HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-03-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

First Nations Voice Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 21 March 2023.)

Clauses 35 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

Mr TEAGUE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Teague–1]—

Page 18, line 31 to page 20, line 36—Delete Part 4 and substitute:

Part 4—Interaction with Parliament of South Australia

38—Interpretation

In this Part—

First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee means the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991.

39—Purpose and application of Part

(1) The purpose of this Part is to provide a mechanism for the State First Nations Voice to make its views, submissions and recommendations heard by the Parliament.

(2) Nothing in this Part affects the privileges, immunities or powers of the Legislative Council or House of Assembly or their committees or members.

(3) Nothing in this Part creates legally enforceable rights or entitlements on the part of the State First Nations Voice or any other person or body.

40—State First Nations Voice to meet with First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee

(1) The State First Nations Voice and the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee must meet at least 4 times in each calendar year.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the State First Nations Voice and the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee may meet less than 4 times in a calendar year if—

(a) the presiding members of the State First Nations Voice and the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee agree that it is not reasonably practicable for a particular meeting to take place; and

(b) it is not reasonably practicable to reschedule the meeting to take place in the relevant year.

(3) The procedures for meetings between the State First Nations Voice and the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee will be as determined by the State First Nations Voice and presiding member of the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee.

41—State First Nations Voice may refer matter to First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee

(1) Without limiting section 16 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the State First Nations Voice may, by notice in the Gazette, refer a matter that is relevant to the functions of the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee to that Committee.

(2) To avoid doubt, section 17 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 applies in relation to a matter referred to the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee under this section.

Note—

Section 17 of that Act requires the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee to inquire into and report to Parliament on matters referred to the Committee.

42—State First Nations Voice may present report to Parliament through First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee

(1) The State First Nations Voice may, in accordance with any requirements in the regulations, prepare and provide to the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee for presentation to Parliament reports on any matter relating to the functions of the State First Nations Voice under this or any other Act.

(2) The presiding member of the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee must, within 6 sitting days after the Committee receives a report under subsection (1), cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

42A—First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee to report annually to Parliament

(1) Without limiting a provision of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the First Nations Affairs and Representation Committee must, on or before 31 December in each year, report on the operation of this Act to its appointing Houses during the preceding 12 months.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be the subject of a report under this section, the report must include—

(a) information setting out the extent to which, in the opinion of the Committee, the purposes of this Act have been achieved or furthered during the relevant period; and

(b) information setting out any initiatives affecting First Nations persons implemented during the relevant period that should, in the opinion of the Committee, be promoted or celebrated; and

(c) any recommendations the Committee wishes to make in relation to how the Act could be improved to achieve better outcomes for First Nations persons; and

(d) any other information required by the regulations.

The amendment would delete part 4 and substitute a new part 4 in relation to interaction with the parliament. That will be familiar to the committee in that it is the contents of part 5 of the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill as it was in 2021 and 2022. Apart from, I think, being one clause out, we are able to read along by reference to that bill. I again recognise the work of parliamentary counsel in that respect.

The replacement of the part really draws the distinction between the model as proposed, the subject of the government's bill, and the form of engagement with the parliament that is the subject of the 2021 bill. I will not say anything more, for fear of otherwise traversing the contents of another bill that is on the Notice Paper, but rather address the particular contents.

I had a bit to say yesterday about the important role of the longstanding South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council on the one hand and its proposed replacement with the representative body on the other, together with the establishment under statute of the role of Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, both the subject of the previous bill, and the means by which those replacements then provided for a coherent means of engagement with the parliament.

I say it is well familiar to the committee. That is not only because it is there on the face of the 2021 bill, but it was the subject of some consideration in the course of the second reading debate in 2021. Insofar as the substance was adverted to, it was perhaps on more than one occasion criticised by the characterisation of being not so much a Voice to the Parliament as a voice to a committee.

In moving the amendment to substitute the part, I take on board that characterisation but embrace it as a virtue and urge the committee's consideration of that model of engagement, thoroughgoing and coherent as it is, in relation to the capacity for parliament to be accountable for the work and engagement of a body that is seeking to engage with issues of importance to it, as opposed to what we see in the government's bill in part 4, which is a form of engagement that is limited—and for those who followed the committee process and read the bill, we are talking about a body that is meeting on those four, or up to six, occasions each year, engaging with the parliament only in relation to the subject matter of the Notice Paper.

We have gone from a draft government bill that again was oriented around the analysis of the Notice Paper. At draft stage, the government bill proposed a model that said that the Clerk will have a look over the Notice Paper and the Clerk will consider what might be of relevance or interest to Aboriginal people and perhaps put a highlight or a tick on those items and then hand it over and say, 'If you would like to have something to say about these bills, then you are free to do so.'

By the time we get to the final version of the bill that is before the house, the government at least had seen the error of its ways insofar as that gatekeeper model was concerned, the problematic nature of the Clerk somehow determining what is and is not of relevance to Aboriginal people. It is a positive outcome to the extent that the government bill now says that all matters on the Notice Paper are potentially of interest to Aboriginal people.

The defect in all of that, of course, is that the engagement of parliament is confined, in that sense, to the subject matter of the Notice Paper, leaving aside the fact there is a positive contemplation or expectation that there will be no coherence between the debate in the house on any particular matter that is on the Notice Paper and the point in time that anyone from the Voice might seek to take the opportunity to engage. That is let alone the criticisms that this inevitably will punctuate the course of debate, and the references to the third chamber and so on.

The point that I am focusing on in moving the amendment is very much the substance of what it would permit in terms of improved engagement. It has been thought through. It is not my bright idea and I do not take credit for it; it is a matter to be acknowledged in terms of those who have done the work over several recent years. I will quote only briefly again from the report of Dr Roger Thomas in terms of his engagement between July 2018 and November 2020, at page 24, where, in referring to the nature of the representative body and its engagement, he is saying that that body will embody one of the key tenets of the Uluru Statement, the statement that many have referred to in the course of this debate. It will, on this model of parliamentary engagement via a committee, be a Voice of the Aboriginal community to the Parliament of South Australia.

I endorse and amplify those observations because, in the very short period of time I have been a member of this place, having seen the way that committees function vis-a-vis the parliament, it is clear to me that access to committee work and engagement with a parliament via those members of a committee—a committee geared towards the reception of, and the inquiry into, matters that are raised by that body—is a particularly productive way of developing from the ground up matters of importance to Aboriginal people.

By comparison, being confined to cherrypicking a Notice Paper that has arisen because of the whole variety of reasons why business comes before this parliament in the usual course is hardly a ground-up approach and hardly provides what I would suggest is capable of satisfying a Voice definition, leaving aside the problems of the nature of that interaction with the chamber itself.

That has been the subject of observation in the national debate, and I would refer to the article on 28 February in The Australian newspaper in circumstances where, at the federal level, they are still steps away from seeing legislation. But the committee engagement model there has been praised and recognised for its capacity to do good work. I will quote from that article:

Committees provide an opportunity for organisations and individuals to participate in policymaking and to have their views placed on the public record and considered as part of the decision-making process.

Further:

…irrespective of changes of government or policy priorities, the mechanism remains focused on hearing voices of local and regional [communities]…

That is a model that has been spoken up for on the national stage, and I note the engagement of the opposition shadow attorney and shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, Julian Leeser, in this regard. But it is not only him: former Indigenous minister Ken Wyatt also spoke very much about the merits of that form of engagement.

I have said it plenty of times; in fact, I think the member for Light kindly quoted me in the course of my second reading debate, emphasising that we ought to approach policy and legislative reform in this area with humility and with diligence. Providing a mechanism, a meat and potatoes mechanism, for engagement via a committee—as I said, it has been damned or lampooned or characterised as voice to a committee—on the contrary, is a means of engagement that we ought to embrace and it is a means by which this parliament can actually do some service to those who would engage from the Aboriginal community side.

Just to underscore again those voices that are not mine in this regard, I refer, in the second round of feedback (it would be remiss of me not to) to the sentiment that is expressed by a number of respondents, including among them the South Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Network in their submission dated 9 January 2023—that is submission number 30. I think this is an observation that ought be borne squarely in mind. At page 10, at about point 7 on the page, the convenor says:

We propose that a model is developed with a starting point from Parliament and looking out. This places the onus on Parliament, not on Aboriginal peoples, to ensure that Voice representation is guaranteed.

It goes on, and there are further observations in that regard. Let me just give one second reference to a similar sentiment, and in the context of the nature of consultation and engagement. The author of submission 31, who is described as an individual (and the details are redacted so I will simply describe it as submission 31), in a thoughtful submission ranging over aspects of the bill, makes the observation that:

…the legislation is geared towards the State Government extending an invitation to Aboriginal peoples to have their say on matters of interest to them; this is placing the onus upon Aboriginal people to identify matters that may be in their interests.

The capacity to have a direct engagement with a purpose-built committee means that there is much more than that that is possible and the capacity for that engagement, therefore, to have the capacity to bear fruit in terms of real improved outcomes. One more—I said that there were only those two. I referred yesterday to aspects of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit's submission, which is submission 35.

In this regard, the authors make the observation at page 20 of their submission that at present, that is the subject of this bill, there is no provision for the State First Nations Voice to address either house on a matter other than a bill. Putting aside the merits of addressing the house to the extent that this is a question that puts the focus on that limitation, they make the pretty obvious observation there:

It is foreseeable that a matter raising issues of importance to Aboriginal people could arise after the annual address had been given. There may be no Bill in Parliament relating to that issue. Under current provisions of the Bill, State First Nations Voice could provide a report to Parliament but could not make an address. The visibility and power of an address to Parliament may be quite different from the impact of providing a written report.

They are then not going so far as to traverse what might be the means in the alternative, and they might be forgiven for doing that because they are there commenting on what has been proposed.

But I hope the point is made loud and clear. Standing here I am really wanting to emphasise that, far from tiptoeing into the field with a somewhat less than fully informed capacity of engagement via a Voice to committee, it should be understood loud and clear that an engagement model via a committee has a great deal more capacity to do real work to be unifying and coherent in terms of taking the debate forward. So with those short words of explanation, I urge the adoption of the amendment in terms of that substitution of part 4.

The CHAIR: Just to clarify, and this is just a procedural matter, as the member for Heysen's amendment No. 1 replaces the whole of part 4 of the bill concerning addresses to parliament—being five clauses, 38 to 42—it is my intention to put only the part of the amendment concerning clause 38 first, but I will let members ask questions on 38 to 42 in the first part because they are related.

Mr TEAGUE: So as to be clear about my understanding, the amendment is a single amendment, Chair, and the consequences of its carriage or not might play on where we go next. Of course, I am happy to take questions on any one of the clauses within the single amendment.

The CHAIR: Essentially, because of the interrelationships between those clauses, I will allow for questions from 38 to 42. We will then deal with clause 38, as you said. If that is carried, then we will take it from there; if it fails, we will take it from there. Then we will go to the other clauses individually. All I am saying in effect is that I will open it up for questions for the whole lot. I will allow questions on the whole lot because of their interrelationship and there are things you might want to say that go to questions asked.

Mr TEAGUE: I would perhaps counsel against that in that, and I do not want to be too pessimistic, in the perhaps unfortunate event that my amendment is not carried then there will be work to do in terms of part 4 as it then stands. So I am happy to take questions on my proposed amendment and that ranges over several clauses but it is in one go.

The CHAIR: That is what I was trying to say.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright, if that is what you are trying to say, then we can deal with the consequences of that one way or the other.

The CHAIR: Yes. Clearly, I do not have legal training to put that into the words you wanted, but that is what I was trying to say.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The CHAIR: Yes, you may, minister, in response and then I will take questions.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am aware that there are likely to be questions from people other than myself but I would like to give a government response initially. I understand the nature of these amendments, but characterised in this first amendment, is to essentially say, 'We don't want to have an elected Aboriginal Voice to Parliament that is able to come and address parliament directly on bills. We want to create between the Voice to Parliament and parliament a committee to which the Voice would be able to give views on bills but also traverse other issues.'

There appear to be a couple of arguments in favour that the member has put. One being an assertion that the Voice is somehow limited to what happens to be on the Notice Paper. Another being that it is in some ways more meritorious for an elected Voice to Parliament to speak to a committee rather than to parliament. And a third question of whether this was a model derived by Professor Roger Thomas that had more support from the Aboriginal community via that exercise than does this proposition. I would argue that each of those three points does not have sufficient substance to warrant supporting this amendment.

I have a piece that I will read out because it has been carefully considered about why it is that it is important that the Voice be able to come directly to parliament. Before I turn to that I would point out that, although the member has acknowledged the existence of it, he has not given sufficient weight to clause 41, which talks about the presentation of a report to parliament on any matter.

I think the member has characterised that as being, 'Well, it's only a report, it's not the same as going to a committee.' I would say a report to all of parliament can have considerably more weight than going via a committee. But, in any case, what it does do is deal with the argument that somehow the Voice is being limited to what happens to be on the Notice Paper.

There is also, of course, the reality that, while this legislation creates a formal mechanism by which the Voice to Parliament is able to address parliament on bills, it, by its very existence, encourages the reaching out of people who are drafting bills and considering policy issues to seek advice on any matter that they wish to, whereas I suspect the existence of a committee might suggest that it is the work of the committee to do such reaching out. It creates a layer of parliamentary bureaucracy that I think would be misleading because it would suggest that that is properly the business of a committee of parliament rather than of parliament itself.

I would also say that I think we should be wary about over-characterising the position that was placed by Professor Roger Thomas in his report that was quoted. This document does not in fact talk about the creation of a committee. That did become the model that was the piece of legislation that emerged from the work that Roger undertook, and I believe there was something like nine days consultation on, which was one of the many concerns that we raised when in opposition.

The quote on page 24 that the member quotes from is not specifically in the context of a parliamentary committee. In fact, it is importantly that the body will embody one of the key tenets of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Voice, that it will be a voice of the Aboriginal community to the parliament of South Australia. I think it is important that we do not miss the import of those words. It is important that we are talking about a Voice to Parliament, which brings me to the overall concern that has been raised by my colleague in the other place about this proposition.

We had been informed that there would be a number of amendments but the opposition chose not to put any in the upper house and that it would wait for this chamber and it would seek to improve this bill. It has been to me notable that the only amendments relate to removing the capacity for the Voice to speak directly to parliament, that it is simply to create a committee.

That is a source of disappointment to me, that in choosing not to support this piece of legislation will be a lasting source of disappointment to me. The opposition has simultaneously also not sought to address other issues that have been raised in this discussion, in this committee stage, but instead has just sought to deprive the Voice of the opportunity to do what it promises, which is to speak directly to parliament.

The piece that has been prepared for me on this is that the government opposes these amendments because they fatally undermine the bill; they stop it being a Voice to Parliament. The effect of the opposition's amendments are to remove the entire part of the bill which enables a state's First Nations Voice to interact directly with the parliament. Instead, the proposition is the establishment of a new parliamentary committee.

The commitment we made to the people of South Australia was for a Voice to Parliament, not a voice to a committee. I know the member does not appreciate that characterisation of his amendments. More than just being an election commitment by the government, it was a clear and unambiguous message that we received from Aboriginal communities across the state. During the six months of consultation undertaken by the Commissioner for First Nations Voice, community members told us loud and clear that they wanted the Voice to engage directly with parliament and directly with government. To quote the commissioner's first Engagement Report:

The response to this question was clear and near unanimous across all conversations, and this was reflected in the survey responses. All attendees want The Voice to speak directly to Parliament. They do not want their message diluted by another body or committee.

The report also quotes a Koonibba community member, who said at one of the consultation sessions:

You should go straight to the top. That's the only way we're going to be heard. You go through other people and they have their own agendas.

Even if the opposition does not agree with the government's policy on this matter, even if they do not support the unambiguous call from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, why do they insist on these amendments, knowing that they are contrary to the clear and express wishes of First Nations South Australians?

This house should pass a bill which reflects the extensive feedback received from Aboriginal communities and which meets the objectives set out in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. For these reasons, the government does not support this amendment. With that, I will yield to those backbenchers who may have some specific questions on this matter before we vote.

Ms HOOD: My question is to the member for Heysen. Why does the member for Heysen's proposed committee, as part of his amendments, not ensure crossbench representation from the House of Assembly?

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure we are there yet. We are at amendment No. 1. With your indulgence, Chair, I am happy to address it. I think really the member for Adelaide's question is going to the subject of amendment No. 2, which is consequential.

The CHAIR: This is actually a bit later, in a sense. I might allow it, only to the extent that it is consequential so it actually informs the first bit, so I will allow the question. Are you happy to answer it?

Mr TEAGUE: I am happy to. As I understand it, the question just asked is why there is not specific provision for members of the crossbench in the House of Assembly; is that the question?

The CHAIR: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: I note that we have a committee of six members. Those three appointed in the Legislative Council clearly contemplate a member of the crossbench and, if no such member exists, then a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. We do not have that equivalent provision in the House of Assembly. Although it is there contemplating that one member will be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and two nominated by the minister, it does not preclude a nomination from a member of the crossbench. In the usual way in which members of committees are nominated in this place, there is the possibility for that to be facilitated should a member of the crossbench seek to be a member of the committee.

I just foreshadow that if we get to that point, and it is sufficient to get us over the line, I would be quite open to contemplating such more specific provision. Let's see if we get there.

Ms THOMPSON: Who did the member for Heysen consult with prior to introducing these amendments?

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you for that question. Firstly, it is not just me but, as I said in the course of my second reading contribution and in the course of the committee, this is directly in line with the work that has been done in the lead-up to the preparation and introduction of the bill of which this forms a part in 2021 and the bill that I introduced in May of last year in this place and that sits on the Notice Paper. It is the subject of extensive consultation, together with the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, over the period of years leading up to its introduction.

The Deputy Premier has referred to this oft-cited number of days of consultation prior to which the bill was introduced in 2021. It is a rather insufficient form of characterisation. If we are going to adopt the same test, I would perhaps highlight that I saw this bill about a day or two or three before its introduction. If the member for Davenport is looking then to the medium-term history, I would commend the summary of the range in nature of engagement that is referred to by Professor Thomas at page 23 of his report.

I have addressed perhaps a broader-ranging response on the question of engagement which was very thorough in terms of the establishment of the body itself. I otherwise refer to the body of work that led up to the 2021 bill, which is replicated in the bill in my name in 2022.

Ms THOMPSON: How many stakeholder groups were consulted prior to these amendments being placed on the file?

Mr TEAGUE: Again, I go back to the long history of this matter, and again I have cited the table at page 23 of Professor Roger Thomas's report. What I have sought to do is to bring to the house a model and a form of engagement that is not only well known, because it has been sitting on the Notice Paper throughout the course of this parliament, but was there in the previous parliament; and, in terms of the engagement in the lead-up to the establishment of the body that would engage in such engagement with the parliament, has been the subject of a report, the result of many years' work of Professor Roger Thomas.

Ms THOMPSON: Can you clarify if any Aboriginal organisations or community leaders provided feedback on the amendments prior to them being filed?

Mr TEAGUE: I think I have already answered that. If you are looking for a fresh round of engagement as it were between 7 February and 8 March, there has been an occasion to address discrete subject matter that is already of longstanding. I do not know if that is your focal point, that is, the month between February and March. I engaged in the usual course of interaction, I suppose, in response to the government bill during that period of time, including reflecting on and promoting what, in my view, remains a more meritorious form of engagement to the parliament that is the subject of part 4 of the previous bill—so, if you like, going over that old ground with all of those with whom I am engaging in the usual way, but this is subject matter that is well familiar for now getting on a year and a half.

S.E. ANDREWS: How would the proposed committee's views, submissions and recommendations be heard by parliament?

Mr TEAGUE: The part provides for that, insofar as the committee would be obliged to come in in the usual way and report the outcome of work that the committee has done. We see that in the course of each parliamentary sitting week on a Thursday.

It has that advantage in that, just like a committee that meets for the purposes of engaging with subject matter that is the subject of standing committee business, one of the distinct advantages of the structure—and the question from the member for Gibson gives me the opportunity to reflect upon—is that not only would it provide that regular opportunity, including on a Thursday in routine business, for there to be engagement with the house about the progress of committee work, but there would be the occasion with the regularity of a parliamentary committee to be engaged in the day-to-day work of the parliament.

So it would have the effect of both promoting the ordinariness of incorporation of the routines of parliament with this body—as has been said, as I think I have observed already, it would allow for the meat and potatoes, ground-up work to be developed by the representative body/Voice with the committee—and in turn would provide the occasion, in a coherent way, for the results of that work to be engaged with in terms of the parliament in its day-to-day work.

S.E. ANDREWS: Thank you. What are the provisions for electing the Presiding Member of the committee, and which chamber would they come from?

Mr TEAGUE: Again, I think we are into amendment No. 2. In the usual way, the committee when it first meets elects the Chair of the committee and business proceeds henceforth. So, as a committee, replacing as it would (and I think that is the subject of amendment Nos 3 or 4) the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, we would see the reform of that process. We would otherwise have the establishment of a committee in the usual way, constituted in terms of the provisions in amendment No. 2, and a Chair elected in the usual way in terms of parliamentary committees.

Ms HOOD: How would the member for Heysen summarise the feedback received from First Nations South Australians on his proposal to create a Voice to a committee rather than a Voice to Parliament?

Mr TEAGUE: I am particularly grateful for that question from the member for Adelaide. I might have confined myself to circumstances in which we might find ourselves traversing part 4 as it is proposed, but I might just perhaps go there in response to that question. There might be occasion to revisit it subsequently.

We see in the Second Engagement Note of the Commissioner for First Nations Voice to the South Australian Parliament, November 2022 to January 2023, at page 20 an observation that:

Most submissions were supportive of mechanisms in the draft Bill enabling the State Voice to engage with Parliament...

It is not the occasion to ask the government for evidence that might underpin that statement, but in response to it I will ask the government, if I have the occasion to, in relation to the government's version of part 4. In response to the question, I can just indicate that I have found no such evidence. Of the 42 submissions that must be the subject of this report, only one of them speaks up in favour of the model that is proposed for part 4 in the government's bill, and that is the submission of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement.

I only address this body of submissions, because it is what is referred to in the Second Engagement Note. The bulk of these are anti the whole project, so put that to one side. Those that are otherwise ambivalent or pro in the main do not address the minutiae of the model. They just do not go there. Those that do address the minutiae of the model thoughtfully argue against it—and I have given a couple of examples—for the reason that it limits the nature and rather renders incoherent the nature of the engagement to the parliament, and hence the argument for something that does not quite so clearly put the onus on Aboriginal people as opposed to the onus on the parliament to do the running, do the real work of engagement.

I think the best answer I can give to the member for Adelaide is that the model that is the subject of the 2021 bill, the 2022 bill that is on the Notice Paper and the subject of my amendment No. 1 is not there simply by accident, and it is not there simply as a faint reference to the possibility of some form of engagement. It is a thought-through model that has the prospects of real outcome and it is to be set against what, without more, is an incorrect observation in the Second Engagement Note that most submissions were somehow supportive of mechanisms in the government bill in relation to the State Voice engaging with parliament. It is a better, more robust working model, and although I have the cart before the horse the alternative is not spoken up for in terms of submission response.

Ms CLANCY: Is it correct that the former Liberal government gave just over a week to provide feedback on the draft Aboriginal Representative Body Bill prior to its introduction to parliament?

Mr TEAGUE: I am glad to focus on it—again, I have said this a few times in the course of the committee—because as recently as 7 February 2023, as recently as about six weeks ago, the Premier told ABC Radio Adelaide that there was no bill before the last parliament. I do not know whether he is aware of the fact that there was, and that there is also a bill before the current parliament—there has been for a year—but I guess the best I can say about the notion that somehow there were so many days of exposure of a draft bill before it was introduced and then debate commenced is it only rises so high in the context of the circumstances of late 2021.

The only thing I would add is that the debate on the second reading of that bill in 2021 ensued over the course of two months: October and November 2021. There were numerous thoughtful contributions to the debate, and the criticism of the model rose only so high as what the member for Elder has just recited: the criticism about so many days prior to introduction and so on. I would just say that I saw the government bill in a time frame similar to that, if you want to characterise it in the same way. Meanwhile, the criticism of substance was confined—and I welcome those who would add more—to the characterisation of the model in terms of being a Voice to a committee and 'Oh, what a shame; it is only a Voice to a committee'.

So I will embrace the characterisation, if you like, and then say that we have had a full year-and-a-half to think about it, to work through what stacks up and what works. What is the national debate, and what are we going to anticipate in terms of a legislative model federally in the event that matters progress? On any measure, it stacks up. It stacked up in 2021, it stacked up last year and it still stacks up now, otherwise I would not advance the amendment.

Ms CLANCY: Just to clarify, you have obviously said that these amendments seek to replicate the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill that was previously introduced. Does the member for Heysen consider that the consultation on that bill was adequate?

Mr TEAGUE: For present purposes, yes. I would just add the context in which we come here to debate the merits of this bill: I was anticipating the Premier leading the committee. But there is nothing turning on it. I have been criticised by the Premier personally for turning up to an event to which I was invited—which I accepted and participated in. This is with due respect; I have a great respect for all engaged in the debate. I was criticised for somehow celebrating an occasion on the one hand and then changing my position on the other. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is a model of engagement, the subject of a bill that was introduced in the last parliament, whether the Premier realises that or not. That model was again put forward—more or less on day one; not quite but almost—and it sat on the Notice Paper throughout the period of time. As I have said previously, at estimates in June last year, by serendipity it was the member for Dunstan, in circumstances where I was double-booked elsewhere, who had the opportunity. So the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs engaged directly with the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs about, 'What are you going to do to carry on the work of Professor Thomas and the work that has been elucidated in terms of the 2021 bill and the 2022 bill, just fresh as it was then?'

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs said, 'We will do our own work. We will start from scratch.' So he did, even to the point of saying, 'We are going to move away from a Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement and instead we are going to have an inaugural Commissioner for First Nations Voice in South Australia. We are going to engage in a process of engagement,' and all the rest of it.

The interesting thing about that, apart from what I have described over the course of last year as being a risk of a re-run, is that what you have underpinning all of that is one set of parliamentary counsel work. This makes it abundantly clear that the underpinning is there, and there is a conscious decision then to depart from that 'Voice to a committee' and to move to the model that is the subject of part 4 of the government's bill.

I say that is defective, I say that is incoherent, and I say it will not work. I will add to that that it is unambitious. I will cop, on behalf of the former government, notions of however many days prior to introduction that something might have been circulated, but here we are in March 2023 and everyone has had plenty of time to take on board these different alternatives. It is now brought forward, once again, in terms of the merits and it is a model that I, again, commend to the house.

Ms CLANCY: Given that under the Liberal government the current incarnation of this committee did not provide the parliament with a report for three years, what safeguards will ensure that this committee will actually report to parliament?

Mr TEAGUE: I think I adverted to this in my second reading contribution as well. Here, I defer to but I certainly endorse the observations of the member for Giles, who has, for some time, made I guess maybe three observations: first, that it is a bit of a unique committee that is focused in name and in remit on Aboriginal lands—it is kind of a late 20th century kind of model; and secondly, he has made the observation that it is, in those circumstances, somewhat odd that there is a group from parliament that from time to time might go on visits or engage in particular subject matter.

If he has not expressly, then I might add a third, and that is that the range and scope of its productive work had been confined to matters of governance and heritage and lands and so on, and it has been active in its engagement—and I have witnessed that as I have been on the committee from time to time in recent years—and it has certainly provided some de facto capacity for engagement and better understanding with Aboriginal groups. But it is in need of reform.

The doing away with that committee is not terribly controversial. The replacement with a committee that is specifically having as its sole purpose in life, as it were, to ensure that it is accountable to a body of credibility that is engaging with it and vice versa, has a great deal to recommend it by contrast and comparison.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I appreciate we are talking about the amendments, not the substance of the bill at this stage, but a number of matters have been raised in answering those questions and I feel it might be useful just to give some summary, as we are effectively comparing and contrasting the two models and also the two processes.

For the sake of people who may in the future be reading this in Hansard, or those who are listening now, essentially what happened under the previous government—and with Professor Roger Thomas, who, as I have said in this place before, I have enormous respect for and have known for many years since we worked together at the University of Adelaide when he came and took over Wirltu Yarlu from my very brief management of that institution while we were between Mercy Glastonbury and himself, while we were looking for an Aboriginal leader for that lovely organisation. His work was to undertake consultation on a model and then after that model had been consulted on for some period of time, a report was produced and then a draft piece of legislation went out for a very brief period of time.

That is why we have this question of the nine days of consultation on what the model then actually looked like in a piece of legislation; whereas with the work that was undertaken by Dale Agius, who is also a splendid human and South Australian, he took a piece of draft legislation out for a long period of time and consulted on that piece of legislation that then has been modified slightly as a result of that. So that is a degree of understanding why these questions of the length of time legislation was looked at is being discussed.

When we look at the report on the model that Professor Thomas came up with, the detail that is now residing in these amendments obviously was not there because it was not a legislative instrument that was being consulted on and nor was it reported in that way. I think it is probably a long bow to suggest that, because that bill went into parliament prior to the last election and because it was reintroduced, somehow the Aboriginal community has had this opportunity to continue engaging with that and giving feedback. I think that ignores that there was an election in which a new government was formed. The Attorney-General and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs clearly ran the election commitment that we would fulfil the obligations or the request of the Uluru Statement from the Heart for Voice, Treaty, Truth and that the focus of the Aboriginal communities' feedback then shifted to that piece of legislation.

But just to briefly close off on the work that Professor Thomas undertook, this report, the 'Draft guiding principles for an Aboriginal representative body for South Australia', includes at number seven:

Direct and reciprocal engagement with government—formal relationship with government agencies, Cabinet and/or Parliament with mutual responsibilities.

Short of a piece of legislation, which can be given feedback on precise wording, the idea of direct engagement including to parliament does rather suggest that one would not go through a committee, even though that is then where that draft legislation ended up. We ought to be wary of putting too much weight on the feedback on that model then translating it into any kind of support specifically for amendments that are before us today.

But then in contrast, the member has suggested that there is some form of inaccuracy perhaps in the Second Engagement Note from Commissioner Agius in suggesting that submissions were overwhelmingly supportive of the draft legislation that was aired extensively across South Australia within Aboriginal communities. It was available to people who were interested.

The overwhelming majority of feedback that was given was done in face-to-face sessions with Commissioner Agius and the summary gives us an opportunity to understand what happened there. Written submissions are one form of feedback and, as it has been pointed out, I think some of those written submissions were opposed to all of the ideas of a Voice. But if we go to page 8 of that second note:

Overwhelmingly, people who attended face-to-face sessions supported the proposed Voice to Parliament model. There was particular support for the provisions that enabled the Voice to engage with Parliament, the Cabinet [and so on].

But the point being that Commissioner Agius was equipped with a piece of legislation that said the Voice will be fully elected and will be able to come to parliament and give direct feedback on legislation. The overwhelming feedback from the Aboriginal community was, 'Yes, that is what we want.'

So in terms of what raises the bar to then cling to a view that a committee is sufficient and in fact supported I think runs counter to the work that was done by Commissioner Agius. I will not go so far as to say it is disrespectful to that work but it ignores the considerable feedback that was given through this process and, in fact, seeks to overlook that the process existed. To maintain that because this piece of legislation was reintroduced in private member's business that there was sufficient time for more feedback on that bill that is then translated into this amendment does not meet the test that I would set for being able to listen to the voice of Aboriginal people in constructing this Voice to Parliament.

Mr TEAGUE: At the risk of paraphrasing a cliche, I might take that as a question.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: You can take it as a statement.

Mr TEAGUE: But anyway I would be glad to respond. Firstly, and I go back to June last year, it is a pity that the government chose, in the words of the minister, 'to do our own work' and to put aside what had gone before, because otherwise we would be in a much better position to actually have an even-handed assessment. I was not present at every face-to-face consultation and I do not profess, therefore, to be a fly on the wall in respect of all of those matters.

What I can confidently say is that it is of no surprise, of course, that Commissioner Agius went out at any stage with a form of draft bill. He had the benefit of parliamentary counsel's work towards the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill. What is surprising to me is that he was not armed with two versions or three or a number of different proposals. He had it all there but the government chose not to do that. We saw what I would describe in my background as a bunch of leading questions including those put on placards saying, 'Are you in favour of this particular proposition?' We had a kind of a leading approach to a particular model of engagement.

What I have been at pains to describe is the ambivalent through to not on-point subject matter of responses in terms of the submissions. In doing so I do not overlook page 8 for a second. What the second note must be talking about is submissions in response to the draft. That is the very purpose of the Second Engagement Note. It is talking about submissions. Again, no need to make too much of a fine point of it, but at page 8 we talk about face-to-face sessions. The assertion, for what it is worth, at page 20 is that the submissions were overwhelmingly in favour of the model, and they just weren't. There are the submissions.

If the point is that 'submissions' includes face-to-face consultation or there was somehow a survey response or whatever, then let's hear about it. If it rises no higher than what is expressed at page 8, alright, that is on the public record. I do not make any more of it than that but I do highlight that those who have taken the step of committing their views on this topic to writing for the purposes of this exercise and who have been described in this Second Engagement Note are not seen to be supportive of the mechanisms in the draft bill.

We do see grounds in those submissions. We do see the seeds of what has then been taken up from draft to final in some other respects, and we have addressed that in terms of clause 7 changes, in terms of the Clerk vetting changes, and in other ways. You can go through the submissions and see indications of views, I might say largely going to the caution that there not be ground overlapped or overtaken by this body in terms of existing organisations. But what we do not see is really any—and I said the ALRM is the exception. The ALRM submission does not really give it much more than a line or two and says, 'Well, it's okay.' They add, 'Well, you ought to be able to roll in by right to address both.' They say that in about a sentence.

But there is no actual evidence for the proposition at page 20 on the face of the submissions. It might be the subject of thoughtful argument and all the rest of it. To go back to one example, in the member for West Torrens' contribution to the debate on the last sitting Thursday, where the member for West Torrens kind of carved out some ground to say, 'Well, this might not be perfect first time round but, you know, you might learn things along the way,' what has been learned along the way, I submit, is not some form of described endorsement of this form of engagement to the parliament.

What does engagement to parliament mean? You can express general positivity about engagement to parliament—we can all do that—but what we have not seen is evidence of the merits of this particular model. Those who have thoughtfully contributed or focused on it have highlighted, rather, the defects, the limitations, the lack of ambition associated with this form of engagement.

In terms then of the question of, 'Well, it's a bit thin for the member for Heysen to say that somehow, just because of the fact that this has been on the public record for a period of time, everybody could have given some thought to it or it amounts to consultation,' and so on, alright, fair cop, but I will refer to the merits. I will just come back to the merits of the point, as I have already, including adverting to the paper that was released by the group Uphold & Recognise as recently as late February talking to the merits of committee engagement.

I have already quoted from the report. I will perhaps just add a further passage, where it says, by reference to foreshadowed federal legislation:

The national voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could draw upon some of the operating principles used by parliamentary committees—providing advice to the government and relevant departments—

etc., and we see a studious consideration.

Bottom line, I will uphold that model of engagement as a voice to the parliament, if you want to call it that way, that will do more in terms of providing meat and potatoes engagement with a view to improved outcomes than, as it were—maybe there is room for substance—a ceremonial capacity to come along having had a look at the Notice Paper and, before, during or after the event, say, 'Alright, I might have something to say about the Rail Safety National Law,' and at some stage in between the four meetings a year or up to six we might learn that the Rail Safety National Law was in the course of debate in the house during the last week, maybe fortuitously, or earlier in the year, or it might be coming on later so you might want to get in and have something to say, let alone the limitations that that provides in terms of the range and scope of the subject matter of engagement.

Of course, there are other means of engagement—and there are. Insofar as it relates to the part 4 mechanisms, contrary to what the member for West Torrens had to say last sitting week and contrary to notions of a number of days of consultation in the lead-up to 2021, I really come back to the bottom-line argument: that it is there for all to see, it is a meritorious model, it provides more promise and, dare I say, in a more humble and diligent way than the structure that we see the subject of clause 4 of the government's bill. I do not reflect any more at this point about the way in which part 4 of the government's bill in fact operates but just by way of response to the Deputy Premier's question just now.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If I may have my third contribution on this.

The CHAIR: I assume we are going to cover some new ground.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are going to have some clarifying moments. Although I am not being asked questions, essentially a question was raised about why it was that the original version that was presented to this parliament when the previous parliament was in place was not presented to members of the Aboriginal community to ask what their views would be with the new government. Of course, that is actually exactly the sequence of events.

Previously, we were talking about the Second Engagement Note, which was as a result of having had a piece of legislation written and taken out extensively for feedback. We have had a slight disagreement about the narrow definition of the word 'submission', and I think that it ought to be accepted that 'submission' is information provided to a commissioner in response to consultation and is not confined exclusively to written submissions.

Importantly, there was the previous Engagement Report, where I can reassure the member that, effectively, exactly what he wished might have happened did happen, in the sense that initially it was not the piece of legislation that has ultimately ended up here that was taken out, but an open question of how one would do a First Nations Voice to the South Australian parliament. I refer to that Engagement Report, page 23:

At engagements, I asked communities to consider where they want their voice to be heard—whether they want to speak directly to the South Australian Parliament, or whether they wanted their views heard by another body or committee. Additionally, I asked whether communities want to speak to key government leaders and decision-makers, as well as Parliament.

The response to this question was clear and near unanimous across all conversations, and this was reflected in the survey responses. All attendees want the Voice to speak directly to Parliament. They do not want their message diluted by another body or committee.

Here we come to the question of merit. The member has suggested that, irrespective of our disagreements about the nature and contents of the feedback, his proposition has merit. We are talking about giving voice to the First Nations people in South Australia. That cannot just be as expressed in this legislation when it occurs, when it comes into practice, but it must also be in the construction of this legislation.

If we do not see that merit lies in the feedback we have from First Nations people in constructing it, it is difficult for me to believe that we will be listening to the Voice of First Nations people when they talk about legislation, when they give that feedback. And they have given feedback. The Aboriginal people of South Australia have said, 'We want the Voice to go straight to parliament, not via a committee.' We have had Dale Agius, who is highly respected, go out, ask the question and receive the answer, in fact not inconsistent with the way in which the model was expressed by Professor Roger Thomas, although not ultimately appearing in the piece of legislation that was very briefly consulted on.

So, merit to me is process as much as outcome. We can argue, and reasonable people can disagree, about whether a committee would provide more and better input than a person coming and addressing parliament. We can have that debate. It is really beside the point. We have asked the Aboriginal communities how they wish to have their voice heard, and they have given feedback. This government has listened to that, and has constructed a piece of legislation, and then gone out with that piece of legislation and checked again what people think about that, and minor modifications but not to this point, and here it is.

We now have that opportunity as legislators to make a decision about whether we accept that, and I am proud to be in a government that said we will. I wish I was part of a parliament that unanimously said that, but I appreciate that that is not possible and will not happen. It is important when we debate this that we go back to the principles of why we are doing this. Without reiterating my second reading contribution, we are doing this to right wrongs in part—a small part—but importantly we are doing this because the only culture that is unique to Australia ought to have more weight in our considerations than it currently has. That ought to be recognised in the construction of how we create the Voice as well as then how the Voice operates once it is in existence.

Mr TEAGUE: I will again take that as a question and, indeed, respond. Of course, I endorse everything in the last couple of sentences of the Deputy Premier's observations: that is exactly why we are here. Let that be clearly understood. Contributions to the debate ought to be characterised, if by nothing else, by precisely what the Deputy Premier has had to say.

I am certainly conscious of page 23 of the Engagement Report, August to October, and the observation of the author in terms of the observation: 'They do not want their message diluted by another body or committee.' I just make the observation that those are the words of the author, and that is all well and good, bearing in mind this is a process at this stage, August to October, where the author is embarking upon a process with the benefit of a model in mind. It is hardly surprising that we would see an observation of the author of that nature. I have gone to the Second Engagement Note in the course of my contribution more broadly, but particularly in relation to this matter, because it is where the rubber hits the road in light of the draft bill and observations on it.

I make the further observation that so far as characterisation of submissions—or let's call them page 8: attendance at face-to-face sessions—what is on the cover of the bundle that I have been provided with is a cover note that summarises submissions 1 through 42, and the heading of the document is 'Submissions received during second engagement round November 2022 to January 2023'. So the Second Engagement Note is November 2022 to January 2023. These are the submissions received during the second engagement round, and at page 20 we see an observation of the commissioner: 'Most submissions were supportive of mechanisms in the draft Bill enabling the State Voice.' They are not; they are just not. It is what it is. They are not.

We have an observation of the author in the Engagement Report about this characterisation of dilution via committee. I do not adopt that observation, and I do not concede that that reflects more than the author's observation, sincere as it is. I again reiterate my respect for the author, but we are without evidence in terms of either submission or other description about what we might find in terms of how part 4 in the government's formulation is, firstly, finding support and, secondly, providing any evidence in advance of its capacity to be effective and coherent.

The CHAIR: Does anybody wish to ask any other questions or make any other contribution on clauses 38 to 42 at this point in time? I am just trying to give everybody a chance to have their say. I think we have reached a point where we are not going to agree—just agree to disagree, I think.

Mr TEAGUE: Chair, I am very optimistic. We are dealing with the amendment. I am moving it and I certainly commend it to the house.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The CHAIR: Yes, I accept that. I am just saying—

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The CHAIR: Are you happy to put the whole lot?

Mr TEAGUE: I have addressed questions across the board and I am content to deal with it in one go.

The CHAIR: So, members are happy with that, both sides? Excellent. So we are putting the first amendment by the member for Heysen, which deals with the whole of part 4.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 39.

Mr TEAGUE: I stand to be corrected, but I think clause 39 is the result of draft to final consultation, in terms of the Clerk as kind of gatekeeper or filter of the Notice Paper, on the draft that was circulated in about November to now a model of notice of the introduction to each and every bill before the Legislative Council or the House of Assembly, as the case requires, and so the question is how that is supposed to occur. I have used the analogy of, 'Alright, we will just provide a copy of the Notice Paper and on you go,' but is there a particular mechanism that is contemplated, or is that something that is in the realm of what presiding officers of each house are going to need to consider?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Clearly, the bill does not prescribe how that will occur. It will be a matter for parliament to determine.

Mr TEAGUE: Or a matter for the presiding officers to determine, presumably. One convenient kind of practice might be, I guess, for the Notice Paper of the parliament to be provided and available and updated and so on from day to day. In terms of the machinery of doing so, given that the Voice is meeting when it does, four to six times a year but not as frequently as parliament, presumably the notice of the introduction of each bill would need to happen both out of session and perhaps to the secretariat, somehow. Is there really anything more to say about how clause 39(1) might be satisfied, so that you are not contemplating a clause 39(2) situation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I said, the way in which this will occur is not prescribed by the legislation, but of course a diligent parliament and government will make sure that this is done in the most respectful way possible to facilitate input. The secretariat, one would expect, would be notified. I imagine that once we have an elected Voice, the first Voice, they will determine the method that best suits that group in how to interact. I would also point out that, while there is the prescription to enable the Voice to come to speak to parliament on a particular bill at that point, a diligent government will be seeking to interact with the Voice leading up to pieces of legislation, particularly those that are clearly going to be of interest to the Voice.

Indeed, a mechanism would exist regardless, I would expect, to enable that to work in a way that is respectful of the time commitment for the Voice and in wanting to make sure that in fact the views are heard in enough time to make a difference.

Mr TEAGUE: That is new news. It is all new news, in a way. Again, a natural observation that might be made is that for a group that is statutorily limited to meeting four times a year, and not more than six times without ministerial approval, there is to be contemplated—and this goes well beyond the scope of clause 39(1)—the notion that a diligent government would organise the introduction of bills in such a way as would accommodate the meeting schedule of this body.

I guess I would just flag and ask the question of how that could possibly occur in a meaningful, universal way, especially when one has progressed from the notion in draft, namely, that the Clerk be a form of gatekeeper of subject matter? If the Deputy Premier's observation of just now holds, there is a sense then in which the government might operate as a kind of predictor or gatekeeper of what might be of greater or of lesser relevance. I am just exploring the machinery.

Clause 39(1) simply provides for notice to be given of the introduction of a bill. That can be understood and there are some routine mechanics about it, but it is then a significantly further developed proposition that, in a meeting-constrained environment—see clause 16 and clause 29; clause 29 relevantly because it is a matter of provision to the State Voice—it would be the mark of a diligent government that it would somehow both select relevant subject matter and accommodate the best capacity of the Voice.

That is to be contrasted with the usual diligence that might be applied in terms of engagement with interested parties, as happens all the time on bills. The distinctively different thing here, of course, is that if that diligence in terms of government scheduling and provision of bills was concerned to meet that meeting routine of the Voice, then would it not inevitably result in a changing of the seasonal pattern of legislating across the board, for better or worse?

Otherwise, you would have to sort of take the reins off the meeting schedule and say, 'Alright, Voice, there is parliament meeting. Here is the sitting calendar. Expect that there will be bills introduced more or less each week of that sitting calendar. Why are you not meeting, as a parliamentary committee meets, at least once each sitting week?' I just put all that, as it were, testing the proposition about just how diligent can a government be in terms of seeking to provide what might be regarded as respect to a committee that is established in that way.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There were several sentences that were sort of questioning, I guess, but I am not sure of the precise question that is being asked. The legislation here is to enable the Voice to make representation to parliament on legislation it chooses and makes sure that the Clerk is the person who is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the Voice is aware of what legislation is coming up. That is all we are doing in this clause. The questions that are being asked are perhaps—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Introduced. The question that is being asked is about my comments that I would expect a good government to be aware that there is now this new form of potential stakeholder interaction, in addition to all the stakeholder interaction that occurs in any case in preparing legislation, and would pay attention to the existence of this new institution and benefit from the advice it can be given. That is my view of how a good government would operate.

A different government simply has this piece of legislation before it. So it probably is not particularly useful for me to canvass how I would, say, when I prepare a biodiversity bill, choose to engage with the Voice because that is my choice, as opposed to the piece of legislation that is being put before us.

This piece of legislation is simply saying we are going to create a Voice, it is an elected body, we are going to make sure that they are aware of the legislation that is to be given notice of the introduction of each bill, that they are aware of that, and that they are able to come and give comment on that. That is what we are seeking the support of parliament for.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of that—and I think it is a creative endeavour—it has been referred already in the context of clause 34 that there might be the occasion for the establishment of subject matter committees from time to time in relation to material that might come before the parliament.

Take, for example, the subject matter of the Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence's observations in response to a question towards the end of question time today, a body of work leading towards proposed legislation in relation to coercive control. I had the honour and privilege to attend the occasion the minister referred to last Wednesday evening and it was an occasion of significance in relation to the development of that debate. There were certain matters of foreshadowing of both the public campaign and the foreshadowing of legislation in the context of that occasion.

The most significant single part of it, of course, was the sharing of Hannah Clarke's parents, Lloyd and Sue, and I, again, recognise and endorse the minister's description and appreciation of their extraordinary generosity in engaging in the public space about those terrible events.

If we take that as an example of the genesis of a public debate about an issue, and whether or not the Deputy Premier might wish to talk to the possibility of a clause 34 subject matter-based committee being established, I would suggest it would be particularly diligent—one might say you are performing a highwire act as a government—to be able in circumstances, even of that nature, where there is a long foreshadowing of what might come because there is subject matter of wideranging interest and complexity, even in those circumstances to somehow, as it were, accommodate the processes of a time-constrained, meeting-constrained body to permit it to then be responsive to a bill ultimately that it is given notice of once it has been introduced into the parliament just renders the process almost necessarily incoherent.

They would have to hear about it by the other usual means in the same way as you would do consultation normally. I resist the urge to rehearse all of the material about the merits of committee engagement in that context. So it is more by way of response. But to say how exactly, even if you—and there is a view that there is advice involved in all of that too if you are holding up the parliament or if you are having to twist and turn the business of the parliament in order to meet. How do you practically do it? Don't you at the very least have to say this Voice is actually going to have to accept that it is a bit more onerous than the clause 29 environment and they are going to have to be prepared almost to be here every sitting week?

The CHAIR: While the minister is contemplating her response, I will just let the member know that was his fourth question on this topic. That was your fourth, I allowed you an extra one; and the member for MacKillop would like to ask some questions.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am hesitating to answer because I think the member is straying beyond the terms of the bill that we have before us. We have already passed the clause that talks about the number of times that the Voice is expected to meet, noting that it is contemplated there will be out-of-session engagement and work, noting also that in addition to and separate from those meetings it is contemplated in part 5 that meetings with chief executives and cabinet members will enable further and deeper engagement on the matters that are of concern and interest to the Voice and that will help guide policy as well as legislation.

I think the member is perhaps seeking to suggest that the Voice as contemplated in this piece of legislation would not be workable. My response would simply be that it is the considered view of the government, and through the extensive consultation undertaken the considered view of the community, that this is workable, that it will be through the exercise of effort by government to benefit from the existence of the Voice in improving the quality of legislation and the quality of policy, that it will be made to work.

I have great comfort in thinking that, as complex as this is and as new as this is, and we are in territory necessarily that has not been traversed before, the people who will be elected to the first Voice will be of great assistance in guiding the form in which this will operate. This legislation enables that. There will be a review. The review occurs between the third and fourth year, so after the election of the Voice that will coincide with the next state election. That period of time, I think, will give us all an opportunity, but particularly the Voice, to determine whether there are some elements of this legislation that require some refinement, having tested out the way in which it will work.

The question really before us is: does this give us the appropriate basis on which to start this process? Our view is that it will. It has sufficient flexibility in the clauses that it gives us that opportunity. It will then be tested through application and should there be refinements as a result of experience, then I have no doubt that a future parliament will be wise enough to embrace that.

Mr McBRIDE: Still on clause 39, deputy leader, do you think the public outside the walls of this parliament believe that parliament operates with speed, haste, efficiency and in timeliness with all its legislation and regulatory type processes? With a slight reference to the clause, this is a clause that is saying that the Voice will be notified of the introduction of bills. That is the first part of my question.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The member is asking me for an opinion about what 1.8 million people think about what we do here. As the representative of 28,000 people, I can tell you they have a diversity of views about what we do here, not all of it for polite company. There have been occasions when they have thought we have gone too fast and other occasions when they thought we have gone too slowly.

But guess what? We get elected every four years. That is when we are tested. This piece of legislation is giving effect to a commitment that was made at the last election by this side of politics. We are putting it forward and the success of our government generally will be tested at the next election, as will the success of the Voice, because it is a democratic institution also.

Mr McBRIDE: I start my question by saying there is a meme I saw where there was a picture of politicians looking down a tunnel and if the politicians could see the end of the tunnel they build the tunnel longer.

With the point about the Voice being notified, and as already hinted by the member for Heysen, about its meeting structure being between four and six—four minimum and six max but with permission of the minister can have as many more, based on approval—think about the process here, that every Monday before the week of sitting we as MPs go through our committees, go through legislation and regulations so that hopefully we can understand at least some of it, if not all of it.

Then you bring this type of clause to parliament and try to capture—and rightly so, may I say—a population base out there that perhaps has not been caught as well as it could have. It would be a lot better if they were able to be part of a process in this place; however, it is my concern that these types of layers, processes and instructions of the Clerk, which clause 39 talks about, is another impediment for the speed and process of bills.

I will give a classic example. If we have a health bill going through this place, upper house and lower house, obviously it affects South Australians, so then straight away it can affect Indigenous South Australians. We know that health would be one of their priority concerns because we know that it has not worked as well for them as it has for a lot of other South Australians. This whole process can be perhaps hindered or slowed down again, even though the answer and the outcome might be of benefit to 100 per cent of all South Australians. Its speed and process through this place every day or week or month that it takes to move through might hinder the good outcomes this legislation or regulation might have.

My question to you, deputy leader, is: will this process become part of a more bureaucratic and slow process that some South Australians may already see and add to that, making it even harder and slower for progression?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My view, for what it is worth, is that what South Australians overwhelmingly want is quality rather than pace. In fact, in the last parliament there was a bill that we all voted for—every single one of us—that went through quite quickly, and it is the only bill I have ever had significant feedback on, including at the doors, during the election campaign that we went too fast.

While we can defend how that process occurred, and I do not want to relitigate that one in any way, I would say that this is not aimed at either hastening or slowing down; this is aimed at improving quality. The member's own question contemplated the contribution might make it better, if slower. I do not necessarily accept that it will make it slower, but I think the contemplation that it might make it better is exactly why we are doing this.

Mr TELFER: Just to quickly continue on this clause, Deputy Premier, I am interested in the way that the language is used. In the first part it says that the Clerk must cause the Voice to be given notice of the introduction, and then it says that a failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of the bill or any proceedings. With the use of the word 'must', it talks about obligation, but then the second part says, if it does not happen, so be it. I wonder if they are in contrast to each other, or is the notification the important part, not the failure to comply—it is just an interesting juxtaposition.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I appreciate the way in which the member has put that, and I can understand that on the first reading it might appear to be in at least juxtaposition, if not in contradiction. The fact is that we are creating an obligation on the Clerk to provide that information to the Voice. What we are being clear about—and for the sake of the abundance of clarity the second clause is in there—is that this does not interfere with the right of parliament to operate.

The best example would be in the event that we are in another pandemic or another version of the current pandemic that requires extremely hasty legislation, or another form of emergency, that we want to be explicit that the lawfulness of a bill that had to operate that quickly could not be placed in question because of the workings of this piece of legislation.

Clause passed.

Clause 40.

Mr McBRIDE: Clause 40(1) refers to the First Nations Voice being entitled to address the houses of parliament in relation to any bill. I understand that for a bill that may have solutions and benefit for the Voice and Indigenous South Australians it is obviously important they be part of that process, but the fact is that clause 40(1) says 'any bill'. Say we were discussing a drainage system for the South-East, and I know that there is a massive lack of funds for the infrastructure and upgrade and maintenance, and we needed to talk about further funds to clean the drainage system in the Lower Limestone Coast, unless it was affecting their activity or their grounds—the drains had been built 50 to 100 years ago—it is a maintenance thing, yet they could possibly just come in and be part of that bill as well. I do not know why we have 'any bill'.

Can the deputy leader please tell me why we do not have something in there that is either representative of what Indigenous South Australians are having issue with or living with, or is part of their life? We know that, if you want to go beyond this, we do not go out to other nationalities, other groups and other parts of our society. They are not allowed to come into this place on 'any bill' and perhaps add positive feedback or perhaps negative feedback.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The second part of that really gets to the heart of whether we have an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament or not, so I will not go into detail about that other than that we on this side of parliament agreed with the proposition that we do want to hear specifically from Aboriginal people.

The first part is, essentially, why would we not create a list of acts perhaps that are relevant and only invite comment on those or alternatively set some form of test that must be passed prior to the Voice contributing that demonstrates a legitimate interest? We have decided to go down neither path on the basis that it is not for us to say what bill might attract the attention of the Voice. If we start to constrain, then we are presupposing an interest.

The member talks specifically about the movement of water in the South-East and why would the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament want to say anything about that. They may not—they may well choose not to—but the idea that the movement of water through a passage of land is of no interest to First Nations people I would disagree with. That is why it is hard for us to, from here, try to define those issues that we regard as being relevant and those that we regard as not being relevant. It is better, given that this Voice is not going to change the legislation, it has no vote, it has no amendment-making capacity, it only has the capacity to express a view, that we would not constrain the list nor set a test.

Mr TEAGUE: I think we have the benefit of the debate in relation to my amendment that preceded this, so I will not reiterate all of those matters. I have made it very clear that I embrace the merits of the alternative model.

In making observations on clause 40, I would perhaps just confine myself to making that clear observation that, regardless of how one might characterise—and I do—submissions for the purposes of the Second Engagement Note, there clearly is no support of any substance for the model that is more particularly the subject of clause 40. I highlight in that regard again the observations of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit at the University of Adelaide. It is a good example because it is a very thoughtful submission that covers really the whole bill, and fairly thoroughly.

Insofar as this topic is concerned, it is making the reasonable and ordinary observation that it is foreseeable that a matter raising issues of importance to Aboriginal people could arise after an annual address has been given and in circumstances where there is no bill relevantly in the parliament. So whether you couch it in terms that submission 35 does, the unit does, in terms of the inadequacy of the bill model (if you want to call it that) or if one focuses on the kind of incoherence and almost inevitable disruptive nature of a bill model of engagement (if that is what you are limited to), we see clear warnings about the futility of this particular form of engagement.

So perhaps if I could put it in the form of a question. I do not suggest that there is a clear answer, so I am happy to leave it as a rhetorical question. What, if any, means are there really to provide coherence between matters of interest to the State Voice from time to time and their engagement on those matters of interest via the opportunity to address the parliament on a bill pursuant to clause 40 and, related to that, how can they possibly do that routinely in a way that is connected to the debate that is going on in the parliament?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think I will largely take that as a rhetorical question, because I think we have traversed for some time now this question of the next level of detail once this legislation is through and how it actually operates. I think we have probably exhausted each other's views: on the one hand the suggestion it might be unworkable, and on the other that good intent will make this work. So I will leave that otherwise as a rhetorical question.

Mr TELFER: Deputy Premier, I cast your attention to clause 40(6) in noting the subclauses which come before it. It reads:

(6) Nothing in this section prevents the State First Nations Voice or the joint presiding members of the State First Nations Voice from doing any other thing with the permission of the relevant House.

There is a little bit of ambiguity from my perspective in that statement, 'from doing any other thing with the permission of the relevant house.' I am just interested, knowing that a lot of the uncertainty that is created through this really is around the process for the involvement of the Voice on the floor in parliament, especially in relation to this clause in particular. It gives a lot of detail in the previous clauses, and then subclause 6 talks about 'any other thing'. Can you perhaps give me some examples of what is envisaged by the words 'any other thing'? Although the stipulations have set it out previously, I think 'any other thing' then just opens it up to any other thing.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Before we start contemplating the range of things that might be contemplated, I would start by answering that we are nonetheless within a section that is entitled 'State First Nations Voice entitled to address Parliament in relation to Bills'. The idea of 'any other thing' refers to—examples have been asked for so, for example, a house may decide that they want to hear from more than one member of the Voice rather than just one. That would be open under that clause, with the permission of the joint presiding members and the permission of the relevant house, to enable that to occur.

Mr TELFER: So for clarity, that would simply need a majority vote from the floor of whichever house to give that capacity for any other thing, such as the example that you have given?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I presume so, although we are just contemplating what standing orders restrictions there might be also that would need to be contemplated. Within the functioning of the way the parliament works, so not creating by this piece of legislation any other form of the way the parliament works, then that is a reasonable proposition.

Mr TEAGUE: There might be a bit more back and forth, otherwise I would have something to say about it, I think.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just to be clear, this is making sure that we are not fettering the normal functioning of parliament. If there is a constraint on the appearance of a stranger on the floor, that is held within standing orders and is not affected by this.

Mr TEAGUE: On that again, just to make clear, I am grateful to the member for Flinders in that line. I just do not agree that that clause contemplates the possibility or the example that the Deputy Premier has given. Subclause (5) is an avoidance of doubt clause, so we have an avoidance of doubt that indicates that there is only going to be one address. I guess it is an important point, but it seems to me, at least on the face of it, that the purpose of subclause (6) was any other thing. I am at a loss as to what the example might be, but it seems that the clause clearly contemplates that there is to be an entitlement to one address and that subclause (6) must be doing some other work. What that is precisely is a mystery to me as well.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The advice I am receiving is that this bill gives an entitlement to have one address. That clause recognises that parliament, however, is capable of making its own decisions and could choose to ask for a second address, and this legislation does not take away the power of parliament to do that.

Mr TELFER: I will ask that you, Deputy Premier, cast your eyes to subclauses (2) and (3) for a bit of context for me in trying to work out how this is actually going to be practically possible. I worry because there are examples of ambiguity from my perspective as a layperson reading this piece of legislation. Subclause (2) provides:

The State First Nations Voice must give to 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.

So the stipulation is very clear that there is a seven-day period, but then subclause (3) starts with 'However'—it is a bit of a rider. There is clarity in subclause (2) but subclause (3) introduces a bit of ambiguity:

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.

Regarding the ambiguity that is also caused by having the word 'reasonably', I worry about the practicality of how this legislation would actually be done. Who is a 'reasonable' person? It is often a debate that has happened in legal circles, I am sure. I am not one to wax lyrical about those potentials, like some of my learned colleagues, but the statement 'reasonably practicable to do so' really brings up a level of ambiguity that I have concerns about, so I seek some clarity from the Deputy Premier.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is difficult to contemplate how this would work without having both of those clauses, if I can just do the counterfactual. In the ordinary course of events, to make this work, it would be good to have seven days' notice, but we know that there is occasionally legislation that comes up quickly. Therefore, it has to be recognised that, if we are to give the Voice an opportunity, there needs to be a test of reasonableness. 'Reasonable', as you have pointed out, honourable member, is a legal term that is used commonly. Clause 7 states:

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.

In the end, if legislation needs to go so quickly that it is not possible for the Voice to give comment, then that is in the power of the parliament. What this legislation seeks to do is create the mechanism by which we could reasonably hear from the Voice, ideally with notice; and in the event that it is moving too fast for that, then to allow provision for that notice to be waived, but accepting that there will be such occasions.

I can see the concern of this not being precise enough or codified enough, but I return to my initial question, which is: what would be the alternative? How would we construct this Voice to Parliament in a way that reasonably allows the Voice to be heard, other than by this form of construction of clauses?

Mr TEAGUE: For me, this might just wrap up observations about the whole structure of clause 40. Again, this might be rhetorical, but I seek the Deputy Premier's confirmation about it with the benefit of advice; I would be grateful.

It is the case, is it not, that all the provisions of clause 40 are matters that are justiciable; they are not matters within the remit of the standing orders or the power of the Presiding Officer to determine, including questions such as the practicability of steps or the requisite urgency or, indeed, notice of urgency or any of these process matters?

It might be conceded that there is work to be done on standing orders in relation to how this is dealt with within the parliament once you get here, but in terms of interpreting these provisions, perhaps to give an example, where notice has not been given and there is a dispute about whether it was reasonably practicable to give notice or not, that is a question that is going to be determined by a court.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I fear we will end up in a circular argument about this. The court is not going to determine what parliament is able to do in its own business. What we need to do is operate in the best way possible to give life to the Voice and also it is likely, but without foreshadowing government action, that there would be a contemplation of standing orders. But the court is not going to make a judgement on whether the Voice was able to waive notice or not because, in the end, parliament is able to do what parliament is able to do.

Mr TELFER: Can I double-back, Deputy Premier, on subclause (6), as it is ruminating in my own mind, the 'from doing any other thing' statement. This clause sets out the parameters for the Voice to have their voice heard on the floor of parliament and the stipulation being one house, one person, one representative. Does subclause (6) basically say that if either house decides, with the permission of the relevant house, multiple representatives from the Voice can be heard and the Voice can be heard in either house, with the permission of the relevant house?

So you could have a situation where the relevant house might want to hear from each representative of the Voice on a subject matter, and either house could potentially, on an individual bill, make the decision that despite the parameters of this clause, we do have the capacity with subclause (6) to invite that to be broadened out. Is that the natural progression, that the parameters that are set out in the first two thirds of the clause can be overridden with a decision operationally of the parliament around the number of presiding members who can be admitted, and the two different relevant houses that could potentially hear from the Voice directly on an individual bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not think 'overridden' is necessarily quite the right term. It may be that the Voice decides it wants to be expressed in the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly might decide that, although that entitlement has been fulfilled, this chamber would also like to hear directly, and we would be entitled to do that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 41 to 46 passed.

Clause 47.

Mr TEAGUE: I indicate that my questions in this regard might be wrapped up and concern part 6 as a whole. I am happy to step them out one by one. Is it possible for the Deputy Premier to give an indication of the number of full-time equivalents engaged in the secretariat and other resources. Will they be led by a chief executive or equivalent? Will they, as I understand, operate separately from the department for Aboriginal Affairs or indeed any other existing department and, if so, what structure will they adopt? That is the thrust of the questions. They might all be dealt with in one go, if that is convenient.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Recognising that there is a whole implementation process that is being worked on and also that this will be a matter for governments over time, rather than being constrained by this piece of legislation, but with those two caveats, at present it is being contemplated that the secretariat would sit within Aboriginal Affairs and that secretarial support has been estimated at being approximately $700,000 with resourcing reflecting six FTE.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That level of detail has not yet been determined.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, are you finished with this clause?

Mr TEAGUE: Not necessarily. I might reflect on that.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30

The CHAIR: We are on clause 47. Member for Heysen, you have the floor.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not know if there is anything to add in terms of the answer earlier. If not, I note the Deputy Premier's observation that the secretariat will come from within the Aboriginal Affairs department. If there is more to add on that, I will be interested. That is, as I recall, contrary to earlier indications about it standing alone and separate from the department. As I understand the Deputy Premier's answer in terms of leadership of that secretariat, it is not yet clear what, if any, designated leadership there might be as such. Perhaps the question might be: is it possible then that leadership will be by extension within the department?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I indicated previously, there is the caveat that the implementation plan is still being worked on and also the additional caveat that future governments may choose to establish a secretariat in the way in which they choose. What I indicated was not that the secretariat would come from within the department but that at present it is likely to be located in the department and the structure of that and the leadership of that is yet to be determined. I have nothing else to add on those matters.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of that, might I just ask whether it is the deliberate intent, in case it is something that is a matter of resourcing from within the department, that there be some form of Chinese Wall or separation that is a part of the virtue of the independence of the body or whether it might be embraced that it is just a matter of resourcing and if there is a bit of intermingling then so be it?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have nothing else to add on what is being contemplated in the structure of the secretariat.

Clause passed.

Clause 48.

Mr TEAGUE: In relation to clause 48, there is a fairly discursive narrative about the nature of the engagement with the minister in relation to both the Local First Nations Voices and the State First Nations Voice in terms of resourcing. Is there any indication, apart from what appears to be contemplated, that there might be varying amounts of resourcing according to need, how that assessment might be undertaken and on what grounds are there examples of reasons for differential resourcing of different Local Voices?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think it is reasonably clear that this comes as a matter of the minister's opinion and the minister's opinion about the reasonableness of what is required and I have nothing else to add on the way in which he would reach that conclusion.

Clause passed.

Clause 49 passed.

Clause 50.

Mr TEAGUE: We are at part 7—Review of Act. We have an indication there that the process of review has been referred to in the course of the committee. The timing of the review is set out in clause 50(3). In terms of particularly the first review, I relay the focus of a number of respondents to me on this topic in terms of the importance of its independence, thoroughness, capacity to cover the field and so forth. The nature of the review otherwise than as it relates to timing and whatever might be specified by the minister in subclause (4) is not terribly specific. Is there anything that the Deputy Premier can indicate in terms of capacity, independence, probity, thoroughness and so on about the review as might be contemplated now, knowing that the first review in particular will be a matter of importance?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The first review will occur after the next state election. That is the timing, so there will have been essentially two elections of the First Nations Voice in that period, so I am not sure that any answer I give now is likely to have any particular weight by the time the review occurs. Rather than speculating about what might be in the mind, or even conveying what I might know might be in the mind, of the current minister, it is probably better that we take this clause to do the job into the future, given that we do not know which government will be in fact undertaking that review.

Mr TEAGUE: I take from that, then, there is no plan of attack, if you like, at the outset in terms of how that is contemplated to operate or indeed a series of criteria that are anticipated to be borne in mind in advance. It is simply saying that, alright, there is a review to be done after the time that is specified in the clause. Again, I think the answer was pretty comprehensive, so I might have asked whether the clause is contemplating that it might be, for example, the commissioner who is likely or unlikely to be the one undertaking the review, or whether or not there is anything in terms of the structure of clause 50 that gives a clue as to the thinking behind how that might be initiated.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think it is pretty clear that the structure of the clause does not give that indication. Rather than allow my answer to be characterised quite in the way you have done it—I accept the member is not trying to put words in my mouth, but just to be clear—I am reluctant to be drawn too much on a review that is going to occur after the next state election, but that is not to suggest that the current minister and the process of preparing the implementation of this act will not be contemplating what kind of information will be gathered, say, post the first election, information about how that went, in order to not only improve along the way but also be useful for a future review.

It is not that I am suggesting that this government is saying, 'Well, it's after the next election, so we are not interested'—not at all. What I am saying is I am not sure in a parliamentary debate about the way in which this clause will be used that it is particularly useful for me to canvass ideas that are currently being contemplated in that initial stage, given that it will come into effect after the next state election.

Mr TEAGUE: I have given an example of some possible pre-contemplation of perhaps the commissioner being the person to do the review, or not—at least I stand to be corrected. There is no provision that might either recommend or stand in the way of a member of one of the Local Voices or the State Voice conducting the review. Is there anything to add about that, bearing in mind the importance of independence and so on?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: While the member is correct, that there is nothing that precludes the idea that someone on the First Nations Voice would undertake the review, I cannot imagine a government making that decision. But that is my view. The minister will receive recommendations from the First Nations Voice on who would undertake the review, but the minister would need to make his or her known decision at that time.

As the member states, there are no restrictions that sit within this act, but I think it would not be a fair characterisation to say, 'Therefore, it will be people who are already involved in the Voice who will do their own review'. I do not think that is a fair characterisation of what is likely to happen, and nor are you explicitly making that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 51 to 54 passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to schedule 1, part 3, clause 7. I am not sure how many bites of the cherry I get here.

The CHAIR: You get three.

Mr TEAGUE: Three on the schedule or three on the clause? That is the question, I suppose.

The CHAIR: You can have three questions.

Mr TEAGUE: I think it is a moot point.

The Hon. S.E. Close: You get three per schedule.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is correct. You get three per schedule.

Mr TEAGUE: I will have to bring in the lieutenants. I am at, indeed, schedule 1, part 3, clause 7—Eligibility to vote in elections. This got a run at clause 4 earlier—yesterday, I think. We see the interaction of clause 4 and eligibility, and I have tested the endeavour in clause 4 to set out a form of the tripartite test. I recognise that the words there will need to speak for themselves in terms of the way that they set out termination of eligibility.

In terms of clause 7(1)(b), this might be the issue primarily for the first time round, and less so subsequently, in that they will run together with state elections. In terms of clause 7(1)(b), and the declaration of eligibility, perhaps I need to withdraw that about each election in that we would certainly be able to navigate both (a) and (b) together in the future when it is coinciding with a state election. But in terms of (b), how is it anticipated that that declaration process will be undertaken? Is it something that is done there and then at the polling booth, and how is that then received?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am going to keep a close eye on my adviser in case I stray in answering the question and relaying this detail. First of all, this will be a matter, of course, for the Electoral Commissioner to determine finally how to manage, but the expectation is that for the first vote there will be a mixture of in-person and postal voting.

In person, when you turn up and vote you will be signing a declaration of eligibility at that point. If you are voting postal, clearly you would have to have applied for that. There will be a process of advertising or informing people that, if they fulfil the criteria, they are able to participate in that election and can apply for a postal vote. In the application process, whether that is on the web or whether that is by writing in, there will be the opportunity to indicate a declaration of eligibility. But as I say, the fine detail of that will be determined by the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr TEAGUE: I am grateful for that elucidation. I am advised, I am given to understand from the minister in the course of navigating this particular space, that the declaration is to have the force of a statutory declaration. Is it to be witnessed and to take on the form, therefore, of a statutory declaration and, if so, how is that to be done, both in the postal form and at-the-polling-booth form?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is not a statutory declaration. It will not be in that form. The analogy with a statutory declaration is that the penalty will be the same for making a false declaration.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Just a supplementary, maybe.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps as a way around it, because there might be two. Am I to take it from that answer—and thanks, I was not necessarily meaning to presume that it would take on the form of a statutory declaration, but it has that level of seriousness. Does that mean, therefore, that it might not necessarily be witnessed, including by an authorised person for those purposes, and therefore it might be able to operate on the force of the signature of the person declaring eligibility?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right, it will not have a witness signing it. It will not take that form, no.

Mr TEAGUE: So, then, to the final substantive question that might deal with this. In circumstances of clause 4 and in circumstances of this clause 7 schedule 1, we are navigating territory that is relatively novel in the electoral process, at least for this state—I stand to be corrected in case there is a good analogy. Again, I just indicate that this has been the subject of some conversation between me and the minister in the lead-up.

We have a history in South Australia of a high degree of integrity in the voting process and so on. Bearing in mind the relative novelty of the process, both in terms of the eligibility criteria, the fulfilling of them, and then the process of administering the declaration of eligibility, to what extent is there any process in contemplation for the capacity to ensure the integrity of both aspects of that process?

To what extent is there any machinery already in place, and in what way will it be that relative documents are able to be identified and so on, given that normally you would tick yourself off the list and put your vote anonymously in the ballot box? Given that there is this interplay and there is work to be done in terms of the consequences of declarations of eligibility being made falsely and so on, how is that going to be navigated as contemplated?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Our understanding is that the Court of Disputed Returns could be a vehicle for someone to say, 'I saw that person vote and I don't believe that they are eligible.' That would be a way for that to be aerated, but in terms of the integrity of the process the Electoral Commissioner may well have some subtlety with some ways in which that institution chooses to operate this. Our understanding is that it is likely to be the double envelope system, so that the outer envelope that has the details and the declaration on it is able to be kept for testing integrity at a later date.

Mr TEAGUE: I think I might have done my dash.

The CHAIR: No, you can have one.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright. It might be convenient, because I could probably shoehorn it into clause 8 if necessary. I think my purpose here is only to advert once again to submission 9. Just to make clear, it is not simply me scratching around in the dark here. In submission 9, to remind the committee, the identity is redacted for the reason that it is an individual making the submission, but I think it illustrates the point.

To the extent that the author might be glad for having been referred to in this context, I again indicate that it is a submission of a person who describes himself as a 60-year-old Aboriginal man whose main objection to the legislation and voting processes centres on who can nominate to vote and to participate. He expresses concern: 'Self-identifying nominators and voters are very problematic, because this is an open gateway for fraudsters.'

The author proceeds to observe that 'Warnings should be made that anyone falsely claiming for voting purposes carries heavy penalties as it is a federal offence' and that this is the only protection currently in place. I highlight the expression of concern, as it were, in the voice of that particular author of one of those 42 submissions on the second round, and I am otherwise grateful to the Deputy Premier for those indications.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 2.

Mr TEAGUE: My next point of interest and inquiry is at schedule 2, part 1, clause 1. I might say that I think in the process, and I make it clear that my proposed amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 are all consequential on the passage of amendment No. 1, so to the extent that we have skated over those, I just note that it is not unconsciously. The fact that amendment No. 1 did not quite make it means that the others do not proceed, so here we are.

Schedule 2, part 1, clause 1 repeals the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act and thereby the committee. I think I have made some observations in response to government members' questions in relation to my amendment No. 1 about the need for reform as perceived by at least me and the member for Giles, but I think that is a fairly wideranging view.

Is there any contemplation—maybe this is sort of going into bat again for the merits of committees—of a committee that might replace the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee that might provide a means in a committee context within the parliament for members of parliament to be particularly engaged with those initiatives that might flow in a range of different ways from particularly the State Voice?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not aware of any contemplation of an additional committee in parliament relating to Aboriginal matters.

Mr TEAGUE: I think it might be worthwhile putting on the record: I think it has been characterised by the minister that the expectation might be that the State Voice might kind of do that work, might be the replacement body or be the future of such a committee.

In that context, I just make the observation that—drawing a comparison to the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill and the model there and the model of engagement for that body with the parliamentary committee—if that were the case then it rather augurs towards circumstances in which the body might be permitted to meet at least so many times, as opposed to having a core meeting function, and then supported by a full-time secretariat of whatever kind. I do not think that probably amounts to more than an observation at this point in the committee.

The CHAIR: Did you wish to make any other observations?

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps this by way of bookend for the committee, and I hope this might be a useful way to conclude the committee process: in part 2 of schedule 2 we see discrete amendments to the Constitution Act 1934. That has been something that has arisen in the course of the second round of the debate, and it is adverted to at page 21 of the commissioner's Second Engagement Note, where reference is made at least to including alignments with the Constitution Act 1934 as well as the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Is there anything that the Deputy Premier might be able to indicate in terms of, therefore, the source and context of those amendments, given that they have been raised and they are the subject of a Second Engagement Note? They are said to reflect the desire of those providing feedback for the purposes of the Second Engagement Note, and I just indicate I did not see a lot of further elucidation in the written submissions and, beyond that, how does the proposed amendment to the act better reflect the Uluru Statement?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I gather that I am being given the opportunity to extol the virtues of this clause in the context of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the decision to include in the Constitution Act a recognition of First Nations Voices, the importance of them, and also acknowledging that there will be a First Nations Voice Act in 2023.

I think what is important about the inclusion in the Constitution Act is that it captures at least some of the sentiment and intent and content that is within the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Our constitution already recognises Aboriginal people and also acknowledges and repeats the apology that was given on 28 May 1997, and in that sense has some weight that our Australian Constitution has yet to have, despite the reforms that occurred in 1967 after the referendum in 1968.

I think part of the importance of this 3(1) is to not only refer to the importance of Voice but to talk about a truthful relationship. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is, of course, three parts: Voice, Treaty, Truth. While we focus very much in Australia and South Australia on Voice and we have started to contemplate in South Australia previously what Treaty might look like and we return to that as a task as a nation as well as a state, the last of those three statements—the appeal for Truth—I think is one that we tend not to talk about as much in a common discussion of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, but is extremely important, which is the importance of acknowledging not only the truth of the presence of Aboriginal people but also the many truths of the experience of Aboriginal people in the process of colonisation and settlement by Europeans.

This opportunity—although already we have a constitution that recognises the importance of Aboriginal people—nonetheless, I think, adds to the constitution by recognising the importance of voices of a truthful relationship and also acknowledging the existence of this instrument by which parliament can hear from Aboriginal people.

The CHAIR: Any further questions?

Mr TEAGUE: No, except perhaps to make the observation for the benefit of those following along and for those who have been kept in the building: I did give an indication fairly clearly prior to 6pm that I would contain myself to within a relatively short period of time, so here we are.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.


At 20:07 the house adjourned until Thursday 23 March 2023 at 11:00.

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