6 March 2025

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In parliament on Tuesday this week, the Attorney-General advised that, and I quote:

...comfort should be taken that in 2022-23...South Australia's rate of youth offending was the second lowest in the nation, only behind the Australian Capital Territory.

The government's document, titled the Young Offender Plan, states that over the 'last 10 years, there has been a significant and continuing decrease in the youth offender rate in South Australia'. This morning, the Attorney-General announced a suite of new policies to tackle the so-called youth crime crisis. My questions to the Attorney-General therefore are:

1. Given the statistics that he provided in parliament just this week, what is the basis for this new policy?

2. How will more young people being detained in custody reduce repeat offending?

3. Isn't this just another case of the government capitulating to the populist law and order nonsense being pedaled by the opposition?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:15): I thank the honourable member for his question. I will agree with one part of it: nonsense pedaled by the opposition is something I think most of us in this chamber can get behind as a statement of fact and truth.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Hunter!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, sir, I am being interjected on by the opposition. All I heard the opposition say is, 'Youth crime is a joke.' We certainly don't treat it that way. That is not our view of the world.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Point of order: he needs to retract that. He completely misquoted. I was saying that you were joking about youth crime, not me.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order and the minister won't respond to them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate the honourable member's question. It relates to incidents of youth crime and announcements we have made today about young offenders. It is true, as the honourable member has stated, that in the official, nationally consistent figures, South Australia has a relatively low rate of youth offending. In the 2022-23 reported year, we were the second lowest in the nation, only after the ACT.

I am pleased to report there are new figures released just today from the Australia Bureau of Statistics, and once again South Australia has the second lowest rate of youth offending in the nation after the ACT. In fact, we have seen a slight decrease, I believe, a decrease in the drop in relation to young offenders recorded by the police in South Australia.

However, we do know, and the police commissioner has made public comments, that there is a small group of offenders committing many and serious crimes. I think one of the statistics is that 20 young people were responsible for 11 per cent of matters heard by the Youth Court. So a small group of young offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large amount of offending. Whilst it is true we have a relatively low offending rate in South Australia, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to do everything we can as a government to keep the community safe.

The announcements we have made today are very specifically targeted at that relatively small cohort who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of that offending, looking at ways to disrupt some of the circumstances that young people find themselves in, particularly with street youth gangs, but also, and critically importantly, looking at programs particularly for that cohort, that small number of youth who are responsible for such a large amount of the offending.

Part of the announcement today that I am sure the Hon. Robert Simms will appreciate is the announcement of an extra $3 million of new money for intervention and rehabilitation programs for that, particularly aimed at that small cohort of young offenders. We do not wish to see some of these young offenders ending up being older youth committing crimes and then being adults committing crimes. We want to try to intervene as early as we can when some of these people come in contact with the criminal justice system, and that's exactly what this plan is aimed at: reducing offending and community safety.

5 March 2025

Bills

PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE (FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS NEAR SCHOOLS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:20): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Fast Food Restaurants near Schools) Amendment Bill. The food we eat plays an important role in our health and wellbeing. Good nutrition contributes to quality of life, it helps maintain healthy body weight, it protects against infection, and it reduces the risk of chronic conditions and premature death. Chronic conditions, often linked to a poor diet, are the major cause of ill-health in Australia.

According to Preventive Health SA, more than one in four children—that is 27.5 per cent—in South Australia are overweight or obese. This is in part due to the fact that one-third of our kids' daily energy each day comes from junk food.

The last comprehensive survey of diet in children and adolescents occurred in the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which found that children aged four to 13 years of age fall short of the recommended daily serve of vegetables, meat and alternatives, and dairy products and alternatives. Children aged 14 to 18 years of age fall short of meeting the recommended daily serve for all five food groups, including fruit.

The survey found that just one in 10 Australian children eat enough vegetables—just one in 10. Meanwhile, 38 per cent of children aged four to eight, 40 per cent of children aged nine to 13, and 41 per cent of children aged 14 to 18 are getting their energy from discretionary foods: that is, foods that are not needed to meet nutrition requirements and that generally tend to be high in kilojoules, saturated fat, added sugar, added salt and alcohol.

The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend that discretionary foods should only be consumed occasionally and in small amounts, and for most people zero to three serves a day is suitable, depending on their age, their height and their level of activity. The intake of sodium is also well above the suggested adequate intake for all age groups. The guidelines also recommend limiting saturated fat intake, and for all children approximately 14 per cent of their energy intake was from saturated fats.

We also know that living with being overweight or with obesity can have a major impact on a person's life. It can affect a person's health and wellbeing, including their mental health, and their social and economic activities throughout life. Obesity increases the risk of preventive chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, some musculoskeletal conditions, and numerous forms of cancer. As the level of excess weight increases so too does the risk of developing these conditions.

In addition, being overweight can hamper the ability to control or manage chronic health problems. Dietary behaviours tend to track into adulthood, so children who are exposed to these food environments are more likely to develop unhealthy eating patterns.

There is, of course, a financial incentive for addressing obesity in both adults and children. In 2018, obesity cost the Australian economy an estimated $11.8 billion. This included $5.4 billion in direct costs including health care, and $6.4 billion in indirect costs including lost productivity such as absenteeism, unemployment and early retirement. If no action is taken to reduce obesity, the cost is estimated to increase to $87.7 billion by 2032. This is what this bill is seeking to address.

The bill that I am introducing today prohibits junk food businesses from being established within 400 metres of schools and it lists a series of prescribed fast-food restaurants that would be included within the remit of this legislation. We know that, and certainly I have done some consultation with a number of schools around this, fast-food restaurants in close proximity to schools can create lots of adverse outcomes for the school community.

There is obviously the impact on health and wellbeing, and I have talked a little bit about how serious childhood obesity is and why we want to encourage healthy eating patterns among children because we take those patterns with us into adulthood, but also I have heard that having fast-food restaurants in close proximity to schools can contribute to inappropriate behaviour within the school environment, with kids consuming high-fat, high-sugar food potentially in their lunch break, coming into the classroom and that might make them more likely to act up, and also means they are going to be less attentive within the school environment. So this bill is seeking to tackle that.

A study conducted by a research team from Columbia, Berkley and the London School of Economics and Political Science linked obesity levels in school children to the proximity of fast-food restaurants to schools. It found that siting a fast-food outlet right next to a school produced a 5.2 per cent increase in obesity among students. Furthermore, a UniSA study published in the Public Health Nutrition journal found that schools in lower socioeconomic areas are almost 10 times more likely to have fast-food outlets built nearby than schools that are in higher socioeconomic areas.

There are a number of schools within our state that are located within 1.5 kilometres of fast-food outlets, but this bill targets those fast-food businesses that pop up within 400 metres of a school. Examples across the state include Christies Beach High School, which is 150 metres from a Hungry Jacks; Salisbury Primary School, which is 150 metres from Hungry Jacks and 200 metres from McDonald's; Ingle Farm Primary School, which is 300 metres from Hungry Jacks; and Playford International College, which is 300 metres from both KFC and Hungry Jacks.

Current zoning in Adelaide makes it almost impossible to stop fast-food restaurants from opening close to schools. Despite that limitation within our planning regime, a number of local councils have been urging the state government to act. Charles Sturt council has previously lobbied the state government to ban fast-food outlets near schools, and Marion council has previously targeted junk food advertising near schools in their area.

It is worth noting that this is also a hot button issue in many communities around the state. In 2021, the Peregrine Corporation lodged a development application with the Adelaide Hills Council to construct a 24-hour On the Run petrol station, complete with a fast-food restaurant, just 400 metres away from Heathfield High School. The council's assessment panel rejected the application in August 2023, but an appeal has been lodged by the corporation with the Environment, Resources and Development Court, where I understand the matter still sits.

Heathfield residents are very much opposed to this development and have organised and mobilised to defeat this proposal. They are not concerned about the idea of having a petrol station in their community, and my bill makes it clear that these petrol stations can still remain, their concern is around businesses that are selling junk food to their kids.

In Strathalbyn, residents are also up in arms and vehemently opposing a proposed fast-food development on their East Terrace, which is just 300 metres away from not one but three schools: Tyndale Christian School, Eastern Fleurieu R-12 School and Eastern Fleurieu R-12 School 7-12 campus. Again, it is a live issue in a number of communities, and again I know that they are petitioning the planning minister for action, but there is nothing within our current planning laws to say that it is inappropriate to have fast-food restaurants in such close proximity to schools.

The bill does not ban all food near schools. It is important to highlight that for this council. It also makes it clear that the prohibition only applies when the dominant purpose of a business or a building is the selling of fast food or highly processed food. Therefore that would exclude food courts, for instance, that might be part of a broader shopping centre.

The bill amends the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to prohibit the following businesses from opening branches within 400 metres of an existing school. Businesses that are prescribed in the legislation include AMPM, Ampol Foodary, Carl's Jr, Coles Express, Domino's Pizza, Hungry Jack's, KFC, Krispy Kreme, McDonald's—

An honourable member: You're making me hungry.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: And me thirsty—Nando's, Oporto, OTR, Pizza Hut, Quickstop, Red Rooster, Wendy's Milk Bar and X Convenience but also, quite critically, any other food business added by the minister by regulation. So I have prescribed some businesses we think are of particular concern on the basis that children might also be exposed to significant advertising by these businesses on their way to and from school, but if the minister becomes aware of another business that they consider appropriate for inclusion, the bill gives them the mechanism to be able to do that.

It is important to note that the bill does not prevent the operation of a roadside service station within 400 metres of a school provided that the roadside service station does not sell food, including beverages, for consumption on or off the premises. The bill will also prevent any of the aforementioned businesses from renewing a lease should the premises be located within 400 metres of an existing school. Once the lease expires, under this bill the business would not be able to renew its lease. The maximum penalty for breaching this rule is $20,000.

Clause 135C in the bill states that development authorisation must not be granted for a proposed development involving a change in the use of land within 400 metres of a school to a use primarily for the purposes of a fast-food restaurant. As I indicated earlier, this clause would still allow for the approval of applications for development of new complexes within 400 metres of a school where the primary purpose is not to provide fast food. An example of this is a shopping centre whose primary purpose is retail but might contain some food offerings in a food court.

I think this is an important point to illustrate, because when I announced plans to move down this path late last year the planning minister came out and opposed the bill, and he did so on the basis that it would shut down food courts. As I have indicated, that is certainly not going to be the cause of this bill.

Bans on fast-food restaurants and takeaways near existing schools have been successfully introduced throughout England and Wales. By 2017, 35 of the 325 councils in England had adopted management zones designed to curb proliferation of new takeaways around schools. These include cities like Leeds, Bristol, Newcastle and the City of London.

The sky has not fallen down in those places, and, indeed, this is a reform that I think will be welcomed by many parents. I know today that members of parliament have had a presentation on some of the risks associated with sugar, in particular for young people, and I would encourage them to consider this bill within that context.

Evidence from the United Kingdom demonstrates that these changes have resulted in a decrease in the number of planning applications received and an increase in the percentage that were rejected from fast-food restaurants. The City of Manchester implemented similar restrictions on hot food takeaways near schools, which limited the proliferation of fast-food outlets in areas to no more than 10 per cent of all non-residential ground floor frontages in district and local centres. This is something that is getting results overseas. If this legislation were supported, South Australia would become the first place in the country to place this kind of prohibition on fast-food restaurants by schools.

I know the Malinauskas government is passionate about promoting healthy communities. I know that the Premier in particular has a passion for sport and promoting healthy and active lifestyles. I would expect that the government will embrace this reform as something that will improve broader community health and wellbeing and something that would be welcomed by many parents. I commend the bill and indicate that I plan to bring it to a vote at some stage, so I encourage members to engage with the proposal in coming months.

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

4 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:45): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of the age of criminal responsibility.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Recent media has highlighted the number of youth cases being dealt with in the Youth Court, with the opposition claiming that this is a result of a so-called increase in youth crime. This has been publicly disputed by the police commissioner, who disagrees that youth crime is worse than in previous years. In response, the new police minister, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan MP, has ruled out raising the age of criminal responsibility and stated that the government was investing in police, courts and prisons rather than in diversion and rehabilitation measures.

South Australia's Guardian for Children and Young People, Shona Reid, has said that the suggestion to strengthen laws for youth offenders will further criminalise children who instead need support. Last week, she told the National Indigenous Times that, and I quote:

We know that children and young people in youth justice have often experienced serious trauma and abuse in their lives. If they lose their way and are engaged in behaviours that make our communities unsafe, telling children they bear all the responsibility is a cop out.

On 20 February this year, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners published an article reaffirming their support for raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. Dr Tim Jones, who is the chair of Specific Interest Groups—Child and Young Person's Health, stated:

If we incarcerate our children, we are telling them we don't believe they are savable, that things can't get better. We know that children who are given appropriate support, who are provided with the ingredients they need to get ahead, are resourceful and will get there. We know that kids who go into the justice system tend not to exit it, so that's why it's a health issue.

My question to the Attorney-General therefore is:

1. Why has the government caved-in to the Liberal Party's scare campaign and ruled out raising the age of criminal responsibility?

2. What is the Malinauskas government doing to prevent kids as young as 10 years old from entering the criminal justice system in the first place?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for his question. I might, in starting to answer the question, reflect very quickly on the rate of youth offending in South Australia.

As the honourable member points out, there has been some concern. Any offending by anyone should be of concern, and anything that impinges on public safety is of course a concern. But some comfort should be taken that in 2022-23, according to the statistics that I have, South Australia's rate of youth offending was the second lowest in the nation, only behind the Australian Capital Territory. I believe, and I will double-check, that the most common offence is breach of bail, which generally isn't an offence against a person or property.

In relation to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, I have made it very clear a number of times in this place and outside of this place that we remain open to looking at anything that can make the community safer. There was a discussion paper released a year ago, and there had previously been papers written that were under the auspices of the former Liberal government at a national level through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, looking at if the age were raised what conditions you would put in place.

I note that certainly Victoria and the ACT have gone down this path. Certainly, we remain open to anything that makes the community safer. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not a policy that we have ever said we will support. As I said, we are open to looking at what could make the community safer, and we continue to look at the evidence, but as I said it is not a priority at this moment.

18 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:57): I rise to speak on this bill on behalf of the Greens. In so doing I make very clear that peace and nonviolence is one of the four pillars of the Greens political party. We condemn all forms of violence. Violent crime, knife crime, really should have no place in our society and our state. I recognise the significant distress these crimes have on members of our community and the need to manage that behaviour and ensure there is appropriate criminal sanction.

It is my view that the law does already have significant penalties in place, however, for this kind of offending, and I worry that some of the legislative approaches we are seeing from the Malinauskas government of late are moving us back into the populist law and order years that we saw during the Rann era, where what the government seems to be focusing on in the law and order space is populist politics, winning news headlines but not actually tackling the root causes of crime.

If the government is genuinely concerned about young people participating in criminal activity, and in particular knife crime, then when will it come to the parliament with a clear strategy to deal with the fundamental causes of crime? Why does it instead keep focusing on penalties, when we know from all of the evidence over the years that harsher penalties simply do not work in terms of dealing with the causes of crime and making our societies safer?

These sorts of laws are really good for getting newspaper headlines, but they do not necessarily do anything to make our streets safer, and they certainly do not do anything to address the social factors that might be leading young people, in particular, down a pathway of criminality. I just urge the government to do better when it comes to policy in this space.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo has addressed the submission from the Law Society. I do not intend to go through all of that again, but there are a few elements that I think are worth highlighting from the perspective of the Greens' contribution. I note that in the Law Society's letter to the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Attorney, dated 17 February, their submission to this bill, they note or question the pace at which these reforms are being progressed and suggest that a more fulsome consideration of their impact could be conducted, such as referring the bill to a select committee of the Legislative Council to consider the bill and related issues.

I do wonder why the government has not sent this through to the Legislative Review Committee so that there would an opportunity to consider how this bill might interact with other criminal law that we have in our state. It does worry me that once again this chamber is being asked to legislate without being cognisant of the potential implications.

One of the issues the Law Society talks about here is the broad definition of a knife, the fact that a knife includes a blade. For example, this could be a razor blade. This is a quote from their submission:

9. The Society notes the importance that is to be placed on the practical interpretation of 'supply' for the purposes of both proposed offences and whether that extends to merely making the knife available to the minor, such as by not locking it away. The definition of 'knife' for the relevant part of the Act is broad, being:

Knife includes a blade (for example a knife blade or razor blade)

10. The possible application of proposed section 21D(2)(b), despite its less significant penalty, is concerning. Notwithstanding the important policy considerations to prevent minors being supplied with knives, the offence provision should be carefully considered noting in particular, the broad definition of 'knife' and the range of circumstances in which the offence provision in existing section 21E could be enlivened.

11. The Society briefly notes the significance of the four-year penalty, which is considerable for the Act, noting that only three other provisions have commensurate penalties, being in relation to weapons prohibition orders, as well as the distribution of invasive images, and indecent filming. It is also notable that those offences are committed by the principal offender rather than a third party. Further, Members of the Society's Children and the Law Committee briefly noted the reference that the person 'knew or reasonably ought to have known' as per paragraph 7 above to enliven the offence. The Society queries whether the mental element that attaches to the offence (particularly proposed section 21D(2)(b)) should be simply 'knowledge' and that a person supplies a knife knowing it will be used in the commission of an offence. This is particularly so given the fact that the definition of 'supply' (as per paragraph 9 above) remains uncertain, noting the offence may be enlivened in a range of circumstances where a minor might merely have access to a knife.

This broad definition is concerning to me. Is there the potential to capture a range of conduct that the government may not necessarily have within its contemplation? I do intend to ask a few questions about that in the committee stage.

The point that the Hon. Frank Pangallo touched on, that the Law Society raised, I also think is a fair one, and that is about the potential implications of a bill like this for young people working in regional areas or being in regional areas who might be going on a fishing trip, for instance, and have a fishing knife on their person. Again, there are a lot of scenarios that I am concerned have not been appropriately considered. Indeed, as noted by the Law Society in their submission, and I quote:

30. …there may be numerous personal reasons why young people may not have adults that can purchase knives for them. The Society's Children and the Law Committee understands there is a significant number of young people that live independently by the age of 16 years and not all youth can rely on an adult to purchase a knife, which in many cases may be a necessity for living independently or partaking in [a range of] activities. A further reluctance might stem from public awareness as to the reforms described … which may render an adult even less likely to provide knives for young people even if they are likely to use them for legitimate purposes, especially where the person is not their responsible guardian.

31. While well-intentioned, the reforms take a position which does not give due consideration to the fact that the vast majority of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 years are trying to enter the adult world and are not intending to commit crimes.

Indeed, this is the worry I have with laws like this, in that what they tend to do is stigmatise young people, in particular vulnerable young people in our community. When we are talking about giving police new powers to target particular groups, we know the young people who will be targeted. We know based on what has happened in law enforcement in our state over many years. It is going to be First Nations children who get targeted by these sorts of laws disproportionately, or other young people who are deemed to look suspicious. That really worries me. These sorts of laws, I think, tie into a stigmatisation of young people in our society, and can actually alienate young people and lead them to be more likely to commit offences in the long term.

I note that there has been some debate about similar—not exactly the same, but similar—laws in Queensland. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties has expressed some concerns regarding the way in which those laws operate, and I think it is worth highlighting some of those concerns because they apply similarly to the legislation we are debating here in this parliament.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said of similar legislation there that these laws abrogate a fundamental protection of individual liberty by removing the requirement for police officers to have a reasonable suspicion prior to conducting a search of a person, and they note their concern that the power could be abused by police officers who will search people based on prejudices and generalisations about people in the community. They also expressed concern that pressure will come to expand these powers, and this has already happened. Originally, the measure was to be used only in safe night precincts. It has been extended to public transport, it has been extended to shopping centres and recreations, and they note that there will be pressure to extend the laws to other areas.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties also notes there was a review of the initial trial of these powers by Griffith University, and no evidence was found in that study that the searches enabled by the legislation had actually reduced offences. In particular, the Griffith University review found that during the trial, of the many people who were searched, they were searched due to police racial bias; i.e., it noted in particular that Indigenous people were searched disproportionately. This worries me when we are making law that has such wide-ranging consequences, and these elements are not being given appropriate consideration by government.

I note that a number of members have filed amendments. I will listen to the debate in terms of forming a position on those. I think it is worth noting, and the Hon. Frank Pangallo touched on this point, I would just encourage members, particularly of the two large parties in this place—I understand they have their party room meetings on Tuesday morning or a Monday afternoon and that amendments may be filed soon after that—that it would be very helpful for the crossbench to get advance notice of amendments, particularly when they relate to this level of complexity. I only saw the amendments early this afternoon. It does make it difficult to be able to engage with stakeholders and form a view.

I note the Hon. Connie Bonaros has filed amendments to expand this principle somewhat. I am concerned about how that might work in a retail setting, for instance, and so I am certainly not supportive of that amendment, but I will hear the honourable member's explanation of the amendment, obviously when we get to the committee stage.

As I indicated, I will have a few questions to ask of the government in the hope that they may allay some of my concerns. However, from my perspective, this seems to be more about a race to the bottom between Labor and the Liberals when it comes to law and order rather than actually addressing the root causes of crime in our society. I would really like to see the Malinauskas government start to do some work in that area rather than continuing to engage with this race to the bottom with the Liberals on law and order.

5 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:41): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services on the topic of assaults in prisons.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Might I also congratulate the minister on her elevation. Correctional services data reported in The Advertiser on Monday showed that prison assaults on prisoners and correctional officers doubled in the last year, with over 481 prison assaults recorded between 2023 and 2024. Regulation 9 of the Young Offenders Regulations 2023 allows for children as young as 10 years of age in lawful custody to be held in adult facilities in places further than 40 kilometres from Adelaide's General Post Office.

In 2024, child rights progress reports, issued by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, found that children are still being locked up in police cells alongside adults due to the denial of bail. In 2022, the Commissioner for Children and Young People noted in their report that children were held in adult facilities, such as police cells or other watchhouses, at least 2,030 times. My questions to the Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services therefore are:

1. Given the increase in prison assaults, does the minister believe that adult facilities are a safe environment for children aged between 10 and 14?

2. What action does the minister plan to take to protect vulnerable young people who are being incarcerated?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously corrections, on my understanding, is based around supporting the adult population. I am happy to get more information around the issues you have raised today and get a briefing in that space, because I would also like to learn more about that as well. I will get a briefing on that matter.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:43): Supplementary: as part of that briefing, will the minister engage with the Commissioner for Children and Young People?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:43): I thank the member for his question. My understanding is that this usually comes under the remit of the Minister for Human Services, so I will be working with her as well. But, again, I will come back to my original answer: I am happy to get further information on this matter.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:43): Final supplementary: is the minister concerned about the welfare of these young people being detained in these facilities, given the significant spate of assaults that are happening in prisons?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Again, it was a very good attempt, the Hon. Mr Simms, but it sort of falls short really of the original answer.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: No harm in trying.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, you are regularly very trying! 

29 October 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:26): I rise to indicate support of this legislation on behalf of the Greens. The Greens have always supported a health approach to substance use. We believe that harm minimisation is the most appropriate way to reduce the adverse health, social and economic consequences of alcohol and the use of other drugs. We want to see a reduction in high-risk uses of nicotine and tobacco, as we acknowledge that they are substances that can cause significant harm. Of course, one of the risks around vaping and access to e-cigarettes is that if young people and children get access to these drugs from a very young age, they are going to be using them potentially throughout the life cycle.

It is important for us that there are supports in place to help young people under the age of 15 to move away from nicotine. This is an argument that the Greens have consistently made in the federal parliament and, indeed, in July when the federal government moved to ban the importation, manufacture, sale, supply and commercial possession of vapes in Australia, the Greens made that point.

In the vaping reforms passed by the federal parliament in June, the Greens negotiated with the Albanese government in Canberra to secure some positive measures to support a health approach in relation to e-cigarettes and vapes. Under this new agreement, GPs can continue to prescribe therapeutic vapes. Possession of quantities for personal use will not be subject to criminal charge. There will be a review of the legislation after three years and additional funding will be provided to support young people quitting vaping. I note that this will be of benefit to young people in South Australia as well.

We know that this proposed bill will bring South Australia into line with changes made at the federal level. Some of the changes include increasing penalties for the sale to children, of selling tobacco without a licence, advertising tobacco or cigarette products, or smoking in a smoke-free area. We also welcome the establishment of a five-metre smoke-free and vape-free buffer at public transport stops to support the health of people who are waiting for public transport.

I might take this opportunity to recognise the leadership of Minister Picton. I think he has been a real national leader in this space. Indeed, I recognise his work as a political staffer when he worked for the Hon. Nicola Roxon when she was federal health minister on world-leading legislation to ban tobacco advertising, in effect, on tobacco packets and to implement plain cigarette packaging.

That was a world-leading piece of legislation and I know that before he was a minister Chris Picton worked on that. Here in this parliament the minister has taken up the fight against the big tobacco companies, so I commend him for that. I also echo the statements made by the Hon. Frank Pangallo that the next step here is surely to phase out the use of cigarettes over time, and the Greens are certainly supportive of the Hon. Frank Pangallo's bill.

I also thank the minister for the collegial way in which he has worked with the Greens in approaching this bill. When the legislation came forward, one of the issues we were concerned about was the potential for young people to be involved in controlled purchase operations or, in effect, sting operations. Our concern was that you could see very young people being involved in these operations, potentially being put at risk, and that appropriate safeguards were not in place. I understand that issue was also of concern to the opposition.

We did not want to go down the path of entirely banning this practice, because we have had advice from the government that the involvement of young people in these operations is of benefit to the broader scheme, because it acts as a potential deterrent. My amendment strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the young people involved and ensuring their safety, whilst also protecting the integrity of the government's scheme. To save time I will talk the chamber through those amendments now during the second reading stage, so that I do not have to do so in committee.

The Greens are proposing that a designated person—that is, a person who can participate in a controlled purchase operation—means a child who is or above the age of 16 years, so in effect it restricts the participation in these activities to 16 and 17 year olds. It makes clear that the minister cannot authorise a designated person to be a controlled purchase officer unless the parent or legal guardian of the person has consented in writing.

The third very important element, which I think points to the issue the Hon. Frank Pangallo raised, is that the authorised officer responsible for supervising any controlled purchase operation involving a designated person—that is, someone who is 16 or 17—will be required to undertake an assessment of the operation and must ensure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure the safety of the designated person during that operation.

I think that should allay some of the concerns honourable members have. It certainly allays the concerns the Greens had when we heard about the involvement of young people in these potential sting operations. I am encouraged by the comments made at the second reading stage that indicate there is broad support in this chamber for that approach.

15 October 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:28): I rise to speak in support of the Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) (Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee) Amendment Bill 2024 on behalf of the Greens. The death or injury of a child is always a terrible tragedy. It is vital that we do as much as we can in the prevention of child death and injury in our state.

The Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee is tasked with preventing death and injury of children. They are an independent oversight and advocacy body which review the circumstances of child death and injury. They then provide recommendations about measures that could lead to further prevention.

I understand there have been some barriers to effective and efficient handling of these reviews and that this bill aims to address those. Currently, when there is a review of a child death or serious injury, the committee is required to wait until the end of any coronial inquest. This can result in delays of up to five years after the death of a child, by which time it is more difficult for the committee to investigate and this can result in a delay in prevention measures being recommended and, indeed, put in place.

This bill allows the committee to undertake these investigations in parallel with any coronial inquest and sets out important safeguards to preserve the integrity of that process. The bill also allows the minister to refer individual cases to the committee. The Greens consider that these are sensible measures and support this bill in the hope that it can lead to more prevention of child deaths and injuries in our communities.

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.

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 (15:16): 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.