Motor Vehicles (Offensive Advertising) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 February 2019.)

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:57): I would like to speak briefly on this bill—briefly because I do not really see that there is very much to be said, other than it is baffling to me that the government has not agreed to the bill. I cannot understand. No argument has been put forward—there has simply been adjournment after adjournment—but other states have managed to do this.

Surely no-one on the other side of the chamber thinks that these statements on vans that are driving around our streets are acceptable. They are highly offensive. In the absence of any argument, I remain completely mystified as to why we cannot for once simply have agreement on a private member's bill, do something the community is clearly supportive of and is clearly upholding the kinds of standards that we all like to think we adhere to in this place and move on. Instead, we have this week-by-week incessant adjournment of what is an absolutely reasonable proposition.

Yesterday, we had a very moving and beautiful series of speeches on both sides of the chamber about the tragedy that occurred in Christchurch, and some of us got into the beginnings of a discussion about the nature of freedom of speech and the curtailment of freedom of speech that we all agree occurs from time to time. The way in which we control what is able to be screened on public television and the way in which we constantly have to have discussions about what has become acceptable and what remains unacceptable are examples.

I cannot imagine that anyone in this chamber thinks that the kinds of slogans that are on these vans ought to be seen by children, yet they are being driven around on vans in the streets. It is simply impossible for children not to see them should they be out in public at the time when they are being driven past.

I know that children are becoming in some ways more adult, more sophisticated, some might say, but they are also still very innocent. We all, as adults, have a responsibility to maintain and protect that innocence for the period that is appropriate and suitable for young people as they grow up. I know for sure and for certain that I never want my children to see those slogans, never think that people find those sayings amusing, but I certainly do not want them to see them before they reach adulthood.

Sometimes, I speak in this chamber more in sorrow than in anger. This time, I speak in sheer puzzlement at the very fine people I know on the government benches remaining silent while we continue to allow the registration of these appalling vehicles with appalling statements, and we do not even have a debate about it; we simply adjourn, adjourn, adjourn. That is not what this chamber is for, and if something is happening now, brilliant. I look forward to the vote.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: I have not heard—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: —from the government what the government position is.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right, please tame yourselves.

Dr CLOSE: I would love to hear the government contribution.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: I would love to understand how this could not be supported by the decent people who sit on the benches opposite. I look forward to our moving towards a vote and I look forward to that being a bipartisan vote.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:01): I speak on the Motor Vehicles (Offensive Advertising) Amendment Bill, which has been introduced by the member for Reynell. It proposes a statutory remedy of quite offensive slogans that currently—I am aware of at least two—have been identified in South Australia in recent times. My understanding is that both registered vehicles are from Victoria, so the proposal, which the opposition would raise as a remedy, for a deregistration model of management of this issue is one which was a little puzzling to the government, given the capacity for it to be ineffective in relation to vehicles that come from another state.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Members on the opposite side chorus, 'What are other states doing?' Let me just indicate—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison: They haven't done this.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Ramsay!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —that a deregistration process, at first blush, is something worth having a look at. Indeed, the state of Queensland looked at that. They are facing exactly the same problem of dealing with offensive material on vehicles coming into their state that might be registered from Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory or, indeed, from South Australia. What has been comprehensively and publicly identified is whether in fact there should be some national approach to dealing with the matter.

My understanding is that transport ministers, who have responsibility for registration and motor vehicles, have been looking at that matter. The question then arises about a number of constitutional and jurisdictional matters as to who would have the power to do that, to be effective across the state. We do not have barbed wire fences between us and other states. We do not have them between us and Victoria. I have often thought about—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left! I will be calling members to order as of now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Nevertheless, the state of Victoria, the Labor government of Victoria, apparently had a look at this matter. They identified—

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The SPEAKER: The gentleman in the gallery, please sit down, sir. Thank you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They identified the weakness in the model that implies a proposal for deregistration. They were looking at a question of the Summary Offences Act and whether there should be an amendment to that legislation, which I understand has been under consideration in Victoria, which is run by a Labor government. They obviously are concerned about the issue. They have obviously identified weaknesses in the model that is being presented here—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Child Protection and the member for Reynell are called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and they, too, are looking at how we might deal with it. I would invite members, if they are following the concern about this matter, which I think everyone in this house should be, to have a look at the Summary Offences Act, which already deals with offensive conduct and behaviour. I do not think it will probably be adequate to cover what is here, and there may be—

Ms Hildyard: No, it won't be. That's why we need to pass this.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for Reynell interjects to tell us that they will not be. She may already have had advice on this. I am getting advice on it because I think it is worthy of our having a look at that, just as the Labor government in Victoria have done. So we are certainly having a look at it.

But let me say this: I do not know what planet the members of the opposition have been living on, but Wicked Campers and persons who have these offensive slogans, two of which have been identified by the member for Reynell in her contribution—offensive and disgusting as they are—have not just appeared on our landscape in the last 12 months. No, they have been operating over a sustained period of time. I do not know what action the former government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —took in relation to this matter, but clearly nothing came to the parliament.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Nothing came to the parliament, not a single thing. The member for Reynell, when she was a cabinet secretary or appointed as a parliamentary assistant minister to the premier, in my recollection, was active in relation to dealing with matters of domestic violence, matters of offensive conduct towards women—and I applaud her for doing that—but was absolutely silent on this issue while we had these examples of disgraceful statements being published on vehicles.

When members have a look at the Summary Offences Act, they will see that it can relate to the publication of material on ships and other vessels, so obviously we may need to look at trucks, heavy motor vehicles, campervans, etc. There is another thing we need to look at, because understand this: it would not be beyond the wit of the people who publish such slogans to recognise that if they cannot display them on the back of a campervan or they cannot display them on the back of a utility or panel van, as we used to call them in my early days, let me tell you that they will look for the local pizza bar, or they will look for the private enterprise who wants to advertise outside their cafe or wherever else they might find that they can do it.

What is very important, though, is that we look at this issue comprehensively and effectively. In the meantime, I am putting out a request to the Victorian representatives to see how they are also managing it. It seems on the face of it that they have comprehensively rejected this model because it is ineffective—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Let's settle down.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and we need to do something about this reprehensible conduct but not just on vehicles. It should not have to have four wheels or two wheels—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —to qualify; it should be when it is displayed anywhere in the state.

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (11:07): This debate has been an interesting one to observe since I came to this house. There seems to be tacit if not begrudging acceptance from those on the other side of the house that Wicked Campers are a disgrace. The filth emblazoned on those vehicles causes deep offence, and any reasonably minded member of our community would and does find this deeply unacceptable.

The vehicles and content we see are perverse, and this is a view, insofar as this bill is concerned, and a course of action being proposed by the member for Reynell and supported by various advocacy groups, some of whom I note in the gallery today: Collective Shout, Plan International, Women’s Legal Service, the Working Women’s Centre SA, the YWCA and the Zahra Foundation.

This bill will stamp out in a small part, albeit an important part, homophobic, racist and sexist content on our roads. This is undeniably an issue most felt by and targeted towards women, but I stand in this place proudly to support this as a man, not only because my electorate has entrusted me with this duty to stand up and be heard, and not only because this is demanded of us all in this place, but because when it comes to matters of community safety and wellbeing these are matters of importance for us all.

This is not about men and women: this is about community safety. On 13 March, I attended the launch of Colouring for Peace by the Circle of Women. It is a colouring book created by women of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who have experienced family and domestic violence. What message does this parliament send to those women, survivors of domestic violence, with whom I met and spoke, that this bill is simply not supported for progress? Opponents of this bill argue that it is hard to implement and that state-based licensing and protections are simply not effective. I say that it is better to do something rather than nothing at all.

There is a striking similarity in the approach this government is taking to this issue and the way they deal with other matters of critical community importance. When it comes to new anti-discrimination protections for those individuals accessing family and domestic violence leave—nothing. Protections for those workers facing exploitation at the hands of dodgy labour hire operators—nothing.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: it is a matter of the subject of a bill before the house.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. I will listen carefully to the member for Cheltenham.

Mr SZAKACS: Licensing is about attaining and retaining a social, moral and legal contract. Be it this matter, be it driving on our roads or be it other matters, it is for this place to grant and this place to implement laws to take away. That is precisely what this bill is about. It is this parliament on behalf of our community drawing a line in the sand when it comes to this trash, the offence it causes and the message that it sends our boys and our girls.

When it comes to this opportunity to stamp out messages of disrespect and violence against women, doing anything is better than doing nothing. Opponents of this bill are incredulous at the notion that it is incumbent upon this place to do what we can when we can, because the standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept. We on this side of the chamber simply will not do that.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond has moved that the debate be adjourned. Is that seconded?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There is one more speaker.

The SPEAKER: Sorry, the member has moved that the debate be adjourned and it has been seconded.

Ayes 23

Noes 20

Majority 3

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left and right, order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee and the Minister for Primary Industries might want to take it outside over a coffee.