29 August 2024

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

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

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

My questions therefore to the Attorney-General are:

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

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

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

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Do you want to answer it?

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

28 August 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (01:28): I thank all members for their contributions: the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Reggie Martin. I will indicate that the Greens are not supportive of any of the amendments that have been proposed. We do not support the Liberal Party amendment. There is no youth crime crisis. That is a moral panic, a beat-up from conservative politicians, so I do not support putting that in the motion.

In terms of the government amendments, really what the government is doing is just removing the verb from the motion, actually asking the government to do something. I do not support that. To the point that the Hon. Reggie Martin made that stakeholders may have made submissions on the basis of anonymity, I would certainly have no difficulty with the government checking with those who have made a submission around whether or not they are happy to have their submission released.

I do think that there is a pattern of behaviour emerging with the Malinauskas government whereby it conducts these consultation pieces, invites stakeholders to make submissions and then the submissions sort of disappear into the ether somewhere and no-one ever knows what happens to the feedback that they have provided.

This was an issue with the review of the Residential Tenancies Act where the Greens had called for some time for the government to make the submissions public and it is an issue with respect to this proposal as well. People have made a submission in good faith and if, as members of parliament, we are going to consider the options that are on the table, then we need to actually know what the views are of the community.

Whilst my views on raising the age are well known, my motion does not commit the upper house one way or the other; it is simply asking for that information to be put on the public record.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by the Hon. N.J. Centofanti to paragraph 2 be agreed to.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by the Hon. N.J. Centofanti to paragraph 3 be agreed to.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by the Hon. N.J. Centofanti to paragraph 4 be agreed to.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that paragraph 4 as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. R.B. Martin stand as part of the motion. If you are voting with the Hon. R.B. Martin you will vote no. If you are not voting with the Hon. R.B. Martin you will vote yes.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by the Hon. R.A. Simms be agreed to.

Question agreed to; motion carried.

28 August 2024

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (RELIGIOUS BODIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:18): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 1984. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill moves to amend the Equal Opportunity Act to remove the exemptions that are currently provided to religious bodies. In 2024, it really is incredible that some forms of discrimination are still permissible under South Australian laws. It is really difficult to comprehend. Our laws allow for certain faith-based institutions to discriminate against the LGBTI community in employment and in accessing services. The Greens believe that no-one should face discrimination based on their sex, their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

A report from Equality Australia, 'Dismissed, Denied and Demeaned', found that discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation is still present in faith-based schools and organisations. The report found that 50 per cent of South Australian schools were showing some evidence of discrimination and were on average more likely to be discriminatory than schools in Victoria, New South Wales or Western Australian. The report ranked South Australia as 'poor' in relation to legislative protections for LGBTI people and showed that South Australian policies tended to drive discrimination underground, rather than to actually hold the agents accountable.

According to the Equality Australia report, more than 70,000 students and 10,000 staff in non-government schools are estimated to be part of the LGBTI community across the country. The report details stories of students who have been forced out of school or teachers who have been fired simply for being who they are. Indeed, I know of people who have spoken to me anonymously over the years who work in the private school system who are living in fear of coming out in their workplace because they believe they could lose their job as a result. I do want to read out some of the examples that have been canvassed in the 'Dismissed, Denied and Demeaned' report. I will read some of those examples to you, Mr President.

The names are not the real names of the respondents, as they have been substituted, but one person who is referred to in the document as Lisa talks about being denied promotion based on her same-sex relationship. Lisa was employed in the catholic education system in New South Wales for 16 years, working her way to the position of assistant principal. When she began her career, she was married to a man. They later divorced and Lisa began a relationship with a woman. Lisa kept the relationship quiet after they moved in together, but did not hide it.

Lisa needed a year off work after a medical accident in 2018. During this time, her partner handled all communication with the school. When Lisa returned to work, she was told that the new relationship was in breach of her contract and that she could be fired at any time. Despite having an excellent employment record, as evidenced by her many promotions, Lisa was told she could no longer advance in her career within the catholic system. She married her partner a short time later and the school told her colleagues not to attend the wedding or to give her any gifts. Lisa quit her job six months later.

What about the story of Kimberly, 'Say you are single or you are fired'? Kimberly got a job as a PE teacher at a catholic school in regional New South Wales in 2021. After 12 years at the school, Kimberly began dating another female staff member. Following a complaint with a fellow teacher, the couple was called into a meeting with the principal. They were told their same-sex union was against the values of the school and both of them would lose their jobs if they did not formally state that they were not in a relationship.

Kimberly questioned why her relationship was deemed unsuitable and against the catholic ethos when other staff were living in de facto relationships and some women had given birth without being married. Kimberly refused the principal's offer and walked out of his office without a job. She called the union and was told there was nothing that could be done because of the school's religious nature.

The couple met again with the principal the next day and were told they would be welcome back only if they stated they were not a couple, so that the principal could answer honestly if he was questioned about their relationship. Kimberly's partner, who was financially supporting two young children, encouraged her to rethink her position as they returned to work. Kimberly struggled with lying about who she was, so she left her job a few months later.

This one is another example that is disturbing and it comes from South Australia, from 2022. Joanne was shopping with her friends and her wife at a charity store in Adelaide run by a large faith-based organisation. When Joanne asked a staff member for directions to the bathroom, the staff member told her she had to use the male bathroom and referred to her as a fake woman. The staff member then followed Joanne into the bathroom and physically blocked her from attending the female bathroom.

Joanne told the staff member that she had a right to use the female toilet, but she was told that she had no choice. When Joanne came out of the male bathroom, the staff member told her she had to leave the store. As Joanne left the store, she saw the staff member reenacting the exchange with other staff members and laughing about the incident. Joanne wrote a letter to the organisation about her experience but she never received a reply.

What about this example from 2015, discrimination while homeless? In 2015, Harley fled their intimate partner and family violence, seeking accommodation at a refuge provided by a faith-based organisation in Victoria. During their time at the refuge, they were counselled against disclosing their sexuality or wearing rainbow items of clothing. They were told they were going to go to hell by a staff member who said they would pray for God to show them the way. Harley left the refuge and spent three nights sleeping on the streets instead.

In 2021, Harley and their wife sought emergency accommodation from a different faith-based organisation. This time Harley's wife, who is a trans-woman, was told she would need to go to a men's shelter rather than access the same facility as Harley. These are examples of Australians and South Australians being denied their basic rights under our laws.

Many people who have experienced such discrimination under our law are fearful of publicly talking about their experiences. However, some have taken their stories to mainstream media. In addition to the reports canvassed in that document, I will reference some of the examples that have been reported in the media over the last few years.

In August 2021, Southern Vales Christian College was in the media for refusing to hire teachers who identify as being LGBTIQ. In June 2024, a teacher in a religious school in Sydney had her job terminated after she revealed on a Facebook post that she was in a same-sex relationship—June of this year. In April 2023, the Presbyterian Church argued that they should have the right to bar sexually active LGBTI students from holding leadership roles in the school. In the same month, Dr Karen Pack, a devout Christian, was fired from her teaching job after she announced her engagement to her long-term same-sex partner.

We know that there has been some discussion about finally closing this loophole within federal legislation and that would be preferable in terms of managing this issue. Sadly, though, the Labor Party has squibbed on this reform at every opportunity. When I was in the federal parliament, my push for action on this was back in 2015 and 2016, nearly 10 years ago.

When the Labor Party came to government, they made a commitment under Prime Minister the Hon. Anthony Albanese that they would reform this area. Well, I was bitterly disappointed to see, two weeks ago, the news that the reform has once again been shelved. How gutless is that? How spineless is that?

So it is now up to the states to resolve this issue, and South Australia is lagging significantly behind. Next year, our state will celebrate a significant milestone: the 50^th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality. We were the first state in the country to decriminalise homosexuality and indeed the first place in the commonwealth to implement that significant reform. I do acknowledge the leadership of both sides of politics, Labor and Liberal politicians, who worked to achieve that outcome here in South Australia.

It would be very embarrassing if during that milestone year we still see this kind of discrimination being perpetuated against LGBTI South Australians. I urge Premier Malinauskas to show some leadership here, to not miss that opportunity to finally right this wrong in our laws, otherwise it will be a really sad indictment on South Australia that we led the way on this reform, yet now we are a state that is lagging behind.

The bill the Greens are introducing today has a long history. The origins of this bill rest with the Liberal Party, the Liberal Marshall government. Back in 2020, the Hon. Vicki Chapman undertook public consultation on a bill very similar to this one. The aim of the bill was to address the fact that under South Australian law religious bodies can discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or partner status if they have a written policy that states that they intend to discriminate on that basis.

Under section 50 of the existing Equal Opportunity Act discrimination is allowed in the administration of a religious body or any other practice, which includes services provided by a religious body. This means that religious-based organisations are exempt from laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of sexuality or gender identity, potentially resulting in discrimination at work or in accessing services. This bill addresses those two issues.

Finally, this bill removes the exemptions that allow for religious discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in relation to employment or engagement in an education institution or in accessing the provision of services offered by religious institutions. My bill does, however, make it clear that religious bodies would still have the right to appoint people to their order based on their adherence to the precepts of their religion.

I note concerns were raised with the bill drafted by the previous Liberal government that some religious organisations believed this could impede their ability to appoint someone to their order, for instance, a pastor or a minister. We have made it very clear that the provisions with respect to those appointments remain.

Consultation undertaken in relation to the bill drafted for the Hon. Vickie Chapman also showed that there were some other issues with that bill. The Law Society at the time claimed the bill did not strike the right balance in terms of enabling discrimination in employment settings. While they broadly supported the bill, they had concerns the previous drafting did not provide adequate protections to LGBTI students or people accessing financial support, food relief or legal support from faith-based organisations. So my bill addresses those concerns.

The Equality Australia report I referenced earlier found that South Australia was ranked sixth out of the eight states and territories for our discrimination protections in relation to religious organisations. Surely we can do better than that.

Before concluding, I want to address some of the outlandish claims that have been made by opponents of this reform. In particular I want to reference some of the statements made by the Australian Christian Lobby. They love me! I have received lots of great feedback from them over the years, but I will reference some of the comments they have made about this bill, some of the ridiculous claims they have made. I will read from one release dated 3 July 2024, headed, 'Hypocritical Marxist Greens bid to destroy South Australian Christian schooling'. I think they are referring to me, 'Red Rob'. They state:

The Marxist Greens plan to destroy South Australian schooling.

They praise the Hon. Peter Malinauskas for stating before the last election that he would not change the Equal Opportunity Act. Does the Premier really seek praise from the Australian Christian Lobby? Let us consider some of the statements the Australian Christian Lobby has made in the past. Back in September 2012 the head of the Australian Christian Lobby—and I quote from the article in The Age by Jim Wallace—said that, 'Smoking is healthier than the lifestyle that would be promoted by same sex marriage'. The article continues:

I think we're going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community's own statistics for its health, which it presents when it wants more money, are that it has high rates of drug taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years, he told the audience.

Let's not forget, of course, the statements made by Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby, who likened same-sex marriage to a new stolen generation. Again, I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald. When he appeared on Q&A:

The comparison was drawn by panellist Lyle Shelton, the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, who said same-sex marriage would see babies taken from their mother's breast.

What about another Lyle Shelton special, back from 2016. I remember this one:

The Australian Christian Lobby—

and again I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald—

has compared same-sex marriage and the Safe Schools program to the Holocaust, dubbing them all 'unthinkable things' that happened because societies lacked strong moral guardians.

In a blog post, ACL director Lyle Shelton invoked the rise of Nazi Germany before arguing that Labor leader Bill Shorten's support for Safe Schools reflected 'a failure of those of us who know better'…

'The cowardice and weakness of Australia's 'gatekeepers' is causing unthinkable things to happen, just as unthinkable things happened in Germany in the 1930s.'

This is crazy stuff. They also came out, back in 2016, and called on the federal government to permanently override antidiscrimination laws to ensure those pushing for a no vote can speak their minds on same-sex marriage. I think they let the cat out of the bag on that one, didn't they: abolish antidiscrimination laws so that you can spread hate, fear, bigotry, homophobia and misinformation.

Finally, they have said, in relation to this bill, that it means that a Christian school can refuse—they refer to the current regime—to hire a person who propagates transgender ideology or who lives contrary to Christian views on marriage. By that I think they are referring to wanting to discriminate against people who are trans or in same-sex relationships. It is really wacky staff. I think members of parliament, when they are considering this bill, need to determine on which side of the debate they want to be on.

I will also reference a press release issued by the Hon. Sarah Game in response to the bill, in which she says that our bill could effectively be used to force schools to employ a teacher who espouses gender fluidity and woke principles. Again, the bill is not about forcing schools to employ anybody. All we are proposing is that schools should not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. They should not be able to turn away gay teachers and gay staff, or trans teachers or trans staff. These are organisations that receive public money. Surely they should be subject to the same rules as other institutions.

Again, I urge members to consider the arguments of those who oppose this bill and the arguments of those who are advocating for change. In particular, I urge the Premier to take this issue seriously. He has an opportunity to show real leadership on this issue, national leadership, and cement South Australia's place as a leader in equality, particularly as we head into next year's milestone anniversary.

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

28 August 2024

Bills

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:05): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to regulate government advertising and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government Advertising Bill that I am introducing today imposes guidelines on government advertising and restricts government advertising in the lead-up to elections. I think it is a bill that actually reflects the will and desires of the South Australian people, who want to see the best possible standards in place when it comes to spending of public money.

How often do we turn on our devices and see the government of the day spruiking the work that they are doing? Unsurprisingly, we see an increase in this type of spending in the lead-up to an election, where the incumbent government uses this type of advertising to show just how well they are doing and to bolster their chances at the polls. Indeed, one of the concerns of the Greens is that in the lead-up to elections there is a blurred line between government advertising and political party advertising because, of course, governments of both persuasions when they are promoting their agenda are also potentially promoting the political party agenda too.

Expenditure on government advertising has sharply increased under the Malinauskas government. In the 2022 to 2023 financial year, the state government spent a staggering $47.6 million on advertising. That is a record in terms of the expenditure of government advertising. That was up on $6 million on the previous year and represents the third year in a row with record high spending. The previous year there was a dramatic increase from $23.9 million in 2019 to 2020 to $41.2 million in the financial year of 2021 to 2022.

Let's consider this Labor government's advertising bill. Cha-ching! Think about the amount of money they are spending, and let us look at some of Labor's million-dollar items. They have spent $1.15 million on promoting the Housing Roadmap. They call it a road map; it is more a mud map. It was announced a few months ago. It is, in effect, a free kick to developers. It does not pledge any more public housing be built. Instead, it is a free kick to developers but, to add insult to injury, they are using taxpayer money to promote it—$1.15 million.

Surely, in the middle of a housing crisis Labor should be spending that money on actually building more housing rather than telling everybody how great they are. Given we have a huge backlog on maintenance for public housing, how can they justify spending over $1 million on that? I wish the Labor Party stopped talking about housing and actually started building some. We might not find ourselves in such a dire state in South Australia.

In addition to the huge amount of money that has been given to the AFL Gather Round, which we know is an important project for the Premier, they have spent $1.3 million on promoting it, not to mention the SA Magnet State campaign at $2.48 million. But the real doozy I think is the $742,775 that was spent promoting the government's own state budget—again, telling everybody how great they are.

The Labor Party needs to remember that this is not their money, it is taxpayers' money. I think a lot of South Australians would be offended to see their money being spent on a backslapping exercise for the Labor Party. Taxpayers have a right to know where the money is being spent and they need to be assured that the spending is not being used to influence opinion in the lead-up to elections.

Both Labor and Liberal governments and oppositions have tried in the past to tackle this issue and, actually, what the Greens have done is tried to draw on models that both major parties in this place have looked at. In 2019, the then attorney-general, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, introduced her Government Advertising Bill, which required the minister to publish guidelines and then for the Auditor-General to audit all government advertising. It also prohibited ministers or MPs from appearing in any government advertising. Sadly, the bill lapsed when parliament was prorogued.

In 2021, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan, who was then the opposition Treasury spokesperson, introduced his own government advertising bill, and later that week I moved an amendment to the budget measures bill to incorporate the provisions of that bill into the budget. It passed the upper house but, again, it lapsed in the lead-up to the election.

What we have done is taken the ideas that the Hon. Stephen Mullighan advanced in opposition and that I promoted in this place and put them into this bill. I am surprised that the Labor government has been in power now for over two years and they have not taken this issue up. They were very happy to apply that standard to the Liberal government when Labor was in opposition. Well, now they are in power, surely they are going to do it.

I assume what has happened is that it is just on the to-do list and they have not got to it yet. I assume it is sitting in someone's drawer, they are intending to action it and so the Greens are here, of course, as we often are, to help out the government and to remind them that this is a priority because to not action this would be, I suggest, an act of rank hypocrisy and one I think that would appal a lot of South Australians—an example of a government doing something when they are in opposition and then, when they find themselves in office, suddenly jettisoning that commitment.

I cannot imagine that this Malinauskas government would do such a thing. That would be a cynical act, I suggest. Really, the government would have more front than John Martin's to go down that path. So I am assuming this is on the to-do list and I look forward to the government getting on board and backing this bill.

I do want to, though, acknowledge that the Malinauskas government has already published some guidelines voluntarily, with a government advisory committee reviewing all expenditure over $50,000 for government advertising. We welcome that. That is a good transparency measure. But my bill goes further. It takes elements of both bills introduced in previous sessions by the Liberal government and the Labor opposition.

Provisions this bill includes from the Marshall government proposed reforms include a requirement that the minister prepare and publish guidelines for government advertising, prevent any minister or MP from being in advertising, and require the Auditor-General to audit and report on the use of advertising by the government. The bill also incorporates the following provisions from the proposal advanced by the then shadow treasurer, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan. Under this Green bill, no agency will be able to incur more than $10,000 on government advertising unless it is approved by the Auditor-General during the period of 1 July prior to an election, to the date of the election.

The Auditor-General would only be able to approve additional expenditure if it relates to public health, public safety, road and transport works, emergencies, material required to ensure that elections can be conducted, engagement of people in government services and attendance at events, tourism, sale of property, or courses of tertiary institutions. I think it is fair that the Auditor-General should cast an eye over any advertising in the lead-up to the election to ensure that it is appropriate.

The bill goes further than both the previous proposals from the Labor and Liberal parties, and I have also taken up the feedback from a report by the Grattan Institute titled, 'New politics: depoliticising taxpayer funded advertising'. The first of the new additions is to ensure that no advertisements can be allowed that relate to legislation before the parliament, and I think that is appropriate. Under our bill it would not be possible for the government to start advertising a budget that had not even passed the parliament. I think that is fair.

The Grattan report cites examples at both the federal and the state level where governments have used advertising to build support for reforms before they have even been legislated. I think that is an abuse of advertising, when the taxpayer picks up the dime for bills that promote the agenda of the government of the day. I will say that this is not just a Labor Party problem; the Howard government really had form on this. Let us not forget the campaign to promote the GST. They really set the standard when it came to using public money to promote their agenda. We have to do better than that here in South Australia.

Additionally, my bill ensures that social media is captured in these provisions. We all know that legislation can be slow to catch up to technological advances, and we have seen a huge increase in governments using social media to promote their work. A paper from the Australian National University, for instance, called for such a provision to ensure that there were no loopholes in our laws. This bill makes it clear that social media spending is considered advertising.

The final provision of this bill is to explicitly prohibit government advertising from influencing support for a political party. I think that one should really be a no-brainer. Anyone who is in the opposition or on the crossbench could consider that there is an unfair advantage for the government of the day if they use advertising to try to seek support. This bill is clear that the purpose of government advertising is not to influence political outcomes, and it should not be used to advance the political objectives of a political party.

Other jurisdictions have taken action around government advertising. In New South Wales the minister is required to prepare and publish guidelines, and the Auditor-General must do an audit. In Victoria, government advertising must be in the public interest.

I welcome the discussion we are having in South Australia at the moment around transparency and donations reform. This is a real opportunity to clean up politics in our state, and I do commend the Malinauskas government for kicking off that conversation, in particular the Premier for his leadership in wanting to take on donations reform.

However, if we are going to have this conversation we also need to consider government advertising, because if we restrict the work of political parties there is the potential for government advertising to have a disproportionate impact. The Greens will continue to push this issue and I do plan to bring this bill to a vote.

This bill is an opportunity for us to make sure that any government of the day is not able to use their incumbency to influence support for their policies, especially in the lead-up to an election. This is a reform that the Labor Party was very supportive of when they were in opposition, and I hope they will embrace the opportunity the Greens have presented for them to now get on board with this bill and make it a priority.

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

28 August 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:34): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the minister representing the Treasurer on the topic of government advertising.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In the financial year of 2022-23, the state government spent $47.6 million on government advertising, which is a record for South Australia. Some of the government's key advertising campaigns include $1.65 million spent on the State Prosperity Project, $1.15 million on promoting their Housing Roadmap, and $742,000 on promoting their budget. My question to the minister representing the Treasurer is: how many new hospital beds could you deliver with $47.6 million? How much public transport infrastructure could be rolled out with $47.6 million? How many public houses could be built with $47.6 million? How many nurses, doctors and teachers could you employ with $47.6 million? Does the government really believe their $47.6 million advertising bill is in the public interest?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:36): I will be more than happy to pass on that question to my colleague in another place.

27 August 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:34): I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. Before commenting on some of the elements of the bill, I also want to extend my condolences to the family of Jason Edwards, in particular his parents, Jan and Simon. The loss of a child is a truly horrendous thing. In fact, it is an inexplicable thing. I do not think there are any words, really, that that can be used to describe the pain that a family goes through in that circumstance, but I do extend our condolences to them for their horrendous loss.

I also want to acknowledge the Hon. Connie Bonaros for amplifying the family's voice in this place. I think that is really important. Through that example, I think the honourable member has actually demonstrated the power of victim impact statements, so I thank her for doing that.

This is an important reform because what it does is give victim survivors further rights in our legal system. It provides victim impact statements, and it ensures that these are provided in most circumstances. The Greens welcome this move. The Greens believe that the criminal justice system needs to be based on the principles of restorative justice and the rights of the victims and the accused.

Many victim survivors of crime see victim impact statements as part of the serving of justice. Indeed, victim impact statements are a crucial way to ensure victims have a voice and that their suffering is given appropriate weight in our judicial process. They put a human face onto legal proceedings that are by nature objective and often procedural.

Firsthand accounts that relate to the fear, suffering and disruption to life caused by crime can help deepen empathy and understanding of the ripple effects that cannot always easily be quantified. They remind us that criminal acts do not occur in a vacuum. They leave lasting impacts on individuals, families and communities.

South Australia has been a leader in including victims in our criminal justice system. In 1985, the United Nations made a declaration about integrating victims into the process. Following that, South Australia formulated and endorsed 17 principles of victims' rights. Principle No. 14 stated that the victim shall—and I quote from that document—'be entitled to have the full effects of the crime on him or her made known to the sentencing court'. In 1989, South Australian legislation came into effect, allowing statements that concerned the impact of the crime on the victim, making it the first jurisdiction in our country to do so. The other states implemented victim impact statements over the next 10 years.

This bill includes reforms that create further rights for victims. Currently, as the Hon. Connie Bonaros has outlined, victims are too often denied the right to a victim impact statement if there is an unexpected guilty plea or if expediency is prioritised by the courts. This bill corrects that to ensure the victim has a right to provide their impact statement.

The bill also ensures that there is sufficient time to provide a statement and that it can be presented in an unedited and unaltered form. It requires that victims are fully informed about their rights to make a statement. We in the Greens consider this to be a critical step, ensuring that victims are empowered in a system that can all too often feel overwhelming and alienating.

I note that there have been amendments filed to this bill by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Frank Pangallo. The Greens have considered these amendments carefully and sought feedback from stakeholders. I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Frank Pangallo, but we will be supporting the amendment being advanced by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and she has spoken a little bit about that in her remarks today.

Victim impact statements are a powerful reminder that behind every crime there are real people whose lives are thrown into turmoil through no fault of their own, and so the Greens support this bill and see it as an important part of supporting the rights of victims. It is certainly our hope that no other families will be denied the opportunity to have their statement read in court. I do hope that the fact that the law is changing will help families who confront the terrible circumstances that the Edwards family faced.

27 August 2024

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Last week, the federal government introduced a bill to establish an independent parliamentary standards commission. The bill aims to stamp out bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, and assault and discrimination in Parliament House. Included in the bill are penalties for federal MPs who fail to meet behavioural standards and new powers to remove MPs from parliamentary committees and even suspend them from the parliament.

Under standing order 455B, this place has a code of conduct that was adopted in 2021. At the time of adoption the Greens moved an amendment that would require a fine or suspension if a member of parliament was to contravene the code. The amendment was not supported by any other party in this place. My question to the Attorney-General is:

1. Is the Malinauskas government supportive of imposing penalties on members of this place who breach the code of conduct?
   
2. Will the state government commit to establishing an independent parliamentary standards commission and, if not, why not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:16): I thank the honourable member for his question. I have seen reports. I haven't seen the details of what is being proposed federally. I am happy to have a look at them to see how they may apply in South Australia. As the honourable member pointed out, for some years now we have adopted a code of conduct in this place. There have been reports, particularly the review of harassment in the parliamentary workplace. I know as a result of that there is legislation that I think in different forms is currently before both chambers of the parliament in relation to looking at how the administration of the parliament works as a result of some of those reports. We are happy to have a look at it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:16): Supplementary: does the Attorney-General concede that a code of conduct without penalty could be regarded as a toothless tiger?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:17): As I said, I don't have the details of what is proposed federally, but we will certainly have a look at it.

19 June 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:38): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on this condolence motion and in so doing I would like to begin by extending our condolences to Steele Hall's wife, Joan, his six children and six grandchildren.

Raymond Steele Hall is a significant figure in the history of South Australian politics. His government's achievements were significant and other members have reflected on those, but I do just want to talk a little bit about the significance of electoral reform to our state. Premier Hall recognised the longstanding inequalities in the South Australian electoral system, colloquially known at that time as the Playmander, which was an electoral malapportionment that favoured rural areas over the city.

It was one of the bravest political moves that our state has ever seen. Premier Hall introduced legislation to reform the House of Assembly to provide a more equitable system of representation and he did so knowing it would be detrimental to himself and his own party. Surely that is the great test of political leadership: we take actions that benefit not just ourselves politically but are actually about the whole community. I think that was one of the trademarks of Premier Hall.

The esteemed political scientist the late Professor Dean Jaensch AO characterised the 'Playmander', named after Hall's predecessor, Sir Thomas Playford, as the best gerrymander the world has ever seen. Years later, Mr Hall told The Advertiser, and I quote:

There were some strong Labor seats with 40,000 voters and some Liberal seats with 5,000 voters. It was totally undemocratic, totally wrong. We could not continue with the boundaries the way they were. The changes we made in the electoral boundaries were immense and we knew that we were sacrificing government at the following election, but it had to be done.

In addition to electoral reform, Premier Hall introduced improvements in social welfare, Aboriginal rights and abortion. He also began the process of adding fluoride to our water in South Australia in 1968.

Steele Hall's parliamentary career spanned three decades. As has been observed, he served as Premier of our state but also led two political parties, one of which he founded, and served as a member of the South Australian House of Assembly, the federal House of Representatives and the Senate—a significant achievement, a significant career. Indeed, he is the only Australian to have served as a premier of the state as well as a member of three legislatures.

During the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, as a Liberal Movement Senator, though he was opposed to the Whitlam government, he joined with the Labor Party and an Independent Senator at that time, Cleaver Bunton, in voting against the deferral of supply bills. This was a significant moment in our state's history and, again, Mr Hall showed the leadership that the time called for in terms of exercising and voting in favour of his conscience.

In August 1988, as the Liberal member for Boothby, after the then opposition leader, John Howard, expressed his wish to control Asian immigration, Steele Hall, along with Ian Macphee and Philip Ruddock at the time, dissented by crossing the floor of parliament and voting with the Labor government on a motion against the use of race as a criterion for selecting immigrants. When he addressed the parliament at that time, Mr Hall said:

The question has quickly descended from a discussion about the future migrant intake to one about the level of internal racial tolerance. The simple fact is that public opinion is easily led on racial issues. It is now time to unite the community on the race issue before it flares into an ugly reproach for us all.

Again, this is an example of the leadership of this man in terms of speaking out in favour of his conscience and doing what he considered to be right. He leaves behind a reputation for integrity and political courage, and as someone who has truly put his state ahead of party-political interests. So we, on the Greens side of politics, express sadness at his passing and convey also our thoughts to our Liberal colleagues, many of whom, I know, knew Steele Hall and his family.

18 June 2024

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I understand that Victoria is on track to become the first state in Australia to raise the age of criminal responsibility, with news that this week they will be introducing a bill into their parliament. Last year, the Malinauskas government announced a discussion paper on diversion options. My question, therefore, to the Attorney-General is: what is the status of this discussion paper, when will the government release the submissions that have been made and when can we expect to see a bill come before the parliament to finally raise the age of criminal responsibility?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:52): I thank the honourable member for his question and continued questioning in this area and acknowledge his very deep and unwavering interest and advocacy in this area. I saw media reports, I think even today, about proposed legislation in Victoria. I have not seen the details of the legislation, but obviously we will keenly look at those details.

I think the honourable member is correct that Victoria becomes the first state to propose legislation. At varying stages, our two territories have also had some movement in this area, as the honourable member points out; he keeps a very keen eye on these things. We had a discussion paper that was released. There were, from memory, dozens of responses to that discussion paper. It is a very complicated area. We are currently assessing those responses and what the policy options could be.

I think I have answered before that we will look to see what might be released once we have had an opportunity to thoroughly assess those. I have said before we have released a discussion paper, and it proposed a possible very high-level model. We have not released any commitment that we will legislate in this area, so in relation to when we will see a bill, there is no commitment from this government that a bill will be seen. But we are committed to thoroughly looking at the area, and we are considering those dozens of responses at the moment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:53): Supplementary: what is the time frame that the government is working towards in terms of considering those submissions, and when will it reach determination on those submissions that can be made publicly available?

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. We don't have a time frame. I guess the simple answer is: as long as it takes to thoroughly look at them.

5 June 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:37): I rise to express outrage at the campaign being waged by the Hon. Sarah Game and others to censor the content of our state Art Gallery. I must say that it is hypocritical to see this crusade to cancel artwork being led by the One Nation party, a political party that has long opposed so-called cancel culture. Indeed, the leader of One Nation, Senator Pauline Hanson, has claimed that cancel culture is killing debate and freedom of speech in this country.

The One Nation party certainly has a bizarre world view. They believe it is okay to promote transphobia and racism, and to do so with impunity. They argue that those offensive views should not be censored, but apparently exposure to provocative art is all a bit too much, that is a bridge too far. It is a complete nonsense.

The two sculptures that have been singled out by the Hon. Ms Game, Mark Quinn's Buck with Cigar, which is a sculpture of a transgender activist, Buck Angel, and Patricia Piccinini's Big Mother, I understand have been on display in the Art Gallery since 2010 and 2011. The Hon. Ms Game claims that the artworks represent sexualised imagery; however, they are not sexualised simply because they depict the body. Indeed, celebrating the body in all of its shapes and sizes has been a feature of art for generations. It is not for politicians to determine which depictions of the body are considered art and worthy of inclusion in our public access Art Gallery.

I note that the Art Gallery of South Australia rebuts Ms Game's assertions that these works are unsuitable for children. A spokesperson told the Adelaide Advertiser:

We prepare our visitors including school groups and encourage pre-visits from teachers and educators.

Art at AGSA is curated to spark conversation and debate, and sometimes may be controversial. It is the role of artists and galleries…to encourage viewers to see the world, culture, and politics from different perspectives.

One of Ms Game's concerns seems to be the proximity of one of the artworks to a painting of the baby Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Presumably, the Hon. Ms Game does not think it is confronting for children to be exposed to artwork depicting the crucifixion of Christ, artwork that is commonplace in many galleries around the world.

Last year, I had the opportunity to visit Italy and see some amazing artwork firsthand. My favourite was the Statue of David. Seventeen feet tall, carved out of marble, it is a remarkable sight. Made back in 1504, it is considered one of the most famous artworks in the world. I do hate to offend the sensibilities of the One Nation Party, but the statue is of a naked man, shock horror. David, of course, has not been immune to controversy. There was a time when a fig leaf was used to protect his modesty.

I had thought that those days of censorship were long gone, but sadly I was mistaken. Last year, the principal of Tallahassee Classical School in Florida's state capital was forced to resign after parents complained about a lesson that included a photo of David and the work was described by some as pornographic. As the Mayor of Florence, Dario Nardella, observed on Twitter, 'Mistaking art for pornography is simply ridiculous.'

Thankfully, the Hon. Ms Game's approach has not infiltrated Roman Florence, where there are still vast numbers of naked statues in public places. Perhaps the Hon. Ms Game believes these statues should be covered up or that children should be blindfolded or told to avert their eyes as they walk through these classical cities, or is art just considered adult only when it depicts a transgender body?

It is a real shame to see this kind of divisive politics being imported into Australia. This is the latest terrain in the culture wars of the far right. Recently in New South Wales, there was a ban imposed by Cumberland City Council on books talking about same-sex parenting on the basis that this is somehow disturbing for children. Thankfully, that insanity was overturned, but I do fear what we are seeing here is a move towards censoring our public spaces, such as our libraries and our galleries. Dictating what people can read and the artwork they can consume is very dangerous in our democracy.

There is a push here by the far right to frame diversity, whether that diversity be reflected through art or literature, as being dangerous and threatening, even corrupting for children. I know the government are fond of dealing with One Nation, but I urge them to resist this temptation. They must not follow the far right down this rabbit hole. South Australia has a long tradition of being freethinking, let's keep it that way. As Alanis Morissette once said, 'censorship is about fear. It's just fear being projected onto art.' But the last word must go to Virginia Woolf, who wrote, 'Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.'

Time expired.