HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-05-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

South Australian Multicultural Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, you have moved your amendment to the amendment. I do not know if you finished speaking to that. Would you like to continue?

Mr SZAKACS: It would be my pleasure to complete my contribution on this important amendment moved by the opposition. As I was saying before the break, this parliamentary declaration, this amendment, signals the importance of recognising in this place the immense contribution of migration, of both a permanent and temporary nature, as well as refugees and their flow-on contribution to multiculturalism.

We are a state and a country built on migration. We are a country, the national anthem tells us and sings proudly about, for 'those who've come across the seas'. The numbers speak for themselves as well when it comes to this and, again, I stand to put this amendment for a raft of reasons, I think—importantly, it is to look at some of the statistics.

In 2016, the Productivity Commission undertook a significant body of research into the net contribution of migration to Australia, and some of the headline figures in that report show that the net economic contribution of migration to this country is quite profound. The uplift, as researched by the Productivity Commission, shows that there is an uplift of an average of $7,000 per person to our GDP every year thanks to that migration intake. It is also quantified in about a 10 per cent uplift per person in GDP.

That is an enormous contribution, especially when we consider that the countries of birth of many of these migrants we welcome to our shores—economic migrants and migrants of different natures and also refugees—would dream about a GDP of $7,000 per person per year. This is simply the net uplift in GDP that migration brings to this country.

If you look a bit closer to home, here in South Australia one of our proudest and greatest net exports is the education of international students—another very important part of the temporary migration dynamic that this amendment seeks to recognise in this place with very firm and proud words. The net contribution of international students is worth $1.92 billion per year. Of course, that has taken an immense hit, and so has our state, during this pandemic that we are still living through. However, just before the pandemic it was $1.92 billion.

We are very proud of our wine regions. Port Lincoln is a wonderful wine region, and I have had some fantastic wines over there. The wine industry is $1.91 billion. To think that this cohort of temporary migrants has a net economic contribution that is greater than our wine industry is quite profound and I feel strongly goes to my argument of the need to recognise migration in our declaration before the parliament.

The types of temporary migration that we are talking about are quite diverse: international students; temporary graduate students; working holiday visa holders; employer-sponsored visa holders; refugees, as I have said already and spoken about comprehensively in this place, as have others, about the contribution of refugees to our own lives, mine included; bridging visas; and temporary protection visa holders and safe haven visa holders. As much as I feel strongly about the redundancy of temporary protection visas, it is still an important part of our refugee and migration system here in Australia.

Of those people who call South Australia home, almost 450,000 people who call Australia home were born overseas. As a proportion, even more in my electorate of Cheltenham were born overseas. Again, when it comes to a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reflect and to enshrine the voice of parliament in a declaration, something we have not done before, and as progressive and as forward thinking as the original act that we are seeking to amend today was, it did not contain a declaration. This is a chance to get it right.

In supporting the Attorney's much-needed amendments, it is very late in the piece, so including our amendment to support migration, temporary migration and refugees is very important, in my view. That is why we are moving it. Labor believes strongly in a statement in this place where every single member of parliament is hanging from the rafters and telling and singing the praises of the contribution that our migrants (temporary and permanent) and our refugees have made to this state, from business to academia, from work to arts and sport. It is difficult for us to quantify that contribution, but these words in this piece of law would go a small way to doing that. Labor believes that and the opposition believes that, and I implore the house to do the same.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can the mover of the amendment indicate where or from whom the submission was to incorporate this?

Mr SZAKACS: It was not a submission. It was in fact the government's own consultation process that was I think a couple of years in the making, but there were very significant submissions made in that process to do a number of things. As the Attorney has already provided in her answer, various submissions and stakeholders were engaged. In moving our amendment, what we have done is to actually try to retrofit and fix what I thought would have been done by the government in the first instance when this bill came before the house. There were a raft of submissions and publicly accessible information: the report of the consultation process, the 16 or 18-odd submissions from various stakeholders.

Since then, the member for Ramsay has been the shadow minister for multicultural affairs and before her the member for Badcoe. In my time as assistant shadow minister for multicultural affairs, we have had the immense privilege of not just attending the odd multicultural event but deeply engaging with members of the multicultural community, members of SAMEAC and community leaders.

Most importantly, for the Attorney's benefit—I know that she is a latecomer to this bill and it is certainly not her portfolio; it is the Premier who is minister—the member for Ramsay and I have met with members of the community who are not elected to lead in their community and are not necessarily on the SAMEAC but are the very people we seek to reflect in this amendment: those who work in our small businesses, those who are in academia and in our sporting industries. So in a roundabout way, for the Attorney's benefit, it was the extensive, comprehensive and engaging consultation that the government undertook on this that has informed the view that we have brought to this table.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will not in any way reflect on the Australian Labor Party's view about what should be in the parliamentary declaration, and much of what the member has raised about the significance of migrants in Australia to the very fabric of what we are today I take no issue with. It is just that in the course of the consultation there were a number of published documents, issues papers, etc., prepared to encourage discussion.

There was the consultation and there were a number of written submissions that were then forming a report—the Multicultural Legislative Review written submissions paper—and then there was a Multicultural Legislative Review Consultation Report, which I understood to be a document reflective of issues that had been raised during those consultations. Even in the Australian Refugee Association's submission, I did not see this.

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just making the point. I have a summary here of the Multicultural Legislative Review Consultation Report July 2019, which purports to be a summary of all the key points raised at these public consultations for good reason—so that we can know as legislators about what is important to the general community—and it was not raised there. I looked back at the Australian Refugee Association's submission, which was quite a significant submission and where I thought it might be, and that did not even raise it. Do you see what I mean?

It may be that individuals have raised with the member during your own personal consultations about this being reflected in the parliamentary declaration or a charter. I am not specifically saying it had to be in the parliamentary declaration because this was a document or an amendment that we have created to add into this piece of legislation, but it still does not tell me or give me any guide as to who or what group the Australian Labor Party has consulted with, who said that this is something that should be recognised in this declaration.

It is not an unworthy thing. Let's face it: South Australia particularly was not built on convicts; it was built on the South Australian Company Act, which was a migration program. We are built on migration, especially South Australia, where we actually had a direct investment in people coming to South Australia, to permanently migrate here and to develop this part of Australia, so I think it is a very proud part of our heritage.

I do not necessarily see this as something unworthy, but I just do not want to suggest that it is something that we need to add in to the parliamentary declaration. I say that particularly because, having had a look at it, it does not recognise our tourists, it does not recommend our backpackers—

Mr Szakacs: Yes, it does.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To be fair, you have temporary and permanent migrants.

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It may be. I am just making the point that temporary migration, I would suggest, if we have it in relation to looking at the Migration Act—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The CHAIR: I remind all members that interjections are out of order. The member for Cheltenham spoke very eloquently when moving his motion and now we go into the question part of the debate, and that is how it works.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For example, I would not describe tourists as being temporary migrants. I would describe them as people visiting our country or our state, and I do not think they are defined within the Migration Act as being people who are temporarily here under visas or the like. This is one of the reasons I asked about how this has come about. Is it just to recognise that Australia is very much the richer for migrants as distinct from people who temporarily visit here?

People come here to play sport, they come here to perform ballet, they do all sorts of things when they come here, not necessarily as a temporary migrant but as a visitor. Should we exclude them or should we be giving some consideration to it? I was trying to see whether there was something in our legislative review that would give me some insight as to where this might be coming from and as to how we might reflect this. I do not want people to feel excluded by us saying that it is only the migrants.

For example, we have a lot of people who come and live here and they are legally entitled to do so, and they do not ever sign up to be an Australian citizen. Are they not going to be included here, or do we have them as informal migrants? I do not understand how we are doing this. It may be the intention of the mover that we reflect the diversity of the communities we have in South Australia—and I frankly think they are covered in the other aspects of this parliamentary declaration—to enhance that and make a statement that we acknowledge that we are the better for being a composite of different cultural people in our community, some of whom have come from migration, some of whom were born here and are descendants or whatever. There might be somebody here who is Chinese but who came here in the 1920s and they are fifth generation.

I do not understand why we would produce something in here that only relates to temporary or permanent migrants and not others who are in our community who make a contribution. I am a bit concerned that we do not act in a way that might exclude them. I think I understand where the member is coming from. I cannot agree to it at this stage. We will give it some further thought but, in the absence of having any idea about where it has come from, I am just a little bit lost as to how we might support it.

Amendment to the amendment negatived; amendment carried.

The CHAIR: We have a further amendment No. 2 standing in the name of the member for Badcoe. My information is that the further amendments that we had on our sheet will not be proceeded with. Apparently, we have moved on from that and they are already incorporated.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, one of the key things in the bill is to change the name from the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission (SAMEAC) to the South Australian Multicultural Commission. What was not working under SAMEAC?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not really understand the question. Is it in relation to the name or something else?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, part of this bill is to reform the commission. I want to understand some of the rationale and reasoning to go through this reform process. Obviously, the name is being been reformed, but there are other aspects as well. Why have you done this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission Act 1980 is now 40 years old, and it is unsurprising therefore that we do not review it and contemporise it—as we do with lots of legislation. Secondly, it was developed as a commission back in 1980, and, as I explained in my second reading, there are a number of other entities that have been created since that time, including the Equal Opportunity Commission with its charter to deal with racial discrimination and other matters as an example of what has progressed independently of the commission.

Thirdly, in looking at contemporary South Australia and who is being represented by this body and/or any structure that is there to recognise and promote multicultural and intercultural matters within the public sector as well, we need to contemporise it, and so that is what has happened.

A substantial consultation period has occurred. Those communities, as I understand it, attended a number of public meetings. Their concerns and priorities were recorded. They are all in this 2019 report, and in addition to that there are a number of entities. I would not necessarily call them the usual suspects in relation to legislation in this field because it has very rarely been looked at—it has been left under a mushroom, I suppose—and it ought to be contemporary.

Those organisations were either invited to attend public meetings or to present their submissions and, as we know, a very substantial number of written submissions have been received, and in this regard I would say that they are very much reflective of the organisations that represent a number of our communities.

In the document titled Multicultural Legislative Review 2019 Written Submissions, the parties that were published in written submissions were Darian Hiles, Australian Refugee Association, Multicultural Communities Council of SA, Community Hubs Australia, Rod de Hoert, Robert Bean, Equal Opportunity Commission, Intercultural Connections, MARRNet (Migration and Refugee Research Network), Associate Professor Marmo and Dr Torresi, George Chin, South Australian Tourism Commission, Catalyst Foundation, and Community Centres SA.

What is not evident from that list, and I am certainly hoping is reflected in all the public meetings at least, was the invitation to all the multicultural groups in South Australia—the numerous ones that cover Indian communities, Chinese communities and European communities. There are hundreds of them. They provide a rich representation of the groups in South Australia.

Some of them are really large communities here, and their associations have quite a sophisticated governance arrangement. Some have multiple associations. The Indian community is one which I think has over 70 different organisations representing different groups within that migration population. Of course, we have some in the communities who are there in multiple form as a result of historical splits. The Greek community is one in that regard.

Then we have a huge umbrella of a whole lot of new communities who were not even here back in 1980, and so it is important that we recognise those and that they have a chance to have a say about the nature of the way they are structured in this representative statutory way. So, yes, I do think it is important that we have the review, and I am very pleased that it has happened.

Clearly, not everyone is happy with how they see the future of the commission, or perhaps even the name change, but it seems to be fairly reflective of what is being raised here, which is really basic questions like, 'How well you understand the functions of the commission?' and then there is the whole summary about that, as well as, 'What is your understanding of the role of the commission members?' and, 'How often do you come in contact with the committee members?' and, 'How often would you like to come in contact with them?'

This is digging down to those communities to have a say about what they want for either their commission or advisory board, whichever way you want to look at it, to help them. In addition to that, in this bill we have maintained the expectation that the commission itself will have a role in advising government—in particular, in this instance, the Premier, who is the minister covering this matter—and, secondly, to have an understanding of how that is going to be operating into the future.

I am very pleased the Premier has undertaken the exercise of understanding whether this is now the contemporary format we need to have and whether our modern, newer communities had a say in how it operates. In the material I have read, a significant number of people have talked about the composition of the commission. Some suggested that there needed to be mandatory provisions related to age, that is, youth.

I know, from having spoken to members of the commission over the years, there have been many attempts to try to encourage younger people to be part of the commission and it has not always been easy. Advertisements are made and invitations have been presented for that to occur, and it has not always been easy to fill. Again, there has been quite a bit of commentary, though, in what I have read on how that should be composed.

Clearly, it cannot possibly be a commission that represents every different community because we have hundreds of people who come from around the world—some of them are in small numbers and some of them are in huge numbers—so it is not an easy task, but it is something I think we needed to let people have a say on. According to this document, they have had a say, and that is why we have done it.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: How were members of the current commission consulted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have answered quite a few questions on this. As I understand it, one or more of the commission's members attended at all the public consultations on this matter in relation to the communities. As I understand it, whilst they were not the proponents of a discussion as far as presenting their views on these public occasions, they were there to listen to what the communities were saying their future roles should be and the structure of the act.

We have raised this before. We have already had an hour on this discussion, but in any event I will repeat it. That has been the position. The commission has attended, been present and presumably listened carefully to what the people have said about what they see the role of the commission to be and some of these other questions that were asked. I have not seen any submission from them as a commission themselves. There is no indication why they should not or could not, but they did not. I have spoken to members of the commission, but I have not seen a written submission from them.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Attorney, could you please clarify for me that the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission members were not actually briefed as a commission about this bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that they were and that there was some disquiet about not having been given a draft of the bill before it was considered by cabinet, but they had certainly been consulted.

Mr SZAKACS: Just to be clear, were the members of the commission who were invited to attend, observe, listen and watch, given an opportunity at those meetings to speak? Were they given an opportunity at those meetings to contribute a personal view, or were they briefed and advised to attend and listen only?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have already said that, but I am happy to say it again: correct—to attend and listen.

Mr SZAKACS: Just so I am clear, the Attorney's view on the consultation that has occurred with the peak ministerial advisory body in this state at present for ethnic and multicultural affairs was to attend a consultation but to sit, listen and not speak?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: To the public, yes, correct.

The CHAIR: Clarification.

Mr SZAKACS: That is fine. The Attorney was not on her feet, but I will take that. Was there another opportunity given to members of the SAMEAC as a collective, not individuals but the SAMEAC at large, to participate in consultation that they were allowed to speak at?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that the commission from time to time meet with the Premier, and that is an opportunity for them to do that if they wish. In any event, at the public consultation we are talking about this was an opportunity, as I understand it—I have read the remit of what was to be done—for the communities themselves to come along and have their say about what they saw as the commission.

Members of the commission, who are experienced people and have been on the commission, not all of them for a long time but some in the previous government's time and some in the current government's time, would have some experience in what they were doing and what they were privy to and would be able to listen to that as well.

There is nothing that I am aware of that in any way prevented the commission themselves presenting their case to the government in a written submission if they wanted to. It appears they have not. I have not seen that. Apart from the direct consultation, they are able to make a contribution to the Premier, who they are entitled to meet. That is my understanding.

Mr SZAKACS: Thank you, Attorney. If my memory serves me correctly, you may have taken on notice when we were before the house a couple of weeks ago whether any instruction or advice was given to the SAMEAC to not contribute a written submission. Do you recall that? If you did not take that on notice then, will you take on notice now whether the SAMEAC was instructed or advised not to provide or submit a written submission?

You also noted that the Premier, as the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, has met with the SAMEAC on multiple occasions. I appreciate you will not have this data with you, but will you take this on notice and come back to the house on how many occasions the Premier has attended SAMEAC in the last 12 months?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They are two slightly different things. The question is: how often has he attended a SAMEAC? I presume that to be a SAMEAC meeting, as distinct from them coming to see the Premier, but, either way, I am happy to have a look at that. But I do not think at any time I have ever suggested that there was any instruction at any time ever to the multicultural commission as it is currently formatted not to put in a written submission in relation to what they wanted in relation to any reform in this bill.

What I indicated was, as I understand still to be the case, the public meetings were held for the general community to have their say, and that includes on whether they think their own commission is doing a great job or a hopeless job or that there should be some changes in it—that is a matter for them. I think everyone there was given that opportunity to actually say what they wanted in the communities and for government representatives and the commission to listen and make a note about what they were. I understand this document, which is the review summary of the things that have been raised, which are all footnoted, actually outlines that.

Clause passed.

New clause 5A.

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

Amendment No 1 [AG–4]—

Page 4, after line 33—Insert:

5A—Resources of Multicultural Commission

The Minister must ensure that the Multicultural Commission is provided with such resources as may reasonably be required to carry out its functions under this Act.

This new clause outlines resources of the multicultural commission. I understand it has been requested of the commission and has been inserted on that basis.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: While we welcome on this side of the house the amendment put forward by the government to provide further clarity about resources for the commission, there are considerable concerns about how those resources will be distributed and the entitlement of the commission to gain access through the department. Can the Attorney clarify—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My adviser asks: access to what, sorry?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Resources. While you have put forward an amended position from the original bill, I would like to clarify what the current budget or current resources are for the commission.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would have to check with the budget papers to actually check exactly how much is paid to them. I understand they are all given an honorarium. They presumably have meeting arrangements they get, etc., so I will have a look at that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That is not the nature of my question. Can I clarify?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This is about resources to the commission. What has been raised with the opposition has been concerns about having enough resources to support the commission. While the government have put through an amended position because they have obviously heard these concerns as well, I wish to clarify what current resources are provided to commission members.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I take it from that it means who is allocated and what funding is given for staff and that type of thing; is that what the member has in mind?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the exact answer to that. I know that there are a lot of commissions. In fact, of course, under the member's previous government, they seemed to breed like mushrooms, but this is an early one. Let me give you a recent one, and that is the State Planning Commission, which I am now responsible for.

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison: I really do not think you are measuring apples with apples.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will tell you exactly why we are measuring apples with apples and this is why this issue needs to come into the contemporary world. When I came into government and then was given the planning portfolio, I found the State Planning Commission, which comprises I think between five and seven people under the act, to be a statutory independent body—and that is what this commission is—that did not have any staff.

How it worked under the previous government was they did not actually have dedicated staff. They had people who would from time to time come out from the department to provide that service to them. I have actually implemented a process in my division, where I am responsible for these, to actually look at making sure there are staff available for them, even if they are on secondment from a department. You can half-time or full-time employees to be able to do that.

I think there is an argument that there needs to be independence. If you are going to have a commission, whether it is a board or a commission, there need to be dedicated staff for that purpose. I do not know how the previous government operated, but this is the way I am operating in my department. If it means here that there is to be a—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I beg your pardon?

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am talking about the Planning Commission.

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just explaining to you what happened under the previous government, which of course you were not a member of, but the—

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, I have asked you previously to cease interjecting. I would remind all members that when the minister is asked a question they can choose to answer that in whatever way they see fit. The Attorney-General is couching her response and will work through that example and conclude her remarks.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It seems that the model that was employed by the previous government was one which did not have a provision for dedicated staff for its bodies such as these. I can only rely on the State Planning Commission. There are a few others I have found in these departments, but nevertheless this is one of them, and I think it needed to be addressed.

During the course of the development of this legislation, the issue has been raised again about not necessarily dedicated resources but some sort of specific persons who are accountable to them to do their work. The detail, as I understand, has not been sorted out yet, hence the general nature of this clause, which is to acknowledge that they must have some resource, and they are yet to work out how that is going to work.

There are departmental people. This lady sitting next to me is from the department. She has people who work with her in the department. For many years there have been people who have been a resource to the commission, but we are now in a world where we now have this little mini-department and a commission. We have plenty of this sort of model, but this is sitting in sort of a twilight zone, as far as I am concerned, and I think it does need to be moved into the 21st century. This is part of the reassurance that has been given to say that we need to relook at that model.

The CHAIR: Before I call the member for Ramsay, the question really was about resourcing. I might suggest that the Attorney probably would not have that information available to her today, but it might be something you could pursue through budget estimates, which is only a few weeks away.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: With the greatest respect, I think that the issue about resourcing goes to the heart of why the government has amended this position, because concerns have been raised with the opposition about reducing the resources to the commission. I will agree to disagree with you about having a set person in charge because that is simply not true. That has been the situation in the past.

My question is in regard to your amendment, which says 'ensure that the Multicultural Commissioner is provided with such resources as may reasonably be required to carry out its function'. Who decides what is reasonable? Who decides what is reasonable for those resources to be provided to the commission? Who is making that decision?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that would be a matter between the commission and the minister, who of course is the Premier. Let me say this: if the member is suggesting that the model that they had, which was that the chair of the board was also an employee of the department, then I would say that is not independent and that is a very poor model. We know who that was, and you know who that was. I do not need to get into the detail of her position.

I am not even reflecting on her capacity in her paid role and/or her chairman's role, but I make the point, to me, that is not an effective model and it should never be. How can you possibly have a situation where you have a department that has an obligation to provide advice and support and service to the minister, who is the Premier, and to the commission, and yet we have the chair and the employee as the same person? I do not accept that model at all. We can have a fight about that in the sense of a debate about it, but I think that is a disgraceful situation.

I am very pleased that we now have a level of independence in the commission, which they richly deserve. It is now a question of saying, 'Look, now that we can get this thing onto a proper footing where we have a commission, which is an advisory board to government, to support the community in that multicultural area and all the things that are in the charter, let's make sure that whoever is in the employment of the department, and that's given a budget to operate, very clearly understands what their roles are going to be.' In my view, that should occur in the future.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I seek clarification: is there is to be a dedicated full-time officer for the commission under this arrangement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, that is a matter for the commission to canvass—not with the department. It has nothing to do with the department. It is for the government of the day and the minister to make that decision with the commission as to what they require and what they say they might require. It may be that they need to have access to people in the department across a number of fields, but in my view there needs to be some independence there.

The CHAIR: When the committee is going through this stage, members who ask questions of a minister may get exactly the answer they want or they may get an answer which is nothing like what they might want, but the reality is that it is a question and answer situation.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, as the mover of this amendment, can you explain the importance of the words 'as reasonably required'? Is that to be determined by the minister as to what is reasonable or is that to be determined from the commission as to what is reasonable?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is to be a matter which is identified first by the commission as to what they suggest they might reasonably require and for that to be agreed on. Usually what happens with these types of arrangements, where there is an indication in general terms, is that it is supported by some regulatory determination or some later specification in the act if it is not agreed.

I cannot recall, for example, that the SA Water corporation legislation has a provision in it which says, 'Thou shall have a minute secretary, an adviser, a policy writer, a this or that.' That is a matter which is ultimately determined by the government, but I would suggest here that it is a matter for the commission to identify what they think they need to have in relation to resources.

They may say, 'Well, we're happy with the current arrangement, where we go back to the department and we pick out someone we think might be able to give us assistance in whatever role they might have.' There are 11 people in this department. It may be that they say, 'We prefer to have an arrangement where we can just go to any of those that we think are the most experienced or qualified to provide us advice.' It may be they want to have a dedicated minute secretary. I do not know the answer to that, and I do not think we should impose that either in the legislation or on the commission, but I think it is reasonable they identify what they would have.

What I do not think is acceptable, and I would certainly never recommend it, is that we have situation where there is a chairman of the commission who is an employee of the government. How can they possibly be an independent body in that situation? It is an impossible situation, and I think it is quite disgraceful.

Mr SZAKACS: Can I ask the Attorney, further to her last answer: you reflected that usually, reasonably or generally speaking when a clause like this is included in a piece of legislation there are further matters that are dealt with in regulation or matters that are subsequent to this. Your amendment does neither. Your amendment does not provide further clauses that would deal with this matter, nor have you proposed that matters will be dealt with in regulation. The contradiction that you just made about, 'Well, this will all be okay because there will be further clauses, there will be further regulations and everyone can just agree,' is not what you proposed in this amendment.

This amendment is very clear: it is 'as reasonably determined'. The minister has used the word 'agreement'. The commission, the department, the minister, or even the assistant minister, may look back to this debate for the minister's response. So is it the minister's view that an agreement must be reached as to resourcing to determine the final outcome?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No; as I said, that is ultimately a matter for the government. In my view, it is up to the commission to identify if they want specific resourcing. However, I think both the members who are presenting the arguments against this—presumably they are voting against this clause; I hope not because we think it needs to show some sort of intent in it—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just put it like this, and hopefully it will help the situation: I ask members to have a look at clause 15. If they have not read it, read it, and if they have read it, refresh their memory on it. What it specifies, I hope with some reassurance they might need, is:

The Multicultural Commission may, by agreement with the Chief Executive of an administrative unit of the Public Service, make use of the services of the staff, equipment or facilities of that administrative unit.

That is where they start; that is there, and it is proposed that it will be there. What is being added to it is that if they want to pursue this question of having their own resources—which the member for Ramsay has identified as their own expenditure and their own people that they want—it is a matter they can canvass. However, if they do not get anything else they always have clause 15.

New clause inserted.

Clause 6.

The CHAIR: I seek some clarification here. Member for Ramsay, we have amendments in the name of the member for Badcoe. Are you planning to move those?

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

Amendment No 3 [Stinson–1]—

Page 4, line 37 [clause 6(1)]—Delete 'functions.' and substitute 'functions, of whom—'

(a) at least 1 must have lived experience as a refugee; and

(b) at least 1 must live in regional South Australia; and

(c) at least 1 must be a person who migrated to Australia not less than 10 years prior to their appointment; and

(d) at least 1 must be a person aged between 18 and 30 years old (inclusive) at the time of their appointment.

This amendment is put forward because people are very concerned about the diversity of the commission members who are around the table. What we are proposing in this amendment is that, to make sure we have diversity of abilities, knowledge and experiences, of the 15 persons at least one must have lived experience as a refugee, at least one must live in regional South Australia, at least one must be a person who migrated to Australia not less than 10 years prior to their appointment, and at least one must be a person aged between 18 and 30 years inclusive at the time of their appointment.

One of the key things about this commission is that it is representative of the different cohorts and diversity of the migrant experience in South Australia. I hate to go back over old ground, but that is one of the reasons for the parliamentary declaration. We want to include the contribution of migrants, refugees and people here on temporary visas, because each and every one of those people have an input, an impact, on who we are today.

Many people here begin their time in Australia on a temporary visa and then go on to become permanent residents and potentially citizens. Some, of course, are here for many years on temporary visas, particularly those who are fighting to understand their opportunity to become a permanent resident. This matter has been raised because, very simply, not only have people raised this issue with us about representation, but it was also part of the submission process.

The Australian Refugee Association (ARA) said very clearly that it considers it crucial to ensure that SAMEAC members are representative of migrant cohorts and therefore should not all be from already established communities but should consider new and emerging communities. That was quite an important part of what they had to say. In regard to youth, they say:

ARA believes that SAMEC should also have a youth focus to address inequality and various components of needs/issues that youth faces within the South Australian community...

They particularly touched on the topics of employment, service provision, education, health and wellbeing. Young members of migrant and new arrival communities generally face challenges in addition to those relating to settlement, and it is important for SAMEAC to ensure representation of young people from within the cohorts. It is very clear in the submissions, when looking at reform in relation to this bill, that it was expressed by stakeholders that that representation should be there.

I think it is incredibly important to have regional representation. We know that there are very strong migrant communities—whether it be in Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Mount Gambier or around South Australia—people who have contributed to the development of that region and that area. For me, I feel it was remiss not to have in the constitution of the multicultural commission details of who should be at least the minimum to have that representation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for the explanation as to the significance of identifying the qualifications, if I can put it in that sense, for four of the—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, experience, qualifications, whichever way you want to look at it. I am not talking about a skills base here. The four areas that you suggest should be specified to qualify them to sit on this board. Let's hope I have not offended there.

Let's just have a look. It is up to 15 persons, and that is the same as in the current act. As I understand it, the appointment being made by the minister is consistent; that has been the same all through the 16 years of the previous government. The abilities, knowledge and experience required for the effective performance of the commission are there. Let me find it and make sure I have the right amendment. I think it is Stinson amendment No. 3; is that right? I will just find it here.

It is that one must have lived experience as a refugee, one must be regional, one must be a person who has migrated not less than 10 years prior to the appointment and one must be aged between 18 and 30 years. So we have a refugee; a country person; a relatively recent migrant, if I can put it in that category; and a young person. I think they are the four areas of contribution, which I think are actually all good things to have reflected in the board.

As I have already said, I think this is a board that has struggled over a period of time to attract young people to sit on it, so in that sense I do not have any direct criticism of how the experience that would be brought in by some of these people would be useful to the board in those four areas. There is no provision for any others. It is abilities, knowledge or experience, and this is now specified by the status of their entry into the country, where they are going to live or how old they are.

Those might be some areas that are important for that board; there may be others. There are others in the submissions, but I do not know what has happened to them. There are others in the submissions where people have talked at these meetings or reflected other areas of diversity in written submissions. There is no mention here about whether any of them should be female. There is no mention about whether there should be anything by way of occupation that might be of assistance.

I am going to name the board members at present. I do not know all their backgrounds. Norman Schueler is the chair; Antonietta Cocchiaro, who has been patiently watching this debate, is the deputy chair. Is it deputy chair or deputy president?

The CHAIR: Attorney, she is going to have to be a bit more patient yet; I think we are only at clause 6.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think so. There is Laura Adzanku—I do not know her background; George Chin; Adriana Christopoulos; Maria Maglieri; Sridhar Nannapaneni; Thuy Phan; Valdis Tomanis—I know Valdis. Some of these people I knowm some I do not. And there is Muhama Yotham; Ning Zhang; and Ahmed Zreika. That is not the full complement because they can have up to 15 on the board and that is 12, so there are some vacancies.

I do not have any particular objection to these, but I would have to say that it would be concerning to me if it did not have some greater diversity, not only in backgrounds. As I said before, there is no way that you can have every different community group or cultural background group or language group or country of origin group because we would have 120 people—more than that probably—on the board. Clearly, we cannot have that, but it just seems to me that the gender issue seems to be completely overlooked. I am confident that the minister—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Ramsay!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member reflects—

The CHAIR: Can you take a seat for a minute. This is not an argument: it is actually a debate. There are rules around how a debate should occur and interjection is not part of them. As I said, it is not argument: it is a debate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The bill describes a continuation of what is the current practice, as I understand it, that is, up to 15 members chosen by the minister having a general qualification in abilities, knowledge and experience required for the effective performance of the multicultural commission. I do not think there is anything new in that.

What is new now is an amendment by the member for Ramsay to introduce four areas of qualification that four of the members should have and I am making the point that it is the diversity on this board that seems to be fairly significant. I do not know whether any of these are originally refugees or not or how long some of them have been here or whether there is more than one who are covered in these areas in relation to the current board.

I do not want to in any way reflect on the board because I am sure they are worthy people who make a wonderful contribution. I make the point that I do not understand why we would pick out four qualifications and not deal with some basic things, such as gender, if you really wanted to try to put this in some kind of specific arrangement.

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison: Have you read the amendment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have read the amendments. You are only identifying four people.

(a) at least 1 must have lived experience as a refugee;

I am sure this is the one: amendment No. 3 in the name of Stinson.

The CHAIR: Yes, Attorney.

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

(a) at least 1 must have lived experience as a refugee;

I think that is pretty clear. I do not know how many of these people are in that category.

(b) at least 1 must live in regional South Australia;

There might be one or more who live in the city or in the country. I do not know.

(c) at least 1 must be a person who migrated to Australia not less than 10 years prior to their appointment;

I do not know if that applies to any of those.

(d) at least 1 must be a person aged between 18 and 30 years old (inclusive) at the time of their appointment.

The CHAIR: Attorney, thank you for that. That is the second time you have read that into Hansard.

Mr SZAKACS: Chair, more than anybody in this place I would like to deal with the amendments en bloc. We certainly have a history of being able to deal with a whole bunch of these changes together; however, we need to meticulously deal with amendment by amendment, perhaps because the Attorney has demonstrated some confusion as to the upcoming processes of the amendments that we are dealing with.

Amendment No. 6 [Stinson-1] has been filed and I am sure the Attorney has a copy. This amendment deals quite explicitly—even explicitly enough for the Attorney to perhaps understand—with the composition of the multicultural commission, determining at least half to be women. Whilst I absolutely acknowledge the Attorney's dogged commitment that this clause deal with everything at once, I can give her some comfort that, while this clause only seeks to improve the composition of the commission by including younger people, a refugee, a recent arrival and a person from the regions, we will very soon get to an amendment that mandates 50 per cent of appointees being women.

The CHAIR: I understand the sentiment of the very generous offer from the member for Cheltenham to move these en bloc. The only difficulty with that is that partway through we come across schedule (4), amendment No. 2, which we must deal with—

Mr Szakacs: It was a disingenuous offer, Mr Chairman. I am sorry.

The CHAIR: I am not used to sarcasm in this chair, member for Cheltenham.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I note the indication of the member that gender is a matter that is important. I think the Premier has already indicated that he thinks it is important, too, because, of the current 12 members, six are men and six are women.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 19

Noes 25

Majority 6

AYES
Bettison, Z.L. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G.
Brown, M.E. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J.
Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. (teller)
Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Bedford, F.E. Bell, T.S.
Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J. Cregan, D.
Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J. Harvey, R.M. (teller)
Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S.
McBride, N. Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R.
Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. Power, C.
Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A.
Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J.
Wingard, C.L.
PAIRS
Bignell, L.W.K. Gardner, J.A.W.

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

Amendment No 4 [Stinson–1]—

Page 4, after line 37—Insert:

(1a) The Minister must, before appointing a member to the Multicultural Commission, call for expressions of interest under a scheme determined by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.

There has been some criticism in the past about the selection processes for people nominating for or showing an interest in coming onto the commission, and I think probably the best way forward is a very clear expressions of interest process. In fact, the government has already accepted this, because there is currently an expressions of interest process that is going forth. I think it closed last night, asking for people to nominate for the commission. I seek support for this amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot find my notes, but my understanding is that we are supporting this amendment. As the member has said, it has already been the action of the Premier to do precisely that, to call for expressions of interest from people who would like to be considered for the purposes of serving on the commission. The government has taken this feedback on board and will implement a publicly advertised selection process, which they have done.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: We now come back to schedule (1), amendment No. 5, which I understand the member for Ramsay is going to move.

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

Amendment No 5 [Stinson–1]—

Page 5, line 3 [clause 6(2)]—Delete 'backgrounds and gender' and substitute:

backgrounds, gender, lived experiences, age and geographic location

In appointing members to the multicultural commission, the minister should, as far as reasonably practicable, ensure that the membership of the multicultural commission reflects an appropriate diversity of culture, backgrounds, gender, lived experiences, age and geographic location, and should have regard to the knowledge, the sensitivity, the enthusiasm, the personal commitment, the experience and the involvement with the culturally diverse groups of each person to be so appointed.

We encourage support, and I understand the government has shown interest in supporting this amendment. We have already expressed our concern to make sure that the commission is diverse and representative, including gender and geographic locations. We ask for support for this amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate that we are happy to support that and, indeed, under the expression of interest that has just been issued that is precisely what has been identified for the purposes of encouraging people to stand, as to what we are looking for.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 6 [Stinson–1]—

Page 5, lines 10 and 11 [clause 6(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Of the members appointed to the Multicultural Commission, at least half (rounded down to the nearest whole number) must be women.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate that we support this amendment. As I have said, we currently have 12; the Premier has appointed six women and six men, so he is ahead of the game. I am not sure how many prior multicultural ministers can say that they have done that, but we have.

The CHAIR: Nothing like being ahead of the game.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We have already had some conversations about resources for the commission. This clause obviously talks about the presiding member and the deputy presiding member. Concerns had been raised with me from current commission members that the resources were not going to be adequate under this bill and they were concerned. As raised before, there has been an amendment by the government, which we have just recently passed, to ensure that reasonable resources will be given to the commission. As such, the question here would be to ask the process by which the presiding member and the deputy presiding member will be elected.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member would be aware, because she has been in government before, under the current act these are appointments of the minister, and I acknowledge they have always been an appointment of the minister, and it is no different from what occurred in the 16 years under the previous government.

I have no idea how that relates to this resource question. This is about the minister appointing someone to be the presiding member, to preside at the meetings, and may appoint another member as a deputy presiding member to preside in the absence of the member. That is the role of the minister, and I think that has been the same for decades. In the absence of any other information, I do not know how I can otherwise help the member.

From the general background, and detailed information about what is sought in relation to the contribution and lived experience, and any other experience or qualification, of the cohort of those who come in, the minister makes those appointments and the minister picks the presiding member and the deputy member. Nothing has changed.

Clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, does the remuneration as described in this clause seek to maintain the existing arrangements, or is there a view that remuneration, allowances and expenses may differ from the current arrangements?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can you repeat the balance of that question? I did not hear the last bit.

Mr SZAKACS: Is there any intention with this clause to change or alter the existing arrangements for the payment of remuneration allowances and expenses to members of the commission, or is this simply the same, or are the status quo arrangements to prevail?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just inquired as to the amount that was paid to the presiding member, deputy and ordinary members, but I think the remuneration and allowances are to be on a sessional basis. At present, my understanding is that in practice the remuneration arrangements will be aligned with the cabinet-approved remuneration framework for government boards and committees, approved on 10 December 2007, from July 2021. Whatever the government of the person sitting next to you did back in 2007 is what is to apply as of July 2021, which seems to be on a sessional basis.

Mr SZAKACS: I appreciate that information. I was not inquiring explicitly what the current arrangements are, but it was and is whether arrangements as are currently the case will continue, or whether there is a view to change.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will read it again. In practice, the remuneration arrangements aligned with the cabinet-approved remuneration framework for government boards and committees that was approved on 10 December 2007 will apply from July 2021.

Clause passed.

The CHAIR: Before we get to clause 10, I would like to inform the committee that, with regard to the previous division, the result I indicated was 25-18; it should have been 25-19. The member for Playford was present; however, he was not ticked off. We have checked the video footage and he was here, so the official result is 25-19. We have made that correction, so that is good.

Clause 10.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will not be going ahead with amendments Nos 4 and 5.

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

Amendment No 2 [AG–3]—

Page 7, after line 4—Insert:

(ab) to advise and consult with State authorities through the Minister to ensure that there is a coordinated approach to the advancement of multicultural affairs;

Amendment No 3 [AG–3]—

Page 7, after line 6—Insert:

(ba) to advise State authorities through the Minister on the extent to which services and facilities are available to, and meet the needs of, diverse communities of South Australia;

My understanding is that, with the feedback that has been received from current and previous members of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission, we are proposing the inclusion of these two additional functions for the commission.

These functions charge the commission, through the minister, with working with state government departments to ensure there is a coordinated approach to multicultural affairs in this state and to advise on the extent to which services and facilities meet the needs of the diverse communities of our state. It is to be noted that there is an amendment to amendment No. 3 with the deletion of the words 'minority groups' and the substitution of 'diverse communities of South Australia', as the latter is more inclusive and in line with the intent of the bill. Do I need to move amendment No. 3?

The CHAIR: Attorney, if I could just assist here, you moved from schedule (3) in your name, amendments Nos 2 and 3 together.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: I am happy to accept that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you. I think 'diverse communities' has already been covered. There may have been a previous draft of an amendment, which has not been covered, because it is better language to refer to 'diverse communities', which I wholeheartedly endorse.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the government for this amendment. They would have heard, as the opposition did, that there were concerns that there was a watering down of the role of the commission. Rather than having an understanding that the commission could speak to all state authorities across the South Australian public sector, there was a belief that the bill proposed that they could only speak through the minister or to the minister.

The government have obviously heard what we have heard, and they have put this amendment up to make sure it is very clear that the commission can advise and consult with state authorities. Although it is still through the minister, they still have that belief that they can reach out. I know, particularly when the commission was involved, that they were there to talk about things such as health, domestic violence and aged care.

These were areas that they wanted to raise because the community raised those matters with them, and then they were able to communicate with all areas within government to raise those concerns. There was no limiting of that at that time. I welcome the amendment and I acknowledge that we will be supporting this.

Amendments carried.

Mr SZAKACS: On behalf of the member for Ramsay, I move:

Amendment No 6 [Bettison–1]—

Page 7, after line 6—Insert:

(ba) to keep under review the extent to which the matters set out in section 4 are being achieved and furthered in South Australia;

(bb) to raise awareness of and promote the matters set out in section 4;

This is to insert new paragraphs: (ba) to keep under review the extent to which the matters set out in section 4 are being achieved and furthered in South Australia; and (bb) to raise awareness of and promote the matters set out in section 4.

To put it simply, this section builds on the remarks that the member for Ramsay made just then about ensuring that the commission is not just an advisory body but also a body of action. We have spent considerable time in this committee already in this debate moving amendments and, frankly, dramatically improving, from the government's bill, the parliamentary declaration. What this amendment does is give the commission the authority, the capacity and also the mandate to review and pursue matters contained within the parliamentary declaration.

It is our view that the parliamentary declaration, as important as it is, is only as important as the paper it is written on if not given to a body, an authority, to pursue and to monitor. We think there is no better body than the new iteration of the commission to monitor and to review the progress of matters contained within the declaration.

As already improved, for example, it is giving power to the commission to ensure that diversity is pursued in this state, to ensure that the valuable contribution that migration has made continues in this state, to ensure that Aboriginal peoples are acknowledged in the work that the commission does. We think it is prudent to ensure that the commission does not just advise but is empowered to act. We trust the commission to do that and we commend this amendment.

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

What is being proposed here is that these two inclusions that are proposed are to be raised in the parliamentary declaration, and that is a thing that the parliament signs up to. Yet, we are adding into this a provision for what the commission is going to do in relation to its obligation which, in my view, should either be in the functions or in the charter. I think it is entirely in the wrong place, so I cannot support it.

Mr SZAKACS: While I appreciate that the Attorney has a view around this being in the wrong place, the functions are the only place for this to be. I reiterate that this is for the commission to keep under review the extent to which the matters set out in the declaration are being achieved and furthered in South Australia. Further, this gives a function to the commission to raise awareness and promote the matters that this parliament thought fit to contain within the declaration.

This does not provide a new set of content. It does not provide a new set of subject material that the commission is setting out to do. What it is simply saying is that in these four walls the parliament has declared X, Y and Z to be of significant importance, so we would like the commission, in the body of work that they do, to review and to keep an eye on ensuring that what we say in this place is taking extent and giving it authority and action outside these four walls.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is basically to be the enforcer of ensuring that the parliamentary declaration is actually implemented, presumably by parliamentarians. So if anyone does not sign up to this you might be in all sorts of trouble. There is no penalty for not doing it. Again, I suggest that that is actually what is inappropriate in this area.

Its role may well be to raise awareness and promote a number of matters that overlap these two areas, but the commission's role is set out in the functions and they are clear in relation to what it is doing, including promoting unity, understanding and harmony, amongst other things. These are all good things, but a lot of these are repeated in the parliamentary declaration. The parliamentary declaration is in another section, to put in the statute what we are signing up to as a parliament.

Now we have an enforcement role, it seems to me, being attempted here. I just cannot support it. We will end up with this circular obligation here and it just is bizarre to me. In any event, for those reasons I cannot support it, but I do not in any way diminish the fact that the paragraphs from (a) to (i) actually cover the important aspect of making sure that we advise ministers and that we identify the needs, the aspirations and contributions of South Australians with diverse backgrounds, increase awareness—all the things that are in its functions are already there.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 7 [Bettison–1]—

Page 7, after line 9—Insert:

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

The intention of this amendment is to add to the functions of the commission to raise awareness of the harm that racism and other forms of discriminatory behaviour can do to multiculturalism and interculturalism in South Australia.

When I read a lot of the submissions from people looking into the review of this act, an act that had not been looked at for many decades, quite a few of the submissions raised the issue of racism. I was somewhat surprised that the bill did not identify this as one of the roles of the commission. In fact, when I have raised this, commission members themselves have said, 'Yes, I do think this is something that the commission should have a function to do.'

Many people think the debate over racism has been completed, that we are accepting of our multicultural society. Unfortunately, it is simply not true. We still have concerns and, in fact, back in March I spoke on Harmony Day in this house, when ASIO put out a report stating that they were concerned with the ever-increasing nationalist right wing presence in Australia.

For many of those people who are attracted to that type of subset, it is about white supremacy, which is actually the complete opposite to what many of us in this house, and I hope all of us, believe in. It is partly why the commission exists—because we think that this is important. We think that it is important to be proud of our multicultural society. We think its diversity is our strength and that is why this amendment is in there today. The Australian Refugee Association (ARA) talked about this in their submission. They said:

As a member of the Stop Racism Taskforce…ARA's commitment to a just and equal society is ongoing. Through our work with the Taskforce, ARA has been able to recognise the strong need for SAMEAC to also be more involved in addressing racism and discrimination within the wider Australian community. We urge SAMEAC to develop stronger relationship with communities, organisations and initiatives such as the Taskforce and better advocate against all forms of discrimination perpetrated against multicultural communities in South Australia. ARA also believes that in addition to the Stop Racism Taskforce, SAMEAC—

or SAMAC, as it will be—

should also be closely working with the Equal Opportunity Commission, to address discrimination and harassment and promote equality across South Australia, including government departments, mainstream services and local business.

Not only has this been raised with the opposition but it was detailed quite clearly in these submissions when we were looking at the review of the bill. I look forward to the day that we do not need a function of this kind, but we are not there yet and we must not be complacent. That really is what the conversations I have had with many people have been about: having this as part of the commission.

We must not be complacent. Not everyone agrees that multiculturalism adds to our strength. When we want to talk about interculturalism, there are people who are not there yet, so it is very important for me that, in their communication with the community, one of the key functions of the commission, who is there representing the diversity of South Australia and telling our migrants' stories in action, is to raise awareness of the harms of racism.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I find myself completely agreeing with the member as to the sentiments of racist behaviour and conduct. I just remind the house that actually it is against the law. The Equal Opportunity Act 1984, which of course postdates this legislation—the Equal Opportunity Commission has a very clear role in that—prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, including race, in a range of public areas, including employment, education, membership of an association, disposal of an interest in land, accommodation, superannuation or the provision of goods and services.

The Equal Opportunity Commission has a statutory role—and I said this in the second reading contribution—and it is their responsibility to educate and inform the community of their rights and responsibilities under the equal opportunity law. So I totally agree with the member in relation to racism. I agree with her that it is abhorrent. It is actually against the law. We have a dedicated agency to act on it, to ensure that it is enforced and to educate the community in relation to that.

I read the ARA contribution several times actually because I was looking for some indication that there be a role of SAMEAC. I do not think that is what it says at all. If the whole of paragraph 3 is read in their submission, it in fact suggests and invites SAMEAC to work with them, because they are a member of the Stop Racism Taskforce, to support that sentiment. It then goes on to say:

ARA also believes that in addition to the Stop Racism Taskforce, SAMEAC should also be closely working with the Equal Opportunity Commission, to address discrimination and harassment and promote equality across South Australia, including government departments, mainstream services and local business.

Clearly, SAMEAC has a role and it is another agency's role to deal with both the prosecution of a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act, where racism is alleged as a form of discrimination, and indeed the educative role. That is their job.

I want to reinforce the fact that what has happened here is that we have had a commission that was established, or we actually had a representative in relation to multiculturalism—I think they were called a director before we had a commission back in the seventies, but I could be wrong—and it developed into a commission in 1980. In 1984, we had new legislation on equal opportunity that dealt with gender and a few other things back in those days, but it has very much expanded since then, and they have that job.

I have spoken to members of the commission too, and it seems that they agree and acknowledge that the Equal Opportunity Commission has that job, as I suggest the ARA do. They are saying, 'Look, we should join in the sentiment in relation to this but we acknowledge that they should be working to make sure.'

Let's just use a practical example here. If a circumstance were to arise where a member of the multicultural commission, who may be attending festivals and events and celebrations of people in our multicultural community during the many contributions they make, witnessed an example of conduct which would be in breach of this, which was to exhibit some racist behaviour, then of course we would expect them to act—not to go out and have an education program about it but to report them to the relevant authority.

They are in a key position as commissioners, mindful of and familiar with the laws, dedicated to ensuring a multicultural/intercultural cause and ensuring that illegal conduct is not allowed. I would hope that every single member of the commission in such a senior role would make sure of that within their own communities with which they are culturally familiar and/or others that they visit. I know that they are all really busy in doing this job and we thank them for it, but that is another agency's job. This is a very clear job to do: make sure government agencies are doing their job and that there is a shared commitment to what these objectives are in this legislation and report back to the Premier, no less, if it is not happening.

What is a separate job is dealing with illegal conduct, and we have agencies to deal with that. If they think that it is actually unlawful or criminal, then of course it goes to the police. If they think there is any discrimination for someone in this long list of categories—employment, access to schools, all these things—then they know what their job is, too, and that is to send it to the Equal Opportunity Commission. We do not want to overcomplicate this. I just suggest, with respect, that the Australian Refugee Association is not calling for what is in this amendment at all.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: While I acknowledge what the Attorney says, that racism is illegal, it does happen. I think there is an opportunity for the commission to provide education and awareness of the harm that racism causes. I think it was very clear from what ARA said that they need the commission to advocate. They have been part of this Stop Racism Taskforce, they acknowledge the role of the Equal Opportunity Commission, but they call upon, they welcome, they encourage the commission to raise awareness about the harm of racism.

We can agree it is illegal, but we have some way to go and I think it is incredibly important that this is one of the functions of the commission. I think it is very clear that not all Australians believe in multiculturalism and interculturalism and that people of varying diversity do suffer from racism every day. We would like to think that it does not happen, but it does, and in particular, as I said in my second reading contribution, our Asian community has suffered greatly since COVID. They have raised with me many, many times how life has changed for them.

At this point, it might be about COVID and our Asian community. At another point, it could be another group. But what we need to do is continue to raise concerns about the harm of racism. I think it is incredibly important that this should be a function of the commission.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would ask the member, if it is not in paragraph 3, I have looked at it again, and there is no provision here that this group has an educative role on racism. That is not what is sought. It suggests very clearly, 'advocate against all forms of discrimination perpetrated against multicultural communities.' We are not talking about racist acts: we are talking about discrimination.

Mr SZAKACS: The Attorney will no doubt understand that the capacity for the commission to work with peak agencies like the Australian Refugee Association would limit it to the functions of the commission but, further, enabled by the next clause, which clause 11—Delegation.

Whilst many peak agencies and bodies in this space want to have a greater role or believe in their capacity to play a greater role in education or awareness raising on various matters, it is the function of the commission that needs to be inserted first. I can foreshadow very happily our support for clause 11—Delegation; that is, the capacity for the Multicultural Commission to delegate to a specified person or body, or to a person from time to time, any of the functions of the commission.

Further, all I can say is thank God the Attorney is not in charge of other education functions or awareness functions of the government. I can just see it now: 'Don't speed—it's illegal,' 'Don't take drugs—it's illegal,' 'Don't coward punch—it's illegal.' It is not the point, Attorney. The point is that it is the job of a government, it is the job of a commission, to raise awareness.

The Attorney has said extensively in her contribution on this clause, 'We don't need to give the commission any powers to raise awareness about the dangers of racism, and we don't need to give the commission any ability to function as an intermediary about the dangers of racism, because it's illegal.' That is a very 1960s mentality, perhaps a time when the Attorney was a bit more comfortable with the law of this state and perhaps a bit more comfortable operating in, but the truth is that we have moved a long way past that.

When it comes to drug education, when it comes to road safety, when it comes to the king hit, which we now call a sucker punch, we do not just set out to tell young people, to tell at-risk cohorts, 'Don't do it—it's illegal,' or, in this case, 'Don't be racist—it's illegal.' We actually say, 'Let's talk to the communities about the dangers of racism. Let's talk to communities about the profound impact that racism has.'

We have heard in this place contributions from the member for West Torrens—I have sat here in this chamber with him—talking about the profound impact that racism has had on him. I have spoken with members of the commission about the profound impact that racism has had on them. For the Attorney to say, 'Racism is bad, racism sucks, but let's keep it out of this act,' is just mind-boggling.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT