Bills

South Australian Multicultural Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 25 May 2021.)

Clause 10.

Mr SZAKACS: I will make a contribution to give some further insight into the thinking around this amendment. Of course, the importance of stamping out racism speaks for itself, I hope. Although the Attorney has expressed the government's opposition to this, she has not expressed any contrary view around our principled approach to stamping out racism.

The importance of bumping up the functions of the commission itself has been iterative from the actual consultation report from Multicultural SA, which was published in about 2019. I want to refer to 6.2 Term of Reference 2, page 20, for those following at home, where there is significant descriptive feedback from the department regarding the confusion or lack of understanding from members of the multicultural community around the functions of the commission.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Sorry, where is this on page 20?

Mr SZAKACS: It is question 1, which is: 'How well do you understand the Functions of the Commission?' A surprising but unfortunate 83 per cent of respondents in this quite extensive feedback indicated they did not understand fully the functions of the commission. Within both the feedback and the report itself, words such as 'symbolic, ceremonial, more than consultative/participatory and leading public debate' were used.

From my perspective, that certainly is not how I see the commission, but it is important for us to note that when members of the multicultural communities, whether it be members or peaks, determine or consider that there is a lack of understanding about functions and 'a ceremonial, more than a consultative or participatory role', we should think and reflect strongly on that.

Question 2 is: 'What is your understanding of the role of Commission members?' One participant expressed the view that the role of commission members is, and I quote:

…not just attending community functions. It must be leadership; it must be the most robust formulation of multiculturality.

The opposition's principled approach to the functions of the commission, and our principled approach to why we have moved a series of amendments, including this one to beef up the functions of the commission, is not only because we consider strongly that racism should be stamped out, not only because we consider that the commission should and must take an educative role and function around stamping out racism but also because we are also being responsive to the multicultural community in saying we want the commission to have more functions, we want to understand the functions of the commission more and we want to see the commission given the powers in their functions to be responsive, to be able to exercise their functions and be resourced accordingly and to be, as I have quoted, 'participatory and leading public debate'.

This is absolutely the core of a policy and a principled approach from us about beefing up the functions of the commission and not simply seeing the commission becoming a mere advisory body, as it was in the bill as it came to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for the further indication from the mover of this amendment as to why this is being proposed. Initially, when we were debating this yesterday and it was proposed on the basis that the Refugee Association had presented it in paragraph 3 on page 1 of their submission, I outlined to the committee at that stage that I did not think it actually reflected a request that was consistent with this amendment.

In fact, they had specifically said that they felt it was important to work cooperatively with the task force and also with the Equal Opportunity Commission in relation to tasks they had. It did not actually express at all a requirement that we add to the responsibilities or functions of this commission to deal with racism or other discriminatory conduct. That, as I pointed out, is the purview of the equal opportunity commission in both an educative role and enforcement. I will not go over that.

The member for Cheltenham has now introduced a second reason he suggests supports the introduction of this amendment, as a result of the Adelaide workshop, in particular, and identified in footnote 94 of the comment referred to in answer to question 1—that is, that seemingly there had been a lack of understanding of what the functions of the commission currently are. Frankly, on the face of it, if they do not understand what it does now, why giving it another job would enhance that is completely beyond me.

However, I make the point—as identified by the footnote reference 94, which is the RSA—that what I see in this record indicates that for the people who fill out these forms and go to this Adelaide stakeholder workshop, there appears to be a seemingly high level of an indication of being unaware of the functions. What questions were put and how that was presented I do not know. If anyone can name the statutory functions, it may be that to have a clear understanding of all they do from their online survey results does not in any way actually support the argument for this amendment being included.

However, question 2 does touch not only on the consultation participants and respondents to it being unaware of the function of the commission but generally on—as the mover quite rightly points out—the expression of one of the participants, which says that the role of the commission is not just attending community functions (presumably they think that is a high priority for them) but it must be leadership and it must be the most 'robust formulation of multiculturality'.

Whoever wrote that or submitted it, the participant expressing that view, I wholeheartedly support them to the extent that, from my knowledge of what the commission does, it does attend a lot of functions. Each of them does, and I think that has been something that has certainly occurred in the last 20 years I have been around this political chamber. That is an important function, but it is not its only one.

If it is going to be an advocate for multiculturality or intercultural matters, then it must do so in a robust and positive manner. It appears from this document that nobody actually put in a participatory response saying, 'We want it to undertake a role of condemning racist behaviour or any other discriminatory practice.' That is not what it says at all. It does not say that.

It says that whatever it does it has to do strongly and with leadership—excellent. It does not say, 'We want it to take on another role, to be the person or group that prosecutes the argument against what we all know is not only abhorrent but illegal behaviour in relation to racist conduct.' I do not need to go through the agencies that otherwise have that responsibility, from police across to the equal opportunity commissioner and others.

I do not see how this further submission about why it is necessary to do it in response to the people who have turned up to the consultations on this translates into this. It simply does not. I read again the Australian Refugee Association's submission, which has put some very sensible matters forward in its submission. It does not say this. It does not say, 'Put this into this bill.' It does not say that.

I maintain the position, on behalf of the government, that the commission have a really important role. They have specified in these functions, I think they have undertaken them admirably and there is no-one, other than the Australian Labor Party's South Australia division, that is putting forward this proposal.

Not one person has been named. There has been a reference to a submission, which does not say that, and there has been reference to a summary of submissions, which does not say that. It just confirms to me that, in the absence of any information from anybody stepping forward to say, 'We want this in this bill,' other than the Australian Labor Party, that is not only without merit but they have continued to prosecute the introduction of this without a shred of support.

Mr SZAKACS: Nothing quite says 'We support our multicultural communities' than the Attorney-General getting up and arguing against the merits and, in fact, supporting our argument that it is only the Labor Party, in the Attorney's own words, that is willing to stand up and say that every effort should go into stamping out racism, that every effort should go in to raising awareness about racism.

In the Attorney's own words, and let this be known, it is only the Labor Party that is willing to do this. It is a standard that you are walking past, Attorney, that we are willing to stand up, put forward—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Don't mislead the house.

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr SZAKACS: I am offended. I ask the Attorney to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, you—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let's get back in order here. The member for Cheltenham has taken offence to?

Mr SZAKACS: The Attorney has interjected and accused me of misleading the house, and I ask her to apologise.

The Hon. V.A. Tarzia: No, she said, ‘Don't mislead the house.'

The CHAIR: Order! The Minister for Police and Emergency Services is called to order. You will cease interjecting.

Mr SZAKACS: I ask the Attorney to apologise and withdraw.

The CHAIR: You said, Attorney, from memory, 'Don't mislead the house.'

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Correct.

The CHAIR: The member for Cheltenham has assumed by that you meant that he was misleading—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: I know you didn't say it, but he is indicating that to me, Attorney, and it is a serious allegation.

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, just wait. It is a serious allegation. The member for Cheltenham is indicating to me that he has taken offence by that, so I would ask the Attorney to withdraw and apologise.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to proceed on the basis of apologising if the member feels offended by that.

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, member for Cheltenham, just wait.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If he interprets my indication that he not mislead the house as his doing that, then I withdraw it.

The CHAIR: The Attorney has withdrawn.

Mr SZAKACS: I would consider that in the Attorney's most magnanimous attempt at withdrawal and apology she has again insinuated—somewhat less implicitly and more explicitly—an allegation of misleading, and I ask her to again apologise and withdraw.

The CHAIR: I am not going do that, member for Cheltenham. Yesterday, we had some sarcasm, didn't we, which is unusual in this chamber, and I suspect we have had some again, member for Cheltenham. The Attorney has withdrawn and apologised. I am happy with that. We still have a little way to go in this committee, and I urge all members to focus on the job at hand.

Mr SZAKACS: As I will be more than pleased to again repeat and as has been confirmed by the Attorney, it is only Labor that is willing to move this. It is only Labor that is willing to say that all efforts must be put into stamping out and raising awareness of the harms of racism. Notwithstanding the strong feedback and notwithstanding the personal one-on-one consultations that the member for Badcoe, the member for Ramsay and I have undertaken, again, we are proud. If we are accused of being the only ones willing to move this and say that every effort should be undertaken, I am willing to cop that and I think we are willing to cop that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As the mover of this amendment on behalf of the opposition, can I express my disappointment that it appears that the government is not going to support this amendment. Let's remind ourselves what we are proposing to add to the function of the Multicultural Commission: to raise awareness of the harm that racism and other forms of discriminatory behaviour can do to multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia.

While I am disappointed that the government has taken a stance not to include this as part of the functions, can I tell you how deeply offended I am by the accusation that we made this up. We have taken our own consultation, we have read the formal consultation that the government did two years ago, but we also have our own conversations with people about this bill.

It is true that there have been people who have raised concerns with me about what the commission does, and I have had commission members raise with me that they would like to be resourced more and have a greater connection to the community and state authorities. I do not think there is anything more important than what this amendment puts forward.

The Attorney is right: you do have the fact that the Equal Opportunity Act can investigate. Racism is illegal, but it happens every single day, and in fact we know it is on the rise. I think, as a key function for this reformed commission, looking at this bill for the first time in 39 years, that it is incredibly important that they should be looking at this.

We are not saying that they have to uphold the law or investigate the law; what we are saying is that they should be increasing the awareness of the harm that racism does, and if we do not increase awareness then we know that we are not going to achieve multiculturalism and interculturalism.

I am disappointed and offended. I do think people in this house think that this is an important issue, that the Australian Labor Party did not make this up, that people raised it with us, that we have a long way to go and that this is a key thing that the commission can take a leadership role on. I ask for people's support for this amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for Ramsay for coming into this discussion on this amendment, because I accept that she is entirely genuine in her passion for ensuring that we not only respect our multicultural community but that a newly structured commission of responsibility under this legislation is effective. I totally accept that.

It is therefore even more concerning that, in repeating the assertion there are people who have asked for this to be in the bill, they have still not been named. In the entire contribution to date, it has come from paragraph 3 on page 1 of the ARA, which I repeat to this house it does not say, and it has come from page 20 at point 5 in response to questions 1 and 2 from the summary prepared from the responses, and it does not say that.

I do not doubt that there may well be people who have said this to the Australian Labor Party, but who are they? We have not had it from the commission, we have not had it from the two sources that they assert—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —so I find it deeply concerning that the Australian Labor Party representatives on this bill come in and say, 'We demand that this be in here for all these reasons, even if you don't find it in these areas that we've cited, but there are other people who have spoken to us who have said we want it.' Well, who are they? What groups? Of all the people who have put submissions in here, of all the groups that have been spoken to—members of the commission themselves—no-one has come forward and said, 'We need to have this in this bill.'

I am sorry that the member for Ramsay is offended that we are not supporting it but, frankly, the first bar—to actually ask the parliament to add in another function for this commission—ought to at least have some indication of who wants it, why it is important, whether other agencies are failing to deliver the merits of something like this and what we should do in that regard, and none of that has been presented. Offended or otherwise as the member for Ramsay might be, I accept she is genuine in her passion on this issue but we cannot support this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 21

Noes 22

Majority 1

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Stinson–1]—

Page 7, line 10 [clause 10(e)]—after 'understanding, of' insert 'multiculturalism and'

Amendment No 8 [Stinson–1]—

Page 7, line 12 [clause 10(f)]—after 'multicultural' insert 'and intercultural'

I understand that there has been an agreement to accept these two amendments to raise awareness and promote understanding of multiculturalism and interculturalism and to promote the South Australian multicultural charter and the advantages of a multicultural and intercultural society.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are pleased to support these amendments.

Amendments carried.

Mr SZAKACS: I just have some questions on the clause at large. Attorney, if I could again draw your attention to the Multicultural Legislative Review 2019 Consultation Report I was referring to a little earlier, page 4 this time. Under 'Term of Reference 2: Review the functions and powers of the Commission and ensure its title reflects this', in the third paragraph down, to paraphrase, some of the key feedback or takeaways from the department were promoting and raising awareness of the principles. So, one of the pieces of feedback, one of the takeaways, one of the executive summary recommendations was to promote and raise awareness of the principles.

To give the context insofar as principles are contained within the discussion paper, the majority of those principles have been subsumed within the parliamentary declaration. There were a number of key matters which were originally defined as being principles. In the drafting, they have come in as the parliamentary declaration. The key feedback was that the promotion and raising awareness of those principles—or, in this case now, to paraphrase, the declaration—was a key piece of the outcome of that consultation. Why has that not been included in the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, let me identify that what you are referring to is I think the penultimate paragraph under Term of Reference 2: 'Review the functions and powers of the Commission and ensure its title reflects this.' It states:

Looking forward, there was overall support for the three revised Commission functions proposed in the Discussion Paper [in brief, they were a) Advice to Government, b) Consultation with any group in order to fulfil the advisory function—

that is to undertake consultations under (g), and then:

c) Promotion and raising awareness of the principles]

That is under (c):

(c) to increase awareness and understanding of the diversity of the South Australian community and the implications of that diversity;

(d) to promote unity, understanding and harmony among all communities;

(e) to raise awareness, and promote understanding of the—

intercultural (now) multicultural and intercultural, so I think, yes, they are.

What has happened in addition since then, in the discussion that has resulted in the introduction of a parliamentary declaration, is that some of those have been replicated there as a commitment to confirm what this parliament is signing up to. They are all meritorious and we have passed them and that is to be commended.

I think, yes, we have covered those matters in the drafting that is here. I have not seen any amendment to the contrary, other than the more helpful ones, of course, just moved by the member for Ramsay, which we have accepted to be complete in relation to that. I think we have done exactly as has been suggested.

Mr SZAKACS: Thank you, but with respect I disagree. The matters contained within the declaration now or matters that were referred to in the discussion paper are now referred to in the declaration. That substantive amendment was moved and, not to reflect on a vote of the house, that was defeated. The Attorney has referred a lot to matters that are contained or not contained within submissions or departmental feedback. From the department, there is a very clear recommendation that the declaration should be that monitoring and raising awareness of the declaration should be a function of the commission. Why was that not taken up?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think perhaps the member misunderstands what the process has been here. There has been extensive consultation, written submissions have been received, there have been stakeholder meetings and there has been a report provided, helpfully, to be able to cover these matters. The bill has been introduced, which was to have outlined the functions, etc., plus have a charter.

The charter is still there and is provided for and is a matter for the commission to work with its communities and to develop. I think they have, as I understand it, until mid-2022 to undertake that role and to do that. It has not been an exclusion of that. What has happened here is that there has been an addition to this bill that sets out a parliamentary declaration, which is an added commitment for us to sign up to. I think that is with merit and I think that has been agreed and we have moved on with it, but it is still a job to be done and there is still work to be done to consider the matters here that the commission needs to work out with its people in the community as to how it drafts that charter.

As I have said before in this house, we have charters now for lots of things. We have charters for the public sector. We have charters for courts, and just about every court I go into has a charter about respecting people who have concerns and making sure that people have a say and all these sorts of things. These are all important commitments the organisation or the service provider signs up to and actually publishes physically and/or on websites.

So that piece of work is still to be done, but it should not be seen as because it is not in this act we have not put everything in here and that somehow or other that is the end of the day. What has been set up here on this framework is to ensure that there is a capacity for a charter and that it be one that we do not set in here—we, this little group, do not set it and demand its terms—but the commission in their role set it in consultation with their own communities.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, I understand that the charter is promoting the advantages of multiculturalism and now the function of the commission, thanks to the amendments moved by the member for Ramsay. But your proposition and your view are that the principles, as contained within the consultation, are now subsumed within the declaration.

We have to give this context. The act, even from the bill that was introduced in this place, has been quite dramatic with changes. But the one thing that is clear is the discussion paper—which is 2½ years old, so there is an issue of currency here—talked about and put a number of propositions around principles. Those principles, almost word for word, are now contained within the declaration. It is the Attorney's view that those words and principles that are now in the declaration are a function of the commission. Would she be so kind as to point to what function of the commission allows that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Clearly, I do not think the member understands—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have answered the question. I think the member clearly has a different view. He has taken the view that somehow or other the submissions now are dated and that they have not perhaps captured everything. Certainly, we have added that a provision in this bill for a parliamentary declaration which has been modified.

But that has not taken away the objective in this act to provide—which it does in this proposed bill, the new structure—for the commission to have a role, not interrupted by this business here. It will still have that role. It will still adopt what it thinks is important to sign up to in relation to those charters. I would understand if the member were raising this to say, 'You chopped out the charter, so we do not need this anymore.' No, we have not. The charter is there.

The charter is yet to be done and what we are putting in the bill is not what is going to be in it, because we are not asking or imposing what is to be in it from here. What we are saying in clause 10 is to require it, under paragraph (f) once it is done, to promote the South Australian Multicultural Charter and the advantages of multiculturalism. It will now have the word 'intercultural' in it as well. We are not demanding here what is in it. We are leaving that to the commission. In consultation with them and over the next 12 months, I expect they would be attending to that.

We take the view in this government that they not only have to have the opportunity to do that but they are best served and best know what is to be in it. Whatever it turns out to be, they will have an obligation under this act then to make sure that it is promoted. That is what we want—their experience, expertise and knowledge to draft it and then for it to be implemented.

On a question of resources being thrown in from time to time, we have canvassed that already in other parts of the debate. But I have given those reassurances and I do not think repeating them is going to make it any different. From the member's point of view, I just think we have to agree to disagree on that.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Stinson–1]—

Page 7, line 38 [clause 12(2)]—after 'Commission' insert:

(however, the Multicultural Commission should, if it is reasonably practicable to do so, ensure that the membership of the committee also reflects the matters set out in section 6(2))

The amendment is in addition to the current clause, which states at subclause (2):

(2) The membership of a committee will be determined by the Multicultural Commission and may, but need not, consist of, or include, members of the Multicultural Commission.

The amendment, which I understand is agreed to by the government, adds:

(however, the Multicultural Commission should, if it is reasonably practicable to do so, ensure that the membership of the committee also reflects the matters set out in 6(2))

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You are quite correct, we are supporting that, and thank you for that amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 13 and 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr SZAKACS: Clause 15 of the bill, as moved, deals with the use of staff, etc., of the public sector. There has of course been an amendment that has been moved by yourself that was passed around resourcing being made available. Could you explain how those two sections of the proposed act will interplay? One talks about 'as reasonably requested', I think, and the other one talks about 'by agreement'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have canvassed this quite at length, but I am happy to do it again. We have added in a clause to ensure that there be provision for resource to the commission. I have at length indicated my view about how this commission has operated under the previous government, namely, having a structure in which they have the chairman of the board who is also a paid salary person in the public sector.

I thought that was disgraceful, and I said that at length yesterday. I think that is unacceptable and completely denies the opportunity for the board to be independent and to be able to give that advice. However, I am not going to go over all that again. I have made my position very clear on that and I have given you an example in my own division of the State Planning Commission and how that should operate. So that has been added in.

I reassured the parliament yesterday by reading out proposed clause 15, which is now what the question is about, to make sure that that was brought to the attention of the committee, to give that reassurance that, even if there had not been a resolution or there was some tension about what was reasonable between the commission and the government or the minister under clause 9 or something—it was earlier; we have dealt with it—this was a backup; that is, all the 11 people who work for Ms Kennedy here are in that category to be available.

In addition, you may or may not have noticed that there is a direct provision proposed in this bill, I suggest, to strengthen what is in the current act and has been for the last 36 years, and that is clause 19, which reinforces the statutory duty of what the state authorities have to do in the sense of compliance. That is all the departments. Here we have an express provision for use of the staff to make those available.

I have indicated again my preference in these arrangements that commissions ought to have dedicated staff available to them. I find completely unacceptable this idea of just swapping people when it suits, and then when other priorities come about it may not be available to the commission. It is a model that this previous lot did, and I think that it was unacceptable. I think there is room for change, but that is again a matter for the commission and the minister to have discussions about. In the meantime, it may approach Ms Kennedy here and have access to her staff. That is what that is all about. I thought I had made it very clear yesterday and I hope it is even clearer now.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, as you have pointed out, clause 5A relates to 'resources as may reasonably be required' by the commission, the minister responsible in this case being the Premier. Clause 15 talks about 'the Chief Executive of an administrative unit of the Public Service', meaning any other administrative unit within the Public Service. In its current form, does the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission currently utilise the resources of any agency other than those administered by its current minister? Does SAMEAC utilise the resources of any other part of the public sector or any other administrative unit or agency?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of. To be clear, this clause talks about 'by agreement with the Chief Executive of an administrative unit'—that is Ms Kennedy, who is sitting here—'of the Public Service'.

Mr Szakacs: It says 'an administrative unit ' not 'the administrative unit'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: But that is the administrative unit, so:

…by agreement with the Chief Executive of an administrative unit of the Public Service, make use of the services of the staff, equipment or facilities of that administrative unit.

We are not talking about the agencies and departments now; we are talking about the administrative unit, which is for this purpose, that is, multicultural and intercultural affairs. So it is the 11 sitting with Ms Kennedy.

What I have pointed out, though, is proposed clause 19, which is a modernised translation of what is already in the current act, and that is the statutory duty of the state authorities, which is all the departments, and what they have to do regarding compliance with a number of things outlined in that. We have a resource issue, where the commission can speak to the minister (the Premier) about direct resources to the commission. We have what I call a backup clause, clause 15, to have the use of the staff. You know my view. I have made it clear now three times, and I will make it a fourth: that is, I think there should be a dedicated resource for that and, third, they have the obligations of the compliance of departments to do what is required of them, as specified in that division.

Mr SZAKACS: To clarify, Attorney, it is your position that clause 15 limits the ability for the multicultural commission to utilise resources of agencies other than Multicultural SA? My question to you was: does the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission currently utilise the resources of any agency other than Multicultural SA? Your answer was not that you are aware of. I appreciate that, but is it the case—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just to answer that: yes, to this extent. Everybody has access to information that is in the Public Service—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I was about to say that. Just let me check whether they have access to Erma Ranieri. To be clear, I am advised by the drafter of the bill that the administrative unit includes the department, any of the other departments which are not being used at present. They are only using the departments of the multicultural and intercultural unit—multicultural affairs at the moment—but it can be the others.

The discretionary resourcing issue in 5A, I think it is—the one in relation to the minister and commission working out some other arrangement for any other specific resources—is new. At the moment, they are only using these resources. They can have access to other departments, and then the obligation for them to comply with what they have also asked for in relation to those other departments is in clause 19.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 and 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The CHAIR: We have a number of amendments on clause 18, most of which are consequential. The only one to be moved here, member for Ramsay, is amendment No. 14 on schedule (1).

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I understand that amendment No. 11 is still relevant.

The CHAIR: I apologise to all those watching at home for the delay; we were seeking advice. My understanding is that amendment No. 14 on schedule (1) can still be moved.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: And there is agreement from the government to accept that amendment, so I move:

Amendment No 14 [Stinson–1]—

Page 9, line 28 [clause 18(4)(a)]—After 'Commission' insert 'and the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement'

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I confirm that, yes, the member is quite correct: we are adding the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, which adds into the consultation process that will be required.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Member for Ramsay, my advice is that amendment No. 15 does not need to be moved because it is already included.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Can I clarify that we are on the same amendment, amendment No. 15 [Stinson-1].

The CHAIR: Yes, that is what we are looking at.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Is that already in the bill?

The CHAIR: That is the advice I have from parliamentary counsel: parliamentary counsel is saying yes.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We do have some questions on this clause.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.