Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2019.)

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:01): Section 6 of the Summary Offences Act, which relates to hindering police or resisting arrest, has been raised as being transferred to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. This is PASA's request, and this is one of the areas in relation to which the Commissioner of Police has differed from the police union.

SAPOL have reasonably supported the retention of resist and hinder under section 6 of the Summary Offences Act. They have recognised that a line needs to be drawn between behaviour that amounts to frustration of the exercise of police authority, like hindering police and resisting arrest, and something more calculated and harmful, like assault. Suffice to say we have accepted the advice of the Commissioner of Police on that matter.

On secondary sentencing, the government has supported this request of the Police Association. The proposal is supported by the Commissioner of Police. It is fair to say that, as I will refer to later, the Law Society raises some question about the necessity for this; nevertheless, it is a reinforcement, an extension, of a provision under our secondary sentencing law which PASA has sought and, if it does nothing else to advance the matters to be taken into account by a sentencing judge, it does re-alert the attention of the judiciary to this important secondary sentencing principle.

PASA had called for an amendment of the secondary sentencing purposes in section 4 to include the need to protect police, other law enforcement and emergency services workers when performing their duties. As I said, we say that is inherent in it. That is an obvious purpose, otherwise it would not be there. But we have added it in, and we note that at least the alerting of this issue is reinforced.

Then there is the creation of a new offence, and here the Police Association called for a new offence with substantially increased penalties for assaults against police, law enforcement and emergency workers, and healthcare workers. From South Australia Police's assessment, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act already recognises assaults against police, prison officers and other law enforcement officers as aggravated. Instead, SAPOL subsequently proposed a new offence relating to bodily fluid offences.

The commissioner is particularly concerned about spitting offences and, although data has not shown a breakdown of the types of assaults sentenced upon in the courts, the government has proactively supported a new offence for bodily fluids, which covers a broad group of emergency service workers and front-line officers.

In the course of considering penalties as a deterrent, which is the thrust of the police union's argument for a new offence with a much greater penalty, the police commissioner has said this is an issue which has not been addressed and he sought a particular new offence for bodily fluid offences. In this regard, we have listened to both. I have spoken to the Police Association representative, Mr Mark Carroll, on several occasions after receiving his correspondence in January, and we have extended the penalties on existing laws. After further discussion, we have extended them further. Most importantly, we have taken up the initiative of the Commissioner of Police and advanced the new offence relating to bodily fluid transmission.

In relation to the expansion of aggravated offences to other workers, only the government's bill covers all front-line emergency workers, including Community Corrections officers, police officers, unsworn police officers, firefighters, emergency medical staff, regional and trauma doctors and nurses, ambulance officers and front-line volunteers. The government bill also allows for these groups to be expanded through regulations. Why have we been able to do this? I suggest, quite simply, because we have taken the time and given the attention to ensure that we consult with all the relevant parties.

Mr Odenwalder: Did you stick the ambulance in?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Read the bill—of course it is in it. Consultation was very important for us. For example, we met with the Australian Medical Association, and I think the then president elect, who is now president, indicated an area that we had not canvassed—that is, the harrowing work and vulnerability of doctors, usually general practitioners, who need to go to some roadside trauma that is very remote from an hospital emergency department to deal with accident victims.

Whilst we might, in the comfort of urban living, see the obvious need to protect those working in emergency department circumstances in our metropolitan hospitals, we need to think a little bit outside the square in this parliament and remember that there are people on the front line, even on a roadside, having to deal with these matters. This is the value of consulting with those professionals who work with them. It was through those consultations that we learned that bodily fluids, including vomit, should be considered.

The psychiatrists who provided submissions to us indicated that vomit was a matter in their daily work that needed to be considered. Probably like most members of the house, I took the view that it would probably be very difficult to vomit voluntarily, that it would be an act triggered by another bodily function and that therefore it was unlikely someone would say, 'I'm going to vomit over this person. I will just proceed to do so.'

In fact, again by consultation, what has been explained to us is that someone may vomit, but unfortunately some of our front-line people are exposed to the person placing their hand in it and then attempting to smear it over the front-line worker. Obviously, that is behaviour that, if deliberate, is completely unacceptable. Again, we do not recognise the significance of this or the frequency of it occurring unless we actually speak to people at the front-line services.

The valuable advice given by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation was also quite illuminating. They put a case to us that all nurses anywhere, any time, should be able to be the subject of this type of legislation, but for the reasons explained, and I think this is consistent with the opposition as well, the cohort we are attempting to deal with here is those who are at front-line services.

It is fair to say that for some personnel it is a daily occurrence; others, perhaps in a quiet suburban practice, might not be exposed to the same risks. Some police officers, for example, whether they are working in the local police station, travelling around doing traffic duty or, of course, trying to deal with the arrest and detention of persons who are suspected felons, in any part of the spectrum, are regularly and frequently exposed to risk and for others, of course, it depends on the environment they are in.

One of the matters raised by the nurses federation was this question of being exposed to unruly behaviour. For example, a patient at a hospital might be quite compliant and accepting of advice and assistance, but there might be a very distressed or angry relative who is attending with the patient, who the nursing staff are having to manage as well as attending to the medical needs of the patient. I think it is always illuminating for all of us as members of parliament, no matter how experienced we think we are in matters, to go to the coalface and meet with those who represent people who on a daily basis expose themselves to risk for our benefit.

Finally, on the increase in the maximum penalties, although assaulting a police officer is an aggravated offence under the criminal law, an increase in the maximum penalties for those offences was supported by the government in amendments before the house, and they will be dealt with in committee. Although across the country the legislative schemes for offences committed to police vary, the government has brought South Australia in line with New South Wales, with the passage of this bill, as much as possible, as requested by the Police Association and supported by SAPOL. The new maximum penalty for a section 20 police assault will now be seven years' imprisonment with the passage of this bill.

Further, can I bring to the attention of the parliament the submission received from the Law Society of South Australia. I should say that I am no longer a member of the Law Society of South Australia, but I remain a member of the South Australian Bar Association; I just place that on the record. In relation to this matter, yesterday I received quite a lengthy submission from Ms Amy Nikolovski, who is the President of the Law Society of South Australia. She sets out a very different approach in relation to how we manage the protection via the criminal law of our emergency and front-line workers. I quote:

The Society does not condone assaults on police officers and/or other frontline emergency workers. These people play an important role in our community and it is understood their occupations place them in a position of vulnerability. As such, this is reflected in the criminal law in South Australia under a number of existing provisions. While the Society appreciates the need to deter this type of behaviour, it considers that the legislative mechanisms to deal with these types of offences are already in place.

They go on to make comments about various aspects of the bill in relation to the new initiatives, namely, the further offence involving use of human biological material. Can I try and, I hope respectfully paraphrase their position because, like that of most lawyers it is pretty long. Firstly, in relation to an amendment to section 5AA, which is the aggravated offences provision, in short, the effect of the amendment to section 5AA(1)(k), they say, 'appears to clarify that an aggravated offence would apply whether the victim working in a prescribed occupation, was working on a paid or volunteer basis'. But they generally otherwise see that as really an unnecessary extension.

In relation to the increase in penalties, they make a pretty valid point that there are significant numbers of other provisions under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act that make provision for serious assault against one of the emergency workers: section 19(2), making unlawful threats to cause harm; section 20, which is the assault that has been frequently traversed in this debate; section 24(2), recklessly causing harm; and section 29(3), acts endangering life or creating risk of serious harm, where an act or omission is likely to cause harm.

Obviously, the society acknowledges that there is significant pressure from some in the community for stronger stances to be taken in respect of assaults on police and emergency workers, but, in particular, the very valid submissions put to us via the Police Association and the Commissioner of Police and then added to by other emergency worker representative bodies. In short, on this aspect the Law Society takes the view that the current law already provides for higher penalties than the basic offence and, therefore, raises the obvious: apply it.

If you really want to press for more serious penalties, then charge people and prosecute people and seek the conviction of people who are already covered by that. There are a huge number. During the time I have been in the parliament, I remember a special offence, for example, that was introduced to provide a 10-year sentence if you shoot presumably in the direction of a police officer. You do not have to hit or injure them; you just have to shoot. I did not oppose that at the time it came through the parliament.

I make the point that it is the type of thing added on to our criminal law which makes it a suite of different laws which provide very severe penalties. I referred to them in my second reading contribution, and I will not list all those matters. The society, as is their wont, have identified what they see as a drafting error in clause 8, in particular the use of the words 'unlawful threats', which should, in their view, read 'causing harm'. I will have our people attend to that, if that is correct. I thank them for bringing that to our attention.

On the question of the offence involving the use of human biological material against emergency workers, and this is the creation of the new offence where a person spits at, throws or otherwise applies blood, saliva, semen, faeces or urine (and we are about to add vomit) towards a prescribed emergency worker in the course of their duty, it is proposed that will carry a five-year sentence.

In their submission, the Law Society very strongly take the view that, by virtue of a penalty, this is excessive. I think they have made the point throughout their submission, which is probably unnecessary anyway, that it is excessive. They refer to a case that I think is worth reporting to the parliament, and I suppose it always highlights where we need to take into account the advice of those who are actually out there doing these jobs and bringing to our attention where we might inadvertently be introducing laws that might be unreasonably severe, especially in relation to penalty. I will read this as a direct quote:

The Society notes the case of R v Wilson [2016] SASCFC 139 which involved an appeal of a sentence with respect to spitting at a police officer on the grounds it was manifestly excessive. In this case, the defendant while on the floor of a police cell spat and his spittle hit the lower trouser legs of the police officer. A charge was laid under section 6(1) of the Summary Offences Act and a sentence of 12 months imprisonment given.

The appeal was upheld by the Chief Justice on the basis that a term of imprisonment, which is half the maximum penalty for the offence of assaulting police, is unreasonably severe when one appreciates the overall circumstances of the offending in this case (i.e. there was no danger of any significant insult given the spit was not directed at a bodily area sensitive to the transmission of infectious disease). The 12-month sentence was reduced to eight weeks on appeal.

This case demonstrates the appropriateness of this type of offence being captured under the existing legislative provisions in particular, section 6(1) of the Summary Offences Act and allowing the Court to determine on the facts of the case an appropriate penalty. These issues are further discussed below.

I will not go any further, but I will explain that the Law Society had also raised the question of expanding the definition of human biological material to include vomit. I think I addressed their proposition that vomiting normally occurs involuntarily earlier in my response of the circumstance where it can be applied, or attempt to be applied, to the person via, perhaps, their hand.

On the repeal of section 6(1) of the Summary Offences Act, we ourselves have raised the benefit of retaining the hinder and resist positions, and we maintain that position. They go further to say that it is an important option that is available and highlight some aspects, which include the question of the police prosecutor's capacity to negotiate in relation to these matters.

When the Police Association raised with us the question of abolishing any police bail, I said to Mr Carroll at the time, 'Well, look, it's your members who actually are the ones doing the investigation and may be arresting the party in those circumstances, and they are the ones who are granting bail. If you think that there's a problem with that, where they have assaulted a police officer, then I think you need to speak to your members about the approach that they are taking in relation to these cases in granting bail if it is so offensive, or there is such a danger, as a result of there being an assault on a police officer.'

I can see that through the discussion on the development of this bill that aspect seems to have been abandoned. Frankly, it is for good reason. We do need to give the police, even when one of their own has been hurt or assaulted, the power to make the decision to grant police bail bearing in mind that, in relation to police bail—which is the right to give the person the right to leave custody and then remain on bail until they are called to court to deal with their matter—they always have the opportunity to keep the person in custody and then take them before a court, where the party might apply for court bail. In any event, I think the foolishness of progressing down that line seems to have been identified during the course of our discussions, and I note that that has been abandoned.

Going back to the Law Society's submission, on the Sentencing Act they make the very reasonable point that the secondary sentencing principles that are outlined are really not added to any further. It is unnecessary as a deterrent, as it is already a secondary sentencing purpose. I do not think I need to detail that any further.

Another case they bring to our attention is one that I think is worth at least advising the house about because I suppose it raises the obvious circumstance where people do silly things but they might be under the duress of their own mental ill health. The Law Society reports this:

In the recent case of Police v Dodd—

which is a Magistrates Court matter of 30 April 2019—

Magistrate Forrest chose not to impose a sentence of imprisonment on a defendant for assaulting a nurse. The Magistrate took into account the facts of the case, in particular the serious mental health issues of the defendant. There are a number of reasons why sentences of imprisonment are not imposed, or not imposed to the extent that might be expected on a face of a matter. In the view of the Society, these reasons do not reflect any deficiencies with respect to the current legislation that require amendment. They simply reflect the complex nature of offending and why it is appropriate for the Court to have a broad discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of each case and sentence accordingly.

I want to add for clarification that we are not talking about someone who is unfit to plead; that is, they have a cognitive impairment sufficient that they are unable to understand the seriousness of their conduct and therefore avoid conviction altogether. Those people have an avenue of being dealt with for their support and treatment in a different highway, I suppose.

I think every member of this house would appreciate, as a local member, the significant level of mental health issues in our community and how from time to time they do impede the reasonable conduct of our citizens. To conclude, the Law Society states:

The current legislative framework recognises assaults against police officers and emergency workers as being serious in nature and they are subject to higher penalties. In our view the measures proposed by the Bill are unlikely to achieve their objective in changing behaviour. However, they are likely to have a disproportionate effect on Aboriginal people, as well as those with mental health and/or substance abuse issues, who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

That is the position of the Law Society. We respect it. I appreciate their advice. If they are right on the drafting matter, we will remedy it. But it is fair to say that the government have taken the view that we need to send a refreshed message to the judiciary and to the prosecutors, whether they are police prosecutors or the DPP, as independent as they may be. Judges and prosecutors are independent of interference from the executive, but they do need to receive a powerful refresher from the parliament, and that is what this bill will do. I am proud to say that it is this government who is progressing it.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr ODENWALDER: I would like to just make a couple of remarks before I go to my question. There are some amendments, as has been noted, and I will probably need the Chair's advice on how we proceed procedurally with those amendments, as it gets complicated. Indeed, some of the clauses I will be supporting initially will be changed substantially by an amendment I make later on. It may get messy, but we will deal with that as we get there.

I want to follow the Attorney's lead in her remarks about the Law Society in stating that I am no longer a member of the Police Association of South Australia. I sadly gave up my membership of that august organisation upon entering this place, but I still have enormous respect for the work they do—as indeed I do that of the Law Society, as often as I disagree with their views on my private member's bills and indeed some of the views expressed in their latest publication.

Obviously clause 1 is the title and it is about assaults on prescribed emergency workers. The Attorney made some remarks, and I think she said that only the government bill protects a broad range of workers, implying—as she has in the media—that our bill protects police and that is all, that we have only listened to the Police Association and that we have not consulted widely. I have consulted over the course of this.

I have consulted primarily with the Police Association, that is true, as they have been the ones agitating for this since October last year. I have had very lengthy discussions with Mark Carroll, as I understand the Attorney has, but it is absolutely false to say that only the government bill covers other workers. It was disorderly for the Attorney to refer to another bill in this place but, since she has, I will continue that conversation.

I want to refer to the consultation, which the Attorney has told us has been broad and deep. I want to know, first of all, if the Attorney will table any written submissions she has received from the various groups she has described. I am particularly interested in seeing any submission from the Ambulance Employees Association. I am sure that all of us welcome some change and some move in the right direction in this area. However, for many of these organisations—and I know for a fact that for at least three of them these laws do not go far enough—they certainly do not adequately address the sentencing around these types of offences.

I am keen to see the written submissions from these organisations, particularly the written submission, if there is one, from the Ambulance Employees Association, and the written submission from the Public Service Association, although I notice, belatedly, that there were some concessions in some of these amendments to the Public Service Association—I assume that is what they were—as there were concessions to other groups. That is fine and perfectly reasonable for the Attorney to do in terms of heading in the right direction toward framing some good legislation.

Over the course of this committee debate, I want to try to get a handle on what the policy underpinnings are for this bill. It seems very confused, and it seems as if the government has come quite late to this debate. It was obviously triggered by the Police Association's first calls in October, I think, and there have been various iterations of what they want and what they say they want and what they say they need. I am sure that the Attorney has had similar conversations as I have had with the Police Association, but we have arrived at a point where we need to make some decisions in this parliament.

I want to make it absolutely clear what the policy underpinnings of the Labor Party's position are on this—that is, to protect police and emergency workers from assaults and injuries by criminals, to properly protect them and to properly make sure that they are punished appropriately by the courts. It is that simple. I would have thought that the policy underpinnings of the Attorney's bill would reflect this, but it seems that as it has grown and developed it has taken on a life of its own and the Attorney has been playing catch-up, adding in bits and amending on the run, and I think the policy underpinnings have been a little lost.

Perhaps at this point I would like the Attorney to clarify what the basic policy underpinnings of the government's position are to inform the later stages of the committee debate and I also seek whether she will table those submissions, if indeed they are written submissions.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the consultation process, I do not have any written submissions from the Ambulance Employees Association. I have a number of other written submissions. It is not the practice of the government to provide copies of those unless they are published by the organisations themselves. We would not be as disrespectful as that. The Law Society have consistently always placed their submissions to former attorneys and to me online. Often, in opposition, as shadow attorney I received copies sent direct.

So I did not feel that it was in any way going to cut across their position to provide a copy to the opposition yesterday, particularly as it had arrived so late in the course of the progress of this matter; otherwise, it would be discourteous and against precedent for us to provide it. I will say that I had direct meetings with AMA representatives, including a psychiatrist, an emergency department worker and the president; Mr Nev Kitchin from the PSA and other officers of his union, which covers a number of our public sector employees; and Australian nurses federation representatives. I think three were present on the day.

We canvassed not only examples for consideration during the course of their requests but also some other ancillary matters—such as, for nurses, the circumstances in which they want to have a safe workplace for their employees, which, as the member will appreciate, is a field very strongly dominated by women. I think we even touched on things such as progress in relation to nurses being accompanied in the event that they are in the outback and have to attend a remote circumstance of emergency health. Again, I think that we have been as open as we can about who we have consulted. Of course, it is up to the opposition to consult with these people as well and to seek advice.

Obviously, I have correspondence from other persons, including the volunteers association in respect of the Country Fire Service and a number of others. So, no, I will not table any of those matters, but it is open for the member to consult with them. Can I say that, in relation to the assertion that the particulars of this were put to the opposition in or about October last year, it is absolutely correct that I regularly meet with Mr Carroll on behalf of the Police Association about the issues of concern for them. He is right: on my notes, in the latter part of last year I met with Mr Carroll to deal with the question of police assaults.

He indicated to me that he would put in writing exactly what the Police Association was seeking. At our meeting, he referred to interstate penalty issues. I said that I was happy to look at them if he could list all the ones that he wanted me to look at. I have given the date of that correspondence, but it was something like 16 January this year, after which we started working on it straightaway. It is true: it was triggered by the diligent work of the Police Association—great. We are not critical of that at all, but what we have done is broaden that to all emergency workers.

When the member says that this is exactly consistent with what the opposition is doing, as a result of our consultation we have identified and foreshadowed that we will propose to include Community Corrections officers and Community Youth Justice officers, whereas the opposition's proposed legislation that I have seen has some identified fields and then 'as prescribed'. We do not have that detail from the opposition. Maybe the public have it. There may have been commentary made about it, but we say that we have significantly expanded it for the very reasons I have outlined.

Finally, in relation to putting exactly what the position of the opposition is, yesterday in the parliament I heard the member for Elizabeth say (I will paraphrase this) that, although he thinks that this legislation should be strengthened in the ways that he has outlined, he will otherwise support this bill. Last night, I heard on television the Leader of the Opposition make the statement that they would not be supporting this. So I think it is reasonable that, as a parliament, we do know exactly what the opposition's position is, that they make it abundantly clear what they want, if they are going to say, 'Yes, we would like it stronger,' which is how I understood the member for Elizabeth yesterday, 'but if we don't get this we still indicate our support'. I think the words were, 'The government might use their numbers to get what they want.'

That is fine; it is a perfectly legitimate position to put. However, if it is the alternative—that is, 'If we don't get what we want in the amendments we seek,' there will be some spit-the-dummy approach like the Leader of the Opposition's statement on the television last night—let's be open about exactly what is going to be happening.

Mr ODENWALDER: I feel I must respond to that.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Excellent, no worries. I want to make the Labor Party's position absolutely clear on this: we are supportive of legislation that properly protects police and emergency workers and properly punishes those who injure police and emergency workers.

I apologise if I am being slightly disorderly here, but there is another bill in this house that outlines exactly what the police and the Ambulance Employees Association tell us they need for starters. Our position is to come in here to work with the government to bring this bill up to scratch, to rescue this bill, because it does not do what emergency workers are telling us it should do. It may do what the AMA wants, I do not know—I confess that I have not spoken to the AMA—but it certainly does not do what the police say they need.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I have not said we will support this bill. I have said there are provisions that I will not try to amend in this house and I will be seeking to make amendments to other clauses, and I think I outlined in my second reading that I absolutely reserve the right to do quite another thing in the upper house. I have not at any stage said that we will support this bill. What I have said is that we will support legislation that adequately protects police officers and adequately supports appropriate punishments for those people who would injure police officers and emergency workers.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, do you have any further questions on clause 1?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He has actually spoken three times now—

The CHAIR: No, he has spoken twice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He has spoken three times.

The CHAIR: No, twice.

Mr ODENWALDER: But I did not ask a question.

The CHAIR: You did not ask a question, but I am counting it as two.

Mr ODENWALDER: I did ask particularly about the Ambulance Employees Association and, if she is willing to, I would like the Attorney to go into what discussions she has had with them. I understand there were no written submissions from any of these groups, and I want to ask the Attorney to go into any discussions she had with the Ambulance Employees Association, whether they, or any of the other groups consulted, were unhappy with the bill before us today and, if so, what was the cause of their unhappiness.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not had any discussions directly with the Ambulance Employees Association. In respect of any objection by other parties, I think the submissions that were presented to us were more to expand, which we have accommodated, and then to deal with other issues. As I said, the nurses' union was looking to have further conversations with the government about how we might better support the protection of nurses in their work place, irrespective of whether they are assaulted or spat at and things of that nature.

In relation to objections, I think I have outlined, in every detail, the difference between the Commissioner of Police's view and the Police Association's view, because obviously there were very significant differences in relation to their submissions to us, and where we have acceded to the requests of either.

On my assessment, we have added a very serious contribution. We have probably given about eight out of 10 of what the Police Association wants, some of which we are not so sure is going to have much benefit or effect, but we are accepting of the principle that the refreshing of that aspect to the judiciary and future people who are in charge of prosecution will be useful. I do not think I can add anything further.

Mr ODENWALDER: To clarify, you said you did not speak directly to the Ambulance Employees Association. I asked if any of the groups consulted were unhappy. You told us a bit about how the Police Association are unhappy. I am quite aware of that. I want to know if any of the other groups you consulted expressed any unhappiness and what the causes of that unhappiness were. I do not think you addressed that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think I can add anything further. I cannot recall any coming in and saying, 'We don't want to be in the group,' or, 'We are not happy about the way this is being dealt with.' I think the amendments reflect that we were adding in response to those consultations, so I think it is fair to say that the reverse would apply; that is, several of the stakeholders were interested in our expanding further the definition of emergency worker for the purpose of their being exposed to risk and being protected from it.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, I am going to put that clause.

Mr ODENWALDER: I cannot clarify further?

The CHAIR: Do you need further clarification? I think the Attorney clarified as much as she could last time.

Mr ODENWALDER: Is the Attorney telling us that, after consultation and adding bits and pieces and tacking things on, only the Police Association are now expressing any misgivings about this bill at all? Are all other groups completely happy and satisfied that this serves their needs?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I refer to my previous answer. I would hope the opposition spokesman would recognise, though, that the Law Society have actually given a very damning indictment of this. I do not want to be dismissive, as though they do not exist in this discussion or this question, but I want to place on the record that they have a very strong opposition. Nevertheless, the representatives of emergency workers welcome it and we are pleased to provide it.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr ODENWALDER: I appreciate what the Attorney is saying about other groups and other types of emergency worker. The reason my amendment leaves so much of that up to regulation is that these things do change. It is an ever-changing field of professions that may or may not be considered front-line and individual sections within classes of professions may, from time to time, be affected and may need to be included within the class of prescribed worker.

The impetus for this legislation came from the Police Association. While I appreciate that other workers are put at risk, the police are doing this daily, as the member for Lee pointed out yesterday. Everything they do is risky. There were 771 assaults last year, and the Attorney outlined some other statistics. The number is consistently very high and too high. It has grown by 8 per cent this year.

Given that the main group that has been agitating for these types of changes is so unhappy with the end result, why has it taken the Attorney-General so long to bring this bill to parliament? Why not just frame a bill that the Police Association are not particular happy with and bring it in? It has taken since October last year to disappoint the Police Association.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, can I just say that, in respect of the assertion that it has taken such a long time to address, January this year was the first time we had the log of claims of what they wanted, and we have been dealing with it ever since. We have dealt with it in a responsible and considered way and we have identified significant aspects of it, although we have assented to most. We have identified some deficiencies in it, we have expanded it and we have consulted with others.

I think it behoves the member to remember that we here in the parliament make the laws in relation to all these matters, not the Police Association, not the Law Society and not some individual who comes to us and we think, 'We respect these people, therefore we are just going to top and tail it, put it into a bill and rush it through the parliament.' That is not our job.

Our job as a parliament is to do these things properly and, as a responsible government, to introduce legislation that is workable, that is going to be effective and, in this case, that is going to be a deterrent to obnoxious behaviour in the community. That does take a little bit of time. It took us some weeks to do that, and I do not shy away from that. I ask: if this is such a serious problem—and it was, frankly, back in 2012-13, when there were 880 police assaults in the state for the year—what on earth was the member for Elizabeth's party doing about this matter for 16 years? Frankly, not very much.

I raised this question with the Police Association. I said, 'Okay, you have given me a log of claims. I'm happy to look at them, along with the other things that we meet about which are pertinent and important to your members, Mr Carroll. What did the previous government do about it?' He said, 'Well, we raised these concerns on a regular basis.' I asked, 'To which ministers?' There were various police ministers; we know that. They had a pretty high turnover, that is for sure.

The reality is that the previous government did nothing for 16 years, at a time when police assaults in this state were 100 a year more than they are now and 200 more than the year before last. We have acted expeditiously and responsibly, and I think we come to the stage where we have considered what the Police Association initiated. We explored the development of how that might apply to others, just as we did when the previous government came marching in with legislation to require a person who spat at or bit a police officer to submit to a test for the purposes of an assessment about whether they were carrying biological fluids that would transmit a disease.

What did we have to do then? As the opposition, we responsibly looked at it. We went to other parties who were at risk, such as nurses in the emergency departments. We said, 'We think this has merit. If a police officer is trying to take somebody off the steps of Parliament House and arrest them for some disorderly behaviour and they get bitten or scratched, they shouldn't have to wait weeks and weeks to be tested for any full-blown condition that is transmitted to them. They shouldn't have to go through that.'

We agreed with that and we worked on it. We worked with nurses and we said, 'What is the situation for you and other emergency workers?' We brought in amendments to this parliament and we said to the government of the day, 'This has to be expanded.' Ultimately, they agreed to it. They were not too keen on it to start with, I might say, but they did agree to it in the end.

I would have thought, frankly, that the first thing the opposition would do in relation to the requests from PASA would be to say, 'We think that has some merit.' It must have, otherwise the member for Elizabeth would not have brought in a bill setting out their log of claims. Would you not think that they would have gone much further than that and included all the other areas of emergency service front-line workers in the state? No. From memory, they just did police, MFS, CFS, SES and, I think, ambulance workers. That was it. I think that is grossly inadequate. Nevertheless, fortunately they are not in government; we are, and I am proud to be presenting this bill.

Mr ODENWALDER: The Attorney knows that her last claim is false and that I have referred time and time again to other emergency workers who will be prescribed by regulation if either my bill or the opposition's amendments are enacted. Of course, the previous government did respond to assaults on emergency workers and the whole introduction of aggravated offences. I will be generous and say that the government's bill has taken since January to bring to the house, which is worth noting.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: No, that's not right; it would have been May.

Mr ODENWALDER: I said it has taken since January.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It was 10 May.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, it has taken since January—since. It has taken that long to bring this bill to the house, and all it does, essentially, is tack a year onto the aggravated offence penalty—aggravated offences that were brought in by the Labor government. That is the main crux of this bill, and the inherent weakness of it is that that is all it does. It makes an amendment to the Sentencing Act, which I have referred to and which we will come to later, which our amendments and the bill in my name support, but that is all it does.

It adds some classes of workers to the list of prescribed workers rather than leave them to regulation, as is currently the case. It tacks a year onto the penalties for aggravated offences and then it introduces this whole new thing about human biological material, which is fair enough in itself. As I have addressed in my second reading contribution, which we will get to later on, it is absolutely fair enough to clarify that for the police commissioner. As you have stated, he is the person who wanted to see this enacted.

But an argument could be made that those things were already within the criminal law anyway and that the assaults the Attorney has been describing in some of her previous remarks on nurses and so on are already assaults. It will be interesting to see a breakdown of the number of assaults on emergency workers, whoever they may be, a breakdown of who is subjected to attacks from biological material.

The Attorney knows that her central claim, that the previous government did nothing to protect police and emergency workers, is false. We did that work on aggravated offences, some penalties of which the Attorney has seen fit to tack an extra year onto. The member for Lee, in his role as minister for transport, enacted legislation that looked at vulnerable workers—transport workers and those types of people. It is always a central tenet of the Labor Party's work to protect workers, whatever they do, and police and emergency workers have a particularly dangerous and specific job and they deserve better protections.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.