Bills

First Nations Voice Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 21 February 2023.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When we were last in committee, a number of members put a range of questions effectively on notice, and I thank them for doing so. It has allowed us to go away and get answers, and I think we will be able to provide fuller answers than maybe they would have been if the questions were asked today.

Of course, as we go through clauses, members will have questions. Many of them, I suspect, will be answered in the information that I will be able to give both from questions that people gave notice of on Tuesday and also some questions that a number of members have directly approached me about, which I will include in the answers to the ones that were put on notice.

There were a number of questions that the Hon. Tammy Franks raised at clause 1. The first one was in relation to the rights of common law holders in relation to the bill. I can confirm the advice that common law holders will be eligible to vote and stand for election on Local First Nations Voices, but they will also have other rights such as the possibility of being appointed to the State First Nations Voice native title advisory committee, if that is what the particular PBC wanted.

The Hon. Tammy Franks asked: can Voice members talk about what they raise in cabinet during a clause 43 meeting? I am advised that confidentiality of cabinet will apply. It is a fundamental principle of our democracy system. Clause 44 of the bill provides that, for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 and any other act or law, information and documents prepared for or provided to cabinet by the State Voice will be taken to have been specifically prepared as a cabinet submission.

In general, it would be expected that the deliberations as part of state cabinet would be treated with the same level of confidentiality as those of other groups that present to cabinet. For example, business groups such as Business SA and other representative bodies have, over the course of the years, presented to cabinet. Those same rules about a formal cabinet meeting apply to them as it would to this.

The Hon. Tammy Franks asked about the historic occasion when Dr Roger Thomas addressed the parliament from the floor of the House of Assembly—in the same way as former Treasurer the Hon. Robert Lucas addressed the House of Assembly—and what provisions were made to ensure that the parliament was protected regarding their particular sovereignty on those occasions.

I can let the honourable member know I am advised there was no impact or effect whatsoever on the sovereignty of parliament when Dr Roger Thomas addressed parliament from the floor of the House of Assembly or when the Hon. Rob Lucas did from the floor of the House of Assembly for the budget speech. The same is true for the provisions contained in this bill about representatives of the Voice addressing parliament from the floor of the house.

The Hon. Dennis Hood raised a number of questions. The first was in relation to clause 23 and the issue of bodies being sued. The Hon. Dennis Hood particularly raised in relation to defamation: would they be subject to defamation proceedings potentially? I can inform the Hon. Dennis Hood that I have got advice and, like any other incorporated authority, the Voice as a body could be sued in defamation.

A claimant would have to show that the publication can be imputed to the Voice through the usual laws of defamation and corporate liability. This generally means that the claimant would have to prove that the actions of the person or persons who published the matter could be imputed as acting for the Voice body corporate. This would only be likely to be found in official publications. If found responsible for defamatory publication, the Voice would have access to all the usual defamation defences, including truth, public interest, qualified privilege or honest opinion.

Any publications made in the course of parliamentary proceedings, of course, would attract the absolute privilege of parliament under the Defamation Act. Importantly, individual Voice members could be sued in defamation, as could the body corporate. They could also be found jointly liable and enforcement of debt could be sought from either. There are, however, defences of good faith, activities which could apply to individual Voice members. In that respect it is exactly the same as any other body created. I will get to the other bodies that are created in exactly the same corporate manner by statute in a moment.

The Hon. Dennis Hood asked in relation to clause 40:

Will there be time limits for speaking, for example, when the representatives speak on the floor, or is it envisaged that, if they were speaking in the House of Assembly, they would be subject to the normal provisions of the House of Assembly? Here we do not normally have time limits: how would that—

potentially—

differ between the houses…

Understandably, there are a number of questions I think other members alluded to in their contributions. Hopefully I can answer most of what they might ask at clause 40 here. I am advised that the practicalities of how the State Voice will address parliament will be left to parliament itself. How parliament conducts its business is subject to the relevant provisions of the Constitution Act and the standing orders adopted under section 55 of the Constitution Act.

How this operates in a practical sense will be determined by each house of parliament via standing or sessional orders. For example—and this may well be how it ends up operating—the ability to address parliament once in either the Legislative Council or the House of Assembly, but not both, might well be determined by each chamber themselves in terms of the orders that they see fit.

It may well be that the standing orders committees of both houses have a discussion and come up with uniform orders in relation to this. It might be, for example, that when the Voice chose to speak on a piece of legislation once in one of either of the chambers that it might be at the start or end of a second reading stage and might be subject to the 20-minute time limit that the House of Assembly has, and that might be imported to the rules that are adopted in the Legislative Council for that purpose. That may well be how it works out, but that will be up to each house to decide for themselves—the rules relating to how that would work.

The Hon. Dennis Hood also asked: how would they be positioned in a practical sense? What does the government have in mind and how could that work? The answer I have just given I think gives an example of how that could work. That might be a sensible way forward. I suspect the standing orders committees, hopefully when this bill passes pretty soon, will have meetings to discuss these issues.

The Hon. Laura Henderson asked a number of questions. The first question was:

…the minister has made commentary about this being an advisory body and these decisions not being binding. Will the minister confirm that there is no reasonable expectation for administrative decision-makers to take the view of the Voice into account?

There are two separate issues that are asked and I will address them both. I can confirm that the State Voice is an advisory body only, and the bill does not give the State Voice the power to bind the government in relation to any recommendations that it makes. The bill also makes it clear that the Voice has entitlement to address parliament but it does not have any veto or any other power over decisions of parliament, nor the right to vote or move amendments.

The Voice cannot prevent the relevant house from conducting its business, such as the consideration of the passage of bills, even prior to it being addressed by the State Voice. However, I think there is an expectation that governments will at least consider the views put forward by the Voice even though they are not obliged to take them into account in the decision-making. Consideration of these matters does not mean that the government is bound to implement any recommendations that the Voice makes.

For example, the State Voice may present a report to parliament on any matter of interest of First Nations people. The minister is obliged to consider a formal report provided and provide a response, including information about whether action is being taken or is proposed to be taken and, if not, the reasons for not taking action. It is clear from this provision there is no obligation on the minister or the government to take any action in response to a recommendation. There is only an obligation under that particular part of the bill to set out reasons why.

The Hon. Laura Henderson asked:

…can the minister advise whether he has sought…advice on whether there is case law that would be persuasive in instances of judicial activism in establishing a reasonable expectation that recommendations by the Voice could be made binding?

I have answered that, in large part, in the last response but I can say that we did get advice and there is no legislative or other obligation that we can find on the government or parliament to adopt recommendations of the Voice. The provisions in this bill are similar to any other advisory body or any parliamentary committee. It gives advice and it is up to the government of the day to do what it will with that advice.

The Hon. Laura Henderson asked:

…is there a risk that decisions could be challenged by the First Nations Voice, given that it can sue in its own name?

I am advised that this applies no more risk than any other individual or any other organisation might sue the government on any matter.

The Hon. Laura Henderson asked:

[Does] the minister anticipates that the…Voice will address the parliament during government time or private members' time or whether there will be additional allocation on a different day, and what that might practically look like.

I think that was answered in relation to the clause 40 question that the Hon. Dennis Hood had. It will be up to each house to decide the standing orders. I have given an example of how it may work in practice that the Standing Orders Committee may take into consideration or may choose a different way forward.

The Hon. Heidi Girolamo asked a number of questions. The first one was, can the honourable member:

…get some further details about the YourSAy survey, the responses received and how it was incorporated within the development of the bill.

My advice is that the YourSAy survey was made publicly available for responses between 17 November 2022 and 6 January 2023. However, I have been advised that feedback and submissions were still being accepted up until 11 January when people asked for an extension.

I am advised that there was a total of 42 submissions, 11 from organisations and, curiously, two of the submissions posted with no content but, nonetheless, they were counted as submissions. As a result of the feedback received from the second round of community engagement and the written submissions received via YourSAy, and also written submissions that were received not via the YourSAy website but by other means, there were quite a number of changes that were made to the draft bill. An example of some of those changes include:

a new definition of 'First Nations person' and 'traditional owner';

a new clause 7 to make it clear that the act does not limit the functions of other First Nations persons or bodies, or affect existing or future agreements;

a new clause 8 to make it clear that the act is to be read in conjunction with any other act in the future that may implement measures to progress Truth or Treaty;

a change to the operations of the provisions around gender representation;

the removal of the conflict of interest provisions which have been replaced with a statutory code of conduct;

the removal of the provision allowing a Local Voice to establish committees. This has been replaced with four new provisions requiring the State Voice to set up specific advisory committees on elders, youth, native title bodies and stolen generations, and keeps the ability for the State Voice to set up any other committees that they choose;

that the clerks of the chambers are to notify the State Voice of the introduction of all bills to the parliament;

the State Voice has the same entitlement to address either house of parliament. It was originally just the House of Assembly but it applies equally to the possibility to address the Legislative Council as well;

a requirement for the minister to consult with the State Voice on regulations made under the act;

a reduction in the disqualifying period for a serious offence from 10 years to two years;

the inclusion of a provision to repeal the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act 2003; and

an amendment to the Constitution Act 1934 to recognise the First Nations Voice Act 2023.

A question was also raised: 'How confident are you that this model will be effective and what are the potential impacts on outcomes for First Nations people?' I can advise that the model reflected in this bill is informed by extensive consultation with South Australian Aboriginal communities, people and organisations and puts forward the opportunity for First Nations people to have a direct influence on the decisions that affect their lives and the formulation of policy and legislation that affect them.

In my view and my experience of 20 years working in Aboriginal affairs, I am confident this will have a positive change. The very worst thing, in my view, that could happen is Aboriginal people will be heard to a greater extent, and the very best thing that could happen is we can start using those direct views and voices to turn around the huge gap we see in outcomes for Aboriginal people. This is what the Uluru Statement from the Heart stands for, after the most extensive dialogues right around Australia with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and this is the first tenet of that statement.

A question was asked in relation to boundaries: 'What will happen if a representative for a particular region cannot be found?' In the probably unlikely event that there are not enough representatives for positions in a particular region or there are not enough candidates of a particular gender, a supplementary election may be held. This is similar to provisions that we have seen used in the Local Government Act very recently where there is an insufficient number of candidates or, indeed, for elections to the executive board of the APY Land Rights Act.

There was a further question about how regions are determined. The number of regions and their boundaries are to be determined by regulation and they are still the subject of consultation that is ongoing. A couple of sets of different draft boundaries were considered in the second round of consultation, but there was significant feedback on those draft boundaries that is being considered and the boundaries will then be prescribed in regulation.

A further question was asked: 'What will happen when the population changes or moves and how will this impact on the regions and boundaries?' As I said, the boundaries are prescribed by regulation. This allows for flexibility in the future to review the regional boundaries, not just for changes in where people live but also changes if there are views about different nation groups and their better alignment in the future.

A further question asked was: 'What happens if a First Nations person moves, perhaps, from interstate into a particular region? Are they entitled to run for a role within the Voice?' Any First Nations person, any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person who is on the state electoral roll may vote and stand as a candidate in the region in which they are on the electoral roll. If they are not considered a traditional owner within South Australia, then they will only be able to stand and nominate for the region in which they live on the electoral roll.

In terms of financial risk and structure, a question was asked: 'Why was a body corporate structure selected?' I am advised that it was clear, from the community engagement sessions, that the First Nations people wanted a community-elected body that was independent from government control and could put forward the collective views of the community to the government and the parliament.

The bill sets up the Voice as an independent statutory body. This structure was selected in order for the Voice to undertake its advisory functions and have a corporate identity in respect of those functions, rather than being simply a group of individuals. A body corporate also makes any question of continuity simpler to determine the future. It is a structure that I think the opposition considered the most appropriate for this sort of body, as it was a body corporate structure as the model that the opposition's Aboriginal representative body put forward as well.

There was a question: 'Are there other entities where that structure has been in place?' I am advised that there are many other entities that use a body corporate structure; for example, Adelaide Cemeteries Authority, the Art Gallery Board, the SACE Board of South Australia, the Law Society of South Australia, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission, and the Dog and Cat Management Board to name a few that are created by statutes that are in the form of a body corporate.

Another question was: 'It is a relative new structure, from my understanding, so why was that selected over a statutory authority or something like that?' A statutory authority is a body corporate established by its own specific legislation, either independently from government or as a public sector body, so the Voices as bodies corporate are statutory authorities.

The honourable member asked about individual risk: 'How will breaches and legal issues be resolved and communicated?' I am advised that clause 38 of the bill requires a State Voice to present to a joint sitting of parliament an annual report, setting out a summary of operations and the operations of each Local Voice in the preceding year, as well as any other matters of interest. It is expected the annual report will include information of this nature.

The honourable member also asked: 'How will the regional location of members be taken into consideration for vacancies?' I can advise that clause 14 of the bill provides that, if a casual vacancy occurs within 18 months and there was more than one candidate for the election who is eligible for election, the Governor will appoint the person of the appropriate gender who received the next highest number of votes.

The Electoral Commissioner is responsible for the conduct of the Local Voice election. They will have the results of votes for each Local Voice election and will be able to advise on who the person of the appropriate gender with the next highest number of votes is in that region. The person must then be appointed by the Governor to the vacant position, unless a person is no longer suitable, unwilling or unable to be appointed. I am advised these are very similar provisions to the treaty-making authority, the Victorian First People's Assembly. When we were looking at setting up this body we looked to similar bodies, not just in South Australia, like the APY Executive Board, but at bodies interstate and how they are elected and operate.

The honourable member also asked a couple of questions about the election process: 'Will the Electoral Commissioner receive additional funds or support in order to run these elections?' Yes, they will. I think I outlined the costs as determined and discussed with the Electoral Commissioner for the initial election looking to be held if the legislation passes somewhere in the middle of this year—a budgeted $2.94 million, and the cost of the second election, which is intended to be run in conjunction with the state election, at $1.25 million.

The honourable member asked: 'What would happen in the event of a by-election, including the costs associated with that?' If a supplementary election was held in a number of circumstances—for example, as earlier contemplated, if there were not the right number of nominees to fill positions on a Local Voice, or if there is a casual vacancy that requires supplementary election after the 18 months—a supplementary election can be held. The supplementary elections would occur and the costs will be considered at the time, as they are for other supplementary elections or by-elections, whether for the state parliament for the House of Assembly, for local government or for the APY Executive Board.

Regarding addresses to parliament, the honourable member asked what are the logistics and how it will work in the house. I refer to the answer in reply to the Hon. Dennis Hood on clause 40. In the event there are emergency bills or significant species of legislation, how will that be communicated? Under the bill before us, it requires the Clerk of the relevant chamber to notify the State Voice of the introduction of any bills. A member or a relevant government minister may also notify the State Voice about the introduction of a significant or emergency bill.

It does recognise, though, that there will be occasions—for example, some of the COVID-19 response bills where people were given notice and a briefing on Monday and the parliament passed them the very next day, on the Tuesday, because they were required for the safety of South Australians—where there may not be an opportunity for the Voice to speak or make a submission. The legislation specifically anticipates this possibility with the inclusion of subclause (3) of clause 40.

If there are amendments to bills, will the First Nations Voice be invited back to speak or will it be one time and that is it? As previously indicated, it is an address once in relation to a bill in either the Legislative Council or the House of Assembly. I understand the question that amendments may be moved, and would the Voice keep being able to come back every time there is an amendment? The answer to that is no, but nothing would preclude members seeking the view of the Voice, should they choose to, about amendments on file, but on each bill before parliament it is a one-time opportunity.

How many staff will be allocated across the board, including research officers, public servants and assistants as well? As I advised in the second reading explanation, we currently anticipate—and of course this will be subject to getting it up and running and seeing what the needs are—a budgeted $700,000 per annum for the secretarial and administrative support for the Voice.

The bill also contemplates a possibility of any other public sector employee being able to provide support to the Voice. That may come about particularly if they are considering particular issues or particular legislation where public sector employees in a particular departmental policy area may make themselves available.

There were a number of questions that the Hon. Connie Bonaros asked last time we sat. The Hon. Connie Bonaros asked in relation to confirming that notwithstanding the youth committee will be broad enough to have whatever the definition of youth is ultimately decided upon, there will still be the ability to establish other committees that are issue specific, issues that we have canvassed in those meetings. They may well include issues that relate to youth or children or other specific issues. And yes, I can confirm that is the case.

The State Voice has the ability to establish other committees it considers appropriate pursuant to clause 34 of the bill. This could include an advisory committee that was focused on children and other specific issues. Other members have also asked particularly about the matter of the representation of children and young people on this committee to confirm the government's intention of establishing the four statutory committees. Two of them are to represent the views of elders and youth and they are selected by the local First Nations Voices.

Two people of different genders from each of those Local Voices will make up the statewide advisory committee on those issues. It was of critical importance to people in consultation that those views were heard, and it was envisaged that each Local Voice will decide their own definition of what an elder is and what youth constitutes. It will be up to those to decide what they are, but they will be made up of younger people and respected elder people from the communities. We did not want to put a statutory definition in and leave it up to the Local Voices to make that decision.

It has been asked: 'How does clause 4 of the bill operate in practice? The definition of 'accepted'? What does it mean to be accepted in a community and who is doing the accepting?' I can advise that the tripartite test adopted in the bill as stated by Justice Brennan in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) and considered in Love v The Commonwealth of Australia is widely referred to, as I think I said last time we met, both administratively and judicially and is being adopted federally for the purposes of determining eligibility for a range of services and benefits.

The weight given to each of the three elements in the test and what it means to be accepted by the community is not a matter for determination by the minister, the parliament or by legislation. It is a question for the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis. For example, in Love v The Commonwealth and Thoms v The Commonwealth, the High Court determined that Mr Thoms was an Aboriginal Australian and therefore not within the reach of the alien powers. This is based on the fact that he is a descendant of Aboriginal people through his maternal grandmother. He identifies as a member of that community and is accepted as such by members of his people.

He was also a common law holder of a native title, which has been recognised as determinations of native title in the federal court. In respect of Mr Love, the agreed fact disclosed by Mr Love is recognised by one identified elder as a different group. It is not apparent that such recognition conferred the traditional customs of that group.

In respect of the validity of Local First Nations Voice elections, the Court of Disputed Returns, which is constituted of a District Court judge, has jurisdiction to determine disputes in the first instance, including disputes around eligibility. If a question of law arises, the court may, on its own motion or by application of a party to the proceedings, state a question of law or for the opinion of the Court of Appeal.

The state electoral roll is a roll for the purpose of the Local Voice elections. The state electoral roll is maintained by the Australian Electoral Commission and an electronic copy of the current roll is available for public inspection at the Electoral Commission of South Australia and any AEC office. In order to inspect the roll, a person must provide their name, address and photographic identification.

Any First Nations person enrolled on the state electoral roll and who completes the declaration of eligibility is eligible to vote in the Local First Nations election in the region in which they reside and are on the roll. However, the state electoral roll does not contain information about whether a person is or not a First Nations person. As I said, the person will be taken to be a First Nations person if they satisfy the tripartite test in clause 4 of the bill. If there are some questions around eligibility on the basis they do not satisfy the definition, then the eligibility may be a matter for the Court of Disputed Returns.

I was also asked: 'What is a remedy in such a situation?' If there is a question about the eligibility, the Court of Disputed Returns has a jurisdiction to hear and determine any petition addressed to it disputing the validity. The court has the power to declare a person who was elected was not duly elected. A person who falsely makes a claim under section 4 in information provided is guilty of an offence under clause 28 of schedule 1, and it attracts a maximum penalty of four years imprisonment, which is consistent with the penalty for making a false declaration under the Oaths Act.

It was further asked: will this information be shared amongst government departments and other service providers? Pursuant to section 26 of the Electoral Act, the Electoral Commissioner must, on request, provide certain information to candidates in relation to elections.

Under section 27A(1) of the Electoral Act, the Electoral Commissioner may, on application by a prescribed authority, provide the authority with any information in the Electoral Commissioner's possession about an elector. The prescribed authorities are set out in regulation 5(1) of the Electoral Act, and includes the Commissioner of Police, the South Australian Superannuation Board, the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing, the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service Inc., and the ICAC.

The next question was: in terms of the address to parliament, one of the things we have to canvass at length is the availability for us to effectively take into account the reports that it provided, or the addresses, when we are working through debates and consideration given to that. I think that was answered in the response to the Hon. Dennis Hood's question about clause 40. It will be one address to one house of parliament. There will not be an opportunity to reagitate if amendments are moved, but nothing precludes individual members of parliament from seeking further views if the Voice is willing to do that.

In terms of funding, there was a question from SA-Best about why we have not gone down the path of a remuneration tribunal. I can advise that, in relation to a remuneration tribunal, I think I talked about that when we sat on Tuesday. The Remuneration Tribunal generally sets remuneration for people who have significant decision-making functions, be they members of parliament or members of local government, where this is an advisory body and, consistent with advisory bodies, this is the way remunerations are determined.

I was also asked if there are any other examples of cabinet-in-confidence or commercial-in-confidence information being legislated for. I am advised there are quite a number of examples on the statute books; for example, regulation 4 of the Essential Services Commission Regulations 2019, schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act and section 21 of the Ombudsman Act, to name a couple of those.

With that, I am happy to open up to further questions on clause 1. I look forward to talking about questions as we go through the committee stage. I hope I have been able to answer quite a number that I suspect will come up later on, but if there are more details that I have not given, of course I am happy to do so.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Can I start by thanking the Attorney for adopting the approach he has because I found the—in fact, it is a model we could adopt on many bills I suggest, Attorney, because it was very helpful, and very helpful to the government I might suggest, because my 40-plus questions have now turned into about 15, so I think the government might be appreciative of that for future legislation. I suspect it is true of my colleagues and those on the crossbench as well. I literally found myself crossing off questions as we went through, so no doubt the government will appreciate that as we have, so thank you.

Just to drill down on some more detail on some of the things you did mention this morning, just to clarify in my own mind—you did speak rather quickly on a few of those issues—just to be clear. Is it fair to say, Attorney, in your words—I do not want to misphrase you—do you see the Voice, as we are terming it, for want of a better term, as an advisory body to this parliament and to government on matters of Indigenous concern?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The intention is that it provides advice to parliament and the government. No more than advice, and that is very clear in the legislation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: And therefore is not binding, as you have said, just to be clear?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is no, it is not binding, in the same way that anything that comes from any member of the public or a parliamentary committee or any other advisory body is not binding.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the Attorney for the very thorough half hour of responses to questions he has given. I apologise that I did not have the opportunity to put some of these questions previously. My first line of questioning, which was partially answered in the second reading, is in relation to the model that was consulted by this government, whenever that started—some six months ago I think.

I am happy if the minister wants to take this on notice and come back to us at some further point in the debate, because it might have some detail or there might be some pre-prepared notes in his folder. The differences between the model that was originally consulted on versus the piece of legislation that we have today: in part, he says in his second reading explanation that:

In response to feedback from engagement sessions, the definition of 'Aboriginal person' and 'country' have been replaced with 'First Nations person' and 'traditional owner'…Two new clauses have been included in part 1 of the bill in response to concerns raised about the interaction of the Voice with other bodies…

In particular clause 7. Are there any other changes from the original model that was consulted on at the start of this process compared with the model that we have now and what are they, please?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, there are. There are numerous changes and they came about as a result of the 42—two being blank—so 40 actual submissions of substance as well as that community engagement. The community engagement process was in two stages. The first one had the Commissioner for First Nations Voice go out without a model but asked, 'What would you like to see in a model?'

As a result of that, he came back and wrote the first report that was published I think in October, from memory. That report set out what was heard from that first round of engagement, design and model. The people in the Attorney-General's Department and across government and obviously parliamentary counsel tried to translate that as best we could into a bit of legislation that formed the second round of consultation.

So there was that draft bill that, in very early November, was sent out; then, during the second part of November and December and the very start of January, face-to-face consultations right across South Australia were held again. As a result of that second round of consultation, there were some changes made. I went through a list of about a dozen of them a bit earlier on. I can go through them again or—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: No, that's alright.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The member set out a few of the important ones and they came out of particularly submissions from the likes of the South Australian Native Title Services, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the Law Society, and I think the Adelaide University put together a policy position. There were quite a few of the submissions that had areas of commonality in terms of the things that were submitted.

The definition of First Nations person, using the tripartite test, was certainly one of those. I think we had originally put in the bill a definition of First Nations person that was much more similar to the Aboriginal representative body that the former government had. Of course, it was only natural that some of what we did borrowed from some of the language in that first bill, but it was pretty universally considered that the tripartite test as originally set out in the Mabo case that I talked about was the most appropriate and we accepted that.

For the ability to nominate for somewhere other than where you are on the electoral roll; that is, nominate on your country—we talked about country as being the defining factor. Again, a commonality amongst a lot of those submissions was that there are already definitions set down in other legislation, particularly the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1998, that talk about traditional owner and what that means and it would be more sensible to use the already existing definition, which we accepted.

They were two, but there were—as I read out a little bit earlier—at least a dozen or so changes. Some were small but some were important as well.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the Attorney for that explanation. I would also like to ask the minister if he could perhaps describe the evolution of the different roles of the commissioner. In particular, Dr Roger Thomas has held the role of South Australian Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement and under this government we have had Mr Dale Agius appointed as the Commissioner for First Nations Voice.

Is the minister able to perhaps explain what was the transition between those roles, if there has indeed been a transition, or what the evolution in the process has been, and how he would see those, whether they are similar or if they have particular differences in their responsibilities?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her important question. The role of the Commissioner for First Nations Voice held by Dale Agius was created in I think July of last year. It was particularly for ascertaining the views about creating a First Nations body. It was, as I think I talked about yesterday, one of the first, if not the very first, election commitments that the then Labor opposition made, so it was something we were keen to start soon.

The role of the First Nations Voice commissioner has been the extensive community consultations. I think Commissioner Agius probably has not spent much of the last six months at home in Adelaide. It has been dozens and dozens of consultation sessions, from Ceduna, Oodnadatta, Coober Pedy, Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge, APY—right across the state.

The role of Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement—and I am delving back into my memory because I might have been the chief of staff to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs when it was first set up—came about when ATSIC was abolished by then Prime Minister John Howard. It is not something I think many Labor people are particularly proud of now but, with the acquiescence of then Labor opposition leader Mark Latham, it was filling a void in relation to governments getting some views—although not as complete as ATSIC or, I would say, this body—for dealing with issues to do with Aboriginal South Australians.

I think Narungga leader Klynton Wanganeen was the first Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, and there has been a succession of commissioners since who have done a very good job. Khatija Thomas, Roger Thomas, Frank Lampard, Inawantji Scales and Harry Miller have all held the position over the last decade and a half as Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement. We envisage that once the Voice is properly established and up and running it will fill the role that not just the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee has provided but also the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement has provided.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I also have some questions in relation to the combined letter from SA Native Title Services, which I think a number of members would have seen, particularly the Attorney-General. I would like to put some questions to him for which I would appreciate some responses on the record. Firstly, in the two-page letter, the signatories state, 'The proposed model would establish a regional or Local Voice with no defined representation, linkages or accountability back to native title groups.' It then poses the question, 'How is this a First Nations Voice?' Is the Attorney able to respond to that particular criticism?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Certainly, as a result of the submissions from SANTS, there were changes made to the legislation. There were a number of changes made, in particular the insertion of a new clause 7, after a number of submissions, including from SANTS, were concerned that any agreement that native title groups had with state government or the way they interact might be usurped by any new body.

Clause 7 was a new clause introduced as a result of those submissions that makes it abundantly clear in the act that it does not interfere with any agreement any body or any person already has or will have with the government. In addition to that and in recognition of submissions made by SANTS, there are four new committees required to be established by this statute, one of them being a native title bodies committee. There will be required to be a committee to provide advice to the State Voice that is made up of a representative of each of the native title bodies in South Australia.

In relation to the make-up of the Voice, the basic building blocks or the structure of the Voice, I appreciate and understand the views put forward by SANTS that there are native title bodies and one way you could structure a Voice is to have representatives of each native title body making up the South Australian Voice. That certainly was not the overwhelming view of the overwhelming number of Aboriginal South Australians who were consulted in what I am almost certain is the most thorough consultation the government has ever had with Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal people in South Australia.

The view was it should be a directly elected model from Aboriginal people and elected into local regions, which then form the State Voice. Some of the views that were put forward were that if native title bodies were the building blocks, that would not provide a place for, say, a Noongar person from Perth or a Koori or a Murri from one of the Eastern States—an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person who is not from country in South Australia but now calls South Australia home and is on the electoral roll and quite likely faces exactly the same level of discrimination and disadvantage that an Aboriginal person from country in South Australia faces but who would not be able to be a part of that, because of course they would not be part of a native title group within South Australia.

It was also raised as part of the consultations that it would make it difficult for some members of the stolen generations who have not found their way home or ability to know their country to be involved in this. So we appreciate that, and I have had a number of very good conversations with people from South Australian Native Title Services, but in regard to what the building blocks of the Voice are, that is just a difference of view about what makes them up, although we respect the views, and we have made changes to the final legislation to take into account some of those.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the Attorney for that response. I think some of their concerns remain in that their chief concern is: who does represent cultural authority for a particular group? I think somewhere in their 12 or 13 pages there is a comment about parallel processes between not just the native title groups and the Voice but potentially other groups as well. Would the Attorney provide some commentary about how he sees cultural voice being established, utilising these laws or any others for that matter?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate that. The Voice is not designed to act instead of already established voices or cultural authority but to complement those. It in no way seeks to take away from the cultural authority that many Aboriginal people have through native title groups or through statutory landholding authorities like the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara or the Maralinga Tjarutja. We see this as being complementary to those, not in competition with those.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: If there is a situation where there are other groups that are not specifically represented by Voice representatives who have alternative views to the Voice—in fact, they may be diametrically opposed—how does the Attorney see those issues should be resolved? This parliament is going to have a statutory right to hear from the Voice directly. How should those other groups be represented to parliament?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am absolutely certain—I know for a fact—that whatever views a representative of the Voice may put forward to parliament, there will be Aboriginal people in South Australia who have a different view and quite possibly a diametrically opposed view. The Aboriginal community, like society as a whole and like any other group within society, has a huge range of differences of views. We have seen that even in the discussion about the federal referendum, with Warren Mundine or Jacinta Price having a view or in fact senators from Victoria having a view.

The model we have put up from the consultations, which as I said are the most thorough we as governments have ever done with Aboriginal South Australia, is the model that was overwhelmingly supported. But I am absolutely certain that when individuals or organisations have a view different from what the Voice is putting up, in my experience most of us will hear about that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I just have two more issues to explore at clause 1, and I will be done. I do not think they will take a great deal of time. Can I just further examine the issue of defamation, which the Attorney outlined in his contribution? It is just a couple where slightly more detail is required—just clarifying what he said, actually.

I think he said that individuals can be sued and that therefore they would be individually liable. My question is therefore: would they be able to access government assistance—that is, legal assistance—in the same way the executive does in parliament, yet non-executive members of parliament are not able to access legal assistance? Is that something the government has yet turned its mind to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think this is the correct answer, but I am happy to clarify it afterwards. From my experience, particularly as Attorney-General and seeing files come through and needing to give instructions, most members of the public sector have the ability, in circumstances where it is strictly in line with their duties, to seek to be indemnified and to be represented by the Crown in proceedings, including defamation. This will be no different from that I presume, but I will double-check that. Certainly, anything acting anywhere outside the duties of individuals will absolutely be liable in the ordinary course of the operation of the laws of defamation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think that clarifies that matter. Just to be clear, Attorney, I think you also said that they can also be sued in the normal course, as any other body corporate would be able to as an entity in itself; that is correct, is it not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is correct.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think that deals with my matters of defamation. I will turn to my last issue on clause 1, and that is the scope of the legislation upon which the Voice may present to parliament, that is, the issues that they may wish to speak on. As I went through the Notice Paper, as it currently stands, it looks to me like essentially every issue—even with quite obscure bills where you think that would not necessarily be related, when you think it through you could actually find a reason. I am just looking for the Attorney's response to that more generally.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The honourable member is correct, it could be any bill potentially. During the course of discussion on this—and I think it has come up in public discussion federally—about whether there is some sort of scope or narrowing of what the Voice may be involved in, the other alternative way is to leave it up to the clerks of the chambers to decide what they think the Voice might be interested in, to narrow it down to particular acts that are being amended or particular topics.

It was our view, and certainly consistent with the consultations, that as the honourable member said, potentially nearly anything could be of interest to Aboriginal people. I was thinking about that as well—for example, the bill that came through parliament that dealt with the new Women's and Children's Hospital and its building. There are burial grounds all along the Torrens and that may be something that on first glance superficially you might think might not attract necessarily huge interest from Aboriginal people and the Voice, but facets of nearly everything we do will touch upon that.

We will see in the operation of what the Voice wishes to do and how they want to operate, I suspect, but I do not know. It might be on occasions that it will desire that on important matters like changes to child protection, Aboriginal heritage or things that are very directly involved with Aboriginal people, and it might be that on other matters a one or two-page report is tabled on particular bills. But the honourable member is right, the potential is, and quite deliberately, that it is any bill that is of interest to the Voice.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think this will be the last one from me because, yes, that is right. Even more simply than that, Aboriginal people obviously will use the Women's and Children's Hospital, so that makes sense. My last question in that regard is: are we to assume that it is only matters currently before the parliament, or could it be a matter that has passed the parliament at some previous time, for example, or some matter that the Voice believes should get the parliament's attention that is not currently in front of the parliament?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to legislation, I am advised that it is prospective—that is, bills that are introduced to parliament after this comes into operation—but of course there is the ability to provide a report on any matter of interest, so that could be on legislation that is in the past, or issues as well.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I said I had concluded my questions at clause 1 but I just have one more line of questioning, which is the timing of it. I note that when the former Marshall Liberal government had the AR Bill before the parliament that a lot of Labor members were critical of the timing there. Attorney, why does this bill need to be passed now when, clearly, there are some outstanding concerns from groups, as have been expressed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I think I have said before, this has been an exceptionally thorough consultation. There were two rounds of consultation: one to design the legislation and then a further round over a number of months about the legislation specifically. I think the draft legislation was made available publicly and certainly to other members and to the shadow Aboriginal affairs minister by mid-November. So this has been many months of not just development but consultation on an actual model of a bill.

As I said in my second reading explanation, this is nearly six years since the Uluru Statement, it is six months of extensive consultation, and for 187 years I think Aboriginal people's voices have not been heard properly, so we are keen to get this going.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the Attorney for his response. I outlined in my second reading contribution the consultation that we did on the Aboriginal Housing Strategy, which I think we had hoped would take 12 months and actually took two years in the end. Some of that was COVID related, but certainly it was to try to achieve some form of consensus, notwithstanding that Aboriginal people, like everybody else, are diverse and have divergent views. Does the Attorney think that if he had taken more time he might have been able to achieve more consensus on this legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My answer is: I suspect not. I think there are some things—like how we outlined the difference of views between what the basic building blocks would be and whether they be native title groups or elected bodies—that are just very different policy matters that we view. I do not think any more time would have brought a resolution to some of the things that are just one or the other differences of views.

In terms of the time taken, as I said, it was an extensive six months, but there was some feedback in the groups to the effect that, 'We have told you we want a Voice. This has been going on for six years. Can't you just get on with it?' I understand the member's views and acknowledge her work with Aboriginal people as housing minister and her familiarity with the extraordinary community respect that Commissioner Dale Agius has in the South Australian Aboriginal community.

Finding that balance between reagitating something that has been spoken about for six years with the Voice and getting it done, but getting it done in a way that, as I said, has the process where we design something as a result of the consultation and then consult again—I think we have found the balance between those two things at the right level. Of course, there will be some issues in which there will be irreconcilable differences with some groups.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a few questions on a few topics, and one has only occurred to me today, but it has come from the question the Hon. Laura Henderson raised in her second reading that has been responded to today with regard to time limits. Is there a time limit set on the Governor's Address in Reply?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The answer is: not that I am aware of, but I am happy to check on that. I do not think there is.

The CHAIR: The answer is no.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you. In terms of the Hon. Dennis Hood's contribution, I just wanted to reflect on something that I discovered when I visited New Zealand, looking at sex work law reform. The first question that the proponents there of sex work decriminalisation asked me was, 'What do Aboriginal people think?' and I said, 'I have no idea. I had not thought to ask them.' They responded that their first question is always, 'What do Maori people think?' because Maori people have dedicated seats in the New Zealand parliament and so in fact the starting point of any legislation is 'What do Maori people think?' firstly, because they have some votes dedicated on the floor and also because they have a voice in the debate.

For me, that was one of those epiphany moments where I realised I had not even thought to consult with Aboriginal people and I am embarrassed to say that because I should have thought to. It was not until a parliament that worked in a completely different way put that as a challenge to me that I realised that it is not the way that we think currently in this parliament. It is a question for later, but perhaps we will be looking at joint standing orders to accommodate this, not just individual house standing orders.

My other questions, Attorney, come from the Liberal Party position on this bill, which I think you have answered quite clearly and I alluded to in some of my questions, with their claim in the media release issued on Tuesday morning that this would create a third chamber of parliament. Certainly, it seems to me that is a totally incorrect assertion. Further on it says in that press release:

We oppose the bill in its current form, but may look to make amendments as it progresses through the parliament.

Attorney, has the Liberal opposition raised any amendments with you, as I note there are no amendments here before us today from the Liberal opposition?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: We are going to raise them in the assembly.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So you are going to raise them in the assembly? Why would you raise amendments in the House of Assembly rather than the Legislative Council?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: The short time frame.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does somebody want to stand and actually answer these questions, because I do have a few questions for the Liberal opposition right now?

The CHAIR: You can stand and ask the question and then sit down, but at the moment you have the floor.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I notice that there is no leadership in terms of the Leader of the Opposition in the house. My questions are: where are the Liberal opposition amendments? Why have they not talked to any crossbencher about them? Why do you refer to the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill? On which parts of that bill do you intend to seek amendments? I then have some further specific questions about that bill and why you have taken the approach you have in that bill. If you could answer those, that would be great, and then we will have a few more questions.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Lensink, it is up to you—you can choose to answer those questions. I am not sure about going on to a different bill, but anyhow.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you, Chair. I will answer those that I think are within the scope of the standing orders, given that we do not have the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill in this chamber that is under debate. I think it has been clear that this is not the only piece of legislation that is being rushed through the parliament. The crossbenchers would share on occasion our concern about the inordinate haste with which the government, once it decides it has the numbers, jams stuff through, because it can. This is one example of that.

We have made the point in relation to this particular piece of legislation that we think that more time could be taken. My colleague, who is the spokesperson, both as shadow attorney-general and as minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs, will be the one who has amendments in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will clarify. I am asking questions about this bill because the Liberal opposition made a public media statement that they would have amendments to this bill. They referred in their public commentary to the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill, which I am well familiar with, given the Marshall government brought in that bill prior to the 2022 election, noting at the time that it was rushed—largely due to COVID, so I can accept that—but reintroduced by the shadow minister and shadow attorney in the other place—still rushed from the previous incarnation, completely unamended—that has sat there since the beginning of this parliament. My question is: do you intend to change the definition of 'elder' and why have you chosen the definition of 'elder' as somebody over the age of 60 or otherwise determined?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am rising to take exception to the comments that we are rushing this bill through parliament because we have the numbers. I think it is clear for the record—and I would ask the Attorney to confirm this for the record—that since this bill and prior to its introduction the minister and his team have made themselves readily available to answer the multitude of questions that we and our staff have worked on tirelessly to provide to them in an effort to deal with this debate in an appropriate time frame.

I will say it again: I take exception to any suggestion that this is being rushed through here simply because the numbers are the way they are. We have all done our work, and I in this instance—not often we do this—commend the government because I cannot think of another example where they have provided as much feedback, as much detail, on myriad issues we have raised with them, and then gone back to them and asked them to reclarify, and then gone back again and asked to reclarify, in meeting after meeting after meeting that they have made available to us at our request and at very short notice.

That has all happened sometimes overnight or on the same day. I would ask the minister to confirm that that has been the case in terms of their consultation, I am sure with the Greens but certainly with SA-Best over this period.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. This bill, I think, will be the most important thing I do in my public life. I have tried and made sure that as a team we have done absolutely everything we can to have people as informed as they possibly could be about this bill.

We have met with the shadow Aboriginal affairs minister, representatives of SA-Best, the Greens, and of One Nation. I have reached out to the crossbenchers in the lower house as well to provide further briefings as it travels down to the lower house. We have made a series of amendments based on the bill that was released in early November to take into account issues raised and formal suggestions that have been put in writing by other members of parliament.

I have not been involved in a piece of legislation or a policy matter in my 10 years in this parliament that has been more involved, more detailed and with more consultation with the people who it affects and those who are going to be making decisions on it. I am very proud of the way this has been consulted on and the result that we come to here today.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Would the minister confirm that that also includes going back to the commissioner, as required, to gather information that we have requested specifically from him in relation to those consultation processes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And with the commissioner, who has been at all the consultations himself. For nearly the last six months, I have had weekly—every single week—meetings with the commissioner to make sure I am understanding what is happening, almost in real time with the consultations, to make sure we are making this bill representative of the views of Aboriginal South Australia, as well as those of us who make the decisions and whose voices we are going to hear better count.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Can the minister please confirm what date the Greens received a copy of the bill versus when the Liberal Party, One Nation and other parties received a copy of the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that with me. I will have to take that on notice. From memory, it would have been within possibly the same day and some time in early to mid-November, but I am happy to take that on notice and check.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not wish to prolong debate or, indeed, inflame it because I do not think it is necessarily that useful but in response I would say that those are not just my words, those are words from Aboriginal people I have spoken to about this particular legislation, that they do feel that more time could be given to reach more of a consensus position, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But for the purpose of the debate, it is probably not necessarily a matter worth pursuing.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It was not asked directly of me but my understanding is I got the bill the same day that the Liberals got the bill. What I wanted to add, and the reason I have asked the Liberals to disclose what their amendments to this bill are, is I have been cognisant, having conversations, and I have met in the last week with SANTS and I outright asked, knowing that they are still not 100 per cent happy with this bill, 'Which do you prefer: the opposition bill or the government bill?' and they said, 'The government bill.'

If you have particular amendments that perhaps would have got the support of crossbenchers and the community, it was beholden to the Liberals to put them forward, not in the House of Assembly in the final stages of this without due consultation and respect for the other members of the Legislative Council. I let the shadow attorney know instantly that I had an amendment that I negotiated with the government in regard to the changes to the voting system because I have to say I do not think first past the post is something that this council should be advocating for. I am much happier that we have settled on a voting system that is fairer and more proportional and also reflects the Legislative Council's own voting system, which I imagine most of us would support.

I got a text message back but I never had a discussion. I have never had it raised with me by the Liberal opposition what their particular concerns still are. I do not actually know what your particular concerns are. I do not know if it is the definitions that are used. I am not sure because you also had conflicting second reading speeches. In fact, some of you spoke against your own Aboriginal Representative Body Bill in your second reading speeches, so I am not quite sure what the Liberal opposition position is.

I am not sure what these opposition amendments will look like, and I find it incredibly disrespectful that you would not put them up in the Legislative Council, so I just wanted to place that on the record.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I would like to reiterate what the Hon. Connie Bonaros said in relation to the discussions, the engagement, the consultation, the answers that we have received from the Attorney-General in relation to this bill. We had some really serious, hard questions that we posed to the Attorney-General, particularly in relation to integrity, integrity of candidates, elections, and a lot of other matters in relation to the administration of it, and I must say I was impressed at the speed and the clarity of the responses that we got from the government in relation to this legislation.

I will have some questions in relation to parliamentary process in a second, but I just want to note the Hon. Michelle Lensink and her comments in relation to haste. I note that her party and Labor were quite happy to jump on board with this absurd local government legislation that went through the House of Assembly yesterday quite easily. They were able to come to some sort of consensus with the government, and the way I view it is: probably in an effort to try to save the backsides of some of their preferred candidates, but anyway we will discuss that later on.

To the Attorney, I do have some questions in relation to parliamentary procedure. In regard to draft legislation, will the Voice be able to access draft bills before they are actually tabled in the parliament or will the Voice need to wait until the bill is actually introduced into the parliament?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. There is no right to access draft bills under this legislation. There is a requirement, once they have been introduced, for the Clerk of the respective chamber to forward it to the Voice. That does not mean though that the opposition, private members or the government of the day are precluded from consulting with the Voice about a draft bill or indeed about concepts they might be putting forward.

Other aspects of the legislation before us has consultation processes with chief executives and with cabinet. It might even be that consultation processes on something that the government or anyone else knows is certainly going to be of direct interest to the Voice, that they might choose to engage with the Voice prior to putting bills forward. But no, there is not a right or an ability to see bills in draft form. It is sent to the Voice by the Clerks upon their introduction.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will the Voice be given some kind of a deadline to be able to respond to making second reading speeches in this chamber and in the other place? In light of what has been mentioned, if there is some sort of emergency legislation that is required—as we saw during COVID or perhaps even this absurd local government bill that is going to be rushed through—will they have enough notice, and what if they cannot make a second reading speech even though they have indicated that they will?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question and I would refer to clause 40(2) and (3). Clause 40(2) requires that:

The State First Nations Voice must give the presiding officer of the relevant House at least 7 days' written notice of the intention of the State First Nations Voice to address the House.

Subclause (3) goes on to provide:

However, the State First Nations Voice need not give notice in accordance with subsection (2) if, in the case where a Bill is to be debated or otherwise progressed urgently through the relevant House, it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

However, as I mentioned earlier, clause 40(7) contemplates the possibility where there is just not an opportunity to be heard, and the example that I have given that it might apply to is those times during the height of COVID where we were all—I think crossbenchers and the opposition—given briefings on a Monday night after the then government's party room meeting. They had decided in cabinet earlier that day and the party room meeting on legislation that was necessary to keep us safe, and being progressed, I think on one occasion, through both chambers the very next day. Subclause (7) provides:

Nothing in this section prevents the relevant House from conducting its business (including, to avoid doubt, the consideration or passing of Bills about which the State First Nations Voice wishes to address the House) prior to being addressed by the State First Nations Voice under this section.

It contemplates that particular situation, which from time to time may be necessary, as we found under COVID, but I would also note that there is the ability to provide reports to the parliament. My guess is it will probably occur more than addresses by reports and certainly in a situation where legislation is going to be progressed quickly once notice is given, it may be a written report that is provided rather than an address.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I would imagine that that second reading address would need to be presented in this place or the other place by a representative of the Voice. In the event that they are not available and there has been a rush, is there an opportunity for a proxy presentation of the second reading?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: An explanation contemplates that it will be one of the two presiding members of the Voice who have that right to address parliament on legislation but, of course, if one of those cannot make it, it is still completely open for a written report to be provided. It is not as if parliament will not get to hear the view of the Voice.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just a procedural matter: I imagine standing orders in this place and the other place will need to be amended?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We talked about that a little bit earlier at a little bit of length, but the intention would be that—whether they are separate standing orders that are very similar or joint standing orders—maybe the standing orders committees of each house would come to provide for the appropriate mechanism of the standing orders.

Earlier I talked about the possibility that it might be at the start or the end or during second reading speeches. It could be similar to the House of Assembly—a limit of 20 minutes during the second reading, for example—but it will be a matter for each house. I suspect the houses jointly to come up with that exact procedure.

The CHAIR: Just before you make your contribution, Hon. Ms Bonaros, we have had a broad-ranging conversation at clause 1 where members have had their opportunity to put questions. If we now have specific questions on clauses, we will deal with them as we go. If you have a general comment, by all means, but if it is specific to a clause then we will do that when we get to it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you, Chair. I think it flows on from what the minister has just answered so it is probably appropriate now. I think it is very important—and perhaps in line with very wise changes that were made to the Coroners Act—that when those reports are made, there is a requirement for the government and the minister of the day to provide a report back in terms of any actions or otherwise that it seeks: a response, in effect, to those reports that must be tabled in this parliament.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is a requirement to report back as soon as practicable but, in any case, no later than six months after the report is tabled and it requires the minister to report back on what action is going to be taken and, if no action is going to be taken, on the reasons why not. This is one piece of legislation where I can almost answer most of these questions off the top of my head.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is a fairly minor question, actually. I will just ask the Attorney: this clause has struck me as a little bit curious and I just wonder if he might explain the intention of the clause.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. This clause in particular recognises that nothing will require the disclosure of information that should not be disclosed according to First Nations tradition. I am very well aware that there are particular sorts of knowledge that only certain groups, only men or women, are allowed or should be allowed to have or know according to First Nations tradition. This makes it very clear that nothing requires disclosure of information that, according to that tradition, ought not be disclosed.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please advise who determines what the traditions are and, if there are any conflicting traditions within different groups, who will have precedence over the application?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a matter for groups to work out, but this is about not disclosing information. It is not a contest of what is disclosed: this is the ability not to disclose information.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 and 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This relates really to part 2, which is Local First Nations Voices. I am sure the Attorney is very familiar with the comments of Native Title Services at paragraph 12 in their submission, in which they state the potential exists to disenfranchise many Aboriginal people who have connections to country in South Australia for a range of reasons, such as not being enrolled to vote, only being able to vote in Local Voice elections based on place of residence and a couple of other issues as well. Can he provide some comments on their submission in that regard?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Certainly, as I outlined earlier, in relation to a number of the submissions from South Australian Native Title Services, we have taken into account issues that were raised. As I said earlier, some are irreconcilable differences about the basic building blocks of how the Voice looks, but one thing that in my discussions with representatives of SANTS I am certainly alive to and that we are taking into account is the alignment with nation groups, which is something that SANTS has talked about.

I think there were two different sets of draft boundaries that went out in the second round of consultation, one based largely on local government boundaries and one based on collections of nations and nation boundaries. By far, the most preferred method was the second one, and that is certainly something that SANTS has raised with me on the constitution of regions, as clause 9 contemplates, aligning as far as is practicable with our nation boundaries.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I appreciate that the regions are to be determined by regulation. Could the minister advise whether he thinks at this stage that it will set out regions that are reasonably proportionate with their population, or will it vary from region to region?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. It is a reasonable question. Each region will not have exactly the same number of voters. Again, it was very clear in the consultations that there are other factors that weigh even more than the number of voters in each region, such as traditional linkages between different groups: the lakes groups, the far west groups, the western and central desert groups, groups that are along the Murray River or in the South-East. As I have said, the overwhelming consensus is to try to make sure that they follow as closely as possible the boundaries of Aboriginal nations, grouping nations together.

One of the most eagerly debated parts of the second round of the consultations was what nation groups are appropriately within different groups, whether a nation group has more in common with and should be with, say, a west coast area or a western and central desert bloc. Certainly, that was more important than having the exact number of Aboriginal voters in each electorate.

The other thing that is apparent, too, is that we do not have exact statistics of Aboriginal voters on the electoral roll in each electorate. I think I may have said earlier in a contribution that it is not something that the Australian Electoral Commission, whose voter roll we use for state elections, has a record of as part of their dataset. So it would be very hard to quantify, but certainly it is something that will be looked if this passes and we have our first election in the middle of the year; it is something we can look at in terms of the development of how boundaries look depending on the number of people who vote in each election.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is a good example of the Attorney pre-empting a lot of my questions. I had multiple questions on this clause, but now I think I have one or maybe one and a half. He will be pleased to hear that. I think this is the right place to ask this, and he might want to correct me if I am wrong. It is really about the secretariat that he mentioned with respect to the facilities to run the Voice in its various locations. Does he envisage an office, a physical locality, in each region, staff members, etc.? I am just looking for some information on that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is a reasonable question. The secretariat I think was about $700,000, somewhere around six FTEs. It is not envisaged that there will be a physical office for each of the Local Voices or a permanent single person stationed in whatever is the most central community for each Local Voice.

What is envisaged, though—and I think I had talked about it on Tuesday when we were discussing the budget, and I went into some granular detail about some things that had been considered in the budget—is that one of the items was a provision of $750 for each meeting that is held either by the State Voice or the Local Voice for venue hire. So it is not envisaged that there will be a physical office. Also, I think I talked about having provision in the budget for $1,000 per each member of a Local Voice for the hire of a laptop to conduct the business.

I suspect it will be up to Voices to decide, but I suspect a lot of the business and meetings of Voices will be conducted via AV—over Zoom or Teams, which a lot of people, including many members of the Aboriginal community, have become very accustomed to during COVID. Given the great distances in some regions, it might be the most effective and efficient way.

Clause passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This clause deals with the joint presiding members, and it talks about them being removed for certain offences, as I recall. I am just looking for information from the Attorney as to what sort of offences would justify removal.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to answer this question that is found in clause 14, even though we are in clause 12—

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: I beg your pardon.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —but it relates to clause 12. Clause 12 constitutes the joint presiding members and clause 14 talks about how vacancies occur, not just for the joint presiding members but for other members of the Local Voice. There are the usual vacancy provisions—if a member dies or resigns—but also one of the things that causes a vacancy is if a member is sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment for an offence or is found guilty of a serious offence.

The definition of a serious offence will be found in clause 3 in the interpretation section. I do not have a defined list but it refers to the various parts, particularly the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, that define serious offence. It is something that is known in many parts of legislation. I am happy to print out the names of those offences that are defined as serious offences for the honourable member's benefit.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The reason I asked it there, though, is because in subclause (3) it says that even though they may be removed they would not be removed as an ordinary member. I seek your clarification on how that can be—under what circumstances that would be.

The CHAIR: Sorry, can you repeat that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, Chair. It also says that even though they could be removed they would not be removed as an ordinary member. I am just seeking clarification about under what circumstances that might occur.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This anticipates that the most likely scenario is for misconduct, where a joint presiding member—and those two joint presiding members go on to form the State Voice—that, for example, the State Voice passes a motion and makes a decision that a member of the State Voice is removed for misconduct, but in that Local Voice the presiding member does not agree.

So the State Voice can make that decision—for example, to remove a person as a member of a State Voice for misconduct—but if it is not something that the Local Voice from which that person comes agrees with, they can still stay a member of the Local Voice even though they have been removed in that circumstance from the State Voice.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please advise if there will be rules around what expenses can be claimed and if there will be any public reporting requirements in line with those?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. In relation to remuneration, allowance or expenses, it is quite clear that that is determined by the government. As we have talked about before, that is in line with nearly all other advisory bodies. In relation to that accountability as to how any funds are used, clause 18 specifically deals with that and provides that Local First Nations Voices—and there is a similar provision when we get to the State Voice—must keep proper records in relation to its affairs, must have annual statements audited each year, and further, it is specifically provided that the Auditor-General may from time to time, and at least once a year, audit the accounts of the Local First Nations Voice. So it is provided there for, I think, quite high levels of transparency.

Clause passed.

Clause 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the legislation there is mention of a discretion of the Local First Nations Voice to collaborate. Could the minister please advise where this discretion lies? Is it with the Local First Nations Voice? What will happen in instances where individual groups the body is looking to meet with are not willing or not able to meet?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The provisions under clause 15(1)(e) and (f) provide at the discretion of the Local First Nations Voice—so it is something at the discretion of the Local First Nations Voice—they may collaborate with other organisations. There is no requirement that those other organisations have to collaborate, but it just provides them powers and functions and that is something they may do. It is at the discretion of the First Nations Voice; it is not something that an outside organisation can compel the First Nations Voice to collaborate with. Similarly, the First Nations Voice cannot compel an outside organisation to collaborate with them, but it provides for that ability to do so.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I might ask it here because I think, inevitably, it will tie into the functions of the Local and State Voice: I just wanted the minister, for the record, to indicate what he foresees the timing of the Treaty to be. I ask it here, given the interaction that is going to have with the Local and State Voice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly, in terms of timing, we are progressing this as the first part of our implementation and our full implementation of a state-based response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice is the first part of three: the Voice and then the Makarrata—the agreement-making—and truth-telling. Most of those who were involved in the dialogue in the lead-up to the Uluru Statement in May 2017 talked about a sequencing and the Voice being the sensible starting point.

Certainly, the vast majority of those who have been involved in the academic and community discussion and writing since then have I think, logically, as we accepted, seen the Voice as, in sequencing, the first logical place to start. We would see the Voice providing help in informing us about the processes of how we go about Treaty. I do not think—it is open to, but I think it is unlikely—it will be the party that treaties are negotiated with.

When we were last in government, Commissioner Thomas, whom we have spoken about before, did extensive work, as then Treaty commissioner, with consultations about how Treaty might look in South Australia. Certainly, through those consultations, overwhelmingly, at first instance, treaties or agreement-making, were sought by most Aboriginal South Australians who engaged in that consultation as the government to individual nations.

We are keen to finalise the Voice, get the Voice operational and then, certainly, take into account the Voice's views about the processes we need to look at to start on Treaty processes. I would anticipate that will start—I do not have an exact time frame—after the first elections of the Voices become operational.

I think, too, I am alive to the fact that since I think in 2016 we announced, as the then South Australian government, our commitment to Treaty negotiations and I spent a year and a half in Treaty discussions. Much like we are with this, we were the first jurisdiction in Australia to start those discussions. Other jurisdictions have since—but particularly Victoria—and I think there is an announcement today from Queensland, and the Northern Territory has had a report from a Treaty commissioner. It is a body of work to do to have a look at how other jurisdictions have progressed Treaty in Australia and also internationally. Getting this bedded down is our first priority, but we absolutely are committed to the other components of Treaty and Truth.

The CHAIR: I have been respectful and listened to the conversation about Treaty, but it has nothing to do with this particular bill. The Hon. Mr Hood, do you have something else to contribute?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Nothing to do with Treaty. I just wanted to inform the house that I had multiple questions at clause 15, multiple questions at clause 16, but the Attorney has answered all those questions, so I have nothing until clause 20.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We are still on Local First Nations Voices at this point. Subclause (2) states that the Local First Nations Voice must meet not less than four, and not more than six times a year, and the next subclause enables the Local First Nations Voices to meet more than six times a year, with approval of the minister. Can the minister explain why that was prescribed that way, please?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The main motivating factor for a description of this was to make sure people effectively knew what they were getting into if they put themselves forward for a Local First Nations Voice. Subclause (2) of clause 16—and it repeats it again, as much of this does, in regard to the next part of the State Voice—talks about not less than four but no greater than six meetings without the approval of the minister, recognising that there may be occasions where it is needed to have more standard meetings. It was designed to give people who might want to put themselves forward some sort of indication of what will be involved in what they are doing.

For instance, if people put did put themselves forward, got elected and then found, like a lot of councillors do, that there are meetings every week, or multiple meetings a week, this was designed to make sure there was some sort of understanding about the commitment in terms of these meetings of the Local Voice. It does not preclude, though, having discussions out of session, but the formal meetings are there to make sure people have an understanding of particularly what the time commitments will be.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the minister for that explanation. Was consideration given to enabling Local First Nations Voices to make their own rules, if you like, especially given that they will be quite diverse and have a range of needs? Is he able to comment on what came up through consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly, the final subclause of clause 16, subclause (10), allows the Local First Nations Voices to determine their own procedures, but to give some indication of what may be required of a Voice, it was thought appropriate to put it into the legislation. If more meetings are required, it does allow the ability for more meetings to occur with the approval of the minister.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is the clause that deals with the code of conduct and basically says that the minister may introduce one, and then requires members of the Local First Nations Voice to comply with it. Has the government contemplated one at this stage and, if so, is a draft available and where is it at essentially?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to advise that the government does intend to have a code of conduct that will be enforceable and must be published by notice in the Gazette, and that is being worked on. We had a draft section in the original bill that talked about a code of conduct and, after quite a number of submissions from groups about the needs of Aboriginal organisations, we agreed that it was best to consult further and have that done by way of a code of conduct that can be put in by notice and changed if necessary.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Why was it established that this would be a discretionary power for the minister to give notice in the Gazette? Why was it not mandatory that there will be a code of conduct? I appreciate that one is on the way.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Pretty much the same answer I gave the Hon. Dennis Hood: it was considered whether there would be five or six pages of the Public Sector Code of Ethics or other things that constitute a code of conduct, but after the original draft and further consultation we took into account the views that further consultation would be desirable and for something that can change over time.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please advise at this stage whether it includes a public disclosure of conflict of interest, similar to what members of parliament have to do?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to advise, yes, that is intended in the code of conduct.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I have some queries about the election. Could the minister please advise if the same rules that apply for general elections for members of parliament will apply for the Local First Nations Voice candidates? Will there be rules around corflutes, where they can be placed, handing out how-to-vote cards, whether there will be spending caps for campaigns—just the more practical requirements around election time?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are some rules set out in schedule 1 but it provides also that rules for the election may be determined by the Electoral Commissioner. There may be some rules that are very similar to how state elections are conducted for the first election. Of course, subsequent elections will be conducted at the same time as state elections as envisaged in this bill. It will be up to the Electoral Commissioner but initial discussions have been focused on having similar rules and conduct to state elections.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please advise if he anticipates that First Nations Voice candidates will be campaigning for the same time period, i.e. from the writs being issued, as candidates for the South Australian parliament?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It will be up to the Electoral Commissioner in consultation with others, but for the first election, should this bill pass and that happens in the middle of the year, I suspect there will be longer periods—it is a new process, so to make people aware—then after this the Electoral Commissioner will have a look at how the process worked and whether it will be the same sort of time periods or it may be longer periods, given the vast distances and remoteness of many Aboriginal communities around South Australia.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: For the first few elections where it is run concurrently with the parliamentary elections, I anticipate there will probably be a little bit of confusion in the public. Does the minister know if there will be any educational campaign so that people in the community understand that there are different candidates running for different roles?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Is it a good one. Indeed, for the first election that is not held at the same time as a state election, there is intended to be an education campaign and an awareness campaign and it is intended that there will be such things in the future.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please advise if there is a minimum number of meetings a member must attend before their seat is vacated, similarly to that for members of parliament for sitting weeks?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is no contemplation of that in the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Should there be? It is not an insignificant issue. I wonder if that is something—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is not an insignificant issue but there are provisions for the State Voice to recommend the removal of people for various reasons and not turning up to a meeting, I suspect, would be deemed as possible misconduct or not fulfilling a condition of your office that they would take into account.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: It might not necessarily go directly to this particular clause, but just in response to your answer: I guess I just flag a concern. Let's be honest, it is politics, and so, if individuals miss a meeting versus multiple meetings, will there be any safeguards on how that will be determined?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I answered the Hon. Dennis Hood, that will be something that could be taken into account in terms of the provisions for removal.

Clause passed.

Clauses 23 to 27 passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is the clause that deals with the functions of the State First Nations Voice and it lists them. It is another example of me having multiple questions that have already been answered by the Attorney. So thank you, Attorney.

One that I would like some more clarity on is (1)(a), which talks about representing the diversity of the various groups. Certainly from my experience, they can be very diverse. I know that it talks about the various areas, and it talks about the male and female representation as well, but how does the Attorney contemplate with free and fair elections that any other diversity will be specifically represented or is it really contemplated that that will be left to the election to produce an outcome?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I just cannot lay my hands on it, but I think it is reflective of some language or at least a concept that was used somewhere in the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill about one of the things that this seeks to do. What it contemplates I think most basically is that we are having a diverse range of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people elected from right throughout South Australia, so one of the functions is to represent that diversity.

Of course no one body is going to capture the total breadth of diversity. This chamber does not catch the total breadth of diversity. This parliament does not catch the total breadth of diversity of the South Australian community, but it is intended to make sure that the diversity of the South Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community is represented as best as any mechanism that has a limited number of people can.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I imagined that would be the answer. I was just seeking if there was anything in particular the Attorney had in mind, so thank you.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please advise what 'other functions' he anticipates assigning this body as outlined under clause 28(1)(f)?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is nothing specifically that the government has in mind yet, but that is not to say that there might not be functions over time that governments think are important to assign to the First Nations Voice, so it is allowing for any change or evolution into the future that may be necessary.

Clause passed.

Clause 29 passed.

Clause 30.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: This question is more broadly for the committees generally, but could the minister please advise if committee members will need to be enrolled to vote in South Australia to be eligible to form a part of the committee, and also if there will be a requirement for them to produce a criminal history report, similar to that of the Local and State Voice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. In relation to her first question, are committee members required to be on the state electoral role, the answer to that is no. There is one proviso, and again trying to represent as wide a view as possible, and that is that members of, for instance, the committee that is contemplated under clause 30 cannot be members of the Local Voice. It cannot be members of the Local Voice appointing themselves to this required committee. In relation to criminal history checks, that may be something an individual Voice wants to put in place, but it is not a requirement contemplated under this act.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please advise if the code of conduct that applies to the Local and First Nations Voice will be rolled out for the committee members as well?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it could be applied to committee members as well.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I possibly should have asked this when it came up earlier in one of the clauses, but it is subclause (2), which refers to '2 persons of different gender'. Can the Attorney advise whether the genders include non-binary people?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I can advise that. It is set out in more detail I think in schedule 1, but, yes, that is the case.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please advise whether committee members who are appointed to multiple committees will be able to seek remuneration for more than one committee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is potentially possible, and if they are doing a fair degree of work as members of different committees that may happen. I should note that, for committees, it is quite clear in subclause (6) of all the committee provisions that they are 'entitled to such remuneration, allowances and expenses (if any) as may be determined by the Minister after consultation with the State First Nations Voice'.

So if there were members that were members of multiple committees, it could be open to get remuneration for multiple committees, but it could be open not to. We do not envisage that this will be something that will create a great expense on government, and that is particularly why that clause is in there.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In the minister's second reading reply, he thoroughly outlined—and thank you for that—some of the allowances that would be provided for. Could the minister please provide if there is a figure yet anticipated for the remuneration of committee members?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that contemplated in the overall budget—I think it was $10.3 million over the next four years—is a small amount to pay for expenses of committee members, should travel be required to attend a meeting.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: One of the minister's former responses was about needing to be enrolled on the electoral roll to be a committee member. Is there any safeguard in place to ensure that those who are being allocated to committees are from South Australia and therefore representing the needs of South Australians?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It does not spell it out here but committee members, particularly for the First Nations elder committee, are appointed by that local First Nations committee. I would be pretty confident that if inappropriate people were appointed there, people would find themselves voted out at the next election. There will be a high degree of self-regulation in terms of how these committees are appointed.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please advise if there are any safeguards in place or anything that would prevent Local or First Nations Voices from appointing family members to committees?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is not a prohibition on appointing family members to the committee. There is the safeguard that appears at the end of all these that the minister will determine any remunerations that are paid, so there was some suggestion that there is that safeguard that the minister could do that: to determine not to pay remuneration in those circumstances.

Of course, the notion of family members is much wider in many Aboriginal communities than it is in many non-Aboriginal communities, but there is a requirement that members of these committees cannot be members of those Voices, so a member could not appoint themselves to a committee.

Clause passed.

Clause 31 passed.

Clause 32.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could the minister please advise: in this committee there are six members allocated, whilst in other committees there are two members. Could you please explain why there is the differentiation there?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate the question. For the other committees, it is two members from each Local Voice that are appointed, which would make up from the six, 12 members in the whole state for the elders and advisory committee. That is opposed to the Stolen Generations Advisory Committee, which is made up of six members, and that is a decision of the State Voice not Local Voices.

Clause passed.

Clause 33 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:15.