30 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak in relation to the Public Assemblies (Miscellaneous) Bill 2023. This bill comes in response to the antiprotest laws that were introduced by the Malinauskas government in partnership with the Liberal opposition earlier this year and rushed through as part of a pact between the two major parties. You will remember that I spoke at length on that bill, and I thought I might revisit that speech now. That was a joke, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Funny joke, the Hon. Mr Simms, very funny joke.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just testing, Mr President. I just wanted to see if everybody was listening. There was a look of great alarm that swept across everyone's faces. Don't worry, my speech will be very short.

Peaceful assembly is a key part of a democratic society. It is how citizens hold public institutions to account. When the Dunstan government introduced the Public Assemblies Act in 1972 it set South Australia apart as a best practice in protecting the right to protest. It came after a Vietnam moratorium protest was met with force and there was an attempt to manage that protest. A royal commission into the protest found that 130 protesters were arrested and dragged into paddy wagons. The Dunstan government moved swiftly to introduce an act to ensure that the right to protest was protected, and I commend them for doing so.

While the new obstruction laws did not technically touch the Public Assemblies Act, the influence of that change could have ripple effects, and there are potential unintended consequences that need to be addressed.

The Human Rights Law Centre has recently released the 'Declaration of our right to protest', which has already been signed by over 60 civil society organisations. These include Amnesty International, SACOSS, the Australian Democracy Network, the Conservation Council and many more. The declaration states, and I quote from the document:

The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental human right that allows us to express our views, shape our societies and press for social and legal change. Participating in peaceful protest is a way for all of us to have our voices heard and be active in public debate, no matter our bank balance or our political connections.

The declaration contains 10 fundamental principles for protecting protest in our democracy:

1. We must protect the right to protest.
   
   
2. Governments must accept that public protest involves some level of disruption.
   
   
3. Laws affecting the right to protest must be clear.
   
   
4. Limitations on the right to protest must be properly justified.
   
   
5. Protesters must have all their human rights protected.
   
   
6. Participating in a protest is not an invitation to surveillance.
   
   
7. Independent monitoring of protests must be facilitated.
   
   
8. Protests should not be restricted based on their message except where that message could harm others.
   
   
9. Police must not interfere with the right to protest unless it is absolutely necessary.
   
   
10. Giving prior notice to authorities about a protest must be optional.

The Greens believe that protecting protest is vital in a healthy democracy, and that is the genesis of this bill. This proposed legislation would provide clarity around the right to protest and clarity for organisers of peaceful protests and plug some of the gaping holes in the government's obstruction legislation that was rushed through this parliament with such poor consideration of the implications for our human rights.

Firstly, the Greens bill would insert a positive obligation to protect assemblies. That is a provision that already exists in other jurisdictions, places like Finland and New Zealand. In addition to the declaration, the United Nations has also issued 10 principles for proper management of assemblies. I quote from their document:

The State's obligation to facilitate and protect assemblies includes spontaneous assemblies, simultaneous assemblies and counter-protests. Assemblies, including spontaneous assemblies and counter-protests, should, as far as possible, be facilitated to take place within sight and sound of their target.

The State's obligation to facilitate extends to taking measures to protect those exercising their rights from violence or interference.

The Law Society has also indicated their support for this right and have considered this bill. As part of their consideration of the bill, they state:

The inclusion of this provision was welcomed by the Committee, which considered it to be more cognisant with international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Clause 4 of the bill reduces the time frame for giving notice of assembly from four days to 48 hours. That is consistent with the standard issued by the United Nations, which states that the ideal time for notification is 48 hours, allowing for assembly organisers to oppose issues in a timely manner. With modern methods of communication being more immediate, 48 hours is a reasonable time frame and much more workable in the modern age.

Clause 5 of the bill addresses a concern that was raised by a number of organisations during the passage of the new penalties for the obstruction offences back in May. Many organisations expressed concerns that even if they went through all of the required steps to have an approved protest they may be held responsible for actions of their participants who stepped outside of the limits of the approved assembly. That is a concerning development for our democracy—a really concerning development—and it has the potential to have a chilling effect for protest in this state. That is why the Greens are seeking to clear up any ambiguity.

The provision in the Greens bill would provide absolute clarity that organisers are not liable for the acts of participants of their assembly if they act outside of the approved proposal. This will give comfort to many organisers who are currently unclear about how the new obstruction penalties interact with the Public Assemblies Act. Those interactions have not yet been tested by the courts, and we want to make sure that any loopholes are closed before we get to that point. This bill is in line with the international standards of protecting the right to protest. The least we can do is to provide clarity to protest organisers and protect the right to protest. This bill does just that and it would ensure that our democracy is protected and enhanced.

I know that we are at the time of year when people start to set New Year's resolutions and to think about the future. As our Premier prepares to sing Auld Lang Syne and celebrate the New Year and sets his New Year's resolutions, I hope that one that he sets is that he will never go down this path again, of working in lockstep with the opposition to rush through draconian laws such as this that so fundamentally infringe on South Australians' civil and political rights.

His New Year's resolution should be 'Don't go down that dark road again. Don't take your marching orders from David Speirs and the right wing Liberal Party. Listen to community organisations, civic and political groups. Listen to their collective wisdom rather than the talkback shock jocks and David Speirs and Alex Antic and others on the side of the Liberal Party.'

The ACTING PRESIDENT (The Hon. T.A. Franks): Member, it is the member for Black or the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Apologies, Acting President.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (The Hon. T.A. Franks): The Liberal opposition was not going to do it; I have to.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Hon. David Speirs, Leader of the Opposition, and right wing shock jocks and others were really fanning the flames of division and disquiet, whipping up some sort of moral panic in relation to people who were belling the cat on the climate emergency. It was a dark chapter for our state. It was an embarrassing chapter for our state.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: David Penberthy is so right wing, isn't he?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Hon. Michelle Lensink says David Penberthy is right wing. I would argue he is—I would argue he is very right wing. I refer to the number of attacks that Mr Penberthy has made on me and the Greens over the years to prove my point.

This is a chance for a fresh start in the new year, for the government to turn over a new leaf and to positively embrace the opportunity that the Greens have presented to them with this bill. With that, I conclude my remarks.

30 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:18): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of ministerial diaries.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, in this place, we debated a motion from the Hon. Frank Pangallo regarding the release of ministerial diaries. The motion sought to require the release of details of diary entries from ministers. In that debate the Attorney-General stated, and I quote from Hansard:

It is the government's view that, if this sort of scheme were to be established by the parliament, it ought to be done by legislation, not solely by a motion of one house. For example, that is what the Hon. Sarah Game, as has been discussed, has sought to do with her Public Sector (Ministerial Travel Reports) Amendment Bill. For these reasons, we will not be supporting the motion.

On 7 July 2022, the Legislative Council passed a bill introduced by the Greens titled Freedom of Information (Ministerial Diaries) Amendment Bill. That bill aimed to bring South Australia into line with other jurisdictions such as New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT, where ministers are already required to disclose their diaries.

The government at that time did not support the bill; however, yesterday it supported the passage of a bill introduced by One Nation, which dealt with a similar transparency matter related to the disclosure of travel expenses. My question to the Attorney-General therefore is: given the government's conversion on transparency, will it now commit to supporting the Freedom of Information (Ministerial Diaries) Amendment Bill in the new year and, if not, why not?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:20): I thank the honourable member for his very keen interest in these areas, and I am very happy to say we will continue to do what we have always done: when we have a bill before us the government will consider the detail of the bill, how it is written, what it proposes to do, how it will propose to operate, and make a decision accordingly.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I want to listen to the supplementary question to see if I can possibly find some relevance.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:20): Supplementary: given the bill has been sitting there for over 12 months, when can we expect an answer?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:20): We will, of course, as always consider the merits of each bill as it is put before us.

29 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to indicate the Greens will support the amendments and the passage of the bill through the upper house, as we did previously. But I do wish to highlight for the chamber the breathtaking about-face of the government, who just moments ago opposed a very sensible proposal from the Hon. Frank Pangallo relating to the publication of ministerial diaries. They have allowed a very reasonable proposal from me that passed this chamber—a bill which they keep referencing as the Rolls-Royce model; it is a bill that has actually passed this chamber—that would bring South Australia into line with other jurisdictions, and they have not passed it.

I challenge the government in the new year, now that they have supported this and made it a priority—and obviously they have judged this on its merits; this is a proposal that is more meritorious, and the Hon. Sarah Game has been much more pleasant to deal with than me—and I urge the government, having made that decision, to fast-track the Greens bill for the publication of ministerial diaries in the new year to plug the gap that they are so concerned about.

They indicated they would not support the motion of the Hon. Frank Pangallo just minutes ago because it was a motion. There is a very good bill that has passed this chamber that they should prioritise in the new year. If they do not do so, then people will start to ask why. Why? They really have a lot of explaining to do in this regard, and they need to explain to the people of South Australia why they are letting one transparency measure languish while another has been fast-tracked. What is going on here?

29 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:16): Firstly, I speak in favour of the motion on behalf of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this. I know a lot of speakers have alluded to the fact that the government will not be supporting this motion, but given the position that they have adopted on the Hon. Sarah Game's bill in the lower house, I can only assume that they would be supporting this motion, great fans of transparency that they are.

I would be very shocked if they were to favour a bill of the Hon. Sarah Game over a bill put forward by myself dealing with transparency that has been languishing in the lower house for some time. I cannot imagine why they would not support my bill, yet they are so attracted to the bill of the Hon. Sarah Game. I cannot imagine why that would be. I have been very pleasant to deal with this week and every week. I cannot imagine why they would be so attracted to the bill of the Hon. Sarah Game that they opposed so vociferously when it was first announced.

Indeed, I remember hearing a number of Labor ministers lining up in the media to indicate that the bill was not needed and that it was a bridge too far. This week, they have enthusiastically supported it. I know it is Christmas season and we talk a lot about Secret Santa, but what about secret deals? Has there been a secret deal done? I asked the government about this back in November when we were talking about the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill. I read from Hansard. I said at that time:

I am advised that in the other place a bill from the Hon. Sarah Game relating to ministerial travel has now been moved up for debate for the next sitting week. Earlier, the government advised that there had been no deal done with the Hon. Sarah Game. Is that still the government's position?

The honourable Minister Scriven replied:

…the crossbench in this place made statements to the effect that they had not engaged in any deals. I think the line of questioning is quite offensive.

I do not mean to cause offence to the minister, but the community has a right to know. If there has not been a secret deal, then it is incumbent on the government in their remarks to indicate why they are so attracted to the Hon. Sarah Game bill and why they are so lukewarm on, so repulsed by, the Greens bill that they would leave it to languish there for 12 months.

I note the comments made by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game that a motion is not the appropriate measure. Well, motions are a statement of intent. Motions indicate the views of this chamber, and my understanding is that this would have the potential to compel members of this chamber, ministers, to reveal their diaries.

It would, as a result, put more pressure, I think, on the government in the other place, and that is the role of the opposition and the crossbench. It is not simply to say, 'Oh, well, it's all too hard, and we're not going to go there.' So I am disappointed in the position that the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game have taken in this regard.

In terms of the substance of the motion, this has been a long-term priority for the Greens. As indicated, we have a bill that has passed this chamber, calling for ministerial diaries to be made available, bringing South Australia into line with Queensland, with New South Wales and others.

For me, personally, this has been a long-term campaign. Indeed, back in town hall I initiated a developer contact register so the community could see who local councillors were meeting with. Unfortunately, that move was opposed by the Hon. Sandy Verschoor, Lord Mayor at the time, and the co-leader of the Team Adelaide faction, Alex Hyde. They prevented that transparency measure, but I kept pushing, also trying to get access to diaries from the Lord Mayor, and we have continued that fight here in state parliament.

I commend the Hon. Frank Pangallo for the position he has taken on this and really urge members to get on board. That said, I am optimistic the government will support it, because not to support it would be so inconsistent with the position they have taken on the other bill on a similar related matter that I think it would be very disingenuous for them to oppose this move by the Hon. Frank Pangallo, and they could leave themselves open to charges of hypocrisy were they to do so.

29 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:08): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of alternatives to prison.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, the Justice Reform Initiative released their report titled Alternatives to Incarceration in South Australia. The report argues that investment should be redirected into addressing the drivers of incarceration, rather than investing in jails and imprisonment—particularly for young people. The report states:

Prison does not work to reduce crime; it does not work to build safer communities; and it does not work to address the social drivers of contact with the criminal justice system. It has become an expensive, harmful and yet normalised failure which causes disproportionate harm to Aboriginal people who are significantly over-represented in both the youth justice and adult prison systems.

For young people in contact with the justice system, the report calls for evidence-based, community-led programs to provide off ramps out of the carceral system. The report contains a comprehensive list of evidence-based programs that have been proven to be effective as alternatives to jailing people.

At the September meeting of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in regard to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, it was agreed that the committee would consider the report and return to the December meeting of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General with a position or an update on the minimum age of criminal responsibility reform in their jurisdiction. It is our understanding that the December meeting will be held this Friday 1 December. My question to the Attorney-General therefore is:

1. Will the Attorney-General, on behalf of the government, be advocating to raise the age of criminal responsibility at that meeting?

2. Will the government finally commit to funding programs and alternatives to incarceration to keep young people out of prison?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:10): I thank the honourable member for his question. He is indeed right, there is a meeting of Attorneys-General due to take place in Canberra on Friday of this week that I will be attending on behalf of the South Australia government. One of the items that has been a longstanding item on that agenda for the Standing Council of Attorneys-General is the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

We will not be announcing something in the lead-up to this or in the near future after that; however, as the honourable member has asked a number of questions—and he has a very longstanding, passionate and sincere interest in this area—work continues in a South Australian context.

I have mentioned before that we are looking to see, if the age was raised, what would come in its place. As I have said before in this place, one thing that we certainly won't be doing is just changing the number in a bit of legislation. The overriding aim that we will be focusing on is what makes the South Australian community safer. Certainly, there are now jurisdictions right around the world—in the UK, in Europe, in New Zealand, in Victoria, in the territories, in other places—that have raised the age, and we are looking at the evidence about what makes the community safer.

There are suggestions that keeping particularly young people out of the criminal justice system can increase community safety. One of the most telling factors about being incarcerated as an adult is contact with the criminal justice system as a juvenile. How that is raised is certainly something that we would need to look at. We have no commitment; we are doing the work to look at it.

One thing that other jurisdictions have looked at is what the age is raised to. I know many advocates advocate for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14. The jurisdictions that have moved in this space so far have started at 12, with an ambition or a stated desire to raise it to 14. The other thing is whether there are things that are exceptions or carve-outs, and that is something that other jurisdictions have dealt with. Certainly, in the work that we are doing in terms of what would come instead of a criminal justice response—those therapeutic responses—are things like the initial age and whether exceptions is something we will consider.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:12): Supplementary: will the minister commit to giving an update to this house on that work when parliament resumes in the new year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:12): Depending on what state the work is up to, certainly.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (27 September 2023): Can the Minister for Energy and Mining advise:

1. Are energy retailers in South Australia able to recoup the following from customers through their pricing structure?

(a) Lobbying

(b) Public relations spending

(c) Trade association fees

(d) Political advocacy

2. Are energy retailers in South Australia able to include any of the above costs in their retail allowance?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries): The Minister for Energy and Mining advises:

Unfortunately, the energy system in South Australia was privatised by the Liberal government of the time. Consequently, the government of South Australia has no oversight of the business decisions made by privately owned energy retailers.

These retailers are subject to the same set of laws and regulations as any other privately owned business selling goods and services to consumers, including but not limited to the Commonwealth's Corporations Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

In addition, in the energy market, retailers are obliged to operate under the National Energy Retail Rules. The Australian Energy Regulator is responsible for monitoring and enforcing these rules. Provided they do not breach any applicable laws and regulations, how costs of doing business are recovered are matters for the retailers.

15 November 2023

Motion of Hon. R.A. Simms:

That the general regulations under the Young Offenders Act 1993, made on 3 August 2023 and laid on the table of this council on 29 August 2023, be disallowed.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:26): I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate: the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the minister, the Hon. Kyam Maher. I am, however, disappointed that there is not support for this chamber and for this disallowance motion from the Greens. I note the Leader of the Opposition referred to the term 'intelligent and pragmatic solutions'. I do not think locking up children is an intelligent or pragmatic solution—surely we can do better than that.

To briefly draw to the attention of the chamber some key statistics, in 2021 a study from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare revealed that South Australia detains children at a higher rate than the national average. In 2022, a report from the Commissioner for Children and Young People noted that children were arrested or detained in SA Police cells or watch houses 2,030 times between 2020 and 2021. Of those admissions, 43.8 per cent were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander young people.

In 2023, on 21 June, the ABC reported that child detainees were suffering in isolation at Kurlana Tapa Youth Justice Centre. The article stated that children spent 21 consecutive hours locked in cells on 31 May and 1 June 2023. On 3 August, new young offenders regulations were gazetted. A particular concern to the Greens, as the Attorney-General has acknowledged, is regulation 9, which is the regulation that provides that children as young as 10 can be detained in adult facilities if they are taken into custody further than 40 kilometres from Adelaide's GPO.

The government had an opportunity to change those regulations and they have not taken it up, they have not done so. The government's case seems to be, 'Well, if this regulation is removed, then all the others fall away.' Surely, the government can then step in and fill the gap if necessary. I am very concerned about the welfare of these children, and those concerns were only heightened when on 31 October this year the training centre visitor report was tabled in this parliament. I will read from some of those key statistics.

That report showed that in 2022-23, 39 young people under the age of 14 were detained. For the first time since 2019, two 10 year olds were detained, that is, children of primary school age. Ninety per cent of young people detained on an average day were on remand, so only alleged to have committed a crime, and in 2022-23 there was an 11 per cent increase in the number of individual young people admitted compared with the previous year, that is, 324 young people. One in two of those children are First Nations young people (53 per cent) and 25 per cent of young people at the Youth Justice Centre have a known diagnosed disability.

Surely, we can do better by those young people in 2023. Surely, there is a better solution for these young people than locking them up in adult prisons. It is immoral, and I think the government has an obligation to do something about this. The Greens are very concerned that this issue is being pushed off into the never-never. There needs to be action taken on this sooner rather than later, because it is very clear from the reports that have been raised by the Training Centre Visitor that the situation is dire, and we need some leadership from the government on this urgently. I want to indicate to members that I will be calling a division, so that their views are on the public record.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 2

Noes 17

Majority 15

AYES

NOES

Motion thus negatived.

2 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:58): I also rise to put on record my appreciation of the work of our remarkable trailblazing and fearless colleague the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, who has really made a big contribution to politics in this state and a big contribution to this chamber.

Reflecting a little bit before speaking on this, I was reminded that I have known Irene for many years. I was a friend of her daughter, Demi, at university and so I first met Irene when I was in my 20s. Demi was always really rightly proud of her mother's achievements. I remember meeting her as a young person. She was someone who made a huge impression then.

I saw her many times over the years. Demi and I actually lived together in share housing and one of my funniest memories of Irene was that Demi and I used to run a competition over who had the best decorated bedroom in the share house. We decided that we would need to bring in an objective judge. Who best to choose than the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, who came in, took one look at the two rooms and said, 'Well, clearly Robert's is better.'

I did think it was an unfair contest for Demi to be facing off against a gay man like myself with amazing interior design skills, but it was Irene who called it and did it in 30 seconds. She is always straight to the point, and I have always appreciated that directness about Irene. She is someone who, in her political career, has demonstrated the capacity to cut through to an issue and to say what needs to be said, and to say it without the BS. I think that is something that we are really going to miss.

I might briefly reflect a little bit on Irene's career and her story. She is the daughter of working-class migrants who came to Australia seeking democracy and economic fairness. She was educated at Mitchell Park Primary, Para Hills West Primary, Salisbury East High School and the University of Adelaide. She has qualifications in a Bachelor of Arts with Honours, a Bachelor of Laws and a Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice.

She has spent her working life dedicated to advocating for people who are often denied political power. She was a caseworker for the Adelaide Women's Community Health Centre. She worked as a migrant workers' rights officer in the FMWU. She was a trade union training authority review officer for WorkCover. She was a conciliation and arbitration officer for the Workers Compensation Tribunal and a solicitor for Equity Partners. She was a community representative on the Australian federal government delegation to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995.

Irene is someone who has always believed that the luck of circumstances someone is born into should not be a barrier to access to education, health care and employment. Other members have remarked on Irene's significant contribution here in the parliament. She co-sponsored the free menstrual hygiene products pilot program. She has been an advocate for abortion law reform and the decriminalisation of sex work, and I know she worked very closely with my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, and has been chair of committees inquiring into wage theft and the gig economy. I think it is fair to say that Irene has been a powerhouse advocate for working people.

I will conclude with a story about Irene in the context of the recent anti-protest laws. I really admired the fact that she came out and stood with protestors on the steps of this parliament in the days before that vote, and also joined union leaders at the protest in Festival Plaza. When she was asked by journalists why she was there, she said, 'I've come to hear the views of the community,' and I think: good on her. Irene has always been someone who has been willing to stand up to power, to stand up to vested interests and fight for what is right, even if that has meant ruffling feathers in the Labor Party, and I respect her for that.

Might I say, as other members have done, my thoughts are with Irene in her health battle. I understand this will be a challenging time for her and her family but, as my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks said, she is going to really take on this health battle, and if cancer thinks it is going to get the better of Irene Pnevmatikos, it has another think coming. I wish her all the best. We will miss her from this parliament, but we know that this will not be the end of Irene's activism. She will continue to be there, standing along with all of us, fighting for progressive values.

2 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:16): Supplementary: in light of news that the ACT is raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14, will the minister provide an update on the government's work on raising the age?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:17): I can provide an update. I commend the honourable member; I know this is something that is he is very interested in, as is his colleague in the ACT the Hon. Shane Rattenbury, who is a member of the Greens political party and is the ACT Attorney-General, with whom I have had very constructive discussions about what they are doing in the ACT.

If my memory serves me correctly, in the ACT the age is being raised to 12, with a view or a review to look to raise it to 14. I think that is what is happening in the Northern Territory as well, that step to 12. Victoria has announced an intention, I think, also to look at going to 12. Tasmania has announced a policy not to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility but to raise the minimum age of detention—which in some respects will have a similar result, but in others it won't stop those very young children having that initial interaction with the criminal justice system that raising the age seeks to do.

I can assure the honourable member it is an issue that we are continuing to progress in this government. One thing that has become very apparent as we have done work on this that I think other jurisdictions have found is simply changing the number in legislation from 10 to 14—or from 10 to 12, as I think all other jurisdictions are starting with around Australia—wouldn't resolve or solve many problems. It is what is put in place of that interaction with the criminal justice system, and often they are the supports, the family supports, the therapeutic interventions—it is work on which there has been a massive effort already, and that is continuing.

2 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:47): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of youth treatment orders.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On Tuesday, the Youth Treatment Order Visitor's annual report was tabled in parliament. The report states that, and I quote:

Australian research indicates that mandated drug treatment is ineffective for most young people.

In the conclusion of the report it is stated that it is entirely foreseeable and a likely reality that young people affected by this scheme will feel alone, unheard and traumatised. The report makes three clear recommendations:

1. To repeal part 7A of the Controlled Substances Act 1984.

2. To develop and resource adequate trauma-responsive, child-centred community and evidence-based drug and alcohol initiatives.

3. That the Kurlana Tapa Youth Justice Centre not be used as a secure holding facility for children and young people who primarily have therapeutic needs, for which it does not have a real and resourced capacity to address those needs.

My question to the Attorney-General is: has the Attorney-General read the report, and will the government commit to implementing all three recommendations from the youth treatment order report?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:48): I thank the honourable member for his questions. I will answer the last one first: yes, I have read the report. From memory, it's a 17 or 18-page report that has been completed. In relation to the three recommendations, the second two recommendations, if my memory serves me correctly, are made to the minister for the Department of Human Services in relation to Kurlana Tapa and the therapeutic programs. I certainly will be having discussions with my colleague the Hon. Nat Cook, the minister responsible.

In relation to the first one—the repeal of part 7A of the Controlled Substances Act—that rests with myself as Attorney-General. I think I outlined that, when the honourable member asked a question earlier this week about media reports particularly on that same report, pursuant to the legislation that passed there was a review to be conducted on the third anniversary of the commencement of the section.

That third anniversary comes up next year. I think November 2024 is the third anniversary. I am not going to pre-empt a review, but certainly what the honourable member asks can absolutely be a part of that review, and I would be very surprised if the honourable member doesn't actually make that suggestion when that review is being conducted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:49): Supplementary: given the severity of the claims made in the report, will the Attorney-General commit to fast-tracking that review and taking immediate action?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think the review will be conducted as it is legislatively required to be conducted. I do note also that, I think as I referred to yesterday, since part 7A came into operation there has not been one of these orders made.

It would probably be even more pressing, if these orders were being made regularly, to look at the review, but given that since this had passed, if my memory serves me correctly, there has been one application for an order to be made but that was withdrawn before any order was actually made. I completely appreciate the honourable member's views on this, but there hasn't been an order made under this regime and there is a legislative requirement for a review of its operation coming up next year.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:50): Supplementary: does anything in the legislative review requirement preclude the government from conducting its own review at an earlier date and fast-tracking action on this element?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:51): This house does as it pleases in terms of we are sovereign in what we do in our parliament, regardless of when departments and other things are required to conduct reviews, but we intend to conduct the review as per the legislation at this stage.