1 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:44): The matter I rise to speak on this afternoon is one that will be of interest to all South Australians who care about the health of our democracy, and that is the rising influence of the One Nation political party. It is fitting that yesterday was Halloween because this party's record will send a shiver down the spine of many people in our community. They are a dangerous political party, one that casts a sinister shadow over our democracy, and this is something that the government should consider very carefully when they strike deals with One Nation.

One Nation is the only political party in this place that is on a registry of Australian hate groups. Back in October of the last year, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism added One Nation to their register for its track record on anti-multiculturalism, white nationalism and COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Looking at the history of this party, you can see why.

I found it galling to hear the One Nation party talking about the voice of division during the recent debate about a First Nations Voice to Parliament. It is galling because the One Nation party has been a consistent voice of division over the past 25 years. They are the party of racism. In 1996, Pauline Hanson launched One Nation with an inflammatory and offensive speech in which she claimed that Australia was 'in danger of being swamped by Asians'. She went on to make another series of appalling claims in that speech.

What a despicable thing to say of Asian-Australians, who are such a vital part of the fabric of our multicultural society. Pauline Hanson has doubled down on this rhetoric over the years, attacking a range of other groups in our community: First Nations people, African-Americans, African-Australians, and people of the Islamic faith. In fact, she has even referred to Islam as 'a disease'. In 2017, Pauline Hanson wore a burqa into federal parliament as part of her grotesque stunt. She made a mockery of the Muslim community, and she used that stunt to call for a ban on the burqa.

Pauline Hanson has called for an end to multiculturalism in Australia. She wants to axe the Racial Discrimination Act, ban mosques and also have a royal commission into Islam. This is the party that has the gall to criticise those who are campaigning for a Voice to Parliament, and claim that they are being divisive. Give me a break!

But it is not just racism that defines One Nation, it is also their contempt for democracy itself. In 2018, Senate candidate Steve Dickson met with the National Rifle Association in Washington and said that if One Nation won the balance of power in the federal parliament they would seek to weaken Australia's gun laws.

Hanson does not respect our democratic traditions, either. Back in 2017, she heaped praise on Vladimir Putin. This was after Putin was exposed for his complicity in the downing of the M17 flight that killed 298 people, including 38 Australians. On climate change and COVID-19, One Nation peddles lies and bizarre misinformation—Senator Malcolm Roberts is a treasure trove of strange quotes; he once suggested that climate data had been corrupted by NASA—and they have peddled lies and misinformation about COVID-19.

The Hon. Sarah Game is not Pauline Hanson, but she is a representative of the One Nation party. If she does not support these views then she must disassociate herself from them. She must make her position on One Nation's policies clear. In the meantime, the Greens will continue to call out the divisive and dangerous politics of One Nation in our state and federal parliaments, and caution all members of parliament from sharing the rostrum with One Nation.

1 November 2023

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In her report tabled in parliament yesterday, the Youth Treatment Orders Visitor, Shona Reid, provided serious concerns about the implementation of youth treatment orders which allow the SA Youth Court to order drug-dependent children in detention to receive mandatory treatment. Ms Reid described her commentary in the report as 'scathing' and stated that, and I quote from the report:

The Youth Treatment Order Visitor believes that the rollout of the Youth Treatment Order process from November 2021 put detained young people to further trauma and harm, with poor preparation for the scheme's implementation and a distinct lack of child-centred practices and policies and a rights-based approach.

One of the recommendations made in that report is 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 questions to the Attorney-General are:

1. What is the government doing to address the rights of young people in our justice centres?

2. When will the Malinauskas government raise the age of criminal responsibility to avoid children being caught up in the justice system?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for his question and I will answer it particularly in relation to the preamble he gave in terms of youth treatment orders. Youth treatment orders, as we know them in South Australia, came into operation in November 2001 with commencement of part 7A of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. Their introduction was intended as a last resort for young people who are drug dependent, have refused to engage in voluntary treatment, pose a risk to themselves or other people, and only where all other appropriate treatment orders have been exhausted.

The youth treatment orders program sits alongside health services already available to young people detained in Kurlana Tapa, including mental health support, medical treatment and voluntary drug programs. Their introduction was intended to provide that circuit breaker only in the most serious of cases. To date, and I think as was outlined in the report the honourable member referred to, there has been one youth treatment order application, which was made in October 2022.

The assessment order was granted for the assessment; however, the detention order was withdrawn so no treatment orders have actually been made since the introduction of the scheme in South Australia. I am aware that in accordance with section 54P of the Controlled Substances Act, a review of the operation of that part of the act will need to be completed after the third anniversary of the commencement of the section, so that would be three years from November 2021, so from November next year, there will be a review of that section of the act. As I said, there has not been a single order yet made under that provision.

28 September 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:10): I rise to speak very briefly on the Statutes Amendment (Ombudsman and Auditor-General) (Terms of Office) Bill and to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the bill, albeit with amendments. The bill changes the term of the Ombudsman and Auditor-General to be fixed; that is, for seven years, with an option to extend to a maximum of 10 years. Currently, the legislation calls for those positions to expire when the office holder turns 65 years of age.

This bill removes the age discrimination precedent setting a term expiry at a certain age and will allow for applicants over the age of 65. It will also ensure that any younger person holding the role is not there for decades. All members of this place received a letter from the Auditor-General asking us to consider two recommendations; that is, to create a fixed term of 10 years and to not allow for reappointment after that term is complete.

I note that both the Greens and SA-Best have filed identical amendments and I indicate to the chamber that in the event that the amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros is successful the Greens will not proceed with our amendment—it would not be required. We will, of course, be supporting the amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros, which I anticipate will be dealt with first.

We note the amendments that have been filed by the opposition. Those amendments would allow for the reappointment of both the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman after their initial term. The Greens consider that to be against the spirit of the bill and therefore we are not in support of those amendments. I will make some general remarks about the Auditor-General, and I share the comments of the Hon. Michelle Lensink.

I want to put on the public record the appreciation of the Greens for the important work that these public officers do—that is, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. They are vital public roles that they perform. They offer fearless, independent advice. I share the concerns of the Hon. Michelle Lensink in relation to the Auditor-General's call to access cabinet documents not being actioned by the Malinauskas government.

This is a basic transparency measure. It is one that this house has supported when we supported the bill from the Hon. Heidi Girolamo and yet it has stalled in the lower house. That is very disappointing, because sunlight is the best disinfectant in our democracy and, really, the Auditor-General should have access to this vital information. I am not sure why the Malinauskas government is holding that up, but I do urge them to show leadership in this area of transparency, to listen to the calls of the Auditor-General and others and take action.

27 September 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:10): I move:

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.

Members in this place know that the Greens hold grave concerns about the welfare of young people in our criminal justice system. In South Australia, young people from the age of 10 can be remanded in or sentenced to youth detention. A 2021 study from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare revealed that South Australia detains children at a higher rate than the national average.

Exposure to the criminal justice system can cause cognitive harm to young people and can affect their wellbeing into their adult life. We need to ensure that we protect children from this harm by ensuring that they are kept out of the criminal justice system. The regulations that were gazetted on 3 August this year have raised concerns among organisations that advocate for young people.

Regulation 9 provides that children as young as 10 years of age who are in lawful custody and were taken into custody further than 40 kilometres of Adelaide's General Post Office may be detained in 'a police prison or approved police station, watch-house or lock-up in accordance with those sections'. This means that in cities such as Gawler, Mount Gambier, Whyalla, Murray Bridge, Victor Harbor, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie and Port Augusta, children as young as 10 are being detained in adult facilities—children as young as 10. They do not belong in prison. They belong in school.

In a 2022 report, the Commissioner for Children and Young People noted that children were arrested or detained in SA Police cells or watch-houses at least 2,030 times in 2020 to 2021. Of those admissions, 43.8 per cent were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander young people. In some regional and remote locations almost all children arrested and detained were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. So this is a policy that has a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The Greens believe that no child should be detained in a youth justice centre, a police prison, a police station, a watch-house or a lock-up. Jailing children sets them on a pathway that results in continuous contact with the criminal justice system. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out binding principles for sentencing juvenile offenders. Article 37 states:

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

Given the terrible damage that detention does to the wellbeing of children, we must ensure that provisions such as these are subject to maximum scrutiny.

On 21 June, the ABC reported that child detainees were suffering in isolation in Kurlana Tapa Youth Justice Centre. The article states that children spent 21 consecutive hours locked in cells on 31 May and on 1 June this year. Training Centre Visitor Shona Reid was quoted in the article, saying:

To be in this tiny little room having nothing but a foam mattress, a shower and a toilet, metal bathroom and a screen that has a couple of channels to watch on TV for 21 hours is something that's really difficult for anybody, let alone kids and young people…to comprehend.

Ms Reid cited staff shortages at the youth detention centre as being one of the issues that is resulting in poor outcomes for children detainees as there are currently 20 vacant staff positions at that centre. How is it acceptable to allow children as young as 10 to be locked up in these facilities?

We need to do better; we are failing our state's most vulnerable young people. We need to be looking at alternatives and considering how we can divert children from the criminal justice system. I welcome the Malinauskas government's indication that it is doing that. I note the reply the minister gave to my question today in this place, where he indicated the government is looking at diversion programs. We welcome that, but they should not be continuing on with these regulations that continue a practice that the Greens regard as immoral.

Instead of introducing regulations that maintain the status quo and continue the jailing of children, we should be implementing these new models and programs that will keep them out of this system. The expiry of the previous regulations have presented an opportunity for the Malinauskas government to improve the conditions for young people who are entering the criminal justice system. Instead, the regulations that were laid on the table in this place have retained the existing provisions and will keep children locked up.

The Greens are moving to disallow these regulations to put the government on notice that this is not good enough. They need to start implementing alternatives to locking up kids. If this place decides that these regulations are to be disallowed, the government will need to go back to the drawing board and try again. That is what we are asking the government to do: create a system that supports getting kids out of the legal justice system instead of perpetuating a cruel system that locks up young people and sets them on a path to crime.

I will be bringing this matter to a vote in coming months so that we can test the position of the parties in this place. It is a moral test, and I really hope that this parliament rises to the occasion and rejects this immoral approach to youth justice.

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

27 September 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 youth detention.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, the Tasmanian government tabled a report titled 'Who was looking after me? Prioritising the safety of Tasmanian children'. The 2,922-page report contains recommendations to reduce the number of children in youth detention and states that the Tasmanian government should, and I quote:

a. introduce legislation to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 years, without exception

b. develop and provide a range of community-based health, welfare and disability programs and services that are tailored to…the needs of children and young people under the age of 14 years who are engaging in antisocial behaviour, and to address the factors contributing to that behaviour

c. work towards increasing the minimum age of detention (including remand) to 16 years by developing alternatives to detention for children aged 14 to 15 years who are found guilty of serious violent offences and who may be a danger to themselves or the community.

My question to the Attorney-General therefore is: is the Attorney-General aware of the recommendations contained in the Tasmanian report, and does he share similar concerns in relation to the welfare of children in detention here in South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:19): I thank the honourable member for his question and his continued interest in the area of the criminal justice system and its interaction with young people. I had the opportunity, I think it was on Friday last week, to speak to the Tasmanian Attorney-General, the Hon. Elise Archer. Although this report hadn't been released and couldn't be canvassed in detail, I was made aware that there would be a substantial report. As the honourable member indicated, it comes in at just under 3,000 pages of a very substantial report.

One of the areas that I did traverse in discussions with the Tasmanian Attorney-General is what the report may say in relation to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and also the minimum age of detention, as there are a couple of jurisdictions in Australia that have already indicated and flagged that they will be looking to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

I think the Northern Territory has implemented that and Victoria and the ACT have given an indication that that's what they will be looking at doing. I think all those jurisdictions have not done as the honourable member has outlined in the recommendation, which is to raise it to 14, but have raised the minimum age to 12. I can't remember which jurisdiction it is, but I think most, if not all of them, have indicated that that is a first step, with an ambition to raise the minimum age to 14.

Certainly, I haven't read the whole report since it was released this week, the 3,000 pages, but, as I said, having had the benefit of hearing directly from the Hon. Elise Archer, the Tasmanian Attorney-General, I was able to get a bit of an understanding of some of the things that it might traverse. It will of course be up to the Tasmanian government for their implementation of the many and varied recommendations in that report. If I remember correctly, I think the Tasmanian government has previously announced an intention to raise the minimum age of criminal detention to—I can't remember if it's 12 or 14. It's not the minimum age of criminal responsibility but the minimum age of detention. I am sure the Tasmanian government will be looking very carefully at this very substantial report.

In terms of the parallels that might be drawn with the South Australian youth justice system and Kularna Tapa, obviously I will seek to get some understanding of what they are, but I am not sure how directly the parallels relate to the Tasmanian youth detention system. I know there has been very significant media attention on some of the difficulties with the Tasmanian youth detention system, which I am not sure are necessarily present in the South Australian system. That is certainly something I would be happy to look at in the weeks and months to come, and also to finalise it, too, because I know it is of great interest to the honourable member and to the Greens party in general.

We continue our work in relation to this area. I have said before in this chamber, and I am happy to reiterate it, that we are considering what the responses would be should we raise the minimum age in South Australia—as I have said before, those interventions that wouldn't be criminal justice but therapeutic family support interventions with the overriding aim of making the community safer. That work in South Australia continues, and it will be good to look at any parts of this report that can help inform and supplement the work we are doing in South Australia.

14 September 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I want to use this opportunity to make a few general remarks about this bill because I have not yet spoken on industrial manslaughter during my time in this parliament. I regard and the Greens regard this as being a really good day for the people of South Australia because finally it appears that this reform, which is long overdue, will pass our state's upper house. It is a reflection, I think, of what this parliament does best—that is, listening to the concerns of the community, responding to their concerns and making laws that are going to change people's lives for the better and that are going to help people. That is fundamentally why we are all here in politics.

I reiterate the comments made by the Attorney-General; that is, good businesses, good employers, those who are doing the right thing by their workers, have absolutely nothing to fear from this reform. This is a positive step that is being taken for workers in our state. I acknowledge the long-term advocacy of the union movement and their passionate advocacy over many years. I know that the Greens have been proud to stand with them in this campaign over many years.

I pay tribute to the work of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks for her leadership on this issue over the last 10 years or so. As noted by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Tammy Franks introduced private member's bills on this topic back in October 2010, in May 2015, on 1 May 2019, on 23 September 2020 and on 4 May 2022, so it has now been 13 years since the Hon. Tammy Franks first introduced a private member's bill to address this issue. Indeed, it was Tammy's bill in 2015 that led to an inquiry into the occupational safety rehabilitation and compensation scheme to allow cross-party development of a consensus position.

Might I say that this was a policy commitment that the Greens took to the last state election and that the Labor Party took to the last state election and, I understand, that the SA-Best political party also took to the last state election. There is clearly a mandate from the people of South Australia to see this change made. I understand that some members are seeking to mount the argument that there has not been enough consultation or there has not been enough of an opportunity to consider amendments and the like. I do not accept that. There has been considerable consultation about this reform. There has been a huge amount of public engagement on this issue.

So I do think it is a bit rich for the opposition to suggest, if they are going to, that we are not in a position to deal with this today. This was the party that waved through draconian anti-protest laws with the blink of an eye. In this case, there has been a huge amount of public engagement on this issue over years and years, and it is clear that the people of South Australia want this done. I hope the parliament is going to do that today, and that will be a really good thing for the people of our state.

30 August 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:10): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of young offenders.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, the Attorney-General tabled the Young Offenders Regulations 2023. Under section 9 of these regulations, a young offender who is detained within 40 kilometres of Adelaide's General Post Office:

…may be detained in a police prison or approved police station, watch-house or lock-up in accordance with those sections.

That applies for as long as it is reasonably practicable.

In a 2022 report on South Australia's progress on recommendations made by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, the commissioner for young people noted on page 15 that children were arrested and detained in SA police cells or watch houses at least 2,030 times between 2020 and 2021. Of these separate admissions, 43 per cent of these young people were First Nations young people.

My question to the Attorney-General is: why does the government think it is appropriate to detain children as young as 10 in police stations, watch houses or lock-ups for indefinite periods? When will the government move to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:12): I thank the honourable member for his question and his passionate advocacy in the area of raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility in particular. As I have outlined in this place and in public before, we are undertaking work to look at what it would look like if we did raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is not a policy we have committed to, but there is certainly a large body of work that we are undertaking in South Australia, as there is being undertaken nationally by all states. The national process commenced under the former government, who committed to looking at what it might look like and the evidence for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Some of the areas that continue to be looked at in South Australia are areas that you might expect; that is, if you raise the age from 10 to 12, as I think the NT and the ACT have done, and I think Victoria made a recent announcement about raising the age, and I think Tasmania have made an announcement about raising the minimum age of detention, which is not the minimum age of criminal responsibility, but in some areas it has a similar effect in terms of children who are actually detained in custody facilities. One of the main areas is: what comes instead of the criminal justice system—those other sorts of interventions, be they therapeutic interventions, family supports or other interventions?

I have to say, I have been surprised at just the complexities and the amount of work that has gone into this already. There is another matter that touches on what the honourable member raised, in addition to what the other interventions are in a young person's life that might even be more successful in making the community safer by having a lower chance of reoffending. But then, what are the immediate powers of, particularly, police officers in terms of being able to intervene immediately?

There are very successful processes in place in terms of family conferencing that the police use. The immediate police powers to intervene in situations, particularly dangerous situations, is another element of the work that's ongoing. The honourable member raises one of them, and that is detention in police cells, and it is acknowledged that that is often a suboptimal experience for children, but that is certainly part of the work that we are undertaking as we look at this issue holistically.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:14): Supplementary: when will the parliament receive an update on that work that is being undertaken and, in particular, does that work involve consideration of the report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:15): I thank the honourable member for his question. As much as I would love to give the honourable member a date, that it will happen on this day of this month, I don't have a date. It is important work that we want to do thoroughly. From the outset, the overriding factor about these changes is what makes the community safer. We are looking internationally, too, at what the results have been in terms of the reduction in reoffending and the effects on community safety. We will do the work as thoroughly as possible, and I know the honourable member will look forward to any announcement we have in this area.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:15): Supplementary: again, has that work been informed by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child report?

The PRESIDENT: I am not sure that that report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child—I didn't hear that in the original answer. However, Attorney, if you would like to answer the question you can, otherwise we will move on.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:16): I am most helpful and I am happy to do so, sir. As I said, certainly the work has looked at international experiences and looked at a whole range of different jurisdictions that have moved this way, and are looking at it as well.

3 May 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (3 May 2023).

1. How many people have been diverted from the criminal justice system under the Police Drug Diversion Initiative (PDDI) in the last reporting year?

2. How many people were diverted from the criminal justice system under the PDDI in each of the past five years?

3. How many people were not diverted from the criminal justice system under the PDDI in the last reporting year?

4. Over the last reporting year, what controlled substances were people found with categorised by people diverted from the criminal system and people not diverted from the criminal system?

5. How many people diverted from the criminal justice system ended up proceeding to trial?

6. Have there been any policy changes in the last five years that have resulted in a change to the diversion rate?

7. Will the government commit to publicly releasing the above information on a regular basis?

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

1. In 2021-22, the South Australia Police recorded 1,837 drug diversions. This information is derived from SAPOL Annual Report data published on Data.SA. The number of people diverted is unknown, although one person is limited to two diversions in a four-year period.

2. There were 21,600 diversions in the past five financial years. The number of people diverted is unknown.

3. This is unknown as there are set requirements for a drug diversion to take place (including the limit of two diversions in a four-year period), this is therefore not possible to quantify.

The Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services has advised:

4. The controlled substances found on people who were diverted to the Police Drug Diversion Initiative were Alprazolam, Amphetamines, Buprenorphine, Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), Heroin, Ketamine, Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), MDMA (including ecstasy), Methamphetamine, Oxycodone, Psilocybin (magic mushroom), 1,4 butane diol, and Phenethylamines n.e.c.

5. SAPOL holdings do not record specifics regarding noncompliance returns to the prosecutorial process. However, SAPOL advises it would be rare to have a matter returned for prosecution through noncompliance.

6. The Police Drug Diversion Initiative (PDDI) originally commenced in September 2001. The PDDI aligns with the nationally agreed approach to illicit drug use in Australia involving an early intervention process for drug users to help reduce the prevalence and harms associated with drug use. The main aims of the PDDI are to provide people with early incentives to address their drug use, increase education, assessment and treatment opportunities and to reduce the number of people appearing before the courts for simple possession offences.

The Statutes Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2018 amended section 34 of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 resulting with the effect that from 1 April 2019 the number of occasions people could access the PDDI is limited to no more than two simple possession offences in the preceding four years.

7. Statistics on the number of drug diversions in a given year are available in SAPOL's annual report.

28 June 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill that I am introducing today aims to address one of the issues that has been faced in the City of Adelaide over a number of years; that is, the way in which rate exemptions are applied. I should note that I am a City of Adelaide resident, so I have an interest in what occurs in the City of Adelaide, but this issue is much broader than simply the City of Adelaide. The principle extends to other council jurisdictions and is of interest to all South Australians who are facing an increase in their council rates at this time.

Our skyline has witnessed significant transformations in recent years. Buildings such as the Festival Tower now loom over our Riverbank Precinct. While these buildings have been erected on Parklands, they are not contributing their fair share to the people of Adelaide.

This bill would empower the Adelaide City Council to levy rates on the area where the Hajek Plaza used to be and where the Walker Corporation's Festival Tower is now under construction. Rate income is valuable to contribute to the upkeep and development of our city, and organisations such as corporations and casinos should not be exempt.

Rates are the lifeblood of local government, enabling the provision of essential services, maintaining infrastructure and enhancing the quality of life for residents and businesses. While ratepayers across the state are seeing their rates rise due to the current economic crisis and high CPI, it is only fair that large corporations pay their fair share. Why is one of Australia's richest people, a multibillionaire, being given a rate exemption?

In 2020, The Advertiser reported on the Walker Corporation's rate status in an article titled 'Walker Corp building on Festival Plaza could become test case on council rate exemptions'. At that time the article claimed that the Walker Corporation being exempt from rates was costing the City of Adelaide $150,000 in lost revenue each year. Given the increases in rates since that time, there is the potential for that revenue to be much higher.

At that time, The Advertiser also reported that SkyCity Adelaide was not paying any rates. However, we have been advised that that situation has been remedied, and I understand that SkyCity is now paying rates to the City of Adelaide as the land title has been transferred. However, how was it that we had a casino being built on Crown land that was not paying any rates? How did that occur? This private member's bill will close that loophole, make it very clear that casinos should not be granted any rate exemption, and make it very clear that the Walker Corporation will not be granted any rate exemption.

It is really important that we establish this principle, particularly if we are going to see a second tower blighting our city landscape, as I understand is under contemplation by the Malinauskas government. I must say what an outrageous deal this is that the Walker Corporation has been granted over our public space. A bucketload of taxpayer money is being poured into that project, if media reports are to be believed—a huge amount of taxpayer money being spent on that Festival Plaza.

You have a private corporation seizing our public land, which could have been returned to Parklands and, to add insult to injury, they are not even paying rates. What an amazing deal for the Walker Corporation; what a dud deal for the people of South Australia. It is outrageous and, quite frankly, I find it disgusting that the Labor and Liberal parties could allow such an appalling exploitation of the people of South Australia and our public land to occur. It is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace and this bill seeks to remedy that.

It is worth noting, too, that the City of Adelaide does forfeit a significant amount of rates through exemptions. A workshop was conducted back in November 2021 by the City of Adelaide, which was reported in The Advertiser. Whilst I was on the city council at that time, I was not present at that workshop—I was away—but I have read the papers of the workshop. They are publicly available and available to members of this place on the City of Adelaide website.

That report notes that 27.4 per cent of rates income is forfeited through exemptions and rebates. The report claims that the impact of this is disproportionately allocated across the community. Well, 22.7 per cent of rates income is forfeited through exemptions in Adelaide. It should be noted this is very high when compared with the City of Melbourne, which only forfeits 12.2 per cent of their rates through exemptions, and again that is according to that report.

The report goes on to include a map, which highlights areas where rate exemptions apply. I would encourage members of this place to have a look at that. While some of those areas where rates are not applied are council-owned buildings or recreational reserves, there are some that are businesses operating for private profit, like the Walker Corporation and, as I understand, previously the Casino.

By holding profit-making corporations accountable through rates we can ensure that our community resources are equitably distributed, fostering a sustainable environment for all residents and businesses to thrive. The community requires shared responsibility, not a system where big business does not have to contribute to the running of the city or the maintenance of our public realm. An interesting debate has been occurring at the moment around the state of our public streets and, in particular, around the state of North Terrace. Why should not one of Australia's richest people have to contribute to maintenance of the public realm? Why should the Walker Corporation be given a free pass? This bill is closing off that loophole, and with that I conclude my remarks.

15 June 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:55): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of consultation.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On 16 May, The Guardian Australia reported that the Minister for Energy and Mining told the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference: 'The South Australian government is at your disposal, we are here to help and we are here to offer you a pathway to the future.' During that week, protesters gathered at that conference to oppose the use of fossil fuels and their impact on climate change. On Thursday 18 May, the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas MP, announced on talkback radio that he would be legislating to impose new penalties on protesters who obstruct the public space. The bill was passed in both places with limited public consultation and scrutiny.

My question to the Attorney-General therefore is: did the Attorney-General receive any representations from the Minister for Energy and Mining on behalf of Santos or any organisation involved in the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference regarding potential amendments to the Summary Offences Act, and what does the government have in mind when it talks about 'offering to help' the gas industry?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:56): In relation to representations to me from the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, the member for West Torrens in another place, no, I had no representations made by him from any of the classes of people referred to by the honourable member. I was not there when the comment was made, but I am sure the honourable member could take it up with the minister to whom he attributes the comment.