Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 October 2014.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:02): I am pleased to support the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill 2014, and I am pleased to support the amendments that have been filed on behalf of the opposition by the deputy leader that extend the provisions herein for police officers to also apply to the Country Fire Service, Metropolitan Fire Service, State Emergency Services, SA Ambulance Service, St John's Ambulance Australia (South Australia) Incorporated, Surf Life Saving (South Australia) Incorporated, or a body or organisation that is a member of Volunteer Marine Rescue (South Australia) Incorporated, or the accident or emergency department of a hospital.

I was very pleased to join the Leader of the Opposition yesterday at the Police Association of South Australia (PASA) conference, where we spent some time talking about this very matter. Policing is not just another job. There are officers who undertake the role and give a service to our community, for which we are all grateful. Just in the last sitting week we discussed issues surrounding National Police Remembrance Day, and we identified some of the acts of courage and heroism on behalf of our community undertaken by a number of the 61 officers who have, unfortunately, fallen in service.

The minister and I attended at Fort Largs and others attended other services around the state to commemorate National Police Remembrance Day. In addition to the 61 South Australian police officers who have fallen in the line of service, there are many other hundreds and thousands who have been injured in the line of service, who have suffered the consequences, both mental and physical, of incapacity in various ways as a result of their service. It is not just another profession.

As politicians, sometimes people joke that they would like to spit on a politician, and sometimes it even happens, but when it does it is reported on as an extraordinary event. I remember that the former prime minister, Julia Gillard, had a sandwich thrown at her and John Howard had a shoe thrown at him once. These were extraordinary circumstances, yet we ask our police officers to go out every day in the service of our community and put themselves in jeopardy in this way. Between 250 and 350 police officers face this circumstance every year, where they are bitten or spat on.

In these circumstances, at the moment there can be an awful and horrible wait while those officers undertake a blood test to find out if they have been infected with a communicable disease as a result of being assaulted. That wait is traumatic. It can be traumatic for the officer, it can be traumatic for the family and, indeed, it can also affect their ability to deal with an infection that they may contract if a certain remedy is not taken in time.

By requiring the offender to take a blood test in this circumstance, an answer can be provided immediately to that officer and their family as to whether there is the possibility of a disease being transmitted. Consequently, that reduces the trauma significantly for both the officer and the family. From the opposition benches we argue that that same reduction in trauma should be available for those other categories of service personnel who I have identified: CFS volunteers, MFS staff, SES volunteers, ambulance workers, surf lifesaving workers, and those in the accident and emergency department of a hospital.

I am thinking of the times I have visited emergency departments of a hospital. So often some of the most troubled people in our community may present late at night, often affected by methamphetamines, and they can put these people at risk. Again, just as policing is not just another job, people who work in our emergency departments are confronted with risks that most people in our community are not confronted with every day.

I commend again the member for Bragg (the Deputy Leader of the Opposition) for bringing these amendments that I think are reasonable. I am glad that this bill is on the table. I am sure that the bill itself will see the support of the parliament. I am not sure if the government has indicated a position on the amendments either in this house or overall, but I hope that, if they have not yet taken this into consideration, they take the two weeks ahead before the next sitting week, before this bill presumably, assuming it passes today, sees the light of the Legislative Council, and see the sense of these amendments and support them. By doing that they will thereby ensure that all those other categories of workers in those critical areas that I have identified are able to have the same comfort that is provided in this bill to police officers and their families.

With those few words, I commend the bill and foreshadow that I will be also supporting the amendments.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:07): I support this bill and the amendments, which the member for Bragg has brought forward. I think it is a very positive move. Police officers across the state know that I would support them in something like this. I think they deserve exactly this level of support. Emergency services workers and others in this prescribed group of people also know that I would support them getting the same sort of support, although they might not need it quite as regularly. They might not be in the same category of risk nearly as often, but the times that they might find themselves in that same situation they deserve the same protection.

There are many aspects about this bill that are important. One of the most important is the timing of receiving information. As members might know, if a person happens to contract a disease in the ways risk is described in this bill, it could take sometimes months to know if that is the case, but to test the person from whom the disease may have originated takes hours; so then, all of a sudden, if you test the person who may have transmitted the disease, then everybody knows straightaway. Let us hope it is a good result, but even if it is a bad result everybody knows straightaway. That is very important.

My first experience of what we are talking about here was through basketball, where, at training, I had my two front teeth knocked out by one of my teammates, by an errant elbow.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It was very kind of the member for Bragg to say that, but I did actually have incredibly crooked teeth. Now I have two incredibly straight teeth, but they did not come with me from the beginning. The situation was that the other lad's father called me that evening after training and said, 'Look, would you mind having some blood tests because my lad's elbow has been in your mouth accidentally and so it will just save us a lot of time and effort?' Of course, the answer was, 'Yes, of course, I would be more than happy to do that, no problem.' It was the first time I really understood that if he got tested it would take months for him to find out some things.

I thought it was a little bit rough that I had lost my two front teeth and I had gone to the emergency department and I had, as it turned out, a couple of years ahead of different types of surgery to get it fixed. He just got a few stitches in his elbow, but he thought I was the one who had to get the blood test. In a very friendly way it is a good example. It is exactly the situation that people can find themselves in.

What we are trying to do though is provide some protection for people who find themselves in these situations from far less friendly events, and the people who this bill seeks to protect and the people who the amendment seeks to protect deserve that sort of protection. We concentrate in debate here on biting and spitting but, let me tell you, police officers particularly face a very wide range of threats and risks with regard to this type of behaviour.

I will share with the house my experience when I lived at Pimba for seven years during the time in which the Woomera Detention Centre was built, operated and then mothballed. I lived there and I saw all of that happen right in front of me. There were several times, typically at Easter, when protesters came to the Woomera Detention Centre. I am not describing in any way a position here with regard to the rights and wrongs of the detention of people who arrive without permission on our shores, but let me just tell you that people who I would describe quite openly as absolutely disgraceful individuals were filling up buckets with urine in preparation to throw on the police when they ended up face to face.

They were filling up buckets with faeces in preparation to share them out among themselves so that they could throw them at police or smear them on police when they came in close contact with each other when the police were just trying to do their job to prevent the protest being anything more than peaceful. Police officers are faced with a pretty grim reality quite often when they are just doing their job. We concentrate on biting and spitting which is completely unacceptable but, let me tell you, that is perhaps at the lower end of what police officers may have to deal with.

I saw this many times because I was involved in a few different community roles. I was not a protester and I was not a police officer, but I was involved in a few different community roles that had me reasonably close to the action. I can tell you that in this situation at the Woomera Detention Centre the protesters were sharing information with each other. They were teaching each other. There was a little mini training camp about how to go about using the urine and the faeces to greatest effect. That is the sort of thing that police officers deserve to be protected against, and for that reason and many others I strongly support this bill.

I do, of course, strongly support the amendment brought forward by the member for Bragg which would protect people from the most serious and deliberate ways in which the emergency services workers and others could face these risks, but it also protects them for the truly non-malicious and not deliberate ways. You could just imagine a surf lifesaver, perhaps, trying to protect somebody who is drowning and fearing for their life in the middle of a swell and the surf and whatever else. It is not inconceivable that bodily fluid could be swapped and some saliva could rub against an arm or it could even be bitten completely non-deliberately in a frenzied attempt to just accept the help. That person deserves that support as well. That lifesaver deserves the support they could require—that the person they were trying to help, the person whose life they were trying to save, should undergo some blood tests just to see if any risk of disease had been transmitted.

That is an example where nobody has any malicious intent whatsoever. The person who happens to get their saliva, their blood or their teeth into the surf lifesaver did not mean to do it in any bad way. They were scared, they were frantic, they were panicked and they were trying to climb onto the surfboard. From that example, all the way through to the Woomera detention type of example I described, there are very good reasons to give a very wide range of people this sort of protection.

I wholeheartedly support the bill, and I commend the government for bringing it forward. I wholeheartedly support the amendments, and I commend the member for Bragg and the opposition for bringing them forward.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (12:16): Can I say to all members who have spoken in relation to this matter that their contributions are obviously appreciated. There are a couple of very brief things I want to say about the matter. I know we are intending to go into committee shortly, and I do not wish to occupy too much time now but, hopefully, by saying a little bit now I will say even less in committee.

Basically, the view I have about the matter presently is this. I have heard what the opposition are saying in terms of their amendments, and I understand the sentiment that has motivated the opposition in moving those amendments. As the amendments actually have implications more broadly across government than SAPOL, and as we have not had the opportunity of consulting with those agencies about their particular view of those matters, I am not in a position to accept those amendments at this stage. That does not mean necessarily that there is a formed view that those amendments should ultimately be opposed—it may or may not mean that; I genuinely do not know what the answer to that is.

I do know, however, that any expansion of the application of these rules will involve some cost to a government agency. In the case of the matters that have been drawn to the attention of the parliament by the amendment proposed by the member for Bragg, we are talking in particular about people who are in the emergency services, other than police, and people who are in the emergency department or rescue-type activity associated with people who suffer trauma. As I said before, I do not for a moment diminish the sentiment or the intention of those opposite who have raised these issues. I understand what they are saying.

The member for Bragg might be interested that, when I saw her first version of this amendment yesterday, I provided a copy to my ministerial colleague the Minister for Health and said to him, 'I can't progress this any further without you and your agency turning your mind to these matters,' and I obviously would need to speak to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services as well. Obviously, he is okay with the police aspect of it, but it goes further than that. In other words, there is obviously a need to talk to people about it.

From a government perspective, there is the need to have some idea of what the cost of this might be because, ultimately, somebody is going to have to pay it—when I say 'somebody', I mean the government. The way things work is that if any of us bring proposals in here which involve expenditure, as the minister for regions would tell you, we have to take it to the budget subcommittee of cabinet. We have to say to them, 'Here is our proposal but, by the way, it's going to cost a certain amount of money.' It goes through that committee with either the thumbs up or the thumbs down. It then has to go to cabinet, and cabinet has to think about it. In making a decision not only about proposals or programs but even about legislation, cabinet turns its mind to cost.

A recent example, which I know has caused a lot of kerfuffle around the place—which, hopefully, we are getting closer to resolving and I am not trying to set that particular rabbit running now—is the CFS volunteer issue. Again, it is a classic case of the government being given a range of costs when the matter first came to cabinet about what different alternatives might cost. In making a decision about what the government is going to do, obviously you have to be responsible in terms of considering the budgetary implication of what you are doing.

I do not want anyone to interpret what I have just said as a yes or a no, because it is not: it is simply an attempt to explain the process we will have to go through in order to properly consider the amendments the member for Bragg has put forward. They will be given serious consideration, but the perspectives to which I have just referred are relevant to the ultimate outcome and nobody, certainly not I, would be suggesting that these are frivolous or not genuinely intended amendments to this legislation. The question is whether or not the government can support them, for the reasons I have just explained.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Ms CHAPMAN: The proposed definition outlined for 'prescribed serious offence' (and, of course, there has to be a serious threat of one of these being breached) includes an offence under section 6A of the Summary Offences Act which, I suggest, if I just find that—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, that is section 6. Assaulting or hindering police is section 6, and I am actually referring to the offence under 6A. Once we go past nondisclosure of criminal intelligence, we then go into the violent disorder offences, so they are offences against public order.

These are the ones that essentially deal with someone who might be attending a lawful crowd protest outside the front of Parliament House, or anywhere else for that matter, who is demonstrating dissent from some decision or activity or person, which I suppose really is the lower end of the spectrum of what we are talking about here as far as serious offences go. Violence can include, as set out in the example in 6A: 'Throwing at, or towards, a person a missile of a kind capable of causing injury which does not hit, or falls short of, the person.'

We do get to the lower end, and I just ask this, Attorney, perhaps to place on the record your intention if someone were active in that space. I am not talking about throwing stones at a speaker in front of Parliament House. I am talking about discarding material they have on display or things of that nature which, to me, is in that category of potential affray, especially if someone standing next to them objects to the flag flapping in their way or the banner posted, etc.

This is the end of seriousness, in the sense of serious threat, away from the much more serious which, of course, is resisting arrest and so on. I just want to have some idea about why that is in there, other than saying perhaps in the event that they did not miss but actually hit somebody, as distinct from that, because it seems to me that it captures all those others as well.

Secondly, if you could address at the same time the question of any other serious offence prescribed by the regulations. You know my abhorrence for leaving the generality of this in legislation. Is there any consideration of that being necessary? It does seem to me that if we are going to go down this line we need to be very clear about this. I might foreshadow that in my amendments we are still leaving a senior police officer as the threshold person who will be responsible for making a decision about whether there will be a mandatory test taken. So, if you could make your comment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As to the first point, new section 20A does, on my reading of it, contemplate quite a range of possible things and, at one end of that range, we are talking about actual contact of some sort but, at the other end, as the member quite rightly says, it may be relatively minor.

I think the answer to the member for Bragg's question lies in clause 6 of the bill, in particular, new section 20B(1)(b) which says that 'it is likely that a police officer came into contact'. So you need 20A as your starting point and, in addition to that, there has to be reasonable satisfaction that biological material of the person as a result of the suspected offence has come into contact with the police officer. The example that was given by the member for Stuart of somebody throwing urine, or whatever, and hitting a police officer presumably would be captured by that, but something like throwing a rock and missing the person or just being obnoxious would not.

As to the second question, I am familiar with the member for Bragg's abhorrence of regulation-making powers. It is one thing that we regularly have a chat about in here. All I can say is that our thinking in relation to that was that if in the future there turned out to be another particular offence of violence that was created, or if there was an aggravated offence of violence attached to a particular provision that presently exists, it would perhaps obviate the need to come back and amend this act to specifically include that if we could simply include it by way of regulation. That is the intention.

It is not intended to be a regulation-making power that would enable us to drop it down, so it is traffic infringements or parking tickets we are talking about. It is intended to be able to provide a simple way of incorporating future changes in the law as and when they occur without having to bring back the whole bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just place on the record (and we have covered this to some degree in the debate), that, obviously, we are in South Australia as we speak progressing a law which is unique and breaking the ice in respect of mandatory testing. Unsurprisingly, there are some groups in the community who are nervous about this. I think it is fair to say that where there is responsible management and progression of these laws and their application one usually does not come up against any problem, but we make laws here for the lowest common denominator and, in the event that someone else might fill your position or fill a police position who would not maintain a standard of integrity in relation to the application of this, it leaves the public at risk. I just make that point.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I say that between the houses I will reflect on what the member for Bragg has said. It just occurs to me—not that I generally think that drafting amendments on the fly is a good idea—that if 20A(h) were amended to say 'any other serious offence of violence prescribed by the regulations' it might perhaps in some way accommodate the concern. I am happy to look at that as a way of making it very clear that we are not talking about trivial matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Chapman–2]—

Page 3, after line 11 [clause 6, inserted section 20A]—Insert:

accident or emergency department of a hospital means the part of a hospital dedicated to the hospital's major accident and emergency functions, including those areas of the department used for administrative, waiting, reception, storage, diagnostic, treatment, consultation, triage and resuscitation functions and the access bays for ambulance and police;

Amendment No 2 [Chapman–2]—

Page 3, after line 14 [clause 6, inserted section 20A]—Insert:

emergency means an event that causes or threatens to cause—

(a) the death of, or injury or other damage to the health of, any person; or

(b) the destruction of, or damage to, property; or

(c) a disruption to essential services or to services usually enjoyed by the community; or

(d) harm to the environment, or to flora or fauna;

emergency services provider means—

(a) South Australian Country Fire Service; or

(b) South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service; or

(c) South Australian State Emergency Service; or

(d) SA Ambulance Service Inc; or

(e) St John Ambulance Australia South Australia Incorporated; or

(f) Surf Life Saving South Australia Incorporated; or

(g) a body or organisation that is a member of Volunteer Marine Rescue—South Australia Incorporated; or

(h) the accident or emergency department of a hospital;

emergency work means work carried out (whether or not in response to an emergency) by or on behalf of an emergency services provider;

hospital means the site of an incorporated hospital or private hospital (both within the meaning of the Health Care Act 2008) at which the health services provided by the hospital include services provided on a live-in basis;

medical practitioner has the same meaning as in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia);

prescribed occupation or employment—the following are prescribed occupations or employment:

(a) police officer;

(b) emergency work;

(c) employment as a medical practitioner in a hospital;

(d) employment as a nurse or midwife in a hospital;

(e) an occupation consisting of the provision of assistance or services, in a hospital, to a medical practitioner, nurse or midwife acting in the course of his or her employment in the hospital;

Amendment No 3 [Chapman–2]—

Page 3, line 18 [clause 6, inserted section 20A, definition of prescribed serious offence, (a)]—

Delete 'police officer' and substitute:

person engaged in a prescribed occupation or employment

Amendment No 4 [Chapman–2]—

Page 3, line 21 [clause 6, inserted section 20A, definition of prescribed serious offence, (b)]—

Delete 'police officer' and substitute:

person engaged in a prescribed occupation or employment

Amendment No 5 [Chapman–2]—

Page 3, line 24 [clause 6, inserted section 20A, definition of prescribed serious offence, (c)]—

Delete 'police officer' and substitute:

person engaged in a prescribed occupation or employment

Amendment No 6 [Chapman–2]—

Page 3, line 27 [clause 6, inserted section 20A, definition of prescribed serious offence, (d)]—

Delete 'police officer' and substitute:

person engaged in a prescribed occupation or employment

Amendment No 7 [Chapman–2]—

Page 4, line 7 [clause 6, inserted section 20B(1)(b)]—Delete 'police officer' and substitute:

person engaged in a prescribed occupation or employment acting in the course of his or her official duties

The CHAIR: We are now looking at set 2 in your name?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. May I quickly explain?

The CHAIR: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Parliamentary counsel advised me yesterday that there was a small error in the drafting, and that has been dealt with by the replacement with 24(2). I thank them for doing that. Set 2 has now been tabled, so I formally withdraw 24(1) and proceed with 24(2).

The CHAIR: So we are going to speak to amendment No. 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. Amendment No. 1 implements the first of a number of amendments to facilitate the expansion of persons who are victims of a biting or spitting incident or a transfer of bodily fluids while undertaking their ordinary employment in the emergency services and health areas. I have covered this in a detailed way during the course of the debate and, in short, our position is that there is a case for police in those circumstances having access to this relief—the extended distress, etc., in waiting to see whether they might have been infected with a transferable disease. We feel that it is important that other areas of emergency services should also have access to this in all of the examples that were given during the course of this debate.

The only matter I would comment further on is, in addition to the question of cost, our amendments progress this on the basis that whilst there may be a number of other professions that might seek the remedy of any assailant being mandatorily tested, we have maintained that this should be by a senior police officer under new section 20B of the government's bill. It would be the authorising officer (which is to be a senior police officer) who would actually make the assessment as to whether a person should have a blood sample taken from them.

I did give some thought as to whether that role could be exercised by another senior person: the head of a hospital, for example, or the head of a department, of the Country Fire Service, or someone like that in a senior position. But we are talking about a circumstance where it is likely that the police would be present or would be called in for the purposes of assistance. We still feel that it would be better to have one gatekeeper in that regard.

I make that point for two reasons. One is that we are not in any way attempting to spread or dilute the role of a senior police officer. We think that that is appropriate. It may be that, if an incident occurs in the emergency department of a hospital and someone becomes disruptive or causes an incident in which there is a reasonable risk that someone could be contaminated with an infectious disease, there will be other ways in which this is managed.

However, it seems to me that, whilst police officers may be called in and then a decision could be made by a senior police officer as to whether that risk is sufficient to make an order in that regard or issue some edict that requires the person to have a blood test, in my limited experience there would be a reluctance, at least from the medical profession, to be responsible for receiving an application and making a determination on this.

I make no criticism of the medical profession in this regard. They have a certain charter and certain edicts which they undertake in their profession in the assistance, healing and recovery of patients. In my experience, they have not had any desire to interfere or forcibly impose a practice or procedure. The consent of their patients, even if acting unreasonably, is something that does not usually inspire in them a desire to have them held down and a 'take what is good for them' approach. That is always heartening to hear.

That is not to say that they are sometimes in circumstances where they administer treatments where there may be some reason to continue when a patient is getting out of control. Our health workers and specialists in the mental health area have to deal with this on quite a frequent basis. Nevertheless, it seems that it is appropriate that we keep the gatekeeper in the hands of the police.

The other matter is that this is under consideration in the Western Australian parliament, which has been referred to in our second readings. As I understand it, some Hansard transcript has been provided to us, and I have made some further inquiry, that there had been some consideration of expansion of relief of this mechanism to other professions in their parliament including corrections, which I referred to yesterday. They are indicating at this stage that they will progress with the police only component which is consistent with the government's bill.

I do not consider that the question of other professions is off the table in Western Australia but it is reasonable to assume that at this stage they are ready for and are advancing and progressing the police officers' protection. Depending on the progress of that, it depends on whether we end up being the first in Australia to do this but for all the reasons I said yesterday it will break the ceiling in respect of what has been an area which I think we have tiptoed around in my lifetime with the communicable disease issues that the medical profession have had to delicately manage for a long time.

In any event, I will not go on in respect of the amendments other than to say I thank the Attorney-General for his indication that he will at least give consideration to these amendments and in consultation with fellow ministers who might have responsibility in this area, and we welcome that. I think it is fair to say that the question of cost would still rest—and if it is, say, a senior police officer who is going to be making the determination—as an expense for SAPOL.

If, in fact, fellow ministers suggest that they are quite happy to meet the cost of that from their budgets then I am sure that that would be welcomed by the Attorney, and it may be—and this is something that I think needs some consideration here—that in the event that is it necessary for a mandatory blood test to be taken, and in a circumstance where the person who is to have the blood taken is offered by request to voluntarily submit to a test and declines, that they have notice that they may face the cost of a procedure and any cost necessary to implement that, may make them more persuaded to be cooperative and we would avoid the cost of the process as an option.

I think it is fair to say that not every health professional or other, even if they are in a risky situation, is necessarily going to ask for this blood testing to take place. They may decide that they would rather deal with this privately, go through their own process of testing and assessment and treatment without going through this process but, nevertheless, to that extent the cost will be unknown.

One other way of dealing with that, apart from giving notice to the offender that this may be something that is tacked onto the cost of his or her subsequent fine, fees, or compensation forwarded, is that that could be recovered at the time of any subsequent offence being tried. It is an area of the unknown. I have no doubt that the government has undertaken some assessment of what the cost would be to deal with up to 350 cases a year, which is what the police are telling the parliament here via the Attorney.

It is also fair to say that, whilst the health industry is identified as the most vulnerable in this area—not the police in fact—even in the documents prepared for police on blood-borne viruses, and in the studies that have been undertaken and reported. Again, the booklet was referred to during the course of the debate, but I indicate that police were found to be the second most frequent occupational group reporting exposures, after healthcare workers.

The healthcare workers, whilst very significantly higher in number, also currently do a number of things to protect themselves, not unreasonably. One is that a number of them have immunisations as a recommended protection in the nature of their employment for hepatitis, etc. Secondly, they usually wear material to help protect them such as face masks, gloves, gowns and the like to give them some protection.

Whilst they might be in the category of frequently being spat at or the subject of scratching or any of the events in which they have to deal with emergency situations, it has to be remembered that, to have the risk that we are talking about for the level here that we are identifying, there has to have actually been contact, and that it has been in a circumstance that is likely to have caused an infection.

For example, if a nurse was dealing with a disorderly patient in an emergency department and the patient spat on the nurse's glove that was covering his or her hand, then it may not be identified as any risk because there had been no apparent contact with the skin and the glove was removed and so on. So there can be lots of examples where they are potentially exposed to risk but they have a number of protective procedures to actually help quarantine them from that. Good on the health professionals for doing that, but it is a way they have also managed the risk.

It is fair to say that one of the most persuasive ways of ensuring that one has assistance, including encouraging a patient to volunteer to give blood, is the capacity for health professionals to not progress with medical treatment. If the patient is desirous of medical treatment, or indeed is demanding medical treatment, and does not want to be cooperative in respect of ensuring that there be a reduction of the risk by providing blood testing, or filling out the form to disclose whether they might have a contagious disease, it is, of course, open for the health professionals to make an assessment about whether they not progress it, just as they would in making an assessment about whether a proposed intervention or medical treatment might not be safe to administer on the patient because they might have a weak heart or some other condition that would not augur well if the surgery or procedure is to be undertaken.

I add to that by saying that members are very aware that it is health professionals who are in the firing line most often but, fortunately, they themselves have set up their own procedures to very much protect themselves. I accept fully that it would be impractical and inappropriate for police officers to run around with masks and gloves and all of the other procedures to protect themselves, as it would be for the purpose of someone who might be attending that house during a fire, which I referred to yesterday, for the rescue of children and having to deal with distraught parents and the like. We understand the practicalities of that, but we thank the Attorney for indicating that he will give some consideration to the amendments. I do not propose to speak to the other amendments; I am happy for you to put them all and let the matter progress.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 7.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to using force, can the minister explain what the likely procedure here would be? Often the person who is the subject of this is likely to be arrested and taken for sampling, apart from any other procedures and questioning the police might want to undertake. How is this to work? Will they be taken to an office because all of the information could actually go electronically, obviously to a senior police officer. They could issue the request—I think it was going to be a requirement to do it—and provide advice back to the police officer. How is it going to happen?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Under the bill as it presently stands, in clause 7, they would already, in effect, be in police custody and the police surgeon be called upon to undertake whatever activity was required. It does, however, raise an interesting point about what might happen in the event of the opposition's proposed amendments ultimately going forward because that might not necessarily mean that, at the time, there is a police officer present or, indeed, that the person is in custody; they might not be in custody. I will not labour that point because that is a matter we can converse about between the houses.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, it will be done at police headquarters? Where is this all to happen? I just want to understand the process.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand SAPOL's position is this: at some points in time—and when I say 'points in time' I mean points during the 24-hour clock—they have available to them general practitioners who they are able to invite to go to wherever it is to take samples. There may be points in the day (probably in the early hours of the morning, perhaps) where that is not necessarily the case, in which circumstance the police would convey the individual to a hospital for the purpose of the test. That is my advice.

Ms CHAPMAN: It has been a long time since I have seen these, but do they get a copy of the sample as well, like we do with blood testing for alcohol readings? Is that what happens?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Bragg will be pleased to know that that is one of the detailed matters the regulations will cover.

Ms CHAPMAN: That you will cover, or that you intend to make provision for that to occur?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is something that I personally have not turned my mind to, but my expectation is that is obviously what you would want to do, because I would imagine the individual would have an interest in knowing the answer to these questions as well, and they would probably have an interest in having an opportunity to test the sample themselves. Speaking for myself, although we have not got to the drafting, my expectation is that is where we would be going. Again, I am happy to talk to the member further about that, but that is a matter for the regs; it is not in the bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a question in relation to what physically happens to the material that is cleared. Obviously, the proposed bill has gone into some length to make sure that it is not used for any other purpose, and there is provision for its destruction later on. Physically, how does that happen? The sample is identified, and presumably the doctor says no, or, 'Yes, it has got a contagious, infectious disease, virus or bacteria in it,' but where does it go from there?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, that is a very good point, but my understanding is that the intention is that we would consult with the Chief Health Officer with a view to finding out a safe way of disposing of the samples.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 and 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Ms CHAPMAN: This relates to the regulations power. I am heartened somewhat to hear, in the albeit brief contribution by the Attorney, some of the areas that he intends to address in the regulations. Can I just say this: we are in a ground-breaking area of law. We currently have a number of regulations dealing with blood samples and the obligations in relation to time limits and provisions to take samples, etc., and access to information in respect of alcohol and drug testing in this state. So, it is not a new practice for the purposes of other detections.

I would certainly seek that the Attorney's mind will be turned to ensuring that we have all of the safeguards with the process that is going to be undertaken for this purpose in the drafting of those regulations. I think I heard the Attorney say that at this stage there has not been any commencement of a draft, but when they are drafted, is it the intention of the Attorney to consult with any parties, and if so, whom?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Obviously, some of this is potentially sensitive. I think the member for Bragg alluded before to the fact that people have danced around this quite delicately for some time in various ways. My intention would be to speak to the obvious people like the Chief Medical Officer, AMA—people of that nature—to try to make sure that we do something which is scientifically and, from the point of view of medical practice, objectively sound.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the regulatory power, it is proposed that the regulations will be promulgated to cover 'the communication of the results of such testing to the Commissioner of Police'. What is the purpose or necessity for that to occur?

From my reading of the proposed bill at least, once the test has been done and it has been identified that there is some infection or contaminant, that would be conveyed to a senior police officer, if an application were to be made and qualified under those circumstances. That would obviously be taken into account for the purpose of the senior police officer's assessment and, after that, may be retained for a certain period pending any review under the further processes there for the senior police officer.

Either way, after that, it is going to be destroyed, so I do not understand why there is a process for the communication of the results to go to the police commissioner unless it is for the purpose of some sort of audit, which is not in the bill. I recall that there are certain forensic procedures under the act that have to be reported in each annual report—I am not sure whose it is but someone's. Could you just explain what that is all about?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Just very briefly, my understanding of it is essentially this. The police commissioner is, in all respects, vis-a-vis the police force, a chief executive officer, and has certain responsibilities, duties and obligations in terms of occupational health and safety, management and suchlike.

For example, it would be incumbent upon the police commissioner, if the commissioner became aware of the fact that a member of the staff was potentially infected with one of these illnesses, not only to manage that person as a member of the staff from the point of view of their occupational management, and possibly even assisting them in receiving medical treatment because the matter might well amount to something which is a compensable disability in any event, but also, regard would perhaps need to be had as to whether that person was put in particular types of duties where they might be in the company of other police officers who might, by reason of working with that person in that type of situation, themselves be potentially exposed to a risk.

If a person is known to have been at risk of exposure and perhaps contraction of one of these illnesses, you probably would not want them attending a melee with a bunch of other police officers in circumstances where all of them might potentially be injured and blood products and other things be around the place. The point is the commissioner does have responsibilities in terms of management, not only of the individual police officer but the context in which they put that police officer with other members of the force.

Ms CHAPMAN: The only point I would make about that, Attorney, is that they already have this responsibility. At present, it might be a sustained period of weeks before there is any final determination. In that time, the victim police officer might have some time off or, as you say, might be given duties where they are not likely to cause any risk.

That is happening now, so it would be reasonable for the police commissioner to be informed if there had been any order for a sample to be taken. I would agree that that would be reasonable, just in their own audit of what has been done, but the commissioner, it seems to me, would not even be aided in what he does already by having information about the results of the testing. It specifically says the 'communication of the results of such testing', which is the additional information, which I would suggest is unnecessary. What is reasonable is that they be given information if an order—I will call it an order—is issued by a senior police officer.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (13:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00.