information following the completion of an investigation under the ICAC Act to the person who was the subject of that investigation, addressing concerns that have been raised about the mandatory operation of this section being too restrictive.

I note that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has flagged that she will move a number of amendments to the bill and I indicate that the Greens are supportive of those. I further note that the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee will commence a review of the operation of the ICAC Act towards the end of this year. The government has indicated that it is not closed off to the possibility of further changes to the act, and I welcome that. The Greens welcome any further improvements to legislation so that we can ensure the integrity of South Australia's Public Service.

12 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:57): I rise to speak in favour of the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. I want to start by saying how excited I am that we are finally at this point. It is interesting timing for me. If you will forgive me on a brief indulgence, this week is actually my 10^th anniversary in frontline SA politics. I was elected to the Adelaide City Council back in November 2014. As you know, I went into the Senate before I came here.

One of the issues that I have consistently campaigned on is the need to get money out of politics, to end its corrosive influence on our democracy, and indeed this has been a core mission of the Greens for many years in this place. After all, in our democracy, he who pays the piper so often plays the tune. If we are going to tackle the inequality crisis and the climate crisis that is gripping our state, we need to get money out of politics and end the undue influence of vested interest groups, groups that are strangling our democracy.

In Town Hall, I pushed for a developer contact register to log councillor contact with developers, which was opposed by the Team Adelaide faction. Here in the state parliament, I have moved to amend the Local Government Act to move towards continual disclosure of donations to candidates. I have also pushed for the publication of ministerial diaries and, of course, reforms to crack down on government advertising. The fight for those things continues, but today is a positive step forward. This is a reform that has the capacity to really strengthen our democracy.

The bill not only reduces the capacity for vested interests to potentially influence our decision-makers by making donations, it also reduces the capacity of these groups to exert undue influence over election campaigns, pouring huge amounts of money into election campaigns in an effort to sway election outcomes. We have seen examples of that here in our state in the past and I will highlight some of those examples for the benefit of Hansard.

When the government first introduced this proposal back in June, the Greens indicated that we would carefully consider the details of the bill and that the devil would always be in the detail. We have spent many months working through the details with the government. We undertook our own consultation with stakeholder groups, including the Centre for Public Integrity and SACOSS, and we have also sought the advice of legal academics; indeed, I have met with a few constitutional law experts to seek their views on the bill that the government put forward.

I also sought the views of Greens SA party members and supporters via an online survey. I received many responses to the survey and the respondents encompassed a broad cross-section of Greens SA members, extending from those who are active at grassroots level to our office bearers to members whose involvement is limited to simply donating to the Greens or volunteering on election day. There was strong support for restricting donations and further regulation and compliance requirements for political parties and third-party campaigners.

Overwhelmingly, members of the Greens indicated to me that they supported a ban on donations to political parties from harmful industries in particular, and also regulations on third-party campaigners to limit their spending. It is clear that members wanted us to work with the government to improve this bill and to secure its passage through the parliament; indeed, that is what I have attempted to do in engaging with the government over the last few months.

Like Greens rank-and-file members, one of the issues that I was most concerned about in the government's original draft was the lack of regulation of third-party campaigners and interest groups. I did not want to see the emergence of US-style super PACs here in South Australia, and this has been a long-term concern of the Greens. If we turned off the tap for political donations to political parties there was, under the government's previous proposal, the potential for these groups outside of the parliament to have a disproportionate impact on our elections—because, of course, there would be nothing that political parties could do to be able to compete with those sorts of campaigns.

This was a key issue that stakeholders raised and one that the Greens raised with the government in our negotiations, so I am very pleased that the government agreed to improvements to the bill in that regard. As a result of these discussions, the government has agreed to impose a limit of $450,000 on statewide spending by lobby organisations. That is a $60,000 cap on expenditure in lower house seats for lobby groups and a $5,000 cap on donations to individuals by these groups. These third-party organisations or lobby groups will be required to register prior to incurring political expenditure. Exemptions for some of the work of civil society groups and charities have also been negotiated and that means that they will be able to carry on their important work without being unduly impacted by this new regulatory regime.

There is also going to be an advance post-election funding scheme. A reduction in the threshold for receipt of public funding for Legislative Council candidates from 4 per cent to 2 per cent has been proposed, allowing Legislative Council minor parties that have two members to be able to draw up to 50 per cent of their advance funding entitlement at the next election. We will also have some access to additional administrative funding and there will also be an increase in donation cap amounts for new entrants from $2,700 to $5,000. I consider that to be an important change because I note the concerns that have been expressed by some members around the potential impact on new and emerging players.

I do agree the last thing we want to do through this new regime is actually discourage new people from getting into our political system. But, might I say, I think giving new candidates the opportunity to accept $5,000 donations does mean that they are still able to build a base for themselves and compete at an election. They will also have access, potentially, to some advance funding as well. Again, I think that is a good thing, and I would imagine most donations that small emerging parties receive or, indeed, individual candidates receive would not be in excess of $5,000 in any case, so that is a positive improvement.

There has also been a switch to a decreasing marginal rate model for operational funding, which will provide adjusted funding for additional party members. As I mentioned before, a political party like the Greens that has two members will get a little bit more funding in recognition of the fact that a party like the Greens might have additional operating expenses. I should indicate that the Greens, in our negotiations with the government, made our financial statements available to the government. In the spirit of transparency, we made our statements available to them, and they have taken those into consideration in framing this model.

Critically though, as the Hon. Mr Pangallo has identified, there will be a statutory review that will occur after the next election. This is a significant undertaking, and a significant experiment in many ways. It is one that I think has the potential to really strengthen our democracy but, of course, we have to make sure we get it right, and so a statutory review that will occur after the next state election will give the parliament the opportunity to revisit this, and make changes if we have it wrong.

There are lots of other elements of this bill. I do not wish to touch on all of those because I feel the government members will delve into that in more detail, but I think it is important to talk about some of the principles that are at stake here, and why this particular reform is worthy of support. Is this the model that I would have chosen if I was coming up with my own bill? No, it is not. It is the government's proposal, and that was the basis for the discussions, but I think it is absolutely worthy of support because it addresses so many of the problems we have within our current political system.

One of the significant challenges we face at the moment in Western democracies is a lack of faith in governments and in politics. Part of this is based on the belief that parliament and governments are too captive to powerful vested interests. Indeed, the Social Research Institute at Ipsos conducted a study back in 2018 on this very point. It found that, and I quote from The Conversation:

Just 31% of the [Australian] population trust federal government. State and local governments perform little better, with just over a third of people trusting them. Ministers and MPs (whether federal or state), rate at just 21% [trust], while more than 60% of Australians believe the honesty and integrity of politicians is very low.

What are the three biggest beefs that the broader community have with politicians? Well, the public says they are not accountable for broken promises; they do not deal with the issues that really matter; but also, big business has too much power. Why would people say that? It is not hard to see why this is the case, because big business does have too much power in our democracy.

Why do we not see the action on the climate crisis that we desperately need? Why can we not crack down on the predatory tactics of big food retailers and corporations? Is it because they bankroll the campaigns of our major political parties? Why do we have a planning system that serves the interests of developers rather than the interests of the community? These are the questions that people ask out in the community. That is why people want to see money being taken out of politics: they want to be assured that the people in this place actually serve their interests rather than the interests of the big donors.

There is a useful article that I want to highlight that comes from the website Market Forces and they release this every year looking at the contributions to the major political parties from the fossil fuel industry. This one came out on 1 February 2023. It asks the question:

So why do all three major political parties—

and by that they mean Labor, Liberal and the Nationals—

continue to back the fossil fuel industry at the risk of catastrophic climate change? A trawl of the latest political donations data, released on 1 February, offers some clues.

…fossil fuel companies donated $2 million to the ALP, Liberal and National parties [last year]. Yet given Australia's reputation for woefully inadequate political disclosure and 'dark money' donations, with 35% of all contributions coming from unknown sources, the true figure could be significantly higher.

Well, that should concern all members of the community. Here in South Australia, the government is presenting us with an opportunity to actually do something about it and to help restore some of the trust in our politics. Looking at some of those political donations that are of particular concern to me, Adani, in the year 2021-22, donated just over $107,000 to the Liberal Party. Alinta, in the same year, donated $12,000 to the ALP. Ampol, in the same year, donated $56,500 to the ALP and $32,250 to the Liberal Party.

APA donated $27,500 to the ALP and $30,000 to the Liberal Party. APPEA donated $56,700 to the ALP and $23,500 to the Liberal Party. The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association donated $27,500 to the ALP and $30,000 to the Liberal Party. BHP donated $16,704 to the Liberal Party. Cartwheel Resources donated $50,000 to the ALP. Chevron donated $45,470 to the ALP and $43,000 to the Liberal Party.

It is a disgrace and it needs to end and we are bringing it to a close here in South Australia, thanks to the Malinauskas government's work on these reforms. It is an important reform and it is time we take action on this and that is one of the reasons why the Greens are supportive. We do need to break the nexus between big money and politics.

I also think it is important to identify some of the examples of the nefarious influence, the unfair influence, that big money has had on our politics over the last few elections. I understand the concern that the Hon. Mr Pangallo flagged, but his party, the Xenophon Party, in 2018, was a great casualty, might I say, of the undue influence of external groups in our democracy. The state's gambling lobby in that state election contributed $100,000 to party coffers to campaign against Mr Xenophon and his team because they did not want to see them get a foothold here in the South Australian parliament. There was a huge amount of money that was given to other political parties so they could campaign against the Xenophon team. I quote from an InDaily article at that time. The AHA boss, Ian Horne, told InDaily that:

…over the 2017 calendar year the lobby group had provided $43,534 to the ALP, $49,973 to the Liberal Party and $20,000 to the Australian Conservatives…

They must have been desperate not to have Mr Xenophon in parliament if they gave money to that outfit.

This is an example of vested interest groups trying to influence our elections. It is not right that they should be able to give money to try to deny a party like Mr Xenophon's political party positions in the parliament. It is not right that they should seek to do that, and that is one of the things that we need to stamp out in our democracy, because that should not be the way that things work here.

I note the concerns of Mr Xenophon at that time, when he slammed the AHA not just for donating to the major political parties so that they could actually run in opposition to the Xenophon party but also for running television commercials saying that a vote for SA-Best would put thousands of jobs in the hotel sector at risk.

Again, I know the Hon. Connie Bonaros is passionate about the role of small parties, and I share her passion. I know the Hon. Frank Pangallo is passionate about that as well, and I share their concerns. The reality is that we in small parties can never compete with the deep pockets of these vested interest groups. At least under these reforms there will be a cap imposed on what these groups can do and they will be prevented from being able to make donations to political parties. I think that is a really good thing and a positive advancement in our democracy.

I also note some of the views of different stakeholder groups. I note in particular the report of the Australia Institute that came out in November 2023, where they talked about sweeping changes needed to reduce the influence of money in our politics. They push for a 'mega-donor cap that prevents any one entity from contributing election-distorting amounts of money'. They also talk about the need to consider a ban on donations from companies receiving large government contracts and the tobacco, liquor, gambling and fossil fuel industries.

I know many places around the world, and indeed here in our own country, have taken the approach of trying to exclude particular classes of donors, but I think what the government is doing here is they have gone a step further and said they are not accepting donations from anybody and they are levelling the playing field in that regard.

I note that over the last few days I have had the opportunity to talk to many members in the community who are deeply concerned about the events that have unfolded in the United States and the election of Donald Trump. I am concerned about that for a range of different reasons. One of the things that I think is really terrifying people about democracy in the United States is the influence of these super PACs, political action committees.

I looked up recently to see how much money these super PACs were receiving in donations and what kind of influence they were having on the US presidential election. Between January 2023 and April 2024, US political campaigns collected around $8.6 billion for the 2024 house, senate and presidential elections. A total of 65 per cent of that money—$5.6 billion—came from political action committees.

That is a huge amount of private donations flowing into that system. I think the risk with the previous bill that the government put forward was that we could open the door for those super PACs, or some kind of similar structure, to be rolled out in South Australia. We have closed the door on that, and I think that is a really good thing.

I talked about what we saw before, with the campaign that was run against the Xenophon team by the gambling industry and by the Hotels Association. I do not support that and I thought that was really appalling at the time, but we have seen it also happen at a federal level, with the mining tax campaign that was run by Gina Rinehart, Twiggy Forrest and others in an attempt to destroy the Rudd government. We have seen it here locally, with the campaign run against the former Liberal government's land tax reforms.

We also saw it with the campaign run by the big banks against the former Labor Party's big banks levy, which was a bold, progressive initiative that was opposed vociferously by the big banks. They went out there and said, 'We can't possibly do this. It's going to be ruinous for the South Australian economy,' and ran a huge campaign which people could not compete with. Again, those days are numbered in South Australia because at least there is going to be some level of regulation. I think that is a significant improvement.

I think it is important to address, before I conclude, some of the responses from key stakeholder groups. I note the media release from the Australia Institute that has been issued earlier today where they say that this bill will not improve trust in politicians. I think it references the phrase that the bill has backfired, there has been no public inquiry and a secretive consultation process, and they identify some of their concerns with the bill.

I have a huge amount of respect for the Australia Institute and the work that they do. I think they are a very influential advocacy organisation, but I do not think it is true to say that there has been insufficient consultation in relation to this bill. The government came out with a draft bill six months ago. They asked members of the community their views, and they have also undertaken ongoing consultation with civil and society groups and tried to address many of their concerns.

The challenge, I guess, for the government, and it is for them to articulate the rationale for the approach they have taken, but my guess would be that were this bill to be delayed into the new year then we run out of time in terms of being able to put forward this reform in time for the next state election, and of course then we run up against the federal election. So I understand that concern, but in this instance to delay the bill into the new year means we really are missing the opportunity for this reform to take effect, and that means another state election under the old regime where we see potentially the influence of these vested interest groups continuing without any regulation. This is an opportunity for us to fix that.

As I say, I respect the work of the Australia Institute, but I remember when I was in the federal parliament dealing with Senate voting reform. They were concerned about that at the time, but I maintained it was the right thing to do. Indeed, there was concern at that time that Senate voting reform could see the Greens being wiped out of the parliament. Well, fast forward years ahead and actually the Greens have their strongest ever representation in the parliament.

In that circumstance we voted with the Liberal Party to make that reform happen, so I am open to working with Labor or the Liberals if they come to the table with sensitive ideas to try to improve our democracy. That is the approach we have taken in this regard.

I want to also reference some of the comments that have been made by the Centre for Public Integrity, which I also had the opportunity to meet with when the government put forward their draft legislation. They note in their press release that very substantial improvements have been made to the original draft bill through what they call a rigorous, vigorous and constructive consultation process. They note the quantum of administrative funding that will be available to major party incumbents via not only generous taxpayer-funded payments but up to two nominated entities is substantial, and they reference the independent audit they understand is currently in process to find if it is justified, and they urge the government to amend the bill accordingly if it finds that there is a need to do so.

I share that view. If the auditor comes back and identifies issues with the funding model that we need to look at, well of course we extend an opportunity to the government to work with the Greens to try to get that right. They note one of the most important improvements to the original bill is the addition of a robust statutory review clause, which will see an independent panel examine its impacts after the 2026 election and provide a report to parliament. I think that is a really welcome safeguard in this bill.

They also referenced some of the key improvements that have been made to the bill as a result of the public consultation. There are now third-party expenditure caps. There is a statutory review clause. There is policy development funding. There is the provision for volunteer labour and professional services being treated equally, regardless of recipients. There is administrative funding only able to be used for administrative purposes, not political campaigning. There are donation caps for new entrants. There is a threshold of 2 per cent retained for public funding of candidates in Legislative Council elections. There is administrative funding scaled at a decreasing marginal rate.

These are all, I think, really important safeguards in this legislation. Is the bill perfect? Of course not. Are there things that I would have liked to see in the bill? Of course. Could we have gone further or adopted a different approach? Of course we could have. But my view is that this is an advancement on the status quo, and it is worthy of support. It is a bit of a leap of faith, in many ways, for our democracy. It is going to be a grand experiment at the next state election in 2026, but I feel optimistic that this is something that could really enhance our democracy.

Before concluding, I also want to touch on one of the elements that has come up in discussion around this bill, and that is the significant amount of public funding that has been put on the table here. I understand members of the community will be concerned about the large amount of public funding that is being put forward, particularly in the context of a cost-of-living crisis. I totally understand that. But my view is that one of the best ways that we can get action on inequality in our state is to actually break the nexus between big money and politics and to actually get political outcomes that serve people and our environment, rather than setting up a system that is so reliant on donors.

I guess the fundamental question for South Australians is: who would you rather politicians be responsive to: donors and big corporations, or the citizens? This new model I think ensures that our political parties are responsive to the people whom they should always serve: the South Australian taxpayers, not their donors. I understand the concerns about the public funding model, but lots of places around the world do this, and I think it is a better direction for us to go in in our democracy, rather than seeing us drift further and further in the direction of the United States and all the catastrophic outcomes that flow from that.

In concluding, as has been observed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, there has been a huge amount of work that has been done behind the scenes to get this bill to this point, particularly on a very tight timeframe. I want to acknowledge the staff who have done a huge amount of work to make this happen, in particular of course the drafters, who I think have been working very hard to make a range of changes to enhance the bill. I want to acknowledge the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, for the collegial and collaborative way in which he has engaged with the Greens on these reforms, and Minister Dan Cregan. I have enjoyed working with both of them on this; we have had lots of discussions over the last few months.

I also want to thank Victoria Brown from the Premier's office and Lukas Price from Minister Cregan's office. I also thank my staff, Melanie Selwood and Sean Cullen-Macaskill in particular, who spent a lot of time over several weeks getting their heads around all the details of what is being proposed.

In closing, it is a leap of faith, but sometimes in life you have to take risks, and when opportunity comes, when the train comes, you get on. My hope is that it is going to carry us to a good destination for our democracy. Let's view this as an opportunity to do something positive. One thing I am hearing in my discussions in the community at the moment is that people are desperate for politicians to do things differently to shake up the system. I see this as an opportunity for us to do that.

12 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:56): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of the Victims of Crime Fund.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Earlier this year, the Adelaide Advertiser reported that the Victims of Crime Fund was holding approximately $200 million in funds even though only $16.9 million was provided in victim compensation in 2021-22. The fund is financed by fines paid by offenders and levies on offences. The current maximum compensation available for victims is $129,000. It currently costs $147,000 per year to house prisoners in South Australia. In the Netherlands, the prison population reduced by 44 per cent between 2005 and 2015 by introducing rehabilitation methods and programs that reduced recidivism. My questions to the Attorney-General therefore are:

1. What is the current amount of money in the Victims of Crime Fund?

2. Would the government consider increasing the percentage that is made available as compensation to victims and also allocating additional money to reduce offending in our state?

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 questions. Of course, the victims of crime regime is a very important regime that provides an ability for funding to be paid to those who have suffered as a consequence of criminal offending against them.

I do not have a figure in front of me, but I think the balance stands in the order of $200 million in the Victims of Crime Fund. From memory, the amount that was paid into the scheme in the 2022-23 financial year was exceeded by the amount that was paid out of the scheme in that financial year. One of the reasons in that financial year was a further substantial contribution to the National Redress Scheme made from the Victims of Crime Fund to cover future liabilities.

I believe that in the 2023-24 financial year there were a similar number of applications made, if not a slightly higher number than the year before, and a slightly higher quantum paid out in total to victims of crime but not an amount paid for future liabilities for the National Redress Scheme. I think it is very likely, before the National Redress Scheme applications close in 2028, that further payments from the Victims of Crime Fund will be needed, which will, I suspect, in total get towards, if not exceed, a couple hundred million dollars as South Australia's contribution to that.

So whilst there is a significant balance in the Victims of Crime Fund, we have seen in recent history, in the last decade and certainly even in the last couple of financial years, tens of millions of dollars being paid out to things like the National Redress Scheme, which I suspect there will be further calls on before the National Redress Scheme accepts final applications in 2028.

31 October 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:23): I rise briefly to speak in favour of this bill. Members would be aware that this is the portfolio responsibility of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks. She is absent today and so I just want to save us some time in the committee stage and indicate where the Greens sit in relation to the amendments of the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

It will not be surprising to members that of course we are supportive of the honourable member's amendments. While the Greens acknowledge and thank the government for bringing this bill forward, as my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks alluded to in her second reading speech, the government has not brought forward the full list of changes that stakeholders, including the UFU, the United Firefighters Union, have asked for. I want to briefly reference some of the correspondence I understand my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks has received from the UFU:

The Queensland Parliament recently passed the Workers' Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024. That Act significantly increased the number of cancers that are covered by presumptive workers compensation provisions for professional firefighters. The total number of cancers covered by the Queensland scheme is 23. Significantly, the proposal in Queensland enjoyed bipartisan support. Disappointingly, to date we have not received support for equivalent legislation from the Malinauskas Government.

That is disappointing. For clarity, that correspondence was received on 18 October this year. The correspondence goes on to point out that, while South Australia's current scheme is in alignment with Queensland's on 16 cancers, the bill as it stands would only add an additional three to the list. Of course we welcome that, and the government should be commended for doing that, but we do need to go a bit further, and that is what the amendments of the Hon. Frank Pangallo do. These amendments would add eight more cancers to the list and bring a further one in line with the length of service required under the scheme that operates in Queensland.

Once again, I think this does demonstrate the power of the crossbench in this place in terms of coming up with important contributions, putting forward the concerns of stakeholder groups. I commend the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his work on this and also the UFU and others who have been advocating in this space. This bill will be strengthened by the amendments not only for career firefighters but also volunteer firefighters. As the Hon. Tammy Franks mentioned in her second reading speech, while the Greens have consulted with the CFS Volunteers Association, it is not clear to us whether the government has actually consulted with these groups when developing this legislation.

With that, I indicate the Greens will support both of the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendments. I might also use this opportunity to recognise the long-term work and leadership of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has been a long-term advocate for the CFS and firefighters and addressing their needs. I want to commend her as well for her work.

29 October 2024

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 children in detention.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out binding principles for sentencing juvenile offenders by stating, and I quote:

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time...

In 2022, in a report on South Australia's progress on recommendations made by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Commissioner for Children and Young People noted that, in 2022, there were 292 children and young people detained at the Kurlana Tapa Youth Justice Centre, with 47 per cent of those being First Nations children. That same year, 52 children between the ages of 10 and 13 were admitted to custody. My question to the Attorney-General, therefore, is: how many kids are currently being detained in Kurlana Tapa, and how many children will spend this Christmas in detention?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:48): I thank the honourable member. I think that at any given time it numbers in the dozens of children who are detained at Kurlana Tapa youth detention facility in South Australia. As of earlier this week, I think it was 45 or 46 children detained. I will double-check that, and if it's wildly incorrect by more than a few I am happy to bring back a response, but I think it is 45 or 46 at the present time. How many there will be in just under two months I can't predict, but, as I have said, it's been in the order of dozens over the last few years, I think.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:48): Supplementary: in light of the number of children currently being held in detention, when will the government finally raise the age of criminal responsibility here in South Australia, in line with the recommendations of the United Nations and so many other groups?

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. Once again, I acknowledge his steadfast and consistent advocacy for raising the age in South Australia.

As I have informed the chamber before, we do not have a policy in relation to that as a government. We have done an extensive amount of work in relation to if that did happen what would take its place. I have said before that our overriding priority in looking at this issue is community safety. If you raise the age, what else do you have rather than a criminal justice response—a therapeutic and family support response—to make the community safer? That work continues.

17 October 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:38): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Hon. Ben Hood on the topic of the Termination of Pregnancy (Terminations and Live Births) Amendment Bill under standing order 107.

Leave granted.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted, but I will remind the Hon. Ben Hood that he is under no obligation to answer any question, given he is not a minister of the Crown.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Last night in this chamber, we saw extraordinary scenes as a member of this place who had been granted medical leave and reached a pair agreement with another member had that agreement broken. In the lead-up to last night's vote, I had been approached by a few journalists who suggested that they understood that the numbers may fall in favour of the Hon. Ben Hood's private member's bill and that in fact another vote could be in play.

This theory did not accord with my understanding of the numbers in this place, as the views of members were well known to me. It is my understanding that the Hon. Jing Lee had agreed to pair with the Hon. Michelle Lensink for this vote but broke the agreement just moments before the vote on the second reading stage. My questions to the Hon. Ben Hood, therefore, are:

1. When did the Hon. Ben Hood become aware of the decision of the Hon. Jing Lee not to honour the pairing agreement?

2. Did he have any discussions with people inside or outside of the parliament regarding this tactic?

3. Is he aware of people applying pressure to the Hon. Jing Lee and others not to honour the pairing agreement with the Hon. Michelle Lensink, and what are his views on this tactic?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Attorney, you might like to withdraw that.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: What?

The PRESIDENT: 'Coward'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I withdraw, sir.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you.

16 October 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:36): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of the South Australian Progressive Business event.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Advertiser reported yesterday that the entire state cabinet and federal Labor ministers from South Australia will attend a $500 per head forum hosted by SA Progressive Business. The event includes scheduled policy briefings from the Hon. Mark Butler MP, the Hon. Senator Don Farrell, the Hon. Senator Penny Wong, the Hon. Nick Champion MP and the Hon. Stephen Mullighan MP. According to The Advertiser, the invitation states that each minister and MP will have a set station and guests will be encouraged to circulate throughout the room engaging in dynamic one-on-one discussions. There will also be closed room policy briefings with some ministers.

Over the last 15 years, I understand that SA Progressive Business has donated over $3 million to the South Australian branch of the Labor Party. My questions to the Attorney-General therefore are:

1. Is the Attorney-General attending the SA Progressive Business Cabinet Exchange Forum?

2. What information will he be providing as part of these dynamic one-on-one policy discussions?

3. In the spirit of transparency, will he commit to disclosing any policy information that he provides at this event to the parliament?

4. Will the minister advise where this secret event is being held?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Too much chirping.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:38): I thank the honourable member for continuing the trend and directing a question my way; it is much appreciated. First question: am I attending? Yes, I think from looking at my diary for the rest of this week I am attending on Friday, as I think all cabinet ministers are. I think the next question was: what one-one-one policy briefings am I involved with? I am not aware of what briefings I have yet, but that will be something I will look at if I have any of those booked in. Will I disclose every private meeting I have with anyone to this parliament, including these ones? No, I won't.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Simms has a supplementary question arising from the answer.

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Girolamo!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:38): Does the minister accept many South Australians would find it disturbing that their minister is going to be having private conversations on a pay-for-access basis and why won't the minister advise where the event is being held?

The PRESIDENT: The second part of your supplementary question is probably relevant. I'm not sure about the first part.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:39): In relation to where it is being held, it is somewhere in Adelaide. I don't know. The Festival Centre? Convention Centre? It would be one of the areas that hosts events. I am not sure which hall it is in, but I will be happy to consult my diary late this afternoon and perhaps give the honourable member a call to let him know where I will be on Friday in case he wants to catch up for a chardonnay after work.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Simms, you have a further supplementary question arising from your original answer?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:39): Arising from the original answer. In relation to the location of this fundraiser, would the minister provide an update to the parliament on any details he has in his diary in that regard? 

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:40): As I said, I will be very happy to consult with and let the honourable member know where I will be at various points on Friday.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Pangallo I believe has a supplementary question arising from the original answer and I am going to move on from this line of questioning. The Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:40): Will attendees be charged for selfies that they may take with ministers?

The PRESIDENT: I am not saying that that's a supplementary question. Attorney, if you choose to answer it, you can, and then we are moving on.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:40): As much as I wish I was popular enough to do that, I have never, ever contemplated charging anyone for a selfie with me.