COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

No. 1. New clause, page 13, after line 2—Insert:

10A—Provisions applying in relation to certain water and sewerage charges for sporting clubs

(1) The operation of the Water Industry Act 2012, the Local Government Act 1999 and any other Act or law prescribed by the regulations (being an Act or law relating to the supply of water, sewerage services or storm water management) is modified as follows:

(a) the Minister under the relevant Act may, by notice in the Gazette—

(i) waive an amount of prescribed costs payable by a specified sporting club, or a sporting club of a specified class (whether incurred before or after the commencement of this section); or

(ii) exempt (conditionally or unconditionally) a specified sporting club, or a sporting club of a specified class, from a specified provision of those Acts;

(b) the regulations under this Act may modify or suspend the operation of any Act or law relating to the supply of water to, the use of sewerage services by, or the management of storm water by, a specified sporting club or sporting clubs of a specified class;

(c) a term of any contract, agreement or other instrument that is inconsistent with the modifications made by this section will, to the extent of that inconsistency, be of no effect.

(2) In this section—

prescribed costs means—

(a) an amount payable for the supply of water (whether potable or otherwise); or

(b) an amount payable for the use of sewerage services; or

(c) an amount payable in relation to storm water management; or

(d) any other amount of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

sewerage services has the same meaning as in the Water Industry Act 2012.

No. 2. Clause 11, page 13, line 35 [clause 11(5)]—Delete 'may, if the Auditor-General thinks fit to do so,' and substitute 'must'

No. 3. Clause 11, page 14, line 10 [clause 11(8)]—Delete 'may,' and substitute 'must, as soon as is reasonably practicable'

No. 4. New clause, page 15, after line 12—Insert:

13A—Modification of requirements relating to laying of reports before Parliament

(1) Despite a provision of this or any other Act, a requirement under an Act that a report or other document (however described) be laid before either or both Houses of Parliament within a specified period will, by force of this section, be modified so that the report or other document is required to be laid before either or both Houses of Parliament (as the case requires) within 7 calendar days after the occurrence of the event that requires the report to be so laid before Parliament.

(2) A requirement under subsection (1) will, if the Parliament, or the relevant House of Parliament, is not sitting during the 7 day period, be taken to be satisfied by the report or other document being delivered to the President of the Legislative Council or the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

(3) If the President of the Legislative Council or the Speaker of the House of Assembly is absent at the time a report or other document is to be delivered under subsection (2), the Clerk of the relevant House will receive the report on behalf of the President or the Speaker (as the case may be) and the report will then be taken to have been delivered to the President or the Speaker.

(4) The Clerk of the relevant House or Houses must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after a report or other document is received under subsection (3), cause the report or other document—

(a) to be published on a website determined by the Clerk; and

(b) to be distributed (whether electronically or by some other means determined by the Clerk) to each member of the relevant House or to each member of Parliament (as the case requires).

(5) The President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly must, not later than the first sitting day after a report or other document has been delivered (or is taken to have been delivered) to the President or the Speaker under this section, lay them before their respective Houses.

No. 5. New clause, page 18, after line 31—Insert:

18A—Disallowance of regulations made under Act

(1) Despite section 10(3) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978, all regulations made under this Act must be laid before each House of Parliament on the next sitting day of that House after the regulations are made.

(2) Except as is provided under subsection (1), nothing in this section limits the operation of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978.

(3) Where regulations made under this Act are disallowed, the Governor must not, except in accordance with a resolution of the House that disallowed the regulations, remake those regulations, or make regulations that are of the same effect, within 6 months after the day on which the regulations are disallowed.

No. 6. Clause 19, page 18, lines 22 to 26 [clause 19(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

No. 7. Schedule 2, page 29, line 25 [Schedule 2, clause 3, inserted section 16AA(1)(b)(iii)]—Delete 'section 17(7)' and substitute "subsection (4)'

No. 8. Schedule 2, page 30, line 12 [Schedule 2, Part 3, clause 3, inserted subsection (5), definition of prescribed public work]—Delete 'or desirable'

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

May I indicate that I am happy to deal with the amendments together and indicate to the house that the government agrees to the amendments presented to us from the other place. We thank them for their consideration of the bill diligently during the day to enable us to conclude by this further session.

To briefly summarise the terms of the matter for those who have not been able to follow in detail the debate in the other place during the day, amendment No. 1 makes provision for the capacity of the minister to accommodate the waiving of prescribed fees in relation to water costs, in particular for the benefit of sporting clubs, which was similar to a matter that was raised in this house.

Whilst it has been presented as a matter that 'may' be considered rather than mandatory, and although the Treasurer has indicated in the other place that he did not see this as adequately dealing with the matters, it is clear—and I confirm the commitment I gave on behalf of the government—that matters relating to the ongoing expenses of sporting clubs during this period, which may, as I have pointed out to the member for Frome but I am happy to share with the house, include things like not just water costs but also insurance, electricity costs and security costs during a period when many sporting clubs, for all the reasons we know, for COVID-19, are currently experiencing a very significant decrease if not an obliteration of their revenue base.

These are matters the government will consider. We have announced as a government and the Premier has proudly espoused the opportunity through the Community and Jobs Support Fund of $250 million to enable applications, and they are being progressed.

The second area, amendments Nos 2 and 3, relate to obligations in respect of the Auditor-General reporting to us as a parliament. Previously, it was that the Auditor-General 'may' make those provisions; now it is the mandatory 'must'. Amendment No. 4 allows for a modification of requirements in relation to the laying of reports before the parliament. Amendment No. 5 deals with the disallowance of regulations made under these emergency provisions, if I can generalise them in that way, requiring that they be tabled in parliament within a day, and also disallowance having the effect of a six-month embargo on their being returned to parliament. That is to apply only to regulations made during the operation of this legislation.

Amendment No. 6 deletes a clause which had been proposed to assist in the protection and probably would have mostly affected police officers as to providing them with some protection, if there were allegations of misconduct or any breach of professional standards. That was not to be supported in the other place, so that has been discharged and removed as available to them. The other matters related to the prescribed public work to require that to be directly necessary for the purpose of COVID-19 matters, i.e. upgrades of hospitals and other work supporting stimulus relating to or coming out of the COVID-19 declaration period. The words 'or desirable' were removed.

We thank the other place for their consideration of the matter. There was just one other issue which was raised which did not really have a lot of attention in our house. It related to schedule 1, which was a new model of protections, largely for people who were responsible for the care of people with a mental condition under the Guardianship and Administration Act. It related to people who have to deal with the management of persons in this category and what special powers they would have for up to 24 hours, then to be endorsed by an order that had to reinforce it via SACAT as to how that was going to operate.

The Public Advocate, Anne Gale, has provided advice to the government in relation to this. As I said, it did not receive a lot of attention, but there was one issue relating to this that resulted in some questions being asked for which the Treasurer was not able to fully provide answers. I have received that information from the Public Advocate, Anne Gale, and I propose to place it on the record. Regarding examples of why schedule 1 is required, I am advised that there are some individuals who do not understand social distancing who need assistance, sometimes by education, but if not possible they may need to be kept safe from COVID-19 and orders may be necessary to be in place to keep them safe.

As to what is envisaged in respect of any public reporting, questions were asked about that. I indicate that I am advised the Public Advocate proposes to provide reporting to the Attorney-General on the number of orders issued and anticipated on a monthly basis, so I thank her for her indication of that reporting. The shadow attorney-general sought clarification as to whether the authorising officer is subject to direction of the minister, that minister being the Attorney-General. I indicate that I am advised the authorising officer would be subject to the direction of the minister and is accountable in this way. As I have indicated, the minister referenced would be the Attorney-General.

The authorising officer is accountable to the Attorney-General to ensure independence in decision-making regarding a person's detention. This is a serious matter and such decisions must be reported and accounted to high authority. If I were to try to give an example of where members might be more familiar, the minister for corrections has responsibility and powers under our corrections law as a similar way to deal with his chief executive, who has quite significant powers, understandably, to deal with the management and incarceration of prisoners.

One of the areas that often gets attention is whether there is a prisoner kept in solitary confinement. There are all sorts of human rights rules sitting around solitary confinement, so there is a very clear set of guidelines on how this is to operate. It is not to be used as a punishment, for example. The minister for corrections has all sorts of powers to require the chief executive to account to him, report to him and obviously be subject to direction by him to ensure there is compliance. The shadow attorney-general further asked:

Is it the case then that the minister in effect could order the detention of someone via their ability to direct the authorised officer?

Can I indicate to the house that I am advised that it is anticipated that the authorising officer would provide short-term authority to an accommodation service provider to detain a person who is at risk of contracting COVID-19. The minister would provide oversight and direction in terms of the operations of the scheme. A further question was asked:

I wonder if the Treasurer is able to answer: is there any other place in legislation in South Australia where a minister can, in effect, order the detention of someone, whether directly or via the direction of the officer?

The answer, I am advised, is that it is difficult to answer this at this time. Generally, this probably does not occur, but there are circumstances under other laws that time does not permit to be precise. That is the information from the Public Advocate, but I hope members are comforted by the example I have given in relation to prisons.

The detention proposed in the bill relates to adults with incapacity and it would be the authorising officer or appointed guardian approving detention to keep someone safe from the spread of COVID-19. The issue to be addressed here is keeping safe people who do not understand social distancing with other public health guidelines. The minister does not issue the orders. An independent authorising officer or appointed guardian would. The order is only for 28 days and then the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal would review the application. The Hon. Connie Bonaros also asked: 'I am wondering which other class of persons the government envisages as being covered by that provision?'

I am advised that this provision enables the minister to enlist additional resources if needed from people who can assist and work with people who may not understand the social distancing guidelines. It may not be necessary to do so, but if police resources were unavailable the minister could consider other suitably qualified persons, such as paramedics or other suitable persons. That is the full extent of the information I have been able to obtain from the Public Advocate. The shadow attorney-general in the other place, the Hon. Kyam Maher, may have further questions arising out of that, and I indicate that I am happy to make Ms Gale available to answer any further questions.

I think it is important that we understand that somebody who has a mental incapacity, for example, needs to be protected, particularly if they do not understand the significance of going up and repeatedly hugging someone who had proved to be positive to COVID-19 and does not understand the risk to them of being able to contract it. It may mean they need to be physically separated to ensure that that does not persist and that the risk does not cause that alarm. Obviously, it is important that we protect them, but we are mindful of the fact, as is the Public Advocate, who has a very clear responsibility for those who are vulnerable in this area, that we need to ensure that they are protected. I hope that covers those matters.

I thank those in the other place for their diligent work during the day to try to ensure that we are able to have clarification of the responsibility of the State Coordinator—that is, our police commissioner and his authorised officers—to get us through this difficult period and, most importantly, to have the envelope of protection for those who might be vulnerable to eviction, whether it is from their shop or their commercial premises or their home during this period. I thank all members for their contribution.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I rise to make a few brief comments on the amendments that have come back to us from the other place amending the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill. It was only very recently, of course, that we were dealing with this bill in this place before sending it to the other place. No-one needs to relitigate either the breadth of the issues canvassed in the bill or the gravity of those issues and the extraordinary changes that we are permitting as a parliament for the government to use as it combats the impacts of this pandemic.

I am very grateful for all the efforts that people have put into not only putting this bill together but also seeking to refine this bill and get it into a shape where it is acceptable to the parliament, because it does seek extraordinary powers, albeit at an extraordinary time. I think it is clear to everyone that the parliament, and in particular the opposition, has been a willing participant with the government in seeking to ensure that the government has the powers it needs and that the government is able to have these new powers as quickly as possible. This is, I think, now the fourth piece of legislation that has been attended to by the parliament and, together, attended to in record time for the benefit of the government and its capacity to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.

There are some important changes that have been put in both places, here and in the Legislative Council, and I am pleased that the majority of those have been accepted by the government. I think they are important changes and the fact that the Attorney is willing to deal with these en bloc and accept all the changes that have come back from the council is an indication of goodwill from the government to those suggestions that have been put both by members of the crossbench in both places and by members of the opposition.

I think it is terrific that the government has seen the merit in the member for Frome's proposal about providing relief from certain water and sewerage charges for sporting clubs. As we discussed here last night, they are the thousands of community organisations that have been forced to cease their operations. It is not just for their own benefit; these sporting organisations are often the glue that holds local communities together.

They are the outlet for people to enjoy participation in team sports or even just catch up with fellow members of their local community and engage in socialising and recreation. The fact that they are not able to conduct their regular operations denies them income at a time when they have ongoing expenses, so this is a good way in which the government can provide some further relief. We look forward to the government providing some relief in this regard, because it comes at a time when sporting clubs are finding it very difficult to retain ongoing income streams.

At the same time, I understand from representations made by Sport SA, the industry representative, if we can put it like that, that the government's annual grants programs have for some inexplicable reason been placed on hold. That is a real concern and frustration for those thousands of organisations around the state. Perhaps that might be something we can examine tomorrow during question time with the Minister for Recreation and Sport, should we of course be provided the opportunity from a government that has the courage to face a question time again this week.

I am also glad that the government and the Treasurer, resident in the other place, have given some ground on the requirements of the Auditor-General in these new provisions in the bill—that he will in fact be required to furnish a report to the parliament about the certification of those instructions from the Treasurer that suspend or modify financial reporting obligations of agencies and also suspend or modify requirements for the Auditor-General in conducting his regular annual report.

I am pleased that there will also be an enhanced reporting process by which, for the first time, there will be an immediate publication of a report from an Auditor-General once it is provided to the parliament itself. This, of course, is something that has actually been asked of the current Auditor-General, something that was taken on notice by the current Auditor-General in October 2018 and still has not been actioned by the current Auditor-General for whatever reason. But it is pleasing that we have all been able to find time to gather together to finally address something that he has not had the capacity to—and that is to provide adequate and timely reporting to the members of parliament that he reports to.

It is also pleasing that the government has been willing to support amendments from the Greens when it comes to reports being tabled in parliament more generally and also the tabling or the dealing with regulations and the disallowance of regulations made under the act. Of course, this is and this should be a source of concern for all members of parliament—that this bill enables the government to make regulations pursuant to the bill, and of course we have no idea what those regulations will be. So it is important that there is a mechanism for the parliament to make speedy disallowance, if necessary, of those regulations. I think that that is a very good thing.

I am also pleased that the government has agreed to the opposition's proposal to do away with the proposed suspension of professional standards at this point of time. I think that struck a lot of people on this side and also on the crossbench in both places as an unusual proposition. It is usually in responding to a crisis that you would hope that your skilled and qualified people performed to the highest of standards, not be relieved of the requirement of exercising professional standards. That was a sensible modification and one we are very pleased has been agreed to by the government.

There is a minor amendment about reporting to the Public Works Committee, and of course another amendment has been removed with regard to a prescribed public work as merely being 'desirable' rather than being 'necessary' to respond to the crisis. As we have heard before from many contributors in this place and in the other place, these are extraordinary times, and the government is being asked to respond in extraordinary ways. The government itself is proposing to respond to the coronavirus in extraordinary ways, and it is asking for extraordinary powers from this parliament. The need for parliamentary scrutiny of the government has never been higher than it is right now in this term of parliament. It has never been higher.

It has been my recollection, as someone who has followed the proceedings of parliament for nearly 20 years, that although we have not quite confronted something of the magnitude of this coronavirus pandemic there have certainly been situations and emergencies the state has had to contend with, whether it has been devastating impacts of bushfires, for example, or other occasions. It is usually at those times when the leaders of government and government ministers make themselves more available to the community and more available to the parliament to make sure they can provide timely, accurate, honest and courageous information about how these instances are being dealt with. They certainly have not tried to take the opportunity to use their numbers in dominating the operations of parliament, to shut a parliament down to avoid scrutiny because it seems some sort of mere inconvenience to their day.

I reiterate my comments that when we pass a bill, particularly a bill with these amendments, it is absolutely important that the parliament continues to sit according to its published schedule. Of course, we would be willing to speak with the government about making allowances for the changes with a later budget and not having the estimates schedule proceed in July as it is currently scheduled, but aside from that we should still be sitting.

We should still be sitting tomorrow so that we can talk about the coronavirus pandemic. We should still be sitting tomorrow so that we can talk about the more than 1,000 government workers who have found themselves unexpectedly out of work and out of pocket. We should be sitting tomorrow so that we can consider all the other matters of public importance, which members of the community would turn to their local parliamentarian to ask them about.

We should even sit tomorrow because some might find it of interest how the member for Waite found himself given the call during question time to ask a Dorothy Dixer of the government, only for it to be revealed 24 hours later that he was being charged by police—and who knew what when over the course of the last 24 or 36 hours during that occurrence? That might be in itself a reason why a Premier or senior ministers might not want to face a question time tomorrow, Thursday 9 April. That is a matter for the Premier to reflect on and justify both to this parliament and to the community why he thinks he should be beyond the reach of responsible government at this most important time.

I would ask the Premier if he could find it in himself to behave in the way that every other Premier has found it in themselves to behave in this state—

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, I am going to interrupt here. We are actually debating right at this moment the amendments made by the Legislative Council.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed.

The CHAIR: We are—so I ask you to come back to that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you. I would ask the Premier, when these amendments in this bill come into force, to find it in himself to be available to the parliament to answer important questions about the operation of the provisions of this bill, as amended, as well as all the other important issues concerning the affairs of this state.

If the Premier thinks he is above answering questions about the provisions of this bill, if he thinks he is above answering questions or appearing in parliament so that he can give us up-to-date and accurate information as and when the public of South Australia demands it, and as and when parliamentarians representing the public of South Australia demand it, then perhaps he can furnish us with an expectation about why he is above, beyond and separate from every other Premier of this state who has maintained access, maintained a presence in this parliament and been courageous enough to front up to this parliament and answer questions when they have been put to Premiers previously.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, I would ask you to come back to the amendments. I suspect there will be a time when we can continue this debate—maybe even later this evening, I suspect—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: —so I will bring you back again now to the amendments.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you. So I am pleased—

The CHAIR: No, thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Chair.

The CHAIR: Yes, thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We thank each other.

The CHAIR: Yes, we are.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you. Yes—it is a circle of thanks.

The CHAIR: Because you are going to do what I am asking you to: to come back to the amendments.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I thank you for your guidance and you thank me for my obedience. Thank you.

The CHAIR: We are thanking each other, so let's do it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We are all very thankful. Let me extend the thanks to the Deputy Premier because I think she has shown some leadership in her carriage of this bill and her willingness to respond—usually at length—to questions from the opposition about our concerns with this bill.

The CHAIR: She is not alone there, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, it is contagious. She has responded at length to our questions of this bill, and that has been greatly appreciated. That has allowed us to reach the point where, here we are, barely 24 hours after this bill seeking such extraordinary powers was introduced into this place. Not only has it passed through here with some amendments but it has gone to the other place and been considered and passed through there with some further amendments and come back here and had those amendments accepted so that this can finally become law.

I think that is an extraordinary reflection on both houses of parliament. If I am honest, it is more of a reflection on the other place than here. We are used to hard yakka down here. It is also a reflection on the Deputy Premier's stewardship of this bill. I thank her because when the chips are down and you are looking for leadership over that side she is the one who usually provides it. I think that is a good thing, and I really thank her for her support. There is much that the person sitting to her left could take from that, but that is a matter for them.

Mr PICTON: I have a few comments to make. Firstly, I support the amendments that have been passed through the other place. These are sensible amendments. The other place has worked through this legislation in a speedy and effective manner in making sure that appropriate scrutiny can be applied, just as we did through the process yesterday. I think the houses of parliament have worked together well, and I think the people of Australia can be proud that that has happened over the past 48 hours to ensure that has happened.

As I said in my second reading speech, our approach as the opposition to this matter has been to support measures that can protect our state. If the government put up measures that will better protect us, that will better prepare us, then they have our support. That is what has happened with this legislation and has happened with the other various bills that the government have put up. Of course, our job in a democracy is to apply scrutiny, to ask questions, to look into the detail and to make sure that that is applied. We have done that through this process, and I think that there is a better bill because of the amendments that have been moved—both the amendments yesterday in this house and now the amendments in the other place.

Of course, we will continue to make recommendations to improve our response. Where there are areas that we can identify, where there are things that need to be improved, then we will do that. We have put forward a number of pieces of legislation to do that. They have not been supported, but we hope that that spirit can be returned and we can pick up any good idea that can further prepare us.

This is a very broad piece of legislation. There are some very broad and extraordinary powers that are being given to various elements of the government, particularly to the State Coordinator, but a lot of it is the executive government in itself through this legislation. These are extraordinary times, so that is not a criticism, but it is important that this is now time limited. It is important that there is a clear date at which this will end and requires additional parliamentary scrutiny if it was to continue. We welcome that happening.

It is important because of the broad nature of this that there is going to be appropriate scrutiny of the government response and that the other place has set up a select committee to provide that scrutiny. That is absolutely appropriate. We have seen other governments around the world undertaking such measures, and we are very glad that that has now taken place so that there can be appropriate democratic scrutiny of that.

We also believe very strongly that parliament needs to play its role in providing scrutiny, and also, as it has done in the past 48 hours, in providing legislation that is needed to help our response. That is why the sitting schedule that is in place must continue as it is in place. There should not be any alteration to that sitting schedule. As long as check-out operators are continuing to work, as long as pharmacy attendants are continuing to work, as long as garbage people are continuing to work, then we must continue to work.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I move:

That the question now be put.

The CHAIR: I accept the motion; is the motion seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

Motion carried.

The CHAIR: The question now before the Chair is that the amendments made by the Legislative Council be agreed to.

Motion carried.