Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) Amendment Bill

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:03): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the introduction of a bill without notice forthwith and passage through all stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: There being an absolute majority, I accept the motion. Is it seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: There being no debate, I will put it at once.

Motion carried.

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:04): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 and to make related amendments to the Development Act 1993 and the Training and Skills Development Act 2008. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) Amendment Bill 2020, and I wish to acknowledge and appreciate the house's indulgence in allowing this to proceed this morning. The bill makes amendments to the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 and other associated amendments to ensure the continued safe and efficient functioning of the state of South Australia and the government and to address further critical matters that have arisen since the passage of the act and throughout the continuing COVID-19 pandemic.

Members would be aware that this is a most difficult situation to be in. It is global, and in South Australia we are not exempt from the considerable learnings that we need to undertake and circumstances we come up against that need our legislative attention. We are all working in new ground, so from time to time we will of course, as a government, bring matters to the attention of the parliament when that is necessary. This bill builds on the work of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act and continues the work of the Marshall government in providing a thoughtful, proactive and considered approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. I will now deal with each of the changes proposed by the bill.

Clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the bill change the way in which the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act will deal with commercial leases and the moratorium on eviction of tenants by removing section 7 and including head powers to support new extensive regulations. As members would recall, section 7 was passed in the initial act and was the first response to the changes for commercial leasing. By way of background, on 7 April 2020, national cabinet published the Mandatory Code of Conduct: SME Commercial Leasing Principles During COVID-19, which set out principles for providing rent relief to tenants suffering financial hardship and encouraged landlords and tenants to negotiate agreements relating to rent relief.

Each state and territory was tasked with incorporating the code into their own laws and regulations. While it was not possible to include the government's full response to the code in the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, because the code was published on the same day that the bill was introduced into parliament, these changes have now been finalised.

There has been much discussion and stakeholder interest in the code's provisions. I am sure nearly every one of us here in this place has received correspondence from businesses, tenants and commercial landlords, so I commend the work of the Department of Treasury on implementing the code in South Australia. If I were to describe it as having one defining feature, it is flexibility to ensure that we do not unfairly introduce ultimate arbitration on matters, and also give guide to those who are discussing matters that might otherwise apply with a one-size-fits-all model.

Including the majority of the commercial lease provisions in regulations rather than the act allows for that greater flexibility if changes need to be made to the scheme, and is consistent with the approach taken in New South Wales and Victoria. Therefore, the moratorium on evictions and other protections for tenants included in the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act will now be included in the new regulations and removed from the act through this bill by deleting section 7.

The new regulations will provide a statement of objectives, which provide that regard has been had to the code in the making of the regulations. The regulations, once made, will have retrospective operation to 30 March 2020. This is consistent with the approach taken by other jurisdictions. However, the court may only make prospective changes to agreements already made between parties from 30 March 2020 and the date of commencement of the regulations.

The bill provides that these regulations will expire after six months, and this will give the business community certainty in making agreements and arrangements. Members may recall that the act recently passed ceases at either the finalising of the emergency period or six months from its commencement, whichever is earlier. By including a separate expiry program for the code in this bill, the government is acting to ensure that commercial tenants and landlords see the protections of the code for a guaranteed period of time regardless of the operation of the emergency period—perhaps a reminder to the member for Kaurna of the need to have that in the original bill but, nevertheless, we can remedy it in this bill.

Moving now to other matters in the bill, clause 5 inserts into the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act new section 10A, which contains special provisions regarding visits of community visitors and the Chief Psychiatrist. Under the Mental Health Act 2009 and Disability Services (Community Visitor Scheme) Regulations 2013, community visitors have obligations and discretions to visit treatment centres, community mental health facilities, disability accommodation premises and day option program premises.

The visits are an important aspect of the community visitors' functions, which include referring any matter of concern to the appropriate persons or bodies and advocating for assisting vulnerable people in the facilities. The Chief Psychiatrist has similar functions to visit and inspect hospitals under the Mental Health Act 2009 and the Health Care Act 2008, which are an important aspect of his monitoring of the provision of mental health care in South Australia.

A new section 10A enables these visits as well as the visits of community visitors under COVID-19 Emergency Response (Schedule 1) Regulations 2020, which relate to detention of certain protected persons during the COVID-19 pandemic to be conducted remotely by audiovisual or other electronic means during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is consistent with similar changes made under other legislative schemes through the act recently passed.

Continuing then, clause 7 of the bill provides that an extension of time given under a regulation made under section 14 will operate in accordance with the terms beyond the expiry of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act. This clause was necessary as a result of the changes made to section 6 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act during the parliamentary debates, which provides that the act will expire either when the emergency declarations have ended, and I am satisfied that there is no intention to make another declaration, or six months commencement whichever is the earliest.

Clauses 8(1) and 8(6) of the bill add to the work done by the act to allow audiovisual options for parliamentary committees. The changes in this bill further ensure that parliamentary committees established under the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act 2003 and the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 can meet by audiovisual or audio means. While section 17 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act applies to these parliamentary committees generally, a concern was raised by the House of Assembly Clerk, which is shared by the Legislative Council Clerk (that's unprecedented, is it? No, perhaps I shouldn't say that) that parliamentary privilege will not apply to these committees' proceedings unless there was a specific provision authorising them to meet via alternate means. The government has listened to those and ensured that those concerns are addressed, and we leave no doubt that these amendments address the same.

Clause 8 of the bill highlights the government's determination to stimulate our local economy and get South Australians back into the workforce. Clauses 8(2) and 8(7) of the bill make changes to the Development Act 1993 and, where relevant, to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to reduce the burden and red tape on planning processes and to create a seamless and streamlined process to stimulate economic development during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clause 8(2) increases the threshold for Crown development under the Development Act to $10 million from the current $4 million cap, where the State Commission Assessment Panel is required by public advertisement to invite interested persons to make written submissions on the proposal within a period of at least 15 business days. By increasing this threshold, the government is allowing medium-sized projects to be progressed more effectively and efficiently, thereby promoting economic stimulus during the COVID-19 pandemic—something, of course, that is crucial to keep South Australia moving.

Clauses 8(2) and 8(7) remove the requirement for the State Commission Assessment Panel to consult with councils in relation to Crown developments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the current provisions of the Development Act and Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, there is a time-consuming process whereby the State Commission Assessment Panel must consult with councils, assess their comments and report to the minister.

Potentially the minister may then need to prepare a report, which must be presented to both houses of parliament. Removing the requirement for time-consuming notification to local councils promotes more efficient development, thereby encouraging economic stimulus during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. I reiterate the significance of those measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clause 8(3) of the bill temporarily modifies the Emergency Management Act 2004 by inserting section 25A to make it clear that authorised officers under the act have the power to remove children in order to enforce compliance with any direction under section 25 of that act to ensure their safety. Children can be removed to their place of residence, a hospital or a quarantine facility. This provision was inserted at the request of SAPOL to clarify that an authorised officer may remove a child because they are not complying with a direction, even though they are not necessarily at risk of serious harm.

Clause 8(4) of the bill temporarily modifies the Emergency Management Act to allow the minister to direct a person who engages in transmission or distribution of electricity when an electricity supply emergency has been declared. It also clarifies that a market participant can be directed to give directions of the kind that is lawful for the market participant to give to another person or body even where the person is not a market participant.

South Australia is experiencing very low demand conditions during COVID-19 conditions. This makes the secure operation of the power system challenging. This challenge would be further exacerbated if for any reason South Australia separated from the rest of the National Energy Market. When an electricity supply emergency is caused by too much supply in the National Energy Market and not enough demand for electricity, the most efficient way to manage the supply and demand balance is to direct supply reductions. This is at a time when we are producing perhaps our usual provision for power, but we do not have enough industry and businesses to use it, so that there is still high production and very low demand. That is the purpose of these amendments.

In particular, clause 8(4) ensures that a coordinated and efficient reduction of supply can occur through the transmission and distribution businesses. In the case of an energy emergency, this would allow the most efficient and effective response where the network business is the party best able to undertake this function. Clause 8(5) of the bill amends the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 to allow the Governor, by regulation, to amend or vary the operation of the National Electricity Rules, insofar as they are laws of this state, to protect the reliability and security of the power system.

Increased power generation from solar systems on homes and businesses is reducing the available load that can be automatically reduced as part of an emergency response to technical faults on the system. Clause 8(5) allows regulations to be made, which amend the National Electricity Rules to enable prompt actions to be taken to allow adequate load shedding in South Australia. Whilst the National Electricity Law currently includes a framework for jurisdictional derogations from the National Electricity Rules, the process is not quick enough for managing the risk during COVID-19 conditions.

Moving, then, to the schedule of the bill, clause 1 of the schedule removes the requirement under the Development Act to obtain concurrence of the minister or the council for noncomplying developments where the State Commission Assessment Panel is the relevant authority before development can be approved. This clause also removes the requirement to obtain concurrence of the State Commission Assessment Panel in cases where the council is the relevant authority. This process does not exist under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, which is due to come into operation this year in July in the regions and, as I understand it, September in the metropolitan area.

Finally, clause 2 of schedule 1 of the bill amends the Training and Skills Development Act to give the South Australian Employment Tribunal power to suspend a training contract up to and including 1 January 2021, necessary due to the COVID-19 pandemic (for obvious reasons, trainees need to be supervised), and instead for the four-week limitation that appears in the current provisions. This is consistent with the Training and Skills Commission COVID-19 guidelines, which was a request of the Minister for Innovation and Skills.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected businesses differently, with some having to close temporarily while others have experienced a significant downturn in activity. For some, this has affected an employer's capacity to employ and train its apprentices or trainees. Suspending the training contract is preferable to termination, as a suspension is approved on the understanding that the contract will resume when the business recommences and, therefore, supports apprentices and trainees to remain connected in the apprenticeship system in South Australia. It also provides employers greater flexibility to deal with a significant downturn, as it allows an apprenticeship or traineeship to recommence when business picks up again.

Members, many of whom are here, also undertake responsibility to provide for a trainee, often in their electorates offices. I would urge all of us to lead by example in this area, to ensure that we restore, if there has been a suspension of a traineeship—

Mr Picton: I think you suspended hiring new ones.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, we have. Some of us will be caught by that. Again, I urge members to show leadership in this regard. We need to make sure that we give the next generation the best chance we can.

South Australia has done a fantastic job so far in flattening the curve of the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been a testament to the hard work of South Australians. Although the government is continuing to prepare and plan for a return of cases in South Australia, we are working extremely hard to ensure that all South Australians have the support they need throughout this time. The government's strong plan to protect and prepare South Australia has meant that we are now in a position to start getting back to business by progressively easing restrictions. This already commenced this week, and people have been advised of the road map model.

The bill will further assist what is already happening in mitigating the economic impacts on the state throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. It also promotes general community safety by adopting measures that will support social distancing and other community restrictions in line with health advice into the future. Finally, the bill makes a number of key changes, specifically to our business and development sectors. It will help give local businesses confidence so they can retain and create more jobs and keep our economy going as we continue to open.

Before I conclude, may I again extend an invitation to members that should they receive concerns, correspondence or, indeed, even ideas that need to have continued review during COVID-19, the government is happy to receive that correspondence, email or now even personal meetings, to enable us to be as flexible and responsive as we can as a government and to also bring to the attention of this house and the parliament where we might need to deal with it in a legislative manner.

Otherwise, I commend the bill to members and seek leave to formally place a short explanation of clauses into Hansard without reading them.

Leave granted.

Explanation of clauses

Part 1—Preliminary 1—Short title 2—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020

3—Amendment of section 6—Expiry of Act

This clause provides for the expiry of new section 7 (and the regulations under that section) on 30 September 2020.

4—Substitution of section 7

This clause deletes the current provision dealing with commercial leases and replaces it with a power to make provisions relating to commercial leases by regulation.

5—Insertion of section 10A

This clause allows a community visitor (which is defined to include the Chief Psychiatrist) to perform a function or exercise a power under a prescribed law to visit and inspect premises, or visit a patient, resident or other person contemplated by the prescribed law, by means of audiovisual or other electronic means that do not involve the community visitor physically entering the premises.

6—Amendment of section 19—Regulations

This clause makes minor consequential changes to section 19 (resulting from the new regulation making power in section 7).

7—Amendment of section 20—Savings and transitional matters

This clause amends section 20 to insert a savings measure ensuring that a regulation made under section 14 that postpones any time or extends any period can continue to have effect according to its terms after the time at which the regulation is taken to be revoked under the measure.

8—Amendment of Schedule 2—Temporary modification of particular State laws

This clause amends the schedule of temporary modifications as follows:

The Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act 2003 is modified to allow the Committee to meet remotely using electronic means.

Section 49 of the Development Act 1993 is temporarily modified by the clause as follows:

the $4 million threshold in subsection (7d) is increased to $10 million;

other proposed modifications would delete the requirement for notice to be given to a council and for a council to provide a report in respect of development being assessed under the section.

Equivalent temporary modifications are also made to section 131 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

The Emergency Management Act 2004 is modified:

to provide that an authorised officer may, in order to ensure compliance with any direction under section 25, remove a child from any premises, place, vehicle or vessel to a place of residence of the child or to a hospital or quarantine facility, as the authorised officer thinks fit (and may, in doing so, use using such force as is reasonably necessary);

to include a person who engages in the transmission or distribution of electricity in the definition of market participant in section 27A and to clarify the powers to give directions to market participants.

The National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996 is modified to allow the Governor, for the purpose of protecting the reliability and security of the South Australian power system, to make regulations modifying the operation of the rules under the National Electricity Law (insofar as they apply as part of the law of South Australia).

The Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 is modified to allow Committees to meet remotely using electronic means.

Schedule 1—Related amendments

Schedule 1 makes related amendments as follows:

The requirement for a concurrence to be obtained for non-complying development is repealed in section 35 of the Development Act 1993.

Section 65 of the Training and Skills Development Act 2008 is amended to give SAET the power to suspend the employment of an apprentice/trainee for a period exceeding 4 weeks if necessary having regard to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and provided that the suspension will end on or before 1 January 2021.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:26): I rise to speak in relation to the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) Amendment Bill 2020. It is good to have us all back in a different form here in the parliament—

The SPEAKER: Are you the lead speaker, member for Kaurna?

Mr PICTON: —I am the lead speaker—and I think that reflects both the status we have in South Australia in terms of COVID-19 and that we probably could have managed to have everybody here in a spaced out form during the period, in any case.

In terms of where we are at the moment in relation to COVID-19, I think we have done a tremendous job in South Australia and in Australia. I think it is a credit to all South Australians in terms of how they have been acting and following the restrictions, and I think it is a tremendous credit to our public health team, very capably and professionally led by Associate Professor Nicola Spurrier, who has provided our state with great leadership at this time, the leadership that our state has needed during this crisis.

I think people have been heeding the advice of our public health experts and have been following the restrictions. Therefore, we are now in the situation in South Australia and also across Australia where we are not talking about further restrictions being put in place but about what the timetable is in relation to easing those restrictions.

Obviously, when this bill was first proposed in this house, we were in a very different situation in relation to the initial bill, which is now the act. We were expecting a significant number of cases, and certainly the government's strategy was a suppression strategy, and it now looks like we have elimination happening in South Australia. I think we have seen significant cooperation over that period in terms of providing the legislative passage for actions that the government needs to put in place to ensure that our government and our state can continue to operate and can take the measures we need to take to protect our state.

That happened initially in relation to the first bill proposed in the parliament, which was a series of amendments to the South Australian Public Health Act which was passed very rapidly by the parliament, and we then had the introduction of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill, which was also passed significantly rapidly by the parliament. We then had an amendment to that legislation through the last parliament, also carried very rapidly, and a rapid budget measures expenditure bill, which passed very rapidly, with some $15.3 billion in that appropriation bill. We also had some amendments to the Coroners Act, which were proposed by the government and recommended for immediate passage.

All of this received bipartisan support and the backing to make sure that it could go through and be in place in a very speedy way to ensure that our state, our government and our public health experts, capably led by Professor Spurrier, as well as the state controller, police commissioner Grant Stevens, had everything that was needed in place. This is now the sixth piece of legislation that the government has proposed to the parliament for which it has asked for very speedy passage and which the opposition is supporting to make sure that we can deal with this in a very rapid fashion through the parliament.

But that is not to say that we should not be applying scrutiny to this measure, particularly now when we are back in parliament and everybody is here. I think we do have the ability to provide significant levels of oversight and scrutiny of this legislation, despite the fact that it was only presented to the opposition yesterday morning, and very late yesterday afternoon we were able to receive a briefing on it. We will now be proceeding with it in the house this morning, and I am sure we will be debating it in the Legislative Council this week.

This piece of legislation relates to a series of different portfolios. As the shadow minister for health and also the minister representing the shadow attorney-general in this place, I am the lead speaker; however, there are many areas of this legislation which deal with other portfolios. Particularly, a significant amount of this legislation relates to the energy portfolio, so the member for West Torrens will be speaking in relation to that. There is also a significant amount of change in relation to the child protection portfolio, so the member for Badcoe will be speaking in relation to her portfolio. There are a number of other matters relating to planning, training, housing and so forth.

Some of this we will be dealing with in second reading speeches, but some of it we will be dealing with in terms of questions during the committee stage of this bill to get further details in relation to how this will work to explore measures in greater detail.

As per the other five pieces of legislation, there has been no consultation with external stakeholders. Obviously that is understandable, but I think as we get further into this process, we would like to see more consultation in relation to these bills. Particularly as we are in a situation where we have been doing well in South Australia, we should be consulting people in relation to these matters. In relation to the opposition and the crossbench, briefings have been provided on the day of or the day before the need to vote on the legislation.

The opposition position on this and on all measures has been very clear from the beginning. We are supportive of all measures to take place to protect our state. Any measure the government is taking to protect us, to make sure that South Australians stay healthy, to make sure that the South Australian economy continues to function has our support. Where there are additional things the government has not picked up on or has not proceeded with, we will continue to raise those issues, and as a constructive opposition we will continue to raise proposals that could further protect our state, either from a health perspective or from an economic perspective.

That has been our position from day dot. Around the country there have been some very differing approaches from opposition. You only have to look at Victoria, where the opposition there has been putting on social media pictures of the premier as the North Korean leader to see that some oppositions have taken a very different tack from that. However, I think what people expect us to do is to work constructively together as a state and also, where there are issues that need to be listened to, to put them on the table.

From my perspective, there have been many doctors, nurses, patients and other health experts who have been raising issues with me continually about further steps we could be taking and about things that had not been picked up on, and we have been constructively raising them, both directly in correspondence with the government and also publicly, where that needs to occur.

A number of those issues remain outstanding, particularly when you look at how some of our casual nurses have been treated, in terms of going many, many months without pay. That is also an issue that we have seen across the government enterprises. The member for Badcoe has been advocating for arts workers and also the Convention Centre, Entertainment Centre and others. People have been missing out, and if they lived in another state such as Victoria they would have received support.

That is just one example of an issue we have raised, and one which we will continue to raise. Another is in relation to the border. We do not have similar protections to those in place on the borders in other states. I think the government can continue to improve upon what has already been put in place—particularly when we have advice from the Chief Public Health Officer that the risk to us is from interstate cases—to make sure that it is as strong as possible, as we see other states taking a stronger position.

We will provide scrutiny to improve this legislation, which we understand is being drafted under pressure and within a short time frame. We need to make sure that laws that are passed in this state have the proper scrutiny and are properly in place. This bill expands on a range of earlier provisions.

The bill also replaces the previous elements of the act that deal with commercial tenancies so that the elements of the National Cabinet Mandatory Code of Conduct: SME Commercial Leasing Principles During COVID-19 can be implemented. It extends the effect of some of the regulations that are made under the current emergency, and it expands flexibility for the Community Visitor Scheme and the Chief Psychiatrist, which I will return to in some detail in a minute.

The bill allows for increased direct interventions in the electricity market, it clarifies powers for authorised officers acting under the Emergency Management Act to remove children from premises, it provides for the suspension of traineeships and apprenticeships until January 2021 and it makes two changes to development legislation. The first of these changes increases the threshold for referral from $4 million to $10 million and removes the need for consultation, and the second removes the need for concurrence with local councils on certain developments.

It is noted that these proposals include a mix of temporary and permanent measures, the latter of which requires a high level of consideration before they become law. I mentioned that a number of areas listed fall to other shadow ministers on our side of the house, and they will be taking up those measures in further detail. However, I would like to take a minute to talk about clause 5 of the bill, which is in relation to provisions relating to certain community visitors.

Essentially, what is being proposed by the government is that, for the work done by community visitors and the Chief Psychiatrist—very important work in terms of inspecting a number of facilities, particularly mental health facilities, across our state—those inspections and visits could be conducted via videoconference. I think we all know the history of how important those visits have been, and the importance of rigorous inspections of those facilities, to make sure that quality care is being provided in those services.

I do have to say that there is some reluctance in terms of not having a physical inspection in place. We have been briefed that the rationale behind this is particularly in relation to the community visitors, where the vast majority of the work of the community visitors program is in relation to volunteers. A large percentage of those volunteers are older people who might be in a more vulnerable cohort and therefore would not necessarily be making themselves available to undertake physical inspections, and this would be one way to make sure that some inspections could take place.

Clearly, the efficacy of a video inspection does not equal the efficacy of an in-person inspection. I think this is particularly so given the government is also extending this to cover the Chief Psychiatrist as well and the important inspections that the Chief Psychiatrist and the Chief Psychiatrist's delegate do to inspect mental health facilities. Can that be properly provided for through a videoconference as opposed to a physical inspection of the premises and talking to the clients who are there? That is a concern that we have.

However, on balance, we are supporting this provision, but we would like to see some reporting on where and when this is occurring. So I am proposing to introduce an amendment to make it clear that, if this provision in relation to Chief Psychiatrist inspections or community visitor visits should be used, there should be a public report in relation to the times and dates they have been used and the reasons why they had to be used so that the public, the parliament and loved ones can be very clear in terms of when it has been used and the reasons why a physical inspection was not available. I would encourage the government to make sure that this is only used when it is absolutely necessary because we want as many in-person inspections as possible.

It contrasts significantly with the approach that the government has taken in relation to aged-care visits, where the government has been encouraging and, in effect, raising concerns in relation to aged-care facilities where those facilities have not been allowing family members to visit, but here we are taking provisions that the inspections should not be occurring in relation to mental health facilities. I think that there is an issue there, I think that it should be used as minimally as possible and I think that there should be public reporting on when it is used, and we hope that the government will be supportive of that amendment.

In summary, the opposition supports this bill at the second reading. We will be raising specific concerns, questions and amendments during the committee stage, both here and in the other house, in relation to this bill to make sure that this piece of legislation is as thorough, is as well protected and is as necessary as possible.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (11:42): I would like to speak particularly on the amendment via the omnibus bill that is being made to the training and skills commission development act. The amendment will allow the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) to suspend a training contract for a period of up to and including 1 January 2021 where the business has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is important because we are keen to enable those businesses that have been engaged in skills training to continue to do so and also for those apprentices to have the best opportunity—

The SPEAKER: I will ask the minister to speak to the bill. The time to speak to the amendment is probably best in the Committee of the Whole stage.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I was speaking to the bill.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I was just cautioning the minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have no intention of speaking to the amendment.

The SPEAKER: Good, excellent.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am actually speaking to the bill, so if the member for West Torrens is giving you that suggestion—

The SPEAKER: No, it is nothing to do with the member for West Torrens, although sometimes I do take his advice, but not all—but, no, nothing to do with the member for West Torrens. Minister, continue, thank you.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Currently, the act allows SAET to suspend for a four-week period in the current climate, so there is no opportunity for any alternative other than a four-week period. Of course, in the current climate, the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 remain unknown. This entitles consistency with the Training and Skills Commission's recently amended guidelines made in March this year for determining the approval of a suspension of a trainee contract.

I think what is important here is that both the apprentice and the apprentice's or trainee's employer are victims of this pandemic. There is no-one to blame in this situation. I know, from when I was in business and I actually employed 20 apprentices over 22 years, there are the occasions when things do not quite go right. Usually, the employer or the employee has changed their position and relationship. The relationship has broken down and is no longer working. Generally, that is when these types of approaches are made and a quick resolution via the South Australian Employment Tribunal, if it cannot be resolved by the Training and Skills Commission, is the appropriate way to deal with it.

In this instance, of course, this bill will allow for a situation where an agreement cannot be made via the Training and Skills Commission and the recommendation for a suspension is moved to the SAET. It then enables the SAET to make a decision that supports the decision of the Training and Skills Commission if they feel that it is the appropriate measure in this instance.

This bill is there to align the SAET with the intention of the government, which is to keep as many apprentices and trainees as possible engaged during a suspension and allow the suspension to be an option to a termination. My experience has been that it is very hard to pick up again from a termination and it is much easier to pick up from a suspension.

Employers have seen their capacity to employ and train their apprentices impacted due to a business closure or a work downturn. It has been mixed out there, where some businesses are still signing up to take new apprentices on—not as many as previously—and other businesses are not even renewing their registration to be an employer of apprentices or trainees.

It is a situation that is being managed by my department and the Training and Skills Commission, and our key purpose, our key aim, is to enable a resumption of the government's program to increase engagement of the apprenticeship and traineeship system with employers and with employees. Of course, this change does recognise the impact on business.

Suspending a training contract is preferable, of course, to termination. This enables the apprentice to remain engaged in their off-the-job training while they are suspended, whereas a termination simply does not allow that to happen. The employer is able to provide that training via RTO, through the contract of training, and it supports apprentices and trainees to remain connected to the system.

The change to the guidelines in the legislation is to support a more flexible approach around training suspensions and, of course, this decision was made after consultation by the Training and Skills Commission, so I have taken their advice on this outcome. It is another example of the Training and Skills Commission working how it should, engaging industry and coming up with a solution for a problem that was unforeseen before COVID-19.

Our key focus is ensuring that apprentices and trainees and businesses are supported during the challenges imposed by COVID-19 by keeping their training and their jobs. Obviously, we do not know what is going to happen in the future. We do not know what is going to happen after 1 January next year, but this is putting apprentices and trainees and employers in the best position to resume business as usual if they are in a position to be able to do that.

This, of course, does not stop an apprentice coming back earlier, before the suspension terminates, if the circumstances of the employer change ahead of schedule or change unexpectedly. We have seen that happening through COVID-19. Six weeks ago people were suggesting that we were going to see the peak of the infections in May or June. Yesterday, we had our 19^th day with only a single new infection in that period. Nobody could have predicted that six weeks ago, just as nobody can predict where their business is going to be in three or six months' time.

Of course, suspended apprentices and trainees are able to apply for JobKeeper. I know that has been a very successful program for apprentices and trainees, and there is also the 50 per cent subsidy that the federal government is offering, so employers can choose one or the other for their apprentices. I know there has been a strong take-up of both in regard to those in apprenticeships or traineeships and their employer. This supports group training organisations as well.

I think a point was made by the member for Kaurna that things change and change quickly. I congratulate Michaelia Cash, the federal minister responsible for skills training, for recognising that, in some instances for group training organisations, they may not have qualified for the JobKeeper, but one of the businesses, as a host employer of one of their apprentices, may have qualified, so they would then be able to receive the JobKeeper for that host employee so that host employee will be able to keep their position hosted at that business. These are the things that pop up from time to time that are completely out of left field, and it is terrific that minister Cash was able to identify this very early and save more apprentices and trainees and help them stay in the educational phase of their careers.

The amended guidelines are consistent with the COVID-19 Fair Work Act standdown provisions and give employers greater flexibility to deal with significant downturn in work related to the pandemic. At the same time, they are supporting their apprentices and trainees to remain connected to the training system.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (11:52): I join with my colleagues on both sides of the chamber in commending the incredible work that has been done, particularly by our health workers but also by other South Australians who have been working very hard in very testing and changing circumstances. It causes me to reflect on my own family's experience and the situation overseas.

My youngest sister is a paramedic working for the London Ambulance Service, and certainly it has been a very testing time for her working in the UK, which is one of the nations hardest hit by this pandemic. It has been a very nervous time for her, and she has obviously had very stressful days at work. It also has been a very nervous time for our family, who have been worried sick about her, her health and the situation in which she finds herself, despite the fact that she is a very dedicated worker and of course chooses to be there and to be working hard for people who are being hit by the coronavirus pandemic on the other side of the world.

I hope that not only South Australia and Australia recovers quickly from this horrible pandemic but that nations across the world find a way through this as quickly as possible for the good of those people and families who have lost loved ones, who have loved ones who are ill with this virus, and all those health workers, including my own sister, who expose themselves every day to the risks.

I will keep my comments quite brief and focused on the particular amendment in my area of interest, which is child protection. This amendment seeks to alter the Emergency Management Act 2004 to allow an authorised officer to remove a child amid a COVID emergency and to relocate them to a hospital or a quarantine facility. This amendment caters for any child, not only a child under guardianship or some other state order. We understand that authorised officers include police officers of any rank, and we are awaiting clarification from the Attorney about whether authorised officers extends to other types of workers. Her office has been very helpful in getting back to me on my questions, so I look forward to receiving that soon.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much. From the briefings that we have been provided so far, we understand that this measure is not intended to include Department for Child Protection workers who already have powers to remove children for specific child protection purposes under a different act. Our understanding, based on the briefings provided by the Department for Child Protection and the Attorney-General's Department, is that this measure is designed to cater for a situation where a child might either be at risk of contracting COVID-19 or indeed be a risk of spreading it to other people in the community. Of course, it also caters for a situation in which that young person or their family might be unwilling or unable to be relocated by negotiation.

Labor supports such a power in the limited circumstances of an emergency. We of course hope that this power never needs to be invoked and that authorities and families would be able to come to arrangements without the need for forcible removal of a child. However, we acknowledge that this power is necessary in the urgent circumstances that we could find ourselves in. It is our reading of the Emergency Management Act that these powers actually already exist in that act; however, the Attorney has provided advice that SAPOL has requested these changes to ensure absolute clarity for its police officers. I take the opportunity to read some of that advice that was received earlier today from the Attorney-General's Department. It states that:

While what is set out in s25A may appear to be already permitted under s25(2)(e), s25(2)(e) is expressed in very general terms and may create operational challenges for SAPOL. Section 25A is much more specific—

that is the new amended section—

to the circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic and enables SAPOL to act to ensure a child complies with any directions made under section 25. It is also more specific about the location a child can be removed to [that is] their residence, a hospital or a quarantine facility. This additional clarity will assist SAPOL to have operational certainty in acting quickly to ensure the safety of children during the pandemic.

Although this amendment may not strictly be necessary as we believe it is already provided, Labor will support this amendment for the sake of utter clarity for those who are charged with managing community safety in an emergency—and we wish them all the best in their very important work.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:57): I rise to say some brief words in support of the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) Amendment Bill that is presently before us. I propose to focus my contribution on clause 4 and the substitution that clause 4 provides for section 7 of the act as it presently stands. Section 7 of the act, which was passed recently and quickly by this house to provide some measure of structure under which commercial leases might be negotiated in the context of the global pandemic, is now to be replaced by this more thoroughgoing framework, drawing as it does on the national code and implementing aspects of the national code and/or requiring that regard be had to certain aspects of the national code that are desirable.

I am pleased to see that the government has gone about its work in this regard, focusing on what will provide necessary certainty to parties to commercial leases and with a view to applying such unusual provisions only to the extent that they are reasonably workable in the context of the global pandemic. First of all, we know that the measures that are the subject of this bill, and the regulations that are made pursuant to the new section 7, will be in place for a six-month period commencing 30 March until 30 September. It is a very defined period.

Reference has been made to the tremendous progress we have already made in this state in staying on top of this situation. We are significantly further advanced than we were even as recently as 30 March, and we continue to work to suppress the virus and to get to the other side stronger and more resilient than ever, but we have this period in which commercial lease parties are within this framework.

Secondly, I want to highlight that the framework that is the subject of the regulations does not seek to go about some slavish, strict proportionality mathematical exercise when it comes to applying any appropriate reductions in rent or other relief to tenants. There has been some substantial discussion about the way in which one might go about appropriately calculating relief. I am one who is very glad to see that there is not some prescriptive approach to some notion of proportionality here but, rather, that this is properly a commercial matter that is left to the parties to navigate in all the commercial circumstances that apply from one lease to another.

As I have already adverted to, the regulations to a significant extent require the court, if it comes to it, pursuant to regulation 9, and meanwhile, the commissioner and the parties themselves, to have regard to the code in various relevant ways, as opposed to necessarily applying the code holus-bolus. I understand that we are not alone and that in this regard there is no other state or territory that has just applied the whole thing in a blanket way, and that is important.

The states, in the course of this global pandemic, very particularly have responsibility for the good management of the situation in the course of what is a national and an international crisis. The practical day-to-day management and administration of key relevant areas, including chiefly health, of course, but also education, and with respect to these matters, are matters for the state. So it is more useful than usual perhaps that we both understand that what comes from the national level is with a view to a certain degree of uniformity where that is appropriate, but with the necessity that the states actually need to go about applying these measures, and it is the states that are taking responsibility for ensuring that conditions that apply are such that to the extent that commercial activity and, in this case, commercial leases, can proceed as effectively and with as much clarity and certainty as possible.

Turning to the particular measures that are the subject of the regulations more particularly, I am addressing clause 4 of the bill as has been already mentioned. This will see the replacement of what is section 7. Section 7 of the act at the moment talks to these topics and, admirably in the circumstances, at very short notice talks to them in some reasonably substantial way. What we see now in the regulations is really a fully formed framework that will provide for the steps that parties need to take in negotiating for an outcome.

In talking to my constituents on a daily basis through this global pandemic, I very much respect and appreciate the work that is being done by brokers and agents, as well as by landlords and tenants, as they navigate an environment of real uncertainty in circumstances where they all realise that coming to a commercial outcome is hugely important.

I want to continue to urge all parties, as I do when I speak to them, that it is in all of our interests that those best endeavours are made and that that hard work is undertaken creatively to come to a commercial outcome so that landlords can get through and so that landlords, as far as possible, can get through with a tenant that continues to be viable on the other side. I applaud and recognise the work that is being done by professionals and parties in this space as they navigate this area.

The regulations contain three key steps; firstly, the obligation on the parties to negotiate in good faith to come to a commercially reasonable outcome, which is the subject of regulation 6. In this respect, for those practitioners who would seek clarity and certainty, I hope this will be met with a high degree of positivity, in that it sets out a road map that you would expect to be taken in any event but just with considerably more mandatory elements as part of that framework. There is an obligation on the parties that is contained in regulation 6 to negotiate in good faith.

Regulation 7 deals with certain prohibitions and restrictions on what can and cannot be done in relation to commercial leases during this period. Importantly, regulation 8 provides for mediation by the commissioner. The Small Business Commissioner has an important role in the context of these regulations, just as the commissioner did in the context of the act and of section 7 as it presently stands, so there is no surprise there.

Perhaps most importantly, regulation 9 provides now in a more thorough way for the determination of a dispute by the Magistrates Court in the event that good faith negotiations, the subject of regulation 6, have failed and provided only that the parties have first availed themselves of the opportunity to mediate and that the commissioner has certified that the mediation has failed. It sets a three-step process.

There has been some reference in the course of this debate to the notion of binding mediation or a mediation with some sort of mandatory outcome. Of course, in ordinary circumstances, participation in a mediation is entirely voluntary and whether or not it settles with a binding arrangement is entirely a matter for the parties. In these circumstances, the regulations are providing for mandatory mediation to the extent that, if you want to have a dispute finally determined by the Magistrates Court, you need to have mediated in order to get there and you need to have mediated and got a certificate from the commissioner in the event that that failed. Of course, if the mediation is successful, and that is very much the intent, then, with the best will in the world, that will lead to a binding outcome that the parties will have signed up to that is facilitated by the commissioner, and that would be a good result in the context of the regulations.

If you get to the court and the need for the Magistrates Court to determine a dispute pursuant to regulation 9, then the thing I want to highlight is that that regulation, now going into considerable detail, gives a clue to the parties as to the subject matter they ought to be negotiating about in good faith, because regulation 9 is saying, 'Well, the Magistrates Court is empowered to make a final determination, but the Magistrates Court must have regard to the very many measures that are provided for there in regulation 9, including those measures that have been adapted from the code.'

The parties that have got to the point of negotiating in good faith might see that there is not a lot that guides just exactly how they do that directly, but in the event that it fails they can look ahead to regulation 9 and see what the Magistrates Court will ultimately be bound by or guided by in making a final determination. I would say to parties: absolutely negotiate an outcome in accord with regulation 6 and, to the extent necessary, be guided by the manual, if you like, that is expressed in regulation 9.

Just to illustrate that, regulation 9(8) provides for a number of specific matters that the court must have regard to when making an order in line with the regulation, and that includes (8)(b) the reduction in turnover of the business of the lessee during the prescribed period and (8)(d) whether the failure to provide rent relief would compromise the lessee's ability to fulfil the lessee's ongoing obligations under the lease, including payment of rent, and (8)(e) the ability of the lessor to provide rent relief, including any relief provided to the lessor by a third party in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I just pick those out by way of example to highlight that the Magistrates Court will not be dealing as it ordinarily would with commercial parties who come to the court following the failure of a negotiation or the failure of a mediation. The Magistrates Court will have regard to these particular matters that are, to some considerable extent, the subject of the code. I have specifically mentioned subsection (8)(e), and in that regard I draw particular attention to the measures that the government has already put in place to provide relief from taxes that might otherwise be applied to business and to landowners, including the $50 million of emergency land tax relief in addition to the $70 million of land tax relief that is commencing on 1 July.

As we know, this reforming Marshall Liberal government has already embarked upon this tremendous agenda of reducing taxes, reducing burdens upon landlords and business operators in this state, and we see those tax relief measures coming on now—in any event, happily—and that they come along with the relief that they bring, that is, the $70 million of relief that is coming on 1 July. In this context, the $50 million of emergency land tax relief is just one element that will appropriately be brought to bear in the event that the Magistrates Court is being called on to make a final determination of issues between parties to a commercial lease where those two mandatory steps, the subject of regulation 6 and regulation 8, have not resolved the matter between the parties.

This is legislation that is urgent and in response to the very particular circumstances of an emergency that is, in many respects, an existential challenge to the usual commercial arrangements that are in place—the ones that we ordinarily take for granted that private parties can, in the usual course, go about negotiating as the means to go about day-to-day business.

This legislation is in a detailed way and a unified way, to the extent that there is quite significant reference to a national code, setting the scene, setting the circumstances and setting out certain necessary protections so that parties to commercial leases can continue to operate and, I sincerely trust, can do so in a way in which they will come out on the other side stronger and more resilient than before. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (12:17): I rise to make a brief contribution with regard to this latest bill introduced by the government in order to respond to the coronavirus impacts that we see on the community at the moment. Like the other bills that have been brought to this place by the government, the opposition is not only willing to debate them and consider them without delay but also lends its support to these measures to assist the community of South Australia to try to mitigate the impacts of this virus.

As we have heard from the Attorney and also the member for Heysen, this bill focuses on a specific number of areas that in the government's view are needing some further clarification and specificity in terms of how matters such as commercial leases, for example, can be dealt with. As the Attorney rightly said, no doubt all members have been approached either by tenants or landlords in their electorates seeking advice, assistance or direction about how to help resolve the predicaments in which they find themselves.

I think the government should be recognised for the steps it has taken to date, being willing to step into the middle of what is usually a private arrangement between a landlord and tenant, to provide a facility for disputes or issues to be resolved using the Small Business Commissioner. The member for Heysen gives an impassioned plea to us to recognise the necessity of using the Magistrates Court as an ultimate vehicle for resolving such conflicts, rather than perhaps the other suggestions made both in this place and outside of this place by some industry groups and some advocates of instead arming the Small Business Commissioner and his office with both the powers and the resources to be able to do that.

Some of the reasons raised—and I echoed this concern when we were dealing with the substantive bill last time we met—were, firstly, whether the court itself had the capacity to deal with what could conceivably be an influx of work in this area and, secondly, what the financial burden would be on those seeking to use the services of the court to arbitrate these matters. But, nonetheless, what we have here is some further detail and particulars to try to guide, firstly, the mediation of those matters by the Small Business Commissioner and, failing that, how the Magistrates Court should seek to resolve those matters for all.

It is of interest to me that the government has focused here on commercial leases and has not seen the need to provide any further specifics in this regard for residential leases. Perhaps the Attorney could provide us with her thoughts either during her closing remarks or during the committee stage when we get to it. We will also be seeking some further detail specifically about how the process is to work in regard to a failed mediation by the Small Business Commissioner, where the parties are unable to agree with perhaps the suggestions that he or his office might make, the issuing of a certificate to that extent—if I read the bill and the regulations correctly—and then how to try to encapsulate those matters that both parties feel are relevant to their positions to be then considered by the court.

It is also interesting that there seems to me to be a passing reference or vague reference to something the member for Heysen made reference to, and that is the government's announcements about land tax relief for property owners who are able to pass on that equivalent sum of relief to their tenants, and, in the Magistrates Court's consideration about how they are to consider the capacity of the lessee or the lessor to continue their commercial arrangement, what voice any potential relief from the government has there.

Of course, it may well be that a landlord is not entitled to receive land tax relief until an arrangement has been struck and formalised with the tenant for a reduction in rental payments, for example, or contributions toward outgoings or some other relief. If that is the case, is there some unfortunate circuitous or chicken and egg arrangement where the Magistrates Court cannot yet have confirmation that that is going to happen yet should take it into consideration in determining an appropriate outcome? That might be something we can briefly touch on during the committee stage as well.

I think it is important at this point to also place on record, along the lines of what the member for Kaurna has contributed to this debate, that the opposition has continued to be supportive of the government's efforts. We have at the same time also suggested to the government other ways in which they could be assisting to mitigate the impacts on the community of the coronavirus.

In regard to land tax, we feel that the government could have gone further with the temporary period in which it has announced relief would be provided—not just providing up to a 25 per cent reduction in land tax bills, as the government has already committed, but also, effectively, not passing on the significant increase in land tax bills that some thousands of property owners were to experience by virtue of them being able to access a 100 per cent offset for those bills for a short period of time in a land tax relief fund. We feel that the government could have gone further with this and that it would have made a more significant difference to the livelihoods of both landlords and their tenants. However, as I said earlier, the government should be recognised for their efforts, and at least they have done something in this regard.

We have also called on the government to move more quickly in relation to the payment of small business grants, which it promised to small businesses several weeks ago. As I have previously said to this place, the swift payment of these grants was absolutely essential to maintain the livelihoods of thousands of small businesses. That is because they were caught in an unfortunate trap of being promised financial assistance from the federal government in the form of JobKeeper payments, which they could pass on to their employees and keep them connected to their business, so that when they were able to return to operations more approaching normal, they could use the labour of those employees and get back in business, so to speak.

Unfortunately, perhaps understandably given the need for the federal government to make sure that people were being paid these funds appropriately and it was not being rorted, there was a delay of at least five weeks between 30 March and the first week of May in those JobKeeper payments being able to be paid and actually being paid. During that period, most businesses in South Australia, particularly small businesses—the sorts of businesses that we are all familiar with in our electorates—were forced to close or massively reduce their operations. That meant they had very little cash in order to pay those JobKeeper payments up-front.

The promise of the $10,000 from the state government was absolutely crucial in that. Many businesses thought that, while waiting for these JobKeeper payments, while they were having to run down their own financial reserves and pay those JobKeeper payments up-front to their employees, they would be helped by that $10,000 payment. Unfortunately for many people, that still has not happened. It has happened for some people, we are told, although the Premier is steadfast in his refusal to provide up-to-date numbers to this place, even when asked a number of questions without notice. However, we hope, for example, that those more interested in public accountability, perhaps other ministers of the Crown or the Department of Treasury and Finance, might be able to provide this place some accurate information with regard to that.

We have also called on the government to provide some immediate assistance to the housing sector. The Premier thought it was a topic of great mirth to suggest that the assistance his government could provide the housing sector was for mums and dads to subsidise the purchase of a property. The Premier might be surprised to learn that not all families share the financial capacity of his, and that might not be the path to increased homeownership for many South Australians. Many families quite simply cannot afford to do that, notwithstanding the fact that lending rates have fallen quite substantially.

We have also called on the government to roll out a $200 million hospitality and tourism support fund, bearing in mind that even as restrictions are starting to be lifted the majority of hospitality venues and the majority of tourism operations are not able to return to normal. Their operations are either severely limited, if not completely annulled, because of the impossibility of carrying on their businesses during the case of restrictions.

We have already seen what you could perhaps refer to as marquee businesses in South Australia fall over as a result. I am thinking of the King's Head Hotel, perhaps one of the first public houses which took it upon itself, years ago, to lead by example and stock only South Australian beers and South Australian wines to try to support local producers and also to send a message to South Australians and South Australian industries that this is something we should be doing more of here in South Australia, no doubt not assisted by the cancellation and defunding of I Choose SA by the Premier.

Unfortunately, their lot is thrown in with all of the other lots of industries, and that is having to compete for grants of an unspecified amount in an unspecified process with unspecified criteria from the government. That is something which has been of great frustration to many businesses and industry leaders, that they do not know how to apply for amounts of money because no criteria have been set.

We have also asked the government for support in a private member's bill that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Croydon, is bringing forward to require councils to pass on rate relief to businesses who are left in the unenviable situation of either being closed or with significantly reduced operations but yet are still in receipt of council rate notices. Given the extraordinary amounts of money that the federal government has put on the table, and even the amounts of money that the state government is putting on the table, you would have thought that leaders of local government would believe that there was some role for them to play in this.

I am pleased to say that some councils have moved in this regard. I was pleased to see—I think it is the Adelaide Plains Council which has announced some relief. The City of Prospect has announced some relief.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: The City of West Torrens.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The City of West Torrens, the member for West Torrens tells me, has, and I also heard on the radio yesterday that the City of Mitcham has, I think. I thought, for example, that the example of the City of Prospect, a relatively small council and hence perhaps with leadership that might not think it had infinite financial resources, might have set the example for that other small protectorate, the Town of Walkerville, the extraordinary existence of which no-one can quite explain, in how it survived the last round of amalgamations in the 1990s. In fact, I think Lyle Lanley in The Simpsons described it 'like a mule with a spinning wheel: no-one quite knows for sure how he got it and danged if he knows how to use it'.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: That's a Simpsons quote.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is, yes, Lyle Lanley from The Simpsons, who spruiked a monorail, so it is perhaps timely for the Minister for Transport to interject. Perhaps while we lift ourselves from this digression, I can come back to the point that this is important legislation, legislation we are happy to support.

There are some elements of this that do raise some eyebrows beyond the areas that I think are necessary effort, for example with commercial leases. No doubt there will be some consternation about the changes to the Development Act and, in effect, the reduction in consultation, which will happen as a result. And in relation to something which I am sure the member for West Torrens will speak about, I was alarmed to see the changes that the bill foreshadows with regard to the National Electricity (South Australia) Act 1996, which allows the Governor essentially to make changes or to modify the operations of the rules under the National Electricity Law effectively to ensure that the excess power generation, which might be occurring across South Australia as fewer businesses are consuming electricity, or not consuming as much electricity, places stress on the grid.

This might be an opportune time for us all to reflect on why it is we find ourselves with nearly two full decades of proliferation of rooftop solar across residential properties as well as large-scale solar installations. We still seem to have a network, superintended by SA Power Networks, that appears to be stuck in the 1990s and which has not been changed, amended or upgraded to ensure that the 243,000 solar installations we have here in South Australia can continue reaping the benefit of their expensive investments. Rather, perhaps some or many of those should be shut down lest we do any damage to either the infrastructure of SA Power Networks or perhaps, let's be more honest, the profits of SA Power Networks.

I always turn my mind to that piece in The Advertiser from 2014. I think the journalist was Miles Kemp, who quoted a piece of work that had been done by a South Australian energy consultant, Bruce Mountain. He said that the amount the owners of SA Power Networks generate in after-tax profit per customer in South Australia was four times higher than the amount of profit generated after tax from each customer in their investments in the same type of infrastructure in the United Kingdom.

That is a surprising statistic, but what is even more surprising was that in 2014, the figure was quoted at an average of $420 a year in post-tax profit taken by SA Power Networks from each South Australian electricity consumer. It makes you wonder why as a member of parliament of any persuasion you would support the privatisation of such an asset and, with more than a million electricity connections generating an after-tax profit of $420 each on average, what our state could be doing with that money, rather than it being sent over to the very deep pockets of an investor in Hong Kong.

Nonetheless, that decision was made and, after that decision was made, members opposite thought, 'Gee, that was such a good decision, I'll have some of that. I'll put my hand up for preselection and hopefully I can be part of that political party, too.' However, that is for them rather than us to reflect on—that they would do that to South Australian electricity consumers. I hope that this clause will not be used in the same nefarious way as changes to our electricity laws were used after the 1997 election.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (12:37): I rise to support the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) Amendment Bill 2020 and speak just briefly, if I can, about the amendments in my portfolio area. I certainly appreciate these things are happening in this chamber in quick fashion, but we as a government have been seeking to work in real time to deal with issues as they arise at various stages of this crisis.

It is fair to say that we are moving into a slightly different stage of the crisis, having been able to stabilise the health impacts and the health consequences locally, seeing only one new case in the last 19 days and I think only four new cases in the last four weeks. We have done a fantastic job to be able to deal with that, but once the health crisis has come and gone, ensuring the recovery of our economy is going to take centre stage. We need to prepare now for that eventuality and that is precisely what these planning amendments seek to do.

To be upfront, the amendments that we are looking to move as part of this bill are actually law in South Australia under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. Everything we are seeking to do, the former Labor government passed through the parliament in 2016 under PDI. Essentially, we are looking to bring forward some of those changes from September, when the phase 3 code will go live, to now to take advantage of and help speed up infrastructure projects.

We also know that when it comes to infrastructure delivery these projects do take time to get off the ground. From the time a project is conceptualised, from a state government perspective when it is funded, it then has a series of steps it needs to go through, from engineering and design to early works, before construction proper begins. As part of that process in some instances of Crown development, a planning process will also need to be undertaken.

We want to make sure that we get these projects off the ground as soon as possible, and part of getting them off the ground as soon as possible is making sure that we truncate as much as possible, whilst still having balance, the time frame it takes to get planning approvals through this space. We know that speed is important, and this, we think, is an important step to help take real time out of the planning approvals process so that we can get work underway more quickly.

Most of the bill relates to Crown development applications. These are applications the government sponsors, and Crown developments almost always are some form of public infrastructure. What we are seeking to do is to remove consultation on Crown developments. The existing threshold for consultation at the moment is $4 million. Under the new PDI Act it is $10 million. We are looking to bring forward that new threshold of $10 million to now. We are also looking to get rid of a referral to councils and again increase that threshold from $4 million to $10 million. That allows us to save many, many weeks in the planning approvals process and will allow us to get projects off the ground more quickly.

Crown development projects at the moment tend to be education projects—part of our $1.3 billion worth of education infrastructure that is being built, and if you include the PPPs I think we are somewhere north of $1.5 billion worth of education infrastructure being built. Making sure that those projects get off the ground as soon as possible is extremely important and something that would be well served and helped by the change that we are seeking to progress through the parliament today.

It would potentially help some public transport infrastructure projects, which can from time to time get caught up in planning approvals processes. We tend to have an essential infrastructure exemption for some of the road stuff, but certainly in the PT space we tend to get caught up in that. There also is, as I understand, a number of performing arts projects that would be able to be helped as a result of this. I would have thought that when it comes to delivering new education infrastructure, that is something that this house can move forward with in a bipartisan fashion. The changes to the Crown development assessment approval process would be extremely beneficial.

The other form we are looking at is that in the current act we have a development pathway—an assessment pathway—called 'non-complying', which is essentially the hardest and most difficult form of assessment. What happens in those instances is that for certain projects concurrence is required, essentially where council needs to undertake an assessment process and then the state government needs to do likewise. I can understand the rationale for it having been in place, but the idea that you need to get two lots of approvals instead of one would suggest that essentially one assessment pathway cannot deliver the right outcome and deal with all the issues that need to be dealt with.

In fact concurrence, I believe, in the current system, is an admission of failure. It is an admission that either councils or the state governments cannot do their job properly, so you need to have the other party check up on your homework to make sure that everybody gets to the same result. For those reasons concurrence does not actually exist under the PDI Act. Essentially, under the new restricted pathways development will be assessed by SCAP and will provide, again, a very rigorous process for that assessment pathway.

In relation to the changes to the consultation on Crown development projects, or concurrence on 'non-complying' developments, these changes all exist within the current PDI Act. This is an act that the former government took through the parliament back in 2016, and these are their changes. All we are seeking to do is to bring them forward. In fact, if we were in a different situation and the code was being turned on earlier, it is likely that these changes would have been in place from 1 July for all areas, and would be in place right now for phase 2 councils.

We think what we are doing here is prudent and sensible; it is not seeking to do anything other than what was going to happen anyway. It is merely about a change to the time frame, so that from now to when the phase 3 code goes live, we can actually take advantage of some of the opportunities to speed up assessments, especially for Crown developments and the changes we are seeking to put forward as part of this bill.

There were questions over the course of the last sitting week in this place as to how quickly some of the stimulus projects that we have announced are getting out into the field. I can understand that sentiment. We want to make sure that there are as many people working as possible in such a short period of time. I would have thought that bringing forward something that would help us to get work out into the field and jobs out there on the ground more quickly would have received bipartisan support from this chamber. I very much hope that will happen in this chamber and in the other place. To suggest on the one hand that we need to do more to bring forward stimulus projects but on the other hand seek to tie us back and not allow us greater opportunities to be able to bring forward stimulus and other existing infrastructure projects, I think, could be considered hypocritical.

I look forward to the bipartisan passage of these amendments so that we can get on and deliver the jobs that South Australians desperately need, at the time in which they need them, in order to come out of this crisis stronger than before, so that we can see our economy and livelihoods recover, and use all of the tools that we have in our toolkit to be able to deliver that. Providing these changes pass in the parliament, it gives us another tool to be able to help deliver stimulus at a time in which it is needed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:47): I always enjoy following the Minister for Infrastructure and his words of wisdom on the economic rollout of the government's stimulus package. It will be nice when we actually can see it rolling out in the electorate, rather than hearing excuse after excuse after excuse for the delay.

My colleagues have spoken at length about the second emergency response measures bill considered by this parliament. The opposition has cooperated with the government at every aspect of their emergency response, whether it is passing nearly $15 billion of supply, passing legislation in record time, or agreeing to provide the government with new measures of social distancing. The government are now asking us to go even further.

I will not talk at length about the many matters detailed in the government's omnibus bill, but I will talk about a few things. I am going to focus my remarks on the amendment to the National Electricity (South Australia) Act and the National Electricity Law by regulation, but there are some matters that I wish to apply towards commercial leases. I just received a phone call from a constituent who heard the Attorney-General on radio discussing the changes that she was making to commercial leases.

This is how the conversation with my constituent went. He said to me that he had a dental practice. His dental practice had seen a reduction in turnover of nearly 65 to 70 per cent due to COVID-19 restrictions. His landlord had told him that there would be no reduction in rent—none. He now has received almost no benefits from the commonwealth government because he is in a partnership rather than being a sole trader, so he gets, obviously, the proportionate benefit.

He heard the Attorney-General on radio today say to this small business that they can go to the Small Business Commissioner for mediation. At the end of that consultation with the Small Business Commissioner, if there was no successful resolution, the only option for that small business is to take legal action in the Magistrates Court. Of course, fees are not waived, representation is required and the small business owner is left accruing extra expense.

This small business owner said to me, 'I heard the Prime Minister quite clearly say that there should be a proportionate reduction in rent to turnover.' This government has not done that. This government has gone for another. This is a decision that they have made. This is not based on medical advice. This is not something that Grant Stevens has recommended. This is not something that Nicola Spurrier has recommended. This is a decision made by the South Australian Liberal cabinet. They have decided not to implement what the Prime Minister has said national cabinet agreed on; they have gone down a different path. They have decided on their own version of commercial lease relief.

This small business is understandably confused about the loyalties of the Liberal Party. I have never known the ADA to be a hotbed of socialist activity; they are a very conservative bunch. They are small business owners. They operate in an ever-changing market where health insurance funds are making dramatic inroads into their business models. They are under threat. They have seen their work reduced because of health measures, which they are happy to implement because they are healthcare professionals.

But when they are forced to pay full-tote odds on their rent and the best this government will offer them is mediation, and then when they are forced to go to court the government will not even waive the fees of going to court, you have to think that is a bit mean spirited—so much for the party of Menzies' forgotten people, the small business owners, the grocers, the people who are working and putting up their own capital at risk and employing others.

The Liberal Party has become entirely a party of landlords and that is the capital they seek to protect, not the risk capital that goes into investing in small business. It is telling that now, when they need them most, that is the response that they get from this government. I am convinced that there are members on the backbench who are watching this with horror and thinking to themselves, 'Why is it that we're not giving these small businesses the relief that they deserve?'

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: But, of course, I am sure—with the Attorney-General, who is making mocking remarks about this small business complaining about their lot in life—that is the type of attitude they have to put up with with the arrogance of the government. In terms of what the government is attempting to do with the National Electricity Law, the most concerning part about the briefing that I heard yesterday was that the state government wants to unilaterally change the national rules that apply in South Australia without having consent from the COAG.

We are the lead legislator in this parliament. That means that the legislation that governs every other jurisdiction is set here. The process of the national COAG on energy matters is that the commonwealth government chair it, all the state energy ministers are on it, they make collective agreements on how to move forward and no-one acts unilaterally. Well, here we are—the government attempting to change the national rules as they apply in South Australia without a decision of the national COAG.

There may be very important reasons for this, but of course, again, the briefing explained to us that SAPN have arrangements in place, not necessarily commercial, with people who have a solar array or a solar generator attached to the grid in excess of 200 kilowatts who will be declared a market participant for the purposes of this act so that the minister can instruct SA Power Networks to disconnect them or stop them from dispatching into the grid at a time when it may be destabilising the grid.

That might sound all very reasonable, and I am sure the department, and SA Power Networks and everyone involved, thinks it is very reasonable. I doubt very much that the operator who has invested their money into the solar array under a certain set of rules, under a certain financial expectation of what the rules will be, would ever expect that the rules could be changed on them but not SA Power Networks.

The question then becomes: why is it that we are choosing the generator to be moved off the grid and not imposing a requirement on SA Power Networks, at their cost, to augment the grid to stabilise dispatch? I suppose that goes to the contract that was signed by the current Treasurer when he was previously the treasurer, when he privatised these assets. The truth is that this parliament is the master of its own destiny. If we wished to alter the rules that SA Power Networks have to operate under, we could do it; it is an emergency.

Yet we have not chosen to do that to SA Power Networks. We have chosen to do that to the small investor. When I say 'us', I do not mean us, I mean the government. They have chosen the small investor. They have chosen the investor who has put their money into 200 kilowatts or more of solar generation under a certain set of rules to see those rules changed. Some might call that sovereign risk, but we are in emergency conditions, so the government is justifying it.

I would argue that perhaps the government has taken the easy option. We have already heard the minister on radio make public remarks that he could quite easily, under the existing rules, stop all solar generation from feeding into the grid—whether it is on household, rooftop solar—under existing powers that he has. This extends that power.

We have seen AEMO release a report talking about instability in the South Australian grid. The solution to that problem that they are proposing is to again cut off people who have invested in solar panels on their household rooftop to supplement their energy generation and reliance on the grid, by cutting them off from dispatching at times of negative demand at the middle of the day. Again, to the casual observer this looks to make common sense, but dig deeper.

As my colleague the member for Lee just told the house, SA Power Networks' investments in South Australia, according to independent analysis, are four times more profitable than they are in similar jurisdictions elsewhere because of the contract signed by the current Treasurer in his capacity as treasurer in the former Olsen government. It makes you wonder whether SA Power Networks is getting the better deal here, rather than the poor old consumer who has gone out and taken their borrowings and their money to put on their rooftops. That will be for members of the government to explain to their constituents who have rooftop solar the government's plans to simply disconnect them at times of negative demand.

The government could rule this out, which they will not. They will attempt to blame AEMO. That will not work. The buck stops with the government; it is their decision. This is an extension of that. In committee, I will be asking whether these measures are temporary or whether they will remain in place post the operation of the emergency management act. I think that they are permanent, but I will wait to get clarification from either the Attorney-General or the minister, depending on who is answering. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.