Bills

South Australian Multicultural Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Mr PICTON: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): Four amendments have come from the Legislative Council. Deputy Premier, do you wish to speak?

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

That the Legislative Council's amandments be agreed to.

I refer to the amendments from the Legislative Council on the South Australian Multicultural Bill 2020. I think everyone would agree that this bill has had a fairly long gestation period, and it has taken a little time to go through both houses of parliament. I thank the members of the Legislative Council, those in the other place, for the work they undertook to accommodate some further issues that have been raised by various stakeholders. I indicate that the government will be accepting the amendments Nos 1 to 4. I will speak briefly in relation to each of those in indicating the government's position.

The first is a provision that a person who is going to sit as a member on the Multicultural Commission must be a person who is either an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia. As members would be aware, as has been made public, there has already been the appointment of a new composition of the South Australian Multicultural Commission and that a new chair and members have been appointed after a process of calling for expressions of interest, I suppose in its formal way, and a selection of those.

Indeed, I have attended a number of functions, as I am sure other members have, where the chair and/or those new members have attended, and so the new commission is already underway and is following the procedure foreshadowed in this bill. So that has occurred. I do not know whether there is any suggestion that any of those who have been appointed are not either an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia. Nevertheless, I do note that this is something that is not unreasonable, and I am sure that if there had been those who might have been now disqualified, having expressed their indication of interest or appointment, we would certainly have heard from them if this was going to cause them to have to resign from this commission.

The second matter identifies a specification of the gender balance and age diversity and, indeed, geographical residence of members of the commission. We have heard previously of the desire of the former commission to work very hard to have diversity of gender, employment, regional location and youth, and some of the difficulties that have occurred in attempting to encourage the youth in particular.

As members would know, the new chair of the commission is female, so already there has been a consideration of all the diversity elements that have been considered in the appointments. However, one issue remains, and I would encourage all members to give some thought to how they might encourage younger people in their constituencies to put up their hand for this area of responsibility.

It is a really important commission. We want it to have diversity to be reflective of the community. Of course, you cannot have an individual representative for every different cultural organisation in the state. That is not the objective here. The objective here is to recognise that gender, occupation, residence in an urban or regional area and some diversity in the age profile are significant factors in considering all the elements of those who are in our multicultural communities because they also are representative of those aspects.

No. 3, of course, simply deletes No. 4 and moves to No. 6 and I think that is self-evident. No. 4 is one which I think has been a sensible resolution of clarity in the proposed legislation to ensure that there is a recognition of the harm of racism. But, most importantly, and this is certainly a matter which I have been a strong advocate for, and which has now been the case for near 40 years with the establishment of the Equality Opportunity Commission and the role in the Office of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity—that is, the body that is to deal with areas of discrimination and racial vilification and such matters should be referred to them.

So it is making it very clear that in relation to the negative aspects, if people feel offended or discriminated against or in breach of the obligations, whether it is access to a school or employment or advancement, these are all areas that are commonly areas of discrimination. We need to be alert to that, but we also need to assure that we are not setting up a whole new role for the Multicultural Commission. The Multicultural Commission is: lead by example, provide education, give support and advice, etc, and obviously be able to champion through its charter and objectives the benefits of multiculturalism and interculturalism. With those few words, I commend the amendments to the house.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We would like to thank all the contributors to this bill. Can I say that the bill that we have before us today reflects much more in terms of where we were heading than in the beginning, because it was quite deficient when it was first laid before this house. There was a lack of recognition of traditional owners, our First Nations people, which was something that was emphasized quite strongly when you saw the consultation and the engagement.

We were very disappointed when we first saw it laid on the table because that did not seem to be detailed at all as was requested. There were many arguments within this bill, some of which the government addressed, including representation. What we have seen is that the other house has gone even further, and that is because they have been lobbied and advocated by people who felt that their voice was not heard.

I am talking in particular about former members of the commission because, of course, during this time a new commission was selected. The irony of it was that those people who spoke to the crossbench and to the opposition were not continued in those roles, and I know they are very disappointed about that.

They were raising with us very important issues. They raised with us issues about the resourcing of the commission. They raised with us the importance of the commission to be connected not only to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs but also to wider public sector agencies. One of the key aspects of this commission is to provide a voice for our diverse community, and they were very concerned that there was a watering down of their role as a commission.

We were able to remedy that because we raised those issues around resourcing and around the ability of the commission to speak freely with public sector agencies, but of course we did not agree with everything. I have had people ring me and email me with their concerns about some of the areas they felt were wise for us to pursue, given that it has been many decades since we have looked at this area, including reporting of diversity within our public sector.

Many other jurisdictions in Australia do this. The commonwealth does it, as do Queensland and New South Wales. We collect the data, as far as we understand; we just do not report on it. The one thing we know is that if you want something to change you must report, collect and proactively make differences. It was a disappointment for me that that was not included.

I turn to the amendments, and perhaps I can talk to amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 and then back to amendment No. 1. I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo in the other house for his activism and his interest, particularly with respect to amendment No. 2, which goes to the fact that we are keen to have representation not only from a gender perspective but also from regional South Australians to make sure their voice is heard. Of course, there is a great tradition of migrants going to our regional areas, and they have been fundamental to the economy. They have invested and created businesses, and we believe it is important that their voice is heard.

Of course, one of the other areas is to make sure that we have young people represented on the commission, and so that has now come into this bill. Amendment No. 3 deals with the number of meetings. Amendment No. 4 is personally incredibly important to me and to the functions of the commission, and that is to raise awareness of the harm that racism and other forms of discriminatory behaviour can do to multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia.

The Attorney and I had quite the discussion on this point and she raised, at the time, about the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity. What we have before us today with this amendment is to combine both of those, as in recognising that there is a function to raise awareness and also to endeavour that the commission is to advise and consult with the Office of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity, where it is appropriate, on matters relating to discrimination and racial vilification.

I think that this is probably a very significant aspect to this and I think that it is probably the best way forward. We have those with a statutory role within it, combined with the commission which will focus on awareness about the damage and educate our wider community. The amendment that I do not agree with, and the opposition does not agree with, is in regard to amendment No. 1, which is:

A person must not be appointed as a member of the Multicultural Commission unless the person is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia.

This comes in under the constitution of the Multicultural Commission, and there are many reasons why this amendment does not sit well with the intent or the spirit of this legislation.

Australian citizenship and permanent residency have often become aspirational for many migrants and their families, and people come to Australia in many different ways, often as temporary residents. We have particularly seen the stories, and just recently we have talked quite extensively about our Afghan community. Those who came to Australia in non-traditional ways are often on Bridging visas, which are temporary visas, for many years—sometimes more than a decade.

What we are instituting here is that their voice is unable to be representative on the commission. I do not agree with that. I think that having this in here as part of the constitution is unnecessary, and what should be the focus of the commission is the widest possible representation of our diverse multicultural commission.

Only in recent times have we had our Coalition government try to prevent people achieving Australian citizenship by lifting the bar to do a test of university-standard English, a test that perhaps many Australian-born people would not pass. While that was eventually not pursued by the government, there is a group of people who want to make Australian citizenship harder and more out of reach for people. I completely disagree with that.

We want more people to feel connected to Australia, to feel that they are welcome here regardless of where they were born and how they came to be in Australia. The pathway to citizenship and permanent residency is incredibly important for that to happen.

One of the key aspects of our amendments to this bill was to recognise the contribution that migration, temporary migration and refugee settlement have made to multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia. This amendment will exclude new migrants, residents on Temporary Protection visas, students, and a large number of migrants working in a range of fields will be unable to contribute or be a member of the commission.

I raise my concern here today, as the lead speaker for the opposition, to say that we do not support that amendment. I think it is unnecessary and I think the commission should be able to be reflected by the widest possible representation of our migrant community.

Mr SZAKACS: I rise to make some short remarks on this, firstly to thank the member for Ramsay for her leadership on this matter, both in her time as a minister and now as the shadow minister for multicultural affairs. It would not be going too far to say that it has been entirely the opposition that has led the agenda on this reform. We have been waiting years—since consultation began on this bill—before a bill, as deficient as it was, was brought before this house.

By the time the bill was brought before the house, the currency of that consultation was already tired and lacking. That was the feedback we got from stakeholders immediately when we met with them and discussed it, something that the Attorney had not done. I do not blame the Attorney for this; it is not her job to be doing the Premier's job for him. The Attorney is not the Minister for Multicultural Affairs: it is in fact the Premier, as strange is that might be, considering his lack of interest in this area. The Premier could not even bring the bill before—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): There is a point of order. The member for Morialta, the Minister for Education.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There is indeed a reflection on another member, contrary to standing orders—utterly outrageous.

Mr SZAKACS: It is for the member who is the subject of a personal reflection, alleged or otherwise, to bring that to the attention of the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: I take offence at the suggestion that as Deputy Premier I do not have a responsibility and role in relation to this matter—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —as a member of the cabinet. Secondly, the assistant minister is, of course, in the other place and she does a sterling job in the multicultural community and in this debate in the other place. I think it is a poor reflection by the member against all members here who have taken an interest in it. As Deputy Premier, I take offence and I seek an apology.

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): The member that the member for Cheltenham was reflecting upon is not here. Nonetheless, I would encourage the member for Cheltenham to address the substance of what is before us here today.

Mr SZAKACS: My pleasure. The substance of this is directly to the fact that the Attorney-General is not the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. As great as she may or otherwise be on reflection of that, she is not the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. The Premier is the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and the Premier, who is the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, did not bring this bill to this chamber. He did not participate in the committee stage. In fact, if the Attorney would perhaps pay attention for a moment, she would actually see that I am giving her a compliment in this in that she is doing—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): Member for Cheltenham, just a moment. It is also disorderly to reflect on the presence of another member in the chamber. I would ask you to return to the substance of what is before us here.

Mr SZAKACS: Once again, the Attorney is doing the carrying and the heavy lifting for the Premier. Once again, the Attorney—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): There is a point of order from the member for Morialta.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member for Cheltenham is not respecting the ruling that has been given by the Chairman of the committee stage. I think it amounts to obstruction, but I ask you again, sir, to bring him back.

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): Thank you, minister. Member for Cheltenham, I would urge you to address what is before us here today: the amendments.

Mr SZAKACS: Sure. I withdraw any compliments that I have sought to provide to the Attorney-General, who—

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): Member for Cheltenham, I think this is completely unnecessary. I have asked you to address your comments to—

Mr SZAKACS: But, with respect—

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): No, I am speaking. I have asked you to address your remarks to what is before us, which of these amendments. So could you please do that?

Mr SZAKACS: Mr Acting Chair, this is the committee stage, where we have a broader capacity to discuss matters before us. I am specifically discussing—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: this is not a broad, free-ranging position. We are in committee on the amendments, and the rules are very clear in relation to addressing the matters before us, which are the four amendments.

The ACTING CHAIR (Dr Harvey): Member for Cheltenham, I ask you to address your comments to the amendments that are before us. So could you please do that?

Mr SZAKACS: I am happy to, Mr Acting Chairman. Thank you to the Hon. Frank Pangallo in the other place for bringing these to the Legislative Council. We were not able to persuade enough people in this chamber to support these amendments, but they are very clearly supported by the opposition.

I do put on the record my deep opposition to amendment No. 1, which will further limit the franchise of non-citizens in this important area of public policy. We have spent a lot of time over the last six or seven weeks on both sides of this chamber and both sides of the political divide supporting and encouraging the welcome of the newest arriving refugees in the state, that being those from Afghanistan. All of those refugees, not just in this state and in this city but right across this country, are largely on temporary visas of some sort. They are disenfranchised from participating in this representative and advisory body. We do not think that is the right thing to do, albeit that the other amendments that are before us are of merit. They were championed by Labor, and we are very happy to support them.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): As the amendments were moved en bloc, and in regard to the position that has been put by Labor, we are going to vote on the amendments individually.

Amendment No. 1 carried; amendment No. 2 carried; amendment No. 3 carried; amendment No. 4 carried.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: