2026 State Election Platform

SA-BEST

Response from the Honourable Connie Bonaros MLC

The full response from the Honourable Connie Bonaros MLC can be accessed here, or click through the below accordions for the response to specific issues.

Court Resourcing

Upgrade court infrastructure, technology and access

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call.

The urgent need for improvements to court infrastructure is nothing new.

In a 2017 interview with former Chief Justice Doyle (available on the Law Society’s website), he lamented the state of the Supreme Court building and his struggles over more than 15 years to get governments to provide adequate funding to address those problems. 

It took the then Chief Justice himself to suffer an injury in 2011 and be unable to reach his chambers to bring the poor state of court infrastructure to the public’s attention.

Almost 15 years later it is astonishing that we are still grappling with the same problems.

Every year, thousands of South Australians will engage with the court system. Whether they be judicial officers, court staff, jury members, victims, witnesses or defendants, the facilities provided by the government are vital to maximising efficiency and effectiveness and minimising cost and distress.

As the Law Society points out, deficiencies in the design and availability of waiting rooms, interview rooms, and court rooms themselves, is not advancing access to justice, but undermining it. As the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence identified, inadequate facilities to provide for the safe separation of parties, including the availability and design of Vulnerable Witness Suites, does not meet the needs of victims, creating both physical and mental health risks.

The fact that our courts have still not been upgraded to ensure appropriate disability access is extraordinary.

The need for a comprehensive plan to not just upgrade, but to replace, court buildings with facilities that meet contemporary demands is obvious. A patchwork approach with ad hoc fixes is simply not a viable plan.

SA-BEST will continue to pressure the new government to consult on, develop and actually deliver on a plan to replace court infrastructure with facilities that are befitting a modern-day legal system. The establishment of a capital infrastructure fund, dedicated to that outcome, is supported.

Reduce Court Transcription Costs

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call for a complete waiver of transcription fees.

In March 2024 I raised the issue of transcription fees in the Legislative Council. I agree with the Law Society that transcription fees create a significant barrier to access to justice. 

Importantly, as the Law Society highlights, transcription fees can create disparity between parties. By way of example, in criminal proceedings the prosecution will receive a free copy of the transcript of proceedings, as will a defendant funded by legal aid. But a self-funded defendant may well face significant costs associated with transcription fees, on top of the costs associated with legal representation.

SA-BEST will continue to advocate for a copy of court transcripts to be provided free of charge to all parties to proceedings.

Interpreters

We are all beneficiaries of a thriving multicultural community. The inevitable consequence is that people from a range of backgrounds will encounter our judicial system. Every person, irrespective of background, must be able to understand the court proceedings about which they are a participant. Interpreters form a critical link between the legal process and an individual whose native language is not English.

Where a party to proceedings cannot afford an interpreter (either for themselves or for a witness called by them), an interpreter should be provided free of cost to that individual. SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s position on this point.

As the Law Society points out, South Australia has a rich indigenous culture with more than 40 languages spoken. We face challenges in identifying and training suitable people as indigenous interpreters. 

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s position that additional funding be provided to support the identification and training of indigenous interpreters.

Mediation Services

Alternative dispute resolution, in all its forms, is an essential way to resolve disputes in an efficient and cost-effective way. It benefits parties to a dispute through the timely resolution of a dispute and benefits the justice system more generally by freeing up scarce trial resources for those matters that cannot be resolved through alternative means.

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call for increased funding for mediation services in our state’s courts.

Legislative Reform

Human Rights Framework

It is time that South Australia has a Human Rights Act. The existing piecemeal approach, where an individual’s rights must necessarily be ascertained through an intricate maze of legislation and regulation, serves to complicate what should be fundamental and accessible.

I agree with the findings and recommendations of the Social Development Committee in its report ‘Inquiry into the Potential for a Human Rights Act for South Australia” and SA-BEST SUPPORTS the enactment of a Human Rights Act in this state.

SA-BEST will have more to say on this topic in the lead-up to the election.

Enhanced legislative transparency and accountability

Perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of my role as a Member of the Legislative Council is the way Bills are introduced and pursued with such speed that there is simply insufficient time to properly consider, consult and reflect on the objectives and real-life consequences of legislation.

As a legislator in such circumstances, I must necessarily rely upon governmental briefings which may, with no disrespect to those who provide such briefings, not have considered opposing views about a Bill. 

Part of my role, as a member of a minority party, is to bring an independent, objective voice to the Upper House. To do so, I must have sufficient time to properly understand the Bill and its consequences.

As the Law Society highlights, the Parliament has in place a Legislative Review Committee, whose role is to scrutinise proposed legislation and report back to legislators. Indeed, I sit on that Committee, and my membership has been of enormous benefit to me in gaining a better appreciation of the mechanics and real-life consequences of proposed legislation. In turn, members of the Committee can assist and inform other legislators about its observations and conclusions, which assists all members of Parliament to be better informed.

I might add that beyond the Legislative Review Committee being given the proper opportunity to consider draft legislation, there are some additional aspects that I will pursue if re-elected. 

More generally, I think the Parliamentary Committee system is in need of review, both in terms of structure, powers and responsibilities. By way of example, I believe the government should be required to provide to the Legislative Review Committee a comprehensive explanatory memoranda and Human Rights Impact Statement for each new Bill that it is asked to consider. I will push for a more effective Parliamentary committee system if re-elected.

Of course, as a minority party, SA-BEST will strive to seek the views of interested parties when presented with a Bill. Indeed, both I and crossbench colleagues I have spoken to have found submissions of the Law Society incredibly helpful in understanding the effect of proposed legislation. That is why I have often invited the Law Society to comment upon proposals. But adequate time must be given to ensure such consultations can occur. Without that time a Bill may well be debated in the face of misunderstanding and misinformation as to its effect. 

SA-BEST acknowledges that in very rare circumstances, there may be a critical need to progress a Bill through Parliament at a faster than desirable pace. But that must be reserved for the most exceptional of circumstances. 

In all other circumstances, SA-BEST will push for adequate time to be given to the Parliament to properly consider, consult and review all legislation introduced. 

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s position in this regard.

There is an additional matter that I invite the Law Society and its members to consider. Over the last eight years I have noticed an increasing tendency to use regulations to make or substantially alter laws. I am concerned that the expansive use of regulations not only makes it more difficult to navigate our legal system, but bypassing the legislative process through Parliament undermines fundamental democratic processes. Regulations are an important executive power to determine underlying processes connected with legislative provisions. They are not to be used as an alternative to legislation. SA-BEST will monitor the new government’s approach to the use of regulations and bring attention to instances where legislation was the more appropriate mechanism.

Powers of Attorney and Agency Act

It is staggering that the Powers of Attorney and Agency Act has not been updated in more than 40 years. It is even more surprising given a pathway forward was offered by the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SARLI) in its report published in December 2020, and a draft Bill was introduced in 2021.

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call for the Powers of Attorney and Agency Act to be updated in line with SARLI’s recommendations and will pursue legislative change in Parliament if re-elected.

Decriminalising Sex Work

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the call for sex work to be decriminalised in South Australia. 

As the Law Society has identified, the criminalisation of sex work serves only to enhance risks to sex workers and create barriers to them seeking support and protection from police and other services.

I was successful in pursuing legislative change to criminalise stealthing, being the act of non-consensual removal of a condom. I noted that sex workers in particular were victims of such behaviour. Of course, given the existing scheme in South Australia, I think it unlikely a sex worker who is a victim of stealthing will come forward.

In 2021 I supported the referral of the Statutes Amendment (Repeal of Sex Work Offences) Bill 2020 to a select committee for further inquiry. I noted on that occasion that that was the 14th time the Parliament had been asked to consider the question of decriminalisation of sex work.

On 12 November 2025 I supported a motion by the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC to refer to the South Australian Law Reform Institute two questions:

  1. The impact of the ongoing criminalisation of prostitution; and
  2. The legislative options for the decriminalisation of adult, consensual sex work in South Australia.

Provided there are satisfactory safeguards built into decriminalisation legislation, which protect children, and ensure persons who coerce or force individuals into sex work can be prosecuted, SA-BEST will reflect the views of the South Australian community, which appear to support the decriminalisation of sex work and the better protection of those who work in that industry.

I look forward to receiving SARLI’s independent and impartial report on this issue.

Review into Sexual Harassment in the Legal Profession

I have already acknowledged the work done by the Law Society, and the profession more generally, in response to the Acting Equal Opportunity Commissioner’s report in 2021. I am sure the Law Society, and many members of the profession, would acknowledge that there is still a great deal of work to do, given the findings of the Equal Opportunity Commissioner’s follow-up report released earlier this year. 

In 2021 the then Attorney-General committed to the implementation of all 16 recommendations of the Acting Equal Opportunity Commissioner’s 2021 report, but unfortunately, that did not happen. I agreed to work with the current Attorney-General on the implementation of the recommendations and introduced a Bill that would implement any recommendations that required legislative reform. The Attorney assured me he was committed to doing so this year. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

It is frustrating that those recommendations have still not been actioned in full.

A number of recommendations made in the 2025 report are like those made in 2021. SA-BEST SUPPORTS the call for the government to implement all of the recommendations made, in so far as those recommendations call for changes that are within the government’s control.

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s position that it takes a zero-tolerance approach to harmful behaviours in the legal profession, and we will continue to advocate for cultural and legislative change which benefits all members of the profession.

Criminal Justice System

Victims of Crime Compensation Scheme

SA-BEST fully SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call for a fairer Victims of Crime Scheme.

I agree with the Law Society’s observation that the 75% cap imposed on the compensation available to a victim who has suffered economic loss and medical expenses is arbitrary and unjustified. To think that a victim of a crime, through no fault of their own, has suffered loss yet the very scheme created to support victims has a nonsensical 75% compensation cap, is extraordinary. To the extent that a victim’s loss can be restored through compensation, then it should be. The arbitrary 25% reduction must be abolished.

In many cases, compensation through the Victims of Crime Scheme is not an option of last resort, it is the only option.

In August 2023 I introduced a Bill to amend the Victims of Crime Act. The two primary objects of the Bill were to address the very issues raised by the Law Society:

  1. remove the 25% reduction in compensation payable to victims of crime; and
  2. provide for a fair increase in costs payable to legal practitioners to handle victims of crime claims, thereby encouraging legal practitioners to take on this important work.

I have spent a good deal of time discussing these matters behind the scenes. I have been frustrated by the lack of movement from the current government. My understanding is that the government is concerned about the implications of the current redress scheme.

However, on my calculation, if all Victims of Crime claims over the last year been paid at 100% rather than 75%, the cost to the fund would have been an additional $13M. Given the Victims of Crime fund is at an all-time high value, it is difficult to conceive of a principled reason to continue with the current 75% cap. If the redress scheme, or some other financial impost, is the reason the government does not wish to remove the cap, then it must make public its actuarial reviews and financial modelling which supports its position.

To that end, on 27 November 2025 I moved a motion in the Legislative Council calling on the government to commission an independent actuarial review of the Victims of Crime Fund to assess the impact of abolishing the 25% reduction in compensation on the position of the Fund.

SA-BEST will continue to advocate for the abolition of the 25% reduction in compensation payable to victims of crime and for an increase in fees payable to legal practitioners who assist victims of crime to make compensation claims.

Criminal Justice Ministerial Taskforce

I do not know why the Criminal Justice Ministerial Taskforce has not met since April 2024. Given it is an opportunity for the executive, the judiciary, and the profession to come together and discuss matters of relevance to the criminal justice system, it is unclear to me why such a forum would be abandoned.

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call for such a forum to be reconvened.

Bail and Post-Release Accommodation

SA-BEST SUPPORTS IN-PRINCIPLE the Law Society’s call for funding to ensure women on bail and exiting custody have appropriate accommodation and that the government invest appropriately in support services for women exiting custody.

I have raised these issues with the government on a number of occasions. For example, on 29 April 2025 in the Legislative Council I asked the government whether it was committed to providing additional funding to Seeds of Affinity or any other organisation to support transitioning women from custody, although the response I received was underwhelming.

Aside from Catherine House, I also understand that the Department for Correctional Services has partnered with a number of private organisations to offer the Integrated Housing Exists Program, which I understand can provide accommodation for up to 12 months to women exiting prison.

Earlier this year the Department for Correctional Services released its ‘Women’s Framework and Action Plan 2025-30’. That plan explains existing bail and home detention pathways, including accommodation and support services. 

I accept that that framework does not directly address the matters raised by the Law Society and I look forward to working with the new government to understand what is currently in place and what it proposes to implement to address the Law Society’s concerns.

Enhance Rehabilitation Programs

The availability of rehabilitation services within our prison system not only assists individual prisoners, but the community more generally. Given most prisoners will be released into the community, it is essential that services are available while incarcerated, to give prisoners the best chance at successfully returning to society and staying out of the criminal justice system.

As the Law Society points out, a significant proportion of persons in custody in South Australia are on remand. Whether those individuals are ultimately convicted of an offence, or acquitted of any wrongdoing, early and effective rehabilitation services should be available to persons on remand. The long-term public benefit of such early intervention is obvious.

However, both the government and some members of the legal profession have expressed to me concern that in some cases, the fact that a person has undertaken a rehabilitation course while on remand may itself be used to support a claim of guilt. An example suggested to me is a person on remand on domestic violence offences who undertakes a domestic violence-related course could somehow be used in subsequent proceedings to support charges.

While I am sceptical of such concerns, I think it would be most beneficial for the Law Society to consider the question of rehabilitation while on remand and any potential prejudice that might arise in subsequent legal proceedings.

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call for enhanced rehabilitation programs in South Australian prisons, in particular, for persons on remand. I have been pursuing this with the government for some time now and will continue to do so if re-elected.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT)

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call for the full implementation of the OPCAT.

Individuals in custody must be treated fairly and with dignity. I have long supported amendments to legislation to better protect those in custody from improper treatment, including my leadership which led to the banning of the use of spit hoods on persons in custody.

In 2020 the Correctional Services (Accountability and Other Measures) Amendment Bill passed Parliament. The effect of that amendment was to meet the requirement in the OPCAT for an independent visitors scheme. I understand that that scheme, referred to in this state as the Official Visitors scheme, has been in operation since January 2022. Official visitors are appointed by the Governor and their functions are prescribed in section 20D of the Correctional Services Act.

There are currently four official visitors appointed under the scheme. In accordance with section 20G of the Act, each official visitor provides a report to the Minister, who is then required to have copies of those reports laid before both Houses of Parliament. On 27 November 2025 the Minister tabled five such reports (one from an Official Visitor who has since retired). The reports make for interesting reading and highlight the need for more official visitors to meet the sheer volume of matters raised by prisoners during visits. It is obvious that the scheme is valued by prisoners, and a number of positive outcomes are recorded as a consequence of the existing program. But it must be adequately resourced.

It is my understanding the current government is reluctant to provide additional resources to the scheme, on the basis that the OPCAT was ratified by the Commonwealth and, accordingly, the Commonwealth should fund its implementation.

In my view, that is an unacceptable approach. To my mind it is inconsequential that the need for robust, independent oversight of conditions for prisoners has arisen by the ratification of an international convention. Prisoners in this state are in the care and custody of the South Australian government. They must therefore bear the responsibility of ensuring adequate and appropriate conditions are maintained. To that end they must embrace and support a scheme designed to ensure they are meeting that responsibility. I would have thought that would be a necessary aspect of a modern and fair democratic society.

The Law Society mentions the OPCAT Implementation Bill 2021 which did not progress through both houses. That Bill would have made clear that Official Visitors were taken to be the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) for the correctional facilities for which they are designated. It would have provided for additional powers to Official Visitors and made consequential changes to other legislation. 

If re-elected I will continue to pursue the full and proper implementation of the OPCAT, which necessarily includes sufficient and appropriate funding and powers for Official Visitors.

Youth Justice

SA-BEST SUPPORTS increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. 

I have been an unapologetic proponent for increasing the minimum age and while it remains an unresolved issue, I must acknowledge the extensive and productive dialogue I have had with the Attorney-General on this issue.

As outlined in the Law Society’s election platform, when a child encounters the criminal justice system it is essential they receive the intensive intervention and diversionary support necessary to deviate from a lifetime of interactions with the criminal justice system.

To the extent that such intensive intervention and diversionary support mechanisms are not already available and accessible to all children who enter the criminal justice system, SA-BEST SUPPORTS enhanced funding to ensure those services are implemented. The long-term benefits to the child, and the community more generally, in diverting a child from continued socially unacceptable behaviours, is obvious from both a social and an economic perspective.

Ensuring a culturally appropriate courtroom within the Youth Court is also SUPPORTED.

The Law Society has proposed, but has not elaborated on, the establishment of a Youth Justice Advisory Committee. SA-BEST SUPPORTS IN PRINCIPLE the establishment of such a committee, subject to confirmation that the committee is considered to be beneficial by those identified as being committee members.

Finally, SA-BEST would be pleased to learn more from the Law Society about its proposal for the establishment of bail mentoring programs for children in the criminal justice system.

Supporting the South Australian Legal Profession

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the government’s use of the local legal profession wherever possible. However, we do not support a legal profession specific procurement policy.

The Government’s existing procurement policies suggest preference is to be given to South Australian suppliers. For example, the government’s official Sourcing Policy provides that ‘[w]here there is a South Australian business that could supply the required good or service but the recommended supplier is not a South Australian business, approval of the procurement outcome will be obtained from the public authority’s Chief Executive. This authority cannot be delegated. In this case, the approval will also detail why a non-South Australian business is being recommended over a South Australian business.”

Moreover, an essential requirement of the existing pre-qualification requirement to be placed on the Crown Solicitor’s Office approved legal service providers panel is that the legal provider maintains a permanent office in South Australia.

In my view, South Australian businesses of all forms should be preferred suppliers to the government, unless there is a sound basis to look elsewhere. Rather than a range of industry specific procurement policies, my preference is to ensure that existing overarching government procurement requirements put South Australian businesses first, and to closely monitor and call out occasions where that does not occur.

Access to Justice in Regional Areas

The Law Society has highlighted the additional burden faced by both legal practitioners and their clients in regional and remote communities. The availability of services and the additional costs associated with providing those services outside of metropolitan Adelaide, serve to create challenges, if not barriers, to access to justice for members of those communities.

SA-BEST SUPPORTS the Law Society’s call for greater investment in legal aid and legal assistance to place regional and remote community members on as equal footing as possible with their metropolitan counterparts.

There is a related issue that has been brought to my attention by members of the legal profession. That is the increasing use of technology to conduct remote hearings. While remote hearings themselves are seen as a positive step forward, the difficulty lies in the ability for a legal representative to speak privately to their client before and after a hearing. Unlike a traditional hearing, where face to face meetings with a client are accommodated, I am advised that the same opportunities are rarely afforded where the lawyer and client are appearing from different locations. If re-elected I will pursue this matter further and ensure that the ability for a lawyer and their client to speak before and after a hearing is not prejudiced because the hearing is being conducted remotely.