Criminal Law Consolidation (COVID-19) (Assaults on Certain Workers) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:41): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:42): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended so as to enable the bill to pass through all remaining stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: As an absolute majority is not present, please ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The SPEAKER: Member for Elizabeth, do you wish to speak to the motion?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, briefly, sir. We have all been shocked time and again by images on our TV screens over the years of criminal spitting and coughing on front-line workers, particularly police officers. This type of behaviour has always been considered an assault—a particularly disgusting and abhorrent form of assault—but generally a common assault nonetheless. Last year, we had lengthy debates in this place about assaults of this type as well as assaults on front-line workers generally.

The SPEAKER: Member for Elizabeth, whilst I believe you are speaking to the merits of the bill, I believe that the debate in the first instance should be on the reason why the suspension is needed. I know that you will get to that very shortly. Thank you.

Mr ODENWALDER: Indeed. Simply put, our front-line workers need protection now, and it is important that we change some definitions in the act as part of that, as part of creating a new offence to protect front-line workers in cases involving COVID-19-type assaults by including retail workers within the definition of 'front-line workers' for these types of offences. This is a new type of assault; it is a new circumstance. The debates we had last year about assaulting police officers and other workers and human biological material was a step in the right direction. It was appropriate for the circumstances then, but we need to change some definitions.

We need to introduce tougher penalties in the current context of COVID-19 for assaults perpetrated on a front-line worker, including retail workers, if the perpetrator knows they have COVID-19 or suggests to their victim by words, actions or in the context of their behaviour that they have COVID-19. We need to impose penalties of up to 10 years gaol. These workers need protection now. We need to include retail workers and other pharmacy workers and the like in the definition of 'front-line worker' for the purposes of this legislation. We need to do it today so these workers can go out to work tomorrow and feel protected by the law.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (10:45): I rise to oppose the suspension on behalf of the government for a range of reasons. As a government, we have taken a consistent and measured approach to how we deal with this coronavirus situation. What we have done and will continue to do is be led by the experts in relation to what powers they need and what behaviours they need to see modelled in our behaviour and in our society. We are in constant contact with the police commissioner, the State Coordinator, in relation to what powers or law changes he believes are necessary to ensure that we—

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order, a point of clarification: you pulled me up on addressing the bill directly—

The SPEAKER: Yes, I did.

Mr ODENWALDER: —rather than the suspension.

The SPEAKER: I am going to give the minister the same latitude and expect the same of him. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I was not actually debating the merits of anything, Mr Speaker, just merely trying to understand the process—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —by which we as a government have gone about law change and the principles by which we achieve that. Speaking constantly with the State Coordinator, the police commissioner, in relation to what powers he needs is something that this government has done. In fact, not wishing to speak about a bill before the house, this is actually a matter for consideration by the upper house in relation to what powers were deemed necessary for the State Coordinator to be able to undertake his function.

We do listen to and respond to the needs of our health professionals and health experts. Again, Dr Nicola Spurrier, as our phenomenally competent and impressive Chief Public Health Officer, has done an outstanding job. Again, as a government, we have done what has been asked to ensure that the health experts and the State Coordinator have what they need to be able to deal with this crisis.

There have been a range of measures that have been put forward by the opposition in recent days around how they feel that they can use the parliament to improve the situation in relation to dealing with COVID-19. There is this bill, there is a bill to be introduced about locking up Kangaroo Island, about ankle bracelets for those who are not doing the right thing in terms of self-isolation, and some changes to workers compensation. We have seen—

Mr BROWN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: now he is not even talking about this particular bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will listen carefully. I do remind the minister of my earlier ruling. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The reason I bring this up, Mr Speaker, is that what is being asked for today is a suspension to deal with all stages of bills, when there are a number of these bills that have not been presented to the government at this stage.

Mr Brown: A bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am listening carefully. I will be calling members to order if this continues. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We need to make sure that when we deal with matters of the law we take the time to be able to consider them in a timely manner.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: We dealt with your bill yesterday.

The SPEAKER: The member for Light is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Speaker, I do appreciate and thank—

Mr Malinauskas: Which one don't you have copyright?

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —members of this parliament, this chamber as well as the other chamber, for their help and support in dealing with urgent legislation that has been put through this parliament over the course of the past few weeks. Again, those bits of legislation have come from advice from various parts within the government sector and, again, we will continue to listen to that advice and facilitate to make sure that the government's response to the coronavirus is as fulsome as it needs to be. However, we do not feel at this stage that a suspension of standing orders is warranted based on the points I have just made.

The SPEAKER: The question before the house is that the motion for suspension be agreed to. It has been moved and seconded. Would the member for Elizabeth like a right of reply? He is entitled to one. No? Very clearly, the question before the house is that the motion for suspension be agreed to.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 13

Noes 13

Majority 0

The SPEAKER: There being 13 ayes and 13 noes, we have a tie. I cast my vote with the noes and so the noes have it.

Motion thus negatived.

Second Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As I was on the cusp of saying, the legislation we passed last year in terms of assaulting police and the human biological material matters we discussed were a step in the right direction. They were pertinent to the circumstances then, but circumstances have of course changed and our front-line workers need protection now. It has been suggested to me that if the government has not had time to consider these matters then perhaps we could not only stick to the agreed sitting schedule but even bring some sitting days forward in order to deal with some of these urgent matters. That is, of course, a matter for the government; I am sure they will not do such a thing.

I will just quickly talk about what this legislation does. It specifies that a person who assaults a prescribed worker—which, importantly, includes retail workers for the purposes of this legislation—in the course of their official duties, who either at the time of the assault has COVID-19 and knows they have COVID-19 or at or immediately before or immediately after the assault makes a statement or does any other act that creates a belief, suspicion or fear that they have COVID-19, irrespective of whether or not they do have COVID-19, is guilty of an offence.

As I said, it would cover all those prescribed workers we discussed last year in terms of the assault police and emergency worker legislation and would also, importantly, include retail workers. I will not go on. I have canvassed most of these issues already. These assaults are going on already. We have had a number of occasions on which this has happened already. It has been prosecuted so far under the common assault legislation that already exists. We think that there should be much tougher penalties, we think that the definitions of prescribed workers who are victims of these types of assaults should be expanded and we think that that should happen urgently. I urge all members to vote for this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.