When these new regulations were first introduced Dignity for Disability did raise some concerns about how the changes could impact on people with disabilities in particular, and I think members will recall me talking quite extensively about the fact that it is a bit of a mixed bag in terms of how these regulations impact people with disabilities. On the one hand one can foresee a situation where people who might have mobility or balance issues and who are not able to cycle very quickly might actually feel safer and be able to start cycling for the first time in a long time, if not for the first time ever. That is a plus.

On the other hand, we did have some concerns, particularly about people with sensory-related issues. You may recall, Mr Acting President, that we held a very productive round table on the regulations, which was attended by representatives from Blind Citizens Australia and Guide Dogs SA (representing both people with sight-related and hearing-related disabilities), as well as other people with an interest in this area, including people with sight-related and/or hearing-related needs themselves. The gathering also included representatives from the office of the Minister for Transport, and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure had a representative there as well.

During this discussion, there were concerns expressed that allowing people to cycle on footpaths would result in an increase in incidents, particularly for those who could be more at risk, such as ageing people, or aged people—I suppose we are all ageing, more and more rapidly it feels sometimes, Mr Acting President. There may be particular implications for aged people, people who may be unsteady on their feet, people who use mobility aids, people who are blind or vision impaired, people who are deaf or hard of hearing. I am certainly still mindful of these concerns and we are working towards a solution; however, I believe that removing these new laws would be a premature and knee-jerk reaction to something that appears to be working well for the majority of South Australians, and that could work well for all South Australians with proper consideration and education.

Dignity for Disability would prefer to see the government run an education campaign, as I think the Hon. Mr Parnell mentioned as well, particularly for cyclists and all other communities to be mindful of people who may be susceptible when travelling in a public space, especially where someone might be cycling on a footpath and a pedestrian may have concerns. We believe that cyclists are capable of being considerate of pedestrians and that we can work out a solution to ensure that all members of the community can share and be safe on our footpaths.

I must say that these considerations are not only pertinent to people with disabilities but, in this day and age where people might be walking on the footpath wearing headphones or looking at their phone or another distracting device, it is not only about being considerate of the needs of people with disabilities in terms of whether or not a person who might have sight or hearing-related needs might not see or hear you coming: it is about everyone. We need to be mindful, as we are all taxpayers and all members of this community and this state, and no-one’s rights should come above another’s.

As I mentioned before, it is also important to highlight that the new regulations may also have many positive impacts on people with disabilities. In the past, for instance, people with disabilities who wanted to cycle on a footpath had to carry a doctor’s certificate with them. Now that this is no longer a requirement, I believe it may further encourage more people with disabilities to feel comfortable and safe taking up cycling either for recreation and fitness or for everyday commuting.

Dignity for Disability want to encourage a local industry and market in South Australia for trikes and modified bikes as well as modified motor vehicles. I know minister Maher and I have discussed it at length in this place and we believe it could have many benefits financially as well as socially for South Australia, particularly in the wake of the pending closure of Holdens, etc. We believe that people who want to cycle, particularly given the obesity epidemic— should be encouraged to do so. South Australia should do what it can to enable them to do so. Dignity for Disability is also very supportive of the requirement for motorists to leave a safe minimum passing distance when overtaking cyclists. It is my understanding that these regulations have proved to be working well thus far and have actually resulted in motorists leaving more than the required distance from cyclists, as I think other speakers have pointed out as well. These regulations help to remind drivers that cyclists are people, too: they are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and so on. They all, as we all do, have a right to use the road and to get home safely.

All that being said, I would now like to raise that these regulations are not, in fact, a new or radical idea. Measures allowing for a one-metre passing distance and for cycling on the footpath for people of all ages are already in place in a number of jurisdictions. All ages cycling on the footpath is already allowed in Queensland, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The minimum safe passing distance is also legislated in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, and in March this year will come into effect in New South Wales. I think as previous speakers have said, the sky has certainly not fallen in those states or territories.

Adelaide, a city which is beginning to increasingly pride itself on being a cycling city and that hosts the Tour Down Under annually (an event perhaps best dubbed ‘the festival of lycra’) needs to keep up this progress and do what it can to be a more liveable city, alongside cities such as Amsterdam, Stockholm, Copenhagen and Oslo. I also make the point that making better infrastructure for cyclists often has the flow-on effect of increasing accessibility for people with disabilities in terms of increasing footpath usability and so on. Again, this is not just about cyclists: this is a measure we can implement for the safety and wellbeing of all.

Just before I close, I thought it was interesting to point out that I have done a bit of research—when I say ‘I have done a bit of research’, I have asked the parliamentary library to do a bit of research and they have been very accommodating, and I thank them for that. The research shows that, if we review the statistics of pedestrian versus bicycle crashes on footpaths for the time period of 25 October, the date on which these regulations came into force, to 31 December of the same year, and if we compare that time period with the years between 2011 to 2015, we can see that there was one serious crash in 2013 and one or two minor crashes in all but 2014 when there were no accidents reported.

We have a baseline—it is certainly not a large baseline—and we have not moved above it with the introduction of these new cycling laws, so I do not accept that statistically people have yet been proven to be any more unsafe than they have been in the past. In fact, I think it is quite clear that they have been proven to be more safe. Of course, no matter what laws or regulations we have in place, there will always be people who break those laws or bend those rules, and I think we have to be very careful not to vilify a whole class of people and not to take away the right of a whole class of people to be safe and respected on our roads and our footpaths because of the behaviour of a few.

I also respectfully suggest that the same people who are going to be, as the Hon. Mr Parnell put it, ‘dicks on a bike’ are probably the same people who are going to be ‘dicks behind the wheel of a car’ as well. I do not accept that having these regulations in place gives any particular rise to people who want to be rule breakers. It simply affords safety to those who abide by the rules which is, as far as I can see from the statistics that I have shared, the vast majority.

Overall, Dignity for Disability believe the best in people. We think that while a small percentage of people do the wrong thing, cyclists, drivers and pedestrians can and must peacefully and safely coexist on our roads, footpaths and shared public spaces and, therefore, we cannot support this motion today, but we will continue to lobby to ensure that we get the education and measures to ensure that these regulations do reach their full potential.

South Australia’s food and wine industry makes a significant contribution, as we all know, to our state and we rely on our reputation for green, clean food. In 2010-11, the food industry contributed some $14.24 billion in revenue and around 45 per cent of total merchandise exports. One in five workers in South Australia is employed in the food and wine sector. I am concerned that by creating a nuclear waste dump in our state this reputation could potentially be spoiled.

Nuclear energy is known to be a risky and controversial form of energy due to its radiation. In particular, if there was an accident at a dump site or when the waste material is being transported, this could have massive repercussions for our food sector and state’s reputation as a food producer and exporter. We also need to address the impact that nuclear waste storage could have on our tourism industry, as I said, which is itself linked to our food and wine sector.

A nuclear waste dump could discourage visitors from coming here. The tourism industry would face similar risks to our green food industry where, should anything go wrong, this would result in very negative publicity and a downturn in the number of tourists to South Australia. It is disheartening that again I have already heard the potential slogan, ‘SA, the nuclear state’ being discussed.

This is particularly disappointing given that, as the Hon. Mr Malinauskas says, we are only discussing an interim report and should try, as I think he was trying to say, to be as neutral and impartial as possible, and yet in our corridors and our discussions out in the community we already hear potential slogans like ‘SA , the nuclear state’. Whether or not we are truly being impartial, I am not entirely sure.

I am very proud, as I think we all should be, of South Australia’s investment in renewable energy. Like many South Australians, I would much prefer this to be our reputation, rather than our state being used as the world’s dump site. Considering the potential impacts nuclear could have on our food and tourism industries, I find it very concerning that this was barely mentioned in the royal commission’s tentative findings report released last week.

It also makes me wonder how much consultation has occurred with these particular industries thus far. If the minister would like to provide some clarification on that I would be very glad to receive it. I understand that the commission is continuing to seek comment on their tentative findings before it makes any recommendations; however, it seems that there is still a lot of consultation and consideration that needs to be done in the community before any type of formal consideration can be made.

In the year 2000, there was a grassroots people’s movement called the People’s Conference 2000 to discuss the pros and cons of nuclear waste storage, creating a lively forum to examine the issues. Dignity for Disability certainly hopes, as I am sure many others would, that the commissioner will continue to actively seek a range of evidence and opinions and visit the current low-level nuclear waste storage facility near Woomera to take an inventory of how successful the current arrangements are. There were incidents in transporting the 44-gallon drums, now housed at Woomera, from other states to SA and the waste stored there is, on average, as I understand it, low to medium level waste.

I would also like to note that the commission’s public meetings were not broadly publicised—at least, from my impression they were not broadly publicised—and I believe there is still unrest in the community that needs to be addressed. Particularly, we need to ensure that the Aboriginal community, as Mr Darley alluded to, whose land the dump site will be built on, are properly, respectfully and meaningfully consulted. Understandably, this is a very controversial topic and, as a result, the commission should take time to ensure that all members of the community have had an opportunity to contribute their views.

We are talking about a decision that will last for hundreds of thousands of years, not just for one electoral cycle. I would like to think that we could take some time over this, particularly given, as I said, that it is difficult to deal with it in absolutes and there are many different nuanced pros and cons and views.

At this stage, I believe a waste dump could present too great a risk for South Australia, particularly without these factors that I have just outlined being properly considered and discussed; and this is, of course, despite the touted financial benefits that it would bring, and a lot more work needs to be done. Therefore, Dignity for Disability will support the Hon. Mark Parnell’s motion so that this very important and nuanced discussion can continue to occur.

I cannot say that I knew Auntie Josie particularly well or personally, but I was always a great admirer of her work, her commitment to that work, her commitment to warmth and generosity, and her commitment to humanity and meeting people for who they were and where they were in life and going from there. She certainly was not a person who was a preacher by any means. She very much, from what I can see, lived by what she preached. She practised what she preached and we are all the better for seeing her and hearing her preach that message which was always about peace, equality, warmth and humanity. For those reasons she will be, by me as much as anyone else in this chamber, very dearly missed.

I also thank all members with whom we have worked constructively throughout the year—I think that is all of you, in some way or another—the Clerk, yourself, Mr President, all the table staff of course and all the chamber staff, particularly people like Mario, Todd, Leslie and Guy. I particularly thank and acknowledge Leslie as a staff member of this chamber but also as secretary of the committee on access to education for students with disabilities.

I have just had a note flash up on my screen which says ‘Anna?’ I think I said ‘Anna’ first of all, but just in case, Anna, Cathi, Lucy, Amy, Ian and Allison: thank you all very much, particularly Anna, since I have been pulled up, my chief of staff, because on more than one night a week I have to remind Anna to go home. So, thank you, Anna, for all you have done.

I thank all members and organisations with which we have worked constructively throughout the year, and all the other parliamentary staff who have been mentioned. I also thank Hansard for their unenviable task of having to write down everything my machine gun mouth says. It is a challenge at times, so thank you for that. I also acknowledge parliamentary counsel for the work they put in drafting the bills and the policies we put forward throughout the year. I particularly acknowledge Richard Dennis as he embarks on his retirement. I wish him all the best, as I am sure we all do.

It has been another great year for Dignity for Disability. I have been sitting here thinking, as I have been listening to other members, that I wanted to highlight a few achievements very quickly. We have had the disability justice plan pass into law via the vulnerable witnesses bill earlier in the year, which will give more and more people with disabilities a voice in court and in police interviews, and thereby hopefully, if nothing else, see more cases going to court, particularly where abuse and neglect of people with disabilities is alleged, so it is an enormously important change, and one of which I am very proud.

I acknowledge that we have a way to go in the implementation of that law, particularly around the communication assistance in court, and I particularly thank the Law Society and Speech Pathology Australia for continuing to work with us on getting that right, and I look forward to doing that in the New Year coming.

We also have the consistency in the provision of AUSLAN (Australian Sign Language) in emergency services announcements, which was implemented following a push by Dignity for Disability following the Sampson Flat bushfires. It has certainly been a pleasure to see more sign language used in the announcements around the Pinery fires as well. Of course, it would be much more of a pleasure if we did not have to make those announcements but, given that they have to happen every now and again, it is good to see more and more steps being taken to make them accessible to everyone.

Again, there is a way to go on that particular measure, especially around the use of captioning, but it is a success nonetheless. As I mentioned, we also have the education committee now looking into the very important issue of enabling equal access to students with disabilities to an equal education. Those are just a few of the things that came to mind as I sat here listening. Certainly, there are a number of things that still labour for us for the new year.

I do not want to get too off topic and too serious here because I know I am supposed to be jovial, but I think one of things will be that all members, I hope, in this place staunchly defending the Legislative Council. I think particularly this year the Legislative Council has been brought into a fair bit of disrepute. Some members may have seen my rather public Twitter stoush with David Bevan when he alleged that upper house members did not have any constituents. So, we are going to have to defend this place yet again, and I hope we all band together to do that successfully.

The Legislative Council is vital to democracy and to ensuring that laws that are passed in this state go through the right checks and balances. I hope that we will continue to defend the Legislative Council together in the coming year. I am sure that the people who will now be able to have a voice in court, thanks to the Disability Justice Plan, and the police force, of course, with recent measures under return to work, are very glad to have a Legislative Council because those are two very important measures I can think of just off the top of my head that originated here in this chamber.

I hope we will come together in the new year refreshed and energised and ready to resume our important role and defend our ability to undertake that role. Having undertaken that homily, can I again thank all members and all staff for your work throughout the year and wish you all a very merry Christmas and a great season. I hope you get a great rest and some quality time with your friends and family and whomever and whatever is important to you, and I look forward to seeing you all in the new year. I am sure I will see many of you before that, but see you all in 2016.

That this council notes—

1. The immense contribution of The National Indigenous Times as a powerful voice for Australia’s First Peoples;
2. The investment made by the founders of The National Indigenous Times, John and Beverley Rowsthorne;
3. The National Indigenous Times’ record as Australia’s most awarded Indigenous publication, including a Walkley Award for Indigenous coverage in 2005; and
4. The sad departure of the newspaper from the media landscape following an announcement that its parent company, Destiny Publications, had gone into voluntary administration in January and the subsequent closure of the newspaper in February 2015.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Dignity for Disability, like other members, is sad to hear of the end of The National Indigenous Times. The National Indigenous Times first hit the streets in 2002, with Indigenous and non-Indigenous owners and predominantly Indigenous Australian writers and columnists. The act of reconciliation takes an ongoing and concerted effort. It is about everybody taking small steps to learn about, understand and repair the damage of the past and the present, to work towards a future where we have a greater understanding of Aboriginal Australians.

When it comes to representing Aboriginal Australians, our mainstream media in particular too often focuses on the bad, stereotypical representations of Aboriginal people, as with many other minority groups, that do not help to heal, and that is what we need to do. So, we certainly have a long way to go and I will miss The National Indigenous Times as a voice in that path to healing. With those few brief words, on behalf of Dignity for Disability I thank the Hon. Ms Franks for bringing this important motion forward and commend it to the chamber.

That this council—

1. Recognises that Reclink Australia has been outstanding in delivering sport, recreation and arts participation opportunities to some of the community’s most vulnerable and isolated people, at risk youth and those experiencing disadvantage, including mental illness, disability, homelessness, alcohol and other drug issues and social and economic hardship; and
2. Applauds the inaugural Adelaide Reclink Community Cup fundraising football match between players from community and mainstream media (the Adelaide Anchors) and local musicians (the Rockatoos) held on 16 August 2015.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The opportunity to engage with others through recreation and play is something that evidence supports for physical and mental health, and yet it is something which is out of reach for too many people in our community due to particular circumstances. Reclink is out and about actively taking action on this issue and closing that gap, working with people who are disengaged and isolated through a broad range of enjoyable activities. Seeing people, whatever their experience or circumstances, as people first is a way of decreasing stigma, increasing confidence and giving the sense of connection to community that is a deep human need.

I know that people with disabilities are, I suppose you could argue, over-represented in the client base of Reclink and the opportunities that are available include artistic pursuits, drumming, circus skills and perhaps one of my closest own interests, I should note, tours of the Haigh’s factory. As noted in this motion, there are also sporting opportunities, in particular the Adelaide Reclink Community Cup which the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Maher talked about at length in their contributions.

It certainly sounds like a fantastic involvement. I think it is well known and well accepted that I am not a particularly sporty person myself but you never know, that might change. I will flag with the Hon. Ms Franks that I know where to get some sports wheelchairs, some racing wheelchairs, if required for a future cup. I would love to see if we could get that happening.

I add Dignity for Disability’s congratulations for all involved in that tournament. I would love to see what we could do in the future maybe to get even more participants which may or may not include me. I certainly do not want to go on the record as promising anything until I know a bit more as to what I am up for. I might need to go to the gym a few more times before I am ready for that. With those few words, Dignity for Disability thanks the Hon. Ms Franks for bringing this organisation to the attention of the council and also acknowledges the impassioned involvement of the Hon. Mr Maher, if his contribution was anything to go by. I certainly indicate our strong support for the motion.

The existence of the United Nations provides a raft of sanity in a sea of unrest around the world. We look to the UN for the big picture thinking that we need to achieve meaningful change in many important areas, particularly around human rights. South Australia would do well to take heed of the UN initiatives such as the sustainable development goals launched earlier this year. Dignity for Disability adds its thanks and congratulations to the United Nations, South Australia Branch for its long standing commitment to its work.

Each year the UN announces a theme for International Day of People with Disability and the theme for 2015 is ‘Inclusion matters: access and empowerment for people of all abilities’. There are also three subthemes for this year and they are:

Making cities inclusive and accessible for all;

Improving disability data and statistics; and

Including persons with invisible disabilities in society and development.

There is so much more that we can do to improve our society. When the focus is on people with disabilities there is much to be gained throughout our community and that is because a city, town, suburb or country that embraces and celebrates diversity, including disability, makes itself more available, accessible and interesting to all.

Of course it would be remiss of me not to mention that South Australia and Australia as a nation is falling woefully behind in its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. Women and girls with disability can still be forcibly sterilised or coerced into sterilisation in this country, and have their right to natural parenthood denied on the grounds of disability. I will be moving a motion on this particular subject at some point in the new year where I will elaborate. I think it is fair to say that given that we would not know whether anyone at the age of four, five, or even nine or 10 would be an adequate parent in the future, we should not make that assumption purely on the grounds of disability or health condition.

People with disabilities still face significant barriers to finding and keeping meaningful work. There are still people with disabilities who are paid 20¢ an hour in what are crudely known as ‘sheltered workshops’ or ‘Australian disability enterprises’. People with disabilities still face sexual and physical abuse and neglect at at least two times the rate of those without disability, and that sense of disability only increases with factors such as gender, experience, age and type of disability.

People with disabilities can still be indefinitely detained in prisons, even when found not guilty of any offence, purely because there is no adequate housing accommodation for them in the community. Those are, unfortunately, just a few of the examples I could give where South Australia as a state and Australia as a nation have fallen woefully behind in their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I will certainly be raising more of them in the coming weeks, but we have a long way to go. For that reason, I thank the Hon. Ms Lee for bringing this motion to the council and indicate Dignity for Disability’s warm and wholehearted support for it.

1. Notes the Irish public have overwhelmingly voted ‘yes’ in the referendum on the 34 th Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015; and

2. Congratulates the people of Ireland for voting in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.

(Continued from 28 October 2015.)

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Just very briefly, I would like to put on the record my support of this motion. I doubt that that will come as a surprise to anyone in this chamber, given that I have supported marriage equality for many years, and I have also supported other measures to fight discrimination against same-sex attracted people and same-sex couples in this state and in this country.

I would take small issue with something that was said by the Hon. Mr Wade. He seemed to suggest that moving this motion was patronising to the people of Ireland. I think he said words to the effect that we were trying to validate what they had achieved there. I do not think that is what we are doing at all. I think what we are doing is recognising that the people of Ireland, like the majority of people of Australia, support marriage equality.

I think that to be good policymakers we have to look outside of our own state, outside of our own country and toward what other countries are doing and draw inspiration from them. For that reason, I do not find it patronising. I think it is quite reasonable to notice and congratulate other countries for implementing progressive policy.

Like previous speakers, however, I am not convinced that a plebiscite is the way to go. In fact, I have read several articles in the last few weeks that suggest that public support for a plebiscite drops significantly once people are made aware of how much running a plebiscite could cost. I would also argue that it should not be up to an expensive resource-intensive plebiscite to enact something that we have known for a long time now the public already supports. It should not take this hugely resource and finance-intensive measure for us to do something that the public has already been calling on us as a parliament to do for many years now. With those few brief words, I indicate my support for the motion.

1. Acknowledges the development of the suicide prevention networks around South Australia and encourages the rapid expansion of this successful initiative;

2. Calls on the Weatherill Labor government to enhance its efforts in the field of suicide prevention, both in programs and funding, and as a matter of urgency progress the development of its 2016-2020 State Suicide Prevention Strategy;

3 Urges the Weatherill Labor government, in the development of its 2016-2020 State Suicide Prevention Strategy, to note—

(a) the establishment of a Ministerial Suicide Prevention Council by the Western Australian government;

(b) the commitment by the Victorian state government of $4.9 million to suicide prevention programs specifically for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning (LGBTIQ) community;

(c) the establishment of a suicide register by the Queensland state government to enable better research into the causes and prevention of suicide, and the direction of funding to programs which will reduce the rates of suicide in areas discovered as ‘hot spots';

(d) the implementation of suicide prevention training programs for front-line police officers and public transport employees by the New South Wales state government; and

(e) the development of a dedicated Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy by the Tasmanian state government.

(Continued from 14 October 2015.)

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Dignity for Disability will, of course, support the Hon. Mr Dawkins with this motion and congratulates him on the initiative and the ongoing work that he does in this very important area of suicide prevention. I know that promoting positive mental health is a mutual passion that Mr Dawkins and I share.

In speaking to this motion I would like to note a couple of points. First, that there is indeed a need to have specific strategies to prevent suicide, suicide attempts and self-harm in particular communities—to name one, the LGBTIQ community, as outlined in this motion—given the high rates of suicide attempts and completed suicides in that community, particularly among young same-sex attracted identifying people.

I would also say that there is a need for a lot more focus on other groups as well. I think people with disabilities, particularly people who may have recently acquired disabilities through accident or injury and may be feeling in need of mental health because of that could also benefit, I believe, greatly from peer mentoring programs to show them that they can recover, they can live meaningful lives, and to bring them out from that cycle of depression and the loss of identity that can come with acquiring a disability through an accident—particularly for young men who are in motor vehicle or motorcycle accidents.
I would also argue that within the LGBTIQ community—bringing it back to that—that one way we could help stop the negative mental health that some people in that community experience is by legalising marriage equality in this state and in this country.

The more messages we send to people who are same-sex attracted that they are not viewed as equal in our community and not worthy of the same rights as other people in other relationships could, of course, have a very negative impact on their mental health.
Secondly, mental health challenges more broadly but in particular borderline personality disorder or BPD is a leading cause of suicide in this state. I think I am correct in saying that as many as 10 per cent of people with a BDP diagnosis will end their lives by suicide. That is those who complete suicide and not just those who attempt it. Of course, repeated self-harm incidents, as well as repeated suicide attempts, are all too common in people with a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.

I recently attended the annual BPD conference where one of the speakers there was a woman who had lived with a BPD diagnosis but now has recovered to the point where there is, as I understand, no evidence of her still having that condition. She had survived (this is me going on my memory) I think as many as 14 suicide attempts in her lifetime, and she would have only been in her mid-thirties, I would estimate. So there is amazing pain and anguish that these people with BPD experience without adequate support services and understanding of their very genuine and very serious condition. However, there is also a resilience that can be found and nurtured with the proper support and understanding in the community.

That is why Dignity for Disability continues to urge the Weatherill Labor government to acknowledge this and incorporate into their suicide strategy 2016 to 2020 plans for a statewide borderline personality disorder service. This has been repeatedly requested by Dignity for Disability and my parliamentary colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks on behalf of the Greens and, in more recent times as well, by the Hon. Stephen Wade as shadow health minister.

To not improve the services for all mental health, but in particular a mental health condition as misunderstood and maligned as BPD, as part of a suicide prevention strategy would be negligent, I believe. We know that we have lost several young people, several young South Australians, to suicide this year alone who had a BPD diagnosis. My office was advocating for a number of those young South Australians whom we have now lost due to the lack of support available to help them recover from their BPD.

Modern medical research will tell you that it is possible to recover from a BPD diagnosis, but the more stigma there is around BPD, and mental health more broadly, the harder it is to show people that we can recover from mental health challenges. There is an old adage that I think rings very true that ‘It’s hard to be what you can’t see.’ The less support people have to go out and recover, to come back to the community, to contribute to the community, the more stigma there will be and the more cost to the state coffers through emergency department presentations, self-harm, suicide attempts and so on.

I certainly do not want to negate the human side of suicide by talking about the economics of it, but when it comes to government I think it is important, and when it comes to parliament I think it is important, that we acknowledge the economic benefits as well as the societal benefits to quality of life that can be achieved when we properly support positive mental health and prevent suicide.

That is exactly why Dignity for Disability has been very proud to call for a mental health commissioner in South Australia, one who, obviously, has the appropriate professional qualifications, but who also, I think more importantly, has some independence from the strictly medical model of mental health and can actually go out into the community and be willing to listen to people living with poor mental health and their families, where appropriate, and talk to them about what supports in the community would enable them to feel connected, to feel responded to, to feel respected and help them get out of the cycle of crisis that often leads people to the extent of poor mental health that leads them to consider suicide.

This leads me nicely to my next point, and these will be my closing remarks. I think it is really important that we as a parliament promote the reasons why people might choose to consider suicide, to sadly attempt, or even more sadly, complete suicide. It is my opinion, from the young people I have worked with and supported both in my personal and professional life, that when a person is feeling suicidal, for whatever reason, they do not actually want to die; they want the pain to die. Unfortunately, they have reached a point where the pain they are experiencing is so severe that they cannot separate themselves from that pain and they cannot see a future without that pain, and so they begin to genuinely believe that the only way to end that pain is to end their lives.

Often we hear people in our community talking about suicide as a very selfish act. To an extent, I understand why people think that, because, of course, when a person attempts or completes suicide it has a big rippling impact on their family, their friends, their workmates and their broader community, but I think it is really important to remember that for many people when they are feeling genuinely suicidal, their self-esteem is so low that they probably do not think that they are doing anyone a disservice by leaving the community.

I think it is really important to change that perception and that conversation away from one that talks about selfishness and being greedy and cowardly by attempting suicide toward one that actually understands that this is a person who does not want to die but just wants their pain to stop, and how can we support them do that and help them build a future and a sense of self that can be free of that pain, because it is possible.

But it is very hard when the overarching messages you are receiving are that you are cowardly or selfish or just need to get over what you are feeling. We need to move beyond that to a conversation that looks at suicide as a genuine issue, one that can be addressed, but addressed holistically and with the proper level of understanding about what a person who is experiencing suicide-like ideation is going through and what is the outcome that they actually want, and that is a life, but a life that is free of pain.

Perhaps with those few brief comments I will wrap up, but reiterate that Dignity for Disability strongly supports this motion, particularly for those in groups who are experiencing a higher rate of suicide attempts than is the general community, particularly the LGBTIQ community and particularly young people in rural areas.

I know that I said I would wrap up, but as I am speaking I am reminded of a friend of mine who is a very young man from Mildura. If my memory serves me, he has lost either four or five friends this year alone to suicide. It has got to the point where now even he, as a 20-year old man, says he cannot go to any more funerals in his life. He has seen too much loss and death and sorrow already at the age of 20. I cannot imagine what that must be like.

Certainly there is a need to move beyond this conversation that looks at suicide as something selfish and cowardly to a genuine response to crisis, crisis that is possible to get out of as long as we continue these conversations and have the appropriate support services within government and the appropriate conversation within the community.

Can you hear the drums, Fernando? (Abba, Fernando, 1986)

When you hear our voices call (Polina Gagarina, Russia, A million voices, 2015)
you won’t be lonely anymore (Polina Gagarina, Russia, A million voices, 2015)
All we need is lightning (Lordi, Finland, Hard Rock Hallelujah, 2006)
with power and might (Lordi, Finland, Hard Rock Hallelujah, 2006)

When you’re down down low (Maraays, Slovenia, Here for You, 2015)
and there’s no place you can go (Maraays, Slovenia, Here for You, 2015)
Rise like a Phoenix… (Conchita Wurst, Austria, Rise Like a Phoenix, 2014)
We are the heroes of our time (Måns Zelmerlöw, Sweden, Heroes, 2015)

I’m a warrior (Nina Sublatti, Georgia, Warrior, 2015)
And if we die tomorrow (Loïc Nottet, Belgium, Rhythm Inside, 2015)
what’ll we have to show? (Loïc Nottet, Belgium, Rhythm Inside, 2015)
All the wars for nothing, it never ends (Boggie, Hungary, Wars for Nothing, 2015)

Mr President (or Fernando as the case may be)—

I better let you go… (Mørland & Debrah Scarlett, Norway, A Monster Like Me, 2015)
No I won’t sleep tonight (Azerbaijan, Elnur Huseynoy, Hour of the Wolf, 2015)
If tomorrow comes I’ll lose my mind… (Elnur Huseynoy, Azerbaijan, Hour of the Wolf, 2015)
Forget tomorrow (Guy Sebastian, Australia, Tonight Again, 2015)
we can do tonight again (Guy Sebastian, Australia, Tonight Again, 2015)

With these words, carefully chosen from the artists and songs of Eurovision over the years, which I believe speak to the boldness and gallantry of Guy Sebastian’s performance, Dignity for Disability would like to support the Hon. Ms Lee’s motion in congratulating Adelaide’s own Guy Sebastian for his wonderful performance representing Australia in Eurovision this year.

Although I might have my own views as to whether or not the English language should actually have a place in the Eurovision Song Contest, Mr Sebastian continues a long and proud tradition in this state of our musicians playing at the forefront of popular music locally, nationally and internationally, and regardless of which language he chooses to do that in, on behalf of Dignity for Disability I salute him.