Bills

South Australian Multicultural Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 26 May 2021.)

Clause 18.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We have some questions in regard to the charter. Attorney, you mentioned previously the expectation that the charter will be completed by July 2022, but there seems to be a little lack of clarity between the role of the minister and the role of the commission in the formation of this charter. I am seeking some clarity for myself and the commission members, who will be new commission members, about how that will work between the minister and the commission.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are matters of course that will be the subject of the new commission's determination, with the minister, after they have undertaken their consultation and the preparation of their charter. I will refer to it shortly but, in reading the 2017-18 annual report, there are a number of matters that have been picked up from there in continuity. That is expected, that report having covered the year of the previous commission and having been signed by Mr Schueler as the new presiding officer.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: When I read through this process, it states:

(4) In preparing, varying or substituting the Charter, the Minister—

(a) must, after consultation with the Multicultural Commission, prepare a draft version of the Charter…and publish the draft Charter on a website...

I want to clarify this because I still did not hear from you that the minister prepares the draft and then the commission goes out for consultation on the draft.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that it is as I have previously indicated; that is, there will be preparation of a draft in consultation with the commission. They take that out and then they do their consultation and they bring it back and make those decisions with the minister.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My understanding is that the minister then will be the final decision-maker on the charter, not the commission.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Are we going back to clause 17 for this purpose? I just want to be clear about that.

The CHAIR: No, we are on clause 18.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know we are, so I am just asking. These are all questions in relation to clause 17. I am not unhappy about it—I am happy to go back to clause 17 even though we have passed it.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is a report.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, I thought you were reading from clause 17. Are you reading from some other document? Can you just identify what that is?

The CHAIR: We are dealing with clause 18 as amended.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know we are, but she has indicated—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Clause 18(4):

(4) In preparing, varying or substituting the Charter, the Minister—

(a) must…

I want to seek clarification about the final decision-making around the charter. There was an understanding from our previous commentary that it would be up to the commission, that the commission would have that role, that the commission would be finalising that charter. But when I read through these stages, it appears to me that is not correct: it is actually the minister.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Subclause (4) reads:

(4) In preparing, varying or substituting the Charter, the Minister—

(a) must…

It then sets out a process that is to take place. Obviously, it has to be ultimately signed up to, like every other charter of government, and that is either dealt with then ultimately by the minister and/or cabinet, depending on who approves it. But I think it is very clear from that what the minister must do before there is any finalisation of the charter, according to the rest of the process.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: A final question?

The CHAIR: We will call it a point of clarification.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Will the commission be provided with additional resources during their consultation process to give advice to the minister regarding the charter?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sure that will be a matter of discussion between the commission and the minister—namely, the Premier—as to what is required and whom they wish to consult. In relation to the consultation for the review that has taken place culminating in this legislation, I note that there were multiple public meetings across the state. I think there were 10 of the commissioners who attended those. There were members of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: They were not allowed to speak.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —who attended, as identified, to observe in those meetings. That is in the documentation, so I think that is obvious. Secondly, the staff in the DPC unit covering multicultural affairs obviously were also facilitating that. The arrangement as to who paid for those and what extra costs there were—I imagine there would have been advertising, the invitation for submissions, the YourSAy website surveys, presumably the reviewing of all those 14 submissions that were written, the preparation of all the documents we have referred to throughout this debate—they are all costs, of course. I would expect that, just as that has occurred, the same provision will be made for this.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, I have a specific question regarding the content of the charter and my specific question is on the content, insofar as you have in previous answers within committee stage sought to indicate that there will be matters excluded now from the charter because they are contained within the substantive legislation. For your benefit, I might just quote—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: I have not said that, but go on.

Mr SZAKACS: I will quote, and this is from your answer to a previous question of mine, Attorney:

…there is quite a considerable amount of material that would otherwise have gone in a charter that is now going into the act.

Could you provide specifics in relation to what content would have been in the charter that is now in the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They are subjects that are now covered by the parliamentary declaration, which are now in the act and which, as I have said, are a list of things that the parliament is signing up to as its declaration in passing this legislation. I expect some of those will be repeated in the charter because they set out a number of principles that I expect the commission will want to sign up to as well, but that is a matter for them to undertake that process.

Mr SZAKACS: So it is not the position of government or you that matters that have been contained within the act are now unable to be covered in the charter; is that fair to say?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no instruction and/or embargo in any way on the commission in relation to excluding areas that are already covered. These are, I think, sensible principles the parliament is being asked to sign up to. It may well be that a number of those are things that are going to form part of the overall charter that is prepared, which is to be a policy document prepared through the processes that are identified here before they are to be concluded.

Mr SZAKACS: I have a further specific question, again relating to matters that you have raised previously in this committee stage, regarding the ability for the charter to confer rights or obligations or give the commission functions. I have a two-part question, and for ease I am happy to split it up. The first part of the question relates to a quote:

I think they are all commendable objectives and I do not have any issue with them. But the reason I am going to indicate that we are not supporting this amendment is that, if there is going to be an obligation of the commission to do these things, it should be in their charter or in the terms of their functions in the act.

My question is: can the charter contain a new function for the commission that is not currently contained within the substantive act? If the answer is no, then could you please clarify your answer from the previous committee stage.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member repeatedly errs, perhaps inadvertently, in not understanding the difference between a function that is statutory provided and a charter.

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the statute sets out the framework upon which the commission in particular is to continue its valuable work, and in addition to the usual principles, functions—often called objects of the act and functions or powers of the entity that is being presented; the wording changes in these things over the years—there are two new phenomena. One is very common now, for a charter to be developed that people sign up to. It is a bit like a ten commandments: you are not necessarily punished or sent to gaol if you breach the commandment, but it sets out a policy framework of expected compliance.

That is not uncommon, and what is proposed in this legislation is that that charter must contain provisions setting out the principles of multiculturalism and interculturalism in relation to South Australia and provisions recognising Aboriginal peoples of South Australia and their role in the diversity of peoples of South Australia. They are the two things that are prescribed that it needs to cover. They are pretty broad, obviously.

You have objects of an act, you have the functions or powers of the body that are implemented, you have this charter process, and the fourth is a new element we have introduced in the course of the development of this bill, and that is a parliamentary declaration. That is what we sign up to. Again, it is a fairly new type of initiative. I am not in any way averse to it, and we have actually accommodated it in this bill.

The only two things that are being prescribed that need to be considered and put into this charter through the process in which the commission has all that involvement in its drafting, consultation, preparation, etc., handover to its Premier, are those two things: the principles of multiculturalism and interculturalism in relation to South Australia and the provision of recognising our First Nations, our Aboriginal peoples. Those are the only two things.

Mr Szakacs: Must.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Must, absolutely. So, without being more prescriptive, we are not saying what those principles have to be that set out a whole new process about how that is to happen, who is to be consulted in that process. I do not know how clear I can be about it, but the information in the charter is not to add more functions at all.

Mr Szakacs: But can it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, you can't use another charter to be able to introduce a lawful list of functions.

Mr Szakacs: I'm asking you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, no.

The CHAIR: I am being a bit generous this morning: I did give the member for Ramsay an extra question, so I will give—

Mr SZAKACS: Sorry, just a point of clarification—

The CHAIR: A point of clarification, of course.

Mr SZAKACS: —because we could go on a journey then. My question specifically was: can the charter confer a function on the commission?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, no.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 19 passed.

New clauses 19A and 19B

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

Amendment No 8 [Bettison–1]—

Page 10, after line 17—Insert:

19A—State authorities to report performance

Each State authority must, on or before 31 October in each year, report to the Minister on the performance of the State authority in giving effect to the Charter during the preceding financial year.

19B—Minister to report performance of State authorities

(1) The Minister must, on or before 31 December in each year, prepare a report summarising the reports received under section 19A in respect of the preceding financial year.

(2) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after completing the report, have copies of the report laid before both Houses of Parliament.

This particular amendment I think gives us an opportunity. It gives us an opportunity to take leadership, to see diversity in action. The reason I see this as an opportunity is that this is something that is monitored and reported upon with other sections of our community.

Within the public sector we monitor and report on how many people of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background are in the Public Service and we report upon how many people of those with declared disabilities are employed within the Public Service. Substantial work was also done to look at the role of women and gender in the Public Service. Most specifically, it was focused around the levels that women were employed at and the gaps where there were barriers to women going forward.

I raise this because I think that this is a true representation of putting into effect what we are attempting to achieve here: to support multiculturalism and interculturalism. If you do not monitor something or report on it, how can you know that it is moving forward? I raise this because we have this opportunity, as a state government with a large Public Service that we support and train and that services us, to show leadership—to show leadership about multiculturalism, to live it, to bring it into effect.

This was raised within the discussion and covered off in the review of the report of I think one of the community meetings in Mount Gambier. They said, 'Government needs to show leadership and model the implementation, embedding the principles with a focus on impact and change.'

This was raised by people during this review process. I myself know that many times people have said employment is a challenge for our diverse communities. We all know that we currently have the highest rate of youth unemployment in the nation. We have an opportunity here to acknowledge where there are barriers for people of diverse backgrounds.

Of course, we can look to other states and, in fact, the Australian Public Service to see where they do monitor and measure this. In June 2020, in the Australian Public Service, 22.1 per cent of people working, their employees, were born overseas and 15.9 per cent were of non-English-speaking background. They measure it. They report upon it. They make it an active thing to acknowledge when they are looking at recruitment. In June 2019, Queensland indicated that 9.99 per cent of people working for them were of non-English-speaking background. They monitor it. They report upon it.

In doing some research in this area, I understand that we already capture this data with our employee surveys from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. We already have this information but we do not report on it. What I am seeking to do here is to bring into effect what this whole bill is about: our support of multiculturalism and interculturalism. Let's bring it into effect. Let's make sure we monitor it, we report upon it, we live it and we show leadership in the Public Service by achieving good representation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for her explanation of the proposed clause. She is right, in that it is our view that this material is already collected, available and reported on. What the member, the former minister, is suggesting is that it now be an obligation here in relation to the state authorities specifically that they make that data available, presumably.

It does not get to the nub of what really is the issue here, and that is not the reporting. That is all done and that is all there. I think what the member is seeking is some kind of check by somebody, presumably the commission, of what recommendations they have made to state agencies and then some benchmark as to whether that has been employed or applied. That is what I think she is getting at, if I understand her position here.

This amendment puts a statutory obligation on each of the chief executives of departments and/or the minister responsible for those agencies to report on it. We have an annual report process, which of course all happens as part of our accountability. They are audited by the Auditor-General. They have statutory obligations as to when they are to be done, when they are to be presented to a minister and the time frames they are in most instances to be tabled in parliament, etc. This appears to expand that to the minister doing the reporting. Those are the two initiatives here.

We say that the provision here is unnecessary because the existing reporting requirements, regardless of whatever goes in the charter down the track, will provide a nexus between the bill and the government departments. We also say that the bill requires state authorities to 'have regard to and seek to give effect to the charter in carrying out their functions and exercising their powers', which is under clause 19(1), which we have just passed.

The charter will incorporate multicultural principles that will offer guidance to government departments on providing accessible and responsive services to multicultural communities and will support a consistent across-government approach. The commission will have a central role in developing the charter and the principles included within it, and this process will commence upon the enabling of the legislation.

I also wish to make some comment on the existing SA government reporting on diversity and inclusion. To be absolutely clear, it is important to note that South Australian government agencies already report on their diversity and inclusion policy service delivery, which goes to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment Diversion and Inclusion Strategy 2019-21. So there is another umbrella of obligation there.

As to the annual reporting, government authorities also report annually to the responsible minister on their activities through the Premier and Cabinet Circular PC 013: Annual Reporting Requirements. This is a mandatory report that must contain information, including relevant statistics about all aspects of the agency's operation and initiatives; strategic plans, and relationship of the plans to government objectives; the legislation administered by the agency; the functions and objectives of the agency; the service delivery; the financial performance; and other elements, all of which, as I have indicated, is audited by the Auditor-General.

The annual reporting requirements are therefore reviewed annually by the Auditor-General, who prepares an independent report to the parliament as to compliance in relation to all this work. In addition to that, this parliament gets the scrutiny of it. We can ask questions here in the parliament of any relevant government minister as to the application or failure in relation to its responsibility, either in the disclosure in its report, publication of material or provision of material to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment or, indeed, generally in relation to its performance. The ultimate body, us here in the parliament, can ask those questions.

Every year when these annual reports are provided, we have questions—particularly here in the parliament and sometimes in conjunction with the budget initiatives through the estimates process and the Auditor-General's inquiries—about whether there has been compliance: how many Aboriginal people have been employed in this division, where is it disclosed, why has it not been disclosed? etc. So it is important that agencies of government do account for what they are doing, whatever the obligation is, and there are a lot of them. A department has to disclose, for example, the nature and number of workplace injuries, just to name a few of the areas of extra obligation to report on in the annual reports, in addition to its normal business.

My department is no different. If we look at the Attorney-General's Department, the Attorney-General's annual report has to lodge a lot of this information during the year to the various agencies. It has to report on a number of those benchmarks and KPIs in relation to what it has done, and it has to be able to account for that data. Some of it is not now put in the published annual report that comes to parliament because under a Premier and Cabinet circular of former Premier Weatherill he indicated that a number of the pieces of information that come in the published and tabled annual report can now just be left online, and you have to scramble around to try to find it. We have all had that experience. Nevertheless, he issued what was to happen.

Our government have not changed that, but we have tried to make sure that we can actually find this information, including financial accounts, for example, so that we can get the full picture of the reporting of those departments. Over the years I have been here, I can tell you that the Attorney-General's Department used to have separate annual reports for a number of its units. For example, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights used to give an annual report at one stage under the previous government. He had not actually done that for the first five or seven years of operation. Nevertheless, once he was reminded that he had to do it, the former Attorney made sure that it happened and he put in a bulk amount and complied.

Then I found, within a very short time, that his report disappears completely and we just get a couple of pages and then a couple of lines in the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department. These things do change over the years, but, as a government for transparency, we think that all the data that is collected and made available through the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment is important data. It is an important measure for the agencies to deal with their compliance obligations.

When we do have the process of the development of the charter, which will also be an accountability process once it is signed up to and has gone through the process of consultation, etc., it will need to be considered in that light. We have a little way to go yet to actually do it. We are not here, as I keep repeating, as either a government or asking the parliament to be prescriptive about what is in there, other than the two things that I have read out in relation to principles of the multiculturalism application in South Australia and, of course, the First Nations people to be recognised.

Can I just say that it does seem a little unusual of the member that we would be looking at this because, in looking at the 2017-18 annual report—the period of nine and a bit months for which the member was the minister—it seemed that the previous board, which included the chair of the current commission, was able to do all those things in its annual report. Indeed, you can all have a look at it. For those who have not read it, I think it is important that we always read annual reports. I have spent a fair bit of my time reading people's annual reports over the last 20 years, let me tell you, and I find them very interesting and very illuminating at times, and this is one of them.

In their report, they point out their role as a commission and their building community capacity—they have a whole chapter on that. They have a whole chapter on promoting multiculturalism, a whole chapter on access and equity and a whole chapter on interpreting and translating services. Even under the previous administration—without even having a charter and all these other things—these sorts of important areas of work of the commission in reporting to the parliament about what it does and how it assists with departments, etc., in doing its work, are there, and it is annually accounted to us. If you want to drill down into the data, which is what people like me like to do, you go through websites and you can find that material separately as well.

I would urge the members of the opposition to reflect on what is there. It seems a common thing that people come in and say, 'We want you to add this into a piece of legislation to do this,' and, even in the face of there being myriad obligations at law for compliance already, they still want to add it. I am not going to complicate this any further. I indicate that these are all important and meritorious things to benchmark on and to do—there is law already providing for it to be done, tick; and this is not necessary, tick.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: A key part of this bill that we are looking at for the first time in 39 years is an act to advance multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia. With this amendment, I am endeavouring to make sure that we take the charter, when it is formed, to its truest effect. One of the areas that we can provide leadership in is particularly within the Public Service. I agree to disagree with the Attorney, because it is not reported upon.

I gave examples of the Australian Public Service in Queensland, who do report on that, but we do not report on it here. This is an opportunity for us to truly show the commitment to advance multiculturalism and to recognise that there are barriers. The way we can truly do that is to monitor it and to report upon it, just as we have done in other areas, including people with disabilities, people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent and, looking at gender, women.

This is an opportunity that is before us today. I think that the amendment is very clear in its intention to give effect to the charter and for state authorities to report on this and to actively engage the elements of the charter that are going to be incredibly important to the future of South Australia, so I ask the people of the committee to support this amendment.

The committee divided on the new clauses:

Ayes 21

Noes 21

Majority 0

The CHAIR: The result of the division is that there being 21 ayes and 21 noes, the vote is tied. In light of that result, I give my vote for the noes.

New clauses thus negatived.

Clause 20.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, are there any regulations or subject matter that have been identified in consultation that is likely to be regulated and, if there is, will the minister—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Can members find their places, please. I understand there are conversations that go on from time to time but we are in committee here.

Mr SZAKACS: Has any subject matter been identified in consultation that is likely to be regulated and, if so, will the Attorney undertake to consult widely on those regulations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not aware of any subject matter that is proposed to be the subject of regulations. I understand that under the current act there are no regulations. This is a standard form to make provision for them if that seems to be appropriate. But, other than that, it is simply there for that purpose and there has been no draft prepared of any regulations. I should add that, should that occur, then the proper and usual process is that regulations are consulted upon.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–5]—

Page 11, after line 24 [Schedule 1, clause 3]—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) Despite subclause (1) (and sections 6(1) and 7), the members of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission in office immediately before the day on which clause 2 of this Schedule comes into operation will be taken to be appointed under this Act as the members of the Multicultural Commission and—

(a) each member will hold office for the remainder of their term of office (being the term for which they were appointed to the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission before its dissolution) and on the conditions of that appointment; and

(b) the member appointed to chair the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission will be taken to be appointed as the presiding member of the Multicultural Commission.

I indicate that the terms of appointment of the current South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission members ended on 30 June 2020. Members were reappointed for a further 12 months until 30 June 2021. It was anticipated that that time frame would allow for the appointment of a commission under the new legislation. As the new legislation may not be assented to by 1 July 2021, the commission will need to be appointed under the terms of the existing legislation.

The government is aware that if the bill passes it will be in close proximity to the appointment of the commission so, rather than going through the appointment process again, we have implemented a new expression of interest process. We took on board the feedback received from the multicultural sector stakeholders during the 2019 Multicultural Legislative Review which called for an open and transparent process in selecting future members of the commission.

That is why, in the interests of running an independent and impartial expression of interest process, we engaged the recruitment agency Hender Consulting to manage the process. Expressions of interest for positions for SAMEAC opened on Friday 7 May and closed on Monday 24 May 2021. There was a response to the expressions of interest, I am advised. Through this expression of interest, we are seeking to fill the vacancies for the chair and up to 14 member positions—that is the 15 total—from 1 July 2021 for a term of up to three years.

South Australians from a diversity of cultural backgrounds, genders, life experience, ages and geographic locations are encouraged to apply for this opportunity. I do not think there is anything else I need to explain about what it is doing, other than to say that instead of simply extending it for 12 months—this is the way I will try to simplify it—as we have done previously, we have taken on board that there wanted to be some further information about what needed to be called for and disclosed for people wanting to have a chance to be able to put their hand up. We have recognised that and we have introduced an expression of interest process for the dates identified to accommodate those matters which are foreshadowed in this legislation.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This expression of interest process has occurred while we are still debating the bill, which seems quite unusual to me as a process to take place, given that people are expressing an interest for a commission that they do not have the details about. It is even more curious to me that we have outsourced this recruitment to Hender Consulting. I understand that those expressions of interest closed on Monday this week. Can you tell me how many people applied and the cost of the recruitment process through Hender Consulting?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have those particulars as to the number. Presumably the Premier or someone in his department receives that and deals with it. But I have just explained, and I will say it again, that the reason why the government has not simply said, 'This legislation has not passed, so we are just going to appoint all these through the same process,' is that we have clear notice from the general community, which everyone seems to accept, that it needs to be a broader and more transparent approach and that we need to be able to offer the invitation generally.

The government could simply do what we have always done, but we all know from this consultation that there is an expectation that this be broader and more transparent. That is what the government is trying to do here and to do that as an uncontroversial aspect of the consultation that everyone agrees to. If it was controversial, if the opposition were saying to us, 'We do not want you to say that we need to have people with broader experience. We do not want this to be an open thing. We just want the cabinet to go on picking whoever it wants,' if they wanted to say that, say it.

But we have listened to what the public say they want and these communities want. It is in the consultation process. We are in the middle of this legislation; it has not passed. There have not been appointments as such. We are just indicating that we have listened and we are happy to accommodate that in this interim arrangement.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Attorney, who will make the recommendations from this expression of interest process? Will it be Hender Consulting, a paid consulting firm that we have hired, or will the Department of the Premier and Cabinet make a recommendation to the minister of who should be on the commission?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure who is on the panel to give the recommendations ultimately to the Premier, but it is a process which is the usual. If you employ a consulting agency, you ask them to go out, publish it widely with specific areas of interest if that is going to be helpful. For example, I would imagine—and I do not know the detail exactly about where this was advertised—you would not just put an ad in The Australian for this or even The Advertiser.

You would surely be able to put it on the websites and invite through information to penetrate those who are in the multicultural community because that is what is important. If you were trying to do a health board, you would make sure that you contacted the AMA and make sure it was in their newsletter if you wanted to have doctors on something.

I am not the expert on the process there but, as best as I understand it, it would be, through the consulting agency, to come back with numbers of people to say, 'Yes, these people all qualify. They live in South Australia, they have experience, etc., and here's the list.' The panel looks at them and the panel then comes to the minister (the Premier) and those decisions are then made. From memory, it is ultimately a matter that comes to cabinet and the Governor therefore makes the appointments.

Mr SZAKACS: Is a public servant or a member of staff from DPC on the panel?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the composition of the panel, as I have indicated. That would be a matter for the Premier.

Mr SZAKACS: The Premier could potentially come down and answer it, or would you like to either take that on notice or ask your advisers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to take it on notice.

Mr SZAKACS: While you are at it, you have also indicated that you are not sure about the number of expressions of interest or applications and you are also not sure about who is on the panel. Will you take those on notice in between houses to provide that information?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The first one was: who is on the panel and the number? Now you are asking me for the members on the panel. There are two issues I think you are asking: who is on the panel and how many have responded or been recommended up to go to the panel?

Mr Szakacs: You can take them on notice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Both of those I am happy to take on notice, but there are not three, that is all. Is there a third one that you have incorrectly read out or not?

Mr SZAKACS: No, you indicated that you do not know who is on the panel; I asked if you would like to take the opportunity to ask your advisers and you said no. My question was: who is on the panel and is a member of DPC on the panel? They are two different questions.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that as one question and both complements of it, thank you.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Long title.

The CHAIR: The final question before the Chair is the title of the bill.

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The CHAIR: Do you have a question about that?

Mr SZAKACS: More offering the Attorney indulgence. Would you like a moment, if necessary, for the minister to be here? I know that he has not been in the chamber or contributed to the second reading.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is totally disorderly, of course, for the member to reference any of the members who are not in the chamber.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is quite correct. The Attorney-General has carriage of this bill, so I am going to put the question.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (12:53): I would just like to put on record why this should very much be a bipartisan bill. For many of the key elements, we certainly are in agreement. We want to advance multiculturalism and interculturalism. But there are three elements the government disappointingly made the decision not to contain within this bill. There was an accusation that some of it was made up by the Australian Labor Party, that we just pulled it out of the air, and I have said how offensive that was to me.

We will seek again in the other place to raise these issues, the first being a contribution within the parliamentary declaration of the diversity of migrants, migrants who come here a temporary basis, because we do want to acknowledge their contribution. We will also be raising again that a function of the commission be about raising awareness of the harm racism causes and, thirdly, I will once again seek, through the other process, through the debate, to truly advance multiculturalism through monitoring and reporting in the South Australian Public Service. While this is an area of bipartisan support, we have missed an opportunity to truly advance this.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:55): I acknowledge and thank all members of the parliament who have made a contribution to the debate on this matter, including during the committee stage, in the progress of the bill. I also wish to acknowledge and thank the commission itself for its service and indication of support. In particular I would like to acknowledge the current commission board members:

Mr Norman Schueler OAM, Chair, who has extensive business experience in South Australia and who has been very actively involved in the Jewish community.

Mrs Antonietta (known as Toni) Cocchiaro, his deputy, who has a legendary influence and contribution to education in this state. She has also been significantly recognised for her service to the Italian community.

Mrs Laura Adzanku, who works with the African Communities Council of South Australia and who has also been very active over some time now in support of her communities, particularly the advancement of African women through their federation.

Mr George Chin, who has been actively involved in his community since migrating to Australia in 1992 and who works in business in Chinatown in the Central Market Precinct. We thank him for his service.

Ms Adriana Christopoulos, who has considerable experience in academia, and also as a local government representative, and has served on the Australia Day Council.

Cav. Maria Maglieri, who comes from a family who has been inspired by the great wine regions of South Australia and now has extensive operations in the McLaren Vale area.

Ms Thuy Phan, who arrived in Australia is a Vietnamese refugee via boat at age 13.

Dr Valdis Tomanis, who has made a very substantial contribution to his community and who was born in a refugee camp in Germany in 1947. His service to the Latvian community is very well known.

Dr Sridhar Nannapaneni, who is a committed community leader in the Indian community, and who has been very passionate about supporting migrants from his community.

Mr Muhama Yotham, who has experience over the past 12 years working with refugees and migrants through the Australian Migrant Resource Centre and the Refugee Council of Australia, as well as a number of other organisations, promoting the cause. He produces a very contemporary influence and contribution to the board.

Dr Ning Zhang, who is well known for her work as a senior lecturer at the University of Adelaide, as well as being an ambassador for the OzAsia Festival. She has considerable experience in relation to translation expertise.

Mr Ahmed Zreika, who is the general manager and co-founder of his family business and who has, since 2015, been a leader in the Islamic Society of South Australia.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney, we have just a minute to go before lunch.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will be taking some extra time, so I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.