Bills

First Nations Voice Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (15:40): I rise to make a brief contribution to the First Nations Voice Bill. As many of my colleagues have already done in this place, I would like to again, as we do at the start of every sitting day, acknowledge that we gather as a parliament to debate these bills on the land of the Kaurna people, and I would like to pay my personal respects to elders past, present and emerging.

I would also like to acknowledge that members of this chamber, including myself, are speaking from a place of privilege. As a non-indigenous Australian, I acknowledge that I cannot truly speak for First Nations people or for the impact that this bill will have on their communities. That is not my story to tell.

First Nations people have been living on this continent for at least 65,000 years. During this time, they have adapted to the extremes of the Australian landscape and fostered a deep connection to the land that still stands to this day. As I said, I am speaking from a place of privilege, and I say this because we have seen arguments against this bill and against the referendum for a federal Voice to Parliament, which go along the lines of, 'Why should First Nations people have a Voice to Parliament when there are other minorities or other sections of society which are not given their own dedicated voice, which are not given their own say outside of our representative democratic structures?'

At first glance, of course, these arguments may seem persuasive, but the comparisons simply are not appropriate. Within the context of our relatively affluent Western society, I am the product of a disadvantaged background. I was born and raised on a council estate in North London. My family then emigrated and settled in the working class suburb of Elizabeth. The expectation for someone like me to succeed and thrive was pretty low. But again, my circumstances simply do not compare to a people who have suffered intergenerational trauma as a direct result of an invasion of their country and the historical attitude of those who arrived in their country towards those people, entirely on the basis of a historical and constructed view of hierarchy and superiority.

The discrimination against our First Nations peoples is deep and it is structural, and it is so deep and embedded in our history and our shared world view that it is difficult for some people to see and accept. Indeed, the assumptions of our society, which this bill and other so-called symbolic measures seek to address, go back further than European colonisation of Australia, and it is important that we take a look at this through a historical lens so that we can understand the assumptions on which a lot of the public discourse on this issue rests.

Racism, as the Deputy Premier and others have pointed out, is a construct. It has no basis in genetics, but the idea of race, of course, has a powerful history. A hierarchy of race permeates British history for at least the last thousand years, and I say this as someone who has no small amount of pride in my own English heritage. I have to say, in passing, that I was deeply moved by a lecture delivered by Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson, who laid out in very stark confronting terms the foundations on which our legal and political system is built. It set me to really thinking about those foundations before I spoke today.

Racial prejudice, as I said, may well have been a feature of society for thousands of years. We only need to read Shakespeare and his contemporaries to find disparaging references to ethnic groups set against the dominant culture, but it was of course the slave trade from the 16^th to the 19^th centuries which cemented and legitimised the already widespread view that certain races, particularly those with dark or black skin, were inherently inferior to those who controlled that trade.

The discourse which grew up around that legitimised the slave trade, with the explicit support of the then monarchy, of the constitutions of those countries involved in the slave trade and of the laws which governed the ways in which they behaved. There was a hierarchy of race, a construction which placed those with black skin at the bottom. Indeed, in the 16^th century, the Oxford dictionary defined blackness as 'being deeply stained with dirt, foul, iniquitous, atrocious, horrible, wicked'. It was against this backdrop that Europeans arrived in Australia.

When Willem Janszoon arrived on the west Cape York Peninsula, he described the First Nations people he encountered as 'savage, cruel, black barbarians'. The historian Michael Meadows, who has written extensively on early colonial attitudes, quotes diary entries of colonists which described Aboriginal people as 'the most miserable of the human form under heaven, more like monkeys than warriors' and as 'altogether the most stupid, insensible set of beings'. Read today, of course, these are confronting descriptions.

This ingrained assumption of a racial hierarchy was inadvertently, I think, weaponised by the widespread dissemination of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which, of course, was groundbreaking and world changing, but it had, we must assume, the unintended consequence of further legitimising the view of a hierarchy of human races, leading to the idea of terra nullius, the guilt-free invasion of the lands of the First Nations people, the paternalism of our early laws and constitution, the overt racism of the White Australia policy, and the arguably well-meaning but ultimately misguided policies which led to the shame of the stolen generations.

This is the historical background on which this debate is being had. It is this received reality which permeates our culture. It serves to separate in the minds of many the so-called commonsense opposition to measures like the Voice from the real collective memory and the reality for thousands of First Nations peoples. I do want to add on top of all that that I do not believe that the opponents of this bill and the opponents of a concept of a Voice to Parliament are racist or are motivated by racism, or I hope that that is, in the main, true. I just want to put into historical context the debate we are having and the cultural preconceptions that measures like the Voice are seeking to redress.

The bill represents a significant moment in our shared history. South Australia is yet again at the forefront of progressive change. It was in 2019 that Labor and then opposition leader Peter Malinauskas made the commitment to deliver a state-based Voice to Parliament. This was reiterated in the 2022 state election campaign, and on coming to office we immediately got to work on commencing in-person and online consultations.

The First Nations Voice Bill is a substantial step towards improving the economic, social and political situation of Aboriginal people in our state. It is a simple step. As others have acknowledged, it is not the silver bullet, but it is an essential step in giving those people a voice to our parliament. Government leaders in the past have attempted to fix the very real problems that First Nations people face in today's society: poverty, poor educational outcomes, distressing figures around incarceration, particularly around the incarceration of Aboriginal male youths. But it is fair to say, as others have recognised, that those policies have largely failed.

It is our view that if we are really invested in closing the gap, we need to include the advice and experiences of those we are trying to help. The First Nations Voice Bill is fundamentally different from the old policies that have failed Indigenous Australians. For the first time, First Nations people will be able to speak directly to the heart of government. The Local First Nations Voices will be directly elected by the First Nations peoples living within the region the Voice is to represent.

With a State First Nations Voice deriving from at least six Local First Nations Voices, this bill promotes self-determination and inclusivity for all ages and genders from the grassroots level. The State First Nations Voice will communicate directly with the South Australian parliament and government to present the views on matters of interest to Local Voices; to provide an annual address on issues affecting First Nations peoples; to speak through its joint presiding members on the floor of the parliament in relation to any bill it considers relevant; to present reports on issues affecting First Nations people, either of its own initiative or on request of either house of parliament; to meet with cabinet and departmental chief executives at least twice a year; and to hold an annual engagement hearing with ministers and chief executives on initiatives and expenditure within their agencies affecting First Nations people.

The opportunity to advise the parliament and the government on issues affecting First Nations people will be deeply felt by many members of the First Nations community in Australia, but not least in my own electorate of Elizabeth. Elizabeth is home to almost 2,000 First Nations people.

I have reflected at times in this place that, when I arrived in Elizabeth in 1981, it was monocultural. I was wrong—it was not monocultural. Of course, it was bicultural. There was an overwhelming number of people who looked like me and then there was a very small number of people who were First Nations people. So I want to correct the record right now.

Elizabeth is home to almost 2,000 First Nations people. Within the City of Playford, the suburb of Elizabeth South is home to the highest proportion of First Nations people. Elizabeth is also home to Marni Waiendi, which is the valuable community service that connects First Nations people with mainstream and Indigenous-specific services through information and direct referrals. The centre also offers first-aid training, driver education and leadership and literacy courses, removing the barriers to opportunity.

I would like to briefly acknowledge a young local in my electorate, Kiana Stewart, who has been able to build up her qualifications through Marni Waiendi to help secure one of her dream jobs. Kiana was able to access first aid, White Card and driver training through Marni Waiendi, to prepare her for a traineeship in early childhood education. Now in her early 20s, Kiana is set on becoming a mentor or support worker for Aboriginal students within schools. Having a mentor when she was growing up, Kiana knows firsthand the impact such support and guidance can have on one's life. Kiana is now embarking on her education journey in childhood education and care, and Aboriginal studies, and I think she will be a strong voice for young Aboriginal people in South Australia and, in particular, the northern suburbs.

Before I finish I would like to acknowledge, as others before me have, the Commissioner for First Nations Voice, Dale Agius, for his extraordinary work in leading the consultations for this bill, which have been extensive, and ensuring that the bill is consistent with the spirit and objectives of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. As others have, I want to acknowledge the strong leadership and the hard work of both the Premier and the Attorney-General, Kyam Maher in the other place.

The Premier and Kyam Maher in the other place knew this was the right thing to do to fully deliver on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. They never shied away from it. At times it was a brave decision and at times it has been seen as controversial in some quarters, but it has always been the right thing to do and I think that the Premier and, in particular, the Attorney-General are to be commended for this.

As I said, and as others have said, we know this is not a panacea. The passage of this bill does not mean that we neglect our responsibility to take other measures to redress the deep inequality in our society, the educational outcomes, the mortality rates and, of course, the horrendous rates of Indigenous incarceration. I believe, and we believe on this side of the house that, to make any of this work, we need to hear loud and clear the voices of our First Nations people. That is why it is time for us to take a seat, to listen and to act. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: Will the government be continuing the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The government is currently considering whether or not to continue with that body, so we do not have a definitive answer for this bill.

Mr TEAGUE: I put that question in terms that were put to the minister in June last year at estimates and the minister's answer, to the member for Dunstan as it happened on that occasion, was along the lines of the Deputy Premier's answer just now. I take the opportunity again—I think I might have referred to this in my second reading contribution. The government at that stage had no intention to alter the council and, in terms of continuing to extend or appoint its members, the minister gave an indication that he would be taking advice and turning his mind to that, and again it was something that he would be looking at and taking a decision on. So, in that sense, the answer just now indicates, I suppose, that that remains the view of the government.

In the circumstances, perhaps just slightly more fulsomely than I outlined in my second reading speech, of course this comes against the background of the bill that was before the last parliament—the Marshall Liberal government bill—that was predicated upon replacing the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council with the Aboriginal Representative Body, as was explained by Professor Roger Thomas at pages 22 and 23 of his report as the South Australian Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement covering the work that he did between July 2018 and November 2020. I commend the whole report to those who are interested in this subject, but more particularly those pages 22 and 23 that provide that background. We will come to it further in a moment.

Of course, it is all very well to talk about the broader historical context with which we come to consider legislating in this place at this time, but I really do want to emphasise that the more particular context in which we come to debating this bill is a matter of merit and substance that ought—in my respectful view, and again I put it on the record—have proceeded expressly off the foundation of the work of Professor Roger Thomas; that is, the engagement process that he undertook and the feedback that was obtained over the course of 2018, 2019 and 2020.

As we also learned in the course of estimates last June, that was not the course that the minister took, that the government took. The minister, when that question was put, said rather to the contrary, 'We will do our own work,' and then what we have seen in my view is the unnecessarily described as inaugural, described as novel and so on, establishment of the role of commissioner in terms of the work that Dale Agius has then carried on in the course of the second half of calendar year 2022—two rounds of consultation leading to a draft bill in about November and a final bill that was circulated shortly prior to the introduction of the bill that we are here debating.

That in fact is the foundation upon which the work ought to have expressly proceeded, but I am concerned with the nature of the model insofar as nothing I have heard so far indicates that the model is set to replace the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council—we will come to it when we get to clause 7—or any other current action or engagement by Aboriginal bodies. In highlighting that point at the outset and Dr Roger Thomas's work towards the way in which this might provide a pathway forward, I hope it might provide, for those who are interested in the debate and the way it has progressed, some better context.

I might just say for completeness—I was given to understand that the Premier was going to conduct the committee process, and I would have taken the opportunity to ask him directly, so I will just put it on the record again—when the Premier on 7 February indicated on ABC radio that we did not see a bill in the course of the last parliament, the Premier highlighted what perhaps characterises the extent of his engagement in the process. If nothing else it underscores that, so far as the government is concerned, there has been a, as it were, putting aside of that very substantial aspect of the history of engagement on this topic.

I would say perhaps one thing more. In terms of the range of contributions—because it was a relatively extensive second reading debate in the course of October and November 2021—the criticism, such as it was, that was directed at the bill as then presented was what was described as an inadequate consultation process, an inadequate lead time prior to its introduction to the house, and so on. Again, the minister had the opportunity in estimates last year and did not have anything further to add in that regard. I have not heard anything rising any higher than that in terms of direct engagement with that model.

The government would come along to the parliament, as it were, against the context of hundreds and thousands of years of history and then, again, against the context of what has happened between about August 2022 and now. It is important both for the purposes of the record of work that has been done and in terms of confronting and comparing the detail of the different models that it led to that there was this really very significant and productive body of work led by Dr Roger Thomas over those years of the previous government. I again pay tribute to him. I got to know him over the process, and I have a lot of respect for Dr Thomas. My second question in relation to clause 1 is: what exactly was Dr Roger Thomas engaged with post 30 June last year and what, if anything, is his role going forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is not something that we have a briefing on here, and nor is it something that is germane to the contents of this bill. I can take it on notice and see if the minister wishes to give a response.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 4 provides eligibility criteria for voting. It is not complete—we need to go to schedule 1, part 3 at clause 7 in order to then take the step of a positive declaration of that eligibility—but clause 4 deals with the criteria for eligibility. It is a form of the tripartite test, and it has been referred to on a number of occasions. I think it captures the tripartite elements in a form that has been expressed in its own way. My question goes to clause 4(1)(c). Just for the sake of clarity, and the words are going to need to speak for themselves, it appears to me that the reference to the relevant community really must be the community in (a), but I wonder whether the Deputy Premier has anything to add about that.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Understandably, these matters are complex and sensitive. As I understand the question, the member is asking what constitutes a community for clause 4(1)(c). There is no exhaustive definition of that sitting in this piece of legislation. It is part of that tripartite test that is well established in Australia, that the relevant community accepts the person. If an Aboriginal person is able to state which group they are from and have not had their ties severed, say through stolen generation experience, then that becomes a relatively straightforward matter. In the case where that is unable to be claimed, then who constitutes the community that accepts is less easily defined.

What is reassuring about this is that should there be a wish to take it to court, then courts are able to review all of the evidence available, hear from members of the community who are willing to welcome the person as being an Aboriginal person and the court can make a final judgement. But the expectation is that the tripartite text is robust enough and is used in other circumstances to work as a way of identifying who is First Nations for this legislation.

Mr TEAGUE: I am grateful for the Deputy Premier's response. I note that it was preceded by a deal of time in considering what effect that might actually have. Again, I just want to emphasise that there is not an attempt here to read into the aim of the particular form of drafting, it is a particular attempt at expressing the tripartite test and that the words will need to do the work. Conscious of circumstances and realities about difficulties and all the rest of it, the words have to do some work.

It is helpful to have an understanding of whether the government's view of those words might be something other than that the relevant community is the one in (a). We will get to schedule 1, part 3, clause 7 and the kind of seriousness with which those who would participate in the voting process are going to have to subscribe and the consequences of that subscription so that it is in everybody's interest and primarily theirs.

I hasten to add I am not so eligible, at least as far as I am aware. It is in the interests of interpretation and knowing the seriousness with which the declaration in schedule 1, part 3, clause 7 will need to be entered into. I think I am just adding to the response and there is no fresh question perhaps. It seems to me clear enough that those words must relate to (a). It would be a pity, indeed, if we were to embark on a process where there is somehow some inherent uncertainty about what this means and we are embarking on a process where the courts are going to be called in to adjudicate about the meaning of the clause. That is quite apart from an individual's circumstances. It sounds like we might need to leave it at that.

Mr McBRIDE: It is very, very interesting when we talk about accepted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Could the minister explain to the parliament and perhaps to the people who are out there listening to this what role women and females play in the Aboriginal culture and how do you think they may play a part in this Voice process. It is my understanding they were very much divided in their communities between male and female.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Thank you to the member for his question. I am struggling a little to tie it firmly back to this clause. I understand the intent of the question, and in that spirit would like to seek to answer it.

In many Aboriginal cultures there are particular roles that are expected and are the responsibility of men and of women. In part in recognition of that, as well as, of course, our Australia-wide acceptance of the importance of recognising both genders as being of equal value, this legislation allows—in fact, requires—both a man and a woman to be elected by each person who is voting, and that there be both a man and a woman who will be the chair of each of the regional First Nations Voices and that that then translates to the Voice to Parliament as well, in order to make sure that there is equality from the start, something that has not been ensured in this parliament. That is in partial recognition of the matters that I believe the member is raising.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you for that answer. That was a difficult one, knowing a little bit of a history and having sort of seen these communities. Minister, one of the things that clause 4 talks about is:

(c) is accepted as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person by the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community.

One thing that has really perhaps failed us as an Anglo society in trying to assist and help Indigenous Australians, wherever that may be in South Australia or Australia, is finding the representatives that represent perhaps the largest cohort possible—not just in the one community—knowing there are many communities.

If this Voice process is going to work, deputy leader, then it is really, really important that these representatives are perhaps coming from the largest community, the largest base, largest in the sense of collective that can capture the sentiment of Indigenous Australia or South Australia, as this parliament is trying to deal with, for the best outcomes.

It is my understanding that if we look at the failure of history in trying to address the issues that I think we all would love to see answers to, the groundswell of solutions and answers is not getting back to the communities in which they are needed. So my question to you, deputy leader and minister, is: how are you going to make sure through this Voice process that the solutions and the message and the answers by these representatives to parliament are going to have the effect that we are looking for?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand the question, it is partly related to this question of a relevant community, recognising that there are a number of groups of Aboriginal people (sometimes called nations) that make up the rich tapestry of the variety of Aboriginal culture in South Australia. This piece of legislation does not seek to have a quota allocated on the size of each of those communities. It could have been something that someone wanted to suggest, but it is not something that this government proposes or supports.

The idea of this representation, this Voice, is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represent the culture that existed uniquely in Australia, including the Torres Strait Islands, and that it is able to be recognised in a special way as a unique Australian culture, and that the people who are the inheritors of that culture, the carriers of that culture, are the people who will choose those representatives from amongst their own.

I do not want to put words into the member's mouth in any way, but a possible interpretation of the question is that there would be a certain proportion that would be allocated to Kaurna people and that effectively only Kaurna people would be able to vote for those representatives. That is not the model that has been adopted, deliberately.

There is a recognition of the difference in population. You will see when we come to clause 11 that the size of the regional voices is able to vary. That will be defined by regulation, and that recognises that the metropolitan area might well have a larger regional voice than the regional areas.

What is not possible under this model, and would not be desirable in our opinion, is the idea, say, that Torres Strait Islander people who live in South Australia would be deprived of having a vote on the Voice because Torres Strait Islander culture does not come from South Australia (it comes from Torres Strait), or that people who grew up in Perth but now live in South Australia but are nonetheless Aboriginal people would be unable to vote for Voice because they are not living in their home town.

A decision early on was made that that was not a model that would be adopted, recognising that in the interests of having diversity there are regional voices from which is drawn the central Voice and that gender diversity is enshrined in the way in which we have structured this.

Mr McBRIDE: Just in regard to clause 4(2) and the fact that you talk about Indigenous people being able to vote and find a representative to the Voice that is obviously authentic and representative, trusted and perhaps the community has confidence regarding, when we have state and federal elections does the government have any understanding or idea about the percentage of Indigenous Australians, or Indigenous South Australians, who participate in voting in today's election system, and does the government expect this to increase or be better in defining who and how the Voice works for them?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The population of Aboriginal people, the proportion, is about 3 per cent. We do not track people's cultural background on the electoral roll to then be able to say what proportion of people were born in England but now live here and are citizens, people who were born here but their parents came from Greece, people who are Aboriginal, how they vote, whether they vote or not. We just do not collect that kind of data.

Mr TEAGUE: I think it might have been remiss of me not to have noted on the way through—and I will endeavour to do this—the contribution at submission 9 to the commissioner's second round of engagement that the author's name and details have been redacted. But I acknowledge that the author describes himself as a 60-year-old Aboriginal man, and his particular concern that is set out in submission 9 highlights the objective, as well as subjective, problems associated with self-identification and the problems that that causes.

Again, I have adverted to the step in schedule 1. We see there an expression of concern in relation to processes by which it will be necessary both to have the requirement that there be a declaration entered into and that there then be an appetite and capacity to ensure that there is probity and integrity in that process at every stage.

The CHAIR: I am not sure if that was a statement or a question. Minister, would you like to address that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Sorry, I did not hear it as a question, no.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr McBRIDE: In clause 5—Meaning of traditional owner, it says:

…reference to a traditional owner in relation to a particular place will be taken to be a reference to a First Nations person…

Deputy leader, when we look at all the issues that as a society we are trying to address here and find solutions for, is it really the traditional owners who are following cultural practices and who are really fully engaged in their earlier cultural type of lifestyle who are the real people we are trying to help? Do they recognise, do you think, that they have solutions for the new generations who have come after them? Minister, in that question, because it talks about the traditional owner here, are they the best people to seek solutions for what we believe are the problems to solve?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just clarifying, the reason why 'traditional owner' is being defined here is because, as I discussed earlier, if you are an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, you have a right to stand for election and you may choose to do that where you live, even though that is not where your cultural heritage derives from. For example, there are many APY people, Anangu, who live in my electorate some of the time or all of the time. A member of the Pitjantjatjara mob might well choose to stand in Adelaide but nonetheless has a cultural heritage that clearly ties back to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands.

At the same time, someone may say, 'Even though I live in Adelaide most of the time, I wish to stand in a place where I have my traditional ownership, where I have my cultural heritage.' This definition enables a mechanism for defining how the person would be able to say that that is where they want to stand. I think the earlier part of the member's question is more an esoteric one about the role which traditional culture plays, and I will not seek to answer that. We can have a conversation some time about my opinions, but I think in terms of the way in which this legislation is written, that is an important definition in order to facilitate the capacity for people to choose to stand for election in either place but not both.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 7 is one of those changes that arose from the second engagement round, so I have one eye on the first draft that was attached to the engagement report August to October, and one eye on the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill of 2021 and 2022. This takes us back to my opening in relation to the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council. The clause as it was in the draft—and it was then clause 7 of the draft—is in precisely the terms of clause 9 of the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill, and clause 9(2) in the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill translates to clause 7(2) in the draft of the Voice Bill. I here acknowledge the work of parliamentary counsel in relation to the Representative Body Bill, and all the way along.

It is trite but hard to resist again, in the context of the Premier's remarks, that parliamentary counsel's work in relation to engaging with me in the course of the process of considering this bill and amendments, as well as their work in terms of preparing the bill that we are now stepping through, was certainly made considerably more straightforward by the fact that there had been work done on the subject of the bill in 2021 and in 2022; indeed, the bill that is sitting on the private member's Notice Paper, including clause 9(2) as it was and clause 7(2). That is by way of lead-up.

The point of substance is that, as we have seen, the new clause as the minister described to me on my one and only substantive opportunity to hear from him in the lead-up to this on 24 January was introduced in response to many of the 42 submissions that were received in the second round from Aboriginal bodies of various kinds saying, 'Okay, go ahead with your initiative but, as advised, just don't step on our patch, just don't engage or change what we are presently doing,' and, if I might say with a little bit more force, in many of those cases going further to say, 'We are not actually convinced about the efficacy of this model and, in expressing something that perhaps rises to not greater than ambivalence, we urge upon you to at least step away from a model that is expressed in terms of ARB 9(2) or First Nations draft 7(2), which was expressly geared in terms of requiring the body to engage, consult, develop, reform, bring everybody along.'

We now see a clause 7 that expressly says completely the opposite. It says, 'Nothing to do with anything else, we won't be stepping on your toes,' and goes back to the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council and the reform or lack thereof in that regard and what we are seeing, which is a compartmentalising of groups and activities, including the addition of a group that is now expressly to operate in a universe on its own. It is important to put that context on the record, and I will say more when it comes to the particular form of engagement with the parliament.

The risk is that, in stepping through a process that has led to the change in clause 7, you are rendering the whole exercise unambitious and ineffective as well as, in terms of engagement, incoherent, because it is designed to step away from being coherent, and reforming the existing structures. Instead, it creates a new compartmentalised body that has, as it were, expressly removed from its remit the objective that we found in both the ARB and the first draft of this bill.

That is—and I say it for the sake of completeness—to the extent that they are performing a function, the ARB, or the State First Nations Voice as set out in the draft, must take reasonable steps to consult with and express views of that person or group they are engaging with. So we have seen a step away from that. I have characterised that in terms of a step away from ambition in terms of functionality, and I wonder if the Deputy Premier might be able to shed any more light on the reasons for that change in course from draft to what we see in the bill now.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not going to agree with your characterisation of the origins of this clause, having been the old clause 7(2) in the previous bill. That was drafted by the previous government and removed deliberately on the basis of its ineffectiveness, we felt, and that it was unnecessary once the consultation was undertaken.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Sorry, the original draft. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that it is beyond doubt that this piece of legislation does not stop the functions of other activity that Aboriginal people participate in. It may well be that the government makes other choices about the existence of other bodies but not as a direct result of the existence of this piece of legislation; that is what it is trying to do.

I think it is also acknowledging that the Voice is not the one chance that Aboriginal people get to interact with civil society and with government, that this is now their one and only place to have a voice on anything in any jurisdiction on any matter. The Uluru Statement from the Heart does not ask that everything else be abolished and be replaced by a Voice mechanism. What it says is, 'We have not been heard by parliament, we do not have a way of expressing, and we would like one.'

So this, as a result of the consultation, was regarded as the way in which we would ensure this piece of legislation acknowledges that there are other ways in which interactions occur and does not in itself bring an end to any of those.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you for that explanation and that goes some way to helping me ask my next question, Deputy Premier. When this clause 7 states that it is not meant to impose and affect the way of life of Indigenous or Aboriginal South Australians and even Torres Strait Islanders, my question to the Deputy Premier then is: does that mean that parliament, with its standing orders and its agenda, is going to have to be more nimble to make sure that it can meet the cultural importance of the members who do want to come to parliament, knowing that I and all MPs in this chamber, 47 of us, have to come in on 16 weeks in a normal sitting year? Obviously, when we have legislation and processes that we may be considering for the Voice, how do you guarantee that the parliament will meet cultural importance, activity and time lines?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Again, I want to try to answer the question, although I do not believe it is explicitly tied to this question of the existence of other bodies and that this legislation does not in itself prevent those other bodies from existing or acting. The question is nonetheless an interesting one about the way in which we will behave differently as a result of the existence of the Voice and the fact that in this legislation people from the Voice, representatives, are able to speak to us here about pieces of legislation. There will be a way in which parliament responds to that.

There is a clause that says that nonetheless parliamentary activity can occur—it is clause 40, so some distance away from where we are now—recognising that, for example in times of COVID, we passed legislation very, very quickly because we needed to because we were in a pandemic. So in terms of the nimbleness that might be taken away from us, that nimbleness is preserved further on in the bill. In terms of nimbleness in being able to accommodate having a representative of the Voice speaking to us, that is one of the challenges and opportunities that this piece of legislation offers us.

You do not get to wear these badges, do an Acknowledgement of Country, be friends with Aboriginal people and respect their culture without being required to do something, in my view, without being required to consider the impact of the existence of Aboriginal culture. That means the way in which we conduct ourselves outside as well as inside this chamber ought to be influenced by the fact of our reconciliation process, which this is a very big part of but is not the whole story of reconciliation for this nation.

Mr McBRIDE: I do understand the way you have tried to answer this. It is almost like I am getting the wrong end of the stick, and my apologies for that. Clause 7 says the act 'does not limit functions of other First Nations persons or bodies'. I just think if this parliament is going to discuss and resolve and find solutions, it will be in a legislative form. The First Nations may want to participate and involve themselves in the parliamentary processes. I am reading this as though the parliament now has to become more nimble and more adaptive to meet the requirements of clause 7, otherwise you are going to miss them.

They might have something more important to be doing out where they come from than to be able to turn up here in this chamber at the right time at the right place and have their voice heard. The question is: does the minister believe at all that the parliament has to become more nimble to meet the requirements of First Nations persons and representatives with all their cultural and important ceremonies and requirements, which can be given because of a death in the community or a very important meeting and cultural practices?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Again, I do not think it is this clause, but I do not think that matters because this clause is simply saying the APY Executive runs the APY. The existence of the Voice does not stop them doing that. It is just saying that the work that occurs with other bodies that Aboriginal people are involved with continues, exists and is not taken over, subsumed, by the Voice.

Nonetheless, the question you ask is about the way in which parliament conducts itself in order to facilitate an Aboriginal person who may, as a representative of the Voice, also have cultural obligations elsewhere, which I think is the connection that is being drawn, and therefore would be unable to come to give a representation at a particular time. It may be that when we have passed this piece of legislation and contemplate any changes to standing orders there may be accommodations considered, but it may well be that there will not need to be.

People who choose to be on the Voice will take their responsibilities very seriously, as we do as members of parliament. There will be a number of members of the Voice and therefore a number of opportunities for ways in which they might wish to interact. I would be surprised if, on every piece of legislation that we debate, a member of the Voice would want to come and address us. I would be surprised, although without prejudging choices that the Voice will make. I think what is more likely is that for the bills that are of interest to the Voice there will be a consideration made about whether they make representations through a report or in person, and our standing orders will accommodate how that can occur.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr TEAGUE: We are here talking about the functions of the Local First Nations Voices. I refer here to submission 23, the submission of AMYAC dated December 2022 and in response to the second round of engagement. The second recommendation of AMYAC is that the draft bill be amended to limit the Local Voice's functions to exclude matters concerning culture and country, noting the Local Voice is an inappropriate body to represent native title holder and traditional owner views on such matters.

I put the question to the Deputy Premier in this way: is it an example of the kind of compartmentalising that is at risk, given what we have seen clause 7 amended to? What capacity is there to reconcile the functions as set out in clause 15 on the one hand from the views expressed by the AMYAC board—and they are not the only one; it is an example of such a view—in this case in respect of the functions of the Local Voice?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The particular issue that is being referred to is around the question of native title. That is the concern that was largely raised in the submission, as I understand it. The Local First Nations Voice is not restricted on commenting on any particular matter of interest. We have not defined what matters of interest ought to be, and we are not restricting what comment might be made. That is very different to operating as a native title holder and making decisions.

Clause 7 makes it explicit that this Voice does not replace or prevent the activity of other bodies that exist, and clause 15 does not, by my reading, subsume the role of any native title group in making any decisions about native title. For that reason, the judgement is that there is no need to change that clause as a result of that submission.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr TEAGUE: It is here that once again we see an opportunity to compare the operations of the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council and the provisions of the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill against what appears to be a clear change of approach in relation to the prescription of meeting occasions, in this case for the Local Voice and the equivalent coming up in clause 29 for the State Voice as well.

We see in clause 16(2) a prescription that I think I have described in my second reading contribution as a prescription to meet rarely, that is, the Local First Nations Voice must meet four times but not more than six times each year. That is to be contrasted with the equivalent provision in the ARB that says 'meet at least so many times a year and go your hardest; be a body that engages'. Of course, in the ARB model there is a mode of engagement that is auguring towards perhaps much more frequent meeting in that the body would be engaging with a committee of the parliament. As we know, committees of the parliament meet as frequently as the parliament does. There is real meat and potatoes there. There is a real capacity to get on with it.

It has been described to me in terms of a rationale for this limitation approach as opposed to a minimum number approach as being about not making the obligation of a member appear to be more onerous than it ought to. Again, that might be characterised as a virtue or it might be something going to the real capacity for a body to be effective and productive. I wonder whether the Deputy Premier might agree or otherwise with that characterisation in terms of it appearing not too terribly onerous by constraining the number of meetings and whether or not there is any other rationale for constraining the meetings of the body.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Indeed, the rationale that was given by the Attorney in the other place, I think, is exactly as it has been characterised, that when people are considering whether they are going to stand for a Local Voice they need to have some sense of what the obligations are likely to be. It does not preclude Local First Nations Voices to meet out of session or in more informal circumstances but it does give a sense of what the obligations are like.

Although perhaps not prescribed by legislation, it is something that is pretty clear in government boards, for example. When I have approached people to see if they are interested in being on a government board one of their questions is usually, 'How many meetings are there?' to see if they are able to fit that into their schedule and their busy lives. The motivating factor is exactly to give that sense of this is the kind of obligation that is likely to be expected.

I have noted already that there may well be out-of-session informal meetings held, also noting that the minister is able to say that they can meet formally more if that is something that is asked for and there might be particular circumstances where that makes sense.

I will not say necessarily that Aboriginal people who are likely to stand are more busy than non-Aboriginal Australians standing for boards but I will say that my experience is that people who are in positions of leadership in the Aboriginal community are often asked to do a lot. There are a lot of appearances, and a lot of requests for advice. That often happens with minority groups where those people who become recognised leaders are often expected to be on a lot of committees and to provide a lot of advice. In order to not create an unending potential additional set of obligations for people who are likely to already be very much in demand, these clauses were regarded as being sensible to give some sense of expectation.

Mr TEAGUE: Again, I am grateful for the Deputy Premier's response in that matter and I hope that the Deputy Premier is right about that. If I might provide an alternative, it is that there is a risk in terms of a constraining of this kind that you head into territory where the body is actually meeting so rarely that there is not the capacity to form the sort of corporate momentum that one might expect of a—however you want to characterise it: momentous, significant, new, reforming—step. If I might put it in an even more jaundiced view, the risk that there is a titular or ceremonial aspect to the role if they are meeting only so rarely as that many times, and so the stress is therefore to have the opportunity to prove up the capacity to do the work.

It is not only me and it is not only the drafting of the ARB bill that is providing the model for an alternative. We see in the University of Adelaide's Public Law and Policy Research Unit's rather comprehensive submission and response to the second round, submission 35, saying, 'Well, if you are going to put a limit'—they are saying, effectively, read between the lines, why would you limit it? But if you are going to, then surely you ought to have the capacity to meet at least a dozen times a year before you start having to knock on the minister's door and say, 'Can we meet a bit more so that we can do some more work?'

I note that example of advocacy outside of my voice, and just express that concern that the body as it presently stands, if it is constrained to those four or not more than six meetings a year, it has that limited capacity to get on with it. I note in raising this to the minister that there has been some expression of willingness, should the body take a view that it wants to meet more often, but again it goes to the characterisation of the body and what in fact it is going to be doing and its purpose for operation. So I wonder: has the Deputy Premier considered the Public Law and Policy Research Unit's submission insofar as it goes to the frequency of meetings?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: All of the submissions were, of course, considered. I note that we have no amendment before us to do anything other than allow for the provisions as in the bill.

Mr McBRIDE: Regarding clause 16(2), 'Subject to this section, a Local First Nations Voice must meet not less than 4', what are the consequences of any Voice that does not meet four times, and what does the minister or the government do in regard to this outcome?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is no penalty attached to this clause, but we live in a world where we are voted for periodically, our positions; we are up to see if people will choose to have us again. It may well be that, in the event that a Local Voice did not meet and the membership were not doing that, they might have electoral consequences.

Mr McBRIDE: On that same clause, I have another question on clause 16(2). It may not be the fault of the committee. It may not be the fault of even the government if these four meetings are not adhered to or met. As I said, the difficulty can be capturing and gathering all the committee, the First Nations Voice committee, together. If they have come from far and wide, this can be a really difficult challenge and obviously, like all of us here, we would like to see the best representation, the best process to work through this. There being no penalties, I really do perhaps ask the Deputy Premier to again highlight, without going down the stick approach, what is the carrot here to make sure that four meetings are held, and if they are not, what other alternatives are there?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The main carrot is that, as for us, when you put yourself forward to be elected to do a job you tend to do it, because you get feedback from your constituency if you do not do it. Probably an alternative way of answering your question is to talk about the resourcing that is implicit in having this clause and this institution, or this series of institutions. There will be laptops provided, there will be technological facilities for people to be able to beam in if they are not able to be physically present. I am struggling to think of a serious scenario where a government board, as an equivalent, simply does not meet because people are not interested.

What we have is an institution that is being established, a mechanism for meeting that is being established. People have to go to some effort to be voted on. They will be resourced to meet a minimum number of times and perhaps a maximum, depending on subclause (3), and we should have a reasonable expectation that that will simply occur, without need for penalty and without need for explicitly talking about incentives.

Mr McBRIDE: Clause 16(9) states, 'A Local First Nations Voice must have accurate minutes kept of its meetings.' The resources towards these minutes, is it going to be a Voice representative? Is it going to be a government representative? If it is a government representative, are we accepting that the Voice and the committee, and the representatives who are on these Voices, First Nations committees, are going to have a full trust and belief that these minutes will be accurate?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There will be a secretariat to support these Local First Nations Voices. The Voice will make its own determination on the way in which it wants to take its minutes, but there will be resources available to support that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 and 18 passed.

Clause 19.

Mr McBRIDE: I refer to clause 19—Duty to act honestly. Could the Deputy Premier please inform the committee what the consequences are if this act is not adhered to?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: To answer the second part first, one can be removed from office if found not to be complying with this. The reason for having this clause is that Voice members are not public sector members, who are otherwise governed by a code of conduct, so it therefore essentially exists in this clause.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to the duty to act honestly—and obviously the representatives are on the Voice and in these committees and in these regional groups—I am just wondering how the government will action all the evidence, information and data that is gathered, and perhaps the intel from local constituents that are giving feedback, in relation to opportunities and changes and for the betterment of life for Indigenous South Australians. What happens if the information coming from the Voice committees is found not to be representative? And we need to recognise that it will be really hard for these representatives to balance and formulate ideas and policy of a collective, from the beginning of this whole process.

One of the things that I think we could perhaps see—and it may come to media, it may come as a public demonstration—is a community feeling that they are not being represented fairly. I just wonder how the government, or any government, can work through this duty to act honestly. If information is seen to be not representative of a community's will, is this the sort of process that could clear the slate and start again, for example?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I would just draw a little distinction here between a member of a Local Voice acting honestly and not agreeing with the views that are being put by the community that has elected them, which election we do occasionally. This clause is about acting honestly in the legal sense. The Voices will be covered by ICAC, by the Ombudsman, by police, but if a member of the Voice is not representing, in the opinion of the community, the community's views, the same as what happens with us, they are up for election, and that might mean that they are not re-elected. There is a democratic element of this, which is a hygiene mechanism, as it is for us, but separate to the legal meaning of 'acting honestly'.

Clause passed.

Clause 20 passed.

Clause 21.

Mr McBRIDE: I really do want a success here, and this will be one of those markers of success for the Voice, if you are going to represent Indigenous South Australians. Minister, I have probably already asked a question earlier on this, but I am now going to ask a second one: what does the minister see as a successful election process and number turnout amongst the Indigenous populations in this process of electing the members?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The main test of success is likely to be that there are sufficient people standing to fill the positions, or to more than fill the positions. If it is a question of voter turnout—the number of people voting—unlike for us, for local government it is not compulsory. It will be very interesting to see what happens. We are in new territory. Other than the analogy with local government, we are in new territory.

We will see what happens at the first election, we will see what happens when we are up to the fifth election what voter turnout is like. As I say, the main criteria for success in my view—and I am unable to speak entirely for the Attorney who may have additional views—would be simply that there are enough people willing to stand to be part of this process.

Mr McBRIDE: I know that I have asked you this question, and you perhaps cannot answer, but I have to just try it to find out what the government's expectations might be of the success with voter turnout. May I say, I am actually pleased that it is not compulsory for Indigenous South Australians to have to vote. But if I was running this, and if I was pushing this type of voice process to represent the Indigenous populations, groups and communities, I would be aiming for above 50 per cent turnout or better. That would be a marker that we have the community engaged, they are giving due consideration to this process and they would have respect for the elected members to represent them through these communities.

I think South Australians, if we are going to bring this new process into parliament, and perhaps it is going to get legs—in other words, it is going to become valid, and it is going to become important to the solutions and the answers for Indigenous South Australians—obviously, the greater the turnout the better. It would have been just nice to hear perhaps even a stab in the dark of what the voter turnout percentage looked like that was good and one that was disappointing, and perhaps maybe there are other ways of doing this.

The CHAIR: Given the question you have just asked, the prior question, and given the way you structured that discussion, I will take that as a statement. If you want to rephrase that as a question, you will need to phrase it as a question.

Mr McBRIDE: Sure.

The CHAIR: If you phrase it as a question, it will be your third, okay?

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My question is to the Deputy Premier: what percentage of voter turnout is success for the government?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not going to give a statistic on that for a number of reasons not least of which is that I am representing the Attorney-General in this chamber, rather than being the Attorney-General and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and I will not speak on his behalf in particular, but also because we are in new territory. Even though the opposition has indicated a lack of support for the bill in this form, I believe that once it is through, all of us want to see it work. To set a criterion—that it may on its first occasion on one or more of the Local Voices not meet that criterion—would be a pretty disappointing way to start.

I would rather characterise it as: we would like to see as much voter turnout as possible, as much participation as possible, and we will do what is required to facilitate that to make it known to people that this is happening, to make it easy to engage, to provide the kinds of materials that would mean that it would be more likely that people would feel confident and knowledgeable to participate. I think that is a fair ask of the government in having put this up, that we do all that we can do to make it successful, rather than the reverse, where a measure is set that might be difficult in some instances to succeed at.

Clause passed.

Clauses 22 to 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Mr TEAGUE: It is here that I again make reference to submission 35, and the observation counts perhaps all the more with the Public Law and Policy Research Unit. They are there reflecting on the draft, so at this point there has been a clause change to the final. But they are clearly making the observation that for both Local and State First Nations Voices to meet as rarely as four times and not more than six times a year is inadequate and proposing that, should there be a limit, then it be a minimum of 12. The further suggestion is that consideration be given to removing the limit at all, as was the structure of the ARB. Unless the Deputy Premier has anything to add, I just note that for the purposes of completeness that submission 35 applied very much to both Local and State First Nations Voice.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will also note that there are no amendments before the house on that but that there is the provision for the minister to approve more meetings and could do so in advance if that is something that begins to be feedback, and further that we have the reassurance of the review of the legislation, because we are in new territory, brand new, because we are the first state to do this, which is a matter of some pride. But that review I think will be very important in exactly this kind of matter where having experienced what the Voice is like and the workload and the expectations of members, there will be an opportunity to potentially recalibrate the number of meetings that are set as expectations.

Clause passed.

Clause 30.

Mr TEAGUE: We here come to another example of where there has been a change from draft to final, as it were. I might take the opportunity at clause 30 to address an issue that is in common to clauses 30 through 33, and then in turn to what has become a bit of an emphasis clause rather than a foundation clause in 34. From draft to final we saw a reflection on the structure that was the subject of the ARB in terms of who comes along and participates, and the representative body, the bill in 2021 as reintroduced by me last year, provides for the composition of the body to be diverse in a whole range of ways.

Feedback from draft to final on this bill was that there is a desire to have a range of different particular viewpoints but we are going to stick with a gender-only model for the purposes of funnelling up from Local Voices to State Voice but a response from that draft round feedback was that there be these statutory committees that are the subject of clauses 30 through 33.

The question perhaps then goes to one of autonomy and along the same lines as the stipulation about the number of times meeting. Why the need to stipulate the particular committees the subject of 30 through 33? I will confine myself to 30 if the Chair would prefer, but I can deal with a whole body in one go. As has been, as I understand, without reflecting on the debate elsewhere, I think a reasonable observation is: if you are going down the path of shoehorning in these subject matters and expertise and areas of subject matter focus committees in 30 through 33, why do you need 34 as well?

From an overall point of view, why not just stick with clause 34 and let the body decide for itself? If it needs to establish a subcommittee then, alright, it can do that and it can do it on the merits. Is this not an unnecessary round of, as it were, front-loaded bureaucracy whether it is needed or not on the one hand, and then retaining an unnecessary structure in terms of clause 34 once you have gone down that path?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am going to make reference to clause 34 as well as part of the answer.

The CHAIR: I am happy for you to answer if you need to go to clause 34.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I note again no amendment has been put forward by any other member of parliament to change this—

Mr Teague: Not in this place.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —in this place. The proposition here is that these advisory committees exist in order to recognise the diversity of experience of Aboriginal people in a way that is difficult to do when we are creating elected bodies, where people are chosen by a constituency. It is bringing together that combination of people's experience and the validity of making sure that the stolen generations are heard from, that youth are heard from, that elders are heard from and, importantly, that native title bodies are heard from. That is of relevance to being heard but is not able to easily be accommodated in a body that is elected. This is the proposition that has been put forward as a way in which to manage all of that.

The reason I want to make reference to clause 34 as well is that these are not subject matter experts; these are people of lived experience in each of those categories. Subject matter expertise is contemplated really for clause 34, where, as an example that has just been put to me which I think is excellent, should there be a piece of legislation on child protection, it might well be that the Voice would wish to establish a committee with expertise in child protection in order to assist them in contributing. That is where subject matter expertise might well be legitimate, whereas as the others, as I say, are a legitimate approach to recognise the full richness of experience, all of which is valid in creating a Voice to Parliament for the first time.

Mr McBRIDE: On clause 31—First Nations Youth Advisory Committee—

The CHAIR: I am happy to deal with clauses 30 to 34.

Mr McBRIDE: That is what I thought I heard; thank you, Mr Chairman. Deputy Premier, clause 31—I may have overseen this—talks about a Youth Advisory Committee, and there is no mention of age. Could you inform the parliament what the age is going to be of this Youth Advisory Committee?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: 'Youth' and 'elder', these are cultural definitions that we have. Just as an aside, it was always felt that being 18 was the moment, more generally, when you stopped being a youth and became an adult. I do not know about other people's experience with their children but I think that age is shifting culturally in our nation generally and that indeed 26 is one proposition. It is not that there is a biological determinant of what constitutes a young person or constitutes an old person, it is a cultural decision that we collectively make.

In order to recognise that general truth in the creation of these advisory committees, the proposition is that the Local First Nations Voice gets to determine what constitutes a youth for their purposes.

Mr McBRIDE: Moving on to clause 32—Stolen Generation Advisory Committee, we all understand that there have been a number of matters and relations regarding that type of process. I did hear the Deputy Premier talk about child protection in her previous answer to the member for Heysen and that was that they may need child protection expertise on this committee.

Obviously, there were a lot of bad experiences out there that we heard about regarding the stolen generation and the consequences that happened but there were also a lot of good ones. I was wondering whether those positive outcomes would be allowed to be on this committee so they could advocate for the good things that may turn out for these types of processes so that it is not just something that is considered an evil process or something that was really bad yet had mixed results.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Again, I think this is an almost philosophical discussion for us to have in the members' bar rather than seeking to make any amendments here, of which there are none before us. The experience of stolen generations I am reluctant to speak too much to because I have no cultural authority or lived experience other than learning from those who have had that experience and have talked to me. With that caveat, I say that every childhood is a unique experience that one would hesitate to call either good or bad because, like the curate's egg, it is usually made up of different parts.

That is still more true for someone who has been removed from their parents for whatever reason—and I speak as someone who was child protection minister for three years—their experience of that removal will be characterised by themselves as they experience it and as they look back on it as adults. It is not for us to put a label on that.

Still more complex: when the removal was, in very, very many cases, based exclusively on skin colour and culture, to say that a child who was removed was loved by people they were then sent to is a truth in some cases. To say that there could therefore be no pain would be impossible. I will trust the State First Nations Voice in identifying people to be part of this advisory committee, that they will seek to be advised by the full experience of that time in our history.

The CHAIR: Are there any other questions or comments on clauses 30 to 34 inclusive?

Mr TEAGUE: Just while we are in en bloc mode, in terms of clause 33, bearing in mind it is draft to final and we have the benefit of submission 41—that is the letter to the commissioner and to the minister from the 28, I think, chairpersons and leaders of the South Australian native title groups and First Nations—is there a view expressed by Native Title Services about how their participation or otherwise might be facilitated by clause 33, given it has come after the letter?

Again, in circumstances where Native Title Services might be chief, if not leading, among those advocates that might have led to the change of tack in clause 7, have they expressed a view expressly about clause 33 and is it anticipated that there be some expectation that Native Title Services and the authors of submission 41, for example, might be expected to be likely candidates for participation on that committee?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have no official record of an official position post this drafting, and I would therefore not in any way seek to speak for that organisation. I do, however, note the participation of the native title bodies in the selection of people, or in the identification of people.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, do you wish—

Mr TEAGUE: Well, I might do, but I see the member for Elizabeth is on his feet.

The CHAIR: I will allow one more question. I would be keen to finish this block off.

Mr ODENWALDER: I yield, sir.

The CHAIR: Yes, thank you. I would like to finish this block off. Since I have opened up the floor for questions, I think that we should finish the floor. Member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you for your—no, I think I have addressed the relevant submissions along the way, so thanks very much for dealing with that en bloc. No further questions on that.

Clauses 30 to 34 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.