Bills

Emergency Management (Quarantine Fees and Penalty) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Attorney, you were part way through an answer to a question on clause 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I was identifying the reason why the amendments were continuing into the night last night, of the request for amendment and, in particular, by that stage, to accommodate the significant amendment as to whom the quarantine fees were going to apply. In this regard, it was relevant to the principal aspect, or the first part of this legislation, which is to deal with who should pay those, and had commenced with a commitment to include overseas and interstate returnees—that is, South Australians coming home and people who were coming back.

It was expanded last night to consider South Australians who would also be obliged to meet this expense even if they had not been away, if they were under a detention order—if they were under an obligation to be in isolation and that required them to have accommodation, then they would have to pay. I should point out that, in respect of that obligation under the bill, the provision for payment is subject to subclause (6) of clause 4, which introduces new section 25AA of the Emergency Management Act, which provides:

The State Co-ordinator may waive, reduce or refund a fee imposed under this section if the State Co-ordinator considers it appropriate to do so.

I hear the complaint of the opposition that it is all too difficult and unreasonable that they should have to be dealing with these matters by mid-morning today, but I think it has been very clear that there are four key elements that we are asking the parliament—the Legislative Council and here—to deal with: firstly, the introduction of pharmacists to be able to do tests; secondly, the provision for people to pay quarantine fee payments; thirdly, that there be an obligation for South Australians to pay if they are obliged to go into that quarantine arrangement and have that expense; and, fourthly, the penalties, for all the reasons that were identified yesterday.

A complaint comes that sometime at 2 o'clock they get a copy of the bill in relation to the penalty matters. Again, I point out that in the morning that the commissioner indicates that that is something that he would accept. We have discussions with the Crown law because of this question of the tension as to validity. That advice was given. I understand the Crown solicitors met with the police commissioner's representative at 2.30 yesterday. We get that advice. I contact the commissioner. I cannot do it any more quickly.

I just do not think they appreciate the significance of the work that has to be done. You cannot just stand up and say, 'We've got this great idea because this other state over here is doing it. We think this should be done. We demand, in fact, that the government do this,' and then turn around and expect it all to be done. That is just not the way that lawmaking works.

I am not going to be part of a government that will follow the lead of the previous government in just throwing things in willy-nilly and not having proper preparation, in this case apparently not even consulting with the police commissioner, who is the Coordinator for the state, and then expect that it is all going to be done. That is just not what lawmaking is about. Fortunately, we have an opportunity here to put the meat on the bones in relation to this.

I am sorry if they are miffed, but sometimes we do have to work quickly. I say the same thing to the member for Mount Gambier, who thinks we are dealing with all this too quickly. If everyone is unhappy, it must be a good bill.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a remarkable diatribe by the Deputy Premier, complaining that her tardiness in conceiving these changes is actually the fault of the opposition for daring to complain about how late it was when she was able to either furnish us with a bill or, at the very least, communicate to the opposition and to the crossbench that there were changes planned.

I think we can all admit what happened here. The Premier belled the cat about the change to penalties, or the need for the change to penalties, on Thursday of last week. The Deputy Premier went on radio on Friday morning and said that that was not necessary at all. Then we have the police commissioner on Monday echoing the sentiments of the Premier the previous Thursday, indicating a willingness to consider harsher penalties.

The only one who has been tardy in this process has been the Deputy Premier, because conceivably what could have happened, had we had a government that was willing to act more quickly and more in tune with the desires of the broader community, is that as soon as the Premier had made those remarks at a press conference on Thursday, then those consultations could have happened immediately with the police commissioner on Thursday in the middle of the day or even in the afternoon. 'How do you feel about these, Mr Stevens?' He could have provided his advice back to the government.

We could have had a request from the Deputy Premier or her office or from the Crown Solicitor or from somebody else in the Attorney-General's Department to have some changes drafted by parliamentary counsel. In concert with that, there could have been a communication to the remainder of parliamentarians that these changes were being contemplated by the government and then there would be no complaints from the opposition, or indeed members of the crossbench, that these changes were being foisted late upon the parliament.

We do not mind if things are being done in a hurry. For each of the bills which have been brought to this place in a matter of urgency in order to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, all members of parliament on all sides have indicated a willingness to drop everything else and deal with these matters. So that commitment is there from all of us; we are happy to do that. But we are able to do it in a more informed, collegial and productive manner if we all know what is going on throughout the process.

I know the Deputy Premier does not like having her judgement questioned by anyone, so she can complain about the opposition making it clear that we would prefer as early a notice as possible for these matters. But really the fault does not lie with us. The fault lies with that minister who was tin-eared on Friday on radio, when being interviewed by Leon Byner. They could not bring themselves to countenance the concerns of the broader community and bring in these tougher penalties.

The CHAIR: Was there a question in any of that, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: No, it was just a statement in the same manner that the Deputy Premier offered.

The CHAIR: Which you are quite entitled to do, obviously. I just thought I would check to see if you did want to ask a question as well. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I was not fully apprised, unfortunately, as the member for Lee said, of the full tirade from the Attorney-General. However—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: It was brutal.

Mr PICTON: It was brutal, I am sure.

Mr Pederick: Well, have you got a question?

Mr PICTON: I could take my full 15 minutes, if I like, member for Hammond. However, I will not, because I would like to ask the Attorney-General some questions about this. In particular, the question I asked, which I do not think was properly answered even though I did not hear all of what the Attorney said, was: what is the difference between what we said and what we provided to the Attorney-General and what she has now furnished to the house in this legislation?

This morning, it seems apparent that she and her office and the government have been providing information to the media that there was some sort of difference between what they were going to do and what we had done. However, when you actually read these pieces of legislation, there is no difference whatsoever. So can the Attorney-General find any piece of difference between what was provided for in the bill, which we gave to her office and to the government yesterday, versus the amended section adding the criminal penalty of up to two years, which appears almost identical today?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer you to my previous answer.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney mentioned that she was provided with information from the state controller, commissioner Grant Stevens, yesterday requesting that this be provided. At what time did that occur? What time was the request made yesterday, and in what format was the request made? Did it come before morning radio when the commissioner said publicly to the community that he would support such changes? Was it after that? Was it after the 2.40pm email that was provided from her office to the opposition providing a copy of this bill but without those changes, without that two-year sentence included?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know about all those other aspects because I do not necessarily agree with that. The commissioner made a statement on radio which suggested he was supportive of the contention that was put by Mr Bevan. It was on ABC. Having been informed of that—I had not had a request at that time—I checked with the Crown Solicitor's Office as to the validity of any issue in relation to penalty. They indicated they were meeting with a representative—I think it was one of the deputy commissioners—at 2.30, which is part of their usual business because they meet almost on a daily basis to deal with these directions.

After that, it might have been at about 3.30, I contacted them and indicated that there was a clearance legally for us to be able to progress something. I rang the commissioner at about that time, 3.30 or 4 o'clock, and he indicated at that point that he wanted to proceed. Just to be clear about it, we discussed times. He did not have a view on that, in the sense of how long it would be. As I say, I have given you a summary of all the other jurisdictions that already have it.

Mr SZAKACS: I rise to provide some context on the record for a local constituent of mine, not pertaining to the matters the member for Lee and the member for Kaurna have just been touching on, but particularly around the recoup of quarantine fees contained in this bill.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Is this on clause 1?

Mr SZAKACS: It is. A very concerned local constituent contacted me on behalf of her daughter, Kelly McNamara, who is currently stranded in Nepal. She was particularly aggrieved by the insensitive and outrageous comments of the Premier to the 'Tiser on 13 July, and I quote this because I would not want to get the tone of this wrong. He said, 'The reality is people had plenty of time to get back to Australia. There's some real stragglers.'

I am going to put on the record the experience of the young woman Kelly McNamara, who is stranded in Nepal because of that country's shutdown of their borders, preventing her from leaving that country to return to Australia. She was in Nepal entirely legally and, as soon as the coronavirus global pandemic took hold, took very reasonable, proper and acute steps to return to Australia. She is the holder of a fully paid return airfare. Of course, with borders closed and flights grounded in and out of Kathmandu, she cannot access or cash in that prepaid return ticket.

She has had some opportunity to jump on a charter flight. It might be of some unknown quantity to the Premier or the Attorney, but some people cannot afford to jump on a charter flight, particularly a young woman working in the arts industry who would, upon her return to Australia, return to a job that is disrespected so much by the federal government that it does not even count for the JobKeeper payments.

If she had the privilege to be able to jump on a charter flight, she would have been home here in the western suburbs with her mum much sooner than the world has provided her the ability to do. Nepal went into total lockdown on 23 March, and her ability to leave Nepal was extinguished very quickly thereafter. I think 24 March might have been the exact day that international flights out of Kathmandu were grounded. Australia closed its borders to international travellers except for Australian citizens on 20 March.

You would hardly accuse Kelly McNamara of being a straggler and not undertaking all her best endeavours to return to her home country as soon as she possibly could. The best advice that she has received from DFAT, with whom she has been in constant contact—and, as best I have been advised by her mum, she has been receiving extraordinary assistance—is that at this stage Kathmandu's international airport will be allowing flights in and out sometime around 17 August.

On behalf of my local constituent and her daughter, who is stranded overseas in Nepal—she is not a straggler and she certainly has not been dragging her heels. The tone with which the Premier has clearly embraced this reform has been single-minded and particularly out of touch with that cohort of particularly young, low-paid Australians who are stranded overseas.

From that contribution, my question to the Attorney is: has DFAT been consulted in respect of this bill and what has been their advice, particularly around the question of people choosing to be stragglers and not returning home sooner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think perhaps the member misunderstands his reading of the bill. This is not a bill which impacts in relation to the international shutdowns which he has referred to.

Mr Szakacs: No, I did not misunderstand the Premier saying that everyone who wanted to be home by now would be home.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I do not see any of those expressions of words in this bill. I think the question was: has DFAT been consulted in relation to this bill? No, and the reason for that is the decisions nationally of either the Nepalese government, or whoever is in charge over there, or the Australian government, the structure of which the member is quite aware of here, is irrelevant to the considerations in this bill. They are quite irrelevant. I note the member's statement in relation to his concern or the apparent concern expressed by Ms Kelly McNamara, who is a constituent and who is apparently stranded somewhere in Nepal in light of these international—

Mr Szakacs: She is not apparently concerned; she is actually concerned. She is not apparently stranded; she is actually stranded.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, you have had your opportunity.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know whether I can help the member for Cheltenham—

The CHAIR: Attorney, just a moment, please. Member for Cheltenham, you have asked the Attorney a question and you will have the opportunity to ask another one. We will let her answer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The answer I repeat is no. The second is that, in relation to the circumstances of Ms McNamara's being stranded in Nepal, I sympathise with her. She is not the only one. Of course, we know that there are a number of people who are stranded overseas. We have heard impassioned pleas already from one member in relation to people who are just stuck across the border or people who miss out on status for the purposes of exemptions to enable them to come into South Australia. That is the circumstance we are in.

The issue that has been raised by the member for Cheltenham is of no relevance to the matters of the substance of this bill. That is a matter he can direct either to the attention of presumably the President or Prime Minister of Nepal and/or the Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr SZAKACS: In the formulation of this bill, which the Attorney brings to this house, does she agree with the Premier's statements that all Australians stranded overseas should be home by now and that there are some real stragglers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is nothing to do with the assertions made by the member in relation to this bill. The member is asking me questions in relation to commentary in a media situation. It has nothing to do with this bill. I appreciate the member is concerned about Ms McNamara's circumstances, and I sympathise with that, but it has nothing to do with this bill.

Mr SZAKACS: I respect the Attorney's prerogative to choose to answer or not, but it is very clearly part of this bill. The Premier determined that a bill to charge those residents returning to Australia a fee for their quarantine was required and appropriate at this time and this juncture because, as he put it, all those people who would choose to be home by now should be home by now and that there are some real stragglers.

It is core to the point that, despite and notwithstanding the Premier's assertions that there are people who are straggling, people's return to Australia, as is demonstrated by the quarantine arrangements in Nepal, is beyond their control. It is out of touch and it is condescending in nature to say that simply wanting to come home gets you a flight out of Kathmandu and back home here to Adelaide.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take most of that as a comment, but if in fact the member is actually trying to ascertain whether there is any capacity for relief for anyone returning from overseas to present their impecunious state—

Mr Szakacs: That's the next clause. That's a future clause. That's clause 6, is it not?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Clause 4, new subsection (6) of new section 25AA is the answer to where that relief can be sought, if that is in fact where you are going. That is the only connection I can see with an arts student. I do not know whether Ms McNamara is an arts student, but she has a return airfare and she is on a charter flight; she just cannot get in the country. If her problem is that she may not be able to afford to do the two weeks, the $3,000 fee, then that is her relief.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 2 and the commencement of this, it is in two parts. Essentially, you are saying that the hotel quarantine fees will start as of Saturday 18 July, I believe, whereas the other provisions, particularly the two-year sentence, would start on a date to be determined and as assented to by the Governor. If you are going to backdate the payment that people have to make to the 18^th and set a particular date, then why are we not setting a particular date for when the two years' imprisonment penalty should come in? On the basis that this gets passed through this parliament, how quickly will you make the necessary provisions to advise the Governor, and what date would you expect that that would be assented to and the two-year criminal provision be put in place?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In respect of clause 2(2), for reasons I have already announced, that is to measure with the notice that was published that it will be effective from one minute past midnight on the 18^th. In any event, in relation to the rest of the bill, I would expect that, if there is consideration by the parliament tomorrow in the Legislative Council, we would be looking at a reference to the Governor by Thursday. I see that as possibly unlikely because none of us here have any real control over what happens in the Legislative Council and they have a big day on Wednesdays with private members' business. I would expect that they will be dealing with it on Thursday.

The expectation of the government is that if the parliament approves this legislation this week, then we would move it as quickly as possible for consideration by the Governor. The member may be aware that the practice of our government is that the Executive Council is a full meeting of cabinet members with the Governor on Thursday mornings, but from time to time, especially during COVID, His Excellency has made himself available to consider separate appointments for the purpose of that and often the Premier and/or other members of cabinet attend Government House to facilitate that.

We thank His Excellency for accommodating that to deal with the extreme circumstances. I would hope that, if the matter is dealt with this week, it would be presented to His Excellency as expeditiously as possible.

Mr PICTON: That is a great deal of uncertainty as to when this is going to come into place. We are dealing with an emergency now. We are dealing with a border where every single day now we are pretty much seeing the police picking up people who are doing the wrong thing. We are trying to send a deterrent here, that people would face these penalties. We had a case before the Magistrates Court even today where I understand the magistrate held people and refused bail because they were worried in terms of what the arrangements would be after they got released. Of course, there is no ability for any sentences to be imposed under the current legislation.

It seems to me that a key reason for this as a deterrent is to send a strong message, as we and the Premier have now said. Since we are setting a particular date in relation to charging people for staying in hotels, why would we not set a date for when this would come into place, i.e. perhaps today, so that people have notice that this will be in place as soon as possible?

What the Attorney has just outlined is a great deal of uncertainty. She said we cannot be sure of what happens in the other place—who knows what goes on over there. 'We will try to find an appointment with the Governor. We will try to advise him and organise a different meeting.' If we are sending a message, that is not a strong message, whereas we could set a specific date now, send a strong message and people would know that this would be in place from a particular date and be on notice that they could face the consequences.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I generally take that as a comment, but we have respect for the Governor. We will work in with his schedule to accommodate it. To date, he has been exceptionally accommodating in relation to how we deal with this. We do not presume what the parliament will do on this. We hope that we will expeditiously deal with this today and in the Legislative Council tomorrow or Thursday. As soon as practicable after that, we will seek to have His Excellency endorse the legislation. I cannot be any clearer than that.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the hotel quarantine, where the Attorney-General is very happy to set notice and set a specific date, even if she is not on the two-year penalty for some reason, how is that going to work? Is it that people who arrive from the 18^th onwards into Adelaide or into South Australia would have to commence this? Would people who were already here for some part of their 14 days' quarantine have to pay for the remainder of their 14 days following the 18^th, or is it only for those people who were fully forewarned that this would be in place before their 14 days began?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have to hand a memorandum, which is a package of material that is provided to all the new people coming in under this regime. The public were given notice on the announcements from the weekend when it would be effective from, and they will now get a package. In fact, I have even invited them to go onto www.SACOVIDMentalHealth.org.au to chat to a person online. They are also given a website for further information, which is www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/covid2019, or they can call an information line if they need any further information.

Clear notice was given that this was the regime to be implemented. The Communicable Disease Control Branch of SA Health has neatly written out what the obligations are in relation to it. I think that they have done the best they can to make sure that notice is given. Having made the announcement, for it to be effective everyone was clearly aware that the intention of the government was that there would be a time set. It is identified in the directions of the Coordinator to be effective, and that is what has actually been implemented. That is why there is a specific provision for subclause (2) in this clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

New clause 3A.

Mr DULUK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Duluk–1]—

Page 2, after line 13—Insert:

3A—Amendment of section 25—Powers of State Co-ordinator and authorised officers

Section 25—before subsection (3) insert:

(2a) A direction or requirement under this section must not prohibit travel into or out of the State where the travel is for the purpose of escaping domestic violence or providing support to a family member who is experiencing domestic violence, or is otherwise reasonably necessary for the purpose of dealing with circumstances arising out of domestic violence (but a direction may impose conditions in relation to such travel).

Parliament has given extraordinary powers to the commissioner under this COVID legislation as has become apparent to me, from reading the directives and correspondence to my office around some of the definitions of 'essential travellers' under the directives of the Emergency Management Act 2004, especially around the directive No. 9, in terms of who is an essential traveller and on what basis compassionate grounds can be granted for an individual to come to South Australia.

At the moment, compassionate grounds can be granted to persons who travel to South Australia to visit a critically or terminally ill relative or to attend the funeral of an immediate family member, provided that such persons self-quarantine during any period in which they are not visiting their relative or attending the funeral. I am sure there have been hundreds of applications made to the State Coordinator in terms of that provision.

My amendment simply includes the provision to allow persons to travel to South Australia or to leave South Australia in the case of domestic violence or escaping domestic violence. This provision is to sit under section 25 of the Emergency Management Act 2004. There is a list of powers granted under that section, which is quite substantive and gives the power to the State Coordinator to direct persons.

In this case, this amendment is simply saying that when it comes to a person who would be seeking a directive from the State Coordinator, domestic violence would be an exempt reason. We know that there is a huge issue with domestic violence in our community. I prepared some notes to members last night and gave some examples of what we are seeing in other states, such as Victoria.

I am delighted to see that the member for Reynell has also tabled a very similar amendment—in fact, it is incredibly close to mine—on the back of seeing my amendment. I am not sure if she picked that up and would like to have carriage of that herself, but it is good to be on a unity ticket with the member for Reynell on this issue. I certainly hope that the Labor Party will be supporting my amendment as I indeed will be supporting theirs, which is to follow.

I appreciate the Attorney has already made some comments in relation to her desire to work with the State Coordinator to at least see this incorporated into the Emergency Management (Cross Border Travel No 9) (COVID-19) Direction 2020. It is my desire, and that of members of my community who have contacted me, to see that expressly enshrined in legislation; hence, I move the amendment before the house today.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have questions of the mover of the amendment. My first question is: has the member made any approach to the State Coordinator (that is, the South Australian Commissioner of Police) in respect of his proposal?

Mr DULUK: Thank you, Attorney. Yes, he has been provided with a copy of my proposal.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And did the member receive any response?

Mr DULUK: Not to date.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My further question is: is the member aware of any other jurisdiction that specifically makes provision for an exemption on travel restrictions for domestic violence?

Mr DULUK: Attorney, as I think possibly you are quite well aware, New South Wales has a broader exemption as part of their directives for persons, but just because another jurisdiction has not covered this issue does not mean that South Australia should not.

The CHAIR: Attorney, you have had three questions on that.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Yes, she has.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I'm in charge here. The Attorney has had three questions, and we have been very good at having three questions today. I believe that the member for Reynell has a question for the member for Waite.

Ms HILDYARD: I wish to speak to the amendment. It is absolutely abhorrent that here in Australia, and indeed across the globe as we grapple with the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and the serious devastating health and economic issues that arise for individuals, communities and countries, we deal with another crisis: the terrible prevalence of domestic violence here in Australia. This is a crisis that sees the number of women who are not safe in their homes to which they are currently much more likely to be confined with a violent partner dramatically, unacceptably increasing, a crisis that sees more than one woman per week killed by a partner or former partner.

In a recent survey, 40 per cent of front-line domestic violence workers in New South Wales reported an increase in calls or help with escalating violence. On 8 June, Tammy Mills reported in The Age on Monash University research into the impact of COVID on the incidence of domestic violence. As the Attorney mentioned earlier today, Ms Mills stated that the university reported:

Almost 60 per cent of practitioners said the COVID-19 pandemic had increased the frequency of violence against women.

Half of respondents said the severity of violence had increased.

The number of first-time family violence reports had gone up 42 per cent of practitioners surveyed.

Practitioners themselves were struggling working from home, which was 'wreaking havoc' on their boundaries and mental health.

The Age also reported that workers were 'reporting new forms of violence, including perpetrators demanding that women wash their hands and body excessively, to the point that they bled, and spreading rumours that victims had COVID-19 so no one would come near them’.

Practitioners also reported that perpetrators were not letting women out of their homes, supposedly to protect them from coronavirus, and that they were monitoring internet use and telephones more, forcing workers to come up with methods to combat this, including using medical, Centrelink and other appointments to meet workers face to face, and the use of code words when texting or telephoning them.

Other reports speak of women increasingly telephoning for or accessing online support very late at night when violent partners were less likely to be awake. Controlling, coercive, violent behaviour is festering, insidiously growing, behind closed doors. It is doing so in an environment where family difficulties are exacerbated through job losses, stress, worries about money and safety, and in an environment where women are much more isolated and much less able to contact services and support.

In our current environment, as we always need to, we must shine a light into every dark corner where domestic violence exists and do everything we possibly can to prevent it, to ensure that Australian women and their children can seek safety and support when they need it, wherever they need it. That is why I also filed an amendment to this bill to ensure that women fleeing domestic violence and seeking refuge in South Australia can do so with, of course, the appropriate health, quarantine and other necessary checks in place.

In seeking to do so and in now speaking to this amendment, I stand on my own record and on Labor's strong record of acting to prevent and end domestic violence however we can. We will continue to do this relentlessly until all women are safe and free from domestic violence and until we have prevented violence against women before it starts.

What we will not do, what we absolutely refuse to do, is be lectured by the member for Waite on how to prevent violence against women and on how to support women fleeing domestic violence. Putting aside the detail and the substance of this amendment for a moment, it is very clear that these amendments proposed by the member for Waite are an attempt at rehabilitating himself, of showing himself in a different light, possibly designed to speak to those whose votes he needs. The Premier—

Mr DULUK: Point of order.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: —described the member for Waite—

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, there is a point of order from the member for Waite.

Mr DULUK: Sir, reflection on a member.

The CHAIR: Yes, I uphold that point of order.

Mr DULUK: And I ask her to withdraw it—thoroughly withdraw that.

The CHAIR: I uphold that point of order and the member has—

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Waite—

Ms Hildyard: I withdraw that.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Being committed to ending violence against women in all its forms means that men get to a place where they do not commit it, to a place where in any circumstances it is never an option, where they do not see women as less than, where they no longer perceive that it is okay to assault or harm women in any way. Actions to end violence against women matter so very much in our collective goal to prevent and end terrible violence against women. I question whether the actions of the member for Waite do not speak to a commitment to that collective goal.

Mr DULUK: Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, member for Reynell. There has already been a point of order. Member for Waite, you have another point of order. I uphold that point of—

Mr DULUK: Yes, thank you. I ask the member for Reynell to withdraw and apologise for that.

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Reynell, it would be best, I think—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Waite, I take your point of order. I uphold the point of order. Member for Reynell, we have been through this once already. I am going to ask you to withdraw and apologise this time because you are reflecting on a member, in my opinion.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Do you have anything further to contribute? No. In that case, are there any further contributions or questions on the amendment, the insertion of clause 3A?

Dr CLOSE: I also wish to make a contribution on this clause and indicate, in support of the member for Reynell, that of course we will be voting in favour of this motion and note that the member for Reynell had not only prepared an amendment that is similar but indeed attempted to work on an amendment that would have gone further but was advised by parliamentary counsel that there were legal difficulties, so she was attempting genuinely to advance this cause.

However, I also share the member for Reynell's concerns about any interpretation of our support for this amendment, which is being proposed by the member for Waite, being in any way resiling from our very deep concerns about the behaviour of the member for Waite that remains unresolved in this chamber.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Yes, there is a point of order. Again, deputy leader, that is in my opinion a personal reflection on the member. I see the member for Lee has something to say.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I know this is a very sensitive matter, and rightly so, but to be fair on the deputy leader, if not also the member for Reynell, there are unresolved charges about this matter regarding a member of parliament. So to make any reference to that whatsoever, and deem that being out of order and a personal reflection, I do not believe is reasonable, sir.

The CHAIR: I am going to stay with my ruling, member for Lee, because I think in that way I am being consistent today with both the member for Reynell and the deputy leader. I think where you both fell down probably was mentioning the member for Waite in your contribution. Deputy leader, I am going to ask you to withdraw your final comments.

Dr CLOSE: Can I be clear, forgive me, but you are asking me to withdraw that we on this side of the chamber have concerns about unresolved matters that relate to a member; are you asking me to withdraw that that is the case?

The CHAIR: Well, this is delicate for all involved here, deputy leader. I think you would have—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Just stop the banter across the chamber, please. It is possible you would have been able to get away with it had you not mentioned the member for Waite.

Ms Hildyard: But it's his amendment.

The CHAIR: No, but that wasn't the context, member for Reynell. That was not the context. I am keen to move on with this. You have all had your two bobs' worth and continue to. What I am going to do in order to stay consistent, deputy leader, is I am going to ask you to withdraw your reference to the member for Waite. I would like you to, please.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, it was the context and the way you had framed it, member for Reynell.

Dr CLOSE: I withdraw my reference to the member for Waite.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

Ayes 23

Noes 22

Majority 1

Clause 4.

Mr PICTON: It is always good to be here in parliament. It is a dynamic parliament. Anything can happen. Important votes can happen and you are never quite sure which way they are going to go. It is a very changeable feast here. So, while the whip is off to search for some answers about what happened there, I would like to ask the Attorney some questions in relation to this clause 4. This is essentially setting up a scheme where we will be billing people for their stay in hotel quarantine.

I wonder if the Attorney can outline what the costs are currently for the program. What would the breakdown be of those costs that are being incurred? Is there an estimated cost per person in the hotel quarantine program so that we can compare it against the costs that people themselves are being charged? What was the rationale behind the specific costs that have been arrived at under the Attorney's bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: $235 per day per person.

Mr Picton: Did you hear what my question was?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes: what is the cost?

Mr Picton: That is what you are charging people, but that is not what—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. Please listen, member. You asked me the question: what does it actually cost the government? It costs $235 per day. We are charging them $3,000 for the first adult, $1,000 for the next adult and $500 for children, provided they are over three. So it is only a very small subsidy of what the actual cost is.

Mr PICTON: I would like to ask a question in relation to the security element of this. We know that there has been a significant issue in relation to private security in Victoria. We know that private security is being used in South Australian hotel quarantine. Can the Attorney-General provide which are the private security firms which have been contracted by the government to provide security in hotel quarantine? What are the taxpayers' funds that are being provided to those private security firms? What safeguards are in place in relation to the efficacy and the safety of those private security guards?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have a breakdown of the amounts paid, but I understand the $235 a day includes accommodation and security costs. It is an estimate of what the health department say their total cost is, and obviously the security is part of that. I do not have detail on the direct arrangements in relation to how much each of the security companies is paid.

Mr PICTON: Who are the security companies?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that detail either.

Mr PICTON: It is always good to have all the information at your fingertips in this situation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: With respect, Mr Chairman, I am being asked what the costs are to government. We are not asking for the quarantine fees to be paid as a cost to government. We are asking them to pay a fixed amount that is far less, the $3,000, $1,000, $500 model that we have introduced, as applies all around the country. If we were asking to reimburse all the costs to government, including the security costs, then I think there would be very valid questions of the minister, but I cannot give a breakdown of those.

The CHAIR: We will accept that.

Mr PICTON: It is interesting that the Attorney says that what people are being charged is far less than what the costs are because, if I am correct, she just said that the cost that the government is incurring from the exercise is $235 a night, but we are charging people $3,000 over the 14 days, which, if my maths is correct, works out at about $214.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: $3,290.

Mr PICTON: Yes, so there is a very small difference between what we are actually incurring as costs and what we are charging people. This is a scheme in which we are almost recouping all the costs to the effect of perhaps $20 a day that is not being recouped. Some detail about what that cost is going to be in terms of private security guards and who those companies are is very pertinent, and it is interesting that the government has no information available in relation to that.

In relation to the fees, the government is saying that we will be recovering these fees. I would like to ask the Attorney: what is the process by which those fees will be recovered, how will we recover them if people then go to other states and what penalties will there be if people do not pay the fees? Also, will there be any fee waivers given to people, and in what circumstances?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have already explained to the parliament there is provision in the bill itself for the State Coordinator to waive, reduce or refund a fee imposed. As to how that will be, I have given the website references to the package that is available, but the notice to people is to identify how they pay, etc., and I have outlined in the second reading that there is an opportunity to do it by a payment plan.

My understanding about how it operates, as the health minister has informed me, is that in Queensland, where they have this system and where they have apparently not had any problem with payment, upon arrival—not before you leave the international destination—you are taken to the hotel facility, and the payment of money is on a credit card. Apparently there has been no problem with this, but there are provisions for a management plan, part payment and waiver, as I have said.

I refer the member to the very comprehensive package. It even tells you what the fees are for expenditure on a meal per day and things of that nature, so it is quite detailed. I am advised that we have backups for enforcement and waiver arrangements for the circumstances of impecuniosity. I would urge you to have a look at that. Apparently there are no problems with it in other states.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question relates to the accommodations the government has organised for people who must quarantine, both for those people who have quarantined (if that is a verb) in the past and for those who will be required to enter into quarantine in the future. Which hotels are taking those people, and how were those hotels selected?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could I ask the member to repeat his question?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which hotels have been and are being used for quarantine arrangements and how were they selected?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have all three of them, but I know the Pullman is one of them. There was originally an invitation for hoteliers to express an interest in the original establishment of this. Cabinet received a report from the health minister. There has been a process of engagement for those that were selected to be made available.

During the earlier debates, the question as to the actual capacity of the hotels was raised. I advised in the second reading that the current capacity is approximately 1,035 people in quarantine across those three hotels, and that is, as I understand, the gross capacity as distinct from the net, because there is obviously a question raised as to whether some beds are already occupied. Just to cover that matter off, as well, I provide that information to the committee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Was that a process by which the health minister issued a market-wide call for expressions of interest or was it done in some other fashion?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not quite sure what the member suggests by market-wide. Is that advertisement across the board, Australia-wide? I do not know. I know that there were multiple hotels at the time who had expressed interest. From memory, I think there were nine or 10 in a list available for consideration and then, I am advised, they were ultimately selected based on accessibility, capacity to have secure facilities and presumably the amenity they can provide to those who are going to be accommodated. Assessments were made, but my understanding is that was all managed through the health department. They may have had assistance from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Now that our arrangements under the Emergency Management Act will facilitate those people fleeing domestic violence situations to be able to come into South Australia otherwise uninhibited by preventions of travel to the state, is it the intention of the Attorney to recoup accommodation or quarantine expenses that may be incurred by the state up-front for those people and their accommodation once they arrive here?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is not a question of my intention, because I am not the operator of this scheme. If the parliament progresses the scheme on the basis that it is then to be implicated, the quarantine fees under this bill are to apply to international and returning interstate people and people who live here who are required to be under quarantine. The application of the obligation to pay will be for all of those unless, of course, they qualify for the exemption, and that will be a matter for the Coordinator and/or his panel. I know there is a panel in existence who review these matters, so it will be dealt with on that basis.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, I take you to, within clause 4, new section 25AA(2), in respect of the capacity to charge differential fees for different classes of liable people. Would you explain your expectations as to the nature of that description? I know it is an exercising of discretion by the State Coordinator, but I am just interested particularly in what you mean by 'class of people'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that it does relate to what I expected it relates to but it may even be broader, and that is the capacity to be able to charge an initial fee under the proposal for $3,000 for the first adult, $1,000 for the accompanying adult and then $500 for a child and nothing if you are under three. That is a differential in relation to the application of the fee.

I am also advised 'liable person', which is defined under the act as having the obligation to pay that fee, can be a prescribed arrival, which is really a person defined under subsection (10), and then also a designated person, which is a class of person specified in the notice, and there can be a differential between those. So it is both. I was aware of the differential in relation to the class itself of whether you are an adult or a child, essentially, and whether you are the first adult and/or a second and subsequent, but it also relates to the fact that we have basically some local and some people who are coming from international or interstate.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, you perhaps pre-empted some of my questions in respect of this clause. In my earlier contribution in respect of my constituent who is stranded in Nepal, I note that the drafting of this clause provides that arrivals must pay and then there is, obviously, under new subsection (6), a discretion for the State Coordinator to waive, reduce or refund fees. What is your understanding and your expectation as to the circumstances in which the State Coordinator may waive, reduce or refund fees?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have a full list of the current guidelines of the panel. I do not think there is a published list but, in relation to financial hardship eligibility assessed against the criteria, I am advised it is in the bundled material I have just referred to: an individual being unable to meet current financial obligations, i.e., home loan, immediate living expenses, including due to the quarantine period itself; unemployment or on JobSeeker/JobKeeper or other relevant Centrelink service; as an Australian studying overseas; or a loss of business entity, home or possessions due to COVID-19; or a natural disaster.

So it is pretty broad, and if your constituent who is stranded in Nepal, apart from having her fully paid airfare and access to a charter flight, has no other money and is able to fulfil one of those, I expect she will be given relief when she gets here for her 14 days.

Mr BOYER: On the same clause, Attorney, can you tell us how many people, if any, have been allowed out on exemptions from hotel quarantine to date?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that information. It has not been provided or published by the commissioner. I am only aware of people who do not get approval, probably like members in the parliament who have constituents who are concerned if they do not get approval and cannot come to South Australia; or, in the case of one matter I dealt with, for a barrister to be able to go interstate and come back for the purposes of supporting a royal commission. So these things come to our attention for the different roles that we have, but apparently there is no summary of that published by the police commissioner.

Mr BOYER: Just to clarify, Attorney, the data is not available anywhere, or it is just not summarised anywhere or publicly available?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Coordinator or the panel may have possession of how many applications they have received and how many approvals they have granted. There are a whole lot of different categories: fly-in fly-out, whether you are eligible to get that, or whether you can come in for a funeral. There are lots of different things upon which there is a process of approval. Whether they are in fact keeping a record under which subsection each is either granted or exempted, I do not know because it is not published material. It is not provided to us as a government.

Mr BOYER: Attorney, can you explain whether or not the hotel quarantine arrangements countenanced in this will apply to domestic arrivals who are put into quarantine—for instance, the stowaways who have come across the border?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The answer to that is yes. They obviously can apply for the same relief. It is a matter for the Coordinator.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, does this section give the state controller capacity to charge or recoup fees for arrivals who are exempted from quarantine in a hotel and may be permitted to quarantine in a private residence or other type of facility outside a publicly available hotel?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, it would not, and I will give you an example. There would be a lot of people who return and they are able to go to their home, no-one else is living there and there is no reason why they therefore cannot undertake the quarantine in their own home. There are other people who will return but the home they live in and they want to go back to is lived in by other members of the household. They cannot actually fulfil the quarantine obligations, so they need to find another place.

I had a recent case on Kangaroo Island where they came in and to do their 14 days they obviously could not go and stay with their parents, but they could stay in a property that was next-door on a farm where they could stay for their 14 days. They are not paying the fee to the government because they are not using a hotel room. This is a matter that is designed to pick up the quarantine fees where the government is making the payment. If people return and they are able to quarantine to the satisfaction of the Coordinator in satisfactory circumstances, then that is obviously a matter for him.

Mr SZAKACS: A supplementary: an earlier characterisation was that this scheme is designed to recoup not the full cost to the arrival but some of the costs expended by the taxpayer. Is it your answer to my previous question that for those arrivals who are given exemption to self-quarantine in their own private residence, the state government and therefore the taxpayer do not expend any money in the execution of that private quarantine in such circumstances?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: In terms of the wording, I have asked what exactly the difference is between our legislation, which appears identical, and this legislation, which appears identical, despite the Attorney suggesting publicly that they are somehow different; we have not really had any answer to that question, and I do not expect we will.

I hope maybe we will get an answer to this question: of this two-year penalty, which as I said is identical to what the opposition proposed in writing to the government yesterday, what was the process the Attorney went through to consider the two-year proposition and what balancing factors did she weigh up in setting the two years? It appears pretty clearly as though she has picked exactly the same outcome the opposition wrote to her about yesterday.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer to my previous answers for the first part of that question. In relation to the second question, I will just repeat that the principal consideration was the request of the police commissioner, when I spoke to him at around 3.30 yesterday afternoon, which arose out of the statement he had made in response to a question on the ABC. We had a discussion as to the time frame; as I recall, he did not have a view on that.

Legislative Services then checked with parliamentary counsel as to what occurs around the country, and in particular under the Biosecurity Act, which of course is five years. Whilst I made the comment earlier about the importance of the protection of animals having a higher penalty for a contagious disease than was proposed in this bill, when I canvassed the matter with the police commissioner that was an amount that was in the mix. I think we have really just reached a compromise—

Mr Picton: So it was what he wanted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I repeat, if the member is not listening: he did not express a view as to what it should be. We sought advice from Legislative Services, which I understand discussed it with parliamentary counsel, as to what would be a reasonable amount. Two years was a long way from five years. In any event, that was a consideration. We just accepted advice on that assessment as to what that would be. I will not repeat what I have said before.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney talks about the Biosecurity Act; however, I think more pertinent to this debate and this pandemic is the South Australian Public Health Act. The Public Health Act, as the Attorney would hopefully know, includes a range of offences as well. I am just wondering whether there has been any consideration as to why we have not been using that act in terms of its offences so far.

Has there been any consideration about prosecutions under the Public Health Act, or is there a deficiency in terms of the ability to use offences under that act in relation to this pandemic? Clearly, we have been through a process where we have had bill after bill after bill come before the parliament. In each instance, the opposition has given its support to that legislation, including some quite extreme powers on a whole range of matters.

Parliament has given complete approval to the executive government during the length of this pandemic, including this very elongated emergency declaration in which we are taking part. I think there was an appreciation through that process that, after those bills, the government had the powers it needed to deal with this. Clearly, there is a gap here. There is a gap in what was put in place in relation to offences against the Emergency Management Act. Was there a gap in relation to the Public Health Act? Why has that not been used, and why have offences under that act not been applied?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member might recall that the Public Health Act was implemented when Australia first started to deal with this matter. In fact, you might recall there was a young woman who returned from China and her parents came to South Australia. They declined to exercise an option under the Public Health Act obligation to be tested. They were at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and were detained under the Public Health Act. At that time—

Mr Picton: I am talking about the offences.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If I could just come to that, the Public Health Act was utilised during the early part of the COVID experience, if I can put it as highly as that. Ultimately, once an Emergency Management Act declaration was made, it was the preference of the Coordinator that the clarification of powers as to his authorised officers and the provision of the penalties for his prosecution of the matter was made clear under the Emergency Management Act. We dealt with that as a parliament. The parliament agreed that that would be the case.

Mr Picton: The offences are still in operation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know that the member interjects to say, 'The offences are still in operation.' There are still offences under the Public Health Act which clearly could be applied. The Coordinator made it quite clear that he intended to exercise his powers under the Emergency Management Act and that that was his preference. That is a matter for him. He is the police commissioner as well as the Coordinator.

As a government, we do not direct the police minister as to who they prosecute or under what act. That is a matter for the minister. However, the member should remember quite clearly that that was his express preference, and it was considered and debated in the first of the COVID-19 bills for the reasons I have outlined.

Mr PICTON: It is always frustrating when the Attorney does not necessarily always listen. There are two elements in relation to the Public Health Act. There are directions that can be put in place under the Public Health Act, and clearly we went through a period in which the Public Health Act was being used as the vehicle, which, I think, COVID time melds in, but I think it was a week or so in which the CE of health had those powers under the Public Health Act, and they were the vehicle by which emergency declarations were being used.

Then the State Coordinator, the police commissioner, took over under the Emergency Management Act, and now the Emergency Management Act is used as the vehicle. That does not mean, though, that, with respect to the South Australian Public Health Act offences—particularly part 7 of those offences where somebody causes a risk to public health in South Australia, for which there are very serious consequences—there does not need to be a pandemic for that to be an offence. They are quite hefty penalties of five to 10 years' imprisonment depending on the severity of the case.

We have seen people who have, particularly during the course of the last few weeks, caused risk to public health through their actions—and I even refer to the Premier's comments supporting that—but there has been no choice to consider those offences under the Public Health Act. I acknowledge that we are not using that act as the vehicle for the emergency declarations, but those offences should still be in operation. Those offences should still be part of the toolkit that the government should have if there is a serious breach to public health and a risk to public health by somebody's behaviour, whether or not the Emergency Management Act is in operation at all.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I actually agree with the member. The Public Health Act is there, it is operational, it has offences in it, and it has been brought to the attention of the Coordinator that they are available to him. In fact, he has utilised them when support was required of him during the time of the initial part of the pandemic and when there was still a responsibility for him to undertake.

Nevertheless, they are still there; they are still valid. This parliament has passed them. I can remember that the member for Kaurna's boss was the minister for health at the time. We dealt with that legislation, and I think the biggest pandemic we had at that time was the bird flu, so it has been utilised. It is there and available, but it is not for the government to utilise them.

We are not the investigators or the prosecutors, but let me assure the member that I am not aware of any deficiency in the act. It is there and it is available for use, and if you have any questions on why the Coordinator has not elected to prosecute under them be my guest, ask him.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I want to ask the Deputy Premier a question about the operation of section 28, which we are amending with the new penalty provision. I listened to the Deputy Premier's comments on morning radio today when she made repeated allusion to these powers being similar to those which had been previously imposed to try to curtail the spread of AIDS, or HIV, and went on to provide some explanation back when those powers were being imposed.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Well, not powers; they are offences.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Offences. When those offences were being legislated, the idea was to make it an offence if somebody who knowingly had HIV or AIDS continued to conduct themselves in a manner which then spread that virus to another person. I wonder whether the Deputy Premier can explain that analogy because to my mind that would require, for a successful prosecution, somebody being prosecuted in this context rather than the AIDS context, knowingly having coronavirus.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Correct.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So they must know that they have it. They must—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Or reckless indifference.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Right. If the Deputy Premier could explain that in some more detail, I would be grateful.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Under our Criminal Law Consolidation Act there are serious offences relating to someone who (I will paraphrase it now) endangers life or causes harm. Like most criminal cases, you have to actually establish that you have some intention or reckless disregard, to ensure there is some level of mental intent—a sort of mens rea as such—and that, secondly, you have actually acted on it.

The last case I can recall was several years ago now where an HIV carrier had continued to have intercourse with, I think, five or seven young men. He knew that he had it and, in fact, a number of them did contract HIV. It was at a time when it was not an automatic death sentence, as it was a decade or so before, but they contracted it. It was quite a well published case. I was still in the parliament at the time that it occurred. I see the member for Kaurna nodding. The man was prosecuted and I think in the end he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

Mr PICTON: Yes, the Public Health Act has powers and offences there as well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for Kaurna indicates that that again could have utilised the Public Health Act, and that may be so, but the fact is that he was charged and it was dealt with as a criminal offence. We have not seen the same level of fear in relation to a contagious disease since. I say that with respect. Bird flu was a worrying situation, SARS was another concerning condition, and I think Ebola fortunately did not get to South Australia, but all these sent a shock of fear into the population that might have been exposed to it.

Yes, that is the situation that I was referring to on radio this morning. Those criminal offences still exist. They still require elements of proof. The difference here is that this would be an offence that did not relate to a 'deliberate causing harm', it would relate to a breach of the Coordinator's direction, and so in a way it is a lower threshold to prove, irrespective of whether somebody did actually get the coronavirus or something of that nature.

The example I have given already is where the police commissioner indicated where he thought a custodial sentence might be appropriate, where somebody did knowingly have coronavirus. I was using 'reckless indifference' or 'scant regard' or something of that nature, and he had used his description of when, in his view, he considered somebody should attract a term of imprisonment.

Certainly the proposal here is that there would be not a proof of harm or proof of intent: it would be a proof of breach of the direction, and that would then provide the opportunity to impose a sentence of incarceration up to two years. That is his view. In a way it provides that other option but that is not to eliminate the Public Health Act, as has been referred to. There are certain capacities to prosecute under that and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am grateful for that explanation, but I just want to get it clear in my mind. I understand the application, as described by the Attorney for those previous uses or those offences under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, where somebody knowingly had that communicable disease, but I just want to be clear that that is not required for the purposes of this section.

It seems to me we have a reasonably rapidly spreading virus in Victoria, certainly in contrast to South Australia. There are virus hotspots that have been declared by the Victorian government. There have been impositions imposed on the communities in those virus hotspots, the mandatory lockdown provisions. It is easy to see how somebody could think, 'Stuff this. I don't want to be staying here in lockdown. I don't want to stay here and risk my own health'—for example, despite what Dan Andrews characterises our state as—'I will flee to greener pastures. I will head over the border and go to South Australia where there is demonstrably less risk of contracting coronavirus.'

If somebody is resident in one of those hotspots—they may or may not have coronavirus; they have no idea whether they have coronavirus because they are perhaps asymptomatic—and travels over the border, if the police commissioner judges that they have had scant regard or shown reckless indifference, they will still be able to attract these penalties if they are unaware of whether they have the virus; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no restriction on the terms of when there would be an application of an imprisonment term. If there is a prosecution under the act through the courts, the $20,000 fine here with the provision for up to two years' imprisonment will be the new toolbox, if the commissioner has already determined through his prosecution unit not to do an on-the-spot fine. It is pretty clear he has favoured that to date. It is efficient, it is quick and so on. For a number of matters, that seems to have been certainly adequate.

He takes the view, as I have said several times, that imprisonment would not apply to some of these people who are coming across the border from Victoria in the last week. In fact, today I see some fines have been issued, and the two Victorians who turned up here yesterday have been sent back. Obviously he has a view about how these things should be addressed. I think there were $3,000 or $2,000 fines or thereabouts and they were sent packing back to Victoria.

The process of what is going to be prosecuted, as I say, is not a matter for government. That is a matter for the independent prosecutors. I do not know how I can assist you any further other than to say, if there is a determination to prosecute and there is a finding of guilt through the court, it would be up to the magistrate to determine all of the other factors in relation to sentencing that might apply: intent, harm actually caused, whether in fact they had knowledge of their condition and continued to wilfully disobey social distancing regimes and just a flagrant disregard for people, as the commissioner says, and really creating havoc in relation to potential fear and a contagious element to that.

I cannot indicate to you all the factors that would be considered, but the Sentencing Act comes into play, and there are whole lot of factors in relation to what a magistrate would consider in how that should apply and what penalty they should get.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just to close off on this point, conceivably somebody who crosses the border from Victoria, who is not a prescribed person or someone who has not successfully applied for an exemption, could either be issued with an on-the-spot fine or be subject to these penalties; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, indeed, as they would for a breach of any direction. It is not just a question of you breaching the cross-border travel, direction No. 9, but any direction. The police commissioner still has to say if there has been a breach of the gathering rule. As I say, there are a whole lot of obligations—that you have entered an aged-care facility. All the things on which directions have been issued, the option remains open for that consideration to be made, on the spot or not. If they go to court, then obviously that is an option. So far it has not been exercised on people coming in from Victoria. They have been dealt with by fines and a bond in two cases, as I understand it.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (17:25): Just a brief contribution—indeed, a request—if I may. Given the amendment that has passed here to facilitate the travel of those fleeing domestic violence from Victoria into South Australia, can I suggest to the government that it would assist the parliament and members within it, particularly in the other place but no doubt here if the bill comes back here, to understand how the government intends to manage that particular aspect of the regime.

I asked a question during the committee stage of the debate about whether those people who were fleeing domestic violence situations in Victoria and coming to South Australia would have to pay for their stay in quarantine as per the provisions of this bill as well. But I think it would also be of interest to us, let alone to the broader community, to understand how a person can demonstrate or how must they demonstrate, if required, that that is the situation they are fleeing in Victoria.

Of course, there are two considerations here. One is those officers, who are charged with the responsibility of patrolling the border and assessing anyone who approaches the border and attempts to cross it, will want to be satisfied that people are coming in only legitimately under the avenue that that amendment has provided. But by the same token, we do not also want to enhance the distress of someone fleeing such a situation from Victoria that they be required to undertake some sort of onerous furnishing of information.

I will not belabour that point any further, but I think that is going to be important for those in the other place to understand, particularly opposition members in the other place but also for the community more generally. So if we could ask that of the government to consider how that regime might work and communicate that to us, that would be greatly appreciated.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:27): I thank the member for the contribution and request in that regard; of course, probably the member himself has highlighted the aspects of how this is going to operate. I have already spoken to the mover of this amendment and had some discussion with him as to what his view would be as to how this should apply.

What are the threshold or guidelines to be done to be able to assess that somebody is exempt as a result of the escaping domestic violence, which is under this amendment? One of them was to identify if they had a recent intervention order against a particular person they claim they are escaping from. But these are matters that, in fact, the Coordinator will need to determine for the purposes of instructing his officers as to what they are going to do on the border when somebody presents to say, 'My husband is chasing me. He is 50 kilometres down the track and I need to get over the border.' That is going to be a matter for them.

I think it is disappointing that the mover had not canvassed these matters with the commissioner before, but I have undertaken already to him, as I have said, to raise these matters with the commissioner, and I will obviously let him know that it is the House of Assembly's wish that this be progressed. We have voted on that today. I will make sure that our government representative is appraised of the commissioner's view as to the enforceability of this and how it could apply.

But these are the complications that come with bringing in an amendment before there has been careful consideration of how it can actually work. Nevertheless, as I indicated I undertook to do so, I will do that. I imagine through our representative in the Legislative Council there will be a reporting to them of the commissioner's application as to how that will progress.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:29): I will just make a brief contribution on the third reading.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): No, the debate has been closed, member.

Mr PICTON: It is a third reading contribution, sir.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): If the Attorney spoke, she closed debate.

Mr PICTON: Well, I was not given an opportunity before the Attorney got up.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): You did not seek the call.

Mr PICTON: I would have, but—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): That is irrelevant, unfortunately, member for Kaurna.

Bill read a third time and passed.