The passage of this legislation would appear to be a necessary precursor for the construction of the proposed ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk. However, as is well known, that project was approved by the government in January 2014—some two years ago. I understand that it received planning approval in July 2015. The Public Works Committee reported on the project on 2 July 2015. Construction started in August and its completion is imminent. The new memorial walk is due to be ready for ANZAC Day of this very year.

Nonetheless, this place is only now considering proposed legislative changes to enable the eastern boundary of the Government House grounds to be shifted 10 metres to the west in order to create the site for this already virtually finished project. The merits of this project notwithstanding, like the previous speaker I see that the question surely must be asked: what is the justification for dealing with this bill in retrospect?

It does not appear to be the case that the government belatedly became aware of the need for the legislation. As soon as the project was conceived—as I said, over two years ago—it would have been evident that the project needed to occupy a slice of the Government House grounds. When the memorial walk’s design was finalised, the exact extent of the reduction was known. The Public Works Committee’s report on the project states, on page 7:

The grounds of Government House are legislated under the Governm ent House Domain Dedication Act  1927. The Act will require legislative amendment to reflect the new boundary of Government House 10 metres west of its current location.

In the absence of any other explanation, the clear implication is that the government considers that the role and stature of this parliament is unimportant. An uncharitable person—certainly one less charitable than I—might suggest that parliament is being treated with some contempt. There is another aspect of the ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk project about which I would like to express some concern.

It is the intention to relocate the Dardanelles monument from Lundie Gardens, in the south Parklands, to the zone of the memorial walk. The Dardanelles monument, unveiled on 7 September 2015, was the first in Australia and New Zealand, I understand, to commemorate the First World War. It was moved a short distance in 1940. Nonetheless, in its present location it has links to the military history of the south Parklands that dates back to 1885. It has been the site of annual memorial services on the anniversary of its dedication. In addition, the monument was conceived for a garden setting. It was created by the Wattle League and was originally surrounded by the Gallipoli memorial wattle grove.

Mr Walter Dollman, grandson of the commander of the South Australian contingent (27th Battalion AIF) in the Dardanelles, where the monument was dedicated, has argued that moving the monument will practically destroy its primary context, its builders’ intention, and its secondary context, being its use since. Mr Dollman’s views highlight the important point that any built memorial, not least one over 100 years old, cannot be considered as a disembodied object that will simply retain its significance wherever it is placed.

Apart from the other aspects of its heritage mentioned here, the Dardanelles monument has been a landmark in the corner of the Parklands for many decades. Relocating it to a new hard-paved area to be grouped with a cluster of other First World War memorials will, I understand, detract from the value of the monument itself and from its historic original site.

I register my objection on behalf of people like Mr Dollman to this aspect of the ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk project. Notwithstanding that objection, and the objection to the time at which this legislation has come to the parliament, I indicate Dignity for Disability’s support for this bill.

I understand that it follows three years of consultation and includes quite a number of progressive measures, some of which have been outlined by the speaker before me, the Hon. Mr McLachlan. These include the appointment of a training centre visitor as an independent monitor of the detention facility who will be available to advocate for residents and, as has been said, visit unannounced—not unlike our current community visitor scheme which plays a vital role in ensuring adequate standards for people with disabilities and mental health diagnoses.

The bill also proposes a charter of rights for youths detained in training centres and a youth justice Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principle. Also reflected in this bill is the shift in emphasis since the Young Offenders Act 1993 from punishment to rehabilitation, and this is certainly something that I welcome. It also reflects the fact that the majority of young people in the youth justice system are now in community-based supervision rather than traditional detention. I am advised that this is now made more feasible by new technology, including GPS tracking. The proposed legislation is in line with the provision of co-located services in the new Adelaide Youth Training Centre.

On the campus there is a school and a health centre, including a dentist. I understand that residents’ needs and circumstances, including any physical or intellectual disability, for example, are regularly and comprehensively assessed. Of course, this is something that we strongly welcome. Such assessment and the provision of health and education services on-site responding to that assessment aims to ensure that residents’ case management is fully informed and tailored to the needs of each young person as an individual.

With those few brief words, Dignity for Disability is certainly pleased to see this step towards a more progressive catering for young people in detention, be that traditional detention or, thankfully, more and more, community-based detention. We strongly support this bill and look forward to the committee stage.

The gay panic defence has, I understand, been removed in most other states. I understand the Legislative Review Committee has been looking at the issues around it here. I understand that there are some complexities around the legal uses of provocation defences in different situations. Let me say categorically that a person making a nonviolent approach to another person of the same gender does not equate to giving that person the right to hurt or end the life of that person in any way, shape or form.

I have spoken about this before in this place, supporting previous iterations of the bill presented by the Hon. Ms Franks and I do not want to rehash all of that. I will try to make the point again if I can recall what it was, but I think what I said last time went something like this: as a vegetarian I do not eat meat and I do not particularly agree with people who do eat meat. However, if I am at a dinner party and somebody offers me a meat lovers pizza, can I then harm that person claiming ‘pepperoni panic’? I think not. As long as the approach is nonviolent, I have no right to violently assert my beliefs toward that person just because I do not appreciate the approach.

So, the law around gay panic specifically as it stands is at best homophobic and at worst negligent of human rights and the right to freedom from harm. It is homophobic in that it applies only to a gay man who makes a nonviolent romantic or sexual advance toward another man who then murders the gay man. The nature of someone being able to rely on the law to condone an act of violence, particularly an act resulting in the death of another, is abhorrent to me and to Dignity for Disability, as it should be to all members in this chamber, to all members of South Australian society and all human beings.

On that note, I do not want to go too far away from the issue at hand but, since we are talking about people being able to rely on the law, or at least the attitudes of society, to face a lesser charge for a violent act, then I feel it would be negligent of me not to mention that people with disabilities are also far too frequently killed—of course, one would be too many—with a lesser conviction or at the very least a lesser reaction from society. For example, in a situation where the person who committed the murder was the family carer or family supporter of that person with a disability, that family carer was under significant strain and should be shown compassion on those grounds.

Dignity for Disability in the past moved a motion after the case of the Eitzen family in the Adelaide Hills, where a mother ended the life of her son due to the strain of being his family carer, because of the lack of disability support that he received. We came out calling for mental health checks for family carers and supporters of people with disabilities, but let me say that we also came out, and continue to come out, saying that the solution is to adequately support people with disabilities to live as independently and in as dignified and autonomous a manner as possible, so that family carers do not go through that strain which leads to them making that unconscionable decision.

Members may also recall another case from interstate, I think a couple of years ago now—I forget the specifics of it. Basically, a man in a rural town interstate shot his wife, who had an acquired brain injury, and their three children. Much of the media coverage of that case talked about what an upstanding member of the community this man had been, tirelessly caring for his wife post her brain injury, which she, I understand, acquired in a car accident.

Well, let me just say, Mr President, that that man had the option to leave that marriage, he had the option to leave that relationship if the strain was too great and, even if you accept that he was forced to kill his wife because of the brain injury—which I do not think any of us here should or would—he certainly was in no way forced to kill their children, who of course bore no responsibility for his wife’s injury and the strain that the resulting lack of support that had caused him.

In a similar vein to this motion I am also very concerned about society’s attitudes to the violence, harm and murder that people with disabilities can face, and I will continue to strike a balance where people with disabilities are supported to live autonomous, dignified, supported lives, ordinary lives of their choosing, so that the strain and perceived burden that they place on society as a result of that support does not lead to this abhorrent situation occurring, and certainly does not lead to a lesser reaction in the community than we would accept for the violent treatment of any other being. With those few words, I certainly support the Hon. Ms Franks’ motion.

The bill also seeks to give the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs the power to disqualify a person from providing tattoo services based on certain criteria, including the person being a member of a prescribed organisation within the preceding five years, or having been found guilty of a prescribed offence within the preceding 10 years.

My office has received expressions of concern about the bill by participants in, and employees of, the tattoo industry in particular. We are also aware of the concerns raised by the Law Society of South Australia and by some members of the opposition in the other place and some members in this place also. Together, these concerns raise fears that the effect of this bill may be to unfairly penalise innocent people who are pursuing a legitimate business and career, earning their livelihoods and expressing their artistic skills in the tattooing industry.

Participants in the tattooing industry, including trainees, employees and business owners, have advised my office that they believe that they are captured in the current incarnation of the bill under the definition of ‘close associate’ of a member of a prescribed organisation. Some thought that the bill labels them as criminals, simply because they work as tattooists. The Law Society expresses opposition to the bill because, in summary, its powers would be too sweeping. The Law Society feels its scope is too wide and its potential consequences are grave and unfair.

The society also expressed concerns that the bill does not strike the right balance between preventing or reducing crime and placing restrictions on rights and freedoms of individuals, and that the bill does not address health risks inherent in tattooing, notably the use of contaminated ink or needles. In light of the concerns about the bill raised by the Law Society, some of the tattooing industry participants and some members in both this place and the other place, there appears to be some risk that this legislation in its current form could be susceptible to a legal challenge.

Given this, Dignity for Disability shares the concerns expressed that the government is asking members of this chamber to support this bill without the evidence that it will actually assist in fighting crime. We also share the concern that the bill is likely to increase unemployment and force skilled young workers in particular to seek employment interstate. Certainly, given the state of unemployment in this state currently and the outlook into the future that is something we cannot afford to have happen.

We agree that to facilitate an informed debate on this bill the government needs to answer some questions about the links between tattoo parlours and organised crime in this state in particular, and how many employees and owners of tattoo parlours would fall within the current definitions of the bill, the effects of similar legislation in New South Wales and Queensland, and which members of the tattooing industry were consulted in the drafting of this bill.

With those few words, Dignity for Disability expresses its opposition to the bill in its current form, and I hope we can quickly get some answers to those questions we have raised just now in order to assist us in forming a position in later stages.

Before I go any further, there are several people I would like to thank. I particularly thank parliamentary counsel for drafting the many amendments we have before us (Dignity for Disability’s included, which I will talk about shortly) and all the staff who have worked very hard on this very lengthy and very detailed bill. I would also like to thank the other staff who are assisting not only with this bill but with the general running of parliament. The reason I want to do this is that I was reminded of how we members are not the only ones who make sacrifices by sitting into the evening to discuss these important and lengthy issues.

Of course, we have Hansard here fulfilling a very important role and creating a public record of everything that is said, but the reason I want to mention this specifically is that during the dinner break I wandered into the library, as I am known to do, and got talking to Bianca, one of the research librarians. Tonight is the first night ever that Bianca has not been home to say goodnight to her two and four-year-old children. So I would like to put on the record my thanks to all the staff who have worked very hard on this bill and who keep parliament running to make sure that we can give these important issues the consideration they deserve.

This is certainly the most significant piece of legislation considered by this parliament this year, particularly in terms of length. Although other issues, such as improving the justice system for all people, including people with disabilities, have been a very important priority for Dignity for Disability, we are certainly keen to give this adequate consideration. As the key plank of a year-long process of planning law reform, this bill demands careful and detailed consideration in this place.

It is clear from the number and variety of organisations and interest groups that have lobbied my office, and certainly other offices as well—we have heard a number of them mentioned by the Hon. Mr Parnell—that it has prompted a range of concerns. I would like to place on the record some of the concerned people and organisations who have taken the time to contact me. They include:

Frank and Margaret Hardbottle;

Alex and Kim Paschero;

Jennifer Comley;

Dr Jonathan Deakin;

Kristina Barnett; and

Graham Webster.

Also, the following residents groups:

The Community Alliance South Australia;

Friends of the City of Unley Society;

Prospect Residents Association;

Local government;

The City of Adelaide;

The City of Marion;

The City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters;

The City of Onkaparinga;

The City of West Torrens; and

The Local Government Association of South Australia.

I also thank the property development peak bodies:

Master Builders South Australia;

Property Council of South Australia; and

The Urban Development Institute of Australia SA Branch.

Members of my staff also met with Community Alliance’s Carolyn Wigg and Tom Matthews, and a staff member also represented me at the forum organised by Community Alliance, which was held at the Burnside Town Hall on 21 October. I do apologise that I was not able to be there, but I am very thankful to my staff for representing me, so that I could hear about the concerns raised at what I understand was a very active and important meeting.

I understand, of course, that the planning minister and Deputy Premier John Rau, shadow planning minister Griffiths and the Hon. Mr Parnell also spoke at that event. With the exception of the planning minister, I understand that the all of these people and organisations I have mentioned have advised me that they do not support all of this bill or some of it in its current form.

To summarise, community representatives are certainly worried that the effect of the bill would be to exclude residents and councillors from the planning approval process, and developers are worried about limits to urban growth and the impact of the proposed infrastructure delivery scheme. I am certainly carefully considering each of the concerns raised. In addition to acknowledging the range of concerns received, I say that this bill in its current form is missing out on several opportunities, not least of which is the opportunity to give prominence to the principle of universal design, also known as universal accessibility or accessibility for all.

I stressed the importance of universal design in my submission on behalf of Dignity for Disability in our submission to the Expert Panel on Planning Reform in February of this year. In that submission we cited the National Disability Strategy to which South Australia is of course a signatory. It specifically refers to universal design in chapter 1 on inclusive and accessible communities. In addition, as members would know, if not from their own background then from my repeated contributions in this place on the subject, that Australia is also of course party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which defines universal design as:

…the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. ‘Universal design’ shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed.

Members may recall that in 2012 I had the great privilege to have the opportunity to visit Norway, where universal design was first introduced as a planning concept, as I understand it, in 1997. For the record, just to be blunt and to illustrate how far behind South Australia is on the topic of universal design, in 1997 I was nine years old; in fact, universal design principles are incorporated into the objects clause and a number of provisions of Norway’s Planning and Building Act 2008, as I understand the title is translated.

When I was in Oslo, I visited the Norwegian national parliament, which happened to be undergoing a major building renovation. This may sound familiar to members, because it was around the same time that this same parliament was having some renovations done of its own. However, there was a stark difference in my experience of visiting the Norwegian parliament while it was being renovated. It starkly contrasted to my experience of visiting this very parliament of which I am a member, because, notwithstanding the disruption of the renovations, I and any other wheelchair or mobility aid user, parent with a pram, elderly person on a walker, and so on, entered the building through the same door as everyone else.

When I mentioned to people in that parliament, when I was visiting—either staff members or members of parliament I spoke to, or even just tourists and visitors to the parliament—that currently in my own workplace, the Parliament of South Australia, I was entering through the basement car park, they quite frankly could not believe that to be true and certainly could not believe that they would accept that in their country where universal design is now in legislation as a beneficial planning concept.

Not to minimise the fact that we have come a long way with design in this building—and I certainly do not want to downplay the hard work that has been done there—I think this one relatively simple example shows that still we have a long way to go, not just in this parliament but in the entire state.

I understand that the Norwegian government has an action plan for Norway to be entirely universally designed by 2025, and given that many cities in Norway are some hundreds of years older than our dear old Adelaide, I think it is time that we stopped using the excuse that Adelaide is just an old city and that is the way things are.

Universal design is particularly important not only from a perspective of enabling social inclusion, but also for the economy. Ireland has, in recent years, renewed its entire public bus fleet, making, as I understand it, all buses accessible to mobility aid users, elderly people, parents with prams and so on, by ensuring that all buses have the ability to ‘kneel’, so to speak, lower to kerb level to allow easier entry as there is no step to get over.

I understand that the nation of Ireland and the government of Ireland underwent this replacement of its entire bus fleet in the midst of the global financial crisis, which is generally a time during which one might not have expected to see these types of large projects undertaken. But Ireland did and they did it because they recognise, as Australia and the state of South Australia should, that universal design is good sense and an investment in the future of the state and the nation.

I understand that it worked out to be cheaper in the long run to replace the entire bus fleet, as I understand it worked out to be less expensive to deal with a single contractor providing all the buses, rather than several contractors providing different buses for different fleets.

By removing environmental barriers such as steps, narrow doorways and so on, universal design makes it easier for people with disabilities to become consumers of goods and services and to find employment opportunities. Of course, it makes sense that if we are able to enter your business or your store, you are more likely to get us as customers and therefore have us spending our money there.

This is certainly one of the reasons that Dignity for Disability was very disheartened and quite vocal about the Adelaide City Council shopfront renewal scheme earlier in the year—I forget the exact title, but I think members know what I am referring to. Although it did have some provisions for accessibility, what was promoted in terms of the glossy brochures and the front pages of the brochure and so on was the ability to give your shop a fresh lick of paint or get some funky and relatively uncomfortable hipster chairs in there.

All these things are very welcome, of course; we want to keep our shops updated and nice looking, but I think there is also a strong argument to make that one can only enjoy that fresh lick of paint if one can actually get in the door. Certainly, when I took that perspective to the media on behalf of Dignity for Disability, I was contacted with supporting comments not only from people with disabilities but also from parents whose young children still use a pram and who said that they felt I was speaking directly for them and about their experience when we took that perspective.

I think that we do need to stop seeing this as something that is an ‘us and them’ issue. I am very frustrated when in 2015 I still hear disability talked about using the term ‘special needs’, because 20 per cent of the population currently has a disability, plus those who will acquire it through the ageing process or surviving accident or injury, plus parents with prams, and people with—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Sports injuries.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: —sports injuries (thank you, Mr Wade), a variety of health conditions, temporary injuries and so on. It becomes less and less ‘special’ and more about all of us.

I would like to read a short quote from an article entitled ‘Should business care about universal design?’ which was written by Lee Wilson and published just today, I understand, on architecture, design and construction site, sourceable.net. The quote reads thus:

The Australian Network on Disability (AND) identified the opportunity this emerging market presented. AND believes corporate social responsibility is an important contrib u tor to the success of long-term business, and that it should be viewed in a strategic business sense rathe r than simply be i ng a ‘feel-good’ factor.

AND adds that people with disability ‘show commitment and loyalty that is unsurpassed,’ which surely is a market worth catering for. People with disability r epresent close to 20 per cent of the Austra li a n population and one in three people either have a disability or are likely to be close to someone with a disability.

In terms of the ageing population, 20 per cent of the population will be over 65 years of age by 2030. This propo r tion of society could have a significant impact on how successful a business is, both now and into the future. They spend like everyone else, and universal design (or how suitable, adaptable or usable a ‘thing’ is) will increasingly become a factor in a person’s decision making process.

So when we ask ‘should businesses care about universal des i gn?’ I believe the answer is an unequivocal ‘yes, they can’t afford not to.’

Dignity for Disability would also argue that there is a strong cost saving to be made in building accessibility for all people into public spaces inherently, that is, during the planning process, rather than as an afterthought. To demonstrate this, I would like to quote from the federal government’s. Accessibility Design Guide: Universal design principles for Australia’s aid program. This is from section 3.6 of this document, Accessibility Design Guide, titled ‘Cost of not incorporating universal design’ and the quote reads thus:

The cost of not incorporating universal design can be significant. Inaccessible environments limit economic education, health, social and other opportunities for people with disability , and make them more dependent on others.

It is important to consider the following three components when working with universal design. Each component can affect the economic viability of family units and contribute to a cycle of poverty :

direct costs for people with disability, including access to services such as travel;

indirect costs to support persons and/or family members of people with disability; and

opportunity costs of forgone income for people with disability.

Again, universal design is not only about allowing us to get into businesses and to venues to spend money, but about enabling us to get into the workforce to actually get that money to spend. I believe, certainly, that the inaccessibility of the workforce is a major barrier to people with disabilities entering it. We know that fewer people who are identified as having disabilities are employed in the public sector than there were 20 years ago, and Dignity for Disability certainly believes that the attitudinal barriers which lead to the material barriers are a significant contributor to this.

I am often, if not constantly, frustrated by what I have termed, perhaps not so endearingly, the cycle of inaccessibility where we do not make a business or a venue accessible, so people with those needs do not come. As a result of them not presenting at the venue, we do not see the need to change it, so we do not make it accessible and we go back to the first point in the cycle.

There is also an argument, of course, that building these things into the plan saves money because not only can retrofitting be expensive when access is an afterthought but also it does not necessarily deliver the best results. If members need any further proof of this, I suggest they hop onto Google and enter the search terms ‘epic ramp fail’ or ‘epic accessibility fail’, an ‘epic fail’ of course being the internet term for when someone fails spectacularly badly at something.

There used to be, or they may well still be, an entire blog called ‘Epic ramp fail’, but I have not been able to drag it up today. Anyway, if you enter those search terms ‘epic ramp fail’ or ‘epic accessibility fail’, you will certainly find some doozies. Looking at them, I am never sure whether to laugh or cry. I will just do my best to describe a couple of them. I am not very good at visual description, but bear with me, Hansard.

Just so you get an idea, the examples include, but are sadly not limited to, ramps with two steps leading up to them, or a ramp with three steps at the end of it, or an accessible car park which, while technically is the appropriate width for an accessible car park, has a pillar in the middle of it so that you could probably barely open your car door if you parked there, much less have enough space to get out a walker or a wheelchair.

A personal favourite of mine, which I have had the great misfortune of seeing several times in the flesh, so to speak, rather than just on Google, is a sign out the front of a building reading, quote, ‘Wheelchair ramp available: inquire within’. Some members might not get that immediately, but just sit with it for a moment and let it sink in. I am sure the realisation will wash over you shortly.

This is exactly what happens when we do not consider accessibility as an imperative from both a social and economic perspective. As a society, as that earlier quote I read out said, we cannot afford not to do this. We have an ageing population. We have more people surviving accidents, thanks to advancements in medical technology, who are acquiring and living with disabilities long into the future as a result, so we need to get this right and we need to invest in South Australia’s social and economic future now. Universal design is one way of doing that very strongly, and the Norwegian experience shows us that it can and must be done.

Moving on for a while, part 2 of the bill relates to its objects, planning principles and general responsibilities. One of the high-quality design principles states, inter alia, that the public realm should be designed to be accessible. Dignity for Disability certainly has no argument with that principle, but we would argue that it does not nearly go far enough, given those arguments I have just made about universal design.

In a bill of some 84,000 words, one mention of accessible public spaces—that is, accessible to all people, not just those who have those needs now but who will in the future—does not give significant weight to this principle and this need and the benefits of it. It is certainly not enough to change the mindset of planners, providers and assessors of our built environment, and this is why Dignity for Disability is working on a small handful of amendments, in comparison to the—are you up to 84, Mr Parnell?

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: I have lost count.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Hon. Mr Parnell says he has lost count, and to an extent you can’t blame him. We have only a small handful of amendments in comparison to the 70 or 80 that we already have before us, but we think they are, nonetheless, very important in enshrining, in this bill, an opportunity for South Australia to play catch-up and then, hopefully, lead the way for the rest of the nation in the adoption of universal design. I understand that those amendments are still being circulated. We are still reaching some compromise with the wording, so I apologise that we do not have them before members at this stage, but we will very shortly, and I thank them for their patience.

My experience tells me that the current reliance on the minimum requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, now incorporated into the Building Code of Australia, is not enough to ensure that buildings and public spaces are genuinely and generally accessible to people of all abilities and needs. In conversations with people responsible for a particular building entry or bathroom that is not quite accessible for someone who uses a wheelchair, I and my staff often hear the response (as do many people in the disability community), ‘But we have met the requirements of the code.’

In other words, designers and builders are being judged on whether certain parts of their building or infrastructure have certain dimensions rather than whether people with disabilities, older people or parents with strollers, for example, can actually enter and use the shop in an autonomous and dignified self-directed way. The design of accessible buildings, therefore, tends to be done to the lowest common denominator rather than aspiring to excellence.

As another example of this, I will quickly share this story. Many hotels I stay in have accessible rooms and they may well be accessible in terms of handrails and things like that, but there is nothing necessarily in the Building Code that says perhaps if this is a wheelchair-accessible room you should put the control panel for the air conditioner where someone in a seated position can actually reach it, or put the cups so that a person with a disability can get a glass of water without having to go down to the lobby and ask someone to come up to their room and get a glass down for them.

I had a recent experience in Canberra, probably a few months ago now. I tend to think of everything that was not yesterday as last week because the year is slipping away from us. I was presenting at a forum on access to the justice system for people with disabilities and talking about the work that Dignity for Disability and this parliament as a whole has done. Everything was good, and I got on the handrails and jumped in the shower, and then realised that I could not actually reach the tap from the shower bench because it was certainly beyond my arm length. I do not have the longest arms in the world but, certainly, I can imagine it would have been very difficult for anyone, particularly because you cannot necessarily just get up and walk over to the tap because, call me crazy, but I tend not to take my wheelchair into the shower.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It’s hard to ring room service from there, too.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: As the Hon. Ms Gago interjects, it is hard to order room service from there, too.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: From the shower.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: From the shower, yes. Fortunately, I did work out a solution, but the point I am making is we should be creating a society where these things are a matter of course. I do not want to hit members over the head with the point but I think that we need to look at this from a tourism perspective as well, and this is certainly something that Dignity for Disability is in conversation with the tourism minister in the other place about, in terms of the economic benefits of promoting South Australia as a tourist destination for all people, particularly people who may be older and travelling post retirement.

Again, it can be done and it does bring results. As I said, when I was travelling in Scandinavia, I visited a particular chain of hotels and chose those hotels because they had a specific disability liaison officer whom you could talk with if you had any concerns. You could certainly tell that that was leading to excellent results because not only was I able to get a glass of water, reach the microwave, get in and out of bed, get in and out of the shower and not have to order my room service from there because I got stuck but they also had things like vibrating alarm clocks for people who had either been deaf all their life or had lost hearing, particularly, I suppose through ageing. There are many examples of where this can be beneficial to many people, rather than those who are crudely and inaccurately termed as having special needs.

Perhaps this legislation offers a chance to introduce a public interest test for genuine accessibility that is integrated into good design of our buildings and the public realm. To this end, accessibility should be given the same prominence in this bill as its existing objects and its planning principles under the headings of: long-term focus; urban renewal; high quality design; activation and liveability; sustainability; investment facilitation; and integrated delivery.

As another example of the need for high quality design and liveability of public spaces—and I did say that I would not hit members over the head, but unfortunately there are many examples I can give as to where South Australia is falling behind on the benefits of accessibility—members may recall that 19 November this year (as it is every year, I understand) was World Toilet Day. Generally, the United Nations uses this designated day to promote the fact that millions, if not billions, of people all over the world do not have adequate access to sanitation facilities, including toilets.

It was wrongly labelled in the media a couple of times as ‘public toilet day’, which is not accurate, because it is actually trying to promote the fact that many people in many countries do not even have access to a toilet, let alone a public one. But, anyway, on this occasion Dignity for Disability used World Toilet Day in the South Australian context to highlight in the media the needs of the 14,000 South Australian adults who require some form of assistance—be it assistance in a material way through the provision of a larger space, handrails and so on, or assistance from another person, or a mixture of the two—to use the bathroom.

Dignity for Disability promotes the provision of Changing Places, which are bathrooms equipped for adults who need such assistance, as well as younger people. To put it somewhat crudely just to help members to understand, Changing Places are basically a current accessible bathroom, with the handrails and so on, on steroids. So, it has all the same features, such as the extra space and the handrails, but it also has some additional features, including a hoist (so that if somebody needs a hoist to get on and off the toilet, they can use that) but also, I think most interestingly, an adult-sized change table.

I think many people either do not know or forget that there are people who are beyond the age and size of an infant who still require change tables to autonomously and in a dignified manner access the public realm. Currently, none of these Changing Places facilities exist in South Australia, while Victoria has several, and there is even one in Darwin.

As an illustrator of the effect of not having these facilities, Dignity for Disability is in regular contact with constituents who either feel extremely limited in the number of venues they are able to visit and spend their money at, or they are forced to change on the floor of a public toilet. I hope I do not have to explain to members why that is a concern.

I know that the Adelaide City Council in particular is keen to take up Dignity for Disability’s proposals in getting a Changing Places—hopefully several—in South Australia, and I certainly thank them for that. But, I raise it again in this place because we still have a long way to go.

Universal design should also be given equal weight as the other considerations for the various planning instruments provided in this bill—in particular, the foreshadowed design quality policy, the planning and design code, and design standards. I note that, within the bill’s provisions for the proposed planning and design code, local heritage and significant trees are each considered worthy of a clause. The planning minister and his staff have argued that the objective of universal design does not merit inclusion in this bill as it can be dealt with in one or more subsidiary planning instruments.

I respectfully submit that in promoting universal design—that is, the design of buildings and public spaces to be accessible to all our citizens as well as friends, family—there is evidence to suggest that the average person with a disability travels in a group of between two and eight people, so it is not only about us; it is about our friends, our family and the interstate and perhaps even international visitors we may and will bring with us. I respectfully submit that this group is at least as worthy of consideration as the conservation of our local heritage or the safeguarding of our significant trees.

Call me naive, and tell me I do not understand heritage, but from my perspective, to an extent, providing for greater accessibility is about respecting the heritage of existing venues in the state because it gives them a future and enables more and more people in the future to go into that place, be it a museum, be it Ayers House, or be it this very parliament, which has undergone significant changes in recent times. I like to think that that is a way of honouring this parliament because it has given it a future. It has given it the opportunity to be more diverse and more reflective of South Australia as a result. Call me crazy, but I think that should be the job of this parliament and/or others now and long into the future.

That said, Dignity for Disability will support the second reading of this bill and looks forward to the committee stage of debate. As I indicated earlier, we have drafted some amendments which are still being negotiated upon. We are also currently carefully considering the many amendments we have before us and do hope, as was illustrated by the Hon. Mark Parnell, that this parliament will be given adequate time to give this important issue the consideration it deserves.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.

Dignity for Disability would also like to note, as other members have mentioned, the significant safety challenges that many other emergency workers face in their workplaces or in the line of their duties and through no fault of their own. Whether you are an ambulance officer, as the Hon. Ms Franks has pointed out, an emergency department nurse or a mental healthcare nurse, to name just a few, or I even think of my own mother, not strictly an emergency services worker but a registered nurse in aged care who regularly deals with patients who may be confused due to dementia or PTSD, for example, there are other professions that face specific challenges of personal safety and welfare.

I think those need to be treated just as seriously, but particularly those more emergency related professions that I mentioned: mental healthcare nurses and ambulance officers, for example, who can and do face violence or the risk of violence, illness and injury in the course of their duties on a regular basis, despite taking the usual precautions, because the people they are treating might be unwell, under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), or perhaps experiencing significant trauma due to stress due to a violent situation, for example, or a health condition.

So, while we do support these measures to further protect police officers who are injured in the line of their duties and certainly thank them for the service they provide to the community, we, like many other parties, want to remember and better serve and better protect those other workers who also face significant risks in the line of their duties and therefore look forward to working constructively with the government and all other parties to make sure that all members of our community who work hard, who put their safety and wellbeing on the line to protect others, are also protected. With that brief contribution, at this stage I indicate Dignity for Disability’s support for this bill.

Honourable members would be aware that the bill seeks to address serious firearms crimes, such as the Humbles case, in which the defendant gives the principal offender a gun and the principal offender later commits a murder with that gun. The bill proposes two measures:

1. Amending the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 in order to designate trafficking offences in section 14 and 10C of the Firearms Act 1977 as serious firearm offences; and

2. Adding a new statutory complicity offence to ensure that those offenders who commit serious firearms offences are held fully responsible for the consequences of their offending.

The Statutes Amendment (Serious Firearms Offences) Bill in 2012 created a series of interlocking measures which imposed a severe approach to the sentencing of serious firearms offenders. It amended the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act to include those who commit a firearms offence involving the use or carriage of a firearm that involves in any way a firearm that is illegal under all circumstances, a fully automatic firearm and a handgun that is unregistered and the person is unlicensed. It is presumed that a sentence of immediate imprisonment will be imposed on such offenders unless exceptional circumstances apply.

On 16 July 2014, the government announced that it would change the law so that an offence of trafficking a firearm would qualify as a serious firearms offence which must attract a sentence of imprisonment. The liability of a person who is complicit in criminal offences committed by another is governed by the law of complicity, partly statutory and partly common law. Section 267 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 states:

A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence is liable to be prosecuted and punished as a principal offender.

At common law, a person may be found guilty of a crime committed by another if under a common purpose, sometimes called a joint enterprise. As firearms are uniquely and directly dangerous to life and limb, the government proposes that the law should be changed so that, if a person commits a firearms trafficking or supply offence which results in a firearm coming into the possession of an unlicensed person, the first person is liable for any offence committed by the second person with that firearm. The extended liability provision will apply, I understand, to juveniles also. I would like to turn to the Law Society’s position on this bill. In summary, I understand that the Law Society opposes the bill because:

1. Derivative liability has no place in criminal law, as the Law Society puts it. The bill makes a criminal offence event based on these principles.

2. The proposed offence is not a criminal offence in character and is not capable of being defended.

3. The proposed offence has neither mental nor physical elements, therefore it cannot constitute criminal liability for a serious offence.

4. The proposed offence is unfair and unjust as the essence of the offence is in the prescribed offence already prosecuted, so the weapon supplier could be in jeopardy the second time.

5. There is no need for the proposed offence because the present offence of supply already attracts serious penalties.

In expanding on these points the Law Society submits it is inherently dangerous to enact a law in direct response to one incident such as the Humbles case, and to do so to fulfil a promise given to a select group. It could not reasonably be suggested that the sentences imposed on the murderer, Humbles—life with a non-parole of 17 years on appeal; and the gun supplier, Cullen, eight years, non-parole, three years and nine months, are inadequate.

The Law Society also says the bill, and specifically the derivative liability provision in section 267AA, is unnecessary. The law relating to derivative liability in section A is settled and effective. A person will be held criminally liable for the act of another where they have aided, abetted or procured the commission of the act or taken part in a joint criminal enterprise to that end. A person’s liability for the act of another is partly related to their state of mind, i.e. whether the person knew of the other’s intention to commit the subsequent act.

The bill does not create a new offence capable of being prosecuted in a court. Rather it establishes an administrative process whereby a person, based on two conditions precedent, becomes liable to be sentenced for an act for which, in most cases, the person had already been sentenced. The bill is unprecedented in any jurisdiction in Australia. On the issue of causation the Law Society submits:

The bill’s extension of criminal liability is contrary to the common law principle of causation, i.e. that it is enough that the applicant’s conduct contributed significantly to the death of the victim.

The bill provides for an automatic assumption that the unlawful supply of a firearm is causative of any offence committed by any person who may then possess and use that firearm later. That cannot be correct says the Law Society. The law has recognised that a chain of causation cannot be broken. The Law Society also asks whether the bill addresses a deficiency in the criminal justice system, and says:

The report does not make it clear whether there has been any analysis of the nature of sentences imposed by section A, imposed by courts for offences against section 10C (10) and (14) of the Firearms Act 1977. The maximum penalty for these offences is 15 years’ and 20 years’ imprisonment respectively. Legislative intervention to address a perceived shortfall in the judicial system should only be made after careful consideration of its necessity.

There are simpler ways than the bill to address a purported failure by sentencing judges to consider the danger to the public caused by the supply of unregistered firearms to unlicensed persons, for example, the considerations in section 10C of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. The Law Society then turns to concerns as to how the bill gives effect to its purpose and says:

In addition to the above concerns, the new section 267AA offence creates a potentially unlimited category of offenders. The bill does not limit the degree of separation between an accused and the principal offender.

The Law Society argues that the bill also creates uncertainty for convicted offenders, which arguably could amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The bill does not place a time limit to the period between the original supply offence and the subsequent offence, that is, the offence of supplying the firearm and the offence of using that firearm to murder someone. Therefore, says the Law Society, someone could serve their entire sentence for the original sentence before being punished again for the same act.

The Law Society goes on to say that the bill could also create an offence that in most circumstances would be impossible to defend. It is an offence without the traditional elements required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The offence is not one based on certain mental and physical elements but on two separate findings of fact not linked by causation. The Law Society also argues that the bill creates uncertainty as to its retrospectivity. The bill does not contain any transitional provisions. This is unsatisfactory when the bill purports to govern events and findings of fact that may have occurred before the bill is assented to.

The Law Society also submits that the bill, in their opinion, may in fact be unconstitutional. They state that it is arguable that the effect of the bill is to deny a person a fair trial according to law and that it is questionable whether the prosecution of an offence proposed in section 267AA could be described as in accordance with the judicial process. It appears to be no more than a rubber stamp exercise, the Law Society argues. In that way, the bill arguably infringes on judicial independence, which is of course a requirement of the constitution. The Law Society does not believe that a successful prosecution pursuant to the proposed section 267AA has been decided independently of the executive government.

Considering the number of arguments against this bill in the Law Society’s submission and the expressions of concern and doubt in some of the opposition members’ statement of support in this bill, there would appear to be some risk that this legislation may be vulnerable to legal challenge. The opposition appears to be supporting this bill because it quite understandably, as I am sure we all do, empathises with the McPherson family and agrees that something should be done about illegal firearms. On that idea, you certainly do not get any opposition from Dignity for Disability, but at the same time it acknowledges the apparent legal shortcomings of the bill and ‘hopes’ that it will be judged valid by the courts and be effective.

I, too, want to extend my sympathy to the McPherson family and all families and individuals impacted by the use of firearms, particularly those that have been used illegally. However, I respectfully submit that hope is not a sound basis for making and modifying the laws of this state. We need evidence-based law making and, given the concerns that the Law Society has with this bill and the concerns that were raised even by the Liberal opposition as they supported this bill, I am not convinced that we have sufficient evidence to support this bill at this time.

The law is likely to be highly uneven, and therefore Dignity for Disability cannot support the passage of this particular bill. However, as I say we look forward to a debate on the Firearms Bill next sitting week so that we can holistically look at how to responsibly deal with the issue of firearms in this state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

I never received a formal answer, to the best of my knowledge, to those questions without notice, but I guess the appearance of this bill in this place some seven months later does suggest that Dignity for Disability was on the money in raising this issue, and that our concerns were valid. Therefore, we are very pleased to see them being heeded now. Back on 24 March I said, during Question Time:

Recently the Victorian government has announced that it will move to ban powdered alcohol, known as Palcohol, as there is an expectation that an overseas manufacturer plans to sell this product in Australia.

To make an instant standard drink, one pouch of powdered alcohol is added to water. Media reports suggest that the product is likely to cause security problems for venues and events, as well as schools, because it can be carried in powdered form and then mixed up on site. My questions to the minister are:

1. Is the minister concerned about a potential increased risk of drink spiking with such a substance available?
2. Will the South Australian government follow the Victorian government’s move to ban the sale of Palcohol?

The minister then replied:

I thank the honourable member for her most important question. I have read similar articles to those, no doubt, the Hon. Kelly Vincent has considered in relation to the proposed introduction of powdered alcohol here in Australia, and it does sort of beggar belief. Given the access ability of alcohol already, it does amaze me that there is a potential market for selling powdered alcohol, but there you go.

The minister went on to say:

I will watch with great interest—

She never got to finish that sentence due to a great deal of interjecting. She later continued:

Thank you, Mr President, for your protection. It does beggar belief, I have to say, in terms of where the market appeal for this is. I have also understood some of the concerns, particularly around young people being able to more readily hide the sachets. I do not have a view at this point in time. I need to consider this carefully before, if necessary, taking a position to cabinet.

I have to say in my initial thinking it is hard for me to see a great deal of difference between carrying a sachet into a venue versus a hip flask, for instance. I do not see a great deal of difference in that and, as I said, given the accessibility of alcohol already. It is the same with drink spiking as well. We understand that it is already fairly easy to spike a drink. Perhaps powdered alcohol might make it even easier, I am not sure, but I am certainly prepared to consider the concerns and fears around the introduction of powdered alcohol and, as I said, if necessary, take a position to cabinet.

I am very pleased the minister has heeded those concerns and now obviously has taken a position to cabinet, which has seen the introduction of this bill. I would like to thank the minister and the government for heeding Dignity for Disability’s concerns about this, as raised back in March. With those words, as we did have those concerns back then when we first raised the issue in the parliament back in March—and still have them now—we are pleased to support the bill.

While we support this bill going into committee, we do have these concerns and hope that the questions which we certainly have and which have already been raised by other members will be answered before it proceeds any further. We would certainly appreciate it if the relevant minister could provide answers to those questions in the committee stage so that we can decide whether or not we will support the further advancement of the bill.

While the acts have not yet been used in South Australia, the corresponding acts in both New South Wales and Victoria have been used. The powers that these acts provide are intended to be used in very rare circumstances, and thankfully South Australia has so far been spared the terrible events and threats that have affected other states. The fact that these events are rare, and the fact that the use of acts such as these are rare, shows that the powers given to police have not been misused or overutilised.

The concerns about civil liberties, which were raised when these acts were originally introduced, have therefore been shown to be largely unsubstantiated. I commend the bill to the council and hope that it receives a speedy passage through this place to ensure that our police continue to have the tools they need to prevent and respond to threats to the safety of our community. I commend the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I speak today in support of the second reading of this bill. I thank the government for providing a briefing and appreciate the amendments my colleagues the Hon. Andrew McLachlan and the Hon. Mark Parnell have brought to improve this bill. I say at this point that Dignity for Disability will be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell’s amendments, as we believe review of significant powers such as these is important for accountability, and I would hope we all consider accountability important in this place.

I know the government will say that it is an overly onerous burden for laws that are rarely used, and in fact have never been used, never been invoked in South Australia, as I understand it, but surely that makes them all the more easy to review. Accountability is important when laws such as these could, if used, possibly infringe upon civil liberties to such an extent. With those brief words, we will support the second reading and the amendments of the Hon. Mr Mark Parnell.