15 November 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to indicate the Greens' support for the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No. 3) Bill. The Greens have been very supportive of voluntary assisted dying laws across the country for over a decade, with the Greens campaigning strongly in every jurisdiction for this reform. In South Australia, my predecessor, the then Hon. Mark Parnell, twice moved for voluntary euthanasia bills—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I apologise; I understand he is still honourable. I would like to acknowledge both the Hon. Mark Parnell and my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks for their work on this important reform over many years in this parliament. Indeed, there is strong support across our movement within the Greens in terms of euthanasia reform.

The bill before us today ensures that deaths that occur under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act do not require an investigation by the South Australian Coroner. The Attorney-General indicated a concern about the current situation where the Coroner is required to provide findings in these types of deaths, leading to delays in finalising the affairs of deceased persons. The Greens share this concern. We believe we should minimise the risk of increased trauma for families in what is, of course, a very difficult situation for them.

However, there is provision to ensure that the Coroner can still investigate deaths that do not occur in accordance with the voluntary assisted dying scheme to ensure that legislative processes are enacted correctly. We consider this to be an important safeguard within the scheme. Furthermore, this bill ensures that deaths under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act are reported in the Coroner's annual report. The Greens believe that reporting these figures is an important transparency measure.

The Greens support the measures outlined in the bill and are pleased that the government has indicated an intention to bring the voluntary assisted dying scheme into operation as soon as possible. I put on the record our belief that that cannot happen soon enough for families and those who are terminally ill and are waiting to access the scheme. With that, I conclude my remarks.

3 November 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak today on behalf of the Greens in support of the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill. I do want to start my remarks by reflecting on my own journey in terms of my working life and the importance of this bill. I actually got my first-ever job when I was 17, having finished year 12, and it was working in the retail sector. Indeed, I was working for Big W at Westfield in Marion.

I remember—working night shift packing boxes and packing shelves—how difficult it was for me to get home at the end of my shift. That was over 20 years ago now, and in fact there was such an absence of transport that my dad used to come to pick me up late at night to make sure I could get back to the southern suburbs because you could not get a ride home.

It is pretty disappointing that decades on so many of our state's retail workers find themselves in the position where they are often trapped, finding it difficult to get home from work, and then being slugged increasing car parking fees. It is particularly disappointing when one considers what our retail workers have been through over the last three years of this pandemic because we know that their work really is essential.

These are the people who have been at the frontline ensuring that our society could function during the pandemic. These are the people offering critical goods and services to our community, and they were often people copping abuse, copping unfair treatment, and what they have also been copping of late is an increase in their car parking fees, and that is outrageous.

For us in the Greens, we have always recognised the need for these crucial workers to be given free car parking, and that is one of the reasons why we are supportive of this bill. We of course recognise that we should always prioritise alternative forms of transport where possible, but we do acknowledge that travelling by car is necessary for some people, and that is particularly the case for retail workers. As I mentioned, there is often insufficient public transport available for these workers, and I hope that the government will take action to address that over this term of parliament.

The Greens believe that all workers should have safe ways to get to and from work. My office has received over 530 emails in support of free car parking for retail workers at shopping centres, but we have also had a large volume of correspondence from retail groups also calling on better ways to manage car parking.

One of the issues that we have been alive to in the Greens when the government first put this bill forward was the need to find a resolution for hospital workers. Whilst we were supportive of free parking being made available to retail workers in these key shopping centres, for the reasons that I have outlined, we also felt that it was important that that principle should apply to our hospital workers—people who have also been at the frontline of this pandemic and in particular during this really tough flu season—so we have been advocating for the government over some time to deliver a better deal for those workers.

I must say, what the government have come back with is a really excellent solution. What the government are delivering is car parking for just $2.50 for hospital workers, just $2.50. That is cheaper than a cup of coffee—that is $12.50 a week—that is cheaper than a sandwich. This is going to be cheap car parking made available to these workers in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. As a result, car parking for hospital workers will be at the lowest level it has been at for more than 10 years. That is a really good outcome for these critical workers. The other thing that the government have put on the table is they are going to provide free public transport on an ongoing level to workers who do not have access to a car parking permit. That is another terrific win.

It was the Greens who first filed amendments to provide free public transport and free car parking to these critical workers. The Greens came out very strongly on this issue months ago, and we of course welcome the Liberal Party joining the call, and we have now achieved that outcome because the government have delivered this heavily discounted car parking and free public transport, and there is therefore not a need to pursue our amendments. So, I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments from the opposition in that regard either. The other issue—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I hear the Hon. Stephen Wade is interjecting, screaming out 'backroom deal'. I do not make any apology for working to get good outcomes for all workers, particularly those in our hospital sector and those in our retail sector. That is why the Greens are here. The same could not be said of the Liberal Party that, as we know, served the interests of big corporations like Westfield—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: But the other—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Mr Wade!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, continue.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Ms Franks! The Hon. Mr Simms, continue.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Sorry, Mr President, I heard the Hon. Michelle Lensink interjecting with 'small family business'. She obviously has a very different definition of small family business. I would not describe Westfield as being one of the small family businesses.

Just to go on to some of the other issues in this bill, one of the other issues that we were concerned about was the fact that the bill was going to give local councils a role to play enforcing these car parking provisions. We heard from the local government sector that they did not actually want to be placed in that position and, indeed, many would have a conflict of interest because they manage car parking. That was an issue that we raised with the government, and I understand the government has taken that issue up and will be moving amendments to address that.

Given that all of those concerns have been addressed, we are delighted to be supporting the bill today. I think this is a breakthrough that will be welcomed by not only our retail workers but also our hospital workers as it brings to a close what has been a bit of a saga. It means that heading into the Christmas period those workers will have more money in their pockets, and that is going to be really critical as they continue to deal—as all South Australians do—with this ongoing cost of living crisis. I am proud of the role that the Greens have played to bring these issues to a head.

2 November 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Regional Development on the topic of regional health.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In March 2020, the then Marshall Liberal government temporarily closed several rural accident and emergency departments due to COVID-19. Now, 2½ years later, the emergency departments at the following locations are still closed: Gumeracha, Strathalbyn, Mount Pleasant and Eudunda. Some of the hospitals have claimed they are not able to attract medical staff to regional hospitals. The Gumeracha medical centre has called it a 'crisis in our medical workforce'.

My question to the minister therefore is: what is the government doing to ensure that the health needs of regional communities are being met, and is the Minister for Regional Development developing strategies for attracting medical practitioners to the regions, so that these emergency departments can reopen?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries): I thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly, regional health is an issue that comes up very frequently when I am out on one of my various and numerous regional trips, and certainly it is something that I have raised a number of times internally. In terms of the specifics about strategies being developed, I will refer that to my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Health, and bring an answer back to the honourable member and the chamber.

Reply received on 21 February 2023:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries): The Minister for Health and Wellbeing has been advised:

A working group was established to consider the emergency services options for this community.

The working group recommended an after-hours nurse-led clinic based at Gumeracha District Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, with virtual support from a medical practitioner. Under the proposal, the after-hours clinic would operate Monday to Friday 4pm to 8pm, and Saturdays and Sundays 10am to 4pm. A community forum was held on 12 January 2023 to inform the broader community on the details of the proposed model, which was supported. The community now have the opportunity to provide feedback until 27 January 2023, and staff consultation has commenced.

A similar process is now underway for Strathalbyn with a working group having met twice before Christmas to consider options.

Extensive work is underway to ensure we are attracting medical practitioners to all regional and rural areas of South Australia, recognising their importance to the health and the fabric of rural communities. South Australia's Rural Medical Workforce Plan 2019-24 lays out these strategies, the most critical of which has been the successful introduction of South Australia's Rural Generalist training program. The SA Rural Generalist Program is increasing the number of doctors who specifically train in rural medicine in a regional and rural community, based on evidence that the longer doctors spend training in a rural area, the more likely they are to practise long-term in that community. The Rural Generalist Program SA has overseen a significant expansion in rural medical training, with 2023 projected to see further increases. For example, rural intern positions have more than tripled to 18 in 2022 and intern rotations from metropolitan to rural areas increased from 20 in 2019 to 47 in 2022.

The South Australian government also supports the recruitment and retention of rural doctors by funding the Rural Doctors Workforce Agency to undertake targeted recruitment campaigns and to provide supports including upskilling, spouse and childcare supports and business supports to attract rural doctors to South Australia.

In addition, the government has committed to a staged rollout of 10 specialist doctors in regional South Australia, establishing more local medical services for local communities.

1 November 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens welcomed the announcement of a new Women's and Children's Hospital last month. Indeed, the need for a replacement for the tired Women's and Children's Hospital has been apparent for many years and, in 2021, we saw the Marshall Liberal government announce plans for a new hospital next to the Royal Adelaide.

I do not want to engage in a debate about which proposal is better or which side of politics got it right and the differences between the Liberal and Labor proposals, but we do believe that a new hospital is desperately needed for South Australian women and children. However, it is important to note that the bill we have before us today is not about whether or not we have a hospital. Instead, it is about the location of that hospital and, in particular, the implications of that for heritage and our Parklands.

This bill vests specific power in the hands of the minister. It removes the state heritage protection value of the old police barracks, and it is our responsibility as legislators to consider the implications of this. South Australians should not have to choose between a new hospital or our iconic Parklands and heritage buildings.

On 27 September this year, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, the Premier, was quoted in InDaily as saying, 'This is going to be a binary choice'—a choice between heritage on the one hand and health on the other. Well, we in the Greens reject that argument. It is not a binary choice. We can have both; it just takes imagination from government. The people of Adelaide and the people of our state do not have to choose between heritage and hospitals or parklands and hospitals; indeed, there are many cities around the world that preserve their heritage buildings and preserve their green space and still have world-class hospital facilities.

The problem here is that successive governments, both Labor and Liberal, have viewed the Parklands as free land. They view the Parklands as a land bank, and there are any number of meritorious proposals that could be advanced by governments of the day with respect to our public green space: hospitals, schools, universities and housing.

As the world's first public planned park, the Adelaide Parklands are an integral part of the design of the City of Adelaide. They are unique and they are enjoyed by all South Australians, but over time we have seen their inherent value being degraded—again, by both sides of politics. I am not simply criticising the Labor government here; I note, of course, that the Marshall Liberal government, despite promises made, had an abysmal record in that regard.

In the initial statements made about the hospital, Minister Picton has made it clear that there will be a net loss of Parklands. At least, that is the undertaking that the government has given, but the numbers do not appear to add up. In a statement released by Minister Picton on 19 October, he states that 30,000 square metres of inaccessible Parklands will be restored, yet meanwhile the hospital site and the blueprint that has been tabled demonstrate that there will be a footprint of 40,000 square metres. The car park would add another 13,000 square metres of loss. To make up that shortfall, we would need to see a commitment of another 23,000 square metres of Parklands to achieve the government's goal of a net zero loss of Parklands.

Labor's refusal to add the Adelaide Parklands to the state heritage register just two weeks ago is proof that they are wavering in their commitment, at best. Their statements around the future expansion of the hospital are further proof of this weak support for our public green space. Again, the Premier was quoted as saying at the time, 'By choosing to build on the barracks site, we leave room for future RAH expansion and we leave room for future Women's and Children's expansion.'

I note that the former Labor minister and Lord Mayoral candidate Jane Lomax-Smith has referred repeatedly to bracket creep; that is, governments taking over a portion of Parklands and then expanding their reach over time. I agree with the former Labor minister in that regard: it is concerning when we see governments expand their reach into our public green space. We do not want to set a precedent here that our Parklands can be swallowed up and seized every time there is a project of public merit—and there are lots of important projects that are worthy of support.

We also need to consider the implications of this bill for our heritage and the value of heritage listings. The whole purpose of heritage protection is that it is not meant to be held hostage by the government of the day. I have heard the Premier make comments in the media, where he has said, 'Oh, well, the old police barracks aren't exactly attractive. No-one goes there. It's not like it's a building on North Terrace.' That is beside the point.

It is not for members of parliament to make their assessments on what constitutes heritage values. We have an independent, peer-reviewed process. The power to do that is vested in the hands of the Heritage Council, and they are the body that should make those decisions, not the Premier, not individual members of parliament. The Department for Environment's own website describes a heritage place as follows:

A heritage place can be inspiring and intriguing and discovering the history of a place, especially if you're connected to it, will enrich your life. It's not just 'old' buildings that are heritage-listed, a place may be of value for reasons of history, social and cultural importance, design merit or rarity…it actually has to be a place that we want to keep because it tells our story and displays our uniqueness.

The criteria there is not, 'Oh, well, this is aesthetically pleasing,' or, 'The Premier thinks that this particular building is attractive.' That is not part of the criteria that the Heritage Council takes into consideration. Heritage protection provides benefits to our community. It tells our stories. It improves our tourism, and it gives our places meaning. Heritage is not about protecting pretty places. Heritage is about our history. The Thebarton Police Barracks are part of our history, and they have stood there for over 100 years.

I highlight for your benefit, Mr President, that Labor made commitments prior to the recent state election to add further protections to heritage laws through extensive public consultation. In their policy document announced during the election, they stated that a Malinauskas Labor will legislate to require proposed demolition of state heritage sites are subject to full public consultation and a public report from the SA Heritage Council. This is not the standard that they have applied to this bill. This is a case of Labor doing one thing before the election and now doing something very different when they find themselves on the government benches. Where is the public consultation?

The policy goes on to condemn the previous Liberal government for its actions on the Parklands, saying that the Marshall Liberal government showed its disrespect for Adelaide's heritage when it decided to rezone large parts of the Parklands. I agree with that, of course. But as I have said previously in this place, talk is cheap. It is easy to be critical of what the government is doing, but it is another thing entirely to actually put your money where your mouth is when you are in a position to make change. It is disappointing that the Labor Party have chosen not to take Parklands protection seriously now that they are in government.

The government is setting up a false choice here between heritage and a hospital. I want to make it very clear and to restate comments I have made previously that the Greens are not opposed to a new hospital, but we do have some concerns with elements of this bill. That is why we believe that the parliament should be given an opportunity to fully consider the implications of this bill through a parliamentary committee. I gave notice earlier of my intention to move for us to do that, to ensure that there is a select committee that could inquire into the implications of this bill for heritage protection and for our Parklands.

I also want to put on the public record correspondence from the Lord Mayor, Sandy Verschoor, that I received today. In the correspondence from the Lord Mayor, which was sent on behalf of the City of Adelaide, of which members will be aware I used to be a member, it stated that 'we respectfully request that final consideration of the Bill be delayed until such time as the impacts of the legislation are fully considered, tested and understood'.

Full consideration, I submit to you, Mr President, is vital if we are to ensure that we are not eroding heritage and our Parklands without considering the implications. To that end, I was concerned to note in the letter from the Lord Mayor that the advice of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority has not been sought in relation to this proposal.

It is very concerning that the authority has not been asked to have its say on the implications of this proposal. That is very concerning. I am also concerned about the speed with which this legislation is being advanced. I am concerned that it was only introduced into this place two weeks ago, or not even, and we now find ourselves in a position where significant reform with implications for heritage and Parklands is going to be advanced.

We will be moving a series of amendments at the committee stage to address some of the concerns that I have raised. Fundamental to the amendments that we are moving is a belief that we do not have to choose between heritage and a hospital, that we can do both. Indeed, the Greens amendments would allow us to do both. Some of our amendments relate to removing the sections of the bill that give the government the power to move police horses to other parts of the Parklands where they see fit, including their stables and infrastructure. We want to remove that part from the bill.

We want to maintain the heritage listing of the buildings that are implicated, which would ensure that the government would need to follow the standard heritage process. We are also wanting to ensure that there are no permanent fencings or barriers being built to close off the public green space, and we are also moving to ensure that the Parklands are not further impacted or, rather, we do not see the loss of the olive grove by having the car park being contained within the build of the hospital.

We believe that these are very sensible amendments. They would allow us to progress with building a hospital while also being sensitive to our Parklands and our heritage. With that, I conclude my second reading remarks, but I will obviously have more to say in the additional stages of the bill.

18 October 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill, which amends 14 acts within the Attorney-General's portfolio and two acts that are justice-related. As the honourable member has observed, this is a matter that we dealt with almost 12 months ago to the day; I had the opportunity to look at Hansard this morning. A number of the amendments are of a technical nature, as stated in the Attorney-General's second reading speech, but some of them do have broader implications. In particular, I want to highlight some of those that have significant effects.

The amendments to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act provide an important measure in protecting young people. In cases where a young person is involved in communication with a person subject to a direction, this amendment ensures the child is protected from committing an offence. As many in this chamber will be aware, I am committed to ensuring that children are not caught up in the criminal justice system, and this amendment certainly prevents that in some cases.

Part 13 of the bill removes automatic entitlement to legal representation under initial reviews provided for in the Mental Health Act 2009. The Greens have some concerns with this clause, however, as we believe in the fundamental principles of the right to a fair hearing and we believe that this must be upheld. That includes the right to competent representation through our legal processes.

In the Attorney-General's second reading contribution, he referred to initial reviews being undertaken on the basis of written reports and treatment plans and stated that this means legal representation is not necessary for initial reviews. In a submission to the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, the Law Society stated its opposition to the proposal to exempt section 79 reviews because:

…the orders which are reviewable under this section involve orders in respect of the detention of children, the extension of inpatient treatment orders and detention of a person who has been detained following the expiry or revocation of a previous inpatient detention order.

We do not agree that legal representation should be denied in these circumstances and we will be moving an amendment at the committee stage to remove this section. Members may recall (any of those who are listening) that around this time last year, I moved an amendment to the bill to do just that—well, I was going to move an amendment; we did not progress with it on advice that was received from the government. My office has since engaged with the Law Society. Again, it is still their view that they have some concerns around this section and it is on that basis that I will be proceeding with the amendment.

27 September 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise in support of the Controlled Substances (Pure Amounts) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Greens. As both the Attorney-General and the Hon. Michelle Lensink have stated, as a result of the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case Kingston v The Queen, it has been revealed that there is a loophole where pure forms of drugs are not set out in the regulations.

We believe that the bill the government has introduced today remedies this, plugs that gap in the legislation and ensures that the legislation better reflects the will of the community. I think it is fair to say that there was considerable shock in the community in response to that verdict and considerable concern about what that might mean, and so we welcome the government's decision to bring this legislation forward.

I will put on the record that, whilst the Greens support penalties for trafficking and the distribution of large quantities of some drugs and support closing this loophole, we do also believe that it is important when dealing with drugs that we have a discussion around harm minimisation and around reducing the stigma often associated with those who take illegal substances.

The war on drugs does not work. We have seen around the world governments moving towards legalising and regulating some drugs, such as cannabis, and we should be looking at drugtaking from a health perspective, not a law and order perspective. My colleague, the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC, has introduced a bill to legalise cannabis, and I do hope that this parliament considers it as a step forward in terms of dealing with drugs from a harm minimisation perspective rather than a criminal law response.

There are a number of strategies that we can take to implement a health-based approach to drugs. Recently, I called on the Malinauskas government to make pill testing available in our state. In July, the ACT government opened the nation's first fixed-site pill and drug testing clinic, and next month I will be travelling to the ACT to have a look at that site.

This kind of testing facility is greatly needed here in South Australia. Pill testing services exist in 20 countries across Europe, the Americas and New Zealand. Pill testing is a harm reduction strategy that not only makes drugs safer but also provides transparency around what is in the market, an important measure to improve user knowledge and education, and one that discourages people from using potentially harmful substances. In 2019, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that 57 per cent of Australians supported pill testing, with only 27 per cent being directly opposed.

We should be looking to early intervention measures to ensure drug takers are informed and make safe decisions. The South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services in their 2022 position paper on drug law reform states that seeking to address related harms through the criminalisation of people who use drugs is neither effective nor humane. SANDAS takes the position that there should be a strong criminal justice response to the manufacturing, supplying and trafficking of drugs outside of a regulated supply system, but that personal use should not be stigmatised or criminalised.

SANDAS has a number of recommendations for legislative reform that I encourage members of this place, in particular the government, to consider as we move forward in addressing drugs as a health issue. That said, we recognise, of course, that this bill is dealing with trafficking and selling of drugs, and in the Greens we do draw that distinction between the users of the end product and those who are seeking to traffic and sell drugs. On this basis, we are supportive of the bill.

7 September 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Food Act 2001. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to place restrictions on junk food advertising in South Australia. It seeks to prohibit junk food advertising within 500 metres of schools and it seeks to prevent junk food from being advertised on publicly owned buildings and properties, including bus stops, train stops, trams and the like.

Any parent knows the power that advertising has over children. Kids take ads at face value and they respond accordingly to bright colours, catchy jingles and the promise of free toys. It is often referred to as pester power, I believe. Studies have shown that children are more likely to request unhealthy food from their parents after exposure to junk food advertising and so parents are forced to either give in to unhealthy food or find themselves in a state of constant friction with their child.

Really, parents are pitched in a David and Goliath fight. Those who are seeking to ensure their children have healthy food are being pitched against multimillion dollar corporations that are intent on trying to sell junk food to their kids. We know these ads work. That is why advertising companies spend over $550 million every year on food and non-alcoholic drinks in Australia.

Advertisements are placed where kids are most likely to see them: near schools, near sporting arenas or on public transport. According to the National Obesity Strategy report, the majority of foods advertised are high in fat, high in sugar, high in salt and low in nutrition. Australia has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world with one in four children being overweight or obese.

Being overweight or obese can affect a person's health and wellbeing, but it can also limit their economic and social opportunities. There are direct costs in terms of increased health costs both to the individual and the state, but there are increased indirect costs too. Absenteeism, reduced productivity and early retirement are just some of the examples that have been cited in the research, and we have all come to understand over recent years the importance of public health.

Young people are further at risk of weight-related discrimination. School-aged children with unhealthy weight are more likely to be bullied, which can trigger subsequent mental health issues. Children living with obesity have reported lower quality of life, and it has been shown that discrimination experienced at school can lead to lower quality of education, as learning can be impacted by prejudice, social rejection and bullying.

The World Health Organization has stated that preventative measures are the best approach to childhood obesity and can lead to reduced risk of subsequent adult obesity. The National Obesity Strategy of 2022 has set a target of reducing overweight and obesity in children and adolescents aged two to 17 years by at least 5 per cent by 2030. To achieve this target, they have set out several strategies, one of which is to reduce children's exposure to unhealthy food and drink marketing, promotion and sponsorship.

Advertising plays a major part in childhood obesity. According to the Cancer Council, 53 per cent of students were prompted to try a new food or drink in response to advertising. Food advertising can have huge impacts on the emotional response of a child. A UK study demonstrated the emotional reaction of children after seeing junk food advertisements. The kids in the study reported feeling 'happy, excited, hungry and tempted to eat the advertised food immediately'.

Academic research from Western Australia looked at how marketing affects children, with research showing that children are vulnerable as they lack cognitive skills to understand the persuasive intent of marketing. In a New South Wales study, it was found that 83 per cent of food advertising was for unhealthy food, indicating that kids are exposed to a high proportion of unhealthy food ads.

A call to ban junk food advertising in certain places has come from the South Australian Public Health Association, the Cancer Council SA as well as the Australian Medical Association. This is not a radical green idea. It has widespread community support. Indeed, the AMA has called for advertising and marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children to be prohibited entirely. This initiative also has significant support among parents.

The Cancer Council of Victoria reports that 82 per cent of parents think that it is unethical for the processed food industry to market unhealthy food in places popular with kids. Just last week, the Australia Institute released a report on junk food advertising on television. Two in three Australians agreed that junk food ads should be banned during children's viewing hours.

In a federal government survey, 78 per cent of respondents agreed that 'strategies to reduce exposure to marketing and promotion of unhealthy food and drink were extremely or very helpful'. Additionally, participants in the study from the health and education sectors favoured 'stronger approaches to advertising' and restrictions on promoting unhealthy foods.

The bill we are considering today should make sure junk food advertising is prohibited in certain places frequented by children—that is, within 500 metres of any school, on buses, tram stops or railway stations, or on any state government property. These measures have been implemented in other jurisdictions. Indeed, South Australia is the odd man out. In Queensland, they have banned junk food advertising at more than 200 government-owned spaces, including train stations, bus stops and road corridors. Studies in other states have shown that between 61 per cent and 83 per cent of all advertisements on public transport are for unhealthy food.

In 2015, the ACT banned junk food advertising on public buses. In countries such as the UK, Amsterdam and Brazil, there are examples of bans of junk food advertising on government property and public transport. This is a very easy step that we can take to protect young people from the impact of junk food.

This bill goes one step further. It restricts unhealthy food advertising within 500 metres of schools. Kids on their way home from school are exposed to an increasing number of unhealthy food and drink advertisements. In Victoria, a study found that 62 per cent of food ads near Melbourne schools promoted unhealthy food and drinks. Hungry kids leaving school in the afternoon do not need to be enticed to make unhealthy food choices. Instead, we need to be promoting healthy lifestyles to set our young people up for success.

Banning junk food advertising near schools, on public transport and on government property is not a difficult thing for us to do to address obesity in South Australia. This is a proposal that is modest, but it is one that has widespread support—support amongst parents and support amongst public health advocates. I hope that all members of this place will get behind this simple reform.

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

01 June 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Regional Development on the topic of lead pollution at Port Pirie.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: InDaily reported yesterday that 42 public houses are located in areas of risk to children under the age of five because they are prone to lead dust. In the article it was stated that all of those 42 homes are currently occupied by at least one child aged under five. It is understood that there is a tender open for a maintenance contractor to facilitate the planning and completion of lead abatement related works in Port Pirie.

My question to the minister is:

Does the Malinauskas government intend to carry out the previous government's pledge to cut lead pollution at the Port Pirie smelter, and will the government rehouse affected families while the lead abatement project is taking place?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. I am happy to take that on notice and refer it to my colleagues in the other place who have direct responsibility for those matters.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Supplementary: when can I expect a response?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries): That will be as soon as possible.

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (1 June 2022).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries): The Minister for Human Services has advised:

Port Pirie has been segmented into lead-risk areas: high, medium and low. A lead-risk map reflecting these areas was updated in April 2020 and provided to the Port Pirie Housing SA office. The current practice is to not allocate families with children under five within the currently defined high-risk area. Existing tenants with children under five residing in the high-risk area, who were allocated prior to the provision of the updated lead-risk map, were given the opportunity to relocate to another medium-risk or low-risk area within Port Pirie.

Families who reside in current medium-risk and low-risk areas will not be relocated during the lead abatement works as these works will focus on the exterior of the house. Work will include covering existing exposed soil and increasing dust suppression to avoid potentially contaminated soil from blowing into homes. The soil will be tested on site prior to commencement of works, and soil with greater than 300 parts per million of lead will be removed from the yard and replaced with clean fill.

19 May 2022

ROBERT SIMMS MLC: This is the amendment to establish the SA public health COVID-19 Direction Accountability and Oversight Committee. The intention behind this amendment is to ensure that there is maximum accountability and transparency in this bill. Like the Hon. Connie Bonaros, we had very clear feedback in the Greens that, were a bill like this to be legislated, it was really vital that the parliament have the opportunity to disallow new health directions, and that is what this committee does. It is a powerful committee in that it has all of the powers that a usual parliamentary committee has, but it will be able to review any new health directions relating to close contacts relating to COVID-positive people and be able to make recommendations to the houses of parliament for disallowance.

This, we believe, is a much more effective way of managing the pandemic directions in the long term. It provides an opportunity for parliament to really consider the impacts that these restrictions have on the health and wellbeing of South Australians. It has been based on the Victorian model, which is widely regarded as best practice. We understand there are, of course, some distinctions based on our different jurisdictions.

It is important to know that South Australia does not have a human rights charter to protect human rights, which is something the Victorian legislation has protected. Obviously, for us in the Greens we would love to see a human rights charter being put in place; that would be a very good accompaniment to the other legislation we are dealing with.

This committee will be made up of five members, two from the House of Assembly and three from the Legislative Council. The amendment would ensure there is a majority of non-government members. That is a really important inclusion worth highlighting, because it means the government is not in a position to dominate this committee. It means the committee will be able to provide frank, fearless advice, genuinely independent advice, direct to the parliament for its consideration.

The committee will be in place only for the duration of the bill. We agreed earlier today that would be six months. It will provide reports to each house of parliament, it will make recommendations to parliament. There is also a requirement that the minister will table a copy of any directions within two sitting days in each house, and that any such direction is then referred to the committee. As I stated, this allows for disallowance in both houses.

We think this is a really important addition. It is one that will provide better outcomes in terms of directions but also give the South Australian people a level of confidence that the parliament is having oversight over these important directions.

We talked a little bit about the evolving space of this pandemic. We have come out of the phase where these decisions were being made by health experts alone, and are now moving into another phase of the pandemic where politicians and the parliament need to be more actively involved. It is only appropriate that if the health minister is being charged with making these directions, the parliament has a role to play and that there is an independent oversight that operates outside of the government. We think this is a really important step in that regard.

18 May 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak in relation to the State Assets (Privatisation Restrictions) Bill. This bill seeks to prevent the sale, disposal or lease of certain state-owned assets unless reviewed and recommended by a parliamentary committee and approved by both houses of parliament. Privatisation has had a disastrous impact on South Australia and it has been a bipartisan sport here in SA, a joint project of the Labor and Liberal parties. Both have an appalling record when it comes to selling off our state assets.

We have seen the negative outcomes of privatisation on South Australia's rail network, on our housing and our energy providers. Privatisation has resulted in degradation of infrastructure and a reduction in services. These things are well known and they are well documented. Past governments have seen privatisation as a measure to boost proceeds and to reduce spending, while the public have suffered the consequences.

In 2001, SA Unions argued that publicly owned assets and public services are funded by South Australians to meet the needs of the community, not to generate profits for corporations. We in the Greens agree. Last year, the ACCC chair, Rod Sims (spelt S-i-m-s, not a relation) said that privatising assets without allowing for competition or regulation creates private monopolies that raise prices, that reduce efficiency and harm the economy.

The privatisation of ETSA is one of the worst examples we have seen in South Australia. We all know the devastating impacts that privatisation project had on our state. It has delivered higher electricity prices and the public know it. Research from the Australian Institute back in 2019 found that 40 per cent of South Australians blame privatisation of our state-owned electricity provider as the single biggest reason for power price increases, while three out of five people (60 per cent) consider it to be one of the main sources of upward pressure on prices. That makes sense because we know that once you sell off a key asset you lose government control and you allow private corporations that are focused on making money to hike up prices.

In the 1990s, the Public Service Association warned that increased privatisation would result in profits being put before services, higher costs for taxpayers, less efficient services and a diminished revenue base for the state. These outcomes have been seen in the years that have followed. It is our most vulnerable people who bear the burden of increased costs and diminished services.

As the cost of living continues to skyrocket as a result of inflation, we have a responsibility to consider in this place the impact of privatisation on public utilities that are relied on by all members of our community. This bill would act as an important safeguard for our public assets. It would ensure that governments cannot conduct future sell-offs without appropriate parliamentary oversight. We want to see community services being put before private profits.

Last year, the Select Committee on the Privatisation of Public Services in South Australia, which I had the honour to chair, heard from witnesses that there was a need for improved transparency measures in relation to current and future privatisations. Under this bill, any future attempts of privatisation of state assets would require the government of the day, whether it be Labor or whether it be Liberal, to convince both houses of parliament on the merits of the case and that would increase transparency and accountability.

I must acknowledge that this is not a new concept. A very similar bill was introduced in New South Wales by the Labor MP Daniel Mookhey and it passed the upper house in late 2021. As a result of that reform, New South Wales has seen greater parliamentary oversight over privatisation and that is considered a really important safeguard in that state.

I hope that we in this place will follow their lead. It is certainly my hope—hope springs eternal—that the Labor government will see merit in this proposal, given it has been advocated for by the Labor opposition in New South Wales, but that the Liberal opposition will see the merits of this proposal as well, because it is a safeguard that would operate irrespective of who is in government.

I do want to put the old parties on notice that we will be bringing this to a vote, not today obviously, but in the fullness of time I will bring it to a vote to test support for this very important proposition so that the people of South Australia can see who is in favour of stopping privatisation, who is in favour of more safeguards and who is supportive of the fire sale that we have seen over the last several decades.

Under previous governments, trams, trains, medical administration, the Remand Centre and service centres have all been privatised. We need to protect our state-owned assets from future cost-saving cash grabs. This bill enables future privatisations not to proceed without parliamentary approval. It ensures that there is more transparency, and that can only be good for the people of our state. I commend the bill to the Legislative Council.