COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry) (No 2) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 May 2021.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:22): I rise to speak in relation to the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry) (No. 2) Amendment Bill 2021. I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. This bill seeks again to extend the temporary emergency powers, particularly those in relation to directions given by the State Coordinator, until 17 December. This is yet another extension piece of legislation that we have before us. It is a very brief piece of legislation, fitting neatly onto one page, essentially to extend the date of the COVID legislation expiry until 17 September.

This COVID legislation covers a variety of different areas, but one of the most significant parts is that it provides additional clarity and perhaps extension of powers in relation to the powers of the State Coordinator in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that the powers of directions of the State Coordinator, who is police commissioner Grant Stevens, can be applied to people generally across the state.

This has obviously been a critical part in making sure that the police commissioner, in providing his role as essentially running the state's response to COVID-19, has the ability to do things such as close borders, stop gatherings, close businesses, introduce QR codes and the like, which, prior to the start of 2020 we would never have thought necessary or relevant, but we are in different times when these powers are required.

The government have obviously used the Emergency Management Act since the beginning of the pandemic in terms of how they have structured the response to COVID-19. In fact, I believe the State Coordinator himself issued the first declaration of a major emergency under that act and started the process. At each stage since then, the government have issued a 28-day extension of that major emergency, giving police commissioner Grant Stevens extraordinary powers under that act to have power over managing the emergency.

From the outset—and I have said it before—certainly we on the opposition side have had the utmost respect for police commissioner Grant Stevens, who has been very ably advised through this process also by the Chief Public Health Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier. They have both given us as a state exceptional service in terms of managing this pandemic. It has been a big burden upon them.

I am sure they did not envisage that they would have such power placed in their hands, power that many people would imagine would usually be held by elected officials, but in this situation those unelected officials have done an extraordinary job in keeping South Australia safe and they certainly have bipartisan support from us on this side and I believe the confidence of the whole state in the way they have exercised their duty.

We are now faced with another extension of this process being in place. I think that it is fair to say that it has been an increasing additional pressure on the role of the police commissioner in having to provide that role for the past 13 months or more. There have been discussions over the past four or five months in particular about whether there would be changes to the way that this should be put in place. This was obviously put in place in a hurry.

There was a declaration made. That was followed up by legislation in this house that very rapidly passed the parliament with bipartisan support to ensure that those powers were in place, but we are now a significant amount of time down the track and we are seeing another extension of time. The government at various points have said that they are interested and in fact keen to change the arrangements that would be in place for the management of this pandemic, but we have not yet seen any results of that. We have not seen any proposals brought to the parliament to change those arrangements.

I should also make clear that at each point the opposition have provided bipartisan support for the powers and legislation needed in the management of the pandemic to ensure that our officials, the State Coordinator and the Chief Public Health Officer, have all the powers they need. Some of those have been passed in rapid time, such as this legislation, which has not gone through the usual process of being laid on the table between sitting weeks and allowing briefings to occur.

We have provided support for the legislative agenda, but this is very clearly not what was being discussed a few months ago when the government was discussing putting in place new arrangements for managing the pandemic. You only have to look back at January when the Premier was quoted as saying that the government had been working on longer term reforms to emergency management since at least November last year—some six months ago. On 4 January this year, he was reported in InDaily, and I quote:

As the state enters its tenth month under an emergency declaration—and Marshall enters his final full calendar year before kicking off the re-election campaign—the Premier said authorities were considering how to return the state's emergency decision-making to cabinet government.

'We're looking at that at the moment,' he said. 'We were looking at it very carefully in November—before the Parafield cluster.'

The State Coordinator himself also addressed this issue when he spoke to journalists at a press conference. When he was asked when he may step aside from the role of the State Coordinator, he said, and I quote:

We are providing advice to the government in relation to what those options might be that see the requirement for a major emergency declaration to be revoked. At this point in time this is the only mechanism we have that gives us the ability to require people to participate in QR code activity, to have marshals on board, to have one person per two square metres, all of those things are contingent upon some ability to require people to do that, that's the major emergency declaration.

The government is having a look at how we can replace that with another mechanism that provides the same level of accountability to the community, and until that's developed I'll continue to operate as the State Coordinator.

Additionally he said, quote:

The major declaration is the only mechanism under the Emergency Management Act that allows this to occur. The replacement for this would be a piece, a specific piece of legislation that provides a baseline level of restrictions for community activities and gives us the ability to introduce restrictions for people coming into South Australia so we can manage risk.

When asked whether he would continue as the State Coordinator under such legislation, the State Coordinator responded, and I quote: 'My role as a State Coordinator would cease.' So very clearly we have the State Coordinator, Grant Stevens, saying that there has been work underway since November last year to look at a new process of managing the pandemic, including baseline restrictions that would be put in place and other ways of accountability, ending not only that major emergency declaration but also that ongoing role as a State Coordinator, remembering that in previous uses of the Emergency Management Act I believe a couple of days is the longest that this role had ever been employed, whereas we have now had it in place for more than 13 months.

Clearly something has gone awry because now we are six months down the track since this was apparently first being discussed. We do not have any proposal before the parliament from the Attorney to revoke that or to put in place a new arrangement, to put in place baseline-level restrictions, to put in place, as the Premier was apparently talking about, a cabinet-level, normal government returning. We have in place an extension to this additional power for the State Coordinator to continue to be able to apply directions to the whole state and a continuation of the legislation that is tied to the declaration of the emergency being in place.

So, if that major emergency ends, then the other pieces of this legislation that are in place cease along with it. I think that there are some very legitimate questions for the government in terms of what options were being looked at, what the proposals were that the State Coordinator was putting forward and what has happened. Clearly something has happened, where they have no longer proceeded with that and now we are kicking the can down the road again until September.

Has the government now decided that it no longer wishes to pursue the reforms that the Premier himself was talking about back in January this year and we are going to continue to use the State Coordinator role for the foreseeable future under the Emergency Management Act? I think that is important for the government to explain clearly because this obviously is one of the most important elements not only in terms of our COVID response but also it is an important legal system that we now have in place here in South Australia, where these declarations that have been made carry the force of law. They are not individually brought to this parliament to be debated but are put in place by the State Coordinator.

I think that we have been very well served by the State Coordinator and the Chief Public Health Officer, but I think that as a parliament we deserve to hear from the government what its intentions are. Is this just going to continue for some time into the future? I think that one thing that has become increasingly clear over the past few weeks is that COVID continues to be a threat across the world. We have seen that in India, we are seeing it in other countries, and at the same time the vaccine rollout continues to be at a glacial snail's pace. It is going to take a very significant time to vaccinate the South Australian population to a level that restrictions can be removed.

If both those things continue, then these additional powers for the State Coordinator and that emergency management declaration are going to need to be in place for a very significant period of time—well past September, I suspect, if both those things are in place. If we continue to vaccinate people at the rate we have been so far, by the end of the year we may well be up to 700,000 or 800,000 vaccinations. That is at the current rate that both the commonwealth and the state program have been going at.

But remember that this is a two-dose vaccine program. If you are aiming, as the Chief Public Health Officer has said, to get to 80 per cent of the adult population with two doses, that is well over two million doses being delivered. If we are only one-third of the way through that by the end of the year, then we have a significant way to go. Hopefully, that does pick up pace. We have been calling for that to pick up pace and hopefully we can get people properly vaccinated by the end of the year.

This is, of course, sitting in the responsibility of the Minister for Health, the Hon. Stephen Wade. Under him is the chief executive, Dr Chris McGowan, and under him is the chair of the vaccination task group in the Department for Health and Wellbeing, Don Frater, who is the deputy chief executive. Those people are responsible for this vaccine rollout in South Australia. I do hope that they can pick up the pace and I do hope that we can get on with that rollout. At the pace it is going now, it is going to be a significant period of time before the population is vaccinated.

On the other hand, we are absolutely seeing COVID taking off across the world. We are obviously seeing a very dangerous second or third wave, depending on how you define it, in India at the moment. It is likely that is going to continue to spread to other countries around the world and it is likely we are going to continue to see more variants coming across the world. If we do not vaccinate the whole world, then the whole world is not protected because there will continue to be variants.

This is going to be with us for some time. We do have the ability now and we have the time in this parliament to properly consider what the management and the legal framework for this are going to be over the next three, six and 12-plus months down the track. If the government's response is, 'We just want to keep everything the way it is at the moment,' that is fine. I think we should just be honest about that and be up-front about that.

Perhaps we need to look at the resources and support around the State Coordinator if that is going to be the long-term case because I think he has made clear on a number of occasions the burden that is being placed on him and his office, given he has a pretty substantial normal role as the police commissioner. Hopefully, through the course of this debate today and through the committee stage we will hear some answers from the Attorney on that.

I think the other factor when you are looking at this legislation, though, is the Liberal party room. Clearly, we have been through a process in the past few months with other legislation we are debating where there have been leaks from the party room, there have been debates within the party room and there have been things pulled from legislation. It was the initial proposal of the Attorney-General that the elements of the State Coordinator's powers here would not be extended to September but would be extended permanently, until she was essentially rolled by the party room.

Members of the party room indicated that they would give their notice that they may object in the parliament to that, and that was abruptly taken out of the legislation. We now have a separate piece of legislation that extends it to September only without a clear indication as to what is going to happen after that or what the government's intention is on any further reforms to the management of the COVID legislation or the COVID management.

Clearly, there is a hot debate within the Liberal Party as to whether there should be a return to cabinet-style government and cabinet-style management of this pandemic. I suspect that is playing into the fact that we do not have the proposals that were being talked about from the Premier since January, proposals that were being talked about and apparently have been talked about since November last year in terms of a new framework that would create a baseline of COVID restrictions in place.

The Attorney also claimed in her second reading speech that there has been considerable consultation on this bill. I look forward to getting a detailed answer from the Attorney during the committee about exactly what has happened in relation to that consultation, what the State Coordinator has requested and what has or has not been agreed to out of what the State Coordinator or SA Health have requested through this process.

There certainly has not been broad public consultation in relation to this. In fact, the first we heard about it in the opposition was on Monday evening during our shadow cabinet meeting. We have not had the usual ability to get properly briefed in regard to this legislation. The usual protocols in relation to legislation being left on the table for between sitting weeks have not been provided in this case.

This has been something that the government has known was coming for some time in relation to this deadline but has been sprung up in the parliament at very short notice. You have to ask why that was the case, why there was not a proper ability for the parliament to consider this in detail in the usual way. We are now a fair way down the track from when clearly there was an emergency reason to spring legislation on very short notice.

We have known that this deadline was coming for some time since the last legislation was passed, but it seems that either through the government's desire to spring it on us at the last minute or the government not having its act together in terms of the drafting of this, or perhaps because of other factors and the government considering other reforms that then did not proceed, either due to their party room issues or because of some other concern in relation to what the permanent arrangements would be, this did not happen.

This came at the last minute and was provided to the opposition on Monday night. This came after a four-week break in the parliament when that could have been provided to the opposition at any time. There could have been consultation during that four-week break and there could have been the opportunity to be properly briefed in all that time. This critical piece of legislation, making sure that these protections for our state and the role of the State Coordinator can continue to have that broad-reaching power, was sprung very late. I think yet again it is a sign of the management of legislation that we see time and again from the Attorney-General.

This does have the support of the opposition through this house. Of course, particularly with such late notice being sprung on us in the last 48 hours, we reserve our right to look in detail at whether there are any amendment proposals considered in the upper house. We have been consistent throughout in giving the government the ability they need—and particularly the State Coordinator and the Chief Public Health Officer because they are the ones who have been managing the pandemic—to manage the pandemic that has had very broad support from South Australia in keeping us safe.

The government owe it to the parliament to outline what their vision is for the management of this going forward because there is going to need to be in place management, directions and restrictions for some time to come because the threat of COVID is still very real.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (16:42): I thank the member for Kaurna for his contribution and indication of the opposition's support for this bill, which is to extend the COVID emergency response to 17 September 2021 or at the expiration of the 28-day period under a declaration.

The model that has been administered throughout the COVID pandemic period to date has been to establish an emergency by way of declaration under the Emergency Management Act. It has been utilised in the past, but usually for fairly short events. Of course, COVID introduced a new type of emergency, remembering you can have incidents up to catastrophic circumstances in the act and we are using the emergency provisions.

That requires that a management mechanism is established where the declaration is made for not more than 28 days. It is a process that has to be a cabinet decision, obviously endorsed by the Governor, so it is a decision ultimately of Executive Council. It provides in it that during such an emergency the Commissioner of Police is the coordinator. That is the process, and it has served us well to date, and it is one which the government is of the view should continue for another three months.

The three-month period, in relation to periods of legislation to effect this model, had been settled upon the first time we had debates on this matter. At that stage I think we offered a bit longer period but there were some who wanted to make it shorter, and it was settled on to have it at three months. Because I think there was a desire by everyone that there be some fairly close supervision, examination and capacity available for the parliament to have some scrutiny over this process, given we were in uncharted waters as such, that was reasonable, and the parliament determined that. We have offered to extend that time in only three-month bites, so to speak. That is the first thing about this model.

The second is that it has been a circumstance where we have had periods of essentially home quarantine. We have had the workforce at home, we have had schoolchildren stay away from school, we have had shutdowns, even for a period of three days, when there was no movement of the population except in some very explicit circumstances. We have had various directions restricting access to areas of high risk, such as aged-care facilities, and we have had restrictions of movement, of travel and of association in numbers. These have all been designed around recommendations presented to a committee, largely with significant public health advice, on which the Coordinator, under this model, has ultimately made a direction. That is the process.

It has already navigated fairly choppy waters, as I said, in relation to potential outbreaks and indeed potential threats, such as the Ruby Princess outbreak last year. We then saw circumstances where our sister states, particularly New South Wales and Victoria, and more latterly Western Australia, experienced some very serious potential spread of or contamination by this condition.

We are still working around how we might best address the management of this COVID circumstance, but I can say that one would have to acknowledge that the situation South Australia sees itself in, within the Australian envelope and then within the global envelope, is a pretty good state of affairs, comparing ourselves with other areas that have been riddled with death and distress. More recently, we have seen via our media outlets the Indian circumstance, but we have seen it in the United States, we have seen it in Britain, we have seen it in Italy, and goodness knows what is happening over in Africa.

We have to accept that something must be working well to think we have been fairly disciplined, the whole population, in maintaining social distancing, keeping cleanliness practices in place and ensuring we keep a record of where we have been so that we can easily trace where there has been a positive identification. This has worked so far.

The question is whether this model is something that ultimately could develop into something else. We have discussed before the utilisation of the Public Health Act, which also has a process in it. We do not need to go through the detail of that; I know the member for Kaurna is familiar with it because he was involved at the time that legislation was developed. The purpose is to ensure that we have certain powers and another model in place to deal with a public health event.

That has been utilised before. We have used it with bird flu, I think we have used it with horse flu and we have used it for other reasons when we have had to have some protection of the public against some health invasion.

Mr Picton: Swine flu.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Swine flu is another one, the member for Kaurna reminds me. I am not sure whether we got that eventually, did we? We certainly had bird flu.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sure the member is right because he was very familiar with what was happening at the time. Certainly, that was a major problem in China as well. So we have dealt with these. We have not been utilising the Biosecurity Act nationally, which is another piece of legislation which is available in the commonwealth. That, incidentally, has been used during this COVID pandemic, particularly for the protection of our Aboriginal lands because a number of them are on territories where they needed to have very strict containment of people moving in or out. It was felt in their interests that they have that protection, and that applied for a number of months as well.

Anyway, the question is whether we move to a health model or whether we continue on with the Emergency Management Act. Although it did not seem to neatly fit into an ongoing emergency, it could be applied to that and that is what we have done. Another option was to look at going into a different management model altogether and that might involve the responsibility of any directions or management being by another party, i.e. the Public Health Act, the chief executive of the health department.

Some might say it might be better in a public health circumstance and it should be the head of the public health division. Of course, we have been very well led by the advice we have had on a daily basis, sometimes more often than that in a day, from Professor Nicola Spurrier, who has that role. Other models have been considered.

I want to assure the member for Kaurna and the house that, as a government, we have been very keen to consult with a number of agencies. We have had invaluable advice from health officials, public health officials, the Commissioner of Police, his assistant police commissioners who have had different roles through this period as well in the application of work that they are doing and, in addition to that, the Crown Solicitor's Office to be able to consider what else we might be able to do.

The other thing which is overlapping all this, which most of the members are probably not familiar with, is that while this pandemic has been going on there has also been a number of cases go to the High Court of Australia to challenge the validity of directions issued by other states. That is in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland that I am aware of. There may be others. I think there is still an existing application in WA with Mr Clive Palmer. One of his claims is still extant, as I recall. Others have been dismissed.

In any event, there has been consideration of this matter at the highest level, namely, the High Court of Australia, to consider the validity of directions in particular to be able to restrict people's travel, to be able to stop them going in and out of another state and being able to assemble in restricted numbers essentially. These are the areas that have been under challenge, so we have also had to keep a very clear eye via the excellent advice of our Solicitor-General, Mr Michael Wait, to be very clear about how we provide the supportive structures under this model under the Emergency Management Act.

I just want to assure the house that this is not being simply continued because we think it is the only idea. We have considered others in consultation with these people. Secondly, we are not progressing with this because other ideas are better and for some reason, as the member for Kaurna seems to suspect, they are not being progressed because it has something to do with the Liberal party room.

I think the example that the member for Kaurna used in relation to permanency relates to the permanency bill which is currently before the parliament. It has nothing to do with that bill to do with the extension of the current COVID administration or an alternative model. It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether we change to a different model. That is a bill—which I do not think I can actually talk about other than to remind the house—which relates to some permanency aspects in relation to emergency powers, not about changing the model at all. I want to assure the house, even if the member for Kaurna has some conspiracy theory about there being some model that has somehow or other fallen foul of the—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Is the member for West Torrens making a contribution, or is he just—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I am just waiting for you to finish.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you. Notwithstanding the member for Kaurna's conspiracy theory about it, I want to assure the house that other models have been considered and the members have—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney, just take a seat for a moment please. The Attorney is closing debate. I sense that she is drawing it to a close. There will then be the opportunity in committee to ask various questions. The member for Kaurna has a point of order.

Mr PICTON: I take offence at the suggestion that there is some conspiracy theory when it is in fact their own MPs who are telling us what they think of the Attorney's management of this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not know anything about that, member for Kaurna. The Attorney is speaking.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let me reassure the house that, in relation to the commissioner's powers referred to by the member, that relates to the permanency bill that is in the parliament, which relates to a different aspect, and we will come to in due course in the business of the house. This has nothing to do with the change to a different model of how we get through and navigate the emergency.

I remind members that under the Emergency Management Act there is also a catastrophic role, so we could go to the catastrophic role, where the cabinet then takes over, which might send shivers up the spine of the member for West Torrens. In any event, there is another level of the Emergency Management Act but, after consultation with the parties I have outlined and in particular working closely with the police commissioner, who has to have the ability to make day-to-day decisions on the directions, this is the best one to stick with in the meantime, and that is precisely why we are doing it.

The member did raise the question of resources of the police commissioner and the fact that he has other important duties. Of course he does, and we have had to consider whether he needed, for example, the capacity to have on-the-spot fines. This is a question of the resources he needs to use and having to use his police officers, as authorised officers under this act, to attend to other duties where he thought their time would be better spent.

These are all things we take into account as a government in receiving advice. I want to assure the house that, whilst the police commissioner has significant responsibility in this area, and we appreciate the work that he is doing, he certainly is continuing his role as the Commissioner of Police and we have no reason to be in any way critical of that. To date, the resources and support he has needed to carry out this extra function have been provided, and we have enjoyed the extraordinary support of the people of South Australia to make sure this works. Without that, it would have been very difficult.

We have also had a massive amount of support from the commonwealth level and our local government, which have also worked really hard to try to support our people through this. I point out that that is the position. In relation to consultation, I am happy to answer any other questions in committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: I ask the Attorney: why was this very short piece of legislation, when everyone presumably knew something needed to happen, given at such late notice to the opposition and to the parliament? Why were there no briefings provided? Why was this provided at such short notice, when we have just had a four-week break, when there could have been notice, could have been consultation, could have been briefings?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Largely because the police commissioner had indicated that he was thinking about another model. We said we were happy to receive that and consider it. It was not ultimately forthcoming last week, so we went ahead and got this bill ready to make sure that we could extend it and, of course, directions were made by the Governor last Thursday to extend the next 28 days. Yes, we have been indicating and working, as I say, with the police commissioner. As I understand it, he was working on another model that he was thinking about. I spoke to him about it early last week. I told him that we were happy to receive anything further but that time was pressing on, that parliament was resuming next week and, in the absence of that, we would need to extend.

Mr PICTON: What is the other model that the police commissioner is considering? Have you received it, or when do you believe you will receive that from the police commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not received it, so you will need to ask him.

Mr PICTON: You are here representing the government, so I think you can answer the questions, and that is how this process is meant to work.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, you asked the Attorney and she said she had not received it.

Mr PICTON: Yes. I am making a contribution, as I am entitled to under standing orders.

The CHAIR: Excellent. You have the call.

Mr PICTON: What indications have you received from the State Coordinator, the police commissioner, Grant Stevens, in relation to what legislation and system he would like in place to manage the pandemic going forward?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apart from an indication that he was thinking about another option, which he was not sure would involve him, I have not received it; otherwise, we will proceed with this.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney gave a very detailed description of how lots of things have been thought about but did not quite land in terms of where the government is actually going. Can I seek clarity from the Attorney? Have all the models that have so far been considered by the government, apart from the continuation of this model, been considered and rejected and is it now a process of considering new models such as those the State Coordinator is soon to provide to you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: All I can think of is that, apart from utilising the Public Health Act with or without necessary amendment to accommodate it, other models were considered. Not all were formally put before government for consideration. Unless we had an indication that it was something that could work with the health officials and the Coordinator, it did not progress. I hope that assists.

As late as early last week, the police commissioner indicated that he was thinking about whether something else might work. I said that of course I was happy to present to cabinet any proposal, but it was not forthcoming. It was always understood that the position of continuing under the current declaration and process under the Emergency Management Act would be the continuing protection.

Bear in mind, there are two things that we need to have directions for to comply with all the rules; one is the travel restrictions that relate to quarantine obligations, and you need to have powers to do that, and the second is in relation to QR codes. They are the two areas for which we would have had to rewrite completely different laws if we were not going to use this model because there was no capacity for the management of those two things, which the police commissioner considered to be critical to the support and safety of the community as we get through this pandemic.

Mr PICTON: Have there been any proposals that have been previously provided by the State Coordinator to the cabinet that have been rejected?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr PICTON: Was there any consultation outside government in relation to this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not in relation to this bill. There was quite extensive consultation back in March last year when we first started looking at how we would deal with this. In relation to the extension, which is really just to extend the time with the same model, no.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Was the Attorney-General lobbied or asked to change any aspect of this bill by any member of her party room?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: Why was 17 September picked as the new end date? Why was an earlier or a later date not chosen?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The advice from the Crown Solicitor was that I think essentially it was to be basically three months but then to fit in with the parliamentary sitting dates. It is not exactly three months.

Mr PICTON: Is it the government's intention, if they are going to consider additional reforms in this area, to undertake public consultation on those reforms not just inside government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a bit of a hypothetical. Unless there was something else that came to our attention that suggested that there was a better way to do this, and the Coordinator-General agreed that this would be a better way to manage it, then we would continue this for as long as it might be necessary to deal with those two critical issues, particularly the movement and quarantining of people. The restriction on people in relation to that is quite significant. The utilisation of a QR code, which has been provided for by direction and is supported by a number of undertakings the government have given, such as the deletion of data after 28 days, for example, sits around it—so unless there was some other model that came before us.

Certainly, the ultimate review of the Emergency Management Act process during this pandemic—it is more than an incident now—has to be reviewed by statute, and I have already indicated to the parliament we would be doing that, and that would involve public consultation.

Mr PICTON: This is my last question. I thank the Attorney-General for getting through this. I hope you have a good tea with lemon afterwards. My last question is: I understand there is a process under the COVID bill where there is the ability for various provisions to be switched off from time to time. Can the Attorney update the parliament on which provisions are still in place and which ones have now been, for lack of a better term, switched off?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will start with a number that have gone. I do not have in front of me all those that have gone already, but there has been, for example, the capacity to detain a child—I think I dealt with this last year—and the removal of the capacity of the Treasurer to direct the Auditor-General. All those have gone.

Under this bill, I have indicated that I will also be expiring section 14 as of 31 May, so that is in the next few weeks. Section 14 allows for extension of time limits in terms of appointment. If the member requires any further explanation, he can ask me. The second is the detention provisions for certain protected persons, which relates to people often with an intellectual incapacity. For example, they may have dementia and they may need to be detained just to protect themselves, to not touch other people, that sort of thing.

It also includes the reverse of the presumption of bail for certain offences and the amendments to the Development Act, which, from memory, largely relate to the time for notice to be given in relation to development applications for state development. Then there is the modification process for the Public Works Committee, which is to enable them to continue to meet if we did not have a parliament. It abbreviates some of the considerations. As it turned out, parliament resumed anyway and it has not been such a big issue for the other committees, but that is continuing.

It also includes amendments to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. From memory, there was also a time frame for state development applications under that act, because we had some existing under the old act and now we have them under the new act. Of course, I have also indicated that the protections under commercial tenancies for occupancy already expired in early January and, in light of the transfers back to SACAT for them to be able to deal with financial hardship provisions, they would continue to have those protections until the end of June.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (17:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: