South Australian Multicultural Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 September 2021.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:04): I thank all members for their contribution to the second reading debate and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Darley in his contribution raised a general question which might not be addressed by some of the amendments. A number of the other questions that were raised in the second reading will be addressed by various amendments that members will move. The Hon. Mr Darley raised some general questions about consultation with Aboriginal peoples.

I am advised as follows. The government conducted appropriate consultation with Aboriginal leaders; however, in light of the concerns raised by Mr Darley's office, Multicultural Affairs liaised with Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, which was responsible for the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council, to seek advice on whether consultation with the advisory council was required.

The senior manager of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation advised as follows. Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation acknowledge that the feedback provided by Nerida Saunders and Kirstie Saunders has been respectfully incorporated into the bill. In addition, feedback has been provided by the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement.

It is the role of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement to provide advice to government and advocate on behalf of Aboriginal people. As such, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation's view is that the consultation undertaken for this particular bill is adequate and that further consultation with the advisory council is not necessary.

Further, ongoing mandatory consultation with Aboriginal people is addressed satisfactorily at clause 19(4)(a), which provides for the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement to be consulted in preparing, varying or substituting the South Australian Multicultural Charter.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a number of questions at clause 1. Could the Treasurer explain why the assistant minister for multicultural affairs is not taking us through this multiculturalism bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is my view as the Leader of the Government that I am the appropriate person to represent the Premier and the government on this issue and that a government minister should handle government bills.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Why was SAMEAC as a body not invited to make a submission on this bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised the commission members were actively involved in the consultation process and were invited to attend all the community forums and stakeholder workshops. I am advised that 10 out of the 11 commission members attended at least one of the consultation events, and some attended several.

Further, in recognising the important role of the commission, the Assistant Minister to the Premier in multicultural affairs presented on the bill to the commission members prior to its introduction into parliament. Additionally, the YourSAy survey was open to any member of the public who decided to engage with the process. One commission member did decide to submit feedback through that process. Lastly, it would be unusual for anybody to be solely in charge of deciding matters that directly related to them—for example, such as tenure.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the Treasurer not think that it would have paid appropriate respect that SAMEAC deserved for them to be involved in the early parts of developing this bill before it went to consultation and invited them to be more involved than simply attending, as I understand it, as observers only to the consultation events?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I know a number of the members of SAMEAC, and I have great respect for them in terms of their contribution not only to SAMEAC but to many other aspects of their public and professional lives. I think the involvement and the availability of the involvement of commission members was appropriate and I certainly support the process that the government has followed.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In the second reading contributions, government members made reference to a purported commitment to multiculturalism. Given the Hon. Jing Lee has been so very active in the multicultural community, why was she only fourth on the Liberal ticket at the election last time, had to run her own campaign and use hundreds if not thousands of corflutes, which of course the government has now banned? Does that really show a real commitment to someone who is very active in multiculturalism?

The CHAIR: The relevance of that question to this bill is extraordinarily tenuous but the Treasurer seems keen to respond.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If this is going to be the nature and the tenor of the debate from the deputy leader, I think it is an appalling standard to be set. The claim of 'purported' support for multiculturalism by the government is a disgraceful claim from the deputy leader and one that I think is beneath her.

I have been an elected member of this chamber for 40 years. I am proudly a product of a Japanese mother and an Australian father. There are many members on our side of the chamber, as there are on the Labor side of the chamber, who represent multicultural communities or various groups. If we are going to state the nature and the tenor of the debate in this particular way, it is going to be a sad way to work through what I think is an important process. I would urge the deputy leader to lift her sights a little higher than where she started. Let's debate the issues here, rather than those sorts of silly claims being made.

I do not intend to continue to respond to questions of that nature; however, in relation to that particular question, I place on the record not only my commitment but the assistant minister's commitment, the Premier's commitment and that of all members of the government to multiculturalism. It has been something that both sides of parliament and all sides of politics in South Australia have supported for decades, irrespective of who has been in government and who has been in opposition. It is one of the strengths, I think, of South Australia as compared to some other parts of Australia and certainly other parts of the world. It is something that we should endorse, support and nurture, not try to tear apart through those sorts of disgraceful questions.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a final question at clause 1, and I agree with the final comment from the Treasurer that we should be endorsing and nurturing multiculturalism within our state. Why were the two people who were previously on SAMEAC and who raised concerns with elected members about this bill then excluded from being appointed to the commission?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The views that individual members may or may not have expressed had nothing to do in relation to the decision the government has taken about the appropriate role and the composition of SAMEAC. I suspect I am aware of the two members the member is referring to, although she has not referred to them by name.

As I said, I have great respect for the contributions from individual members of the commission I know. I do not know all of them, but I do know some of the longer serving members, and one in particular I worked with for many years in the education community, both as a shadow minister and as a minister. I count her as a friend and I have great respect and regard.

People are entitled to the views they might have about the appropriateness or otherwise of government policies and changes, as the government is entitled to maybe have different views. Nevertheless, it does not reduce the respect that I and other members of the government might have for various individuals.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I ask how a selection process was conducted for the new members?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised broadly that an expression of interest process was adopted, which is quite different from the process that the former government had adopted in relation to nominating members of the commission and probably different from the process the former Liberal government adopted back in the nineties. So it is an evolution and it was an appropriate evolution in terms of people being able to express interest. The government then responded to feedback received from stakeholders during review that they had called for an open and transparent process of selecting future members.

The Department of the Premier and Cabinet engaged a recruitment agency to help manage the process. As I said, there was an expression of interest process. Expressions of interest were sought. There was an overwhelming positive response to the call: 129 submissions received for positions on the commission. The independent consulting firm managed the process by short-listing candidates against selection criteria, conducting due diligence checks, facilitating a selection panel for the process.

It was broadly an endeavour to conduct a more independent, professional process than had been conducted by previous governments of probably, as I said, both persuasions. That is, they tended to be—as many boards are, frankly—nominations by individual ministers or governments and approved by the cabinet of the day. On this particular occasion, this particular process, there was this expression of interest process and facilitated by an independent facilitator, a consulting firm.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: How long was that window of expression of interest, and when the HR company or selection panel made the selections where were those nominations forwarded to and who made the ultimate selection for those members?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that, on the advice of the recruitment firm or agency, the expressions of interest process opened on Friday 7 May and closed on Monday 24 May. Ultimately, these decisions, as with all board decisions, are taken by the cabinet based on the recommendation of the appropriate minister, which in this case was the Premier.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Why were the previous chairman of the commission or deputy not interviewed or responded to in their application to be appointed to the board?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that no-one was interviewed in relation to it. The selection panel reached an agreement based on the expression of interest process and made appropriate recommendations, so the advice I have received is that no-one was interviewed.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Were the unsuccessful applicants all notified?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised they were advised by email.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is it a requirement that any members of the board must respond to emails that are sent to them by the government or the assistant minister?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure what that question infers, but I do not think anyone can require anyone to reply to an email. If you get sent an email, you can choose to respond or not respond. I think the member would have to be a little more specific in relation to the nature of the specific question, but I think he would understand that if you are sent an email you can choose to respond or not respond. It is entirely your decision.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If they do not respond, is there a tally kept of lack of responses to emails?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have no knowledge of tallies being kept or not kept in relation to response to emails. I think the member is going to have to be a little more specific in relation to emails. Some emails do not need a response. They may be simply advice and do not require a response. The notion that you would have a tally of emails that do not require a response or need a response would not make much sense to me. Unless the member could be a bit more specific about the questions, I do not know that I am going to be able to satisfy his thirst for knowledge.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has the assistant minister sent emails to previous board members and then expected to receive a receipt of that email as to whether it had been read?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whether or not an assistant minister, a minister or a member has sent an email and expected it to be read or responded to really has nothing to do with this particular piece of legislation. It might be of great interest to the Hon. Mr Pangallo and it might be of great interest to somebody else—I am not sure why—but it is of no interest to me, frankly.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It goes back to my original question: is there an expectation that, if there are emails sent from the department or the assistant minister or the Premier to these board members, there is a requirement for a response?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can only repeat the answer I gave earlier; that is, whether someone responds or not is entirely up to them. If, for example, someone is invited to a meeting, then there is probably an expectation to respond either yes or no. If there is just an advice that something is available, then no response is probably required at all or expected. It depends on the nature of the email. Again, there is nothing in this particular bill under any of the clauses that provides any comfort for the member in relation to this particular line of questions. I cannot provide much information on the email flow between individuals over recent years. Frankly, it is not an important part of the legislation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I just get clarification that the recruiting body did not interview any of the candidates; is that correct?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have said that twice.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Why would a recruitment agency not interview candidates or even those who perhaps could be considered to be passed on as potential members of the commission? Why would you have a recruitment agency go through the selection process, look at applications and then not invite the ones you have higher expectation for for an interview? That is what usually happens when you have an HR company, I think, Treasurer. If you apply for a job, you are usually interviewed and then, from there, another assessment is made as to your suitability for that job and a recommendation is made.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is not a job; this is actually a position on a board. Having been in government almost 100 years ago in the 1990s, and been in government again this time, and having observed another government for the last 16 years, I can assure you that board members are not selected through such a process. More often than not, a minister, he or she, selects someone or nominates someone, it is discussed at cabinet and they agree or disagree on a particular person. There is no expression of interest process. There is no open advertisement. It is just the minister of the day and then the government of the day deciding on a particular person.

It is how Kevin Foley ended up as the chairman of Funds SA. It is how Annette Hurley, the former deputy leader of the Labor Party, ended up as chairwoman of Super SA. There was no expression of interest process. There was no advertisement. It was a decision of a minister in a Labor government, endorsed by a cabinet, as they are entitled to do.

The criticism in this area seems to be that the government and the agency sought to open it up to expressions of interest rather than a minister nominating a particular person. I think in one particular iteration this body was chaired by Grace Portolesi, a former Labor minister. There was no expression of interest process or open advertisement or interviews when that occurred.

The process was a genuine endeavour to open it up to expressions of interest, and there are 129 of them. Hender Consulting, obviously, given the criteria that was outlined, made some recommendations or short-listed and the selection panel then made their particular decision, which was a recommendation, as I understand it, to the minister, which is the Premier. Then, ultimately, cabinet had to sign off on the particular decisions.

As I said, as someone who knows some of the people who have served that board well for many years, I do not believe it should be viewed as a slight in relation to their performance or what they have done for the community and for the commission over many years. I have great regard for the contribution they have made both professionally and in this particular area over a period of time. But inevitably there is a need for renewal. Nothing is ever permanent. I am about to sail off into the political sunset because I recognise it is time for renewal. We all have a use-by date and there is a process and a need on boards in governments for renewal, in terms of what occurs.

This was a genuine endeavour to engage in the process. There are some people who perhaps have not liked the process. I understand that. It does not lessen my regard for some of the individuals in terms of the contributions they have made to the community and to the commission over a long period of time. They will remain friends of mine; they have been and they will remain friends of mine into the future.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, are we going to keep to the bill in front of us?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Treasurer went around the block 10 times to actually get to the point—

The CHAIR: Yes, I will remind him of that as well.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: —that it was rejuvenation. Was that explained in the criteria? Have you got a copy of the criteria, perhaps, Treasurer, that you might be able to read out to us?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Decisions in relation to renewal are decisions that ultimately the cabinet takes. There is a process that I have explained. Recommendations come through, the minister takes it to cabinet and cabinet makes a decision. I am certainly not going to go into the processes of what the minister recommended and what the cabinet ultimately decided. That is, obviously, part of cabinet confidentiality.

That is the process and it is perfectly acceptable for the ultimate decision-makers, which is the government, the cabinet and the minister, in their consideration to take recommendations but also to take into account issues, some of which I have referred to and some others that I have not referred to.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This is the last one, Mr Chair. What I have been asking the Treasurer is not in fact to cast any aspersions on the new panel of members, which I warmly endorse.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Four people who have been appointed to the commission are known to be aspiring candidates for the Liberal Party. Does such a significant number of those obviously associated with a political party risk politicising the commission, which should be nonpartisan and non-political?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I firstly say that I have already referred to the fact that the former chair of the commission was actually a former Labor minister and a Labor candidate. I am not sure that the deputy leader would believe that that was politicising, in her view, the work of the commission. I am not aware that four of the persons there are known to the deputy leader as potential candidates from the Liberal Party. She obviously knows much more about the operations of the Liberal Party than I do. It has nothing to do, frankly, with the selection process and it certainly has nothing to do with the bill.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Scriven–1]—

Page 4, after line 30—Insert:

and

(k) the contribution that migration, temporary migration and refugee resettlement has made to multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia.

This amendment seeks to include in the parliamentary declaration, at the beginning of the bill, that we recognise the contribution that migration, temporary migration and refugee resettlement has made to multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia. I think this is a particularly important addition.

The parliamentary declaration includes a number of very important principles, and I think recognising the contribution of migration, temporary migration and refugee resettlement should be included in those important principles. For example, temporary migration includes international students who might come to South Australia for a period of time while studying, and members would be aware that that is one of the major industries of our state.

It includes agricultural workers who have been so very key to ensuring that our agricultural, horticultural and other industries have been able to continue. Indeed, we have had workers from the Pacific Islands particularly brought in—because of the shortage of backpackers—under a program that seeks to assist both their home country and also our own. They are just a couple of the temporary migration examples, and of course the huge contribution that refugees or former refugees have made to our state should not be underestimated and deserves to be noted in particular in the declaration.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing this particular amendment, and I am advised as follows. The government is opposing it because it does not need to be added to the parliamentary declaration. It may be the intention of this amendment that we reflect the diversity of the communities we have in South Australia, but they are covered in other aspects of the parliamentary declaration. It is not clear why we would only acknowledge temporary or permanent migrants and not others who are in our community who make a contribution towards multiculturalism and interculturalism.

For example, we have a lot of people who come and live here and they are legally entitled to do so and they do not ever sign up to be an Australian citizen. Are they not going to be included here, or do we have them as informal migrants? We do not want people to feel excluded by us saying that it is only the migrants who make a contribution.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicated in my second reading speech that the Greens are supporting all of the opposition amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to respond to the Treasurer. First of all, I think including reference to some certainly does not exclude others. I draw the Treasurer's attention to, for example, paragraph (j), 'the valuable contribution of South Australians from diverse backgrounds to South Australia,' which I would imagine encompasses those he is referring to. I think simply highlighting the huge contribution made by temporary migration and refugee resettlement is a worthy thing that should be included and certainly does not exclude anyone by doing so.

Ayes 10

Noes 11

Majority 1

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–2]—

Page 5, after line 16—Insert:

(1a) 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 essentially is that 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. The reason I have done that is I think, firstly, it is important that members of any government board be of Australian citizenship or permanent residency, have been here a long time, but I also think in relation to this, the Multicultural Bill, it is an aspirational target that many new arrivals in this country would want to be and become Australian citizens.

Those who are actually on the board now—and of course previous members—are all Australian citizens, perhaps coming from backgrounds from foreign countries and then working their way through and have become role models in the community. So, essentially, it is an aspirational thing.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is supporting this amendment. This amendment ensures that members appointed to the Multicultural Commission have experience and an understanding of multiculturalism within the Australian context, which is considered as critical to their effective contribution on the commission. This requirement was already part of the recent expression of interest process, which the current commission were appointed under.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. In the recent contributions we have had in this state parliament, in particular in regard to the situation of Afghan refugees, for example, we have heard that people have been here on Temporary Protection visas and other visas for seven, eight and nine years, extended periods such as this. They would like to become Australian citizens, they would like to be permanent residents, but they are prevented from doing so by the federal government's policies.

I think many of those people, potentially, have a great contribution to make and should not be specifically excluded simply because they have been unable to attain, despite wanting to do so, permanent residency or citizenship.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that the Greens will also be opposing this amendment, for similar reasons just expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, it has become harder and harder for some, in this introduction of things such as Temporary Protection visas, to fulfil the requirements that would be required in this amendment.

We think that those people are deserving not only of our protection but indeed our inclusion while they are here, and hopefully we will make it easier for them and quicker for them to become permanent residents or citizens in the future, rather than punish them for being put in this predicament by what are actually cruel government policies.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will support this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–2]—

Page 5, lines 29 and 30 [clause 7(4)]—Delete 'Commission, at least half (rounded down to the nearest whole number) must be women.' and substitute 'Commission—'

(a) at least half (rounded down to the nearest whole number) must be women; and

(b) at least 1 must be a resident in regional South Australia at the time of their appointment; and

(c) at least 1 must be less than 25 years of age at the time of their appointment.

I am asking the chamber to change the make-up of the commission so that at least half, rounded down to the nearest whole number, must be women on the commission, at least one must be a resident in regional South Australia at the time of their appointment and at least one must be less than 25 years of age at the time of their appointment—in order to be inclusive, with equality in there, and to encourage more women to take part in this process, with at least one resident coming from regional South Australia. I am surprised that this aspect has been overlooked, because there are so many people of various backgrounds who have come to this country and now reside in some of our biggest regional areas: in the South-East, in the Riverland, on the West Coast, and in other parts.

There are many new arrivals from countries like Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan who have made their homes in those areas and, as we all know if we have been in those areas and regions in Renmark and in the South-East and even on the West Coast, there are strong pockets of people who have come from various backgrounds. Port Pirie, for instance, is a very strong area and has been a strong focal point for decades for people migrating there. It is important that people who live in the regions also have a voice on this commission.

The other one that is extremely important is to have youth representation on this, youth giving their voice on what they would like to see within their communities and also to meet the needs of youth who have come to this country and perhaps are finding their way and need some representation. As we all know, young people tend to perhaps communicate more with kids their age rather than adults, and I think it is important that we have youth representation here.

A great organisation is situated only across the road, Multicultural Youth, and they do tremendous work in the community—fantastic work. It is only fair that this commission also has a member from that age group represented there. I strongly ask members to support this. It is important that we have regional representation, that we have strong or equal female representation and that we have youth representation on it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government supports this amendment. Although clause 7(3) in the bill already provides the membership of the commission to reflect an appropriate diversity of age and geographic location, among other personal attributes and characteristics, I am happy for this amendment to be implemented after the commencement of the act. Diversity is already an important part of the commission. We have previously had representatives from regional communities, and the new commission includes more women than men for the first time.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to indicate that the opposition is supporting this amendment from the Hon. Mr Pangallo, and we are very pleased to do so. We are glad that there are currently more than 50 per cent of women on the commission. That is certainly a positive. In the past, there has often been very good representation on the commission. The benefit of this amendment is that it guarantees those things: it guarantees at least 50 per cent are women and it guarantees there is regional representation.

As a regional member myself, I am well aware of how a number in our migrant communities experience very different challenges in country areas compared perhaps to the metropolitan area. Often there is not the critical mass, if you like, that ensures that services are provided, or even necessarily that those in charge of services are aware of the needs of multicultural communities in regional areas. It would certainly be of benefit to guarantee that there will be someone from regional South Australia.

Similarly, I echo the points made by the Hon. Mr Pangallo in regard to youth. Again, the issues facing young migrants can be quite different from those facing an older generation, notwithstanding they may have all arrived in relatively recent times or not. I certainly do support, and the opposition supports, this amendment and is glad that the Hon. Mr Pangallo has moved it.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have a question to the Hon. Mr Lucas. Clause 7(4) states 'at least half (rounded down to the nearest whole number) must be women'. One would naturally think that the other half must be men, but there is no indication. In theory, they could all be women and there could be no men. Is that the intention?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The intention of the government, as with most boards and committees, is to see equality of representation, so there is certainly no intention from the government to have all female members and no male members. The current composition reflects that. I am sure, should there be a change of government and this was the law, it would not be the position of the alternative government either.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to support the Hon. Frank Pangallo's motion and note that he possibly has a parliamentary bingo for the second time in 24 hours.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 7A.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Pangallo–2]—

Page 6, after line 19—Insert:

7A—Declaration of affiliations and register of interests

(1) A member of the Multicultural Commission must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the member is appointed and in accordance with the requirements set out in the regulations—

(a) make a declaration of the member's membership of, or affiliation with, any political party or union, or any other body whose activities may affect, or be affected by, the performance of the official functions and duties of the member; and

(b) make a declaration of any prescribed interests of the member in the register of interests established under the regulations.

(2) A failure to comply with subsection (1) will be taken to be grounds for removal of the member of the Multicultural Commission under section 7.

This is a declaration of affiliations and a register of interests. A member of the commission should make a declaration of the member's membership of, and affiliation with, any political party or union or association or anybody whose activities may affect or be affected by the performance of the functions and duties of the commission. The member should also make a declaration in a register of interests of any prescribed interests they may have. Again, I think it is important that you have openness and transparency in relation to these appointments.

As I said in my second reading speech, it is important that these appointees should not merely be considered as shopfront tokenism. They actually are representative of their communities. I think it is also important that we know what their backgrounds are as well as their affiliations. It is an avoidance of doubt, really. There is no reason why people should not be able to declare their political affiliations on a register of interests.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for moving this amendment; however, I think the honourable member needs to be made aware—obviously a lot of the things that he has spoken about we would agree with in principle—that the declaration of interests by South Australian government board and committee members is already covered by the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995.

Under this legislation, a member is required to declare an interest when it is relevant to a matter decided or under consideration by the board or committee and they have a conflict of interest. The duties of members are explained in the paper 'Honesty and accountability for members of government boards', which is provided to board members upon their appointment.

There is no need for a separate arrangement for Multicultural Commission members; in fact, the amendment raises the question of why commission members would be subject to scrutiny about their membership of or affiliation with political parties or unions where this does not apply to other boards and committees. Such a requirement could be perceived as discriminatory and potentially racist; therefore, the government is opposed to this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition is not supporting this amendment either, simply because the opposition has not been apprised of any compelling reason why members of this board should have a higher level of accountability compared with members of other boards, roughly similar to what the Minister for Human Services has just outlined.

New clause negatived.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Pangallo–2]—

Page 6, line 28 [clause 9(2)]—Delete '4' and substitute '6'

Essentially, this amendment requires that there be more than just four meetings in a year of the commission. I am suggesting that number be six.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised the government supports this amendment. The South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission has for many years met at least eight times a year. I understand that the newly appointed commission meets monthly to carry out its important role and functions. The government supports the increase in the minimum number of commission meetings held each year from four to six.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition is also supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be moving my amendment on this clause. I am informed that there is already adequate reimbursement given for reasonable expenses for members of the commission.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

The CHAIR: I indicate to the committee that one part of the Hon. Mr Pangallo's amendment is exactly the same as the honourable deputy leader's amendment, but the Hon. Mr Pangallo filed his first, along with the second part that is not included with the honourable deputy leader's amendment. My proposition is that I would put the question in the two separate parts, if that is acceptable to the committee. I call the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Pangallo–2]—

Page 7, after line 39—Insert:

(ga) to raise awareness of the harm that racism and other forms of discriminatory behaviour can do to multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia;

(gb) to advise and consult with the Office of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and other appropriate persons and bodies on matters relating to discrimination and racial vilification, and to refer such matters to be dealt with by such persons or bodies in circumstances where the Multicultural Commission considers it appropriate to do so;

This is to insert further that the aims of the commission will also be to raise awareness of the harm that racism and other forms of discriminatory behaviour can do to multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia, and to advise and consult with the Office of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and other appropriate persons and bodies on matters relating to discrimination and racial vilification, and to refer such matters to be dealt with.

Essentially, what I am saying is they should be encouraged and be able to raise awareness in our community when they come across matters of racism and discrimination. That is the aim of it. I think it is important that when you have a multicultural commission this should be one of the tasks, and I would say that they would welcome doing that themselves.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's advice is that this is not entirely necessary but in the interests of peace, harmony and Kumbaya and all of us being together and seeing a successful passage of the legislation through both houses of parliament, the government is delighted to be able to support this particular amendment from the member.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As you have alluded to, Mr Chair, the first part of the amendment being moved by the Hon. Mr Pangallo is identical to an amendment that had been filed in my name, particularly in regard to raising awareness of the harm of racism and other forms of discriminatory behaviour. I want to place on the record that the opposition's view is that the commission has absolutely the expertise to have a very strong educational role, and that educational role should be a part of their remit.

They often have lived experience themselves, the organisations they are involved with have lived experience of racism and discriminatory behaviour—sadly, far too often—but more importantly they are able to be very much involved in explaining the sorts of behaviours that can be termed in that way and educating on how both individuals and organisations can potentially overcome some of those issues, particularly the unconscious racism that, sadly, is often experienced in our state and country.

The CHAIR: The question I am going to put is that paragraph (ga), as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, be so inserted.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: I will now put the question that paragraph (gb), as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, be so inserted.

Question agreed to; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 12 to 20 passed.

New clauses 20A and 20B.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Scriven–1]—

Page 11, after line 14—Insert:

20A—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.

20B—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 20A 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 amendment will insert a clause that will require state authorities to report performance against the charter, which will be coming into effect, during the preceding financial year and to provide that report to the minister, and then require the minister to provide that information, or a summary thereof, to the parliament within six sitting days.

We have seen that there are a number of very important principles that are now enshrined, or will be once this bill passes, under the parliamentary declaration. We have seen reference to the charter, which is an important step forward in terms of the operations of the commission and, indeed, multiculturalism and interculturalism in our state. We need to make sure, however, that those two items are not simply lip service. We need to make sure that we give life to the charter, and ensuring that the state Public Service actually reports on their performance against the charter is an important way of giving effect to the charter and ensuring it is meaningful.

The sort of performance will reflect various parts of the parliamentary declaration; for example, ensuring there is a whole-of-government approach and also that state authorities are responsible for giving effect to the principles of multiculturalism, and that is just a paraphrasing of two sections of the parliamentary declaration. Essentially, it ensures that these are implemented and it ensures also—hopefully we would all agree that the Public Service should be a model employer. So when we are talking about multiculturalism and interculturalism, the Public Service should certainly be leading the way.

Other jurisdictions do collect this information. We here in South Australia, I am advised, capture some data, but we do not report on it. It is important that that data is in fact reported, that it is made available firstly to the minister and then to the parliament so that can in itself serve as an accountability to ensure that we are not just paying lip service to the principles and to the items that will be in the charter but that we are actually ensuring they are implemented and reported against.

I am sure most members would be familiar with the expression that what gets measured gets done. If it is not measured, there is a risk that it may not get done.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing this amendment. In the government's view this material is already collected, available and reported on. What this amendment is suggesting is that it now be an obligation in relation to the state authorities specifically that they make that data available. 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 government accountability or public sector 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 within which they are, in most instances, to be tabled in parliament. We say that the government's view is that the provisions are unnecessary because existing reporting requirements, regardless of what goes on in the charter, will provide a nexus between the bill and the government departments.

The government also says 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). The charter incorporates multicultural principles, 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.

It is important to note that South Australian government agencies already report on their diversity and inclusion service delivery through the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment's diversity and inclusion strategy 2019-21. This provides another umbrella of obligation for government agencies to report on these matters.

As to the annual reporting, government authorities also report annually to the responsible minister on their activities through the Premier and Cabinet Circular PC013, 'Annual reporting requirements'. This is a mandatory report that must contain information, including relevant statistics, about all aspects of the agency's operations and initiatives, strategic plans and the 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 is audited by the Auditor-General.

Clearly, there is an Auditor-General function. There is also a parliamentary oversight function, where either in question time, in an estimates committee or in various other fora that are provided through the parliamentary process members of parliament are able to interrogate either ministers or—for example, through the Budget and Finance Committee process in the Legislative Council or the estimates committee process in the House of Assembly—chief executives and senior executives in relation to their performance over a whole range of functions, including this particular function. For those reasons, the government is opposing the amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I advise that we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To clarify, the Greens will be supporting this amendment, as we have indicated previously. I do not think it is too much to ask for an annual reporting from the various departments and their chief executive officers of information that they largely already hold. While we do not know exactly what the charter will look like, I would hope that we should see reporting to the charter, and in fact giving life to this reform that we are debating today and giving respect to those communities which it will serve.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just for the record, I would like to respond to some of the Treasurer's comments. Given that this information, he has said, is already collected, which was also our understanding, it should not be particularly burdensome for it to be collected and put into one place, similar in some ways to the way we report against targets for people with disability, for example. It is important that there is a focus on it, and by ensuring that there is a whole-of-public-sector report on it that would ensure that it actually is given the status and priority that it deserves.

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

New clauses thus negatived.

Remaining clause (21), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (17:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:16): I did not speak to the second reading of this bill, but I do have something that I would like to say in support of the third reading and it relates to the debate that just took place here this evening. I do not know, and frankly I do not care to know, the multicultural make-up of the Hon. Clare Scriven, but I will say, because I think it needs to be said, that her comments today were worse than dog whistling, they were blatant and they were completely inappropriate.

They undermined and went against every grain of the bill that we are debating. Despite any political differences that we may have in this place on this bill or anything else, it is my firm view—and I am sure that of others—that the honourable member should reflect on her comments and apologise not just to the Hon. Jing Lee but to every other person in here who was offended by her line of questioning. Despite the smugness with which the questions were asked, the Hon. Ms Scriven achieved absolutely nothing positive for herself today, and I hope she reflects on that.

I sincerely hope that the questions that were asked, and that line of questioning, was not endorsed by the opposition. It was offensive and it has no place in here and in this debate. If I look angry, I am. Through you, Mr President: the moral high ground is not yours to take, Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:18): I was not intending to make a third reading speech but obviously I will do so, given those comments. My intention was simply to indicate that the Hon. Jing Lee has done some excellent work in the multicultural space, and I think that is well acknowledged. It certainly was not intended in any way to reflect upon her and if that is how it was interpreted by the Hon. Ms Lee, then I—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: That's exactly how it was interpreted by everyone.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —would unreservedly apologise because that certainly was not my intention. I do think on a personal level that the Hon. Ms Lee deserved greater consideration by the Liberal Party, but that is a personal view. Certainly, if there was any offence taken by Ms Lee, who I think has done excellent work and is well acknowledged as having done so, then I have no hesitation whatsoever in apologising to her and indicating that that was not my intention.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:19): I move:

That the sitting of the council be suspended until the ringing of the bells.

Motion carried.

Sitting suspended from 17:20 to 18:26.