Bills

South Australian Multicultural Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I ask the Attorney, who has carriage of the bill, about the consultation that took place. One of the concerns expressed by not just the crossbench but by people who have approached me more recently was some challenges around the consultation. Are you able to outline to the house who you spoke to, how you spoke to them and perhaps detail to us the involvement of commission members in this process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not spoken to all these people myself, but I am advised that under the Multicultural Legislative Review—in fact, I read out the invitation for written submissions. There were 14 of them and they are all published; I think you would have a copy of it. Consultation was open from 15 April to 3 June 2019. There were six discussion forums open to the general public: two in Adelaide, one in Mount Gambier, one in Port Pirie, one in Murray Bridge and one in Berri, with a total of 76 participants.

The invitation-only key stakeholder workshop held in Adelaide had 53 participants, the YourSAy online survey had 69 respondents, the YourSAy online discussion forum had six commentators, and there were 14 written submissions and 14 written response sheets received, which were separate from the written ones received for the actual review.

I can indicate that I have since spoken to the chair of the commission, Mr Norman Schueler, and I have spoken to various members of the department. Certainly, my advisers have spoken to them in more detail. Of course, I have also continued to consult with the Premier, as the minister, and the assistant minister and you, for that matter.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes, Attorney, you have spoken to me and I have spoken to you. Can you just clarify how current commission members were actually consulted and involved in this period of discussion?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think a number of them actually appeared in the discussion at the forums themselves. I can confirm that commission members were actively involved in the consultation process. They were invited to attend all community forums and the stakeholder workshop. Ten out of 11 of the commission members attended at least one of the consultation events and some attended several. Further recognising the important role of the commission, the Assistant Minister to the Premier, responsible for multicultural affairs, presented on the bill to the commission. Additionally, the YourSAy survey was open to any member of the public who decided to engage.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Attorney, it has been raised with me that commission members were invited to come along to the consultation as observers only and were not actually encouraged to speak or express their opinion. I am a little concerned about that because, obviously, leading up to today, you have had conversations with the current chair and other members have reached out as well. Can you clarify that they had more than observer status at these consultations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that, yes, they were observers. The whole purpose of having the forum in relation to the public was to have them in attendance, but obviously the people put to them what they would like to have—that is correct.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, notwithstanding the individual participation and observation of members of the commission in these forums, was the commission as a whole and as a statutory body asked to contribute to a formal submission or given the opportunity to contribute to a formal submission? There were a number of consultation processes, forums, discussion papers and research papers. At what stage was the commission itself invited to participate formally?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that they were not asked to put in a submission, but of course they were perfectly able to do so because that is exactly why the process was set up.

Mr SZAKACS: To clarify, there was no communication to the commission that they were not to formally participate in the process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just explained in relation to the public forums, but to my knowledge they were not asked not to make any submission. That is a matter for them. Obviously, they are a commission and they can do as they wish, but at the public forums they were not a party to the submissions. That was an opportunity for the public to speak, but it was important that they were there and available to canvass with others while they were there, as they were perfectly entitled to do.

Mr SZAKACS: I appreciate it is a matter for them to participate, but it is also a matter if there was to be a direction or a request for them not to participate. It would be a matter for the person or otherwise that is asking for that body not to participate, so would you take on notice my question? I appreciate your understanding is that they were able to participate, but would you specifically take on notice, perhaps between the houses, whether the commission was instructed or advised not to participate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have already answered that. At the public forums they were asked not to participate. I am not aware of any other instruction—and I have the adviser here—given to the commission that they were in some way prohibited from putting a position.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, one of your questions was for clarification, so I will accept this one.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, just a final question on consultation from me. It is a matter I asked of the Premier during estimates as well. I believe he took it on notice but we have not received that back. The consultation and the currency of consultation arguably has a question mark because of the period in which it was undertaken. The consultation summary was completed in about June 2019. There have been very significant world events, state events and economic events that have taken place since that consultation took place, the least of which have had a demonstrable outcome negatively in places for multicultural communities.

We have seen significant research about the effect that this pandemic has had on multicultural communities, particularly communities of a culturally and linguistically diverse background. My question is: considering it is now some 18 months since it finished—not even since it started—does that consultation still hold currency considering the significant changes in climate since the consultation was completed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think there are two aspects to this. One is the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on those in the multicultural community. I think it is fair to say that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on everyone in the world. I do not necessarily see the development of this legislation as being so interfered with by the pandemic that it should somehow come to a halt. I think it is like a lot of other pieces of legislative reform, in that it slowed, because other priorities have been given, even for the people who draft these things. There is quite a lot of extra work that goes into it.

I think it was finally tabled in October last year. There have been continuing discussions. There has been plenty of opportunity for people to make a contribution, and indeed they have. In fact, there are lots of amendments that have been tabled that are responsive to that, so I do not think the COVID pandemic has interfered with that. I think it certainly had an impact on the progress of a number of pieces of legislation, and this may or may not have been impacted. I am not familiar with whether there has been any delay for that reason but, nevertheless, I know that there is a whole lot of legislation that I have had responsibility for that has overtaken it, namely, having to deal with COVID emergency legislation.

Nevertheless, there is no impediment to people continuing to consult. Indeed, members consulting has clearly happened. That is precisely why we have a process for that debate to occur and that consultation to continue. I think the evidence of the amendments that we are dealing with will confirm that, so I do not think that has been an impediment.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 18:00 the house adjourned until Tuesday 30 March 2021 at 11:00.