7 March 2028

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:26): I rise very briefly to speak on the Bail (Conditions) Amendment Bill 2023 and to indicate that the Greens will support this bill. Domestic and family violence is a very serious matter, as we know. In Australia, one in six women and 11 per cent of all adults experience violence from a partner. Since the first national plan to reduce violence against women and their children was adopted 13 years ago, I understand that over 700 women have been murdered. First Nations women, women from culturally diverse backgrounds, women in regional areas, older women, LGBTIQ+ women and women with disabilities are even more likely to experience this violence.

It is clear that what has been done to date is not working and has not gone far enough. We need to continue introducing measures to protect people from this terrible abuse. This bill ensures that survivors have an extra level of protection in what are deemed high-risk cases. When a perpetrator has been found to have contravened an intervention order through physical violence or threat of physical violence in a domestic or family violence case, they will be subject to bail conditions that impose electronic monitoring devices.

This bill reduces the threat of further violence to people who have experienced family or domestic violence and will give them one more assurance that their safety will be protected. The Greens therefore support this measure. I note the opposition will be moving some amendments, and the Hon. Michelle Lensink has spoken to those. I have some concerns and have flagged these with the honourable member around the potential resourcing implications of those amendments, and I will explore some of those concerns with the Attorney-General during the committee stage to get some clear advice from the government around the implications of what the honourable member has proposed. With that, I conclude my remarks.

6 March 2024

FIRST NATIONS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.L. Game:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges that the South Australian First Nations Voice was not democratically agreed to by the people of South Australia;

2. Recognises that the federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum campaign has caused deep division and uncertainty in the community.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:05): I rise to speak against this motion. In so doing, I want to call out the One Nation party for engaging in cynical and divisive politics and to call out the opposition in this place for debasing themselves by aligning with One Nation in this way—rolling in the mud with the One Nation party in this way. I actually think it is outrageous. I think it is shameful. What is particularly galling about this is that the previous speakers have talked about division and wanting to bring the community together, yet they are lining up with the mother of all divisive political parties, One Nation. They are lining up with those who seek to fan the flames of division and disquiet in our community and are seeking to wreck this Voice to Parliament. It is deeply disappointing.

I had hoped, when we saw members of this chamber speak against the Voice to State Parliament, that when they did not get their own way they would hope that this project, this ambitious plan, would succeed. But no. Instead, they have embarked on a very different mission; that is, to try to wreck and undermine this project, and I think that is deeply, deeply disappointing.

I want to speak to some of the elements of this motion, the first being in relation to the point that the South Australian First Nations Voice was not democratically agreed to by the people of South Australia. That is complete nonsense. I refer to an article in The Guardian on 6 July 2019:

Indigenous leaders welcome SA Labor's vow to take Uluru statement to polls...Peter Malinauskas says party will establish a voice to parliament if it wins next election.

I seek leave to table the document.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: That article makes it very clear what the Labor Party's commitment was. They made it very clear, heading into the last election, that they were seeking to establish a State Voice to Parliament if they won the election. The Greens party made it very clear that that was something that we would support if we were in a position of balance of power in this place.

We had an election—the greatest test of our democracy that we have in our state in terms of reaching democratic agreement. There was an election and the Labor Party formed government, and the Greens found ourselves in a key position in this place. So, together, the Labor Party, the Greens—and I acknowledge also the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros—supported a Voice to Parliament. End of story. That is democracy in action. This nonsense of 'Well, the outcome that we got is not what some people in this place wanted and therefore it's undemocratic and needs to be undermined and wrecked,' I think is utterly ridiculous.

I think also that the approach that is being taken by the Hon. Ms Game of One Nation, which is being supported by the opposition, is really disappointing because it is also a slap in the face to the First Nations people who have engaged in this process in good faith. I think it is important to track the history of this reform here in this place.

Indeed, the South Australian government committed to a state-based implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and as a first step in July 2022 the government appointed the inaugural Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Dale Agius, who led a series of community engagements and provided advice to the government on these engagements.

The commissioner held two rounds of engagements, I understand, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across South Australia between August 2022 and January 2023. The first round focused on input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities on the underpinning design principles for the Voice.

This engagement found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were seeking a direct Voice to the South Australian parliament; a Voice that is elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to represent local communities; a Voice to represent the diversity of South Australian and Torres Strait Islander communities, including nation group diversity, gender, youth and elders; and direct access to government decision-makers, i.e. ministers and chief executives.

Following this, the South Australian government developed a draft bill and a model based on these findings. The draft bill and two boundary options were released for feedback. In November 2022, the commissioner commenced a second round of community engagement to seek feedback on the draft, the bill, the model and the boundary options.

This included face-to-face statewide engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities, as well as written submissions from the broader community. Feedback was received and that process informed the final design of the model and the legislation. In March 2023, the South Australian parliament passed the First Nations Voice Act—March of last year.

How is that not a democratic process? The government embarked on a truly representative consultative process that engaged with First Nations communities. We are now in the middle of an election. I am not sure, Mr President, whether you have had the opportunity to look at the nominees. Some really impressive people have put themselves forward to represent their communities, and I think that is a really great thing.

I find it really saddening that rather than get behind that and say, 'Great, let's hope this succeeds,' you have the One Nation party, with the support of some of the members opposite, trying to wreck this and undermine it, peddling Trumpian policies where they talk about people not following democracy, making a series of half-truths and whatever.

Really, I think the people of South Australia have had a gutful of this kind of misrepresentation and divisive politics. Surely the least that this parliament can do, after generations of dispossession of Aboriginal people, the stealing of land and the stealing of children, is to actually give First Nations people a Voice in this place? I find the arguments against it, quite frankly, insulting.

I also want to remind the members opposite, who are in the middle of a tight by-election campaign, that electors in the seat of Dunstan, a seat that they currently hold by a wafer-thin margin, voted 55.3 per cent in favour of a Voice. I look forward to going out, continuing to campaign in that seat and reminding people in that seat of the views of the Liberal Party in this place, because I think many people in the seat of Dunstan will be, quite frankly, horrified that the party that is seeking to represent them in this chamber is peddling this sort of nonsense.

Shame on the Liberal Party for debasing themselves and rolling in the mud with One Nation. Surely, we have had enough of this. I say to the Hon. Ms Game: I hope this motion is knocked on the head tonight and then let that be the end of the matter. Stop trying to undermine the South Australian Voice to Parliament. Stop trying to wreck it. Get behind it, hope that it succeeds and actually listen to the views of First Nations people. That is what we should be doing, not seeking to silence them, not peddling the sort of nonsense that we have heard in the chamber just now.

5 March 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:45): I rise to speak in favour of the Spent Convictions (Part 8A Findings) Amendment Bill 2023. Currently, I understand people who are found not guilty by reason of mental incompetence are not able to access provisions to consider their conviction spent and therefore not disclosed on their criminal history checks. This creates an inequality for people in those circumstances. When someone is applying for a job, they are often asked for their criminal history.

The Greens believe it is important to reduce the stigma and inequality for people with intellectual disabilities. When people enter the criminal justice system it is important that we protect their human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7, speaks to this: 'All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.'

It is my understanding that there are no clear rules around what must be included in a criminal history check provided by the police; however, there are rules around what is excluded. This bill would ensure that people who have a finding of mental incompetence made in relation to them, or unfitness, would be able to have that excluded from their criminal history, which would be a very positive step forward in terms of ensuring that those people can be full and active members of our community.

People with different intellectual needs can already experience discrimination in many facets of their life. Anywhere we can reduce those layers of disadvantage, we should act. We need to remove barriers to meaningful employment and quality of life. In applying for jobs, it is ultimately unjust for people with a finding of mental incompetence to have it revealed when they are lodging an application. The Greens consider this bill to be a sensible measure that would reduce inequality and discrimination and we congratulate the government for acting on it.

5 March 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:48): I rise to speak on the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) (Section 31 Offences) Amendment Bill. I understand the bill comes after an error was discovered relating to charges under section 31 of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009. The parliament has been advised that, of the 771 files that contained this error, none of them were charged with the higher offence.

What is interesting about this scenario is that the error began in 2011 after the commencement of the act and then in 2017 SAPOL addressed the issue; however, a change in the system in 2018 meant that the error continued to occur. This is concerning and we need to ensure that this does not happen again in relation to other criminal matters. Indeed, I can imagine this would be very distressing for the victims who have seen a sentencing process and understood a matter has been closed to then see this reopened again. To see an element of doubt being cast over that process must be very concerning for them.

We know, of course, that domestic abuse and violence is a serious issue, a serious scourge in our state, and errors of this kind can have very serious, real-life consequences. While we understand that all of those charged were charged with a lesser offence, the impacts of those who have experienced family abuse and violence must be considered.

The housing crisis and the cost-of-living crisis are felt much more acutely by people who are experiencing family and domestic violence, with many people, especially women, being forced to choose between living in an environment of abuse or homelessness in circumstances where they have nowhere to go.

It is important for all of the facts relating to this error to be put on the table. We need to be mindful that there is potential for an emotional toll for people who had felt that a matter had been heard by the corrective and judicial systems and are now discovering that that may not be the case. People who have experienced abuse need to be assured that the system is working; otherwise, trust will be lost.

This bill is a sensible measure to ensure that there is a provision to review these situations as required. This will give some certainty to people who have experienced abuse, while at the same time protecting the integrity of our justice system from what appears to have been an administrative error.

I do note the concerns of the Law Society, and I understand the concerns of the Hon. Frank Pangallo about the potential consequences of this. I think he is right to raise those issues—that is the role of the crossbench in this place, to raise issues such as that and to ensure that we apply appropriate scrutiny to the government's legislative program.

In this instance, it is the view of the Greens that it is appropriate for us to move quickly to remedy this, so that we can ensure that there is confidence in the judicial system and so that we can close this chapter for the victims of this abuse. Like the Hon. Mr Pangallo, I do intend to ask some questions at the committee stage to satisfy myself that there will not be unintended consequences.

22 February 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:44): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Controlled Substances (Destruction of Seized Property) Amendment Bill 2024. In doing so, I indicate from the outset that the Greens are not supportive of this bill. It appears to be driven by a desire to minimise inconvenience for the government and, indeed, the courts, and that is not a good reason to infringe the rights of defendants.

It is a very important principle, actually, in our justice system, that we do not junk the rights of individual defendants simply because it is inconvenient or because there is a significant administrative burden that is associated with the maintenance of justice in our system. I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros has detailed those concerns. I do not intend to reventilate those arguments, but I think the points she has made are very sound, and, indeed, the Greens would associate ourselves with those remarks.

The bill allows the police to destroy hydroponic equipment that has been used for illegal purposes at the time when they would typically seize it. It provides for cost recovery of collection, transportation and dismantling of equipment without exceeding a maximum set by regulations. I understand it contains transitional provisions that cost recovery is only for cases after the bill commences. However, it does allow the police to destroy equipment that they already have in storage. I think this is one of the key issues that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has touched upon and which does concern us in the Greens as well: the impact on potential evidence.

We are concerned, also, about the cost-recovery provisions. Indeed, I refer to correspondence from the Law Society addressed to the Attorney-General where they note that:

The Society notes some concern as to a convicted person being required to meet these costs given the difficulty in ascertaining whether the costs incurred are indeed reasonable. As you may be aware, the Society raised similar concerns at the costs recovery aspects in amendments to section 58 of the Summary Offences Act…effected by the Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Act 2023 (SA).

I will not reopen that festering sore on our democracy, Mr President. You know my views on that draconian piece of legislation. Suffice to say the Greens are persuaded by the concerns of the Law Society, and that is why we are putting forward an amendment that would remove those particular provisions. I look forward to the discussion in the committee stage, but, as I say, we are not supportive of the bill for the reasons I have outlined.

20 February 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:01): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of community legal services.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On 8 February this year, Community Legal Centres Australia wrote to federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus KC seeking urgent additional investment of at least $125 million nationally to prevent the current funding crisis for 164 local legal services from worsening further. Their analysis reveals that Community Legal Centres are being forced to turn away over 200,000 people nationally each year. Community Legal Centres provide free assistance to people who need legal services information or education. My question to the Attorney-General is:

1. What is the government doing to ensure that people who need legal services in South Australia are able to access them?

2. Will the Attorney-General be advocating for more funding for the Legal Services Commission in the next state budget?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:02): I thank the honourable member for his important question. The provision of legal services to those in our community who need them is a very important issue. It is certainly something I have been very interested in since coming to government. I regularly meet with the body that provides an overarching voice for Community Legal Centres, as well as individual Community Legal Centres.

Very regularly, when I am on visits in regional South Australia, it is a great pleasure—and I have talked about this a number times in this chamber—to meet with Community Legal Centres. Only in the last week I met with a community service that provides legal advice and services to Aboriginal people in relation to family violence and other matters in the regions. When I was recently in the Riverland I had the benefit of dropping into the Community Legal Centre in Berri.

A very substantial review has been conducted by Dr Warren Mundy, the NLAP Review, which is looking at the provision of funding to community legal services right across Australia, including to ATSILS (Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Legal Services) as well. That review, if not published, is due to be published soon, and I look forward to working with my federal colleagues, particularly the federal Attorney-General, in relation to recommendations made in that review.

8 February 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:07): I rise to speak in favour of the Electoral (Control of Corflutes) Amendment Bill 2023. The Greens have long advocated for a ban on corflutes on public spaces. We have done so for a range of reasons. We recognise, as the honourable member has identified, that corflutes are single-use plastics. Indeed, as my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks remarked the other day, this parliament has banned the use of single-use plastics except, of course, when it features the images of politicians.

I think that is a point of rank hypocrisy that rankles members of the community as they go about their daily business and face the visual pollution that comes from these corflutes, as well as the impact that it has on the environment in terms of them ending up in landfill. That is not the case with a candidate like myself, who has run for office many times and dusts off corflutes over and over—I am all for recycling—but there are candidates who change their corflutes every time and that is not a good thing in terms of the environmental impact.

I think it is worth looking at the history of this reform. I think it is true to say that this parliament has dealt with this matter many times over many years, but we might finally be on the cusp of actually getting something through. The two major parties have often had different positions on this. Indeed, the Rann Labor government tried to ban corflutes under the leadership of the then Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, but that push tanked with opposition from the Liberal Party.

Then when the Liberals were in government, they tried to ban corflutes. That effort tanked with the opposition of the Labor Party and, I should point out, the Hon. John Darley, who originally I think at one point pointed out that he was in favour of banning corflutes and then performed a miraculous backflip and voted quite a different way for reasons that are still not clear to me or, potentially, the Hon. Mr Darley some could say.

I am pleased that we have finally reached a point where we are going to actually deal with this matter. I think what really has been the catalyst for this renewed push is a letter that I sent to the Premier on behalf of the Greens on Tuesday of this week, urging him to finally take action on this issue, recognising that we were heading into another by-election—yet another election—where the people of Dunstan were going to not only face another election in two years but were also going to face the spectre of more corflutes. I said, 'Look, we've got this by-election coming down the line. Let's finally deal with this. I recognise that the opposition has a bill. Why don't you dust it off and make it happen?'

Well, pressure works: pressure from the Greens works, and we welcome the fact that the government has taken this issue up and made it a priority. We made it very clear that we were happy to cooperate with the government to get this done and the Hon. Tammy Franks and I welcome the opportunity for this reform.

The features of the bill have been identified by the Hon. Heidi Girolamo, so I will not go through all of those, but I might just briefly speak to some of the amendments that the Greens will be moving to save time in the committee stage. Back when the Hon. Vickie Chapman, then Attorney-General, proposed this reform in the last parliament, I had negotiated a number of amendments with her that we saw as being quite important safeguards against unintended consequences.

Some of those amendments related to putting into the act the provisions of the Public Assemblies Act to make it clear that members of the community could still carry signage and posters at public rallies and events. For instance, despite the Labor Party's best efforts to prevent them, we do still have protests happen on the steps of our parliament and we wanted to make it clear that members of the community can still carry signs, so we are putting that into the bill.

We are also making it clear that candidates or indeed politicians can still have A-frames out in public space and that signage would be permitted. Our amendments would also allow for the practice of wobble boarding, which I see from social media some members of this chamber are very keen on, so I expect them to support these sensible amendments as I have seen on social media they have been very active out wobble boarding in recent days. I am sure they do not want to see that activity being prohibited.

The other elements of the Greens' amendments speak to what constitutes an advertising poster. Under the previous Vickie Chapman bill, which I think the Hon. David Speirs' bill has been modelled on, the legislation was to prohibit the corflute material, which is in effect single-use plastics, but I think it was always the intention of the minister—at least by my understanding, the intention of the minister at that time—to prohibit election posters being on public space. It was about the single-use plastics, but it was also about the poster material.

The way the legislation was written meant that people could circumvent that. These provisions were applied to the Local Government Act and so what we saw was some local government candidates using cardboard cutouts and cardboard posters to try to circumvent the rules. This amendment tidies that up, because whilst the Greens have a concern about the environmental impact of corflutes, our concern is also about the equity element and the arms race that this sets off.

If you are a small player and you are wanting to compete in an election, you could be having to spend a fortune on getting these posters designed and getting them up and about. They cost about $7 a pop, so we wanted to close that loophole as well, and stop what is, in effect, a pollution of our public space. We are also wanting to make it very clear that you cannot hold a street-corner meeting outside of a polling place on election day.

One of the other elements that we have sought to deal with is this issue that comes through in the act around posters or signs being placed on behalf of candidates. We could foresee a scenario where maybe an overzealous volunteer is putting up posters or a scenario perhaps where another party puts up posters that are masquerading as another political party's materials, and that could therefore take up the permissible number of posters for a party or candidate. We did not think that was fair, so our amendment is to make it clear that the consent of the candidate is required in relation to that.

We note that, where this occurs in relation to the Legislative Council candidates, the requirement of the lead candidate on the ticket, the candidate whose name appears at the top of the ballot paper, would be required. There are a number of amendments that flow through from that general principle which are consequential.

Another amendment we deal with is to increase the number of corflutes that a candidate can display on election day. The previous proposal from the Liberal Party was six. In the Greens we felt that was maybe a little bit too restrictive on election day. If you had a situation where you had lots of polling entrance points, we wanted to make sure people could still get their message out, so we propose to double it to twelve.

I have spoken a bit about the issue around consent. We also wanted to recognise this issue around authorisation of materials. The current rules provide that a candidate would only be liable for an offence of placing additional corflutes where they gave consent for this to occur. That is certainly what we are proposing through our amendment, but we did not want a situation where political parties could try to circumvent the offence provisions by maybe using a campaign manager or a surrogate to permit the placing of the corflutes. We have added in a new provision under amendment No. 15, and I will talk a little bit more about that when we get to it, but in effect it is also making it an offence for a party director or party manager to authorise those materials and have them displayed on their behalf.

To that point, the bill as it currently stands makes the candidate or the lead candidate, in the case of a Legislative Council group, responsible for all corflutes that are distributed in their seat. As I understand it, that is to ensure that there is someone who is ultimately responsible, and that individual volunteers are not being fined for following orders from campaign HQ. I get that, but I do not believe that when we know that a candidate has not consented to the distribution of materials on their behalf they would still be liable, and that is, I think, particularly true where another political party might be pulling out posters as some sort of tactic.

I cannot imagine why another political party would do such a thing, why it would masquerade as another political party, but sometimes these things happen, so it is an important loophole to close. In order to address that issue and ensure there is some accountability the amendment would create a new offence applicable to the person who authorised the material. In most cases that would be the registered officer of a political party, understanding for our party, the Greens, it is the state director. I think it is the same for the Liberal Party. I understand that would be the state secretary of the Labor Party. So that would ensure that there is somebody who is ultimately responsible for the materials that are being put out by the political party, and that occurs under the bill as it currently stands.

I note that there is a scenario that has not been addressed in the bill where unauthorised posters are being displayed, but we also recognise that that is already an offence under the Electoral Act. The bill also gives the power to the presiding officer at the polling place to remove those materials, and we think that is important, so that if someone is doing the wrong thing that material can be taken down.

I suspect that in practical terms, when you are looking the election day itself, the power to remove those materials would be very important. Nonetheless, I think the offence provisions included in the bill, which we are seeking to amend, are also really important in terms of trying to deter parties from intentionally breaking the rules and trying to gain political advantage, so we are trying to close that loophole.

To that end, one of the other issues we are proposing to include is giving the Electoral Commissioner the power to issue a formal written warning to a person who commits an offence under the bill relating to too many corflutes on election day. Again, what we did not want was a situation where you might have a really overzealous volunteer who turns up and puts too many posters in the wrong spot. It is a genuine mistake. Under the wording of the act as it currently stands, the lead candidate would face a significant fine, and it reads as if there is no opportunity to try to caution them and remedy the behaviour.

Under what we are proposing the commissioner would be given the power to give the candidate a caution and say, 'You need to take that down.' If they do not do so, they could issue the fine or they could go straight to a fine in the case of a serious breach, but it is giving a little more discretion to the commissioner so that we are not seeing people being pinged if there has been a genuine mistake or error.

That is a good summary of the amendments the Greens are seeking to advance. I will talk more about those at the committee stage, but that gives a good summary of the key general principles. It is fair to say that we have approached this in terms of wanting to make sure there are commonsense protections for all people who participate in our political process—candidates and members of the community more broadly. We are proposing some powers be given to the Attorney-General as well to make regulations as necessary. That is because there might be some particular exemptions required that we have not thought of.

A scenario mentioned to me is: if someone has a bumper sticker on the back of their car and has it parked on the side of the road, could they be captured under the provisions? It does not seem that they should be, but that is not really clear. We wanted to give the minister the power to make some regulations for those sorts of scenarios. It would be my hope that in crafting those regulations the minister would look at what works in other jurisdictions in terms of coming up with some of those carve-outs.

In crafting these amendments, I engaged with the current opposition, the Liberal Party, at the time under the leadership of then Minister Chapman, but we have also engaged with the Attorney-General's office in relation to some of the other elements as well. I want to apologise to members that the amendments were sent out very late last night. I am genuinely very sorry about that. I would like to have given people more time to consider them, but we were waiting for some of them to come back from the drafters. I did, however, contact the Hon. Heidi Girolamo to give her a general overview of some of the things we were seeking to address. I recognise that some of these will not be new to the Liberal Party, given that they were dealt with during the last period of parliament.

In closing, the Greens welcome this. We have been pushing this for a long time. The community will be breathing a sigh of relief if the parliament finally does away with corflutes. Our political parties' candidates should be judged on the merits of their policies and we should have a political system that puts the focus on that. I was on the FIVEaa Matthew Pantelis program the other day talking about this, and I said that politics is not a beauty pageant. He said, 'You've got that right.' I was not sure what he was meaning by that, but really we should be, I think, judged on our policies, not simple slogans and the like. This brings South Australia into line with other jurisdictions and is something that will be welcomed by most people in the community.

7 February 2024

Bills

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (RESPONSE TO REPORTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:26): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act to require that the relevant minister provide a response to any parliamentary inquiry's recommendations within four months of the report being tabled in the parliament. Currently, there is a requirement that, if a matter is referred to the Legislative Review Committee via a petition that is signed by 10,000 people, the relevant minister is automatically required to respond, but of course we know that there is no requirement for ministers to respond to the recommendations of select committees.

Ordinarily, you would say that we could operate in a trust model in this place. We would assume that the relevant minister would, of course, respond to the recommendations of a select committee. Sadly, that is not the case when it comes to some of the ministers in this Labor government and, in particular, I refer to the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis.

As I highlighted in question time today, 12 months ago to the day I tabled the report of the Public and Active Transport Committee that made a series of recommendations. We had more than 100 people make submissions to that inquiry and more than 50 people gave evidence to the inquiry and I really appreciated the participation of members of a vast array of political parties at that committee table.

When the committee tabled the report, I contacted the minister's office on 7 February and requested a meeting and I did not hear back. I followed up again on 13 April and again I did not hear back. Prior to starting in this place, I never had a problem getting guys to call me back, but for some reason the minister seems to be ghosting me.

I do not know what is going on. I do not know why the minister will not pick up the phone and call me back, why he does not want to talk hydrogen with the Greens, why he does not want to talk transport policy with the Greens, but it seems that the minister's view is that, when the parliamentary committee hands down a report, his job is simply to take the report, pop it in a drawer, never read it again and let it sit there for months and months, gathering dust.

I think that is very insulting. It is an insult not just to us as members of this chamber and members of parliament who engage in select committees in goodwill to identify potential policy solutions for the government of the day; it is also a slap in the face to those members of the community who have gone to the effort to put pen to paper and make a submission to an inquiry or who have gone to the effort to come and speak, as 50 people did to that inquiry, to members of parliament and address them and share their concerns.

What does the government do? In the case of the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis he has done nothing in terms of engaging with the recommendations. I fear, to quote Sam Smith, who I know the Labor government love, he is not the only one. We know that the Hon. Clare Scriven, while she did admit today that she has actually read the report, has not engaged with the contents of the report and has refused to do so. Despite being asked on many, many occasions, she uses the Scott Morrison defence: 'That's not my job.' Ms Scriven says, 'That's not my job'. It is not the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis's job either.

This bill would ensure that actually the relevant minister is required to respond and respond in a timely fashion. Under this Greens proposal the minister would be required to indicate which of the recommendations of a committee report they will implement, which ones they will not implement and the reason for their decision. That seems very, very reasonable.

Normally, it would not be required, but when we have a minister that is ghosting members of parliament and refusing to respond to their queries and efforts to engage, then the parliament needs to step up and take action, and that is what we are proposing in this instance.

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

7 February 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:38): I rise to speak on a matter that will be of importance to all people in our state but in particular to those living in the seat of Dunstan, and that is the upcoming by-election and the opportunity that is presented to people living in that seat. In doing so, I do also want to acknowledge the service of the Hon. Steven Marshall, a former Premier of our state and someone who was Premier of our state during a very challenging period, in particular during COVID. I do recognise his leadership during that time, and I wish him all the best for this next chapter.

The Greens are of course participating in this by-election campaign. Our candidate is Katie McCusker, who is a local, someone who has lived in the Dunstan electorate for many years. She has lived in the areas of Payneham, Norwood, Felixstow and Toorak Gardens. She went to school at Rose Park Primary School and attended high school in Kensington Park and Marryatville.

She graduated from Flinders University with a Bachelor of Arts, with majors in psychology and political science. As a uni student, she worked in the area at the Kensington cricket club. She volunteered at the Adelaide Central School of Art, when it was located on Osmond Terrace in Norwood, and she frequented the Kent Town Hotel, so she is someone who has been active in that community. Indeed, she was a member and volunteer of the Kensington Residents' Association and a lifetime supporter of the Norwood Redlegs football club.

But aside from her credentials as a local person, Katie McCusker is someone who has progressive values. She is not someone who is a member of a right-wing faction of a political party. She is not someone who is a member of a right-wing political party. She is someone who supports progressive issues, such as of course banning conversion therapy, and someone who has campaigned for the issues that the people in the community care about.

Indeed, she was a strong campaigner for the Voice to Parliament, which a majority of people in the seat of Dunstan supported, and which, to their great discredit, the Liberal Party did everything in their power to wreck and destroy. Opposing a State Voice to Parliament in this chamber, under the appalling leadership of Peter Dutton, they did everything they could to poison the well against that reform. Well, they are not the values that the people of Dunstan seek from their candidate.

The Greens have a clear platform that I think will be of interest to the people of Dunstan. We have been very outspoken in terms of campaigning for investment in public transport and in improved cycling infrastructure and better services that would benefit people living in that seat. We have been really active in pushing to ramp up heritage protections and prevent the practice of demolition by neglect that is causing real problems in the Norwood area.

We have been campaigning to protect our Parklands and add them to the state heritage list, campaigning to protect our green space and campaigning to move the car race that causes so much disruption to residents in that area out of the CBD.

The Greens performed very well in the last state election in the seat of Sturt, which includes the state seat of Dunstan. Indeed, we got 16.4 per cent of the primary vote and Katie, as the candidate during that election, secured a 5.21 per cent swing to the Greens. She also contested the 2010 state election for the seat of Norwood, which is now Dunstan, and she got a 3 per cent swing to the Greens at that election.

Katie has been out there campaigning over the last two years, talking to residents about the issues that matter to them, and one of the things that is clear is that the Greens message, in terms of tackling the cost-of-living crisis and dealing with the issues that are important to the people of Dunstan, is being well received and I look forward to joining her out on the hustings, along with my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks. We are excited about the potential of this by-election for the people of Dunstan and the opportunity it presents them to finally have a progressive voice in this place.

30 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:57): Briefly, on behalf of the Greens, I want to wish everybody a safe and happy Christmas. For me, Christmas has always been a time to celebrate the good things in life; that is, friends and family. As the Hon. Nicola Centofanti has alluded to, it can also be a very sad time for many in our community, particularly those who have lost loved ones during the year, and my thoughts are going to be with those South Australians who are struggling at the moment—those who are struggling with loneliness but also those who are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.

I know I also speak for all of us in the chamber when I say that our thoughts will be with people in the Middle East as well, as they deal with the profound loss and sadness that comes from war and conflict at this time of year. It is certainly my hope that in the new year, we finally see some peace for our troubled world and, in particular, that troubled region where there is so much profound sadness.

Reflecting a bit on this year, there have been some pretty significant bills and reforms that have come to this parliament for consideration. Certainly, from a crossbench perspective, we have found ourselves often playing quite a key role, and that has led to sometimes moments of agreement and sometimes stoushes. One of the things that I really appreciate, however, about this parliament and in particular this chamber is the respectful and collegial way that we are able to work. Whilst we do have disagreements, I think it speaks to the strength of our democracy that we are able to come together and work together, and long may that tradition continue, particularly when one reflects on some of the terrible things that are unfolding around the world.

I sincerely thank all members of this place who we have had an opportunity to work with this year, and all the staff across the building who keep things moving. Thank you, Mr President, for your leadership and fair and balanced approach to adjudicating often some challenging debates, so thank you for that. I also in particular want to thank my staff. I often joke and say that as politicians we are the lead singers of the band, but it is the staff who do all the work in terms of writing the music and all the work behind the scenes.

I know everybody in this building works hard, but it is particularly true of crossbench staff, because often we have such a large legislative load, and our staff play a really important role in getting us across all the detail. With that, I wish everybody a safe and happy Christmas and look forward to working with you all next year in what I hope is a happy and productive year for the South Australian parliament.